|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| - | ==Keep==
| + | This page is meant as a replacement for [[Definite Article]], which has a list including many names that have nothing to do with the The Cheat Rule. (See [[Talk:Definite Article]] for my full catalog of complaints about that page.) You are encouraged to add any names that ''explicitly'' follow the Rule, and to add notes about the consistency (e.g., if you spot a case where the Rule is broken). But before you do, please run the sentence through some tests. |
| - | | + | |
| - | Do we need this article? It is thuroghly obvious that these characters have '''the''' as a part of their first name. Perhaps if this is not noted in each of the named characters' transcripts, then it should be added, but I fail to see why this is a necessary article. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 20:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | :Lets try to clean this up a little bit, then see if it is needed. {{User:Rogue Leader/sig}} 20:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ::Okay then. Let's clean this article up. Don't forget to wash where the sun don't shine. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 20:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Well, I created this article, and I don't know how to use pictures, so it was sort of messy. Thanks for cleaning that up for me. -[[User:Brightstar Shiner|Brightstar Shiner]] 21:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | :I don't see a need for this article. Of all the people in the to-do list below and on the page, the only ones that really stand out are The Cheat (and his variations), The Poopsmith, The Paper, and The Homestar Runner. All the rest seem to be general descriptions. The information contained in this article is already on the various pages. Does concentrating it all here really help? — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 18:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Oh come on. Please don't delete it! It's clearly a running gag because 8-10 people/things have that "the" in their name. It's just happened with so many things that you can't just ignore it! -[[User:Brightstar Shiner|Brightstar Shiner]] 19:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | :I have no plans to delete it unless there is a consensus to do so. In the meantime, why don't you clean it up to improve its chances of making the cut. Focus on those people you feel are legitimate. But note: ''things'' should be in the list at all. It's completely natural to refer to a thing using a definite article. For example, you would say, "Are you going to ''the'' mall later?", but that doesn't make "the" part of its name. Likewise, they call it ''the'' Stick because it's the only one. The only places where this running gag is noteworthy are in cases like: "Hey, The Cheat, make me some breakfast." In real life, you wouldn't normally address someone like that. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 20:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ::By the way, I just realized where The Stick ''is'' addressed that way: [[labor day]]. —[[User:AbdiViklas|AbdiViklas]] 03:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | :Okay, I will. I'll have to figure out how to do that and find out exactly how many people apply to this now, but I hope I can save this thing. -[[User:Brightstar Shiner|Brightstar Shiner]] 20:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | (humoungous sigh)....Oh well. Excluding PseudoCharacters like It's Dot Com over there said, and The Cheat (whose definite article was noted on his character page), all I came up with was The Strong Man, The Homestar Runner, and The Sneak (The Cheat related). If you note somewhere on the Old-Timey page that those guys share the definite article factor, you can delete it. I'm okay with it. -[[User:Brightstar Shiner|Brightstar Shiner]] 20:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | :<s>So..... this thing seems like............ we dont need it. It seems kinda stupid. Just my opionion. {{User:Bubsty/sig}} 20:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)</s>
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | :Gee, thanks for pointing out the obvious, Mr-or-Ms-Points-Out-The-Obvious. I think we've already established the fact that my article is stupid and needs to be deleted. Don't make me feel worse! -[[User:Brightstar Shiner|Brightstar Shiner]] 20:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | :Okay, I have two things to say. One, sorry for yelling at you Bubsty. I was extremely ticked off at the moment. That wasn't nice. And two, will this be deleted or won't it? I don't know. By the discussion above, it seems like someone would've gotten around to deleting it if they really wanted to. But there hasn't been action for days, so I'm kind of puzzled. I want it to stay, personally, but let's not leave ourselves out in the dark, alright? -[[User:Brightstar Shiner|Brightstar Shiner]] 18:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ::Hey, cool! After six days of talking to myself on the article here, I guess the page won't be deleted! Of course, if that's the case, why is it still pending deletion? I guess I'll just take it off of the list, then! Here I go!-[[User:Brightstar Shiner|Brightstar Shiner]] 21:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::Wait, don't take the tags off just yet. We haven't reached a consensus. - {{User:Kookykman/sig}}
| + | |
| - | ::::I was bluffing. And just being strange. I don't even know how to take the tags off. How long does it take to reach a consensus? STUFF takes two weeks. Does that apply to this, too? -[[User:Brightstar Shiner|Brightstar Shiner]] 21:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::Here, it's just when most of us agree. I think. If an admin came around right now, it might help to ask them. - {{User:Kookykman/sig}}
| + | |
