From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Come on, is anybody genuinely interested in the appearance of boats in Homestar Runner? Omnisweater 01:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this article is fine and perfectly within our norms, but not as a running gag article (which is the only thing to which the page you link is meant to apply, anyway). Heimstern Läufer 01:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking I agree with Omnisweater here. This is spoons at their best. BALEET it. --Onamuji (b/w T. C.  ) 00:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I am genuinely interested in the appearance of boats in Homestar Runner. OptimisticFool 12:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
El deleto grande! This page is worthless, and who really cares about boats in the H*R universe? It is a spoon, really. I withdraw my comment. --Jellote wuz here 14:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This page has been here for years, has worthwhile content, and is just as interesting as cars. Further, it's not even up for discussion, so stating an opinion for delete is kind of pointless. — Defender1031*Talk 14:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
We have the right to discuss, it, but I nuetral for now, I guess. --Jellote wuz here 15:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The argument "It's not up for discussion" is pretty weak, as slapping a TBD on the page is trivial. That having been said, I have no problem with this page. - 15:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to have to get something off my chest now, so please bear with me: "It's a spoon" is the most overused, misapplied and misphrased reason for deletion at HRWiki. Lemme break it down for you:
  1. HRWiki:Spoons has never been and never will be policy. It was written by a respected user to illustrate a point during a major lull in updates, at which time many users were looking too hard for articles to write, particularly running gag articles. HRWiki:Spoons is essentially an essay that distills of some ideas in our inclusion guidelines. It is in no way binding, it's really just a friendly reminder.
  2. HRWiki:Spoons is not a prohibition against common objects as articles. It is an advisory against those used very little and in a mundane way.
  3. If we must invoke HRWiki:Spoons in a deletion discussion, saying "It's a spoon" is not the correct way to phrase it. An article is not and can never be a spoon. We can say things like "per HRWiki:Spoons" (though honestly, why not explain in detail why you think this article isn't used often or interestingly enough to merit an article instead?)
OK. Please return to your regularly scheduled discussions. Heimstern Läufer 15:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
All right, Heimstern, here go thought-out, detailed argument.
I would argue that this page differs from cars due to the unusual existence of cars in FCUSA. No one is ever actually shown to know how to drive a car (Dangeresque is an actor), and the lack of roads or even worn-down tire grooves throughout the entirety of FCUSA seems to imply that no one ever uses a car to travel anywhere. Boats, however, need only water to be used for travel, and do not leave any permanent or semi-permanent sign of their passing on the Earth's surface, so it is impossible to determine how commonly they are used.
Furthermore, while the occasional boat has been shown to have a motor, it is not unreasonable to think that all boats present could simply be rowed, while the idea of moving a car by manpower--Flintstones cars notwithstanding--is pretty much preposterous. (The occasional cruise ship could not be rowed, but they are seen in the ocean and could thusly dock elsewhere on Earth.) I mention this simply due to the apparent lack of access to gasoline in FCUSA, but one might argue that whether or not fuel is present is moot--Bubs has friggin' everything.
To summarize all that blah-dee-blah: boats in FCUSA are used in exactly the ways that are expected in the real world, and thusly are an example of the kind of article advised against under HRWiki:Spoons. Cars exist almost entirely as props, and are never used for their real-world intended purposes.--Onamuji (b/w T. C.  ) 16:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
As mentioned, HRW:Spoons is not policy. You edited your post, so I'll edit mine: HRW:Spoons may not even be a very good idea, at least the way it's commonly interpreted. I find a list enumerating the various appearances of boats useful. — It's dot com 16:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you know what? Strike my entire previous argument. I was pondering how this page could be useful, and then began wondering how the Wiki is useful to anyone, and came to a conclusion. The Wiki's main purpose is simply enjoyment of its users, and thusly this article has no reason for deletion. The Wiki's secondary, unintended purpose is to serve as a data library for TBC, who(m?) we know from commentaries just search the Wiki whenever they're looking for a graphic they made previously. Thus, without this page, we may be less likely to see any future boats in FCUSA, which could result in changes to scripts pre-release, and so on and so forth (did I just use a slippery-slope argument? the shame.) Because of all this, I'm changing my vote/opinion/whatever thingy to KEEPLETED! Er...Um...Yeah. Keep. --Onamuji (b/w T. C.  ) 17:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Something tells me that the reason why this article was TBD'd in the first place was because it's a bit dull. If this article is supposed to be about all the boats of H*R, please tell me why there's only one image of a boat on the article? Compare this with other articles (i.e. Toilets) and the solution is clear. I say keep, and add a gallery for the rest of the boats! – The Chort 20:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I have since changed my vote to keep, as you can see. Since all of the attempts at deleting this page were either old or repealed, should we remove the "TBD" tab?--Jellote wuz here 17:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools