Talk:The Moon

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


[edit] Transfer from The Sweet Sweet Rainbow Bridge

Should this even be an article? It seems more like a fun fact candidate for "flashback." (ssssmemyself) 15:22, 17 Mar 2005 (MST)
I agree. This wasn't even the largest part of the toon, unlike The Proud Anselmo, which is currently pending deletion, and is way more informational than this article. We should include it more in the article for The Moon, which probably needs it more than this. Second of all, this isn't really a place, as the category says. I think it is more a method of transportation from the moon down to Free Country, USA. teeeffoh! 21:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
We just un-merged all these articles from "Places Strong Bad Made Up." You delete this, you have to delete about 20 other articles like it. (The Stone Bridge, Rotton Eggl├╝nd, big ol' tree, etc. etc.) I can assure you that people (such as myself) won't be very happy about that. — talk Bubsty edits 03:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sweet, sweet

In flashback, it says a Sweet, Sweet Rainbow Bridge (not correct caps). Shouldn't the page be The Sweet, Sweet Rainbow Bridge? Bluebry 16:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In other news...

If we are going to keep this, we should probably mention the quote of the week outtake relating to it. The Big Eye 06:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't think we should keep this

I don't think we should keep this. Really.-LordQuackingstick 01:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's only seen once, and it's not even a H*R original concept: rainbow bridges are ofen seen in cartoons. kai lyn 02:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest merge with The Moon. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... all in favor, say merge! merge!-LordQuackingstick 02:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought this was a good article, but merging it with The Moon is a good idea. I support it. Loafing 02:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Merge this article with the one about The Moon. ~Garnet Jell-o~ 03:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The MOOOOOoooon!

I think there sould be a seperate sub-article about the occurrences of saying it like that. —Supuhstar* Image:Supuhstar(SupuhSmall).gif

[edit] New Image

So, I uploaded that cool picture over there, and I feel like it belongs on this page, being a full-sized image of the moon most commonly seen in Homestar Runner. I was thinking of replacing the old-timey moon image with it, but... we have to have that somewhere, and... I don't know. I'd really like your guys's costumes input on how we should arrange images. Lira (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should have seperate pages for "The Moon" and "The Moon (character)". Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 04:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Hmm... that wouldn't be a bad idea, except that the moon as a character only made one very short appearance. Lira (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah... sort of like The Guys, Dee, Mr. Bossman, Don Knotts, and Eustice Pietimer. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 19:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay... wow. Point taken. Anyone else care to weigh in? Lira (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
So um, I drew up an idea for a "The Moon (character)" page (and also a new and slightly-improved The Moon page). What do you think? (I'd appreciate other people's input as well as Gfd's here.) Lira (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that's pretty grood. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 23:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
So, uh, yeah. Can we do this? Anyone else? Consensus? Grumble mumble? Lira (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
If no one disagrees, I'ma go ahead and create the page. Izzat cool? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason that "as a character" can't just be a section here? — Defender1031*Talk 00:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
My reasoning... I don't know how solid it is.
  1. There's only one "appearance as a character" and there's probably not going to be any more.
  2. The moon in Free Country, USA and the Old-Timey moon are completely different things. One's scenery, one's a character.
  3. We have separate pages for a whole bunch of one-time-appearance characters, like the ones Gfd named above. It just wouldn't do the Old-Timey moon justice to have it lumped together with the moon as an object.
That's why I think we oughta. Lira (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  1. Why is this an argument for a separate page? If anything, that's an argument to make the documentation as unobtrusive as possible.
  2. I don't see them as all that separate. They still both fit nicely under a page called "The Moon".
  3. Those don't have a larger concept of which they are part though.
— Defender1031*Talk 01:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  1. Yeah, but... he's a character. If a character has a major-ish speaking role, it should get a page. A sentence on this page is not enough to describe the character fully. He's on the Everybody Everybody Poster even!
  2. The Old-Timey Moon is in the 1930s and it talks. The "Real" Moon is in modern times and it's not a character, it's just... the moon. See example #1 above.
  3. Don Knotts has a page, even though he already has a Real-World Reference on highschool and a Wikipedia page. The Guys have a page, even though there's already an article on Birds. How is this any different? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 06:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  1. How is it that a sentence on its own page would be "enough to describe the character fully", but that same sentence on this page wouldn't be?
  2. But it's all "The Moon" no matter what role it's playing. See also Stooly and Lappy 486 which don't have a separate page for their "character" appearances than they do for their other ones. I'm not sure what you're referring to as "example #1 above".
  3. In the example of Don Knotts, the highschool page isn't about Don Knotts, hence his own page. In the case of The Guys, the Birds page isn't about The Guys, hence their own page. In the case of The Moon, The Moon page IS already about The Moon, hence The Moon doesn't need its own page separate from The Moon.
— Defender1031*Talk 12:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, for the time being I went ahead and added missing character-related categories to the article and created a redirect to the section. If the discussion eventually leads to having the Moon be a separate article, the pieces are there, if not, the pieces are already there. --Stux 14:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with DF; we don't need two pages for the moon. The Knights Who Say Ni 17:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Personal tools