Talk:Strong Badman Characters
From Homestar Runner Wiki
Contents |
Merging
It looks like there's consensus at Talk:Damp Towel Man to merge most of the characters into this page, but it's a rather large move, so I wanted to make sure people are comfortable with this single page before merging everything.
If so, I think we should immediately merge Damp Towel Man, The Deutsch Master, Deutschman, and Grossman with this page. I think we should start a separate {{tbd}} discussion at Talk:Stiny before moving it, though, since there was some disagreement as to whether that one should be merged.
Any objections, now that you've had a chance to see what this page looks like? Trey56 13:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I am about to begin the process of updating the links to the above pages and then turning them into redirects.
Trey56 23:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Damp Towel Man
- The following discussion was moved from Talk:Damp Towel Man before it was decided to merge the content of that article with this one.
What to do?
Merge it, either with Coach Z or Strong Badman. --Jay (Gobble) 01:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Strong Badman. Loafing
01:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge (I don't know which one to merge it with though). Homestar-Winner (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- MERGE? Okay, I completely disagree. I think we should really just MENTION it. I mean, first off, this is written like fanstuff. Or something else very unencyclopedic. I think a simple "According to Coach Z, he is the "legendary" Damp Towel Man, who collects damp towels from across the universe. However, this is probably just a joke, and not canon." I vote mention, and I don't even know or care if that's an option. Bluebry 04:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree... this and Dry Ragamuffin probably deserve a sentence or two in Strong Badman, and possibly a sentence in Coach Z, but nothing more. --phlip TC 04:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Leave as is. All the other Strong Badman characters have their own pages, and have nearly the same amount of info. --DorianGray 04:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agree'd with DorianGray. This page needs a rewrite though. Homestar Coder
05:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Serious rewrite... (When I wrote "leave as is", I hadn't actually looked at the page yet...) --DorianGray 05:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I Don't Know Why The Guy Who Made This Article Chose To Capitalize Every Single Word In It. That's Really Silly. *ahem* Sorry. I think we should at least merge part of this article with the Coach Z one. Although, it's already mentioned in Alter Egos...hmm. Jimmy91 10:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- If this gets merged, so should Stiny, Grossman, Deutschman and The Deutsch Master. So No Merge.
Sam the Man
23:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- no merge for the reasons already stated. DeFender1031 23:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I feel the Strong Badman villains should get their own spotlight, and i don't mind separate pages, including this one (keep), but how about a page called Strong Badman Villains merging all of them there? Just throwing idea around. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 15:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- But damp towelman isn't a villian, he's a good guy. Dry ragamuffin would belong there but not this. DeFender1031 15:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- So how about Strong Badman Characters so we can include Stainy. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 15:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with E.L. Cool, we should do a separate pago for StrongBadman's characters, but if that can't be done/made/be an option, then MERGE with Coach Z. --Darkangel
17:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with EL Cool, in saying that there should be a page for the Strong Badman villans, and the SBM "heroes", if they can even be called that. --
Jangles5150
19:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I guess a big ol' compilation page would do it. So yeah, Strong Badman Characters. Bluebry 20:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... I can go for that. Yeah, yeah, I see it now... Big ol' compliation page. Table, of course. Images down the left-most column... Without all those character pages, though, would we still need Category:Strong Badman? --DorianGray 20:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
es, if we do it this way: We place the "Main article found here: I LOVE LINKS!" think for Strong Badman (maybe Stiny), and we'd already have the two location articles in the category, with a healthy subcategory (NOTE: I don't know the current health of said subcategory; just wanted to use an adjective).Bluebry 22:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Umm, was your head attached to your body when you wrote that? I seriously have no idea what you meant, and i read it through like 4 times. — Defender1031*Talk 22:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Did you read DorianGray's question? "Without all those character pages, though, would we still need Category:Strong Badman?" Bluebry 22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I did. it didn't help. — Defender1031*Talk 22:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Allow me to reword it.
- We'd still have the category Category:Strong Badman, if we do it this way: We include all characters on the compilation page, and in Strong Badman's (and maybe Stiny's) section we place "See main article: Strong Badman" or "See main article: Stiny" and a brief description. That way, we'd have the Strong Badman article, Stiny's article (maybe), the two location articles already in the category, and the subcategory, Category:Strong Badman Filmography. Bluebry 23:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think Strong Badman Characters is a great idea. Strong Badman should stay a dedicated article, as Bluebry proposed, but I don't think that Stiny is relevant for enough for one. Loafing
07:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree — merge all minor characters (including Stiny) into Strong Badman Characters.
Trey56 07:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Still totally see this happening. Table and all. --DorianGray 07:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent. I'll get to work on this page, and if it looks good, then we can turn these other pages into redirects to the apprapriate sections.
Trey56 07:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I threw together a basic version of Strong Badman Characters, but it needs a lot of trimming, formatting, etc. Once this is in a satisfactory form, we can turn these articles into redirects if we still agree that this is a good course of action.
Trey56 07:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Stiny. I don't picture him without his page all about himself.
Sam the Man
![]()
Deutschman
- The following discussion was moved from Talk:Deutschman before it was decided to merge the content of that article with this one.
Kinder-Überraschung
This is an informal name for Überraschungsei, which is better known in English as "Kinder Eggs." Kinder-Überraschung means "children's surprise," while Überraschungsei means "Surpise Egg." This is a popular "chocolate and tiny toy" treat which is popular in Germany and throughout Europe, but is banned in the USA.--Saxon the Deutschmaster 02:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- It appears you are right. I can't actually read German, but the graphics on this web site seem to prove your case. גשמלדרברגן 02:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- You're wrong. "Überraschungsei" is the informal name of "Kinder-Überraschung" ;-) Anyway, I don't quite get what your point is. Did you want this information to be included in the article? Loafing
03:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I do think an edit is in order. Even if we don't write anything about the eggs. I think we should translate Kinder Überraschung as Children's Surprises. Kinder is a word in English meaning "nicer". It apparently does not mean that in German, and so our translattion leaves much to be desired.גשמלדרברגן 03:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- The English name is actually "Kinder Surprise". I'll just link it. How 'bout that? Loafing
03:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I know better than trying to take initiative around here. I report things I notice in the talk page, and let others decide whether changes should be made.--Saxon the Deutschmaster 22:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
They was banned in the US cause the FDA disapproved of little plastic toys hidden inside food that kids could possibly try to swallow whole. -Mr Meister McKeister
Grossman
- The following discussion was moved from Talk:Grossman before it was decided to merge the content of that article with this one.
Upon first glace, just skipping over the actual content, this appears to be a solid article. However, when you actually read through it, the entirety of the paragraph is mainly describing Grossman's clothes and the... stains... on his clothes. I don't believe that this article is necessary. — Lapper (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)