From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 18:39, 5 November 2009 by (Talk)
Jump to: navigation, search


Spoons not a spoon?

Someone keeps deleting this page without discussion. This is a discusiion. So I vote to keep. That's one for. Until consensus is met, do not delete.--Jellote wuz here 20:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to be a kiss up, but it's dot com was the one who changed it in the first place. StrongAwesome74 20:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I changed it because I wanted to link the word spoon in the quote from TBC and thought this would be a funny way to do it. I don't think it should be a full article at this time. — It's dot com 20:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, this could be considered an abuse of power. Not once did anyone but you ever do anything of the sorts, and yet you refuse to wait and turn it back into crap. Then you protect it to prevent anyone from seeing what is actually being discussed and ruining it for everyone. Anyone who would want this page will now see a lood of crap and they will attempt to delete it. That is wrong, man. Just because you're an admin doesn't mean you can sop a legit discussion from having a chance. I'm sorry if I sound rude, but that is just not fair. --Jellote wuz here 20:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Jellote, sounds like you need to take a walk if you are getting this worked up over a spoons article. He's the one of the designated administrators of Joey's wiki, and frankly he can do whatever he wants. Now we usually try to be fair about things, but is apparently not the purpose of this page to have lots of content. I R F 21:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can't do anything I want. I had considered protecting the page from the beginning to avoid this exact situation, but I really didn't want to have to. The article in its current form was intended as a joke, nothing more. Once TBC are no longer linking to us, then we can consider whether or not to make this a real article. — It's dot com 21:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree strongly with the idea that an admin can do whatever they want. The whole philosophy of a wiki is that all users are equal. The powers that administrators have should be just that, administrative. Luckily, dotcom has displayed consistently good judgment in that respect. - 21:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
If so, the point of your post? --Jellote wuz here 21:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
To establish that opinion? - 21:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'd suggest that the philosophy of a wiki is that ideas matter, not who holds them. It's not a democracy; voting is discouraged. The popularity of an idea is not an indicator of its quality. The philosophy of a wiki does make a sort of "Wisdom of the Crowds" assumption, that some method of averaging the input of a population will result in a "more correct" product than that produced by specific individuals or groups. This article, in its current incarnation, serves a specific purpose, and trying to hijack the article for another purpose, because it seems like a convenient opportunity, is not attempting to "contribute in the wiki way", it's an attempt at manipulating the rules of the wiki for personal motives. -- LGC&CS 20:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think IDC is right, in leaving it like it is, for the time being. The joke makes sense now that there's a link in the sitenotice. - 21:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

although I must say, StrongAwesome74's edit has a lot of merrit. I R F 21:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I say we leave this on hold until the link on the website is taken down. Then could we discuss it for real?--Jellote wuz here 21:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Probably. This whole issue adds to the notability of the idea. - 21:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I wondered if they picked spoons out of the air or because of HRWiki:Spoons. I agree that, if nothing else, TBC's mention of spoons should be the tipping point for having a real article once the fundraiser is over. We can explain the joke then. For now, it's fine how it is. — It's dot com 21:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we have met an agreement. HOLD until fundraiser ends.--Jellote wuz here 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Could they really have picked it "out of the air"? That'd be a huge coincidence. Not that similar cases haven't happened before. I guess it's another of those unanswered questions.- 21:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Spoons are common enough and holding a spoon is ordinary enough that I can see them just choosing it randomly to poke fun at us. (This is the very argument that the essay puts forth against having an article in the first place.) Still, it makes you wonder. — It's dot com 21:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Since The Chapman Brothers have the H*R body of work and their everyday life to worry about, maybe they just thought The Cheat has held a spoon before. It wouldn't be the first time they've been confused like that. MichaelXX2 mail_icon.gif link_icon.gif 21:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose this doesn't really add to the discussion, but I personally find it hilarious that we're so dorky that we would even know that The Cheat's never held a spoon. Tymime 02:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It was easy to figure out. First I took The Cheat's filmography and did an automated search for the word "spoon". I got 12 results:
  • Homestar holds the spoon in army.
  • The spoon in Pumpkin Carve-nival is taped to Homsar's pumpkin, er, eggplant.
  • The word "spoonerism" is in privileges.
  • The spoon in caffeine puts Sanka in Strong Sad's orange juice.
  • Homestar hit The Cheat with a spoon in Labor Dabor.
  • The spoon in Halloween Fairstival is a reference to Homsar's eggplant from the previous toon.
  • In Strong Bad is a Bad Guy, Strong Bad wants his tattoo to look like a prison tattoo he carved out himself with a spoon and some soap.
  • Halloween Potion-ma-jig has the Jurassic Park III collector's spoon.
  • technology has another spoonerism.
  • In keep cool, Strong Bad places a spoonful of hoisin sauce on Strong Sad's disturbing soft-serve flip.
  • Homestar has the wooden spoon again in more armies; there's a spoonerism too.
  • In pet show, Homestar is kneeling at Strong Bad's feet while holding a spoon with relish on it.
Ergo, The Cheat has never held a spoon—at least not on screen. (Although he did hold a whisk in yes, wrestling.) And I prefer "nerdy". — It's dot com 02:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Would Labor Dabor be closer (re: the closest he gets) then? - 03:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah Gilbert, we are kinda nerdy to know all that we do. Not quite nerdy as some, but nerdy none the less. I R F 03:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
"In pet show, Homestar is kneeling at Strong Bad's feet while holding a spoon with relish on it." Wouldn't that mean that The Cheat MAY have held a spoon offscreen to pull the relish foot on Strong Bad? Although we can't verify that (he could have used a sandbox shovel, a fork, a jar of relish), that could be the closest thing to him actually holding a spoon. :P --InsanityBringer 13:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
What did any of that have to do with The Cheat? Espemon333 21:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Not anything. I think the implication is that Homestar snuck in and planted the relish, and the "own medicine" that Strong Bad is getting is having someone cheat against him. The Cheat was angry about the relish. — It's dot com 21:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Truthfully, I had no idea what the connection between what you said and The Cheat until the others clarified. I think the Bros Chos would need to be off their rockers to have thought that we were to inturpret it that way. So no, I don't think there was connection. As before, The Cheat has never held a spoon. --Jellote wuz here 22:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with what someone said earlier: we should only count appearances in which we actually see the Cheat hold a spoon. That was never. --Abcorn 00:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Now we can discuss

