Talk:All Toons

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Contents 1 Format 2 Title 3 Watch link 4 Chronological Order 5 formating of an estimated date

Format

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

Toon	Release Date
The Homestar Runner Enters the Strongest Man in the World Competition	1996
Email the chair	December 4, 2006

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)

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)

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)

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 indepently 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)

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)