HRWiki:STUFF/Archive/Drive-Thru

Ask Inviso-Jeeves

From: Drive-Thru
Posted on: 09:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for:

1. Although Jeeves is a valet, he is often misrepresented in popular culture as having similar professions, such as a butler or a waiter.
2. Yes, it may be a reference to Ask Jeeves, but even if it is, the character of Jeeves from the website is based on the character from the book, so it would technically be a reference to the original character.

Arguments against:

1. The name "Jeeves" for a stereotypical valet/butler has become quite common in pop culture. Yes, it might have started with P. G. Wodehouse, but it's like saying that every time the word "whatever" is used, that it's a reference to Clueless, which, technically, it is. References by inheritance (i.e. TBC inherited it from pop culture, pop culture inherited it from some book) are technicalities, and I don't think you can declare a reference by technicality. In other words, it's become too popular and widely used to not be TTATOT.

Additional comments:

• I'd never heard of the above books, but I've often used the name "Jeeves" for a butler (this fits with argfor #1). Just saying it's possible that TBC might be as unaware as me about this but still use that name. Is there a way to work this into the fact?
  • Re above comment: The easiest way would be to add argfor #1 to the end of the current fact, wouldn't it? (It might need a small amount of rephrasing...)
    • Okay, I added in a sentence simlar to argfor #1 — go ahead and revert if it's not acceptable, supporters.
• RE Arg against 1: I don't think that analogy is entirely accurate. The word 'whatever' existed long before Clueless, the movie just popularized its use. The use of the name "Jeeves" for a butler/valet/etc. is far more specific and can clearly be traced back to Wodehouse as the original source.
  • The term existed, that's true, but it was not really used in the context it is now until clueless. The analogy is completely accurate, as the name Jeeves also existed before, but had no association to butlers.
• Hang on now. I'd never heard of Wodehouse before this, but I'd certainly heard of the concept of Jeeves as a butler. It's possible—or even likely—that TBC have never heard of Wodehouse. Jeeves is too popular from other sources, like this Seinfeld episode:

  JERRY: Ever notice a lot of butlers are named Jeeves? You know I think when you name a baby Jeeves, you've pretty much mapped out his future, wouldn't you say? Not much chance is gonna be a hitman I think after that. (with a British accent) "Terribly sorry Sir, but I'm going to have to whack you."

  Over a third of all Google results for "Jeeves" do not include "Wodehouse". The likelihood that TBC are referencing Wodehouse is slim.

Proposed revision:

Arguments for:

1. This version of the fact states that the reference is to the general trend rather than to the specific books, of which TBC may very well be unaware.
2. Re argagainst #1: Even though this fact is just saying that TBC were following a trend, it's a trend of which people might not be aware. More than this, though, the bit about Wodehouse's novels is quite interesting and not as well-known as it should be.
3. We have precedent for facts along the lines of "TBC referred to x, which originally came from y", without implying that TBC necessarily know the origin.
4. Re arg against #2: It's not TTATOT. We're only saying it's a reference to the trend, not any of the specific references.

Arguments against:

1. This version is almost certainly true (whereas the original wording is quite likely false), but it's not notable that TBC were just following an established trend.
2. The simple fact remains that the term, especially in this context, is far too general to be a reference to anything in particular. This is almost a definitive example of TTATOT. It should not be added in either form.
3. It comes down to where do we draw the line on what information to include here and what information to simply provide reference to. I think in this case it is appropriate to link to but not detail the reference. (e.g. The name "Inviso-Jeeves" follows the trend in popular culture of naming servants Jeeves.) — In the Stinkoman Arcade articles, we never explicitly link to AYB even though it's quite clear that is the ultimate origin of the joke.

Additional comments:

• Feel free to reword this version, if it can be improved.
• Jeeves is just as generic as Kleenex is to Tissue today.
  • And if Strong Bad used a Kleenex, we'd link to it's Wikipedia article.
• I still don't get why we're explaining the origin of the pop-culture reference when it has no bearing on the toon.
  • I'd say that the majority of pop culture references on H*R have no bearing on the toon. They're just there to be funny. TBC could make Homestar Runner cartoons with absolutely no real-world references if they wanted to, but it wouldn't be as hilarious.
• I had no idea that Jeeves came from there and I think it's unnecessary to note.
• Re arg against #3: AYB was not the first example of dodgy Japanese translations in the world, and the other dodgy Japanese translations aren't all doing it to reference Zero Wing... so that analogy isn't particularly appropriate.
  • Discussion about AYB references we should have elsewhere, but I stand by my analogy; the usage of "Jeeves" is so pervasive and there is no clear evidence that TBC meant Reginald specifically. So, the fun fact shouldn't go into it (while at the same time, providing a link to a source that does cover the details).
• I'd just like to say that P.G. Wodehouse invented the character of Jeeves. There is no other source for that. Therefore, any reference to a butler or other serving figure named Jeeves has to be a reference to, at the very least, the trend started by Wodehouse's books

