Talk:All Toons

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Current revision as of 23:08, 11 November 2020

[edit] Format

Wow, that was quick! How about a format like this one? Loafing 10:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I like this - also, if it's a guessed date, that could be noted. Perhaps parentheses. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  10:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that looks good. I'll do that, but not tonight. —Shwoo 11:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

I think it's ok at All Toons, the only other option I would suggest is "Toons by Date" since that's how it's listed, but I don't think we have a list of all toons anywhere else together, so as with the Easter egg thing, this may be of use for more than just a cronological listing - Ilko Skevüld's Teh C 12:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watch link

Should a column be added for "watch" links? — It's dot com 03:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. That'd be so useful. --DorianGray

Good idea! Loafing 04:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and do that. But I don't see the point in putting in an extra column, so I'm just putting it in the toon column. —Shwoo 10:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it cluttered up the toon column, so I went ahead and split it off. — It's dot com 06:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chronological Order

Didn't quite a bit of research already go into the dating of toons when the H*R.com updates articles were finished up? Was the "guessing" (noted at the top of the article) done independently of those articles, and if so, why? -- Tom 04:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that Shwoo didn't know about those lists when she started this. Loafing 04:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I did compile it from from those lists, except for the early ones that didn't have precise dates. It's a lot easier. I didn't mention it on the page because I thought it was obvious. I guess I'll go add it now. Sorry. —Shwoo 08:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry I assumed you didn't know about them :-) Loafing 10:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't offended though. —Shwoo 12:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] formating of an estimated date

This discussion originated on this talk page and was moved here because it was more appropriate

I came across the wayback machine a few weeks ago and have been playing with it a lot. I decided to run a search for thispage, which seems to suggest that the Luau was released on May 01, 2001. Is this credible enough to finally date our old stuff. At the very least we now know that it had to be release on or before this date. What do you think? I R F 22:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I am waiting for a "go ahead" before updating any toon pages. I R F 22:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Shwoo has already used the wayback machine to date some toons in All Toons. I think it's a great idea. A release date of "May 1, 2001, or earlier" is certainly more informative than "2001", as it reads now. Loafing 22:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: we should probably put more emphasize on the before part, as the wayback machine does not update a page every day, and it might take months before a new page or site is archived. Example. Loafing 23:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the before part in All Toons, but what about the article pages? I R F 23:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant that once we use that info on article pages, we should put emphasize on "before". Loafing 23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

how's this? I R F 23:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Before I go making a lot of edits that will be changed later, I wanted to see if this looks alright

Date: on or before May 1, 2001

I R F 23:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I like it. :-) Loafing 23:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the rationale for the bold on "before"? - Qermaq - (^T/C)  23:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it's more likely to have been published months before the wayback machine archived it first. Loafing 23:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Date: Prior to May 2, 2001 is clearer and more concise. Perhaps determine the latest wayback without it and show a date range. Making this up totally: Date: Unknown, between January 7, 2001 and May 2, 2001 - Qermaq - (^T/C)  23:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Date: on or before is better simply because it could have been updated ON the day it lists not necessarily prior to it. »Bleed0range« 00:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll note I upped the day by one for that very reason. Well, in reference to your self-reverted test case: You changed "2000" (we know it was 2000, apparently) to "before January something, 2001" which is less accurate. We should weigh what version yields more precision. That's why I suggested a range. Now, if the range turns out to be between sometime in 1999 and 2001, and we have "2000" already and we know that's accurate, which is better? - Qermaq - (^T/C)  00:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should say Circa May 01, 2001. It's a thought. TheYellowDart—(t/c)

I'd call "circa" an unnecessarily vague word myself, unless we are talking so long ago that there's absolutely no hope of getting a closer date. We have technology to be more exact in our dating. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  00:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a fitting word though. Read the definition of it. TheYellowDart—(t/c)

