Category talk:Pseudocharacters

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(→Pseudo-pseudocharacters: reply, and an attempt to simplify the discussion)
(→Pseudo-pseudocharacters: my two cents)
Line 200: Line 200:
#It is sufficiently associated with other pseudocharacters (i.e., Stop Sign, Cinder Block, and Tire all go together.  Frank Bennedetto and Mrs. Bennedetto go together.)</blockquote>
#It is sufficiently associated with other pseudocharacters (i.e., Stop Sign, Cinder Block, and Tire all go together.  Frank Bennedetto and Mrs. Bennedetto go together.)</blockquote>
If we can accept this definition (or another one), then the hard work of getting consensus in this discussion will be limited to debating only a few items. {{User:Trey56/sig}} 07:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
If we can accept this definition (or another one), then the hard work of getting consensus in this discussion will be limited to debating only a few items. {{User:Trey56/sig}} 07:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 +
:I think that, as mentioned before, a rigorous definition of what a pseudocharacter is or is not should be agreed upon '''first and foremost''' and once we have an agreed upon definition, we can then proceed to nix current/add new pseudopeople/items from the list. There still seems to be a wide gap between what people consider "obviously a pseudocharacter".  --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 07:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 +
::Oh, um, from what I gather (based on previous statements), here's a start:
 +
::*If a character exhibits intelligence and/or independence (i.e. it interacts with its environment) it is a pseudocharacter.  (This is not a requirement of a pseudocharacter but a characteristic all pseudocharacters possess. Confused?)
 +
::''Debatables: (the might's and likely's need to be turned into definites)''
 +
::*If a H*R character treats a pseudocharacter as if it was a real person, it ''might'' be a pseudocharacter.
 +
::*If a H*R character talks to a pseudocharacter, it is ''likely'' not a required characteristic of a pseudocharacter.
 +
::*If a pseudocharacter is treated like an inanimate object, then it's an inanimate object.
 +
::*If two trains leave the same point at 3pm, one traveling east at 40 MPH, the other north at 25MPH, how far is it to Poughkeepsie, PA?

Revision as of 07:41, 3 March 2007

Contents

Cast?

Do we put PseudoCharacters in the "Cast (in order of appearance):" part of toons? I noticed that we do half and half, and I think we should either do it one way or the other. (i.e., Frank & Mrs. Bennedetto and the Wagon Fulla Pancakes go in the cast list, while others, like the Tire and Homestar Jr., don't.) - Joshua 17:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess it depends on whether each one is more pseudo or more character. — It's dot com 17:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Senor Cardgage

I really think the article on Senor Cardgage should be in here. He's just an idea of strongbad.

No, he has become a seperate entitiy now. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 00:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, aren't "PseudoCharacters" inanimate objects treated like real characters in this sense? Cardgage doesn't look inanimate to me. --Jay (Talk) 18:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

geddup noise

The geddup noise isn't an object. It's a sound. — talk Bubsty edits 22:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Pseudocharacters

May someone please come up with a name that doesn't sound so teenybopper fan-ish that better describes what it is, and doesn't just sound like a fan name? And please don't chew my head off for asking, because I'm genuinely trying to help. — Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)

