From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
This is the talk page of an article that has been merged with Unseen Characters. 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] Delete?

I don't think this page should be deleted. I think it's a prefectly legit inside joke. Heimstern Läufer 23:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't either, but Seriously apparently really wanted the deletion templates up and was clogging recent changes, so I made them for him/her. Seriously, if you have a good reason to delete it, post it here! — talk Bubsty edits 23:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Looks like seriously removed the template, meaning he/she is fine with the article. I'll take the template off here then. — talk Bubsty edits 23:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that it should definitely be deleted. First of all, unlike Dan, it only appears twice. Second of all, we don't have any information other than the fact that he appears to be a boy. Mikatoo 20:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this article should be left alone or moved to the e-mail page as a subnote. He may reappear as a character. Cold Rappity Rap. 21:06, 30 November 2007.

[edit] No, seriously, delete

This has 2 appearances, one of which is said for a second on the CD, not even on the site. This is really not noteworthy, I say delete. Dr. Clash 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No. It's a perfectly legit inside joke. With the previous votes, no delete won the debate before... 3-2 No Delete. --TotalSpaceshipGirl3 22:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite see the point in this article. Loafing 00:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The criterion for a running gag is that it have three or more appearances. This one only has two, and so the second appearance is simply a reference to the first — it's noted this way on Strong Badia National Anthem#Inside References. So, until a third appearance, er, appears, I move that this be deleted. {stance changed to neutral — see below} Trey56 00:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with statements, er, stated, above. Delete. Has Matt? (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again, delete. Dr. Clash 00:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that, despite the obscurity of it, and only 2 appearances of it, it should stay, because while it doesn't appear much, it is noteworthy. At least, it's noteworthy enough for TBC to mention it more than once. The_3000th_Flare 20:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. Haddiman I really don't think Jerome is all important unless he makes a third appaearance, if he will make a third appearence I say he stays otherwise [thumbs down}.
Historically, this article has been in the Inside Jokes category rather than Running Gags. I'd consider that a more appropriate description of this article. I have stated multiple times that I'm in favor of keeping this article, and still am. Heimstern Läufer 19:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This is an inside joke, not a running gag, so keep. —BazookaJoe 19:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Inside joke. Like many of the other "names of significance" (Dan, Dennis, etc.), --DorianGray 19:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This might be an inside joke, but it seems to be a mere coincidence. BALEETED! --Collin Diver 16:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. With only two sightings, one of which wasn't even on the site at all, one can hardly call this a running gag or even an inside joke. If anything, one references the other. Link the two uses of Jerome on their respective pages, but this one isn't needed. Delete. -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 19:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I kinda think Jerome is of some importance, but there definitely needs to be some more things added to the article. BTW if you can mention 1/2 and appearance more then we have 2 1/2 appearances which rounds up to the required (or suggested?) 3 appearances, by convention. Neutral. --Stux 20:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

An inside joke needs to happen at least three time on the site, not including CDs etc. I say this is totally DEL TACO!!! I mean, DELETED!!! --thelongestpants 16 June 2007

