Talk:History according to Strong Bad

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Ding! History according to Strong Bad is a featured article, which means it showcases an important part of the Homestar Runner body of work and/or highlights the fine work of this wiki. We also might just think it's cool. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.


[edit] Still Not Funny

Might old comics and The Castlefunnies fit in here, since it was supposedly a newspaper strip that ran 60+ years ago? There's even a fun fact on it being of debatable continuity... --DorianGray

Cheers! Any updates are greatly appreciated. Thatanonnywhocan'tbestuffedgettinganaccount, 6:50 WST

[edit] Unnatural

Could unnatural count because of its plothole concerning the Kashi?

Don't think so. We could actually see all this happening. The Kashi bit fits just fine on the inconsistancies page. --DorianGray 00:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The talk page for inconsistencies settled once and for all that it should only include inconsistencies that span at least two toons. Bad Bad Guy 00:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, why did you think it belonged there? Did you not think that maybe it was supposed to make no sense? Lightly used and slightly confused, Bad Bad Guy 00:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conjecture

I think we really need a conjectural title tag for articles like this. Here are some good examples of them from Wookieepedia and Super Mario Wiki. Conjecture tags improve the professionalism and credibility of fiction wikis immensely, and users may be turned off by articles using unofficial terminology without warning. Thanks, and great article, by the way. Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif) 17:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You're referring to the fact that the name of this article, Strong Bad Lore, is a descriptive term we invented to describe the content of the page rather than something taken directly from the original source. This is true. However, the title is not conjecture per se. Maybe something like "This page describes a phenomenon or theme within the Homestar Runner universe. The title of the page is descriptive only." — It's dot com 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. A conjecture tag may still prove useful for articles, though. Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif) 18:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title change

Strong Bad Lore sounds like a fanon term and I think Strong Bad's Lore would be better grammar. Would anyone mind if I moved the page? Thanks, the evil, dead Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif) 15:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of that new title. Anyone else? kai lyn 16:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Me. SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 14:41, 8 March 2007
I strongly oppose. It's a perfectly fine title. Loafing 20:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the title could be improved upon altogether. Based on the definition of lore, it just doesn't seem like the right word to describe this page. Granted, "Stuff Strong Bad made up that's probably not true" is a little cumbersome, but is there something along those lines that would fit better? — It's dot com 20:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How about renaming it to something like Strong Bad Fiction or Strong Bad's Stories? Sounds simple enough. Okay so I'm still not 100% happy with those, but perhaps they are better than lore. --Stux 21:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I like Strong Bad's Stories. And what makes it "perfectly fine," misguided Loafing? Misleading readers into thinking something you made up is an official, canon Homestar Runner term is "fine"? Or are you assuming The Brothers Chaps will find the name so funny, they incorporate it into the actual show universe (don't want to get blocked by Loafing for not calling it what he calls it)? Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif) 10:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
"Lore" isn't a good title... I noticed this even while I supported featuring the article. I don't really love Strong Bad's Stories; Strong Bad('s) Fiction sounds a bit clearer and more encyclopedic to me. If I could think of some more encyclopedic term for "wild made-up tales", I would suggest that. Heimstern Läufer 18:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
How about "Strong Bad's Tall Tales"? I don't like the constant capitalization at all, though, because it makes it look like an official term when it's not (for example, saying "[random capitalized name for an occurance here] is often seen in the..."). I'm not referring to in the article title, by the way. Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif) 03:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I like fiction. It perfectly demonstrates the title in an encyclopedic way, and in my opinion, Stories, Tall Tales, and Lore are a little more... unprofessional. Bluebry 03:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
But we don't know if it's all fiction. --Trogga 03:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
True. And while it may be stories and tales (Tall tales? No. Tales? Yes. Tails? Sonic is awesome.), it's definitely not lore. However: Do we have any proof other than Strong Bad's word that it ISN'T fiction? We can't assume it's fiction, and we can't assume it's nonfiction. Anyone got any neutral, encyclopedic-sounding titles? Bluebry 04:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
"History According to Strong Bad". — It's dot com 04:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I like it. It's neutral, pretty professional sounding. Anyone object? Bluebry 04:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I like it too — it sounds professional, and it doesn't place a true or false judgment on his stories. Trey56 04:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I like that too. Really straightforward. Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif) 08:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, good by me. Heimstern Läufer 08:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Sixth'd for History According to Strong Bad Dr. Clash 03:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
"History According to Strong Bad" — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 10:28, 11 March 2007
Moved. — It's dot com 02:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Good jorb. Nicely overhauled and looks like it's free of any grammatical issues like "this is a good example of history according to Strong Bad." Keep up the good work, y'alls. Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif) 14:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What about; "Strong Bad's Doodle History"? Like his doodle memory? --Jagger88 13:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] looking old

