Talk:Mystery Science Theater 3000

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 20:52, 18 January 2010

Keep?

"Rando" looks too generic to me. There's only one clear reference. Besides, even if "Rando" is a MST3K reference, that's still only two. We don't make pages for everything that has been mentioned twice, do we? --Jay (Talk) 22:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, and TBC have a knack for taking a few letters out of words to make ones that are about the same, so "rando" probably isn't a reference. If there is any support to keep this page, then we also need to clean it up. The page (no offense, creator) looks just awful. DevonM(talk·cont-ribs) 22:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless there are more refs, this page isn't really a keeper. Heimstern Läufer 22:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Doing a quick search in the Wiki, there is one other tenuous ref (the pronunciation of "mut-ant" from space program), plus a couple mentions of influence in interviews. I also agree that the bit about rando is weak. As much as I love MST3k, I think this page needs to be deleted. wbwolf (t | ed) 23:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is way too little references to meet the page standard for a real-life show page. Delete. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 15:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Leave the content of this page on the Real World References of the toons it was in. Something like this would have to be mentioned quite a few more times to warrant its own page. -Brightstar Shiner 16:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Not enough. Currently, the rando issue is one of our many unanswered questions for the Chaps. Until then, delete. – The Chort 21:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Not notable. -DAGRON 23:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's now deleted. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Round Two

Another person created the page, with a second clear reference. I don't think it's enough for a page, unless we think "rando" is a deliberate reference. Anyway, I wanted to run it through another discussion before deleting it. — It's dot com 20:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Still not enough, in my opinion. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 20:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, i don't know. I think that with three references, it's solid enough for a keep. The questionable "rando" reference is good enough for a mention on Random Toon, so why not here? — Defender1031*Talk 20:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. If the consensus on The NeverEnding Story is to delete it, than this should probably be deleted too. free 21:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with never ending story is that the later occurrences are specifically referring to the first use, whereas here, we have 3 separate occurrences referring to the same source. — Defender1031*Talk 21:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

TCMF: This article should be judged on its own merits, not those of another article. (And besides that article shouldn't be deleted anyway.) — It's dot com 21:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still against it... and how long has that MST3K reference been on the Random Toon page?! --Jay (Talk) 21:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

over two and a half years. — Defender1031*Talk 21:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

How about something silly: Let's merge this article with the Tom Servo article. That might solve the notability problem (even with the questionable "Rando" entry). It has been stated to be an influence so it should be noted somewhere. wbwolf (t | ed) 22:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, let us merge with Tom Servo. It is a silly idea. It is also a good idea. We can add Matt's quote about Mystery Science Theater's influence to that article for a start. Perhaps the other references could be mentioned there? My statement from last year still stands by the way. – The Chort 18:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a merge would work. You're trying to merge a real-world reference page with a character page. I think that with three references, this is fine as it is. — Defender1031*Talk 18:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Keep as-is with no merge. — It's dot com 19:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. While I think the rando thing is still somewhat dubious, the other two references are solid, and the addition of the direct quote in the intro of the article pushes this past the threshold of significance, in my opinion, so I think it can be kept. -132.183.151.161 19:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep Espemon333 00:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As another alternative idea to be discussed, what about merging Tom Servo into Mystery Science Theater 3000 instead? – The Chort 11:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Same problem. My opinion has not and will not change. Why are you so adamant about merging these somehow? It's fine as it is. — Defender1031*Talk 17:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Devil's advocate, DeFender. It's important to discuss all the possiblities, even if some of them probably wouldn't work. After futher consideration, keeping the two articles separate is probably the best option. As you said, one of them is for a TV show and the other is for a character from said TV show. Even though there's only two/three references, since TBC have been clearly influenced by this programme, perhaps the guidelines could be bent a little in this exception. – The Chort 18:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Suckquake?

Is the Egg at the end of dictionary an instance of Homestar MST3King? Yes, that is the term for it. Take my word for it. Anyway, it seems to blatantly obvious yet highly controverial. I want to add it but I can really see it being deleted. So I say we discuss: instance or conincidence? As stated above, it say instance, but it this really should be given the opinion of others first. Anyone else? If nobody says anything, I may as well add it and see if anyone disagrees.--Jellote wuz here 23:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is unrelated. -132.183.13.68 20:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)