Well, it's gone now so, what should we do with it? Actual Article or Delete? Considering we have nearly every other item, I'd say make it an Actual Article. Anyone else? StrongAwesome74 21:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I say actual article. It's like the Bros Chos tried to poke fun at us for making a guideline article on spoons, so they started misuing them so we make one. Definite keep, but we can recycle this page in the history books of the wiki. Maybe make it like STUFF. --Jellote wuz here 22:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I say actual article as well, but if any "sporks" appear, then they go under spoons, as they're more of a spoon than a fork. ColdReactive 23:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, people, why is this kept in the joke form every time we revise it, when three people say we should bring it back to its former glory?--Jellote wuz here 23:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Tell it as it is?

At first, I thought this article was serious until I looked at the edit history. Shouldn't we note that this is a joke article that was motivated by The Brother Chaps' comment? Soiled Bargains (talk|ctrb) 18:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. But here is a possible explanation for TBC's comment. The Cheat held a whisk in yes, wrestling, and maybe it was mistaken for a spoon? That'sBupkis! 18:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe. Or maybe TBC was just saying a random thing with a random character. Or maybe there was a moment where he did hold a spoon and we missed it because it was like half a second? I don't know. We missed the fact that slime (or whatever it was) got on the camera in hremail3184 for, like, a week after it came out. I'm going to look. In my opinion, for now we should keep the page as it is. User:doctorwho295 10 October 2009
Even if we did miss it, isn't the point of their comment that we wouldn't miss it? I don't see much of a point in reviewing every toon ever just to see if the cheat has held one. --Didymus 4:29, November 1 2009

Do we really need to get all worked up?

Do we really need to get all worked up over this? TBC mentioned in their line that without the Wiki, they wouldn't be able to remember which cartoon the Cheat was holding a spoon in. I personally like this article/page. It can be assessed and appropriate action can be taken when the mention is removed, but for now, leave it as it is. As for why they mentioned it, I'm sure that they didn't search for cartoons in which the Cheat held a spoon. They just said a random statement. - Abcorn 04:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what we agreed on in the first section. --Jellote wuz here 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is...

The greatest undersea epic I've ever seen. *is hit with a computer for making a pointless comment*--Topmonhit 22:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Chunks full whine bottle at Topmonhit* -- 00:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
You know, pointless comments, especially ones you know to be pointless, are frowned upon. So, what are you talking about? --Jellote wuz here 20:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


I'm gonna stay as neutral as possible on this, but why is this page up? Not to criticize it or whoever spent their time creating it, but do we really need it? Just asking, C-Son-L Sweaters

In response to your "why", why don't you look higher up the page and see that the page is a joke at the moment. We aren't going to discuss it until the fundraiser ends. Then we are planning to make a full scale discussion. --Jellote wuz here 15:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Eating pudding with a notable reference!

I say that the "eating pudding with a spoon!" line deserves to be in here, as, after all, it is redunent and used as a punchline. But what is you guys's opinion?--Jellote wuz here 00:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see how that line is redundant or used as a punchline. What stinkoman is describing is the way they're going to take a break: and there's nothing unusual about that. --Stux 00:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it is because he emphasizes "with a spoon". But yeah, in retrospect it isn't really notable after all. --Jellote wuz here 00:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I actually agree that it's unusual. If i say something like "i'm taking a break to go walk my dog" do I usually add "with a leash" to the end of it? — Defender1031*Talk 00:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, DeFender brings up a good point. I switch back to my keep idea. Stux was very convincing, but DeFender out-convincing'd him.--Jellote wuz here 00:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Defender: True, i may not say "with a leash" but I would say something like "I'm going to get the leash" (in this case to indicate that the speaker isn't wearing shoes). Stinkoman's interjection still doesn't seem like that unusual of a phrase construction. Indicating what utensil I'm going to eat some food with isn't that out of the ordinary. --Stux 00:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I doubt you can honestly say "Mom, can I eat this pudding with a spoon" without trying to say something hilarious.--Jellote wuz here 00:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
But he doesn't say "let's get a spoon and take a break to eat pudding" he says "we deserve a break to eat pudding with a spoon". — Defender1031*Talk 00:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I feel I should go back to my original point and the idea behind HRWiki:Spoons: the spoon itself is not used in any strange, weird, or unusual way. The fact that it comes out of hammerspace (or perhaps stinkoman's pocket) is a peculiarity of hammerspace itself, not of the spoon. Similarly, the way that Stinkoman delivers his line is not something strange about the spoon or the way it is used, but rather an artifact of the joke itself. As such, the joke explanation (if it needs to be explained at all -- and if you do find it that unusual) belongs in Under Construction and not in this article. --Stux 00:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that is a good point. It would have been the same joke had he said "to walk the dog with a leash" in the same tone (assuming the cartoon before that point had involved a dog". Alright, pudding with a spoon ref is out. — Defender1031*Talk 00:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I dunno, I think it should go in. Despite the fact that the joke would work with another item, the fact remains that the item named was a spoon. - 18:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools