Talk:If I Ran the Camera

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 22:12, 31 March 2016 by (Talk)
(diff) ← Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Copied from Talk:Secret Pages.

I was just poking around the Wayback Machine and I found this. It doesn't seem to be on the current site and my computer is weird about some of the wayback archives. Can anybody get it to work? --mibluvr13dígame 15:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No good, the wayback machine never stored the swf. Aurora the Homestar Coder 15:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Aw man! I guess we'll never know what it was... --mibluvr13dígame 15:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If we ignore the stuff that the Wayback Machine added to the source, we get this: (Yes, I know we're not supposed to use the <pre> tag anymore, but it works better for page sources):


<TITLE>If I Ran the Camera</TITLE>
<BODY bgcolor="#000000">
<!-- URL's used in the movie-->
<!-- text used in the movie-->
<!--If I Ran the Camera (Ws . TÃ O ,h(YC?S   gO j… !  w "If I ran the camera for the movies today, Things would be different," said young Astrid Renee. The special effects and all that kind of stuff That they show on the screen is not quite good enough. You can see stuff like that in just any old flick, But you'd see something different if I made a pic. Of course, I'd need helpers and the first to be hired Would be my Grandpa Chapman (after all, he's retired). My Grandpa Chapman is one of my very best friends, So I know he won't mind doing some small odds and ends. producer "What my movie needs first," pondered Astrid Renee "Is a solid foundation, one heck of a screenplay." And my Grandpa Chapman is just the guy who can write it Why I'll bet he can even cast it, produce it and light it! screenplay by don chapman With the story all settled the next thing to do Is to find a location to set up my film crew. Some place exotic,  some place never seen Some place that looks stupendous  up on the big screen. The jungles of Prance  or the mountains of Prut Or maybe the River of Brigger-ba-Root Yes, that's it! My film will be set on a boat As down the Brigger-ba-Root my cast and crew float When the crew is all set and the river is Brigger-ba Rooting Then will be just the perfect time to finally start shooting And who better to capture every last detail? Why my Grandpa Chapman, he just can't fail. When the shooting is done, then it will be time to edit And my Grandpa Chapman is the guy who'll get that credit. When my film's in the can, folks will come from far and near To rub elbows with me at my movie's big premiere ASTRID'S BIG PREMIERE Then I'll have to embark on a long publicity tour And after that, I'll need a spa vacation for sure. After all, making movies takes a lot outta me… But I'll be sure to thank my Grandpa Chapman  When I thank the Academy.  sl?C ,OAC! 'j    �…w" 'M     the!.… aGydÿPC…!bbqG the end --><center><OBJECT classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000"
 WIDTH=550 HEIGHT=400>
 <PARAM NAME=movie VALUE="ifiranthecamera.swf"> <PARAM NAME=quality VALUE=high> <PARAM NAME=bgcolor VALUE=#FFFFFF> <EMBED src="ifiranthecamera.swf" quality=high bgcolor=#FFFFFF  WIDTH=550 HEIGHT=400 TYPE="application/x-shockwave-flash" PLUGINSPAGE=""></EMBED>

<script language="JavaScript">

function SymError()
  return true;

window.onerror = SymError;

var SymRealWinOpen =;

function SymWinOpen(url, name, attributes)
  return (new Object());
} = SymWinOpen;


Very long, but from what I can guess, it appears to be a kids' poem. Note the use of "Grandpa Chapman" throughout. Unless she's the Little Girl, I have no idea who "Astrid Renee" is. --videlectrix.pngENUSY discussionitem_icon.gif user.gifmail_icon.gif, 11:21, 25 June 2005 (BST)

Here's a quick solution to your If I ran the camera questions which I am also dying to know about: Email TBC and ask about it. --Darklinkskywalker 23:10, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

E-mail sent, awaiting reply... --—Darklinkskywalker|Talk_|i did this stuff_

She is the daughter of The Brothers Chaps' sister and brother-in-law. I don't know if it has already been resolved or figured out, but I wish to note this. — Lapper (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

uuuh... there is an article in the Wiki about this... 03:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this conversation is several years old. --DorianGray 03:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Research

I know it's not much, but I found two forum posts that referenced the toon: [1] and [2]. Also, I wasn't sure how obvious this was, but the Internet Archive made the copy of the source on Nov. 12, 2002. That might help in further research attempts. -- Tom 23:45, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flash File!