This is what you should have said: "I'm wondering whether this is the best name for this category. In my opinion, it isn't a perfect fit and seems, to me, to not be as professional as possible. I recommend XXXXXXXX." — It's dot com 01:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, Dot com, I dunno. I've always kind of liked the name of this category, as they are somewhat characters, but not really; hence, pseudo- (false) characters. — It's dot com 01:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Uh... --Jay (Talk) 01:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Dot com, I too like the name of this category. And the naming has always made sense to me. -- Tom 02:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The only thing I might change is changing it to the more conventional "Pseudocharacters" (without the extra cap). — It's dot com 03:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. — Bassbone (TALK Strong Mad Has a Posse CONT) 03:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, I have no problem with the name (in PascalCase or just normal Capitalization). My "uh" was unrelated to that. --Jay (Talk) 03:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, what's with "Gosh, Dot com, I dunno." Are you talking to yourself? XP - Joshua 03:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If the sense of "false" is too negative (although Pseudocharacters does have a ring to it), my next suggestions would be Quasicharacters (quasi-: "having a likeness to something; resembling") or (less good) Semicharacters (semi-: "partial; partially; resembling or having some of the characteristics of"). — It's dot com 03:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for putting my face in this conversation, but I don't see why Jay wants PseudoCharacters name changed. Pseudo still is a perfectly fine name. Although, maybe we should vote on it.--H*bad 03:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
"Quasicharacters sounds a bit too sci fi to me for some reason. >.> I personally like the way Pseudo- sounds. - Joshua 03:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy with PseudoCharacters, in either capitalization format. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 04:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I like it too; it reminds me of pseudovectors (which are also quite popular among teenyboppers). Trey56 04:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. This Guy isn't me. This guy is. I already said I'm fine with the name. --Jay (Talk) 06:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Nice use of my struggling HTML codes there, Jay! No, really, I no so little HTML that my sig is, like, the best thing I can do with it. Anyway, I'm sorry for sounding rude, I just wanted y'all to know specifically why I didn't think it was fit. Anyway, I think that "pseudo-characters" would look less fan-ish. (And when I use the word "fan," I mean absolutely nothing against the wiki.) — This Guy
This is all about a hyphen? I don't think it needs a hyphen. The custom in English is not to use a hyphen if you can get away with it, and I think we can here. I am liking how "Pseudocharacters" looks more and more, though. — It's dot com 06:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, we should think of everything we can do to improve the wiki, right? Even if it's something pretty stupid like this? (Which, since the name is a bit of a turn off, I guess this isn't that stupid.) Anyway, I think that "pseudo-characters" would be an option, or maybe something else? Any thoughts? — Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)
Um, just wondering, but have you read the whole discussion to this point? There are several other thoughts (none of which are enjoying much support, however). — It's dot com 19:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I just did. Now I vote "semi-characters." Sounds great. — Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)
Pseudocharacters works for me. —BazookaJoe 21:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I concur. What would y'all think about moving it to "Pseudocharacters" (with only one capital)? I just noticed the extra captial and it's kind of bugging me now... it looks like a brand name or something. Heimstern Läufer 21:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I still think that "semi-characters" would better describe the "characters" and seem less fanon. As Cappadonna from Coach Z's favorite hip hop group would say, "can't be too strong to change." — Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)
What about it makes it seem fanon to you? How does the other name (which is still made up by us) not fall in the same boat? I personally prefer "pseudo-" because they seem more like false characters (i.e. they are not characters) than they are "semi-" (i.e. partly) characters. Also, I really wish you would concentrate on the issue itself rather than posting every emotion and metawiki thought that runs through your head. It's much easier to discuss things that way. — It's dot com 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Y'know, I'm not really sure why I'd prefer the name "semi-characters," it just seems like people would get what it was easier if we called it that. Also, The Geddup Noise is most likely alive somehow, considering everything that happened in geddup noise. Homestar Runner sure is weird, isn't it? We don't even think of all the weird things like that as being weird any more, it's like they're just part of life. So, let's have a civil debate now. I don't want to be everybody's enemy, I just have a slightly different opinion and a desire to revolutionize the wiki. Oh, and sorry for once again expressing everything I feel and not concentrating on the matter at hand. That Geddup Noise thing was just too good to pass up. — Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)

You don't need to apologize for bringing up the Geddup Noise, because it is relevant to this discussion. I really think people would respond much better to your ideas if you would leave out all of the talk about the wiki itself. Let's pretend that you ended with "just part of life."
    Yeah, it's crazy. The problem I have with "semi-" is that it implies that this is a group of half-characters, when really they're much less than that. These things, whatever they are, are by and large inanimate objects. Only in the respective emails in which they are featured do they seem to acquire a spark of something more. Usually it's just one email or toon that we're talking about. Even The Paper, which is the object most often shown as "alive", is still overwhelmingly shown as just a piece of paper. "Pseudocharacters", as in "false characters", as in "so-called characters but not really", seems like a pretty good fit. — It's dot com 02:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Uh, I've been thinking, tell me if I'm wrong, but is the psuedocharacter category even necessary? What if we just mentioned that all these "characters" are mainly inanimate but that they're treated like they're alive? It just seems disconcerting with notes like, "This page is about a pseudocharacter." It's like, what's a pseudocharacter? Might overwhelm people with jargin, anyway. But I'm not sure, I might just be weird...which is a good possibility. — Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)
Hmmm, naw, I think the category would get too cluttered. I like the overall organization that Category:Pseudocharacters gives us. —BazookaJoe 08:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Darth: That what used to be. All those objects were once on the items category, and there was a big debate about if or not to include them on cast lists and filmographies. Then it was decided that it will be the best to list them as Pseudocharacters in a unified way. And if you think some word is a used as a HRWiki-only jargon you can add it to HRWiki:Glossary. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 10:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the definition at the top of the category suffices. Looking at the rest of the HRWiki glossary, I don't think the term pseudocharacters belongs in that list. — It's dot com 04:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Pseudo-pseudocharacters