| - | ::::::This can probably stay for a while and see if it's useful. I just linked to it from another page. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 00:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::::::Sorry Brightstar. That was an edit I made when I was a boring new person and didn't know anything. {{User:Bubsty/sig}} 03:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::::::Sorry if this is a little late, but that's okay. I'm not offended.-[[User:Brightstar Shiner|Brightstar Shiner]] 21:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | ==To-do list==
| + | |
| - | <s>''The Barbershop Trio, The Bossman, The Dapper Swindler, The Demon, The Football Player, The Ghost, The Guys, The Kaiser, The Announcer, The Yello Dello, The Sad Kids, The King of Town, The Poopsmith, The Knight, The Hornblower, The Bishop, The Blacksmith, The Little Chef Guy, The Umpire, The Robot, The Grape Fairie, The Prince of Town, The Jolly Dumple, The Stick, The Goblin, 20X6 The Cheat, The Angel, The Popular Vote, The First Decemberween, The Deathly Pallor, The Thnikkaman, The Red and Blue Knights, The Three Keepers of Trogdor, The Worm, The Dancing Brothers, The Mayor, The Townsfolk''</s>
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | I don't think that all of the characters currently listed in the comments are appropriate for this page. I think that just a name starting with "the" is not the same as having "The" as an actual PART OF the name. For instance, "The King of Town" is addressed directly as "King of Town" whereas "The Cheat" is almost always "The Cheat" i.e. "Hi King of Town" vs. "Hi The Cheat!" {{User:Homestar Coder/sig}} 21:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | :I agree. The Red and Blue Knights, the Mayor, and the Townsfolk sound more like general descriptions. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 21:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | I agree with the previous comments.. Let's only put the ones on there that we have actually confirmed have the definite article there (i.e. someone has actually said something to them like "Hey, The Cheat"). The Stick, The Thnikkaman, and The Poopsmith are the only ones on that list I have confirmed so far. -[[User:Brightstar Shiner|Brightstar Shiner]] 23:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Anything that has not been officially named, but has a "The" in its wiki-name should not be included on this page (The Worm, The Angel, The Demon...). Anything that has a natural "the" in it should not be on the page either (The Townsfolk...). —[[User:BazookaJoe|BazookaJoe]] 02:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | == Why Strong Man? ==
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Why is Strong Man on this page? What definite article does he have? -[[User:Brightstar Shiner|Brightstar Shiner]] 23:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :He is always referred to as The Strong Man whenever someone talks about him. It's kind of a gray area. Much like this page. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 23:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Yeah, I just looked at the Strong Man page. You're right. And changing the name of the gallery picture was a smart idea. -[[User:Brightstar Shiner|Brightstar Shiner]]
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | == A note on The Stick. ==
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | The Stick should count as a definite article, as in [[origins]], Strong Bad types it as 'The Stick', a proper noun. - {{User:Kookykman/sig}}
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | == The Ugly One ==
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | I went ahead and added [[The Ugly One]] to this list in reference to [[Teen Girl Squad Issue 10]], which introduced [[Manolios Ugly One]]. Manolios's name suggests that his daughter's first name is "The" and her last name is "Ugly One". In addition, I believe she's been referred to as "The Ugly One" in a sentence once or twice, like "The Ugly One, you can go here". Specific references fail me at the moment, however. {{User:KieferSkunk/sig}} 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :Reference confirmed: In Issue 10, Strong Bad puts himself in the toon to make out with her, and his line is "Why, hello, '''The Ugly One''', you're looking so makey-outy tonight." {{User:KieferSkunk/sig}} 18:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | ::It was confirmed before then in [[theme park]], I believe. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 01:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | :::Yeah, you're pwobabwy wight. {{User:KieferSkunk/sig}} 01:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | == I think I has the solution ==
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | I like the concept behind this article, but first I'm going to explain at excruciating length what's fatally wrong with it, and then I'll show you how I'm going to fix it.
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | What I like is a page, particularly in the Running Gags category, explaining how certain names include "The" in constructions where an article would be grammatically inappropriate. This is a feature of the Homestarniverse that is both somewhat pervasive and reasonably unique, thus worth noting.
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | However, the phrase "The Definite Article" seems to have been latched onto as a label for this, and that's wrong and confusing. You barely have to read [[Wikipedia:Article (grammar)|Wikipedia's Article article]] to realize that, in English, ''any'' grammatical instance of the word "the" is a definite article. And here we're talking about ''non''-grammatical uses of "The". An article that is not grammatical is scarcely an article at all. I've seen this referred to on the wiki as the "The Cheat Rule", which I like far better because it's more self-describing—this is one of The Cheat's defining characteristics, after all—and because of the apropos doubling of the "the".