Dwedit found the Flash file! (See external links) - KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(t)(c)(r)

Yeah, I had that on my computer ever since I noticed that the WS_FTP.LOG file was wide open, so I downloaded every file from the site at that time. How I found the WF_FTP.LOG file? I was looking in /menuswfs, and got a directory listing, and there was a nice big conspicuous WS_FTP.LOG file sitting in that folder. I posted the taryngame.swf link onto, then blabbed about the ftp log on some other message board. Someone else also might have found it at the same time, since I heard about it on comments as well. So I saw that this page said "the swf file is lost to the ages", laughed, then uploaded the file on my comcast webspace. Just contributing my share... TBC, please don't sue me.--Dwedit 05:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Erm... sorry, but I can't exactly find the link to the flash file. Where is it?

spywaremagnet 9:28 AM, November 30 2005

[edit] Fun Fact

The fun fact you added isn't really needed, as it's mentioned in the description. - Joshua

Whoops! Sorry about that - Volbeat A The Cheat 08:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grandpa

Now that we have the Flash file, we can confirm it is the Brothers Chaps' father. If you look when "young Astrid Renee" has a stack of papers, the top one reads "Screenplay by Don Chapman". That proves it, don't it? --DorianGray

If this is true (which I believe, if we know Don is their father) then that means that-- wait. Do the two Chapmans have any siblings? Mike and Matt? They have to, because of the Little Girl, because that would prove that the little girl is the girl here. --SaltyTalk! 03:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The Brothers Chaps#Family says they have three other siblings. Until we know that two of them don't have daughters, that means there's no way to know for sure it is her. —AbdiViklas 04:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
My point, though, stands that we do know who the Grandpa is: Don Chapman. I just don't know where to put it in the article. --DorianGray
And I like how it looks now. Nice way of putting it. --DorianGray
Now with "Other Little Girl", it's opened a whole 'nother confuzzery. Thunderbird 22:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the Brothers Chaps saw we found this and added the new Little Girl, just to confuse us. --DorianGray
I bet at least two of their 3 siblings have daughters. My theory: One sibling had the first little girl, the blond one who is most likely Astrid Renee. Another sibling had the Other Little Girl, who is only in the new Puppet toon. Either of them couldd be Astrid, though. --SaltyTalk! 03:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I tend to think that the Other Little Girl is a friend's daughter, since she lacks the Family Resemblence to the Chapos that Little Girl has, but of course, Other Little Girl could still be related. Count me as a vote towards Little Girl as Astrid. —Zelinda 03:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
You know what guys? After further reflection, I'm flip flopping my interest in checking this out. TBC are somewhat protective of information about themselves, choosing to appear only in the DVDs, and are obviously not going out of their way to make information on their extended family easily accessible. I'd like to respect that; the fact that it involves minors brings even more privacy issues into it. We can speculate privately, but I think the less talk the better. —AbdiViklas 03:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy

From the wiki article: "It was removed from the site sometime in 2003, after the Brothers Chaps realized that fans had unearthed the secret page."

My interpretation of this is that this movie was never meant for the public eye, and that they didn't really want us to see it... Isn't it extremely rude and not-real-fan-like to mirror it here? — (Talk | contribs) 07:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC) (left unsigned)

