Talk:Sbemail 136 Alternate Versions

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


[edit] Source of these versions

The transcripts of these alternate versions are taken verbatim from a couple of Word rich-text format files that the Chaps emailed to us admins over the weekend. Aside from the noted formatting tweaks, they have not been (and should not be) changed in any way. Fun facts, categories, templates, etc. are all fair game though. — It's dot com 05:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

  1. Man, you are lucky that the Chaps seem to know you. I've emailed them numerous times and they haven't replied.
  2. Any news on any other future updates?
  3. Unless the Chaps actually post these files somewhere, should this article actually be here? RickTommy (edits) 06:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. Yes. — It's dot com 15:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you give us any proof that this is real? And should it be on the wiki at all if it's not on YouTube, H*, ect.? --Sbemail Checker Dan
I agree. I realize it was made by an Admin, but still a scan or something would be nice. Stev0 18:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree as well. At the very least, it should not be listed on the main page under the section for updates to the official H*R site, as it is definitely not. 19:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Neither was the They Might Be Giants and Homestar Runner, Variety Playhouse. It's just a way of saying "Hey! It's us, TBC! We're not dead, and we haven't given up on Homestar!" And besides, while I don't know their true intentions, I'm sure that they must've been thinking "Why don't we send dot com some rough drafts of these toons? He could make a wiki page about it and everybody would think it's cool!" StrongAwesome 19:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Dan, Stev0, anonny: If people are going to know about it, then it has to go on the main page. The Chaps sent it to us so that we could release it as a fun, behind-the-scenes tidbit for dedicated fans. It might not be on the official site, but in my mind it carries the weight of an official update. As for proof of its authenticity, I think you're gonna just have to take our word for it. I could print out the RTF files, scan them, and upload them, but I don't really see what that would prove. After all the years I've been contributing to this wiki, either you trust that I wouldn't make something like this up or you don't. Besides, have you read it? It's pretty obvious it's legit. — It's dot com 19:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course it should be here even if it's not officially published. It's definitely interesting. I'm glad I get to read it. Also, we don't just use the "What's new" section for official page updates even if it says so. It's been used for unofficial footage of gigs before, for example. It's an interesting, relevant piece of information. Why shouldn't we document and promote it? Loafing 19:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
"I could print out the RTF files, scan them, and upload them, but I don't really see what that would prove." Uhhh, it would prove that these alternate versions are REAL? Besides, anyone can make up an email, just look at some of the emails on the currently blocked SBEmail game on the forum. How is it "obvious" it's legit? --SBE-mail Checker Dan 20:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Why on Earth would an extremely trustful admin who has been here for 5 years make up such an elaborate fan fiction and claim it's real? And besides, when would he have the time to make it up? What, with dealing with the fanstuff closing, and probably a bunch of other admin-type stuff, that's why it's obvious it's legit. StrongAwesome 20:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm saying it's obvious because the Chaps have a distinct sense of humor that is recognizable. The files they sent us are essentially plain text. Anyone could copy and paste the text from the article into their favorite word processor, print it out, scan it, and upload it just as easily as I could. It wouldn't prove anything. I suppose could paste the email headers, but I'm not going to do that because they contain private data. You know that the Chaps use our site as a reference, right? There's no reason to risk my reputation by faking alternate versions of emails that they would then deny. You can choose to believe me or not, but I'm telling you earnestly that this is real. — It's dot com 20:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think it's ridiculous to question It's dot com's integrity, that's why I ignored the request in my previous post. It didn't even cross my mind to question the authenticity of this. Loafing 20:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a great article, and I know It's dot com is 100% trustworthy. However, I was thinking about J. Random Casual User who comes across this; It's not ME, PERSONALLY who wants proof, it's THEM. Stev0 00:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what others think, but I wouldn't be opposed to adding a line to the intro saying that it was an email sent to the wiki admins. It's true, it cites its source, and it makes sense to have. — Defender1031*Talk 00:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. It's not really material to the article itself, so I don't think it should go in the intro. Maybe the fun facts? The reason I posted it on the talk page was that it seemed too meta for the main namespace. — It's dot com 01:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
We mention the source in the intro of pretty much every other thing aside from toosn and games that appear on the main site... so what makes this one different? — Defender1031*Talk 01:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd kinda like to keep the reference to ourselves as low-key as possible. They could have released it on their site, and it wouldn't change the content at all. We're just the messengers. But I do admit that it is notable how they released it, since after all they didn't put it on their site. I agree that "wiki exclusive" probably works fine without being too pompous, and so I've added it to the article. — It's dot com 02:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
"Wiki Exclusive" works for me, and maybe a link to and/or from The Brothers Chaps' Fansite Acknowledgments. Stev0 04:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Just in case any of you boys had any lingering doubt, I can confirm as a second person with access to the admin email inbox that these alternate versions were sent to us by The Brothers Chaps. -- Tom 22:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you put the entire email on this talk page? If it contains personal info on you/Dot Com, then you can just block that part out right? --SBE-mail Checker Dan 02:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I've given my sincere word and Tom has confirmed it. You can believe me or not, but I'm not doing anything else. — It's dot com 02:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

