Talk:Back Dorm Boys - Revision history

imported>Hardvice at 16:05, 21 January 2007

2007-01-21T16:05:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:05, 21 January 2007
(No difference)

imported>Hardvice at 16:05, 21 January 2007

2007-01-21T16:05:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:05, 21 January 2007
Line 7:		Line 7:
	** Personally, I feel that the whole [[:Category:References]] array of pages should exist to explain all the inside jokes, easter eggs, etc that appear in the show. Besides, I'm sure there are dozens of people who see that scene and wonder "What the?" without knowing the joke behind it. --[[User:Orne\|Orne]] 10:40, 21 January 2007 (EST)		** Personally, I feel that the whole [[:Category:References]] array of pages should exist to explain all the inside jokes, easter eggs, etc that appear in the show. Besides, I'm sure there are dozens of people who see that scene and wonder "What the?" without knowing the joke behind it. --[[User:Orne\|Orne]] 10:40, 21 January 2007 (EST)
	*** I agree - plus it's just a great indulgence, don't you think? - [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|RyanGibsonStewart]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|talk]]) 11:04, 21 January 2007 (EST)		*** I agree - plus it's just a great indulgence, don't you think? - [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|RyanGibsonStewart]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|talk]]) 11:04, 21 January 2007 (EST)
			*** I'll echo that, too. I think it gives us a way to explain these jokes in greater detail than would be appropriate in the episode article. The Rain Man reference, for example, is much better explained if a)you know what ''Rain Man'' is and b)you can see pictures of both the original scene and the ''Heroes'' homage side-by-side. That would be overkill for the episode article, but it makes for a nice reference article.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 11:05, 21 January 2007 (EST)

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: /* Merit? */

2007-01-21T16:04:28Z

Merit?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:04, 21 January 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:
	*** I feel I can lend my support as well. These reference articles may be overly silly, but they gie us something to do at the end of the Hiatus. If the database grown beyond conroll,b perhaps sites like this can be removed, but I feel like they don't casue that much damage as it is -- [[User:Cuardin\|Cuardin]] 10:08, 21 January 2007 (EST)		*** I feel I can lend my support as well. These reference articles may be overly silly, but they gie us something to do at the end of the Hiatus. If the database grown beyond conroll,b perhaps sites like this can be removed, but I feel like they don't casue that much damage as it is -- [[User:Cuardin\|Cuardin]] 10:08, 21 January 2007 (EST)
	**** Ok, cool. Just wanted to make sure we weren't adding too much cruft. :) As for db size, Cuardin, there's plenty of space... bring it on! :) ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 10:23, 21 January 2007 (EST))		**** Ok, cool. Just wanted to make sure we weren't adding too much cruft. :) As for db size, Cuardin, there's plenty of space... bring it on! :) ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 10:23, 21 January 2007 (EST))
			***** Oh, it's already been ''broughten''! - [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|RyanGibsonStewart]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|talk]]) 11:04, 21 January 2007 (EST)
	** Personally, I feel that the whole [[:Category:References]] array of pages should exist to explain all the inside jokes, easter eggs, etc that appear in the show. Besides, I'm sure there are dozens of people who see that scene and wonder "What the?" without knowing the joke behind it. --[[User:Orne\|Orne]] 10:40, 21 January 2007 (EST)		** Personally, I feel that the whole [[:Category:References]] array of pages should exist to explain all the inside jokes, easter eggs, etc that appear in the show. Besides, I'm sure there are dozens of people who see that scene and wonder "What the?" without knowing the joke behind it. --[[User:Orne\|Orne]] 10:40, 21 January 2007 (EST)
			*** I agree - plus it's just a great indulgence, don't you think? - [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|RyanGibsonStewart]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|talk]]) 11:04, 21 January 2007 (EST)

