Talk:Hiatuses

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Delete?

I continue to believe that this does not deserve an article. First of all, the Strong Bad Email hiatus section is already covered on Strong Bad Email, and that's where it belongs, not here. As for the current complete hiatus, I don't think there's enough to say. All there is is "the site has been on hiatus since November 2009, with a brief return for April Fool's Day 2010." That's pretty much what it says now, and that's pretty much all the potential it has. If the hiatus ever ends, then it might have a spot on Acknowledged Update Delays, but for now, it does not merit coverage. Delete. Heimstern Läufer 06:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Heimstern here, with same reasons. So, delete as well. ColdReactive 07:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an interesting article. It does not just cover the Strong bad Email hiatus. I think we should keep as of now. MeltingObject 07:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

My comment didn't only address the Sbemail hiatus, either. Heimstern Läufer 14:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

For right now, I would agree that this article doesn't have much information on it. However, the Acknowledge Update Delays page has no information on the current break whatsoever, and Strong Bad Emails only says "They again went on hiatus in October of 2009 and have been since then." I feel that a not insignificant amount of people would come to the wiki to find out about the recent shortage of toons. If we put a few more facts about current projects we know TBC are working on, like Poker Night at the Inventory, I think this might merit its own page, and possibly a main page link as well (to cut down on people posting "Is HR coming back or not?" on talk pages everywhere). Keep. Itama 06:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat what I said at Talk:Main Page#Hiatus page. AUD and this page are entirely different things. The purpose of AUD is to cover instances when, inside of a cartoon, TBC indicate that they know about a delay. This page is, or at least I believe it is, intended to provide fans with information about the delay between major updates. This page could easily be in the HRWiki namespace, and be more aimed at giving users information about the wiki's communication with TBC. I don't think the article as it exists now is up to our standards, but it deserves to exist. -- Super Martyo boing! 06:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

An HRWiki-space page on this is totally fine by me. The problem I have is with us writing an mainspace article that's not about content but rather some attempt to explain a lack of content. We don't really know why the hiatus exists; explaining it with things like Poker Night and the Jim Henson movie are actually speculatory (TBC didn't completely stop making cartoons during SBCG4AP, for example). If we want a page to tell confused fans "Here's what we know about what's going on...", I believe the HRWiki space is the proper place for that. Heimstern Läufer 06:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think from my perspective it could do with a bit more information, but it sums up the hiatuses okay and I think most of us are satisfied. In all honesty I do think there should be a page about the hiatuses and this one is adequate as of now. If there is any information left out that you think is necessary then add it.MeltingObject 18:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Is that addressed at me? If so, I think you've missed my point. I'm not interested in adding information to this article; I believe none of this information is needed in this article, and hence the article itself is not needed. Heimstern Läufer 23:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with moving it to the project namespace, although it would need a more specific title than just "Hiatus[es]". — It's dot com 23:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I, like most everyone here, would like to know what is known about the reason(s) for the current hiatus. I have not learned anything from the current state of this article. User:StrongAwesome74/Hiatus has better content for folks wanting to learn something new about what has been going on while there have not been updates to the site, and if a goodly portion of it was incorporated here, I think we'd get a better quality discussion. Right now, it seems like opinions are limited to, "Delete" vs "this article has potential". I can understand why those of the former opinion do nothing to improve the article.. that makes sense.. but what I don't understand is why people of the latter opinion do nothing to improve the article to show us what its potential is. I'm on the fence; convince me and other fence riders with content, you supporters! =] OptimisticFool 00:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I should clarify that I think the page should be moved and replaced with the "December 2009 to present" section of StrongAwesome's page. We really don't know much more than what's already stated in that section. We have given the Chaps several opportunities to tell us exactly what they're up to if they wanted, but so far they have declined to be specific at all. They've been rather cryptic (which is their right of course). I will say, however, that I get the distinct impression that we should not get our hopes up for a Halloween toon. — It's dot com 00:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the article's deletion, I think it should stay. In terms of the content, it needs heavy revisions. doctorwho295 14 November 2010

I will change my vote to keep. See section four on this talk page. ColdReactive 15:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I just took a look at this article for the first time in a while. My initial reaction is this: it needs to be written more formally and objectively, even if only by a little bit. The first thing that caught my eye was the caption for File:aquashot.png: "How 2011 can be summed up for Homestar Runner". That's uncalled for and it screams whiny to me. This article is too much like an in-depth play-by-play, and less of a concise summary that I think it should be. It focuses more on what hasn't or didn't happen, rather than what has. I don't mean to put a "positive twist" on this subject, that "what has happened" has to talk about the spans where we haven't had updates. This has to change, and I'll step up to the plate to make sure it happens, unless someone can convince me otherwise that it doesn't any any significant changes. Here's a few changes I already have in mind:

• Change some grammar, phrasing, and wording to make it sound more professional and slightly more consistent.
• As with StrongBad74's take on the page, move the length of update delays and their records to their own section.
• For each year, note the dates for each appearance/site update.

—Soiled Bargains ^(talk|ctrb) 18:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. While this hiatus has scared off (sorry for the lack of a better term) many fans, it has become the most important point of discussion to those who are still fans. Even if this page should go, I think there should be, as mentioned above, a HRWIKI-namespace article on the hiatus. We do have HRWiki:Keep your pants on, which addresses when TBC didn't update at the usual time when they were active. I think that page should be rewritten to address this hiatus.

And just incase anyone's wondering: here are my explanations for two of my additions to this article:

You may notice that in "Minor hiatuses", there is a link to a discussion on this Wiki. I know we're not normally supposed to link to discussions in mainspace articles, but it made me laugh how there was so much drama about a hiatus that was short compared to this one.

And the part about the Brothers Chaps not forgetting about Strong Bad Email: I find it hypocritical when someone works on a project, abandons it without saying whether it's finished or not, then a while later, does something that shows they know full well they can continue. RickTommy (edits) 04:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This is Halloween, this is Halloween

May I request that the "No Halloween toon" thing not be added until Tuesday? When the website updated, it almost always updated on Monday. Thus, we're more likely to get a Halloween toon tomorrow than today, if you ask me. Keep on tranglin'. --Jay (Talk) 20:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. We will wait until then, just for you. Homestar-Winner (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

May 24?

This page says that the sbemail hiatus is still ongoing as of 5/24/11. That's TOMORROW. Just curious, but is this wiki entirely run on GMT/UTC? --Raddaluigi 00:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC) --SIDE NOTE: The bottom of the page says it was last modified in April. Weird.

That's correct. Release dates of cartoons are UTC-5 (UTC-4 during DST) b/c that's what time zone TBC live in (which is rarely important, but it has had some significance). but otherwise, the dates are just like your timestamp. And about the last modified date: there is a CURRENTDATE template on the page to display whatever date the system thinks today is. The Knights Who Say Ni 01:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

New Page?

I think the 2010-2011 hiatus should get it's own page on the wiki. -- Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 14:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, because the content for that hiatus is still too small, as evidence on this page. However, expansion is not required, as this page gets the job done. ColdReactive 15:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)