Talk:List of Pure Pwnage episodes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 24/3/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Easter Egg Section

Some of this section is pure conjecture, with no cited sources. For example:

'In the same sequence, a voice is heard saying "I'm just going to go kill myself." This is from a YouTube video of a guild's instance raid to Molten Core, where a girl remarks she is going to commit suicide.'

The youtube video linked was uploaded 11 months after the episode aired, even if it is a re-upload, something as generic as "I'm just going to go kill myself" (which is not quoted verbatim in the episode) should not be attributed to a video that is not widely known in the 'World of Warcraft community' unless this has been stated by the Pure Pwnage crew. This is in contrast to the Leeroy reference, since no one could've reached the maximum level on World of Warcraft around the time this episode was released without knowing about the Leeroy video.

There are numerous other less significant errors in this section, so long as no one has any objections I'll go through and clean it up, unless someone wants to beat me to it.

Edit: Forgot the tildes, damnit! :P Osmodius 11:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What Leeroy video, and who's Chuck Norris? spazure (contribs) 02:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Triva

General trivia has been moved to the main Pure Pwnage wiki, episode specific stuff is here. Is this okay? Nawara Ven 04:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's fine. Infinity0 talk 16:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Episode 10

I can't read the episode 10 paragraph since I don't obviously want spoilers, but why is it so long? Someone, please, make it shorter... --84.249.252.211 11:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, same here. I just reverted it for now. -- infinity0 13:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Some people want to know what episode 10 was all about. There is a big "Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow." at the beginning of the article for a reason. As for the length of the section, there is no point trying to reduce it to two paragraphs because would impossible to explain all the details, and no one can download the episode for the moment. It could have been even longer -- I could have explained every single joke, but I instead wrote a short blurb about each scene. Please don't revert it because you personally do not like spoilers. Some people do. Wikipedia's purpose is to provide information, not to shape your moralisitic perceptions. -- 206.126.82.230
All the other episodes have been reduced to two paragraphs. The point is NOT to explain all the details, just give a general overview. This is an encyclopedia, not an episode guide. -- infinity0 21:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
All the other episodes have also been released for people to find out what the whole episode is about. Feel free to condense it to two paragraphs once the actual episode is available to the public, but until then, please keep the complete synopsis for the curious. It's hard to imagine what's happening when whole sections are being omitted. As far as I know, this is the only place where one can get a complete spoiler of episode 10. Not on the Pure Pwnage forums, and not anywhere else.
Even a bunch two-paragraph summaries makes for an episode guide. Wasn't that the reason why the episode summaries were moved to a separate page altogether? I can hardly call the list of Easter Eggs (most of which are just bits of trivia) encyclopedic. Why don't we delete that, too? -- 206.126.82.230
Look, find me ONE person that has found that 6 paragraph essay full of spoilers useful and I'll re-add it. -- infinity0 22:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you really want me to bring this issue up on the Pure Pwnage forums? As I've said before, feel free to condense the spoiler after the episode is released on the internet; until then, it should be as complete as possible because only about 800 other people have seen it firsthand. -- 206.126.82.230
Why don't you go post it on the Pure Pwnage forums then? -- infinity0 22:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
This sort of thing is best put on the Pure Pwnage forums instead of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Fancruft. -- infinity0 22:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It can be argued that this entire article is fancruft, then. In that case, even two paragraphs are too much, and each summary should be only one or two sentences. For example. episode 9 spoils the fact that Dawei is out of the show. Anyway, the thread on the Pure Pwnage forums is at http://www.purepwnage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16950 -- 206.126.82.230
Fancruft is unnecessary details. Two paragraphs to explain a 20-minute episode is not. -- infinity0 22:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please shorten the summary down to a reasonable length. Not everything mentioned in there is notable. --Cyde Weys 22:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you been listening to a word I'm saying? All that information is necessary because no one else has seen the episode, and the episode is unavailable for people who want further insight. I keep telling you that even I think it should be condensed once it is made public. Anyway, I found at least one person who wants the spoiler up. It stays. -- 206.126.82.230
The argument that it should be a long summary now until it is publically released, at which point it can be shortened down until everyone will have been able to see it, is fallacious. If it hasn't even been publically released yet there's no way to verify any of the summary. It could all just be made up. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Cyde Weys 23:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It is verifiable by all the people who attended the premiere, as noted on the forums. If that is still against Wikipedia policy, then the whole section should be removed, including the title of the episode (because no one can supposedly confirm it). -- 206.126.82.230
Please read WP:V. Forum posts are inherently non-verifiable. Anyway, I'm telling you how this is going to be resolved: wait until the thing is released publically, and then write a summary of length similar to the other things. Also, I'd recommend getting a user account. --Cyde Weys 23:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The information is not public information. Jeremy and Kyle delayed release for a reason. -- infinity0 23:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
You cannot put words into their mouths. If you were at the premiere, they only stated that the audience could not film it nor produce pictures of Kyle's face. They never said anything about revealing its contents via text, and they even allowed people to take pictures of the episode while it was being played. No one knows the real reason why there is a five-day delay. -- 206.126.82.230
Similarly, you can't put words into theirs, and conveniently assume that just because they didn't forbid you from telling everyone about it through wikipedia, doesn't mean they don't want to. -- infinity0 23:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
What if you would just ask the author through the thread on the forum? (I specifically mean Kyle) --nlitement [talk] 23:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Both of your arguments are absurd. Let me cover Cyde Weys first: He starts citing Wikipedia policies in his defence. Well, according to Wikipedia:Original research, there is no original research allowed. However, none of these episode overviews have been published by any reputable source (the official site certainly doesn't have any episode summaries). Therefore, this entire article is one big violation because people interpreted the content in the episodes themselves. But as you can see, going strictly by-the-book is fallacious when it comes to internet-related phenomena such as this one. Cyde Weys, you as an admin should know that common sense overrides everything else. I was merely acting in good faith by posting the spoiler here and not on the official forums.
The original source counts as a verifiable source. For instance, there's episode summaries on Wikipedia of pretty much every Star Trek episode ever. It's not as if people have written scholarly articles on each episode; rather, the episode itself is a verifiable source and if the article merely summarizes what occurs in the episode, that's acceptable. The problem with what you were trying to do is that the episode is not a verifiable source because it isn't released yet. There's no way for anyone to verify your synopsis because we can't get our hands on the episode. Once it is publically released it does become a verifiable resource because anyone can go online, download the episode, and verify that the Wikipedia synopsis is correct. Do you understand where I am coming from? --Cyde Weys 01:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
As for Infinity0, my statement is not necessarily true when stated in reverse. Most of the biographies on Wikipedia are not authorized; does that mean that they should all be deleted as well?
In any case, it seems that Infinity0 will just revert all the changes I make because of his bias that he couldn't attend the premiere. The information is public: Anyone could have attended the premiere; it was not a private screening. No one had to sign a contract of confidentiality. I don't want to spend any more energy arguing over this, because Kyle did request it to be taken down (or at least replaced by something that does not reveal any jokes). -- 206.126.82.230