imported>Orne: comment

2007-01-21T15:40:12Z

comment

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:40, 21 January 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:
	*** I feel I can lend my support as well. These reference articles may be overly silly, but they gie us something to do at the end of the Hiatus. If the database grown beyond conroll,b perhaps sites like this can be removed, but I feel like they don't casue that much damage as it is -- [[User:Cuardin\|Cuardin]] 10:08, 21 January 2007 (EST)		*** I feel I can lend my support as well. These reference articles may be overly silly, but they gie us something to do at the end of the Hiatus. If the database grown beyond conroll,b perhaps sites like this can be removed, but I feel like they don't casue that much damage as it is -- [[User:Cuardin\|Cuardin]] 10:08, 21 January 2007 (EST)
	**** Ok, cool. Just wanted to make sure we weren't adding too much cruft. :) As for db size, Cuardin, there's plenty of space... bring it on! :) ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 10:23, 21 January 2007 (EST))		**** Ok, cool. Just wanted to make sure we weren't adding too much cruft. :) As for db size, Cuardin, there's plenty of space... bring it on! :) ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 10:23, 21 January 2007 (EST))
			** Personally, I feel that the whole [[:Category:References]] array of pages should exist to explain all the inside jokes, easter eggs, etc that appear in the show. Besides, I'm sure there are dozens of people who see that scene and wonder "What the?" without knowing the joke behind it. --[[User:Orne\|Orne]] 10:40, 21 January 2007 (EST)

imported>Admin: /* Merit? */

2007-01-21T15:23:17Z

Merit?

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:23, 21 January 2007
Line 3:		Line 3:
	** Well, I agree it doesn't ''need'' its own article, but the same could be said of [[waffles]]. As well, ''[[Rain Man]]'' was only a quick reference, and ''[[Back to the Future]]'' was just two words. For equity alone, I think we'd better keep it. Sure, it's a silly article, but I don't really mind a reference having its own page - there's always related info that can be included on an article page that can't really be included in a Notes section. I don't know, maybe I'm just ... waffling. - [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|RyanGibsonStewart]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|talk]]) 09:55, 21 January 2007 (EST)		** Well, I agree it doesn't ''need'' its own article, but the same could be said of [[waffles]]. As well, ''[[Rain Man]]'' was only a quick reference, and ''[[Back to the Future]]'' was just two words. For equity alone, I think we'd better keep it. Sure, it's a silly article, but I don't really mind a reference having its own page - there's always related info that can be included on an article page that can't really be included in a Notes section. I don't know, maybe I'm just ... waffling. - [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|RyanGibsonStewart]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|talk]]) 09:55, 21 January 2007 (EST)
	*** I feel I can lend my support as well. These reference articles may be overly silly, but they gie us something to do at the end of the Hiatus. If the database grown beyond conroll,b perhaps sites like this can be removed, but I feel like they don't casue that much damage as it is -- [[User:Cuardin\|Cuardin]] 10:08, 21 January 2007 (EST)		*** I feel I can lend my support as well. These reference articles may be overly silly, but they gie us something to do at the end of the Hiatus. If the database grown beyond conroll,b perhaps sites like this can be removed, but I feel like they don't casue that much damage as it is -- [[User:Cuardin\|Cuardin]] 10:08, 21 January 2007 (EST)
			**** Ok, cool. Just wanted to make sure we weren't adding too much cruft. :) As for db size, Cuardin, there's plenty of space... bring it on! :) ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 10:23, 21 January 2007 (EST))

imported>Cuardin at 15:08, 21 January 2007

2007-01-21T15:08:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:08, 21 January 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:
	* What's the general opinion the merit of this as an individual article? As it was only a single occurrence in a single episode I dont think it needs its own article. I think it's sufficient to mention that scene as a note in the episode and then add a link to the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_Dorm_Boys article]. I think a dedicated article to it is overkill. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 09:36, 21 January 2007 (EST))		* What's the general opinion the merit of this as an individual article? As it was only a single occurrence in a single episode I dont think it needs its own article. I think it's sufficient to mention that scene as a note in the episode and then add a link to the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_Dorm_Boys article]. I think a dedicated article to it is overkill. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 09:36, 21 January 2007 (EST))
	** Well, I agree it doesn't ''need'' its own article, but the same could be said of [[waffles]]. As well, ''[[Rain Man]]'' was only a quick reference, and ''[[Back to the Future]]'' was just two words. For equity alone, I think we'd better keep it. Sure, it's a silly article, but I don't really mind a reference having its own page - there's always related info that can be included on an article page that can't really be included in a Notes section. I don't know, maybe I'm just ... waffling. - [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|RyanGibsonStewart]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|talk]]) 09:55, 21 January 2007 (EST)		** Well, I agree it doesn't ''need'' its own article, but the same could be said of [[waffles]]. As well, ''[[Rain Man]]'' was only a quick reference, and ''[[Back to the Future]]'' was just two words. For equity alone, I think we'd better keep it. Sure, it's a silly article, but I don't really mind a reference having its own page - there's always related info that can be included on an article page that can't really be included in a Notes section. I don't know, maybe I'm just ... waffling. - [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|RyanGibsonStewart]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|talk]]) 09:55, 21 January 2007 (EST)
			*** I feel I can lend my support as well. These reference articles may be overly silly, but they gie us something to do at the end of the Hiatus. If the database grown beyond conroll,b perhaps sites like this can be removed, but I feel like they don't casue that much damage as it is -- [[User:Cuardin\|Cuardin]] 10:08, 21 January 2007 (EST)

