Talk:References to Years in Which Toons Were Released
From Homestar Runner Wiki
Revision as of 04:42, 20 November 2009 by It's dot com (Talk | contribs)
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 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)
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'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)
