Talk:The Brothers Chaps' Fansite Acknowledgments
From Homestar Runner Wiki
Contents |
[edit] Usernames?
Very interesting!--
Benol, aka Coach B 14:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Now if only those pics were uploaded.-- Benol, aka Coach B 14:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, quite intresting it is. Now, if only Mike Chapman became a user.... H * R 7 0 0 14:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- If Mike or Matt became users, their talk pages would surpass even the record-holders' in just a few days. Provided we didn't mistakenly ban them for "impersonating" first... --DorianGray
- How do you know they haven't already registered? --Stux 05:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Interesting point. After all, there's no real way to prove or disprove it, yeah? --DorianGray
Ummm... I coldn't be Mike or matt. I'm 13, and I don't even know how to use flash. My suspicion is on Has Matt?.-- Benol, aka Coach B 17:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
You all are completely off. Mike is obviously Dot Com. Everybody knows it, everybody knows it's true. —
Zelinda 17:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, Mike couldn't be "a 29-year-old graphic designer/computer-systems manager from Texas, USA"! he's from Georgia, like me!--
Benol, aka Coach B 17:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe that's just what I want you to think. ;) — It's dot com
- Me? I suspect Tampo. — talk Bubsty edits 17:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- What? Tampo doesn't use American spelling and seems wholly concerned with the Stinkoman 20X6 game. If TBC did have an account (which they probably don't), I doubt the contribs would be of the major variety... Probably just gnome stuff. But who knows? — It's dot com 19:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I suspected Tampo because he/she seems very determined that Frostzer (or however you spell it) is the blue one, and Gaspeu (once again, however you spell it), is the red. He/she also is determined that Bluetant is a seperate enemy. Perhaps this is TBC trying to correct these mistakes that the wiki has made. As for american spelling, perhaps TBC is purposly not using american spelling so that it seems they arent from America. (Reverse Phycotics). All I'm saying is that it could be possible. — talk Bubsty edits 19:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- "However you spell it"? You know we have a wiki, right? ;) — It's dot com 19:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hah. Sorry, but the thought of User:Tampo as TBC made me laugh. :P - Joshua 01:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- "However you spell it"? You know we have a wiki, right? ;) — It's dot com 19:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I suspected Tampo because he/she seems very determined that Frostzer (or however you spell it) is the blue one, and Gaspeu (once again, however you spell it), is the red. He/she also is determined that Bluetant is a seperate enemy. Perhaps this is TBC trying to correct these mistakes that the wiki has made. As for american spelling, perhaps TBC is purposly not using american spelling so that it seems they arent from America. (Reverse Phycotics). All I'm saying is that it could be possible. — talk Bubsty edits 19:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- What? Tampo doesn't use American spelling and seems wholly concerned with the Stinkoman 20X6 game. If TBC did have an account (which they probably don't), I doubt the contribs would be of the major variety... Probably just gnome stuff. But who knows? — It's dot com 19:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Me? I suspect Tampo. — talk Bubsty edits 17:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe that's just what I want you to think. ;) — It's dot com
{spits out non-existant coffee} WHAT?!?!@&%#%*)?! You think I'm MIKE!?!?!#$@^*%!? Even though that would be cool, I can safely tell you that I am not Mike. I'm from Texas, like Dot com. And I'm 12. So there.
Has Matt?: 1
Not Has Matt?: 0 You guys keep score at home. — Has Matt? (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The check
Should we make mention of the check? I know Joey didn't want to make a big deal out of it. --Stux 19:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- I guess we should let him make the call on that. (Attention The Joeyday! Customer needs assistance in TBCFA! Customer needs assistance in TBCFA.) At any rate, this page needs to include non-wiki acknowledgements. Of which I know only one, which I will now take care of myself instead of complaining about. —AbdiViklas 20:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] A few more points.
Ok here goes:
- I checked the interview history and the first two contributors were Thunderbird and MibLuvr who contributed with the transcript, neither of which are anonymous contributors, could anyone explain this discrepancy?
- The BHZ message is actual TBC acting, as such it should have it's own page and transcript, I assume we don't have that? If not then we should make one, if we do then we should link it.
