Talk:References to Years in Which Toons Were Released
From Homestar Runner Wiki
[edit] Unwieldy Name
Too long, Clanky. Too long! At the bottom of this article is a link to Email Number References. How about moving this to Toon Year References? — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 20:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- That works. — Defender1031*Talk 20:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think a change is rather nessicary, but that name suits the article just fine. If anyone else agrees, consider my vote for a change.--Jellote wuz here 21:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- I kinda think the proposed name is unclear. -132.183.140.236 03:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I concur with anonny. The new title wouldn't make it clear that the references are to the years in which the toons were released; it could suggest references to any year (such as 1987). Heimstern Läufer
03:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would propose at least moving it somewhere that it's not just the year, but the date as a whole. For example, sbemail_22's entry references not just the year, but the date as well, and i think homestar's june sleeping would fit nicely into this theme. (Though we should not count references in specific holiday toons, since it's clear that those will by definition reference their dates.) — Defender1031*Talk 01:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Since Weclome Back is the only reference to the month, I think the name of the article shouldn't accommodate it, since it's the exception to the rule. Rather, it would be more appropriate to put it under a sub-header "Month references". — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 04:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, I know my name suggestion isn't perfect, but that's the only one I could think about. Any other name suggestions? — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 04:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Who said it was the only one? It was an example off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more. — Defender1031*Talk 05:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't proposed any alternative names because I really don't have any problem with the current one. It's long, but it explains the subject of the article clearly. I don't think the length is a problem. If we can come up with a shorter version that's equally clear, I'd support that, but in the absence or such a title, I think it's OK as is. Heimstern Läufer 05:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would propose at least moving it somewhere that it's not just the year, but the date as a whole. For example, sbemail_22's entry references not just the year, but the date as well, and i think homestar's june sleeping would fit nicely into this theme. (Though we should not count references in specific holiday toons, since it's clear that those will by definition reference their dates.) — Defender1031*Talk 01:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I concur with anonny. The new title wouldn't make it clear that the references are to the years in which the toons were released; it could suggest references to any year (such as 1987). Heimstern Läufer
- I kinda think the proposed name is unclear. -132.183.140.236 03:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think a change is rather nessicary, but that name suits the article just fine. If anyone else agrees, consider my vote for a change.--Jellote wuz here 21:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Wow
This article could not possibly be less necessary. Why not have an article listing the number of times the characters use articles (a, an, the) in their lines? Or the number of times they blink in each cartoon? There's trivia, and there's trivial. This is the latter.--Big Dog 03:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Your argument is such an exaggeration as to not be useful. The two categories you sarcastically mention encompass practically every toon, whereas this group of toons is actually limited enough to potentially be interesting. — It's dot com 03:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing what's interesting or notable about the fact that they mention years. They mention many things; in some sort of way it makes sense to keep track of the inside jokes and such, but the fact that they refer to the year they're made in? That strikes me as incredibly asinine.--Big Dog 04:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I find the sb_email 22 fact notable, and the rest of the items are interesting or at least semi-interesting. I wouldn't say I love this page, but I think there's enough here to justify not worrying about whether it should exist. — It's dot com 04:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I, too, don't really like this page. Doesn't make it delete-worthy. It isn't a gag, but it does show up from time to [thyme]]. It's moreso a recurring theme. But the page seems well laid-out and formal, and contains enough information to warrent a page. The ideaologies remain useful and notable, so I say we keep it. Just like Dot-Com said, it is good enough. And your defense compares apples to oranges. A's and The's (unless used as part of a name) aren't even at all interesting, whereas I admit this is semi-interesting --Jellote wuz here 11:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I find the sb_email 22 fact notable, and the rest of the items are interesting or at least semi-interesting. I wouldn't say I love this page, but I think there's enough here to justify not worrying about whether it should exist. — It's dot com 04:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing what's interesting or notable about the fact that they mention years. They mention many things; in some sort of way it makes sense to keep track of the inside jokes and such, but the fact that they refer to the year they're made in? That strikes me as incredibly asinine.--Big Dog 04:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
