Talk:More Fan Costumes

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Huskiness)
(Huskiness)
Line 132: Line 132:
Personally, I think the reason Strong Bad refers to "his" head as husky is because the pinata is so large, so I don't think he's actually referring to his own physical head when he says "husky." (Similar to how, in the first picture, he says he's stretching out his head, for a picture where his head is slightly elongated.) [[User:Spell4yr|Spell4yr]] 04:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I think the reason Strong Bad refers to "his" head as husky is because the pinata is so large, so I don't think he's actually referring to his own physical head when he says "husky." (Similar to how, in the first picture, he says he's stretching out his head, for a picture where his head is slightly elongated.) [[User:Spell4yr|Spell4yr]] 04:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
: Strong Bad actually DOES refer to his own head as "husky" in [[modeling]] once he realizes that having a husky head may have associated perks. Anyway, "husky" in reference to heads isn't exactly common. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 04:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
: Strong Bad actually DOES refer to his own head as "husky" in [[modeling]] once he realizes that having a husky head may have associated perks. Anyway, "husky" in reference to heads isn't exactly common. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 04:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
-
:: That's not what the fact says, though. And I still contend that he's personifying the costumes, at most, but not referring to himself. I'm not denying that the fact is valid, I just think it needs some serious rewording.
+
:: That's not what the fact says, though. And I still contend that he's personifying the costumes, at most, but not referring to himself. I'm not denying that the fact is valid, I just think it needs some serious rewording. [[User:Spell4yr|Spell4yr]] 04:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:20, 9 November 2005

Contents

WTH?

What is with More Fan Costumes? It's not comming up at all. --Image:Skunklogo.gif(U)(T)(C) 01:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

They must have taken it off the site: The flash file's gone. --Color Printer 01:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Um, it's still working for me. —AbdiViklas 01:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
You've probably got it cashed. I wish they'd hurry, I gotta go out in 40 minutes. Thunderbird 01:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Works for me. 20XGlitch(Fanstuff Wiki User)

It works for me--Not signed in'd!

I'm not getting anything.

Are you using the links in the article? —BazookaJoe 02:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes

Not working for me either. And please get an account, mr. annonomousman. — talk Bubsty edits 03:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it's not working! The good times are over! Anyway, I tried clearing my caches and it still didn't help, although it did get the link to appear on the main page (but the swf is just as 404'd as ever.) Rocketlex 05:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Works now! — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 20:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Under the Table and Editing

Are we going to give Fan Costume Commentary the same table treatment? I like it, but the two should be handled the same way. —AbdiViklas 03:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I would do it myself, but my crappy computer won't let me upload images. *sigh* *sniff*. — talk Bubsty edits 03:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
VC in the place, gonna rock your face! Don't worry, I have come to the rescue. Check out my masterpiece!. That's right, I did that all! Me! By myself! I rule! I rule Hyrule! Hey, that rhymes! Oh well, who cares? I did it all! --VolatileChemical 06:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Nice work, VC! See the appropriate comment I left on your talk page. —THE PAPER PREEEOW 06:50

Pictures

I just uploaded all the pics from number 2 on. They are all under the name Morefancostumes2, Morefancostumes3, Morefancostumes4, Morefancostumes5, Morefancostumes6, Morefancostumes7, and so on. I would put them in myself, but I don't understand the format. -- DBK! 03:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, you missed a couple, as I discovered when I tried to add them... --Jay v.2024 (Auld lang syne) 03:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
If you look at recent changes, they are all there. You just have to scroll down a little. -- DBK! 03:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Guess again. You missed the two where the piñata is about to be hit, and after it's hit. --Jay v.2024 (Auld lang syne) 03:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh... sorry. I am sick, so cut me some slack. I'll upload them though. -- DBK! 03:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There you go, Jay. Sorry about that. -- DBK! 03:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

We appreciate you uploading those images, DBK. However, I had to recapture them due to the large size and pixelated compression artifacts that resulted. Apparently I'm just a perfectionist through and through. Thanks for your efforts nevertheless! —THE PAPER PREEEOW 06:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Having these pictures on the wiki is a clear copyright violation. They need to be removed. TBC have permission to use them, we do not. - Dr Haggis - Talk 19:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean just because they depict fans? Or because they constitute the bulk of the H*R page? If it's the latter, I have been saying this for a while now. In addition, we have a collection of Weekly Fanstuff. The answer to all these questions would have an effect on Fan Costume Commentary, as well. — It's dot com 19:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree It's dot com. I'd argue that we can leave the Weekly Fanstuff ones, since those are no longer accessible from the site, but I agree with you on Where My Hat Is At?, Original Book, and the two Fan Costumes articles. In fact, the previous version of the Fan Costume Commentary article worked very well. -- Tom 19:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Would the Strumstar Hammer article fit into this too? --DorianGray
I say yes; I further argue that that page doesn't need to exist at all, since it's simply taking a segment of kid's book and giving it its own page. —AbdiViklas 02:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Although the original arguement holds ground here, the fact that it's only a segment of an email doesn't really matter, as we have pages for small single-email things all over the place. - Joshua 02:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