Can we count the sect of monks that closely guards his secret age? Bad Bad Guy 06:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably. Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif) 08:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Most likely, but it seems more like a joke than a story, or tale, or a history. Plus, we can't add every single little joke we think might be untrue. Bluebry 15:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I think this may be one issue with the title "history according to Strong Bad." That sort of destroys the possibility of adding relevant possible truths presented by Strong Bad such as this one, as they do not reflect anything historical. Before the title change I would have definitely voted on the looking old thing, though Bluebry is right that adding such could cause flooding, since this is such a recurring thing. Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif) 14:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
As I wrote in the article's history page, TrogdorCon doesn't feel historical either, so I think either we keep both or we remove both. Bad Bad Guy 15:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think TrogdorCon really fits on here. It's not so much Strong Bad making up history or even the future as him being clueless as to what year it is and where he is. Or else him just making stuff up. In which case, not everything he makes up belongs here. Heimstern Läufer 01:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, hands down. When I saw that, I also wondered "Does this belong here?" It's-it's just him not really comprehending what's going on around him. AKA He's clueless. Bluebry 01:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Despite what I already said twice, one reason I found to keep lookin old but not TrogDor Con is that he did not mean to make something up in TrogdorCon but in looking old he did. Bad Bad Guy 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC) looking old gonna stay? Bad Bad Guy 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

I personally think it's believable except for the last sentence, which I added in. What's questionable about the rest of it?Bad Bad Guy 02:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should these go?

Lunch special and looking old aren't history-related, but no one has objected to keeping them there yet. Bad Bad Guy 00:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they should be removed; they fit with the original intent of the page, if not the current title. If it helps, history can refer to the distant past, the recent past, the present, or the future. — It's dot com 19:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, these go well with the original intent of the page, perhaps we haven't quite hit the right "title" yet to we can split these off into 2 or 3 pages. I also wanted to mention this removed segment, in that, though not exactly lore, and definitely not history, is a notable instance of Strong Bad calling something whatever he wants and for who knows what purpose. Anyway, in any case, it's made up (come to think of it, that might've made a better page title). --Stux 19:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
"Reality according to Strong Bad"? Too broad? — It's dot com 19:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Now a Strong Bad based Reality show would be cool! Oh wait, that has nothing to do with the discussion. I dunno, I don't think it's that broad -- at least not compared to "made up" -- since it would only encompass things that are not real but that Strong Bad (and to some degree The Cheat) consider to be real. And we could limit this to events at that. ...? --Stux 22:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marzipan's Answering Machine 8.0

Should it be noted that that answering machine supports the existence of 1 personal favorite (the Grape-Nuts Robot) and denies the existence of another (the machine exploding)? Perhaps I should also say here that I thought Marzipan got the machine fixed before that 'toon. Bad Bad Guy 00:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the paper

I believe the flashbacks from the paper belong here, but I don't know how to word it. Bad Bad Guy 17:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2 years???

Given that the article is now "history according to Strong Bad" and barring any serious qualms, I'm gonna remove the entire 2 years section. -Flashfight

...Can I ask why? --DorianGray 22:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It has History according to Strong Bad. Why delete it? User talk:Sam the Man Sam the Man 22:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not history according to Strong Bad, they're predictions made by Strong Bad, a far cry from history -Flashfight

Would your funeral leave along with it? Bad Bad Guy 22:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I would have to say so, the original name of the page (Strong Bad Lore) would accommodate it, however now it doesn't make sense -Flashfight
Well, one might say that since it was supposed to happen in ought-five, it IS history. But I kinda agree with you; it's not REALLY history, and a bit inappropriate in a page ABOUT history. Suggest merge to Time and Space Continuum according to Strong Bad? No, I'm just kidding. That is an awful title. But a move is possibly what we need if we want to keep it and make it fit in. Bluebry 23:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Yeah, so I tagged this article. The prose in a lot of the subsections is rather awkwardly written, and several just don't fit the title. (i.e. as has been mentioned, 2 years and your funeral are most definitely not "history" DAGRON 03:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