Well two points suffices, the third I will fix myself :) --Stux 21:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] What's left
While re-reading the original thread that started it all, I came across E.L. Cool's original point of complete inclusion: How about a page referencing all fan acknowledgements from TBC? BHZ, signing on a fan forum... All the stuff. I do not see a mention of signing on a fan forum, and I can only guess that that statement referred to a specific event. In any case, a bit of research would be useful (in general as well), especially since other fansites may or may not know that this page yet exists. --Stux 15:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe start with Links#Fan Sites and send an email to the proprietor of each alerting them. (Problem: this could get hard to verify. "Oh! Oh... Yeah... They totally posted on our forum last year, man. Totally. See here, this user named MATTANMIKECHAPMAN?") —AbdiViklas 16:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- While the fan site list is quite long, the big forum list only have four sites. I'm almost certain that TBC once registered a username on .net. This can be confirmed with the guys on Homestar Rules which was erected only a few days after .net's depart. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 17:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Possession
Shouldn't the apostrophe be after Brothers and not after Chaps? Would anyone resist a page move? —BazookaJoe 19:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Couldn't it go either way? If not, I'm all for correct grammar. - Joshua 19:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- The way it is now is in fact correct because we are talking about The Brothers Chaps and their Fansite Acknowledgments. If you say The Brothers' Chaps... then you are essentially saying that Chaps belongs to the brothers! :) --Stux 19:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Except that Chaps there would be a postpositive adjective, in which case the noun Brothers would be inflected. Why don't we get rid of the possessive altogether and make it Fansite Acknowledgments by The Brothers Chaps. — It's dot com 19:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- LOL. That was one of my initial suggestions, but it got outvoted. (Actually, it was my second suggestion, and it had used "H*R Fansites". But close enough.) - Joshua 20:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps the talk thread was concluded prematurely. Participation in the discussion was hardly overwhelming, the so-called vote wasn't exactly unanimous, and the whole thing happened in less than 24 hours (overnight for most people) and on a non-public page (I realize Joey's page is more popular than most user talk pages, but it's still not really a central location). Additionally, I think the possessive structure makes the title ambiguous. Is it fansite acknowledgments of TBC (i.e., the sites acknowledge the brothers), or fansite acknowledgments by TBC (i.e., the brothers acknowledge the sites)? We know that we mean the latter, and the title should reflect that. And now that I ponder it more, it think Acknowledgment should be singluar. Fansite Acknowledgment by The Brothers Chaps. — It's dot com 21:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the ambiguous title was pretty much my idea. You make excellent points, most of which I agree with except for the last one: Acknowledgment? I mean it could be correct, but it doesn't sound or look as correct? They have acknowledged more than one fansite, so I think Acknowledgments works in this case, and so I like it better. But it sounds like Acknowledgment could be correct. My brain is half fried right about now. --Stux 22:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, you should have seen the things I tried before settling on one. This is a hard subject to word concisely. :) Maybe the plural is better. It's more of a list than an article about the concept. My head hurts. — It's dot com 22:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- One thing's for sure... we know now how to spell the word (watch me misspell it) Acknowledgments! I say we scrap concise wording and go for record setting: Homestar Runner Fansite Acknowledgements by The Brothers Chaps? --Stux 05:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Heh. You've got my vote! — It's dot com
- Yeah, that name sounds better.--
Bkmlb(talk to me·stuff I did) 05:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, that name sounds better.--
- I like that name, but I vote we abbreviate Homestar Runner to simply H*R, so it's not as freakin' long. H*R Fansite Acknowledgments by The Brothers Chaps. - Joshua 16:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah that was Joshua's original suggestion! I had subsequently made mine since I wasn't too keen about the H*R abbreviation (and the original TBC abbrev.), but this time i brought it back only in jest! Oh well... --Stux 16:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Heh. You've got my vote! — It's dot com
- One thing's for sure... we know now how to spell the word (watch me misspell it) Acknowledgments! I say we scrap concise wording and go for record setting: Homestar Runner Fansite Acknowledgements by The Brothers Chaps? --Stux 05:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, you should have seen the things I tried before settling on one. This is a hard subject to word concisely. :) Maybe the plural is better. It's more of a list than an article about the concept. My head hurts. — It's dot com 22:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the ambiguous title was pretty much my idea. You make excellent points, most of which I agree with except for the last one: Acknowledgment? I mean it could be correct, but it doesn't sound or look as correct? They have acknowledged more than one fansite, so I think Acknowledgments works in this case, and so I like it better. But it sounds like Acknowledgment could be correct. My brain is half fried right about now. --Stux 22:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps the talk thread was concluded prematurely. Participation in the discussion was hardly overwhelming, the so-called vote wasn't exactly unanimous, and the whole thing happened in less than 24 hours (overnight for most people) and on a non-public page (I realize Joey's page is more popular than most user talk pages, but it's still not really a central location). Additionally, I think the possessive structure makes the title ambiguous. Is it fansite acknowledgments of TBC (i.e., the sites acknowledge the brothers), or fansite acknowledgments by TBC (i.e., the brothers acknowledge the sites)? We know that we mean the latter, and the title should reflect that. And now that I ponder it more, it think Acknowledgment should be singluar. Fansite Acknowledgment by The Brothers Chaps. — It's dot com 21:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- LOL. That was one of my initial suggestions, but it got outvoted. (Actually, it was my second suggestion, and it had used "H*R Fansites". But close enough.) - Joshua 20:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Except that Chaps there would be a postpositive adjective, in which case the noun Brothers would be inflected. Why don't we get rid of the possessive altogether and make it Fansite Acknowledgments by The Brothers Chaps. — It's dot com 19:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- The way it is now is in fact correct because we are talking about The Brothers Chaps and their Fansite Acknowledgments. If you say The Brothers' Chaps... then you are essentially saying that Chaps belongs to the brothers! :) --Stux 19:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] How Far Do We Go?
Do personal emails, such as the one seen here deserve meantion too, or are we gonna keep it pretty official? ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 04:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- This is hmm...hmm...I think so. It does mention a fansite, being the wiki. But I would say no to something like this though.-- Bkmlb(talk to me·stuff I did) 04:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- If the email features TBC acknowledging a H*R fansites, such as the one in question, then I'd say yes. - Joshua 04:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Craig's Post
Since Craig is a big friend and helper of TBC, should his registering and posting on our forum be listed here? - Joshua 03:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's definitely related, although the title of the article is The Brothers Chaps' Fansite Acknowledgments. Maybe we should create a section "Homestar Runner Wiki Acknowledgments By Others" (or maybe a better title), and we could then also move the acknowledgement by Jonathan Howe (already on the page) to that section as well. Loafing
03:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Are there any other acknowledgments? By the way, I belive this is the first time any H*R people actully edited any wiki related thing. --Dacheatbot · Communicate 03:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there are other acknowledgements. That's what this whole article is about! And I haven't heard of any other instance when one of the H*R people have actually directly posted or edited on the wiki or the forum. Loafing 03:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there are other acknowledgements. That's what this whole article is about! And I haven't heard of any other instance when one of the H*R people have actually directly posted or edited on the wiki or the forum. Loafing
- There of course exists the possibility they have, but this is the first time a name was signed to it. I assume the bureaucrats have looked into proving Zobel's legitimacy, however. I mean, if someone found this site they could have posted posing as Zobel to create a frenzy. Not saying I'm suspicious, but before we go attributing this to Zobel we better be sure it's not a prank. - Qermaq - (T/C)
04:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- There of course exists the possibility they have, but this is the first time a name was signed to it. I assume the bureaucrats have looked into proving Zobel's legitimacy, however. I mean, if someone found this site they could have posted posing as Zobel to create a frenzy. Not saying I'm suspicious, but before we go attributing this to Zobel we better be sure it's not a prank. - Qermaq - (T/C)
- How can we check? --Dacheatbot · Communicate 04:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- That would be a pretty elaborate prank to fake the whole website and IMDB article. The Craig on the forum might still be an imposter, of course. The forum post sounds very genuine as compared to all the trolls we usually get, though. But I agree, it can't hurt to have it checked out. And I'm sure JoeyDay has his ways of checking. Loafing 04:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- That would be a pretty elaborate prank to fake the whole website and IMDB article. The Craig on the forum might still be an imposter, of course. The forum post sounds very genuine as compared to all the trolls we usually get, though. But I agree, it can't hurt to have it checked out. And I'm sure JoeyDay has his ways of checking. Loafing