Listen the lot of you, I'm anonymously voting that you damn well reinstate everything that was previously there. I would very much like to read about it because I'm interested and want to know something about the episode. I don't care about spoilers, aslong as its true it should be on there, people who want it off are just splitting hairs, the nitty-gritty of it all is that episode descriptions should be there and who's right is it to takes someone else's off. More information is better, it's that simple.
There's no voting and you can wait a fracking day until the thing is released online and it does become a verifiable source. Anyway, one of the people involved with the production of Pure Pwnage said that it was a terribly written summary and I tend to agree with him. --Cyde Weys 05:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Kyle said explicitly "remove that synopsis" on the forum thread. -___________________________- -- infinity0 18:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not true though, what are you talking about?

[1] - I dont know much about how to edit wikipedia - but I'd like to request that the "synopsis" be removed, or at least replaced with something that doesn't ruin jokes in the episode by revealing information that nobody wants to know in the most dull way possible. Even if we had released the episode, this is a terrible synopsis. - Kyle. -- infinity0 22:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WoW disks visible before purchase?

In Episode 6, when Jeremy is sitting at his computer doing research into World of Warcraft, the disc cases for the game can be seen sitting at the far end of the desk, before he decides to go purchase the game. Dave could have also purchased WoW before Jeremy, however this is unlikely.

Between roughly 9:00 and 10:00, I can see that there is a square-looking package behind the keyboard; however, I don't think there's enough detail on it from that distance to safely conclude that these are the World of Warcraft disks. I deleted this claim before but it's reappeared, so I would like to have others' input on this. --70.25.168.90 01:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Three days have passed with absolutely no replies, so I'm taking it down. --70.25.168.90 01:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The WoW discs are there. If you own WoW you will know that those are the cardboard sleeves stacked up that the discs come in... put this on the main page. It is a mistake on the PP crew. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.0.239.237 (talk • contribs) .