i don't think they warrant removal, maybe a change of name? because it's more about the timeline according to strong bad, so i don't think future occurances should be ruled out. — Defender1031*Talk 06:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I would in no way be opposed to this, but a satisfactory title is apparently difficult to come by (points up). And to respond to your edit summary concern, I waited for, like, 6 months before making any changes. No opinions were offered either way. -DAGRON 06:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
November to april is 4 months, but yes, i can see that... still, i think it needs consensus... clearly it is within the scope of the page, and i think that the issue here is the name, not the contents. — Defender1031*Talk 06:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless I'm terribly mistaken, it's closer to 5, but the specific time frame isn't important. What is, is the fact that sitting with a cleanup tag for several months clearly wasn't garnering any attention, so I figured that a "bold" action would be necessary to do so. And I do think the title isn't the only problem, because I maintain that the prose is still awkward and non-ideal. But anyway, I'll wait until more users weigh in on the page. Probably ain't gonna be tonight, as it's late (in the U.S., at least). -DAGRON 06:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
good idea... and the 4 was a typo, it is 5, i mean, an S... i mean, there's not a letter there yet. — Defender1031*Talk 06:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to debate your request for more talk page input, which I find perfectly reasonable. I was just trying to give an explanation for the edit. -DAGRON 07:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in two other sections. I maintain that history can refer to the future, but I would be open to a name change if we can come up with something better. Regardless, every toon currently mentioned on the page does fit a common theme, and thus should stay on the page. We can reword the prose sections if you really think they need cleanup, but I don't see a compelling reason to remove them altogether. — It's dot com 14:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't really need to change the title, we just need to clarify the scope, if necessary, in the opening section. I'll try something. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 21:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Clarifying the scope is an improvement, though certain entries still don't quite fit with the title. Like, the bit from looking old isn't particularly historical in nature it's just kind of... lore.. or something.. Admittedly, it may be the best we can do, however. -DAGRON 06:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys? Apparently some user who left the wiki checked this article for grammar quite a while ago and I'm here to second-check it. This is for HRWiki:Article Cleanup. Would you like me to change the other problems too or let you take care of it? I'll leave the cleanup tag no matter what since this article is clearly suffering an identity crisis. -Brightstar Shiner 20:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have taken it upon myself to revise this article according to the general opinion on this talk page. A sandbox version is available here. If there are no major complains in 3 days (as of 7/17) I will post the new version. -Anvilorduck 16:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's an improvement, great jaerb! One thought, in the 'couch patch' section, I think it's good that you condensed the details about the other character's versions into a single sentence at the end — people can follow the link if they're curious. I'd take it a step further even and remove that last sentence completely. It's really just restating what was said in the first sentence of the paragraph, and not adding anything.  Green Helmet 19:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Done! The new version has been uploaded (albeit a few days late). Anvilorduck 04:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] lunch special

An issue distinct from the appropriateness of the title or the wordiness of the prose: I think that this entry should be removed regardless of the decided "scope" of the page. It doesn't really fit the overall theme, as do all the others, imo. Hear me out: Strong Bad does seem to make up the lunch special thing (which, again, isn't in and of itself much of a lore or history, but that's not the main problem), but he then proceeds to pursue it, suggesting that he believes it is the truth, and is simply misinformed, rather than just making stuff up. This is quite analogous to the TrogdorCon situtation, which was similarly removed. It's the superpowers thing that seems to be the main reason for inclusion on the page. But keep in mind that that was Bubs's assertion. Strong Bad's actually the one that calls him a liar for it. So, sure, if this were a "History/Events/Phenomena/whatever as described by Bubs" page, it would be perfect, but as it stands... -DAGRON 06:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you have such little faith in your powers of persuasion? I've always believed that good arguments get results, which is to say I agree with you, although I think you've misattributed the main problem. (The underlying truth of each of the entries on this page is irrelevant to their inclusion. All Strong Bad has to do is give a version of events, which may be true or may be made up. Like any BS'er, he doesn't care, as he just wants to tell a good story.) You say that the entry on Bubs is not really lore or history, and for that reason it shouldn't be on the page. — It's dot com 16:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that lunch special doesn't belong here. It's not Strong Bad recalling speculative history. It's Strong Bad gossip-mongering about Bubs. – The Chort 20:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template year

Recently, someone replaced "2009" with {{CURRENTYEAR}} but it was reverted for reasons i don't quite understand. I do, in fact, think it's reasonably safe to assume that these things are not going to come true, and knowing this wiki, if they did, this page would not go unnoticed for very long. Conversely, it becomes very annoying to have tons of pages which need updating every time there is a date change. I'm thinking that it probably is a good idea to have that template there. — Defender1031*Talk 12:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not alone... {scary music} — Defender1031*Talk 15:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, wrestling confirmed?

The easter egg in hremail3184 seems to prove the existance of AWMPSCE, meaning the story of yes, wrestling was true, so does that mean it is still an example of history according to Strong Bad? That Game Dude 386 21:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] World-Class Hole: true?

In the sbemail buried, Strong Bad digs a 1-foot hole. While not exactly world-class, could it be noted in the 2 years section as becoming partially true? Sidnoea 04:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To paraquote Strong bad: The Cheat, I thought we were opting for the world-class hole... Not a one-foot hole! In other words, it's a stretch to connect the two events. — Defender1031*Talk 05:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Accent

That's history according to Strong Sad, not Strong Bad. Even though it involves Strong Bad, he doesn't say it. So, should it be deleted? 22:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Future?

Is the Future section really necessary? This page is about history, and it's described in more detail in Predictions. How 'bout it, Steve? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 05:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a bit of info here that isn't presented there which should be preserved (by moving it there). Aside from that one caveat, I support removing the section from here and having this page for Strong Bad's dubious accounts of the past, and that page for Strong Bad's dubious predictions of the future. — Defender1031*Talk 18:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Personal tools