That line seems very speculative, but when it was added Mibluvr13 mentioned doing some research. I'll ask where she got her info on her user talk page. -- Tom 10:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The only sources I had were a few forum posts, so obviously, they're not very authoritative. It was last October, so I don't know exactly where I got that, but I did manage to find a post on this page that said "It was about some baby and Strong Dad but The Chaps took it down when they found out people were looking through the files." I might have gotten it from that. Take that part off if you want, but I've always found If I Ran the Camera to be a touchy subject to begin with. —Zelinda 00:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
This wasn't meant for our eyes, this is a total invasion of their privacy. Let's have some courtesy and take this down, especially after their dad died. Don't be rabid, zealous Homestar freaks bent on disecting the entire site. Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)
Dartha Katana X, thank you for once again for taking what we do here and turning it into a demeaning one sentence statement. I've warned you before about putting us down every chance that you get, and this time you've taken it too far by bringing such a sensitive topic into it. I'm restricting your editing privileges for one month, and I hope you take that time to grow up a little. I know full well that you take pride in getting attention for talking down to us and being as abrasive as possible. Here's a suggestion: be a nicer guy and people will give you more than attention—they'll give you respect. -- Tom 01:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
How mature. That just proves that you're only intent on getting your hands on any information you can, even if it means potentially offending The Brothers Chaps, and then you accuse me of being the one bringing up a "sensitive topic." So, Tom, which matters more to you, your site or two real people? Whoops, I guess you're just gonna ban me for another month (or perhaps forever) because I asked you a question that you don't want to answer. Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)
Hey there Darth Katana X! Good to see you back. See, the thing is, the two choices you present me aren't based on fact, and they really boil down to being a false dilemma (with a little poisoning of the well thrown in there at the end). We do not know that The Brothers Chaps would be offended by this article. That's your assumption. We do not speculate about the opinions of The Brothers Chaps. You also make some pretty serious assumptions about my motives too. If we were contacted by The Brothers Chaps and asked to take down this article, we would without any hesitation. We aren't heartless, and you shouldn't assume that we are.
This site is not mine, not any more than it is yours. This is a community driven site where we all work together. And that community has deemed that the article is worth keeping, and unless we receive word from The Brothers Chaps that they would like us to remove it, it stays.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to remind you that you are walking a very fine line, and I advise you to be cautious, because any deviation by you from our policies and guidelines will result in serious repercussions.
Take care, and welcome back. -- Tom 06:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tom. We shouldn't speculate regarding how they feel, in fact most of what they have said about the Wiki thusfar has been very positive. Unless they say something in the future about this page, there is no reason to take it down based on speculation. Thunderbird 06:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I'm being welcomed back, and my head hasn't been freshly chewed off? Cool. All right, but we should still think about taking it down. It isn't really worth having up anyway since it doesn't benefit the site. Too bad I have male PMS. Because now I feel like a (insert your favorite expletive here), but I also feel like being a more compassionate person. Weird. Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)
Welcome back. You shouldn't be surprised. A cursory look over the recent edits shows a lot of positive input here, and that yields positive interactions. As far as this page goes, it seems we are thinking about its status, and we shall continue to do so. Be prepared for concensus to differ from your opinion, as so often happens to me. I've had male PMS for about 6 months now, and yes it can be frustrating to see things go in a direction we disagree with, but the trick is to say your piece like a man and take the result like a man. (Lady-types, you can instead take it like a "woman".) Avoid the temptation to assume "victory" or "defeat" when your suggestions aren't accepted: if the concensus of the wiki is served, it is a victory. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 09:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back, Darth Katana X. It's good to have a man with a good sense of humor stay on the wiki, even after having to neglect it for a month. Yeah, I totally agree with Tom. Yes, it would seem that TBC wouldn't like us seeing this, but they do keep a close eye on us. After all, we document every single thing they ever made in Homestar Runner. :P I can safely say they know full well we're doing this, and if they haven't requested anything yet, then we should keep it. You can't assume their feelings, even if their feelings seem obvious to you. Also, try not to assume the worst from everything; I've seen far-too-many quotes that sound depressing and almost unwanting of the people around you. For example: "Wow, I'm being welcomed back, and my head hasn't been freshly chewed off?" "Whoops, I guess you're just gonna ban me for another month (or perhaps forever) because I asked you a question that you don't want to answer." The people around you are nice—and I don't think Tom, or anyone else, really hates you—people are blocked everyday, but the important thing is to stay mature and respectful toward the people who blocked you. They always have a good reason for what they do. — Seriously (Talk) 11:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's probably OK to keep this page, but a month seems a bit long to be blocked for disagreeing. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 13:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Except that wasn't the only reason. Given that the block is up—and that this talk page is for discussing the article, not a user—I think it would be best just to move on already. — It's dot com 13:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there were similar things like this before, yes, but still. I'm not saying that the vandalism I did in the past was right, but I will say that it was largely because of this sort of thing. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 13:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're not suggesting that that's supposed to excuse it. Agressive, systematic, sustained vandalism is abominable in any context. — It's dot com 13:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
But there's no reason to encourage it, and that's exactly what this sort of thing does. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 14:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Please. People are responsible for their own actions. — It's dot com 14:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course they are, but that doesn't mean the admins should encourage vandalism. Surely it's better for everyone if fewer users want to vandalize. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 14:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Neither I nor any other admin have ever encouraged anyone to vandalize. We do our best to present calm, logical discussions. How people respond to that is completely up to them. If someone is not mature enough to find an alternate way to get their point across and thus resorts to vandalism, then that's their problem, not ours. — It's dot com 14:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure none of the admins have ever deliberately encouraged vandalism, and you're right, they/you are good about presenting calm, logical discussions, but such a draconian measure as a month-long block for what Darth did is kinda asking for it. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 14:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like it was very long to me, especially given that the attitude of the blocked user had not changed at the outset of this morning's discussion. A month might seem like a long time in Internet time, but it's a lot less than a year, or indefinite. No matter what the length of the block, we will not be swayed by the threat of vandalism, no matter how much one thinks we are "asking for it". — It's dot com 14:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
His attitude? That's kind of my point. He was blocked for a month because he disagreed with the admins and didn't keep his opinion to himself. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 14:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Please understand, he was not blocked for disagreeing with admins per se. It's true that there were admins in the group of users he disagreed with, but he was blocked for being unwilling to help reach consensus and then follow it once it was established. No one is ever required to keep an opinion quiet, even if it goes against the majority. What we won't tolerate, however, is someone belligerently assuming that their dissenting opinion is and can be the only correct one and then going on to state their opinion in as many offensive ways as possible. — It's dot com 14:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK, users that included admins. It prolly didn't help that the group of said users included admins. Anyway, the only even slightly offensive thing in his first post here was the comment about zealous Homestar freaks, which was pretty minor indeed. A reprimand, perhaps, but a block, let alone a month-long block? With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 14:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody ever said that he was blocked for this talk page alone. In fact, we've said the exact opposite. — It's dot com 14:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know there were some other times. Still... With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 15:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't just the post above, (in which the most offensive part was bringing up Don Chapman's passing and using it as a lever, not the "rabid, zealous Homestar freaks" comment), and also the long campaign he went on at Talk:Visor Robot, and a couple of other places too. The post above was merely the last straw, as far as the admin team were concerned. --phlip TC 15:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You mean the discussion in which the consensus weighed in Darth's favor (even some admins agreed with him) and he got frustrated when nothing happened, because a few higher-ranking admins disagreed with the consensus? With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 15:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
No, we mean the discussion where he was combative, where he uploaded an image accusing us of routinely making up information and calling it canon, and where he used a term for that action that was found offensive by other users. This is not to mention the near-continuous putting down of the wiki, his involvement with it, and its admins. This goes to show that it really doesn't matter whether or not someone is correct if the way they present their ideas causes others not to listen. — It's dot com 15:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

He could have been more polite there, yes, but he was basically right. I should think the community should be able to decide on substance over style (not to mention that the consenus was in his favor anyway, not that it mattered). That ties in with my earlier point, actually; if admins are going to use their adminship to override consensus (especially when common sense is against them), they shouldn't be very surprised when a non-admin gets combative. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 15:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

But the consensus wasn't in his favour. He was insistant on moving Visor Robot to Fhqwhgads Robot, and very few other people where. Attempts at compromise that left it at Visor Robot (like my adding "Though he has never been officially named..." to the article, which, admittedly, should have been there already) fell on deaf ears. The idea of a merge to Robots was considered a good idea by some and a bad idea by others – that's not a consensus in either direction – a consensus is where nearly everyone agrees, or is at least happy to live with it (as opposed to a majority in which the people who want it simply outweigh the people that don't). And "common sense" is subjective – Darth thinks it's common sense for the page to use the only name mentioned on the site, I think it's common sense for the page to not use a name for a character that predates the name (Visor Robot was introduced before i love you). Both of these opinions stem from "common sense", so you can't use it as an objective standpoint. --phlip TC 16:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Has content been removed from the talkpage? When I read that discussion, I saw that, perhaps not a consensus, but a substantial majority, agreed with Darth. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 16:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Nothing's been removed... this is a diff of all edits after Darth's last on that page. What you might be remembering as agreement was the fact that everyone agreed that "Visor Robot" was not the character's name. What was disagreed about was whether this was a problem that needed to be fixed. --phlip TC 16:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm talking about the agreement that Visor Robot shouldn't be the name of the article. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 16:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
As Phlip has pointed out, that issue is still under discussion. It's really beside the point here, though, because regardless of one's stand on any particular issue and the underlying validity of that stand, one must take into account that the method of one's presentation can have consequences. That's just the way the world works, and this wiki is no exception in that regard. To draw an analogy, at the end of Liar Liar, Jim Carrey's character was correct in saying that his client had won on an unimportant technicality and that it was therefore likely a miscarriage of justice, but he was nevertheless held in contempt for the way he yelled it at the judge. — It's dot com 16:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but sometimes you have to yell to get your point across. To draw an analogy, look at any protest/demonstration. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 17:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, dude. Violent or unruly demonstrations are a waste of time. You'll either be ignored or doused with pepper spray. People might even take the opposite view from you just as a reaction. On the other hand, peaceful, uplifting demonstrations often have lasting, positive impacts. — It's dot com 17:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about violent demonstrations, but whatever. This has become a waste of our time. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 17:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for accusing me of "using Don Chapman's passing as a lever," Phlip. Shows how much you know. That leaves a particularly bad taste in my mouth because there are some people out there who actually would do something like that (I won't go into any further detail). Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)
Avtually, that whole comment shows how much you know. phlip (I prefer using his name with a lowercase p, as that's what is in his sig) was completely right. Maybe you didn't mean to, but yes, you definitely used it as a lever. Now can we please drop this discussion? If you insist on continuing it, please move this to your talk page. — Seriously (Talk) 00:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Do I smell a hint of hypocrisy from the admins here? It's OK for the admins to accuse Darth of taking advantage of Don Chapman's death, but it's terrible for him to say that this article is an invasion of the Chaps' privacy? Oh, and I think I already mentioned that I disagree with Darth (if they didn't want anyone to see it, why did they stick it on in the first place?), so if his comments are such horrible blanket insults of everyone with a different opinion, why do I not feel insulted? Oh, right, it's because they aren't. Silly me! With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 00:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
There's a difference between shamelessly using it as a lever and just pointing out that it such circumstances might make them more likely to dislike an invasion of their privacy (although, as I said, I don't really have a problem with this article). With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 00:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, Tom's apostles don't like what I have to say. But they have it coming because they know I'm right. Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)
Please, Granola. I'ma repeat this one more time: Darth Katana X was blocked for more than just this. So please, just stop talking in this discussion. Now. It's over, we've said all we've needed to say. You're just repeating yourself. — Seriously (Talk) 00:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Man, you're starting to make me laugh because of your arrogance. Please, stop before I spit my water out. — Seriously (Talk) 00:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I just hate seeing draconian-ally (not a word, but oh well) long blocks for such minor things. Even worse was when you were blocked for a week for something that was Ciberdude's fault. I could go on and on, but I won't.. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 00:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Darth's comments here have gotten increasingly arrogant. But notice how that was after he had already been unfairly blocked etc. With crap, Yeltensic (T C) 00:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
How sad. I have seen political elections with more respect for each other. "Tom's apostles"? "They know I am right"? Your logic is quite impressive. Darth Katana X, this is your final warning. If you insult the admins, or any other user for that matter, you will be banned again. Now, I doubt that some of you remember what this entire section is about. I am fine with the transcript here, but I wouldn't mind seeing the link go. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 00:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I find it deliciously ironic and hypocritical that I was banned for pointing out that this is something the Brothers Chaps more than likely didn't want anyone to see and that on top of that a certain happening makes it even worse. The reason? For bringing up a sensitive issue! A ha! You're the ones bringing it up! Just had to get that off my chest. Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif) 10:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't why you were banned. If TBC wanted us to take this down, all they would have to do is ask, and they know it. However, the author (Karen Wagner) has actually taken credit for writing it and has provided us with background information. That hardly seems like something that they'd do if they wanted it gone. — It's dot com 16:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Visuals Article for If I Ran the Camera?

Sorry for disturbing your nine-year slumber, forum, but I think this article needs a sub-article with it. We've described a recent cartoon, Record Store Day, so it kind of makes me wonder why we never added a see-for-yourself aid to If I Ran the Camera. If someone is already working on that, I'd like to thank them in advance.

Sorry that we didn't go for ten years,
XY 8:57 PM EST, March 11th, 2016

That's a good idea. We should do that. (By the way, you should creat a montage an account. Then you can have a userpage and a signature and stuff.) Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 03:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
But one, this is a side project; two, it can easily go in the transcript. And on a side note, you misused "forum". RickTommy (edits) 06:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I still think it should be a separate article. Why not even try it? XY 8:17 AM EST, March 11th, 2016
It should not. They are still frame images and a separate visuals article is only done for music videos. — Defender1031*Talk 13:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Looking back at Record Store Day, I suddenly agree with you. Despite the album covers all being still images, they still have noticeable transitions added to them. I've changed my mind to it being a part of the transcript. Let's see what the peoples can do, and if I want, I'll come back to edit some things I think are necessary.
XY 6:43 PM EST, March 11th, 2016
DeFender: On the subject of whether the visuals should be transcribed at all, I think the only precedents we have in this format are the original books and the Museum pages, and even then, those aren't poems. Personally I don't see any harm in transcribing the visuals (and it's a must if we are going for completeness), but it hasn't really been done before. -- ■■   PURPLE  WRENCH   ■■ 23:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
It's been a while. Why haven't we gotten to adding to the article? Did we need to attend others' services? We need to do this sooner or later.
XY 5:52 PM EST, March 31st, 2016
Again, we don't do visuals articles for stuff like this. — Defender1031*Talk 21:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not wanting a separate article for the visuals anymore. We could just interpret it with the article itself. There ARE visuals after all. How else can we describe them? We can't say they're not there.
XY 6:12 AM EST, March 31st, 2016
Personal tools