Talk:dictionary

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 08:55, 9 March 2017

Double Homestar with Cheese

Homestar is listed twice in the cast list. Any reason? Flicky1991 17:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Compé backgrounds

Considering that Strong Bad seems to have a new background for his Compé in each episode, I think that a new page should be added to keep track of them. Unbalanced 18:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, with a galllery and everything! The only problem would be after fifty emails or so, we'd end up with one long article with lots and lots of pictures, but that was never a real problem with Floppy Disk Container or the Other Costumes articles. – The Chort 18:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You see, I promise i'm not lying, but i saw this coming! When he changed his background last time, I thought, that's gonna be a running gag.--Crudely Drawn Cupcake 00:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

speaking of backgrounds maybe it's just me but the Where's an egg II wallpaper seems like it's parodying this shot from Modern Warfare 2 more specifically the building. Strike Reyhi 22:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is way to much not-pixelated, and not enough made-by-Atari-Nintendo-or-Sega to count as a reference. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 05:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

which is why I put it here, personally I think it's a reference but it's not like I can prove it without asking TBC directly. Strike Reyhi 18:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The above image does not look anything like the Where's An Egg 2 wallpaper. Words cannot describe how unlike the Where's An Egg 2 wallpaper the above image is. – The Chort 19:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no way that the two are related. I fail to see how you could see it that way. For one, the colors are extremely different. Next, it is all pixelly. Third, the island is too far up to be amything in the background. Also, the background appears to be a city or hillside in the background, whereas the game is flat water and rather bland sky. Additionally, there lacks helicopters, and instead there is Russian text to the left of the helicopters' alleged location. Lastly, there would have been a large lighter area near the middle, which there seems to have too much of. I have no idea how these two could have been connected. I am in no position to tell you what to beleive, but to me and the other people discussing as of yet, it is a stretch from here to Mars. --Jellote wuz here 22:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If I had a penny for every picture of a building on a hillside overlooking the water, I'd buy a new Compé. Oh wait, I just bought myself a new Compé... Hmm... guess that proves that it's not a reference then, huh? — Defender1031*Talk 22:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the resemblance between the picture above and the wallpaper isn't that unfeasible. The structures and landscape look somewhat similar, but the wallpaper is too pixelated to make any definitive determination. Like E.L. Cool said, it's "too new" a reference to be likely, but we can't count out that TBC like the Call of Duty series and subtly incorporated it into their easter egg. I mean, they did, after all, create the Compé. --Stux 22:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You know what the Where's An Egg II wallpaper reminds me of instead? The opening level of TimeSplitters: Future Perfect. They both use the same color scheme and they have similar buildings (ref 3:45), so perhaps TBC like the TimeSplitters series and subtly incorporated that into their Easter Egg too! Or they could have, you know, done the same for any video game which has at least one level set on a red, dusty alien planet with a space colony based on it (TTATOT). Or no video game at all, in fact. I dare say that there isn't any specific reference which we can claim here. – The Chort 14:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fencéd Pants

Is there a seperate name for the fenced-in area where Marzipan's scene takes place, or is that just an extension of The Field/her house? Monkeytender 19:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeopardy!

"Potent Potables" is a real category from Jeopardy!, and not just from the SNL Celebrity Jeopardy skits. The skits use it because it's a real category. This sbemail references Jeopardy!, not SNL's skits. This real-world reference has been changed a few times already to insert and re-insert the SNL bit, but it does not belong. 146.122.71.68 19:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If it wasn't in every single SNL Celebrity Jeopardy! parody ever made, I wouldn't be arguing a case. If it had only been in a few of them, I would agree that it didn't belong, but since it's in all of them, and since SNL made it much more famous than Jeopardy! did, i think it deserves a mention. I'm certainly not disagreeing that it was originally a Jeopardy! category, but it is much more common in the SNL parodies. i also don't think it's proper to say "it doesn't reference x; instead, it references a thing that x references" if it's this direct of a reference. for instance, if i wanted to say "potent potables" intending it to be an SNL reference, i wouldn't want you to say "it's not an SNL reference b/c it's an actual Jeopardy! reference". not saying that's what tbc did or didn't do, but it's too commonly referenced in SNL to not be mentioned on the page. The Knights Who Say Ni 19:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing tying it to SNL that doesn't also tie it to Jeopardy. Jeopardy did it first, so list it and it alone. --Jay (Talk) 19:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Alex Trebek as host was a part of every SNL Celebrity Jeopardy skit. This cannot be said of Jeopardy!, which was previously hosted by Art Fleming. So if a Jeopardy-style show were hosted by Alex Trebek, would this be a reference to SNL's skits since he was in all of them? Potent Potables is one of few oft-repeated Jeopardy! categories, which is why SNL uses it.146.122.71.68 20:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I kinda lean towards the SNL skit, too. Like TKWSN said, it seems that SNL did much to make the category stand out in popular consciousness. Note that the big wiki feels it relevant enough to mention both of them. I kind think we should too. -132.183.151.122 00:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

