Current revision |
Your text |
Line 20: |
Line 20: |
| ::::::::::::I think it's a great article, and I know It's dot com is 100% trustworthy. However, I was thinking about J. Random Casual User who comes across this; It's not ME, PERSONALLY who wants proof, it's THEM. [[User:Stev0|Stev0]] 00:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | | ::::::::::::I think it's a great article, and I know It's dot com is 100% trustworthy. However, I was thinking about J. Random Casual User who comes across this; It's not ME, PERSONALLY who wants proof, it's THEM. [[User:Stev0|Stev0]] 00:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
| I don't know what others think, but I wouldn't be opposed to adding a line to the intro saying that it was an email sent to the wiki admins. It's true, it cites its source, and it makes sense to have. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 00:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | | I don't know what others think, but I wouldn't be opposed to adding a line to the intro saying that it was an email sent to the wiki admins. It's true, it cites its source, and it makes sense to have. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 00:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
- | :I dunno. It's not really material to the article itself, so I don't think it should go in the intro. Maybe the fun facts? The reason I posted it on the talk page was that it seemed too meta for the main namespace. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 01:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
- | ::We mention the source in the intro of pretty much every other thing aside from toosn and games that appear on the main site... so what makes this one different? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 01:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
- | :::I'd kinda like to keep the reference to ourselves as low-key as possible. They could have released it on their site, and it wouldn't change the content at all. We're just the messengers. But I do admit that it is notable how they released it, since after all they ''didn't'' put it on their site. I agree that "wiki exclusive" probably works fine without being too pompous, and so I've added it to the article. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 02:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
- | ::::"Wiki Exclusive" works for me, and maybe a link to and/or from [[The Brothers Chaps' Fansite Acknowledgments]]. [[User:Stev0|Stev0]] 04:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
- |
| |
- | Just in case any of you boys had any lingering doubt, I can confirm as a second person with access to the admin email inbox that these alternate versions were sent to us by The Brothers Chaps. -- [[User:Tom|Tom]] 22:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
- | :Can you put the entire email on this talk page? If it contains personal info on you/Dot Com, then you can just block that part out right? --[[User:SBE-mail Checker Dan|SBE-mail Checker Dan]] 02:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
- | ::I've given my sincere word and Tom has confirmed it. You can believe me or not, but I'm not doing anything else. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 02:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
- |
| |
- | == Formatting ==
| |
- | And while I'm here, don't you think the transcription should be fixed to be consistent with itself and the others? {{User:JCM/sig}} 01:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
- | :From the page: "All formatting has been preserved, except that some bold text has been added and the actual emails have been set off to help with readability." {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 01:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
- | ::Yes, I saw that, but I'd like to know why it was done. Did TBC specifically ask for it or something like that? {{User:JCM/sig}} 01:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
- | :::We are sharing this document that was sent to the admins. It seems logical that it should be shared in its original form rather than modified. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 01:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
- | ::::Yes. The point of releasing these alternate versions is not only to see what might have been toon-wise but also to see how the Chaps' creative process works. I didn't want to modify them at all, but adding the bold and separating the sent emails helped quite a bit. I figured that improving the readability while preserving as much of the rest of the formatting as possible would stay true to that point. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 02:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
- | :::::Wow, neat. It makes total sense for them to script out versions of emails first, I just never pictured them doing that. What I think would be neat is to see a final draft of a script that got used, and then compare the difference to see how much ad-libbing or last minute changes goes on. After all, we've all heard the out-takes. {{User:Invisible_Robot_Fish/sig}} 09:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
- |
| |
- | == Filmography On Paper ==
| |
- |
| |
- | Both Marzipan and Homestar are currently linked in the fun facts. I didn't want to rearrange the linkings, but, just so everyone is linked, I was going to simply link their names the first time they speak. But then I thought, "Wait. This is just a rough draft. Should this be included in their filmographies?" So, should it? {{User:StrongAwesome74/sig}} 21:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
- | :I wondered all those things myself when I made the page and again later when I added the links. Do we have other examples of preliminary or deleted content on the wiki that we can use as a reference? — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 21:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
- | ::I believe not. --[[Special:Contributions/209.148.176.136|209.148.176.136]] 21:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
- | :::While I do not believe that there is another instance of a time when a written draft or deleted cartoon was eventually released in a small manner such as this, we did put [[Field Day Intro]] and [[Where the Crap Are We?]] in filmographies. I think these small-release cartoons should go in the filmographies of the characters who appear in the cartoon/draft/script. --{{User:Super Martyo Brother/sig}} 23:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
- | ::::Still, I don't think we should go all out like a regular toon, just to, as paraquoted from the page, "Preserve all formatting". No "'''Cast'''", "'''Places'''", "'''Computer'''", or any of that stuff. {{User:StrongAwesome74/sig}} 23:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
- | :::::How about a centralized {{p|l={{FULLURL:{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}|diff=703497&oldid=703432}} character key}}? — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 16:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
- |
| |
- | == Quick Question ==
| |
- |
| |
- | I notice the page says "intendo" near the end of the second draft where "Nintendo" makes sense. If this is the way it came, should there be a sic in front of that word? {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 18:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
| |
- | :I always thought that was part of a joke—it's just another way Homestar mispronounces things. If we were transcribing a finished toon, we'd probably put ''<nowiki></nowiki>'Intendo'' [[No Hands On Deck!|like we do with ''<nowiki></nowiki>'Kipedia'']]. I don't think it needs a ''sic''. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 19:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
| |
- | ::I also thought it was part of the joke. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 20:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
| |
- |
| |
- | == (sorry, Victoria) ==
| |
- |
| |
- | Maybe it's just me being too uptight as usual, but I feel kinda uncomfortable having those parentheses there. Sure, it's a little funny, but it looks really unprofessional, and I mean— it's not ''that'' funny. Is it worth keeping or not? <small>In other news, these drafts are hilarious. Thanks for existing, wiki.</small> {{User:SRMX12/sig}} 18:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
| |
- | :I don't even see the joke in that bracket'd text. I also say delete. - {{User:Catjaz63/sig}} 20:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
| |
- | ::Baleet. {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig}} 22:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
| |
- | :::I'm fine with it either way, but I don't think it was ''meant'' to be funny. Seems like the intent was to remind everyone that there was a person out there who could've had their email answered, but didn't. A simple acknowledgement of human feelings.
| |
- | :::But I could be wrong, and then I'd have to eat yet another pony. Only [[User: It's dot com|It's dot com]] can say for sure... --{{User:Purple Wrench/sig}} 22:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
| |
- | ::::It's been there since the very first version of this page, but I have no recollection of why I included it. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 21:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
| |