imported>Ryangibsonstewart at 14:55, 21 January 2007

2007-01-21T14:55:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:55, 21 January 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Merit?==		==Merit?==
	* What's the general opinion the merit of this as an individual article? As it was only a single occurrence in a single episode I dont think it needs its own article. I think it's sufficient to mention that scene as a note in the episode and then add a link to the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_Dorm_Boys article]. I think a dedicated article to it is overkill. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 09:36, 21 January 2007 (EST))		* What's the general opinion the merit of this as an individual article? As it was only a single occurrence in a single episode I dont think it needs its own article. I think it's sufficient to mention that scene as a note in the episode and then add a link to the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_Dorm_Boys article]. I think a dedicated article to it is overkill. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 09:36, 21 January 2007 (EST))
			** Well, I agree it doesn't ''need'' its own article, but the same could be said of [[waffles]]. As well, ''[[Rain Man]]'' was only a quick reference, and ''[[Back to the Future]]'' was just two words. For equity alone, I think we'd better keep it. Sure, it's a silly article, but I don't really mind a reference having its own page - there's always related info that can be included on an article page that can't really be included in a Notes section. I don't know, maybe I'm just ... waffling. - [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|RyanGibsonStewart]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|talk]]) 09:55, 21 January 2007 (EST)

imported>Admin: Don't think this needs its own article

2007-01-21T14:36:11Z

Don't think this needs its own article

New page

==Merit?==
* What's the general opinion the merit of this as an individual article? As it was only a single occurrence in a single episode I dont think it needs its own article. I think it's sufficient to mention that scene as a note in the episode and then add a link to the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_Dorm_Boys article]. I think a dedicated article to it is overkill. ([[User:Admin|Admin]] 09:36, 21 January 2007 (EST))

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:05, 21 January 2007
Line 7:		Line 7:
	** Personally, I feel that the whole [[:Category:References]] array of pages should exist to explain all the inside jokes, easter eggs, etc that appear in the show. Besides, I'm sure there are dozens of people who see that scene and wonder "What the?" without knowing the joke behind it. --[[User:Orne\|Orne]] 10:40, 21 January 2007 (EST)		** Personally, I feel that the whole [[:Category:References]] array of pages should exist to explain all the inside jokes, easter eggs, etc that appear in the show. Besides, I'm sure there are dozens of people who see that scene and wonder "What the?" without knowing the joke behind it. --[[User:Orne\|Orne]] 10:40, 21 January 2007 (EST)
	*** I agree - plus it's just a great indulgence, don't you think? - [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|RyanGibsonStewart]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|talk]]) 11:04, 21 January 2007 (EST)		*** I agree - plus it's just a great indulgence, don't you think? - [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|RyanGibsonStewart]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|talk]]) 11:04, 21 January 2007 (EST)
			*** I'll echo that, too. I think it gives us a way to explain these jokes in greater detail than would be appropriate in the episode article. The Rain Man reference, for example, is much better explained if a)you know what ''Rain Man'' is and b)you can see pictures of both the original scene and the ''Heroes'' homage side-by-side. That would be overkill for the episode article, but it makes for a nice reference article.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 11:05, 21 January 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:04, 21 January 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:
	*** I feel I can lend my support as well. These reference articles may be overly silly, but they gie us something to do at the end of the Hiatus. If the database grown beyond conroll,b perhaps sites like this can be removed, but I feel like they don't casue that much damage as it is -- [[User:Cuardin\|Cuardin]] 10:08, 21 January 2007 (EST)		*** I feel I can lend my support as well. These reference articles may be overly silly, but they gie us something to do at the end of the Hiatus. If the database grown beyond conroll,b perhaps sites like this can be removed, but I feel like they don't casue that much damage as it is -- [[User:Cuardin\|Cuardin]] 10:08, 21 January 2007 (EST)
	**** Ok, cool. Just wanted to make sure we weren't adding too much cruft. :) As for db size, Cuardin, there's plenty of space... bring it on! :) ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 10:23, 21 January 2007 (EST))		**** Ok, cool. Just wanted to make sure we weren't adding too much cruft. :) As for db size, Cuardin, there's plenty of space... bring it on! :) ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 10:23, 21 January 2007 (EST))
			***** Oh, it's already been ''broughten''! - [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|RyanGibsonStewart]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|talk]]) 11:04, 21 January 2007 (EST)
	** Personally, I feel that the whole [[:Category:References]] array of pages should exist to explain all the inside jokes, easter eggs, etc that appear in the show. Besides, I'm sure there are dozens of people who see that scene and wonder "What the?" without knowing the joke behind it. --[[User:Orne\|Orne]] 10:40, 21 January 2007 (EST)		** Personally, I feel that the whole [[:Category:References]] array of pages should exist to explain all the inside jokes, easter eggs, etc that appear in the show. Besides, I'm sure there are dozens of people who see that scene and wonder "What the?" without knowing the joke behind it. --[[User:Orne\|Orne]] 10:40, 21 January 2007 (EST)
			*** I agree - plus it's just a great indulgence, don't you think? - [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|RyanGibsonStewart]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|talk]]) 11:04, 21 January 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:40, 21 January 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:
	*** I feel I can lend my support as well. These reference articles may be overly silly, but they gie us something to do at the end of the Hiatus. If the database grown beyond conroll,b perhaps sites like this can be removed, but I feel like they don't casue that much damage as it is -- [[User:Cuardin\|Cuardin]] 10:08, 21 January 2007 (EST)		*** I feel I can lend my support as well. These reference articles may be overly silly, but they gie us something to do at the end of the Hiatus. If the database grown beyond conroll,b perhaps sites like this can be removed, but I feel like they don't casue that much damage as it is -- [[User:Cuardin\|Cuardin]] 10:08, 21 January 2007 (EST)
	**** Ok, cool. Just wanted to make sure we weren't adding too much cruft. :) As for db size, Cuardin, there's plenty of space... bring it on! :) ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 10:23, 21 January 2007 (EST))		**** Ok, cool. Just wanted to make sure we weren't adding too much cruft. :) As for db size, Cuardin, there's plenty of space... bring it on! :) ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 10:23, 21 January 2007 (EST))
			** Personally, I feel that the whole [[:Category:References]] array of pages should exist to explain all the inside jokes, easter eggs, etc that appear in the show. Besides, I'm sure there are dozens of people who see that scene and wonder "What the?" without knowing the joke behind it. --[[User:Orne\|Orne]] 10:40, 21 January 2007 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:23, 21 January 2007
Line 3:		Line 3:
	** Well, I agree it doesn't ''need'' its own article, but the same could be said of [[waffles]]. As well, ''[[Rain Man]]'' was only a quick reference, and ''[[Back to the Future]]'' was just two words. For equity alone, I think we'd better keep it. Sure, it's a silly article, but I don't really mind a reference having its own page - there's always related info that can be included on an article page that can't really be included in a Notes section. I don't know, maybe I'm just ... waffling. - [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|RyanGibsonStewart]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|talk]]) 09:55, 21 January 2007 (EST)		** Well, I agree it doesn't ''need'' its own article, but the same could be said of [[waffles]]. As well, ''[[Rain Man]]'' was only a quick reference, and ''[[Back to the Future]]'' was just two words. For equity alone, I think we'd better keep it. Sure, it's a silly article, but I don't really mind a reference having its own page - there's always related info that can be included on an article page that can't really be included in a Notes section. I don't know, maybe I'm just ... waffling. - [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|RyanGibsonStewart]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|talk]]) 09:55, 21 January 2007 (EST)
	*** I feel I can lend my support as well. These reference articles may be overly silly, but they gie us something to do at the end of the Hiatus. If the database grown beyond conroll,b perhaps sites like this can be removed, but I feel like they don't casue that much damage as it is -- [[User:Cuardin\|Cuardin]] 10:08, 21 January 2007 (EST)		*** I feel I can lend my support as well. These reference articles may be overly silly, but they gie us something to do at the end of the Hiatus. If the database grown beyond conroll,b perhaps sites like this can be removed, but I feel like they don't casue that much damage as it is -- [[User:Cuardin\|Cuardin]] 10:08, 21 January 2007 (EST)
			**** Ok, cool. Just wanted to make sure we weren't adding too much cruft. :) As for db size, Cuardin, there's plenty of space... bring it on! :) ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 10:23, 21 January 2007 (EST))