They have in-depth pages on both the game show and the parody. We focus on Homestar Runner; both are outside our scope except in mentioning references. I wouldn't say that's comparable. --Jay (Talk) 01:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. Compare with the discussion we had here. --Jay (Talk) 01:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that's comparable. I grew up in one of the states mentioned and have never heard of that radio show. Almost everyone has seen Celebrity Jeopardy. -128.103.10.119 02:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Jay, how did i know you were going to bring that up? 128.103.10... (i notice it's very close to the ip in that other talk page; is it a college campus ip?), if you grew up in the midwest, as i said in the other talk page, i don't think the show is popular there. as for this issue, i think we should take it to STUFF. The Knights Who Say Ni 03:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally have watched dozens of episodes of jeopardy in my lifetime and have never once seen that category appear outside of the SNL version. Had i not seen this, i'd have continued to think that SNL made it up. Jeoparsy may have used it once or twice, but it's SNL that made it famous. — Defender1031*Talk 03:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Conversely, I don't watch Jeopardy all that much, and I've never seen the SNL sketch, but this is far from the first appearance of "Potent Potables" that I've seen. So either it's a common phrase that I cannot place (outside of Jeopardy) or I saw it on Jeopardy. --Jay (Talk) 04:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I would dispute the claim that SNL made it famous. Maybe SNL made it famous to the under-30 crowd, but they used it because it was an already-famous Jeopardy! category. The reason they use Potent Potables first is so that they have a real category before a series of joke categories. DeFender1031, I would direct you to your own comments on the talk page Jay posted. I suppose the Jeopardy! issue could be avoided altogether by simply stating that a potent potable is an alcoholic beverage.146.122.71.68 12:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of my own comments there, however in this case, the original famous thing IS SNL referencing jeopardy, IMO. — Defender1031*Talk 17:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

How is it even possible that the original is referencing something else? If it's referencing something, it's not the original. When the Celebrity Jeopardy! parodies started in the mid-late '90s, Potent Potables rang true as an actual category. It was already famous. If most of your pop-culture knowledge is from the last decade and a half (probably the case with most here), SNL's skits seem to dominate this usage. TBC are old enough to know which predates which. Again, if "SNL [is] referencing jeopardy," the SNL skits CAN'T be the original (by definition). It's not where you know it from, it's where it comes from.146.122.71.68 19:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear case of TTATOT. Jeopardy! made it famous first.--Periodic Table Greg 18:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, this is nothing like TTATOT. That term refers to things where it could be from Batman, or Freud may have said it once or twice, or it was also part of a jerry seinfeld routine. Here, it's all related. Anyway, i thought that the wording before this edit was a pretty good compromise. I'm in favor of reverting that edit and letting it be. — Defender1031*Talk 18:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems completely against convention in every other circumstance to say, "X is a reference to Y. By the way, Z also references Y," when Z is not h*r related. Why mention that something outside the h*r universe references Jeopardy? Should we also mention in the "Family Feud" reference that "Family Guy" has referenced the show? If h*r references the theme from "All in the Family" should we mention that this theme is parodied in the opening credits of EVERY EPISODE of "Family Guy?" This is a case where those arguing for the SNL reference are doing so because that's where they know it from, not because that's the source.146.122.71.68 14:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. We're saying that each step of the X, Y, Z, has the phrase more prominently than the last, and TBC could very well be referencing Z. Hence the compromise. — Defender1031*Talk 14:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have similar sentiments to anonny. And you jumped the gun, DeFender; no one said anything concerning your previous post, so you assumed too soon that they agreed with you. That would have been fine if no one had disagreed with you before, but that wasn't the case. In my case, I'd just not checked the discussion. --Jay (Talk) 14:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, when the DVD comes out and TBC mention SNL, I'll be waiting, having not actually bought the DVD. And then when someone finally posts the transcript, i'll probably have forgotten all about this by then. But if i haven't, i'll totally be laughing at all of you. This isn't over. Word your little fact however you want. I'll win eventually! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! — Defender1031*Talk 15:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DeFender, and i agree with his compromise. the one time i saw "potent potables" on actual Jeopardy!, i thought it was a joke b/c i have also seen that there are occasional actual Jeopardy! categories that were designed to make fun of the SNL sketch. The Knights Who Say Ni 16:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That illustrates my point exactly. You're arguing based on where you know it from, not its actual origin. And your knowledge of the phrase is probably dictated mostly by your age. If your user page is to be trusted, you were under 10-years-old when the first SNL Celebrity Jeopardy! skit came out. So you probably didn't have much exposure to Jeopardy! TBC, on the other hand, were in their 20s and likely already knew of the Jeopardy! category. I was a senior in high school. Those who were the target audience of that first skit knew that the category came from the real show. I learned the definition of the word 'potable' from watching Jeopardy! But the point is, the real one came first. The SNL category is a reference to the original. The argument of which one is more popular is entirely subjective. The argument of origin is entirely objective. This is a reference to a category on Jeopardy! If TBC come out some day and state they were trying to reference SNL, change it. Otherwise stick to hard facts and not conjecture.146.122.71.68 16:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Jay, if you haven't seen the SNL sketches, then how can you know how influential they might be? The anonny said above, "This is a case where those arguing for the SNL reference are doing so because that's where they know it from, not because that's the source." No, what we're saying is that there's at least a reasonable chance that that's where TBC know it from. We're also not saying "X [the toon] is a reference to Y [Jeopardy!]. By the way, Z [SNL] also references Y". We're implying that A [the toon] is a reference to B [SNL], and B is a reference to C [Jeopardy!]. Maybe the toon is just a straight reference to Jeopardy!, but maybe there's SNL in between. Surely there's a way to word it such that the reader has a choice between A→C and A→B→C. — It's dot com 16:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's a reference to a reference, the rule of thumb is to list the original referent, not an additional reference.146.122.71.68 16:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Rules of thumb have reasonable exceptions. We're saying it's just as reasonable to conclude that the reference is to the specific SNL sketches as to Jeopardy! itself and that the fact should be worded to incorporate both possibilities. — It's dot com 16:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing else in this toon resembles the SNL skits. It is a usage of the category name only. The category is from Jeopardy! It sounds a little Troy McClure ("You may remember me from SNL's Celebrity Jeopardy! skits"). Unless something suggests SNL (Strong Bad talking like Connery, using the nickname Turd Ferguson, etc.), there's no reason to include a multi-tiered reference.146.122.71.68 17:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Dot com: I may not be familiar with the SNL sketches directly, but I do know that SNL is a comedy, parody show. And that when I search Google for "Potent Potables", most of the results on the first couple of pages mention Jeopardy, not SNL... or occasionally neither. (Except Wikipedia, which mentions both). There's only one possible exception, and I can't actually say what's on that page because it won't load for me, not even in Google's cache. --Jay (Talk) 17:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Anonny, there's nothing that suggests SNL except for the fact that it's been a running joke in every one of them. Most of the people in this thread arguing for SNL know the phrase from there. We know that TBC are fans of SNL, therefore, like Dot com said, it's completely possible that that's where they know it from as well, and therefore a compromise is in order. Note, I'm not pushing for a wording that says that it's DEFINITELY from SNL, merely one that says it's a possibility. — Defender1031*Talk 17:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Back on my Google search, I need to get to the very end of page 5 before I find a decisive SNL reference other than Wikipedia which, again, mentions both, with a couple of dozen Jeopardy references. --Jay (Talk) 17:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what Google has to do with anything. It's not important what the Internet as a whole thinks, only that it's as reasonable that TBC got it from SNL as Jeopardy! directly. And seriously, watch language and innuendo one of the sketches. (I highly recommend seeking them all out.) — It's dot com 17:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I watched the one embedded in the one Google hit I got in the first five pages. Funny, but being funny does not make something else a reference to it. --Jay (Talk) 17:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I did the same thing with Google searches (same result, natch). DeFender, the link you