Proposed revision:

Arguments for:

1. It comes down to where do we draw the line on what information to include here and what information to simply provide reference to. I think in this case it is appropriate to link to but not detail the reference.
   1. I think this is fair enough. I'm sure other things have mentioned Jeeves as a butler/waiter before. Let's just keep it general.
2. re: arg against 1: but it provides them a direct link to read about it if they care to do so.
3. the usage of "Jeeves" is so pervasive and there is no clear evidence that TBC meant Reginald specifically. This fun fact provides a link to a source that covers such details.

Arguments against:

1. Fun facts are things that may need explanation or may not be obvious to all viewers. The great majority of viewers would know this "fun fact" already.

Additional comments:

[ Back to STUFF index ]

Al Aboard

From: Drive-Thru
Posted on: 19:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for:

1. To me, it doesn't matter if there is TBC connection. What matters that it just so happened on the same day and will be interesting to note it. These are "fun facts" you know.
2. Said it before, I'll say it again: "Will the inclusion of this fact add to people's enjoyment/understanding of the toon?" Since when is the FF section meant to be a record of TBC's exact motives? If it were, we couldn't have any FF's because TBC have never come to us to verify any of them. So the "accept" voters acknowledge that it's very possibly a coincidence; we're waiting to hear why the coincidence itself isn't a "fact" that would be "fun" to know.
3. It's not like he said that TBC made it because "Trapped in the Drive-Thru" was coming out on the same day. They were just pointing out the fact that they both came out on the same day. E.g. fun fact.
4. Re arg 4: Why not? That's what we're asking. Why isn't a weird coincidence noteworthy?
5. Re arg 5: Yes, but why are weird coincidences disqualified from being fun facts? What makes them less fun than other facts?
6. From the Standards: "A fun fact is anything about a toon that is unique or out of the ordinary." That it was released within hours of another webtoon about a drive-thru certainly satisfies both of these criteria (as opposed to a statement noting that it's like, say, "Donnie Darko" in that they both start with a D; that's neither unique nor out of the ordinary). Go down a little farther and find that Remarks include "facts that are not direct references... but are still notable enough to be added." So how about sticking this fact in the Remarks? It won't demand an immediate connection, but it will comment on a very striking and notable coincidence (a word, incidentally, which is conspicuously absent from the Standards page).

Arguments against:

1. This stands too high a chance of being a coincidence.
2. Weird Al and Homestar Runner are not the only things that have ever made fun of scratchy drive-through speakers. Additionally, the WAY song never even comments on the speaker quality. ("Now a woman on a speaker box is sayin' 'Can I take your order, please?'" is the only mention of the speaker.)
3. Unlikely that TBC managed to have the idea for the toon, script it, animate it, record the sound etc. within a few hours. And for all that speedy effort, there is no reference to the Weird Al video.
4. Re arg for #3: if it's just a coincidence, then it's not noteworthy.
5. Re arg 4 for: Because it's a coincidence. That immediately disqualifies it from being a fun fact.

Additional comments:

• It's probably what most other "Weird Al" fans thought of when they saw this and especially the title. Come ON, two cartoons about drive-thrus realeased on the same day?????
  • Coincidence. How could they possibly coordinate that, unless you're suggesting TBC and Weird Al are in cahoots.
    • And not all Weird Al fans are Homestar Runner fans, and vice versa. Don't forget, while there are a lot of fans, I'm willing to bet a majority of people in this country don't know anything about the Homestar Runner flash toons. (this country meaning USA, just realizing that we're an international wiki)
• Also, not for nothing, but "released" was misspelled in the proposed version.
  • You can always edit any mistakes in the fact so long as you don't significantly alter the content. For example, say "MySpace" had incorrect capitalization...
    • Ah. Thanks for clarifying.
• Some people will take this comment as for, and some as against: The video was obviously not made by Weird Al himself, but was commissioned from DoogToons. on March 4 they announced the video was in the making. DoogToons previously worked with Weird Al on short animated segments starring the animated Al. TBC have previously said in interviews that they make their toons in one or two days (for the more basic ones, like this seems to be), So they could have known about the date of release of the Al video in advance because it was in DoogToon's news section. A counter point is that is some of the same interviews, TBC said that they are not active in the Flash community and don't check others' sites.
• If this was a collaboration between Al and the Chaps we would have seen some kind of reference to the artist in the toon. Even a mere mention of the number 27 would suffice, but none arose. When TBC made videos with TMBG it was obvious that they did.
• Did anyone think about the allowed coincidence with do over and Family Guy?
  • The Family Guy episode aired the night before do over was released, giving at least the possibility of a reference.
    • And in the case of the Family Guy ref, there weren't too many other places they could have gone with for a coin-falling-out-of-head reference. Drive-thru windows and microphones are a lot more commonplace. Regardless of what everyone said about the FG ref (which was accepted, 16-7, unlike this, which is probably going to go down to defeat), there was at least some apparent connection. There is none here. It's too bad the deficit isn't more, because this should be closed. I deleted said fun fact the first time it was posted, with my reasons being that it was coincidental and speculative. It does not belong here. End of story.
• A question I would like to raise at this point in the history of the HRWiki is: where would be the huge miscarriage of justice in allowing this fact to be included on the page? Right now it's the only coincidence on the STUFF page that's asking to be considered notable, and one of only a handful I've witnessed personally. I can vouch for the fact that the encyclopedic integrity of this wiki is not so flimsy that it would be totally compromised by the inclusion of the occasional questionably relevant fact; the very presence of a place like the STUFF page proves that your typical HR fan is a few notches above the average, as far as cartoon/TV viewers go. As such, maybe we can back down from the missile launchers and Draconian pronouncements for a minute and look at this whole mess as if we were on, say, a website about a cartoon. HRWiki use would be a lot more pleasant for everyone, that's all I'm saying. Man, this is making me hungry for chocolate cake...
  • Well, the fact that it's heavily in favor of being declined seems to suggest that many other people *don't* feel it's a notable coincidence... There's not much to link the two, even.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

Infinitely Probable Reference

From: Drive-Thru
Posted on: 23:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for:

1. A whale suddenly appears in Douglas Adams's series for no reason, as in this toon.
2. Douglas Adam's series of books contains a virtual litany of improbable actions and reactions, as does this toon.
3. This toon contains a missile that goes into space, as does the series.

Arguments against:

1. Re: arg for #1: H*R is full of impossibilities, no reference is intended there.
2. Re: arg for #2: Whales are inherently funny, and so it is no coincidence TBG and DA used such imagery.
3. Re: arg for #3: Missile into space? It was some sort of non-missile spacecraft to be sure. This is unadulterated speculation.
4. Even if we assume it is a missile, there's no characteristic to connect it to H2G2 and not the endless list of other space-missiles in the world of fiction.
5. The sperm whale in H2G2 has no connection to The Restaurant at the End of the Universe and does not appear in the book of the same name. It only appears in the first H2G2 book, so it can't be counted as evidence for the reference as it is currently written. This part of the reference is therefore patently false.
6. Just because they have the same things doesn't mean its a reference(Oh yeah, there's a air-propelled rocket in there that means its a reference to random movie #5 which has a kid playing with one in the backround).

Additional comments:

• Hopefully this wont come down to ppl arguing based on their like and dislike of Douglas Adams' work. I tried to think of a way to word it that would split the difference between a reference and not, but in the end, Douglas Adams wrote about TONNES of different things, from shoes to computers to telephone sanitizers. Eventually a few of them would come up. If TBC were big Adams fans, it would've shown up before this.
  • Some people who have declined this fact have stated in their edit summaries that they are fans of the H2G2 series.
    • True, but on certain STUFFed facts in the past (not to give names), people voted for and said they were fans of the work in question without judging the merits of the fact, or because they said they wanted it to be a reference. (This was more noticeable in the older STUFF format, when arguments and votes were placed together.)
      • Maybe we could just count the whale 'cause that's the only reason I chose to accept.
        • I wouldn't accept that version either, personally, but feel free to create a revision if you want to...
• Urgh, I want to accept this so bad but I know it's probably wrong. I never considered the whole thing as a reference. Maybe if it had more connections than a restaurant and a whale, I'd consider it. After all, there are very many unique things about TRATEOTU that would have been decisive had they been referenced. For now... decline.
• Don't forget the whale came into being after they used the Improbability Drive to stop missiles. It's possible they're referring to the film.
  • If there was a bowl of petunias in the toon then I might give you that, but it looks too much like a coincidence to me. as stated above, whales are just inherently funny, that's all.

[ Back to STUFF index ]