HRWiki:STUFF/Archive/isp

[edit] Sub Standard Fact

From: isp
Posted on: 23:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for:

1. It's true, and it's interesting because it's such an obscure picture.
2. This is the very definition of notable. It lists extra, verifiable information about an element of a toon. It shows us how an image with no connection to H*R found its way into a toon.

Arguments against:

1. This isn't notable.
2. Re: Arg for #1: It is even less notable because it is so obscure.
3. Re: Arg for #2: Again, it is because this picture has no [known] connection to TBC that its notability is debatable. It is hardly worth noting that they just used a random picture.

Additional comments:

Both images together.

• Re: Arg against #2: How could obscurity make it less notable? If anything, it should have the opposite effect. In other words, we don't note things that are obvious, but we do note things that are obscure.
  • We should not note obscure things because nobody is likely to notice. Until we can confirm that TBC have some connection to Sub Central, I can only consider this picture completely random. EDIT: The part about the Google search pretty much confirms that it was just selected from the query return.
    • Are you kidding? That's exactly what it's saying. That's the point. That's why it's notable. We're good detectives! We solved the case! It's true. It's relevant. It's something you don't know until you read the page. It belongs on the page.
      • Yes, you're excellent detectives. You solved a case that was so negligible that it needed no solving at all. I wanted to avoid these words, but the phrase that best describes what I'm thinking is "Who cares?". You can brag about finding out that the background image was taken from some random obscure page, but do it somewhere else. It does not belong here.
        • Yes, it's trivia. It's in the trivia section. It's unimportant in the grand scheme of things. But I strongly disagree with you that the case didn't need solving. Knowing the answer gives insight into the way TBC make toons.
          • I do not see why the case needed solving or why someone would say "Hey, it's a picture! Let's find out where they got it!". It's a picture. In a cartoon. Finding out where it came from could not be less important.
            • It's not that we found it that's notable, it's the fact that, hey, TBC use Google to help with the creation of their cartoons. And I think that's notable.
            • Your quote there is a short definition of the entire reason this wiki exists.
              • No, it is not. This wiki notes what is worth noting. I will say it again: This picture is too obscure to be noted. That is why I continue to deny it.
                • Obscurity does not equal unnotability. It is the exact opposite. If it's bloody obvious, we don't put it. Interesting facts should stay. Obscure = interesting.
                  • True that if something is too obvious we don't note it. But this is the other extreme. It is too obscure to be interesting.
                    • This is not an extreme. Your point of view seems to center around "TBC take stuff from other places, so what?", but the wiki's point of view is more like "TBC take stuff from other places, and people should know that."
                      • You got me, you really did. That is the only good argument I have heard so far.

• Alright, I give up. I can't continue this argument, so someone please close it. I have no idea how.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] One of the 99 Ways I STUFF This Fact!

From: isp
Posted on: 05:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for:

Arguments against:

• Too dissimilar.
• 99 (along with 101) is a commonly-chosen number when one wants to say "a lot".
• 99 Bottles of Beer, 99 Luftbaloons, etc. - 99 is just a good number for this sort of thing.
  • It's also TTATOT.

Additional comments:

• To the original poster of this fact: In general, you should stay away from phrases like "could possibly", "might be", etc. when asserting a reference. That makes it really weak, and generally STUFF happens as a result.
  • To the original STUFFer of this fact: In general, you should not STUFF things that include phrases like "could possibly", "might be", etc. when the item in question is a huge stretch and added by an anonny weeks after the toon premieres... especially when you're just planning to decline it anyway.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] BCS Time Warner

From: isp
Posted on: 02:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• Strong Bad complains about "the merger".
• There another AOL reference on the page.
• AOL is also an ISP.

Arguments against:

• This is an oblique reference to the trend of mergers in corporate business. Any big business merger might be being referenced.
• The line in the toon is way too vague to tie it to any specific thing.
• AOL also merged with Netscape in 1998.
• A lot of other buisnesses mergered with others and was considered a bad move. Why is this one special?

Additional comments:

• Did people complain of slower internet connections after the AOL/Time Warner merger? If so, I would change my vote.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] Strong-Madlinking

From: isp
Posted on: 04:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• It's a way of sucking bandwidth.

Arguments against:

• There are other ways of sucking bandwidth; this is only Strong Mad physically doing what should only be an expression. It's in no way linked to hotlinking.
• Actually, the analogy seems to be much more like Strong Mad is representing a second user on Bubs' ISP, and he's just using it so heavily that Strong Bad doesn't have any bandwidth left. Of course, it's literal in this case...

Additional comments:

• It's a matter of perspective. If you don't agree, it can be viewed as an extreme stretch, considering it's two completely different things, and it's just Strong Mad being, well, Strong Mad. If you do agree, it's pretty obvious what it's referring to, and this fact would do little (or nothing) more than to explain a joke, which generally isn't done here.

Proposed revision:

Arguments for:

• Makes it much more broader & clearer.

Arguments against:

• The reference is still pretty vague, and the fact is just explaining a pretty obvious joke.

Additional comments:

• Is "bandwidth sucking" a real term? It has over 16,000 google hits, but a lot of those are just speaking in general.
  • Wikipedia search result
• This one is better.
  • Better, but still not very good.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] There's a first time for everything

From: isp
Posted on: 16:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for:

Arguments against:

• "First time" facts should be reserved for truly momentous firsts. Laughing out loud is not such a first, especially when we can infer that he has laughed out loud before, albeit off camera.
• A chuckle is a laugh, this fact is patently false.
• This is the very definition of TTATOT.

Additional comments:

• Surely we're not trying to suggest that Bubs has never laughed before, and if it's likely that he's laughed openly before, then it's really not notable that this is the first time he's done so on camera. On top of that, why do the previous three examples of his expressing laughter of some kind not seem to count?
• Maybe it could be reworded as something similar to "This is one of the rare instances of Bubs laughing onscreen?" Because "snickering" and "chuckling" definately count as laughing.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] Hampster Dancing?

From: isp
Posted on: 19:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• The Hampster Dance is considered one of the most popular memes in the history of the Internet. It featured numerous animated gifs of a hamster (misspelled as "hampster") dancing to some annoying music.

Arguments against:

• The Hampster Dance wasn't a GIF, and IIRC it was more than one dancing creature

• From the Wikipedia article cited above: Using four simple animated GIFs (emphasis added) of hamsters, repeated dozens of times each, and a background loop embedded in the HTML, then a fairly new browser feature, she named the site Hampton's Hampster House and had Hampton declare his intent to become a "web star".

• The style is very different.

Additional comments:

• This is a break-dancing hamster. It wears rings, and it doesn't have stubby arms like the hamsters on that site (my cousin goes on it).

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] Undisconnected

From: isp
Posted on: 16:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for:

Arguments against:

• Since Strong Bad is currently downloading a GIF file, he must still be connected to the network. While he may have downloaded the email previously, it doesn't explain how he is able to currently download.

Additional comments:

[ Back to STUFF index ]