provided at least shows that TBC are fans of pre-1996 SNL. All of these references are to eras before the Celebrity Jeopardy! skits began. They could have abandoned SNL (as many did) after the "golden age" of the late '80s-early '90s. Again nothing in this toon suggests an SNL connection. There are no other references to the SNL skits. The fact that Potent Potables is in every skit is not in this toon.146.122.71.68 17:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Jay: Except when the popularity of that funny thing overshadows the original. To both of you: We're not saying it's a 100% for-sure connection, only that there's enough ambiguity that the fact should be worded to encompass both alternatives. — It's dot com 17:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, the burden of proof is on you for proving that the SNL parody overshadowed the original in popularity, because that does not mesh with anything I'm seeing. --Jay (Talk) 17:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Google and what the Internet as a whole thinks are not relevant, but popularity is? One thing Google can do is help establish popularity of sorts. Most of the time, when people use the phrase they're either referring to Jeopardy! or alcohol. But I still argue you all are not really going on popularity but what stands out in your own minds.146.122.71.68 17:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Potent Potables isn't going to show up in searches related to the sketches as much because it's an introductory element and not essential to the humor that comes later. It's not the part that gets quoted, but it's still a memorable part of each sketch once one stops to think about it. Jay, I don't think you have the burden of proof right. The burden of proof is on you to say why it's not reasonable that TBC might have gotten Potent Potables by way of SNL rather than from Jeopardy! directly. — It's dot com 17:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You're the one who said that SNL overshadows Jeopardy in terms of popularity, at least where "Potent Potables" is concerned. You back it up. Burden of proof is always on the positive claim, not the negative. I've found page after page of people making reference to "Potent Potables" in response to Jeopardy before I could even find one that made reference to SNL, Wikipedia again excepted. What you ask of me is like me asking of you, "PROVE that it's not reasonable that the 'Survey Says' line in Homestar Ruiner is a reference to 'The John Boy & Billy Big Show'." There's nothing you could say or do to prove it. You could provide mountains of evidence that Family Feud is significantly more popular, and that it was around first, but that's exactly what anonny and I are doing here!!! You need to prove why it is worth mentioning on the page. That's how the burden of proof works. --Jay (Talk) 18:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, we've proved why it's reasonable to think so. We're not trying to prove that it's a definite, merely a reasonable possibility. The popularity of SNL, and those sketches in particular coupled with the fact that the category appears in all of them, plus the fact that we know TBC are fans of SNL, and that many of the people here know the phrase from those sketches rather than from jeopardy itself provides a reasonable possibility. — Defender1031*Talk 18:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What the Google search shows is, most people who use the phrase use it as a reference to Jeopardy! or alcohol. We're not doing searches related to the sketches, but searches on all uses of the phrase. A high percentage (100) of skits use the phrase, but a low percentage of uses of the phrase relate to the skits. So while it's true that an SNL skit implies usage of "Potent Potables," the converse isn't necessarily true. In general, usage of "Potent Potables" is unlikely to imply a connection to SNL. This is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. A implies B is not the same as B implies A.146.122.71.68 18:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's like It's dot com said, "potent potables" isn't one of the most quoted phrases from the SNL sketches. A proof for that goes like this: for the search snl celebrity jeopardy, at the time of this posting, there are 268,000 hits. However, for the search "potent+potables"+SNL "potent potables" snl there are only 1,020. Given that it appears in every one of the sketches, one would expect a higher number. It's not because it's not a reference, but because it's not one of the most quoted lines. A more accurate gauge would be to ask anyone who is familiar with the sketches what the first thing they think of when you say "potent potables" is. I guarantee you that every one of them will say SNL. I posted "I got a poll for you all this time: When I say 'potent potables', what's the first thing you think of? A: Jeopardy B: Saturday Night Live's Celebrity Jeopardy Sketches C: Alcoholic drinks" as my facebook status, and already the first person to answer implied that no one would think otherwise... why don't you naysayers post this as your stati and see what happens? — Defender1031*Talk 18:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Facebook friends tend to be similar to a user, particularly in age. It's about as far from a random sample as you can get. If you look at all of the confirmed references to SNL on the site, you'll see they only reference the period from 1975-1995. It's reasonable to assume they're only fans of episodes from that time.146.122.71.68 18:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's why i suggested you also try it and see. — Defender1031*Talk 18:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You also taint the poll by offering suggestions.146.122.71.68 18:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not when those suggestions are the only things we're debating. Your opinion is in there just as prominently as mine is. — Defender1031*Talk 18:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I think I met the burden of proof for showing that the SNL connection is not a logical assumption.146.122.71.68 18:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[Undent] Wow. You guys are sure gonna argue this until you're blue in the face, because the cows came home a long time ago. Considering the specific phrase "Potent Potables" doesn't actually appear in this e-mail, what we're actually discussing is A, which is probably a reference to B, which might be a reference to C. "Quotient Quotables" gets a good four thousand Google hits too. So what we're talking about here is a second-order reference that long ago entered the public parlance, so possibly the only way to know the answer for sure is to eat TBC's brains. In lieu of that, just agree on some sort of a "maybe" or "might be" modifier. --Belthazar 21:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange. I get 593 hits for "quotient quotables," not four thousand. Anyway, hasn't this wiki shied away from "maybe" and "might be" modifiers due to the fact that they suggest TTATOT? But I think the fact that "potent potables" isn't mentioned explicitly tends to give more support to the Jeopardy!-only reference. Saying "potent potables" would be a reference to Jeopardy! that could also be a reference to SNL, but the implied reference here is to a Jeopardy! category. I don't see how it's relevant to mention where the category gained popularity. In either context, it's a Jeopardy! category.146.122.71.68 12:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Why should saying it directly make any bit of difference? It's still a takeoff of "potent potables" which either way could be from either jeopardy or SNL's jeopardy sketches. Also, like I said before, the is NOT TTATOT. We often use "might also be" wordings in cases where the popularity or prominence of the reference in the derived material is greater than that of the source material. The general rule for a reference that comes from one place originally, and was used in a second place referring to the original source before TBC used it has been:

