Talk:Harry Potter

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
This is the talk page of a deleted article. Please do not participate in the discussions archived here. If you can provide a reason for the existence of this page that hasn't been discussed below, you may start a new section. Please refer to the inclusion guidelines that are generally applied to judge an article's merit.

[edit] DVD commentaries

This is something that has come up before: do DVD commentary references really count? I mean, if the page can stand without them, go ahead and add them, and Rankin/Bass is kind of on the line, but then you have... this. Provided nothing has been overlooked in this page's creation, there have been zero Harry Potter references on the website, zero in DVD toons, zero in games, and... one arguable one on a T-shirt. Everything else is DVD commentary. I say we need to draw the line, and this is out, but hey, I'm just one voice. What do all y'all think? (PS. I have nothing against Harry Potter the franchise; I'm something of a fan. I'm just trying to be realistic as to how it relates to Homestar Runner, and that is this Wiki's focus.) --Jay (Talk) 05:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this was nearly all DVD commentaries. Yeah, I tend to think this is iffy. It's appropriate to mention DVD commentaries in cases where the site itself also includes enough references to justify an article, but I don't think an article should rest entirely or even mostly on them. I continue to believe that there is, in fact, a Harry Potter reference in the HR body of work, but that was declined in STUFF, and even if we accept that one, it's only one. So this article doesn't seem to have a good basis for existence. Heimstern Läufer 05:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I think DVD commentaries should count as references, since they are done as if the characters were saying the commentaries, and even when they're not doing the voices the Brothers Chaps have entered themselves into the Homestar Runner body of work before (in Sbemailiarized!), so they're pretty much characters themselves. I personally view the commentaries as an in-universe look into the H*R characters views on stuff. Jennifer 05:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I cannot say I agree with the thought of most DVD commentaries being an "in-universe view" on anything. Especially not the ones simply commentated by Mike and Matt Chapman (and the other real-life people that assist them). I think the only commentaries that really count as being in-universe views are the ones on the website. --Jay (Talk) 05:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
If all but one instance are on the DVD commentaries, which appear to be comments made by Matt and Mike at the spur of the moment, then this definitely has no reason to be called a running gag. Despite being spur of the moment, however, I think that it is okay to include DVD commentaries in these articles as long as they don't count toward the required number of references needed to contitute a running gag here. Also, in another issue, the overuse of running gag articles is one of the few problems I have with this wiki. I believe that running gag articles about popular TV shows and movies should need more than just three instances to be made into an article. In my own opinion, if we should see six mentions of one TV show or movie, then we can create a running gag article about it (although personally I still wouldn't say that the article fits the definition of "running gag"). The Brothers Chaps don't seem to be huge Harry Potter fans (I could be wrong), and they certainly are not trying hard to find references they can squeeze into their toons. Thus, I do not think we should keep this article. Homestar-Winner (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think DVD commentaries alone justify a page. In addition, two of the four references I think are questionable. Umbridge is a "probably but not 100% certain" kind of reference, and as for Slytherin, I guess I'd have to hear the commentary to know for sure, but it seems like he could very well have just been cutting off the G and saying Slitherin'. So that makes two solid references, and two debatable. Even if they were all four in-universe (in-toon), it still might not need it's own page. Since they're not, I think there's no question.--.Johnny Jupiter! talk cont 06:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Although, just for the sake of putting my opinion out there, I searched to find the declined STUFF Heimstern Läufer mentioned, (I hadn't seen that discussion before) and I think I would have voted to accept it back then. (I really do think that was intended to be a Harry Potter reference.)--.Johnny Jupiter! talk cont 06:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure wether or not DVD commentaries apply as part of running gags, but I do agree with Jennifer in that the commentaries are part of the body of work and that TBC have sometimes blurred the line between actual toons and commentary (on both side of the fence) so saying that commentaries can be an in-universe thing is definitely not an unreasonable argument in the least. I think that leaves us with this: should we revise our inclusion guidelines to have stricter criteria for running gags covering real-world references? Should we define what material counts for a RWR gag (i.e. only material that shows up in toons, only web toons, everything)? Maybe do both? Neither? Maybe all of the above? At the very least I think we should begin by differentiating a RWR/RW entertainment running gag from generic in-universe running gag (i.e. Mountain Dew vs. DELETED, respectively). --Stux 15:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we should mess with our guidelines until we come to some kind of consensus about this article as it stands. As it is, three instances, one of which is debatable and all of which are in DVD commentaries by the Chaps themselves (not in character), don't make a very good article in my opinion. — It's dot com 16:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The references on the commentary themselves are just things TBC noticed about their toons. It's not things they put on the toons in the first place when making them. They didn't MEAN for the picture with the Tandy to look like a wizard picture - There for there's no wizard picture in the toon itself - therefor it's not a direct reference. It's OK to have those if we have other, solid references on the page, but only indirect ones? Sorry. it got to go. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 05:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm torn on this. On one hand, yeah, they're only commentaries, but on the other, the commentaries ARE part of the body of work, and i find it an interesting look into their psyches/interests that they make a lot of these references when doing commentaries, but don't actually think of them when making the toons themselves. I'm on the fence but leaning toward actually being of the opinion to accept this. — Defender1031*Talk 11:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal tools