[edit] Comments added after above discussion was closed

Delete. Hey, what ever happened to this conversation? TheYellowDart(t/c) 05:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete for reasons sstated above. — Defender1031*Talk 05:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
In reply to TheYellowDart: This discussion was closed as no consensus on April 18. Heimstern Läufer 05:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I see a lot more deletes than anything else here. — Defender1031*Talk 05:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Consensus is not measured by numbers. At least, not solely by numbers. Heimstern Läufer 06:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Then by what? — Defender1031*Talk 06:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Where can I find the April 18th conversation, Heimstern? --TheYellowDart(t/c) 06:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The 18th of April was when the template was removed. The conversation leading up to it is up there. (points to above conversation) Shwoo 06:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Depending on your definition of consensus, it is measured by numbers. For example, I'm happy to call anything close to 100% consensus ;-) In this case, it was more like 8 - 4 and 1 neutral vote. That's not very close to 100%, especially when you consider that most of the keep votes (sorry, "opinions", not "votes" ;-) ) were cast by serious editors. You'll also notice that I voted for deletion, as did Trey who removed the tbd template. Loafing 12:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I counted 12 deletes and 3 keeps and 1 neutral. To me, that's good enough to delete. --TheYellowDart(t/c) 05:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are a lot of other ex-pages that had more appearances that were deleted. Delete it! --The Goblin!! 05:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
It's normally not necessary to tally names like this, but I'm just trying to get a consistent count here. Up till the current conversation, I count the following people in support of the article — Heimstern Läufer, Bubsty, TotalSpaceshipGuy3, The 3000th Flare, BazookaJoe, and DorianGray — and the following people in opposition of the article — Mikatoo, Dr. Clash, Loafing, Trey56, Has Matt?, Haddiman, Collin Diver, and YK. That made it 7-6 in opposition of the article, which is why the discussion was closed after over half a month of inactivity.
Since that point, Thelongestpants, Theyellowdart, DeFender1031, and Techgeekmbg have recently expressed their opposition to the article, which makes it 11-6. If more people express their opposition to this article but none express support, then there may be a case for reopening the discussion and deleting this article.
The point Heimstern is making is important, though, which is that the final outcome will be determined not only by the number of users in support or opposition of the article, but also by the quality of their arguments. Trey56 05:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Dang it, I'm always mis-counting things. But I actually would of put a quality argument if there was anything left to say. To me, this article is irrelevant and just not worth it. There is not even three appearances, and one is even not on the website. The article's description is one sentence itself! --TheYellowDart(t/c) 06:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
keep it... it made me laugh.

[edit] how does this need cleanup?

seriously? it does not need cleanup. Slipknot6477 13:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right. It needed cleanup before, but then Shwoo went ahead and fixed it up. I removed the cleanup template. Has Matt? (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Um, seriously, let's get rid of this already.

There's 3 threads about deleting this article, two of them seemed to have reached a consensus to delete this article, yet still, here it is. Why is it still here? I'm in favor of delteeting this article. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 05:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Lets just do it already! DELETE! The Goblin!! 05:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe this was discussed quite long enough last time, and no, it did not reach consensus. In case this is unclear, consensus is not defined as a simple majority of users or any such thing. Heimstern Läufer 05:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, consensus aside, let's reach one now. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 05:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Neither of the people above who advocate deleting the article have given a reason why. Since, again, this is a discussion, not a vote, I think it would be appropriate for them to do so. I am in favor of keeping this article because we believe it is an inside joke (not a running gag). The article has been here long enough that I think TBC would need to say "nah, there's nothing to that" for us to dismiss it. — It's dot com 05:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I stick to my reason in previous discussion. The Goblin!! 06:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Since we already deleted that article about that lady Strong Bad said "Shut up" to twice, we should delete this one as well. Sewiously. Bad Bad Guy 16:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
It would seem to fail to meet notability guidelines, since there are only two appearances. Now that we are keeping talk pages, we could restore at a later time. But for now, del taco. wbwolf (t | ed) 16:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure what Dot com is saying above is that inside jokes have a different notability criterion than running gags. Inside jokes do not necessarily need more than two appearances, because we believe it might be somehow significant to TBC. Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 16:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep this article because of its inside joke status. —BazookaJoe 18:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
If this discussion is open again, then I'll go ahead and go on record as supporting deletion. Dagron 19:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Only two appearances, one of which isn't even on the site. For the love of Pete Sampras, delete it already!The Chort 19:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree with previous opinions — delete. OptimisticFool 20:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Support keep for reasons stated by It's dot com and Homestar Coder. --DorianGray 20:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with DG, It's dot com and Homestar Coder. Keep. User talk:Sam the Man Sam the Man 20:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