From the Legal page:

Submissions
Any e-mails, notes, message/bulletin board/forum postings, ideas, suggestions, concepts or other material submitted will become the property of H*R throughout the universe. H*R shall be entitled, consistent with our policies regarding privacy, to use the material or any of its elements for any type of use forever, including in any media whether now known or hereafter devised. When you submit material to H*R's web site, you agree that H*R has the right to publish or otherwise use the material or any of its elements for any type of use, including promotional and advertising purposes, subject to H*R's policies regarding privacy.

I'm not exactly sure what this means for us, but I do think we may need to take these pictures down. small_logo.pngUsername-talk 20:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, but how are having pictures here any different than having pictures for everything else? Isn't every single frame in a cartoon copywrited? - Joshua 20:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, TBC know and approve of this wiki's existance, while we've done things like this for a long time. Don't you think if TBC were going to take legal action, they would already have? - Joshua
Screenshots are deemed fair use. See Template:web-screenshot. Of course, we can't just take screenshots of every frame of a toon, because that wouldn't be fair use. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information. -- Tom 20:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is all copyrighted. We skirt the issue by only using a frame or two from each toon as a representative example, to use in our "encyclopedia". But when we reproduce nearly the entire work, as on the pages listed on Tom's post up there, I think we've definitely crossed the line. Our site is to supplement H*R. As long as we do that, I think TBC will see us as benefiting them. But when we start trying to replace their site, I think we could get in trouble. The last thing we would want to do would be to make them mad. Why give them a reason to want to take legal action? — It's dot com 20:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Very good It's dot com.
In regards to our regular screenshots, not the images questioned in this article or similar articles, I believe we can rely on the fair use doctrine of United States copyright law [1] wherein as long as we take into consideration
  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
for our purposes (such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research), is not an infringement of copyright.
Anyway, read the whole fair use article and tell me what you think. Oh, and this FAQ might help as well. -- Tom 20:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I think points 3 and 4 apply here. We are reproducing nearly the entire work. The only thing missing is the sound, but even that is transcribed. To experience these pages, you do not even need to go to H*R.com, which means you're probably not going to the H*R store, either. — It's dot com 20:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I understand. Does this mean we need to take down all mirrors? (except for content no longer on the site) - Joshua 20:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Where do we have mirrors posted for stuff that is on the site? — It's dot com
Marshmallow's Last Stand (toon) and A Jumping Jack Contest. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 20:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
MLS and JJC aren't on the site, though. Also, I agree with the whole thing. To quote Phil from the Bonus Stage episode, The NYE, "This is not fair use!" --DorianGray
Whoops. I thought Dot Com said Where we used them when they weren't on the site. Yeah, those are one of the few exceptions to the rule. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 21:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, we don't, but we link to sites that do. - Joshua 21:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
But where do we link to mirror sites for things you can find on the official site? — It's dot com
We don't. But we support these copyright-infringing sites by drawing traffic to them. But if that doesn't matter, I don't care. - Joshua

For all us "Unable To See"ers

Would it be possible for the Wiki, at least until this whole deal is sorted out, to have a limk to a mirror of this toon? It would only have to be temporary, and it would really help people like me who, try as we might, just can't see the dang thing. (Sorry if this type of thing is frowned upon at the wiki. I'm new...) Rocketlex 05:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, Rocketlex. For now, you can access this feature (the Flash file) at the following mirror: [2] Hope that helps! —THE PAPER PREEEOW 05:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey, thanks a bunch! That was great! Rocketlex 05:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


Some New Hotness

You know, I always thought that people who watched this webtoon were like me; single skinny computer nerds with too much free time on their hands. However, the Hot Homestar costume gives me hope for the future. Please, if you're a hot girl, stand up and be counted. Then send me your phone number, measurements and a picture of you in the Hot Homestar outfit. -JesseLangham

Same for hot guys, but in a SB costume, and send it to me. --אוקאלייליי (Ookelaylay)
The hot ones might watch H*R but they don't come to the wiki, can't even spell wiki. I R F 21:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know that 1. I don't exist and 2. I'm not hot. :p Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 23:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm a girl, but I'm seriously NOT hot. At all. Actually, more people are into Homestar than you might think. Not hot