I am well familiar with its definition. I am also aware that its usage is most commonly associated with historical events for which there is no hope in pinpointing a more precise date. Anyway, this is evolving into a meta-discussion of "how do we date things in general" which isn't really right for an individual toon's Talk. I submit we restrict talk here to dating The Luau, we discuss how to date other disputed toons on their individual article Talk pages, and we find a more appropriate Talk to discuss whatever overriding policy needs to prevail. Though at this juncture I don't think we even need a unified approach. What's the most accurate way to date this toon? That's the essential question, and whatever is the most accurate, the least ambiguous, that's what we should do. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  00:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

so moved I R F 15:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Picking this discussion back up, I did some research using the Wayback Machine as well. After loading the archived HTML pages for The Luau and the first seven Strong Bad Emails, I then checked the each page's page info and got last-modified dates as shown in the first table. Obviously, some kinda robot would have to have been released in August or earlier, and I'd bet those three emails weren't released within one day of each other. I think it's reasonable that these toons were released on or before the dates shown in the second table.

This assumes that, even if they were turning out emails every week, they would have taken a break after 9/11. It's speculation, of course, and I could be off by a week here or there. The important question is, how exactly should the information in the first table be used to update the articles? — It's dot com 15:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Easter eggs

I'm confused by the Easter egg count in the list. For unused emails, it claims there are 6 while the article lists 4; for website 3 while the article lists 1; and for Meet Marshie 3, while the article lists 2. These are all the toons I've checked out so far, and every one of them seems to be off. Am I counting wrong? Loafing 21:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, for unused emails, the list counts each stack of emails that can be clicked on as an Easter egg. The tall, medium, and short stacks, as well as the stack in Strong Mad's room, all count as individual eggs. The weekly spamvertisement and the picture in the spamvertisement count as 2 more, making 6. The list also counts the Easter eggs in Strong Bad's Website as Easter eggs for the email website (so really there should be at least 4). As for Meet Marshie, that one is just wrong. It should be 2. — Has Matt? (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Table?

Okay, the top half looks broken to me... like the lines are missing and the information is running into itself. The bottom half is fine. Anyone else have this problem? — Defender1031*Talk 19:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page Easter Egg

Should we say each Main Page has one easter egg, the last number in 2024, linking to the Homsar Main Page? Homestar-Winner (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strong Bad Clock

This is a Flash animation with extras. I don't know the date, but it should be noted here. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  03:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opps. I bwoke it.

So I tried the add the sortable feature to the table, and it breaks when you try to sort it. I think it's because of the merged date cells for toons released on the same day. Now, we have two options: Keep it sortable (being able to see which toon have the most eggs, the length and so on) or keeping the merged cells and removing the sorting (more pretty). I think we should split the cells. Usability before appearance. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 08:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Having the merged cells making sorting impossible, and I'm sure people would like to sort this table. 8 October 2008

Dunno if this has been settled or not, but i too say split 'n sort — Defender1031*Talk 21:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this going to happen or not? This has been here for ages. 16:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

...and this is still a problem. Trying to use the sorting feature just causes the cells to be jumbled randomly. I'd say it might be best to kill the sort feature. wbwolf (t | ed) 22:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Being able to sort the table would be an improvement. The merged cells should be split. — It's dot com 22:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, merged cells are split. Now, we need to figure out how to fomat the date info so it will sort correctly. I'm thinking a YYYY-MM-DD format would be useful. Do we want to include day of the week info from Other days of the week? If so, how? wbwolf (t | ed) 21:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

We just need to use the {{hcount}} template, similar to other tables with dates (see Strong Bad Email Release Dates for an example). We also should add a Day of Week column. — It's dot com 21:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have a good point. What we could do is Column 1: Day of the week. Column 2: Date (YYYY-MM-DD). Column 3: Type (Book, Toon, Game). Column 4: Name of Toon, Game, etc. Column 5: Any notes about the content. Column 6: Link to view content. What is disorganizing the dates are the notes included in the date column. I'll go and fix it. That'sBupkis! 21:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read the response that conflicted you? All you need is an hcount. — Defender1031*Talk 21:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what I can do... about... thaaaaaaatttttttt. That'sBupkis! 21:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Homestar Ruiner

• Would SBCG4AP be considered a cartoon added on this list? Because it does have a lot of the characteristics of a toon... but it is essentially game, though. Thoughts? --TheYellowDart—(t/c) 20:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dang it. I hate it when this happens. Guys, any thoughts? --TheYellowDart—(t/c) 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When what happens? — It's dot com 23:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I also hate it when we're not sure if something is a toon or not. — Defender1031*Talk 00:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dot com, I mean... occasionally when you ask a question nobody replies and it gets kicked off the Recent Changes and no one reads it for a long time. --TheYellowDart—(t/c) 01:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

Seeing as this article contains more than just all the toons (games, Main Pages, etc.), it should be renamed to encompass everything that's listed. Would Site Updates work? Or Everything? -Brightstar Shiner 20:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like "Site Updates" since this page encompasses more than just the website. "Everything" is too broad. I'm fine with the current All Toons (even though it's a bit of a misnomer) unless something is suggested that's far and away better. — It's dot com 21:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

how about "All Updates"? — Defender1031*Talk 21:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

But it's not all the updates. It omits quotes of the week, news, etc. — It's dot com 21:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we just add the quotes of the week and such? -Brightstar Shiner 21:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that would run too much a list. Further, the quotes and interviews and so on aren' really interactive works, like all the other bits listed here. So, since it includes toons, games, main pages, and other things, perhaps All Works or something might, well, work? --DorianGray 21:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We have pages that list all updates. We have pages that list all quotes. This page culls out all the "real" content: toons, games, videos, and the like. "All Toons, Games, Videos, and the Like" would be more accurate but seems too wordy. — It's dot com 21:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Would Major Updates work? -Brightstar Shiner 21:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How about... ooh: All Toons!! =3 --TheYellowDart—(t/c) 01:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Easter eggs

I wasn't sure how many Easter eggs to put for email thunder. Do we count every single one or just the ones that add to the time? (I went with the former.) Do the separate files for Homestar's emails need to be listed separately? — It's dot com 16:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

id think so -dr savage

I think the separate files don't count as real easter eggs, but listing them under easter eggs is as good an idea as any... — Defender1031*Talk 01:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Put them on, because the other cartoons have separate-page easter eggs listed, so why wouldn't these be?? Religious Corn   20:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] another add

Could we add a screenshot next to each toon? Religious Corn   00:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This page is bulky enough as it is. — Defender1031*Talk 00:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Items removed

This edit moved several things around, and in doing so accidentally removed several items from the list (for example, Main Page 8). I don't have time right now to research and fix it all myself, and there are good parts to the edit that I don't want to just revert, so I'm posting it here so it doesn't get forgotten. — It's dot com 17:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, these items were reinstated with this edit. — It's dot com 03:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] April Fool 09

Should it be on here, or is there a reason not to count it? I've got confused over wiki policies before, so I wouldn't want to mess it up... Flicky1991 18:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? It's a normal toon, even listed on the toons menu. Thy Not Dennis (^t/_c) 18:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DVD SBemails

Greeting Cards and E-mail Birds say they were made before gimmicks. No, they were made after montage, when the dvd came out. Accent says it was made before more armies. No, it was made when the dvd came out. Comic Book Movie REALLY bugs me. It says it was made before SBEmail Disc 5 came out. Who's to say the DVD Emails, or DVDmails, weren't made when the other DVD stuff was made? I'd change it, but I'm bad at editing tables. SBE-mail Checker Dan 01:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

We sort of assumed that the emails were made roughly around the time they look like they're from given Strong Bad's computer and the animation style. Now that you question that assumption I see no reason why you couldn't be entirely correct. We need proof one way or the other. This calls for a full investigation. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 01:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the list is inconsistent. Generally before 2005, the toons are slotted in the list approximately when they are guessed they were made, however, starting with strongbad_email.exe Disc 4, it looks like all the bonus features on the DVD are given the release date of the disc. We should decide for this list which will it be: when the toons made it out into the wild, or when they were roughly made. wbwolf (t | ed) 15:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the date should be the release of the DVD. Guesses about possibilities on when they were made belong in the Fun Facts of the email. At any rate, the table say Release Date at the top. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 17:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Elcool. The table is intended to list the Release Date; I think the creation date is another item altogether.