• If the source material is of far greater popularity, and the reference has greater or similar prominence in the source material,
• or the source material is of greater or similar popularity, and the reference has far greater prominence in the source material,
• or the source material is both of far greater popularity, and the reference has far greater prominence in the source material,
• then we only cite the source.

However, conversely,

• If the derived material is of greater or similar popularity, and the reference has far greater prominence in the derived material,
• or the derived material is of far greater popularity, and the reference has greater or similar prominence in the derived material,
• or the derived material is both of far greater popularity, and the reference has far greater prominence in the derived material,
• then we're comfortable citing both with a wording implying that it could have come from source→H*R or from source→derived→H*R.

Basically, to simplify, the two factors are popularity and prominence. If the source reference is greater when combining those factors, we only cite the source, whereas if the derived reference is greater when combining those factors, we don't disregard the source, but we cite the derived reference as a possibility also.

In conclusion, this looks very much to me like the second case. SNL is at least as popular as Jeopardy is, and the prominence of the quote in question is far far far far far greater in SNL than it is in Jeopardy. — Defender1031*Talk 17:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm entirely neutral on this fact, not being familiar with either the source material or the parody thereof, but I *would* like to note that, for all those arguing that "A is a reference to B, which was popularized by C" isn't done here... How about "mut-ants" being from a movie popularized by MST3K? All right, so it's a bit different, being that the film in question was obscure, while both Jeopardy and SNL were popular, but... same difference, otherwise. -YK 18:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm... you just made a flawed argument, pointed out why it was flawed, and then threw off a "same difference" without explaining why it wasn't flawed. In fact, it was flawed because the ONLY difference between the situations IS the critical turning point, thus proving MY point. Like i said, popularity is one of the two major factors. — Defender1031*Talk 18:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hold it, hold it. There's no need to attack me, since I'm not actually arguing against *you*. It's more an argument against those who say "we don't need to mention where it was popularized, just where it originated". I'm merely noting we *have* done this sort of thing before, and it wouldn't be grossly out of place to do it again. Heck, I don't see any harm in including a small blurb in the fun facts about SNL using the "Potent Potables" category. Giving it some thought, if it appeared in *every* Celebrity Jeopardy skit, as I'm gathering it *did* (or, at least a better majority of them), that's *certainly* notable, because I'm not *entirely* unfamiliar with Jeopardy; my grandmother used to watch it every night, and I can't say I particularly recall "Potent Potables" as a category even once (it was a long time ago, however, so I'm likely mistaken; if it did, it didn't stand out, at any rate). Finally, it's worth noting that there's a trope for this sort of thing, referred to as the "Weird Al Effect", where parody overtakes the source in popularity. Now, I'm gonna bow out of this one, as I have nothing more to offer. -YK 18:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean for that to come off sounding like an attack. I also read what you wrote wrong. I missed the phrase where you said "for all those arguing that", hence i thought it was you making the flawed argument... whoops. — Defender1031*Talk 18:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

SNL, and particularly SNL's Celebrity Jeopardy! parodies are by no means more popular than Jeopardy! itself. Perhaps in the microcosm of 18-25-year-olds this is true, but not on the whole, and not by a long shot. By the way, I didn't claim this is TTATOT, just that those words tend to imply such. To YK, the reference once posted here wasn't even of the form, "A is a reference to B, which was popularized by C," which wouldn't be true anyway. SNL used a phrase already popularized by Jeopardy!, and which wouldn't have made sense as a joke were this not true. This was stated in the form, "A is a reference to B, which was used in C." There's a difference. By the way, I did an optionless Facebook poll, against my better judgment. I got only one response (my friends are status-poll averse), which said the only place he could think of hearing the phrase was Jeopardy! (and he watches/watched SNL). I'm quite confident that were you closer to TBC's ages you wouldn't be arguing for SNL. Those who were watching SNL regularly at the skit's debut in '96 got the actual Jeopardy reference.146.122.71.68 19:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm exactly one week older than Matt. — It's dot com 19:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Knights... and DeFender aren't, according to their user pages. I was probably a bit over-confident in my assertion, but I still think age is a dominant factor here. The larger the group of 30-somethings, the less likely one is to think "Potent Potables" came from, or was popularized by, SNL. I certainly would expect someone older (and this really isn't meant to put down younger people, just emphasize a difference in perspective) to understand that SNL isn't more popular than Jeopardy!