- No, the movie itself is clearly legitimate. The prank goes as follows: I see that this film is coming up, I register as Craig and post in the Forum on it for the purpose of making all the wikiers go bananas in order to add entertainment to my sad, worthless life. Except I didn't do that. But we all can think of a few people who would, if they had the inclination. - Qermaq - (T/C) 04:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, the movie itself is clearly legitimate. The prank goes as follows: I see that this film is coming up, I register as Craig and post in the Forum on it for the purpose of making all the wikiers go bananas in order to add entertainment to my sad, worthless life. Except I didn't do that. But we all can think of a few people who would, if they had the inclination. - Qermaq - (T/C)
- Yeah, but as I said, they wouldn't be able to write a post like that one ;-) We'll see what the verification brings up. Loafing 04:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, but as I said, they wouldn't be able to write a post like that one ;-) We'll see what the verification brings up. Loafing
- Well, we (you and I) cannot. But someone with administrative access to the Forum can check the email used upon registration, for example. Or send an email to Craig through a known contact address requesting verification so we can be sure it was really him (along with a congratulations on the film). This would be something best left to a bureaucrat or someone with a prior relationship with TBC, of course. - Qermaq - (T/C) 04:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we (you and I) cannot. But someone with administrative access to the Forum can check the email used upon registration, for example. Or send an email to Craig through a known contact address requesting verification so we can be sure it was really him (along with a congratulations on the film). This would be something best left to a bureaucrat or someone with a prior relationship with TBC, of course. - Qermaq - (T/C)
Okay, JoeyDay confirmed it (see the thread). I guess I'll add it to the page now. - Joshua 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] the-coolest-stuff-ever.com
So....did the site move or die?
[edit] The Cheats angry eyes
Which SBEmail does the cheat have angry eyes?
[edit] Finding The Cheat symbols
It seems to be a bit of a running joke in behind the scenes stuff that they can't find Flash symbols of The Cheat without the use of the Wiki:
- mini-golf commentary - finding The Cheat's "shrugging" arms
- 2005 note to Joey - finding The Cheat's angry eyes
- 2009 fall fundraiser - finding The Cheat holding a spoon
They mention the couch in the basement once and Bubs holding a toilet brush once as far as other forgotten symbols. I wonder why The Cheat's features are so often singled out. --TimMierz 19:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Homestar Runner Wiki is credited to in "Special Thanks" in SBCG4AP...
However, should this be listed on this article? It's a telltale game. 
ColdReactive 13:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- So what? You saying TBC had nothing to do with it because it was produced by telltale? — Defender1031*Talk 14:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- DeFender has the right idea. TBC may not have programmed the game, but they had to license it, give their approval, and naturally Matt had to do the voices, too! Suffice to say that they were intertwined with the game's production enough that, unless we have a good reason to believe they had nothing to do with that credit (and we don't), it should stay on this page. --Jay (Talk) 18:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Wiki exclusives
TBC have given the Wiki several exclusive scripts, such as Soap Box Doiby, Sbemail 136 Alternate Versions, and Peasant's Quest Proposed Sequels. Do those count as fansite acknowledgments? I'm neutral, but took it to talk so we could discuss it, since PQPS was added today, but the others never were. Seriously, I'm Switzerland here. I'm Concessionstan. I don't care one way or another. I just want consensus. --Jay (Talk) 19:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason that we shouldn't. I think the only reason that we haven't is that we forgot. — It's dot com 20:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC
- Sending unused transcripts to the site isn't that much different than their recording of sound clips for Burning Horizons and the-coolest-stuff-ever in my eyes. And I think one usually has to acknowledge something in order to send anything to it. I'll re-add PQPS along with the other two if there's no opposition. free 21:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- You raise a good point, Free. One could argue, though, that the sound clips they recorded mention the websites by name, which the exclusive scripts don't. But, hey, as long as all three of them are there, I'm fine with it. --Jay (Talk) 21:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- So, should I add a section called wiki-exclusives to this page then and add the three at the top?
I R F 10:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- So, should I add a section called wiki-exclusives to this page then and add the three at the top?
- You raise a good point, Free. One could argue, though, that the sound clips they recorded mention the websites by name, which the exclusive scripts don't. But, hey, as long as all three of them are there, I'm fine with it. --Jay (Talk) 21:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sending unused transcripts to the site isn't that much different than their recording of sound clips for Burning Horizons and the-coolest-stuff-ever in my eyes. And I think one usually has to acknowledge something in order to send anything to it. I'll re-add PQPS along with the other two if there's no opposition. free 21:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