I think it’s much too blurry to safely conclude that those are the disks. Any of my games that come in dark cardboard look like that. --70.25.168.90 22:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It's well-known that those are World of WarCraft discs, heck even the PP crew don't bother denying that, why do you seemingly want to start trouble? -Emhilradim 11:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pure Pwnage Preview

I added some information about the Pure Pwnage Preview. I didn't list the running time because I'm at work right now and the film is on my home computer. I can't remember when it was first posted to their website either. I don't know if anyone is hosting this film, but I can provide it to whoever can spare this kind of bandwidth. Contact me if you're willing to host it: http://kalebgrace.com/?page=contact - Kaleb.G 00:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Added running time as well as more detail. Feel free to chop down the description; I just wanted to get the info in the database. - Kaleb.G 06:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes in Titles

Why are there quotes in all the episode names after it says Episode #? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.146.108.186 (talk • contribs) .

I believe a few editors prefer this style. See Talk:Pure Pwnage#Episode_title_formatting, although there does not appear to be any concensus as of now. --70.25.168.90 23:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not it at all. Each episode for Pure Pwnage has a title to it. Episode 12, for example, is entitled "Game Over," thus Episode 12 "Game Over." -Emhilradim 11:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Mother Fucker

It should be mentioned that the mysterious man's wallet seen in episode 11 is obviously from http://badmofowallets.com/ , providing alot more clear info on it's design. --67.171.78.104 16:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Episode 12 inconspicuous spoilers ...

Talk is rampant on the Pure Pwnage forums about some potential (but plausible) Episode 13 spoilers featured in the WoW scene from Episode 12. I'm not smacking this straight into the article because it has not yet been verified by any PP cast or crew; however it does cover some previously unexplained gaps in the storyline. Go to this link and you'll see what I mean. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.76.151.153 (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Episode 13 - The Continuity Errors

I would like to point out a list of them I've noticed, you make concluded them as obvious and others that need looking into (chronologically backwards):

  • Obvious? - First appearence of Dave - Dave enters the room through the closet. Evidence could be that from 25:30 - 26:40 when Jeremy is on the couch, we clearly see this closet door.
  • 'On a lighter note' (take this as a joke if you want, I did) when Jeremy was pwning in C&C3, wasn't a little stiff in the pants in the later part? or just morning-wood? or still his pants bulging out?

that's what I got for now =) --ShadowSlave 01:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • xbox game the goals that are filmed during the second hockey game are not in the right order, once the score is lower that the score showed before -- Laguna117 16:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

-I would like to add that this is also true for the first hockey game, teams switch sides once (unlike IHL). --ShadowSlave 20:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode 15 - "Continuity Error"

just because it's day when they started and night when they left, shows how long they were "playing," and how the show was edited by kyle, who is also not actually a real person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.178.148 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagi/Anastacia

Can we please get some consistency on whether we call her Tagi or Anastasia?? I don't care which, as Kyle calls her one, and Jeremy calls her another, but we should have some consistency from one ep description to the other. spazure (contribs) 03:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, and you’re right. (I’m so familiar with her being called “Tagi” that I didn’t notice the inconsistency within the article.) Because Anastasia is her real name and Tagi is simply her in-game alias, I’ve changed most instances of “Tagi” to “Anastasia”. Afterall, we’re not supposed to address Jeremy as “teh_pwnerer” or Doug as “fps_doug” in a formal article. —LOL 03:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, much better. Thanks! I just couldn't decide which name to go with, but your rationale makes perfect sense. spazure (contribs) 04:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro At Cooking

Dave's Pro At Cooking website is up. --69.141.206.123 00:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pure Pwnage Episode 13.jpg

Image:Pure Pwnage Episode 13.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pure Pwnage episode 15.png

Image:Pure Pwnage episode 15.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pure pwnage episode 14.png

Image:Pure pwnage episode 14.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pure Pwnage Episode 12.jpg

Image:Pure Pwnage Episode 12.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Episode 16 COD4 Shodown "error"

Actually, it is possible that Doug was using the Overkill Perk, a perk that allows you to have two primary weapons, at the sacrifice of a pistol. Either this was a deliberate "mistake" or they thought they could fool the audience with the use of quick camera shots. NarooN (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)