New thread. I stand by my previous vote to delete this article. As is, it's essentially pointless: it's all of one line long, thus providing almost no actual info whatsoever (info we're not terribly likely to *get*, either, I might add). It has only two appearances -- one of which isn't even on the site itself -- and add to this the fact that the context of which the name "Jerome" appears is almost identical... Granted, we have no clue what TBC's motives behind this were, but given how long it's been since the name has last been used, I fail to see, myself, how this qualifies as a running gag, or even an inside joke. Perhaps it's a kid they went to school with. It doesn't really matter. Unlike Dan, Kevin, or Greg, this name isn't used enough to warrant a separate article. I say, unless we get at least a third appearance that'd provide us with some sort of information on the enigmatic "Jerome", this article should be axed, and the appearances simply linked in the "Inside References" sections of the respective articles. -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 21:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

i dont care if i sound stupid... but can someone plz explain to me the difference between a consensus and a vote? --Acam30 03:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A simplified explanation: A consensus has been reached when everybody (or the vast majority) active in a discussion agrees on one outcome. In a vote, a simple majority would win. This means that articles only get deleted if everybody or nearly everybody agrees on the deletion. Hope this helps. Loafing 05:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks loafing, that cleared it up for me. :) --Acam30 01:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

oh, and i agree that an inside joke doesnt really need more than two appearances, because if TBC noted it at least twice, its noteworthy on the wiki. --Acam30 03:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason the page hasn't been deleted is because someone tried but failed using the delete template. That person put [deleted] and {deleted. He can't say job. Don't say jorb 101 Seriously, he can't say job!

No, the reason this page hasn't been deleted is that there was no consensus in the original discussion. Loafing 05:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
IT NEEDS TO GO The-homsarrunner 11:33 24 November 2007 (UTC)
DELETE it. TBC were just making reference to anything when Homestar called the sender "Jerome". If they use it again, it should be an article, but for now, I say delete. Homestar-Winner (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
...heh. They were referencing what Homestar said as he said it? I think you mean the mention of Jerome in the Strong Badia National Anthem was referring to anything. (Or possibly vice versa; I don't know which came first.) -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 22:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character? No way, José!

I think that Jerome is an inside joke, but I do not think he's a boy. A name Jerome may be, but a page that says he's "a boy of somesort" doesn't mean he's a character in the H*R universe. I think this page should be transferred from "Jerome" to a new page that has to do with "Mentioned Characters". He can't say job. Don't say jorb 101 Seriously, he can't say job!

See also: Unseen Characters. --DorianGray 03:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it should be moved to Unseen Characters then. He can't say job. Don't say jorb 101 Seriously, he can't say job!

Hey, that's a great idea! Why didn't we think of that before? – The Chort 21:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
It's actually *been* there for a while, linking to this page. And frankly, without any actual info on him, it's where "Jerome" *belongs*. -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 02:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I also think we should merge it with unseen characters. No, wait, I lied, this article sucks. Pretty bad. Jerome is just another stupid nickname given to a sbemail sender. It's bad enough that Gunk Iller has a page! Haldo 21:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)user:haldo
Here's a better article to compare this to: Beth (as opposed to Old Lady). Beth was only mentioned twice and was swiftly deleted. Logically, this page should not exist either. Some might even say Jerome is less deserving because we actually saw Beth in kids' book, while we never met Jerome. Bad Bad Guy 04:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Most people aren't articles. 05:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Starting a new thread here. I agreed fully with Bad Bad Guy, and would like to elaborate further. Now, if certain minor characters we see or hear more than once are still deemed "too minor" to deserve a full article, then *what*, exactly, makes two very obviously related uses of a name, and nothing more, article-worthy? We can't even be sure that "Jerome" *is* an in-joke between TBC, and *if* it is, who really cares? It's an extremely minor one, hasn't been used in years, and this one-line article on it, in addition to being highly unnecessary, is also entirely uninteresting and uninformative. What's more, there's not even a very good *reason* to believe it's an inside joke.

Exhibit A:
-Homestar, with his usual loose grasp on reality, calls the sender of an email "Jerome" instead of Dan. He later tells "Jerome" to stay after class. This isn't even a particularly unusual gag: Strong Bad also often makes up a new and entirely different name for email senders or their locations, and often plays on whatever he made up later. For instance, video games. The sender is from "AZ", which Strong Bad misinterprets as "Alcatraz". At the end of the toon, he brings this fact back up with a salute to "all his boys what got sent up the river". And regarding made-up senders' names... Does Simone deserve an article? Or Josh? After all, *they* might be inside jokes, too... Or not. Moving on...

Exhibit B:
-Cut ahead to the Strong Badia National Anthem. Obviously being a play on singing the national anthem of one's country in school, for comedic purposes, Strong Bad needs an obnoxious kid to make trouble. Now, the way TBC think, they already "had" a "troublemaker student". Ergo... Reused joke.

Perhaps I still haven't explained it enough... So one final thought: If re-usage of a name is all it takes to constitute an "inside joke" article, why haven't we created Steve yet? After all, it's been used at *least* twice that I can think of.

All right. End rant. Just my two cents worth. (Or, heh, due to the inflation of this post, probably more like two *dollars* worth.) -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 04:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how anybody is supposed to argue against that point. I would like to know, right now, what some people believe is the reason Jerome is a more valid "inside joke" than Beth, Sweet Lady X, or Stiny. Bad Bad Guy 22:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current status

Here's a transcript of an IRC conversation concerning the current status of this page:

Trey56: Class dismissed! Except for you, Jerome!
Heimstern: Speaking of which, can we close that discussion now?
Heimstern: I.e., Talk:Jerome?
DorianGray: Only if it's for keeping. =3
Trey56: I keep looking at it, and I get too overwhelmed each time.
Heimstern: I see no consensus again.
Trey56: There are six deletion sections -- do I really have to read through them all to see what people feel about the page? :-\
Heimstern: Yeah, pretty much.
Trey56: See, that's my problem.
Trey56: er, 5 I guess
Trey56 bites the bullet
Trey56: Okay, just counting users, I count 12 different users in support of the article, and 22 different users in opposition to the article.
Stux: wow
Trey56: I've removed my "vote" from that tally, as I no longer feel strongly that it should be deleted.
Heimstern: Wow.
Stux: I feel it should be kept too, so I wanted to say something,
Stux: (but i was gonna wait if Trey was going to do something to the talk page)
Trey56: stux: I might still...
Trey56: Here are the core arguments I see:
Trey56: Against: "Jerome is a running gag, and as a running gag it needs 3 appearances"
Trey56: For: "Jerome is an inside joke that TBC have, so it deserves a separate page"
Heimstern: We have got to remind TBC that they need to have Jerome in another toon soon so we can have this settled.
Stux: and don't forget the unsaid "It's been there since the beginning of time"
Trey56: I don't agree with the "against" argument, because it doesn't feel like the separate appearance is a reference to the first.
Trey56: Stux: yes, true
Stux: how'd we know it's an inside joke? it sure sounds like one
Trey56: Heimstern: can you answer that one?
Heimstern: And what stux says is a big thing. Look at the views count: 13,000 people have viewed this article.
Stux: also, aren't the 3 appearance rule more of a guideline than a rule?
Trey56: also true
Trey56: ...but it's a good guideline to follow most of the time, I think
Trey56: less than three for a running gag is a bit tenuous, I think
Trey56: In those cases, it's usually sufficient to post a note on the article in which the second appearance occurs and say it's a reference to the first
Trey56: But that doesn't seem to apply here
Heimstern: To delete something viewed by 13,000 people, most of whom did not complain, we ought to have near-unanimity.
Trey56: Heimstern: can you put into words why you see it as an inside joke rather than a running gag?
Heimstern: Not immediately, no... but maybe I could if I sat on it for a while.
Trey56: I think that a strong explanation of that could be very helpful for saving the article...
Stux: I think there's a strong set of arguments we can place now (the set being strong, not the arguments individually)
Heimstern: Trey56: So, I take it you're still not ready to close that discussion.
BazookaJoe: Trey56: *I* thought back to anything when I listened to SB Sings.
BazookaJoe: Classroom setting.
BazookaJoe: Jerome talking out of turn.
BazookaJoe: Same Jerome, I want to think.
Heimstern: Yes, the similar context is certainly part of it.
Trey56: BazookaJoe: Hmm... that would make it more of a running gag, no?
Heimstern: It's also partly the fact that they hid it in a seemingly random part of the SB sings CD, suggests that they wanted it to be found by the select few.
Heimstern: At least, that's my theory.
Trey56: Oh, look at this: Strong Badia National Anthem#Inside References
BazookaJoe: Heimi's got it. It's an inside joke.
BazookaJoe: them inside jokes don't need 3 instances like your running gags generally do.
Trey56: But, if the inside joke is that it's a reference solely to anything, doesn't that make it a running gag?
BazookaJoe: heh. read the transcript. i love how sb almost says he's going to hit a student.
Heimstern: Yus.
Trey56 goes to read Inside Jokes
Trey56: Hmm
BazookaJoe: You're trying to define an inside joke as something that doesn't refer to an earlier trigger appearance, but something that's just there multiple times for the fun of it?
Trey56: at this point, I'm just trying understand what the definitions already are...
BazookaJoe: I could say the same thing about a lot of running gags, I guess. And I admit that our definitions suck and will likely never get any better.
BazookaJoe: Because no one understands them to begin with.
Trey56: from reading Inside Jokes and Running Gags, it looks as if a running gag is simply an inside joke that has appeared 3 or more times =3
BazookaJoe: Probably no one understood the difference when they made the pages.
Trey56: in which case, the guideline of "a running gag must have at least 3 appearances" is ridiculous
BazookaJoe: Perhaps that guideline is why there are so many articles of running gags listing similar things, but are not really running gags in the sense that they refer to a previous instance or appearance.
BazookaJoe: That is, they don't make you think back to that previous appearance.
BazookaJoe: Sounds like a project!
Heimstern: In all honesty, part of my argument is that this page is worth grandfathering in. I doubt it would survive had it been made yesterday (but that may suggest more problems with our current system than our old one).
BazookaJoe: Mission: Impossible.
DorianGray: *goes to find his M:I theme MIDI*
DorianGray: Yay.
Heimstern: Our current system is too based on an inflexible system of "three appearances = page, < three appearances = none".
DorianGray: I love that song.
Heimstern: 22 to 12 is not consensus, even by the numbers.
Stux: don't forget the 13,000 views that Heimi mentioned
Trey56: Looks like a big margin to me
Heimstern: Consensus is like, 80 to 20 or so.
Stux: or 99% in this case
Heimstern: Or 75 to 25. No one passes RFA at 'KP with less than 75.
BazookaJoe: well, we're at 65-35 now.
Heimstern: *No one except the exceptions that get hotly contested.
BazookaJoe: oh wp is so much fun. needs more administrators, but more admins = more crazy admins.
Trey56: Well, at very least I don't think the discussion's ready to be closed.
Trey56: Heck, we can't even define "running gag" and "inside joke", and that's a major crux of the supporters' argument.
Stux: well it still seems like jerome fits the inside joke category
Stux: it's just that it's um.. vaguely defined. i think.
Trey56: And Bad Bad Guy posted on the page a day or so ago, so it's not a dead conversation
Trey56: Stux: yeah, that's the problem

There seem to be two major issues at stake here:

  1. Is Jerome a running gag or an inside joke? What is the precise difference between those two things, anyway?
  2. This page has been here for a long time, with little objection; precedent is to delete such pages very reluctantly.