(Edit conflict'd) Of course Jeopardy! is more popular than the SNL parody. that's not the point we're trying to make here. this isn't simply about which show is more popular. if it was, this section of the talk page wouldn't be here. i'm just saying that it is that much more common to see "Potent Potables" in an SNL parody than an actual game. and i can understand that SNL's Jeopardy! reference in 1996 made sense to those watching then, but this isn't 1996. it's 2009. you have to go with what makes more sense now. it has definitely turned into more of a running gag inside of the SNL parody since then. The Knights Who Say Ni 19:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you read DeFender's post? He said, "Basically, to simplify, the two factors are popularity and prominence." So yes, we're talking about which show is more popular. As far as prominence, only one skit has referenced the category after the initial reading. In real terms of popularity, Jeopardy! gets 9 million viewers daily. Last season, SNL enjoyed a huge leap in ratings, nearing 7 million viewers. It has typically been far lower. In a typical season, about half as many people watch SNL as Jeopardy!, and with daily shows and rotating viewership, Jeopardy! reaches far more people. Jeopardy is more popular, and in episodes where the category appears (more than the number of episodes of SNL), it is more prominent. Edit: 1996 is relevant. TBC's references to SNL come from 1995 and earlier, so this is when they likely would have been introduced to the skit. Unless this wiki goes all post-modern, what they knew first plays a big role in determining what they meant.146.122.71.68 19:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Was there a time frame during which potent potables was more commonly used as a category on jeopardy? (I ask because growing up I used to watch jeopardy a lot and I never saw it). -132.183.151.100 19:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict'd again) No, we aren't talking about which show is more popular. if we were, we wouldn't even be having a debate b/c Jeopardy! is undoubtedly more popular. The only thing DeFender's "popularity" refers to is the popularity of Potent Potables being a category. And so what if there have been more instances of "Potent Potables" in Jeopardy! than there were episodes of the SNL parody? there are more than a hundred episodes of Jeopardy! every season, which has been running since 1984, giving well over 2500 episodes, (idk the exact number) and all that would require would be 15 instances of "Potent Potables". 15/well over 2500 is less than 1%. when put up against 14/14, that just doesn't compare. The Knights Who Say Ni 20:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First of all, "only one skit referenced it" is bogus. EVERY ONE OF THE SKITS referenced it. Secondly, when i say "similar popularity" i'm not talking numbers. I'm talking a scale that goes from obscure to nationally recognized. Even if Jeopardy gets 9 million viewers and SNL only gets 7 Million, or even 4 million, they're still on the same scale in terms of national recognition. They're both highly famous shows. Thirdly, I don't see any reason that just because their references thusfar have been to sketches from before '96 means they can't also be fans of the later sketches. Lastly, I agree with anonny 132. I have watched many many many many episodes of jeopardy and not once seen that category. (Which is not to imply that i doubt it has ever been used, because it's documented that it has been, i'm just saying that it speaks to the prominence factor.) — Defender1031*Talk 20:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) To knights: no, the popularity goes to the popularity of the show. What you call "popularity of the reference" is what i call the prominence factor. Like i said, popularity is not measured in hard numbers but in general renown. — Defender1031*Talk 20:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually DeFender, I said, "As far as prominence, only one skit has referenced the category after the initial reading" (emphasis mine, after the fact). Only once has the category been selected. There have been 14 Celebrity Jeopardy skits over a span from 1996-2009, on a show that's aired since 1975. You can't only look at the number of skits, because they comprise a very small part of SNL. I don't see how you can argue equal prominence just because of national exposure. Viewers matter. You can't rank "Pink Lady and Jeff" equal to "M*A*S*H." Fellow annony, I haven't watched as much Jeopardy! since entering the full-time workforce, but I remember the category quite well from the '90s into the early '00s. Anyway, I've stated my case, I vehemently oppose inclusion of this fact due to irrelevance, but I don't care to fight it anymore. It's taking too much time and effort. So I'll urge non-inclusion, but if you put it in I won't revert, and I'm probably not going to keep posting here (although it is addictive).146.122.71.68 20:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, there have been way too many words said about this. It's pretty obvious that those doing all the talking aren't going to change their respective opinions, so by now it seems kind of pointless to keep going. Looking over the entire discussion, I count ten people who have commented. Of those ten, one is explicitly neutral toward a compromise version, two are vocally against, three are vocally in favor, and and the other four seem like they would be okay with it. I think our energy would be better spent coming up with an acceptable compromise version. — It's dot com 20:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's going in anyway... I'd suggest appending ", which is the sole real Jeopardy! category in SNL's Celebrity Jeopardy skits." BTW, "not going to keep posting here" was intended to mean arguing, not posting on the wiki.146.122.71.68 20:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't work, because "Potpourri" is also there in about half the sketches, and that one i actually HAVE seen on jeopardy a couple of times. Also, as far as the sketches and overall popularity go, the celeb jeopardies are arguable the most popular of the post '96 SNL sketches. — Defender1031*Talk 20:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"ONION BUUUUBSSSS!!!"

The cheering crowd, which includes the fanatic who screams "Onion Bubs" (from original and A Death-Defying Decemberween), appear in this sbemail. Does that mean that they should have a separate page since they've been heard three distinct times?

I'd say no, because the only things that can be said about them can (and probably already are) noted on Onion Bubs's own page already. --Jay (Talk) 19:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

404'd

Currently, whenever I try to view the regular page or the flash file, I get 404'd. Anyone else? What can I do? Can someone put up a mirror?

Not me. I'd try to put up a mirror, but I don't know how to. Sorry about that. Maybe clear your cache and see if that works. After that, wait. If it doesn't clear up, the only option left would be to contact the Chapmans. Maybe the error is on their side. (On a related note, can anyone teach me how to make a mirror of stuff? Maybe on my Talk Page?)--Jellote wuz here 20:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you check the URL? Do you have the lastest version of flash?

mystery homestar theatre 3000

Did you guys know homestar was watching city (comma) state.

User:Ar2nF

Yes, actually. See the inside references.--Jellote wuz here 23:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No! No more Strong Bad Smiling! NO MORE, I SAY!

