Talk:Strong Bad Talker

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 01:07, 9 September 2009 by It's dot com (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search


this redirect says this shouldn't be a separate article. I'm Neutral ColdReactive 16:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The Strong Bad Talker doesn't have enough significance for it to have its own article. Redirect it back to Homestar Talker. Soiled Bargains (talk|ctrb) 14:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, if the Coach Z Talker has a page, than I don't see any reason why this shouldn't. Besides, the Homestar Talker doesn't have very much info about the Strong Bad Talker. Keep. free 15:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The game's are generally the same, but different enough to warrent their own pages. Keep.--Jellote wuz here 16:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
This information is not found anywhere else. It used to be on the Homestar Talker page, but was split off into its own article. If the page is redirected, then every bit of the data currently on the page would need to be moved back to the target. I don't have a problem with keeping it a separate page, though. — It's dot com 17:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Really? Even though it's a part of Homestar Talker? Soiled Bargains (talk|ctrb) 17:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep in mind, if this DOES get a redirect, I will force myself to challenge the Coach Z talker, as it is a part of another toon. ColdReactive 21:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
That's not our standard. It's just as impossible to access the Strong Bad Main Page or Peg Strong Sad directly, but they, like the Coach Z Talker, are separate articles because they cover segments distinct from the toons they come from. The only question we need to answer here is whether the Strong Bad Talker is separate enough from the Homestar Talker to merit being split into two articles. — It's dot com 21:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think the two Talkers should be merged together on Homestar Talker. Firstly, I've always seen them as two parts of the same game, not as two individual games; you access them by the same link and to play with the Strong Bad Talker, you need to go through the Homestar Talker. I so far do not see the benefit of having them separated on different articles. Secondly, many of the glitches listed on the Homestar Talker article are true for both Talkers (e.g. not moving lips if you click and hold, rapid clicking producing an echo effect). Having separate articles means having to repeat the same glitches twice, with "Strong Bad" replacing "Homestar" on one of them. If new glitches are found and are added, or old glitches are rewritten, on one of the articles, the two articles may need to be cross-referenced constantly to make sure nothing is left out on either article. Thirdly, I prefer how the talkers were before, mostly because I'm used to them being that way. It's mostly a personal preference of mine. – The Chort 17:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, but how likely is it that we're going to find new glitches? It's something of an exaggeration to say that they'll need to cross-referenced constantly. Now that we've put some effort into separating these two, I kind of like having an article for each of the three talkers. I also like how the facts that pertain only to the Strong Bad Talker are on its page only. I don't think it's better for them to be mixed with those for the Homestar Talker, regardless of the duplication. Since we already have separate pages for some Easter eggs (see the links in my post above), I don't mind it here. — It's dot com 21:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with those who say Keep. This should be its own page, especially considering IDC's arguments. LePorello / T / C 23:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Espemon333 00:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC) (sorry, rather lazy today)
Personal tools