Hm, in line with discussions occurring here and here, it seems that we need to define more clearly what is and what is not a pseudocharacter. My understanding of the definition is either it either speaks or is treated as if it is a character. For this reason, I think the following items should be removed from this category:

  • The Denzel — merely The Cheat's version of a teddy bear
  • Tony Stony — Strong Mad's version of a teddy bear
  • Princess Shellbra — Just a faceless wooden cutout that Strong Bad addresses when he's bored. No more of a pseudocharacter than the brontosaurus he addresses at the end of lunch special.
  • Lord Quackingstick — Simply a puppet Strong Bad uses — whenever it "speaks", you can see Strong Bad's mouth moving. Note that this is different from Doreauxgard, who appears in his own cartoon special with Homestar Runner in an Easter egg at the end of lackey.

These last two may be more debatable. But does anyone disagree with removing the The Denzel and Tony Stony from this category? Trey56 03:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I say Tony and Quackingstick say, seeing as they're adressed as if they can speak and listen to the characters. To say Quackingstick isn't a pseudo would be like saying all the TGS characters aren't characters. As for the others, I dunno. Dr. Clash 04:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Define "pseudocharacter". If it is treated like a character (i.e. Addressed or forced into a speaking part) than it is. Chew on that and we might see the outcome.
  • The Denzel is not treated like a character, therefore making it a mere object.
  • Same with Tony Stony.
  • Shellbra is addressed like a person, thus making her a pseudocharacter.
  • Lord Quackingstick is treated like a character because he "does" a speaking part, so he's a pseudocharacter.
That's all I got. --TheYellowDart—(t/c) 04:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
"I LOVE YOU TONY STONY!" "NO I LOVE YOU MORE!" implies that brother Graw Mad is "talking" to him, thereby giving him soodocharacter status. Dr. Clash 04:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely with Trey—they should all go. Tony Stony doesn't speak for himself; Strong Mad speaks for him just as a child speaks for a stuffed animal. Lord Quackingstick is just Strong Bad's puppet. The fact that Strong Bad addresses Princess Shellbra is not relevant, because he's just speaking to her the way you might speak to a picture of someone. These are all just objects, with no real "life" of their own. — It's dot com 04:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Trey and Dot com. Being addressed by name does not turn an item into a character. Loafing 04:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The Denzel is never spoken too, and therefor should go. Shellbra? I haven't decided yet. Quackingstick and Tony are pseudocharacters the same way that Mrs. Bennedetto is: they are spoken too and given personalities. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 04:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think TS and LQ have defined personalities. True pseudocharacters (that seems contradictory) seem to be regarded as independent of the other characters. For example, even though the Wagon Fulla Pancakes is a wagon, it somehow has a romance with Strong Bad and goes door to door with The Cheat. A rock with a face drawn on it and a stick that Strong Bad does the voice for would not seem to qualify. Also, Mrs. Bennedetto isn't much better, but I think she gets her status in a roundabout way (namely, because her son is considered a psdeudocharacter, she is too). — It's dot com 04:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess that's just dependent on the screen-time. I agree to move them back to items, but If they are shown to be more then that, they go back straight to this category. What anyone else think? — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 04:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Heck, if Tofu Homestar is a pseudo, I think we're fine as is. Another words, can someone write up a definite list of who should go? I'm too tired :P Dr. Clash 04:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Tofu Homestar speaks on the Luau Main Page, which is probably where that comes from. Should we make a table of all the pseudocharacters and list what best qualifies them to be on the page? — It's dot com 04:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Clash 05:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought you said you were too tired! :P ;) — It's dot com 05:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I got over it :P So, there's my 26 cents. Dr. Clash 05:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
So the only ones we have problems with are:
Some are more problematic and some are less. Anyone want to add to the list before making a table? — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 05:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Clash: I agree with most of your list, but I think it would be easier to read in more of a topical format (keep/don't keep) than alphabetical. By the way, I don't think the fact that Strong Bad does the voices for Teen Girl Squad holds up. For one thing, they're not pseudocharacters, they're characters in their own right. Note that they're not characters on par with Strong Bad and Homestar Runner, but within their own subuniverse they each have developed personalities, storylines, families, and so on. — It's dot com 05:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Are we making this too difficult here? Items that are referred to by name are still just items. Inanimate objects that are clearly alive and/or show definite sings of intelligence are all I say we need by way of criteria. In that regard...
If I'm going about this the wrong way, stop me here, but I think we're stretching it to call some of these objects psuedocharacters. — Lapper (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that one of the reasons we designate pseudocharacters as something special is that they're treated as if they're characters, even if they seem to be inanimate objects. Frank Bennedetto is a perfect example of this — he's a popcorn popper, and yet Homestar weeps over him when he falls in the Battle of Strong Badia. To me, the weirdness of things like that is the reason we have this category. Trey56 07:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Pseudocharacter keep or not reason
Lord Quackingstick KEEP Is treated as a character by Strong Bad, although he is voiced by him, and has a "conversation"
Santaman KEEP Treated as a character by Homestar, has "conversations"
Tofu Homestar KEEP Often treated as a character by Marzipan, talks on main page
Tony Stony KEEP "Conversed" with Strong Mad, much like Santaman
Mashed Potato Jones NOT Is only shown in the sketchbook, and only mentioned in a toon once.
Princess Shellbra NOT Is not an actual character, and is obviously voiced by another pseudocharacter already.
Swiss Cake Rolls NOT It's only an invisible Strong Bad
The Denzel NOT Only treated as an item, never a character