This article is criminal purely for the reason that it contains yet another Strong Bad Smiling. This is not unusual any more, people! No more Strong Bad Smiling! It happens every toon or every other toon nowadays, we do not need to point it out any more! User:Mr_Eyeball

As little as this needs to be here, Mr. Eyeball has a point. Espemon333 01:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

We've had some discussion on this before (Talk:Strong Bad Smiling). I'm all for the removal (or SEVERE toning-down) of the page, but consensus seems to remain split at best. --Jay (Talk) 01:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree --Platinum789hi

Wrapping it up?

I don't think the way SB talks at the beginning is most accurately described as rapping. It's more... i dunno... jive speak, or something. -128.103.10.119 02:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Yes it does!"

Anyone else notice that Strong Sad is visible at the back of the group? --93.96.201.18 10:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes we does! He even seems to be singing along. That was was the joke. Good eye, though. --Jellote wuz here 10:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Was it really? I don't understand it then. Mind elaborating? NMRodo 22:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Strong Sad is saying his own Paunch smells. Despite denying it moments earlier. Espemon333 03:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Gutterances

I think there should be a gallery for the symbols that represent SB's sounds, perhaps on a separate page. -128.103.10.119 14:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

gutt*e*ral

No-one else notice Strong Bad's spelling mistake? He combined "gutteral" with "utterances" to form "gutterances". The problem is that "gutteral" itself isn't a word. It's "guttural".

Shut Up Lady

I'm kinda thinking that in this e-mail, Strong Bad has decided to refer to the woman who says "Oh, that looks sinful," as "Shut Up Lady". Therefore, the sentence would be, "Shut up, Shut Up Lady." Can't really be proven, I suppose, but that's how I interpreted it. mag3b

I think that is the joke. Accept. Oops, no wait. STUFF is dead. Oh well, except anyway.--Jellote wuz here 20:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the joke is that the repeated "shut up" matches "frou frou", "chichi", and "restaurant-restaurant", said moments before. --DorianGray 20:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As i have said before, the joke is both. — Defender1031*Talk 20:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

But there's no real reason to think it's a "both" joke when the explanation that DG gave explains it fully, right? (Kinda similar to the Family Feud thing)-132.183.151.161 21:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The others have a reason he's saying it twice. — Defender1031*Talk 21:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I realize. But I'd argue that that reason is misunderstanding. -132.183.151.161 21:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Restaurant restaurant"? --Jay (Talk) 21:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Rule of 3. Once you get to 4, the pattern has to resume. — Defender1031*Talk 21:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I definitely hear it as using "Shut up Lady" as a title for the lady. But neither this joke nor the other one needs explaining in the article, so really, it doesn't matter if this is the case or not. Heimstern Läufer 01:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I also hear it as naming her Shut Up Lady. It's all in the inflection of Strong Bad's voice. In the other uses of repetition, he said something like "restaraunt restaurant,", where as here it sounds more like "Shut up, Shut Up Lady". I'd change the name of the Shut Up Lady article, but the last time I tried that it just got reverted. Monkeytender 02:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

fo yo / fo your?

The text in the email asks if Strong Bad has a dictionary "fo your own words," but Strong Bad pronounces it "fo yo own words." Should this go in goofs?

• Some people pronounce "your" as "yo" for short. That'sBupkis! 21:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

has strong bad ever shown a history of pronouncing it that way though? The Knights Who Say Ni 21:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is SB poking fun at Costrick's likely typo here. Rather than reading it as "for your" he pronounces the "fo" as written, and then truncates the "your" as if the whole sentence was intended to be jive-speak. He emphasizes both "fo" and "yo" in that sentence, marking the choice as intentional, as in, not a goof. Nightsong81

Assistance

Could someone please upload the "hwimswelf" definition for the Own Dang X page? Once again, I just want to say that my CPU fails at uploading at all, and that I cannot do it from home. Help? Please? --Jellote wuz here 23:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for underscoring how unimportant the page is. I'll do it at a friend's house, I guess. That might take a month.--Jellote wuz here 21:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Coach Z

I think Coach Z's emblem shrank. Anyone agree? Platinum789hi

When did you see his emblem shrink? - ElTrentoEstudios 15:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Aungh

Doesn't it's symbol resemble Strong Bad's face?

I do see a slight resemblance to Strong Bad, but I don't think it was intentional. --DENNIS ^T/_C 18:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)