Talk:The Spirit of St. Louis

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Current revision as of 22:40, 18 January 2009

[edit] Name

Where are we getting this name from? I don't remember this toy being called that anywhere in the toon. — Defender1031*Talk 05:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right — it didn't get named until the latest Quote of the Week... Trey56 05:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but it looks like "St. Loolis" to me... — Defender1031*Talk 05:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it sounded to me like Strong Bad was just making fun of its real name in that QotW. Are you suggesting that the article be moved to The Spirit of St. Loolis? Trey56 05:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, as i don't really get how "loolis" is making fun of it... it seems like it, but i just don't see any meaning... — Defender1031*Talk 05:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was basing my opinion on his inflection when he says it. It almost sounds like he was trying to think up a clever insult, but only came up with "Loolis". Now I feel like I'm over-analyzing it... Trey56 06:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Further overanalysation and speculation: Portmanteau of "loser" and "louis". --DorianGray 06:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm... that doesn't quite work... where does the l come from? and take out the l, you just have loois anyway... — Defender1031*Talk 06:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's what my intuition tells me. In other words, no idea. --DorianGray 06:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So back to the main question, louis or loolis? — Defender1031*Talk 06:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I listened to it, it almost sounds like he is saying loo-less; like, without loo. I don't know, but it sounds better than loolis. That just doesn't make sense. - Opus the Penguin 22:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Merit

I can think of a possible resolution to the above name dilemma. Is this subject even worthy of a separate article? The inclusion guidelines indicate that a H*R-specific object should be integral to the plot of a toon to merit its own article, and I'm not sure that this qualifies. The plane appears for a few seconds at the end of business trip and is the subject of a few lines, and one of those lines happens to have been used in a Quote of the Week. But that's it.

That said, it's a cute little article, and I kind of like it. But in my opinion, I don't think this toy was central enough to the plot of the email it appeared in to merit its own article... Trey56 06:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, however, we seem to have a whole heck of a lot of useless item pages that aren't central to any plot, and many even seem completely ridiculous. So, in my opinion we remove all of those, but if we don't, then this page has to stay, as it has far more merit than some of the others. — Defender1031*Talk 06:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(Haha DeFender, nice way to get yourexamples into an arguement. --Acam30 01:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

This kind of argument is brought up a lot in TBD discussions, but it doesn't really help much — in truth, each article has to be judged individually. Comparing this one to all the rest is too difficult, since each one has specific circumstances and reasons that people might support it. I think we have to judge this article on its own merits. Trey56 06:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, as a double standard isn't a good thing. If i were just bringing up one article saying that it doesn't belong, i could hear that. But are you going to tell me that every single one of these, in addition to the dozen others that i didn't mention each have their own redeeming value? I find that hard to believe. — Defender1031*Talk 06:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not addressing the other articles' merits at all — if somebody has a problem with one of those, they can bring up a TBD on its talk page. I'm saying that such a discussion is outside of the scope of this talk page. Trey56 06:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if that's the case, i think there should probably be a larger discussion somewhere about item pages in general. — Defender1031*Talk 06:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

HRWiki talk:Inclusion guidelines would be a good place, if you disagree with the third inclusion guideline. Trey56 06:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As for this article's merit, I'm leaning toward keeping it. It is kind of a minor item, but not so nondescript as to not need an article. It also got a second mention in the QOTW, which, to me, counts for something. Heimstern Läufer 06:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

About where this falls on the inclusion guidelines (which, as a reminder, are only guidelines, and not binding on the community): This doesn't fall under guideline two, as a generic item. It's a bit borderline on number three , as it doesn't exactly play a large role; however, I think it's a lot closer to that than it is to the generic items suggested in guideline two. Heimstern Läufer 06:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, it comes down to if it makes another apperance. So, we should probably wait a few more emails until it makes another debut. If it does not appear again, we can just make it again. For all we know, it could appear in a Decemberween toon. So, to simply sum it up- don't delete yet; Wait. --Chiron 01:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I say we wait. Perhaps TBC will use it in another toon. Awexome 04:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion's been open for a month and nobody at all voted to delete. Do I have rights to remove the tbd templates? Bad Bad Guy 03:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree — it looks like there's no consensus to delete this page, nor any expectation that any users will chime in to express that sentiment. Go ahead and remove the {{tobediscussed}} templates if you want. Trey56 03:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)