Really, we need to hammer out the first of these first. After that, if there's a large majority of users who have good reason to oppose this page, then we'll need to determine if that is a significant enough margin to delete a page that has existed for a long time. Anybody have input? Trey56 07:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well if we're keeping him just because he's being referred to as an "inside joke" instead of a "running gag", then we can restore every "running gag" article that was deleted because the gag only had 2 instances (I'll throw in Someteen and I don't trust that guy farther than I can throw him as more examples) and add them to "inside joke" categories so we can see if people changed their minds about deleting them just because that 3 instances rule no longer applies to them! That's the main thing that bugs me about this talk page. Bad Bad Guy 16:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* That IRC log doesn't say anything worthwhile. And it still fails to answer our question of why, beyond the weak defense of it "being here for a long time", "Jerome" qualifies as a more legit "inside joke" (or how two *VERY VERY VERY OBVIOUSLY RELATED OCCURRANCES OF THE NAME* could be considered anything remotely resembling an "inside joke" anyhow) than the others mentioned here that've been deleted. For the record, I feel that "Jerome" is neither a running gag (it's only been used twice; that's a reference, not a running gag) *or* an inside joke (just because it's so similar in usage). Groan. This worthless page is gonna get "TBD" notices slapped on it and removed by admins who don't see a "consensus" being reached from here until doomsday, it seems. I really can't see what the big fuss is over keeping a one-line article that it's dubious at best is an actual "inside joke". Well, I've given my reasons, and they aren't the "three times or no page" variety. But I've yet to see any particularly compelling reasons why this should be kept. Age is not a good reason, and "it's an inside joke" is, I'm sorry, but pure speculation. -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 01:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

YK: I posted the IRC log for two reasons. First, it includes a summary of the current status, including a count of the supporters and opponents of the page and a summary of their arguments. Second, it highlights, I think, the reason we can't seem to reach consensus: people don't have a common understanding of what the difference between a running gag and an inside joke is. Until we resolve that, I don't see us figuring out what to do with this page. Trey56 01:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but my beef is that I can't really see this as being either a running gag *or* an inside joke. But that aside, what exactly *is* the difference? It seems to me as though a running gag would be a joke used over and over, which has little meaning except possible to TBC, while an inside joke would be... a joke used over and over, which has little meaning... except... possibly... to TBC... In other words, the two terms seem so similar, it's really no wonder there's all this confusion. -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 01:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you recall if Talk:Beth said why we can't write an "inside joke" article for every name that's been mentioned twice? Bad Bad Guy 20:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I just thought I should try to find proof that all the crazy articles I mentioned were real:

Talk:Beth has been restored, as requested. --DorianGray 04:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Talk Beth seems to imply the reason for deletion was they were "not the same person". Well, these Jeromes are clearly not the same person, either. Admittedly, the context of the second implies that TBC were referring to the first, but the first was an email sender named Dan, and the second was a child in the SB song. DAGRON 05:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
While I'm at it, the way I think one would define an "inside joke" is a joke that is more or less specifically for TBC amongst themselves (for example, their making action figures cost 11.01, because it matches the birthday date. It's not really meant to be funny to anyone but them, and it wouldn't be to any casual observer, it seems), rather than a joke that has arisen in and become ubiquitous throughout HR. (Like, say, lowercase i's, that arose in HR, from SB's font, and is now used all over. Does that make sense at all? DAGRON 05:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
And I feel that Jerome isn't really an inside joke, because, although it is TBC referring to the anything email, it's not like it's a joke that is specific to them or that arose before/outside HR. But this, of course, is dependent entirely on my own view of running gag/inside joke distinction. DAGRON 05:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we also restore Talk:Someteen? I think it sounds as valid an inside joke as Jerome "is" but I could not find the discussion anywhere (not even on Talk:Glossary) Bad Bad Guy 14:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I just restored Talk:Someteen. On a side note, your tone was a lot less demanding than last time — thank you. Trey56 19:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So, it seems to me, going by the talk page for "Beth", that about all *this* article has going for it by comparison is that it's been around for a while. Sentimental value does not a good article make. I know that comparing one page to another is frowned upon here, but keeping this while deleting Beth for the exact same reasons we've proposed here is just a vicious double-standard at work. -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 00:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Saying that it's been here forever, or should be grandfathered in doesn't really fly for me (with no disrepect to whoever said 'em, of course). Either we stay consistent, or we leave the Jerome page but at the same time reexamine our policy. We can't do both. -DAGRON 02:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd say the former. I'm not crazy about the idea of making a lot of similarly worthless pages for everything we *think* might have some kind of significance to TBC just because the subject matter was reused once. -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 02:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this too. I just meant that we should resolve the double-standard one way or the other. But yeah, I still support deletion.DAGRON 02:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dargon's theory of why Jerome is not a running gag or an inside joke seems pretty solid. Is there a solid argument about why he is an inside joke? Bad Bad Guy 15:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

From another point of view, I think this being stressed and taken too seriously. Think about it. Take a look at the article. A couple dozen words and a picture. All this talk for a silly tiny morsel of information. I mean, who seriously cares if this one page gets deleted, depite the fact that it has been here for a while and has a good number of page views. I think a bold admin needs to take a bold leap and finally end this thing. --TheYellowDart(t/c) 15:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
One thing that bothers me is that we don't even know if the anything Jerome was trying to be disrespectful. All he did was begin his email with "Dear Strong Bad" instead of "Dear Homestar" because it was physically impossible for him to predict Homestar was going to answer it. Bad Bad Guy 16:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Settle down class, we got to get this right. I've read all the talk page from top to bottom and I've made my decision: This page, as it currently stands, should be removed from the knowledge base. The argument about the article being too old and visited by many people is, in my opinion, not relevant. This article is from the time when our guidelines were more flexible. We allowed such articles with two appearances to stay and a lot of them were labeled "Inside Jokes". Most of them got more appearances over time and as we reshaped our guidelines, there was no need to delete them. A lot of articles deemed to "minor" to have their own page were merged to general articles in nice tables. Except this one. Now let's take a step back from the article and talk wiki.
Wikis evolve. They are constantly changing. Especially encyclopedic ones. New articles and guidelines for inclusion are there today and not tomorrow. Just a few hours ago I checked an article I liked in Wikipedia that for a long time was a Good Article (one of the milestones before Featured Article) and I saw it was demoted to a regular one for having too little references.
My point is, that if an article was acceptable once, it doesn't need to be again. Back to our topic, I know how articles used to look a few years ago, and I know what they look now. Someone here raised the question whether or not this article was created yesterday, would have it survived the deletion process? Most likely not. Sure, there is not clear cut consensus here to delete, but take a close look at the voters: Most of the ones for deleting are somewhat new users, who only know the wiki standards as they are now. Most of the ones for keeping are wiki veterans, who know what our standards been in older days. I am not saying that one view is better then the other, on the contrary, both are important. But the fact remains that this is not the HRWiki of 2004 (when this article was created). This is HRWiki of almost 2008. Many things changed. Whether this is an inside joke or a running gag does not matter. Our inclusion guidelines, although just guidelines and nothing more, speak for themselves, and no, I do not think this article would have survived had it been created yesterday.
In summary, either delete this article, or merge it with Unseen Characters as suggested in a section above. Now let's move on to the next topic and get this one over with. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 18:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm a relatively new user, but I thought that things needed 3 references to be counted. I say merge. CompGrl323 (talk · edits) 18:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
You nailed it, Elcool. --TheYellowDart(t/c) 18:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
If this is acceptable (and I would insist on the part about the possible allusion), then we can remove the tag above and put this to bed. I think it's the best solution: for those who would rather keep the article, the content is still on the wiki in some form; for those who are worried that deleting such an old page ignores its history and could potentially break external links to it, it's still a blue link; and for those who think the content wasn't up to our current standards, it's no longer a separate article. — It's dot com 19:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. and done {tucks the article beneath a blanket}. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 19:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Very satistfied with the outcome. Good work, men. DAGRON 06:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This works for everyone. I do apologize if I came across as a whiner, though. -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 07:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools