Talk:Xeriouxly Forxe Visuals

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 19:54, 15 August 2015 by Broncotroll (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] Oh, just nothing

Nothing really happens in the toon that makes a visuals page worthwhile. The single line "During the rock intro, it shows slides of the characters. Then, lightning turns the characters into their Xeriouxly Forxe forms." that appears in the transcript of the toon says it all. delete — Defender1031*Talk 13:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No reason for this to exist, really. Delete. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 14:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
In addition, the descriptions of the characters are already on Xeriouxly Forxe Character Variations, with images, so this article is completely redundant. I think I'd redirect this article to the variations page, so that if someone searches for this article it will point somewhere. — It's dot com 14:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
RickTommy probably created the page because he brought it up here with no objections, but I think a redirect is a good idea. StrongAwesome 19:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, this article does mention one thing that neither Xeriouxly Forxe nor Xeriouxly Forxe Character Variations mention: the colour of the backgrounds that each character is against. RickTommy (edits) 22:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Sadly for this page, that can be easily incorporated to the toon's article. Still not compelling enough to keep this. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
RickTommy: That alone isn't reason enough for a separate article. Besides, the character variations page has an image of each character, which includes the backgrounds. — It's dot com 00:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily in defence of this page, but in defence of something other than the status quo: I do honestly think the transcript for Xeriouxly Forxe is pretty skimpy on details right now. When I saw it, I wondered if we were planning on using a visuals page. Without it, some details are in fact lacking, such as the point at which each transformation takes place. If we can't include that in the transcript itself, I'd go ahead and keep this page to preserve that information. Heimstern Läufer 01:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
This toon doesn't fit the mold of most toons. Its very nature is such that having both a variations page and a visuals page is redundant: each character appears and gets transformed, rinxe, repeat. Sure, we can say that twelve times, but it's overkill. We already list the characters in order of appearance at the top of the article for the toon; we list them in order on the variations page; I could see adding a general description of the background and name labels to the transcript, or adding the background colors to the variations page, but I think anything else would just clutter things up with data that is covered elsewhere. The action, such as it is, doesn't depend on the lyrics, so it's not even notable when what happens happens. Thus I think we should temper our obsessiveness and redirect this page. — It's dot com 01:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
"Temper our obsessiveness"? That's going way too far. We've always explained when things happen, always. That's not being obsessive; it's being thorough. This toon is not that different that it needs to be any different in that respect. I'm not a huge fan of using a visuals page; I'd rather it occur on the original page. But leaving out information is hardly something that's normal here. Heimstern Läufer 08:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Heimstern on this matter: while I can (not very easily) see the information in this page being incorporated into the main article, I don't see why information needs to be lost in the process. Like Dot com mentioned: this toon doesn't fit the mold of most toons. However, the fact that the character variations/transformations happen during the visuals makes it difficult to tie the two pages together without losing some useful detailed information. --Stux 15:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I still think this page is completely redundant, but I can grudgingly accept it as a separate page. The table should not be in the article proper. — It's dot com 16:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools