Talk:Allegedly Real Things

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 15:09, 7 May 2008

Deletion?

Could someone explain where the scope of this page is in any way different from the scope of Blatant Lies? It just doesn't seem like there are two running gags happening here. Flashfight 02:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's more specific than "Blatant lies". --Jay (Gobble) 02:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, but Ryan S. is more specific than Mount Ridesplace Mascots, yet doesn't warrant its own page on the wiki. Flashfight 03:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, can he develop the page a little before you slap a tbd on it? — It's dot com 03:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that we can't talk in the abstract about the benefits of having a discussion on the scope. I mean, I would much rather allow this discussion to happen before someone invests their time into developing this and finding every instance of it. I actually find absolutely no issue in an abstract discussion, and frankly would prefer discussing the Merits of a page instead of the Content of a page. Content can always be expanded on, but there Merits of this scope exist the same today as they would a year from now. The merits won't change over time. Flashfight 03:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Without all the content, the merits of the topic are generally not clear. At any rate, it's common courtesy not to just tag articles by established users without giving them a chance to make a case for their article. Heimstern Läufer 03:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a running gag to me... I was noticing a trend of this sort of thing, myself. Incidentally, how about the fake "error messages" that say "This is real" on them? (I think in 50 emails, The System is Down, and "Not the 100th E-mail!!" (can't remember the exact name, so I didn't put a link), but I could be mistaken...) -YK

Ha. Looks like Jay had the idea at the same time I did. =P -YK 03:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Now that the page have a little more content, I don't really don't understand what this page is about. It lacks from several problems:

1. The name suggests that that we are discussing real objects, but this article is about made-up objects. And also, so of the "objects" are really abstract, like a girlfriend. Tell any women that she is an object, let's see where that gets you.
2. The scope of this article is poorly defined. I went over the examples and over blatant lies, and while I see what the creator meant to do in this article, most of these items aren't related. Like Coach Z inviting "all kinds of real people over to [his] house for a coupla real people parties." and Homestar making a "This is real" message. One is a lie told out of shame, the other is note.
3. I had a three, but I think I merged that point with #1 or #2... either way this page needs either a major cleanup, a better definition, and name change and some trimming. And all that if it doesn't just get merged with blatant lies, like I think it should be as it is now. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 05:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some of this, particularly that the current name isn't exactly spot-on. Maybe something more like "Real" Things? -DAGRON 06:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a name change. Anyway, the gag here is that the characters refer as the thing they're lying about as being "real" or "true" or "actual" - not just that they treat it that way. Thus, both examples noted (Coach Z invites "real people" to his "real people parties" and Homestar produces a "This is real" error message) fit perfectly. Was that unclear? --Jay (Gobble) 06:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Then let's use "real" in the title. Really 'Real' Items perhaps? - Qermaq - (^T/C)  08:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

But I think there is a major difference between the two cases. Homestar was trying to cover up the fact the he made a flagrant error, and Coach Z was just plain-old creepy. The only connection is the world "real", but the examples are inherently different. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 11:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This page isn't documenting the INTENT of the lie - only that they're lying and awkwardly inserting the word "real" (/"actual"/"true") as part of the lie. The only connection between them may be the "real", but as it happens, that's what the page is about in the first place. BTW, I looked over the page and, contrary to my own expectations, "Real" is used far more than "Actual", so perhaps a page name with "Real" in it would be better. --Jay (Gobble) 19:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

For reference, this page is meant to be like Not X - notice, there, that the "Not MS Paint" and "Strong Bad Emails: 1, Not Strong Bad Emails: 0" and "the first thing I do is NOT drop a piano on Marzipan's head" gags have little to nothing in common outside of the awkward usage of "Not". But since the page is ABOUT the awkward usage of "Not", including all three examples is justified. --Jay (Gobble) 19:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Better Commando Name

Contrary to my initial impulse, "Actual" is fairly rare in this running gag, so a title with "Real" in it would probably be better. But there is some confusion over the scope of the article, so even with that in mind, a better commando name may be in order. Thoughts? --Jay (Gobble) 22:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe 'Real' Objects? Highlights the questionable-at-best nature of these allegations. Scanna 05:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's more about the fact that these aren't all objects... — Defender1031*Talk 05:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

True. 'Real' Things? Scanna 06:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an unwieldy long suggestion I could think of: Made-up objects referred to as real... That's all I got. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 07:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's accurate at least....Scanna 08:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate a past suggestion: Really 'Real' Items. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  09:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooo, I like that. We need to pick one quickly, though; this is still an orphaned page, and really needs some linky lovin', which is pointless until we get a decent name Scanna 23:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Really 'Real' Items" seem like an ironic title. It doesn't say that the items are not real when taken at face value. I don't think that irony is the best way to handle an article's title. Another point: Don't be afraid to choose long article names. If nothing better comes along, then it's okay to have a long title. Just recently an article was moved with such a title. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 07:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give it another few days, but unless any new suggestions are feilded, I'm gonig to be bold and change this to one of the previous two suggestions. Scanna 01:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Real World Objects? We have Real-World References and people understand what that means. Maybe they'd understand Real World Objects! DevonM(talk·cont-ribs) 01:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

<resetting indents> I don't know if it matters at this point, but what about Obviously Fake People and Objects? -Brightstar Shiner 01:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How about This is real ? OptimisticFool 14:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How bou... I say anything with quotes around 'Real' like that. That way it is saying that the objects are not actually real. Kinda like what Scanna put. --TheYellowDart—(t/c) 15:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)