That said, all the others besides the above have good reason to be considered pseudos. Dr. Clash 06:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


If we're ever going to come to consensus in this discussion, I think we're going to have to simplify our approach. Before discussing each item individually, let's find a definition of "pseudocharacter" that we all agree on, and use that as our standard of measurement for judging each case. Here's the one I propose:

A pseudocharacter is a seemingly inanimate object that satisfies any one of the following three conditions:
  1. Real characters (Strong Bad, Homestar Runner, etc.) act as if they believe that it is also a real character.
  2. It speaks of its own accord.
  3. It is sufficiently associated with other pseudocharacters (i.e., Stop Sign, Cinder Block, and Tire all go together. Frank Bennedetto and Mrs. Bennedetto go together.)
If we can accept this definition (or another one), then the hard work of getting consensus in this discussion will be limited to debating only a few items. Trey56 07:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that, as mentioned before, a rigorous definition of what a pseudocharacter is or is not should be agreed upon first and foremost and once we have an agreed upon definition, we can then proceed to nix current/add new pseudopeople/items from the list. There still seems to be a wide gap between what people consider "obviously a pseudocharacter". --Stux 07:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, um, from what I gather (based on previous statements), here's a start:
  • If a character exhibits intelligence and/or independence (i.e. it interacts with its environment) it is a pseudocharacter. (This is not a requirement of a pseudocharacter but a characteristic all pseudocharacters possess. Confused?)
Debatables: (the might's and likely's need to be turned into definites)
  • If a H*R character treats a pseudocharacter as if it was a real person, it might be a pseudocharacter.
  • If a H*R character talks to a pseudocharacter, it is likely not a required characteristic of a pseudocharacter.
  • If a pseudocharacter is treated like an inanimate object, then it's an inanimate object.
  • If two trains leave the same point at 3pm, one traveling east at 40 MPH, the other north at 25MPH, how far is it to Poughkeepsie, PA?
Retrieved from "http://www.hrwiki.org/wiki/Category_talk:Pseudocharacters"
Personal tools