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | The larger problem with this page is it seems to have missed the point. It describes the phenomenon, and then proceeds to list ''every'' name that ever had a "the" attached to it, which is completely different and completely unnoteworthy. Just because someone like The Poopsmith is referred to with a definite article frequently—even if the article is capitalized in writing—that does not subject them to the The Cheat Rule because it is not ''necessarily'' treating the article as integral to their name. It's no different from The Flash, Bruce "The Boss" Springsteen, or many other instances throughout our language and culture where someone or something is frequently named with an article.
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | What makes The Cheat and his fellow subjects to the Rule different is that the article is included ''in defiance of the rules of grammar'', something that (to my knowledge) never happens to Bruce Springsteen. For example, the usage "my very own The Cheat" is grammatically bizarre. The Poopsmith, in contrast, has broken the Rule explicitly a number of times, such as the KoT's claim in his own character video that he "employs a Poopsmith".
| + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | Of course, this is complicated by the fact that TBC are not necessarily consistent with their application of the Rule, as evidenced on Strong Bad's epitaph: "kicking Cheats in the hereafter". It's also complicated by the fact that instances of a name that confirm the Rule and instances that break the Rule are generally outnumbered by instances that do neither. So it's not always clear whether a given name is subject to the Rule. You have to analyze each appearance case-by-case. But here's a guide.
| + | |
| | | | |
| | Use of an article (definite or indefinite) in any of the following contexts where an article is grammatically incorrect confirms that the The Cheat Rule is being applied: | | Use of an article (definite or indefinite) in any of the following contexts where an article is grammatically incorrect confirms that the The Cheat Rule is being applied: |
| Line 87: |
Line 10: |
| | Any other appearance of an article is grammatically acceptable (although I'm sure someone will think of a few cases I didn't), and thus inconclusive as far as the Rule is concerned. Of course, for an instance to ''break'' the Rule, the expected article simply has to be omitted when grammar rules require it to be omitted. So "I don't lets the Poopsmith near it" and "They've stolen my Poopsmith" are both grammatically acceptable (at least as far as articles are concerned); as applications of the Rule, the first sentence is inconclusive while the second one breaks it. | | Any other appearance of an article is grammatically acceptable (although I'm sure someone will think of a few cases I didn't), and thus inconclusive as far as the Rule is concerned. Of course, for an instance to ''break'' the Rule, the expected article simply has to be omitted when grammar rules require it to be omitted. So "I don't lets the Poopsmith near it" and "They've stolen my Poopsmith" are both grammatically acceptable (at least as far as articles are concerned); as applications of the Rule, the first sentence is inconclusive while the second one breaks it. |
| | | | |
| - | So the proper role of this page, if you ask me, is a list of ''only'' those names that have had the The Cheat Rule applied to them in at least one ''confirmed'' instance, which wipes out the majority of the current list. However, since the title of the page is also inappropriate, I'm not going to bother editing it. I'm going to make a [[The Cheat Rule|new page]] based on this one, open it up for comments, and, if public opinion permits, eventually turn this page into a redirect. --[[User:TheNicestGuy|TheNicestGuy]] 16:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
| + | And if you think this page was a colossal waste of time, do please mention it here. --[[User:TheNicestGuy|TheNicestGuy]] 16:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| - | :This page suffered severe scope creep somewhere along the way. I believe [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=Definite_Article&oldid=249387 this] is the last version of the article to adhere to the true intent. So I think you're on to something. I don't think, however, that "The Cheat Rule" should be the name of the article. I do see your point about "Definite Article", though. How about "Ungrammatical Definite Article" or "Extra The" or something? — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 17:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | + | :My primary objection to this page is the title. I've never heard of this (or anything else) referred to as "The Cheat Rule," and I don't think we should make up arbitrary terminology. If there's some precedent that I'm missing, however, please educate me. <small>— [[User:InterruptorJones|InterruptorJones]]</small> 17:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
Use of an article (definite or indefinite) in any of the following contexts where an article is grammatically incorrect confirms that the The Cheat Rule is being applied:
Any other appearance of an article is grammatically acceptable (although I'm sure someone will think of a few cases I didn't), and thus inconclusive as far as the Rule is concerned. Of course, for an instance to break the Rule, the expected article simply has to be omitted when grammar rules require it to be omitted. So "I don't lets the Poopsmith near it" and "They've stolen my Poopsmith" are both grammatically acceptable (at least as far as articles are concerned); as applications of the Rule, the first sentence is inconclusive while the second one breaks it.
And if you think this page was a colossal waste of time, do please mention it here. --TheNicestGuy 16:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