And while I'm here, don't you think the transcription should be fixed to be consistent with itself and the others? JCM 01:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

From the page: "All formatting has been preserved, except that some bold text has been added and the actual emails have been set off to help with readability." — Defender1031*Talk 01:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that, but I'd like to know why it was done. Did TBC specifically ask for it or something like that? JCM 01:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
We are sharing this document that was sent to the admins. It seems logical that it should be shared in its original form rather than modified. — Defender1031*Talk 01:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. The point of releasing these alternate versions is not only to see what might have been toon-wise but also to see how the Chaps' creative process works. I didn't want to modify them at all, but adding the bold and separating the sent emails helped quite a bit. I figured that improving the readability while preserving as much of the rest of the formatting as possible would stay true to that point. — It's dot com 02:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow, neat. It makes total sense for them to script out versions of emails first, I just never pictured them doing that. What I think would be neat is to see a final draft of a script that got used, and then compare the difference to see how much ad-libbing or last minute changes goes on. After all, we've all heard the out-takes. I R F 09:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Filmography On Paper

Both Marzipan and Homestar are currently linked in the fun facts. I didn't want to rearrange the linkings, but, just so everyone is linked, I was going to simply link their names the first time they speak. But then I thought, "Wait. This is just a rough draft. Should this be included in their filmographies?" So, should it? StrongAwesome 21:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I wondered all those things myself when I made the page and again later when I added the links. Do we have other examples of preliminary or deleted content on the wiki that we can use as a reference? — It's dot com 21:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe not. -- 21:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
While I do not believe that there is another instance of a time when a written draft or deleted cartoon was eventually released in a small manner such as this, we did put Field Day Intro and Where the Crap Are We? in filmographies. I think these small-release cartoons should go in the filmographies of the characters who appear in the cartoon/draft/script. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 23:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Still, I don't think we should go all out like a regular toon, just to, as paraquoted from the page, "Preserve all formatting". No "Cast", "Places", "Computer", or any of that stuff. StrongAwesome 23:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
How about a centralized character key? — It's dot com 16:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Question

I notice the page says "intendo" near the end of the second draft where "Nintendo" makes sense. If this is the way it came, should there be a sic in front of that word? The Knights Who Say Ni 18:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I always thought that was part of a jokeā€”it's just another way Homestar mispronounces things. If we were transcribing a finished toon, we'd probably put 'Intendo like we do with 'Kipedia. I don't think it needs a sic. — It's dot com 19:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I also thought it was part of the joke. — Defender1031*Talk 20:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

[edit] (sorry, Victoria)

Maybe it's just me being too uptight as usual, but I feel kinda uncomfortable having those parentheses there. Sure, it's a little funny, but it looks really unprofessional, and I mean— it's not that funny. Is it worth keeping or not? In other news, these drafts are hilarious. Thanks for existing, wiki. SRMX12 (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't even see the joke in that bracket'd text. I also say delete. - Catjaz63 20:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Baleet. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 22:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with it either way, but I don't think it was meant to be funny. Seems like the intent was to remind everyone that there was a person out there who could've had their email answered, but didn't. A simple acknowledgement of human feelings.
But I could be wrong, and then I'd have to eat yet another pony. Only It's dot com can say for sure... -- ■■   PURPLE  WRENCH   ■■ 22:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
It's been there since the very first version of this page, but I have no recollection of why I included it. — It's dot com 21:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Personal tools