Talk:Paunch

From Homestar Runner Wiki

[edit] Diddly dee?

I question the noteworthiness of this page. I removed bike thief, which we have transcribed as Ponch so I don't it really think belongs here. Of the three usages that remain, two of them aren't really unusual. Hitting someone in the paunch uses the word in it's exact literal meaning, and Paunchberry ice cream essentially does too, though admittedly in a odd way (it could be read like "Potbelly-berry" ice cream, the joke would be the same). That leaves East and West Paunch as the only usages that don't really correlate to the dictionary definition of the word, which doesn't seem remarkable to me. 98.222.134.36 15:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Paunch is indeed a real word and is used correctly in Strong Badia the Free. Paunchberry, on the other hand is still a little strange, but that still only two uses; not quite enough to constitute a running gag. wbwolf (t | ed) 15:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on juys, if the Chapmans didn't want to make this a gag they would have said "gut" all those times. And how does it make any more sense that he said "Ponch" and not "Paunch" in bike thief? I think that is a reference. --Jellote 18:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This article reminds me of Pining, another uncommon word used by Strong Bad very infrequently. Two years ago, we discussed the relative merits of that article and decided that we might as well keep it. So why not Paunch as well? There are three appearances of this wierd word (as of this post), two of which are used in unusual contextes. In fact, I feel that Paunch is even more worthy of its own article than Pining ever was. Keep. – The Chort 18:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting precedent The Chort, thanks for mentioning it. I suppose that if a word is uncommon and has been used a few times in the toons, it makes some sense to have a little page on the wiki, never hurts to broaden one's vocabulary, at least. (I'd have thought "pining for" would be considered a commonly known phrase, but meh). I still think "Paunchberry" was intended to refer to the actual definition of the word (in fact, I think that's the joke). 98.222.134.36 02:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to answer Jellote's question about bike thief, Strong Bad also says "Jon" in a similar way a few lines later. As the RWR section states, "Ponch and Jon were the main characters of the television show CHiPs." Given that it's a CHiPs reference, it's pretty clear that it's "Ponch" and not "Paunch". As for this article, i'm leaning towards a keep but would probably not have commented if not for jellote's question. I just noticed that the Paunchberry ice cream has a picture of a big belly on it. That's enough in my mind to call it intentionally the joke as anonny said. Definite keep. — Defender1031*Talk 02:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This page also reminds me of Apothecary. That's enough precedent to keep this unique word article. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I also agree keep, because of reasons stated here and in Talk:Pining. free 00:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Double redirect?

Ok, so I went to fix the "Paunch Berry -> Paunchberry -> Paunch" double redirect, only to be told it was "done that way on purpose", but I could find nothing in the history suggesting *why* it was. Since both pages redirect to Paunch (and going by this, we don't have any other similar double redirects), what possible purpose could redirecting a page to another redirect serve? (Actually, I wouldn't even have noticed this, were it not for the fact that someone created a dozen or so double redirects for SBEMail pages earlier tonight.) -YK 06:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Double redirects are now automatically processed, and don't need to be fixed. Leaving a few alone shows them as an example of this. --DorianGray 07:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I noticed that. I just found it odd, is all. Thanks for the quick reply. -YK 07:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, should we ever create a "Paunchberry" page (we shouldn't NOW, but it could get reused in the future) it'll be much simpler if Paunch Berry just redirects there. --Jay (Talk) 07:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Jay's reason is exactly why I left the double redirect from the pagemove. Now that double redirects (A→B→C) are supported, I see no reason not to leave them in cases where, should B actually have a page, A would redirect to it, rather than to C. Further, if one ever wanted to change a set of similar redirects, one would only need to change one of them (imagine a case where several pages point to B. If B gets changed, they all lead to the new target, rather than having to change each one separately.) Further, the support for multiple redirects doesn't stop at double. If we ever have a case where, should B exist, A would redirect to B, and should C exist, B would redirect there, but neither exists so C points to D, I see no reason not to use a triple redirect (A→B→C→D) in that case. If that was too confusing, it basically means that we should point pages at the title that makes the most sense to redirect to regardless of whether there's an actual page there or just another redirect, and regardless of whether that page points to an actual page or just another redirect, so long as at the end of the line, you reach a page that makes sense to reach. — Defender1031*Talk 11:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What would have happened before they were "supported" ? -132.183.138.201 15:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If used to be that if you went to A, you'd get to B which just contained a "redirected from A" and the redirect arrow and link to C. Now it'll go all the way to the end of a redirect chain. — Defender1031*Talk 15:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)