Is this discussion really necessary? Maybe it could be on the forums, but I don't think it's relevant to the Wiki, and implying that people are "hot" and "not hot" could offend people. Heimstern Läufer 23:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Second. And Kiwi, if you're between the ages of 13 and 19, chances are you're more attractive than you think. As a middle school teacher, it saddens me first of all that students' physical appearance is the number 1 determiner of their self image, and secondly that they consistently form such negative estimations of it. I don't think I've ever known anyone under 30 with an overinflated sense of their own appearance; that tends to come only after male pattern balding. —AbdiViklas 01:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yah, sadly I'm the stereotype Jesse gave- single, skinny, nothing (if you catch my drift;I AM female),computer nerd, and WAY too much time on my hands since there's no Auxillary in our school's band anymore.--אוקאלייליי (Ookelaylay)PS-That is probably an over-inflation, would you like to see a photo?

Hotness 1.5

Hubba-wha? Is the girl on the right of the Hot Homestar picture dressed up as something, or just some random hot girl? --Annony Etc.

I don't think she's in a Homestar Runner costume. But if she was, she'd probably be Hot Girl Number 37. -- Tom 00:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

HUH?HUH?HUH?HUH?HUH?HUH? *KABOOM* (Head Explodes in Cheat-sytle way) Whoa, now that girl is what I call HOT!-- Everybody!

Same kid as in fanstuff?

The "baby bursting out of The Cheat" is constantly described as having had appeared in the Weekly Fanstuff... but it's CLEARLY not the same picture (just look at them to confirm that) and I'm not even sure it's the same kid. Even if it is the same kid, can we really say that for certain? Thoughts? --Jay v.2024 (Auld lang syne) 03:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, to me, it clearly is. As far as I know, they don't make commercial Cheat costumes, and the costume sure looks like the same one to me. It's the one on the left, of course. With the chef-like hat. The kid's just kneeling in the Fanstuff pic. And costumes like that always has little hand holes that you can pull over your hand. I think it is the same one. --DorianGray
I know it's supposed to be the one on the left. I didn't say that it's clearly not the same kid (it very well could be), I said that it's clearly not the same picture. --Jay v.2024 (Auld lang syne) 03:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, not the same pic. But it's the same costume and kid, that's all I'm trying to say. It's just a different shot. --DorianGray
Maybe. But can we say that for certain? --Jay v.2024 (Auld lang syne) 03:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
It's more likely than not, I think. I know when I take pictures of costumes and things, I take more than one shot and pose. --DorianGray
But this is kinda falling into the realm of speculation now, and speculation isn't really favored on Wikis, I'm afraid (well, there are times... blasted Family Guy nonsense...) --Jay v.2024 (Auld lang syne) 03:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The baby looks a little different, but I think that costume is the same costume. The chest hair thingy on the front, the spots that we can see, the hat are all the same. And since these things are one-of-a-kind homemade originals, I'd think it's the same kid. -- Tom 03:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I think we can be certain it's the same costume. If not, there are two identical ones. See the chin tuft and everything else mentioned above. If anything, it's not the same baby, but there's no reason to think that. And looking closely, it certainly could be the same baby. The one in Fanstuff appears rosier, but the whole photo has more red tone than the Fan Costume one (maybe doctored). If it's not the same kid, we're forced into the extreme speculations that someone photographed two babies in the same costume, or that identical costumes were created. Occam's razor. —AbdiViklas 03:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... perhaps, but I'm still skeptical. Maybe due to the poor picture quality of this page's baby, but it just looks like there's some difference in the material or a few spots (the few we can confirm between the two.) If we're going to keep it, can we at least change the wording? --Jay v.2024 (Auld lang syne) 03:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, comparing the better version on the website instead of this site, the costume does look a lot closer (though the Fanstuff one is still darker and redder as previously mentioned.) --Jay v.2024 (Auld lang syne) 04:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Weird. The costume looks very similar, but the kid looks very different. Great, now I'm confused... - Joshua 04:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Huskiness

Personally, I think the reason Strong Bad refers to "his" head as husky is because the pinata is so large, so I don't think he's actually referring to his own physical head when he says "husky." (Similar to how, in the first picture, he says he's stretching out his head, for a picture where his head is slightly elongated.) Spell4yr 04:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Strong Bad actually DOES refer to his own head as "husky" in modeling once he realizes that having a husky head may have associated perks. Anyway, "husky" in reference to heads isn't exactly common. --Jay v.2024 (Auld lang syne) 04:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
That's not what the fact says, though. And I still contend that he's personifying the costumes, at most, but not referring to himself. I'm not denying that the fact is valid, I just think it needs some serious rewording. Spell4yr 04:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Personal tools