[edit] Postcards?

What exactly are the postcards? (First Postcard, Second Postcard, etc.) I've searched this wiki for and googled the names of each of them, and I can't find out what they are. Should these items be noted with an asterix and explained at the bottom of the table?

What postcards? --Cass from Germany 04:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Email vacation was released one postcard at a time during several weeks. On the table it's right above where the postcards are mentioned. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 05:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Xeriouxly.

Added Xerioxly Force

Cool. Don't forget to fix it when they move it to its permanent home. — It's dot com 16:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] By month?

I was wondering if someone out there with too much time on their hands could add a column that lists them by month. Or at least make a listof all the toons (at least staring with the weekly updates with sbemail #9) and re-arrange them by month (ie: January 1st toons first and December 31st toons last) and put it on this talk page, so i can copy it to a word doc and then he/she can delete it? thanks! 76.117.11.33 04:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Strong Bad's Message Bored

There seems to be an inaccuracy here regarding the message bored. This page lists the date as 2004, but the description page says it was taken down in 03. Add to that the fact that the tandy mentioned it in 2002. Does anyone know the actual date when the bored was put up so we can fix this? — Defender1031*Talk 22:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The page seems to be going by how far back boredgames.html was archived (January 16, 2004), but bored.swf goes back to June 9, 2003 and the bored itself goes back to March 13, 2002. Certain pages are archived from January 31, 2002, and those pages include bored.swf. Beyond that, I don't know; I first came to the site just after the bored was closed. Possibly the Wednesday after, even! DEI DAT VM^┌_{datvm center}\^{super contra}_┘ 08:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

And this is a great example of why we should not use archive websites to get our date information. They're not accurate. — Defender1031*Talk 10:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems it's been like that since it was first added. — Defender1031*Talk 10:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

[edit] October Surprise

So the page lists the release of Punkin Stencils as October 14, 2004, and links to the current version of the page on the H*R wedsize, which was originally released on that date in the "patch" format and received updates yearly through 2009. But there is an earlier version from October 20, 2003, that, while on a different page, serves basically the same purpose and is covered on the same page on the wiki. Should the listing already on this page be changed to October 20, 2003, or should another listing for the 2003 stencils be made? DEI DAT VM^┌_{datvm center}\^{super contra}_┘ 03:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I've decided to be b— I mean, be bol— I mean, be bold and list the 2003, 2004, 2007 and 2009 Pumpkin Stencils separately, since there are things like Stinkoman 20X6, vacation and Strong Sad's Lament that have multiple installments listed. I've chosen those years' versions because 2003 is the first, 2004 introduced a new format and moved to a different page, 2007 also introduced a different format, and 2009 introduced the Homestar commentary and Devil Homestar Easter egg. Which raises a different question: should the 2005, 2006 and 2008 versions also be listed? DEI DAT VM^┌_{datvm center}\^{super contra}_┘ 00:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

[edit] Three different dates

Most of the time when I've noticed a date that has a mismatch between All Toons, H*R.com updates and the article for the item in question, two agree and one (usually or possibly always All Toons) can be changed to match the other two. Marshie vs. Little Girl‎, however, is the first one I've noticed that has three different dates: Sunday, October 21, 2007 on H*R.CU, Monday, October 22, 2007 on its own dang page, and October 23, 2007|Tuesday on this one. DEI DAT VM^┌_{datvm center}\^{super contra}_┘ 03:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The page was created by me slightly before midnight Central Time on Sunday, even though it was actually almost an hour after midnight Eastern Time. Sunday was the date I put on the updates page, and it seems to have gone unnoticed until now. Someone else put Monday on the toon page, apparently adjusting for the correct time zone. An anonymous user added the toon to this page the following day. They put Tuesday, and like the updates page it's never been changed. They should probably all be Monday. — It's dot com 23:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)