Talk:All Toons

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 20:05, 24 November 2008 by Religious Corn (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

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) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 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)
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)

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)

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. ExampleLoafing 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) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 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) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 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.Image:Stinkwing.gif »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) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 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) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 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) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 00:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
so moved I R F 15:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 03:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)
Personal tools