Talk:Ages of Characters

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 20:51, 20 January 2007

Some of the statements in this page need citation. For example, how do we know the relative ages of the Brothers Strong?

Strong Bad calls Strong Sad "his baby brother" a lot, and Strong Mad his "big brother." TheYellowDart—(t/c)

That doesn't help the article. Citation in the article (with a link to the toon where this is said) would. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  03:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I know different town establishes that Strong Sad is Strong Bad's "baby brother", but what's the earliest mention of this? And where is it established that Strong Mad is older than Strong Bad? - Qermaq - (^T/C)  22:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I know in the facts Strong Bad calls Strong Sad "baby Storng Sad" and Strong Mad "biggest bro". And I know there's other places where this is implied. TheYellowDart—(t/c)

In depressio, Strong Bad calls Strong Sad "[his] stupid kid brother". --Trogga 02:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Cheat

I don't follow the logic why The Cheat is supposed to be likely not 43 based on the fake ID. It's pure speculation. Loafing 03:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If we accept that all the rest of the info on the ID is false (after all, it is a fake ID), then we can also assume that that piece of info is likely false. It could be true, yes. Frankly, I wanted to clean it up, but I'm not personally in support nor against it. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  03:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a fallacy. We know the ID is fake, but we don't know if all of the information on it is true or false. Loafing 03:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in one sense it is a logical fallacy, I fully agree. In another sense, though, as this is a constructed world, it's likely that all the elements of this ID were intended to be absurd. How would anyone aside from Homestar be deceived into thinking this was a description of The Cheat in any way? Secondly, if it's a fake ID, why would he need one with his real age, as IDs are generally needed to verify age? (An argument here could be rooted in the immigration and other similar laws in place in the US and other nations.) Finally, Strong Bad's line saying the ID purports him to be a "43-year-old miner" - the tone seems to indicate (to me) that both of these are way off. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  03:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Strong Bad's tone is a more convincing argument. I'm not sold on this proving that The Cheat is underage, though. Even Bubs has a fake ID (even if it's cancelled), and he clearly seems to be an adult. I guess you can use fake IDs to do all kinds of business scams. And doesn't The Cheat look a bit alien to you? ;-) Loafing 03:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait, are you here for the five-minute argument, or the full twenty minutes? I think we agree that this probably isn't strikingly notable, but perhaps it's usable through some sort of logic we haven't exactly stumbled upon. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  03:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, "logically", if Strong Bad is so sure that The Cheat's birthday isn't the day on the fake ID, then we can be equally as certain that he isn't 43 either. --Jay (Talk) 05:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, with that extra bit of information, it makes perfect sense. Loafing 05:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, since when was Bubs' ID confirmed to be fake? Cancelled, yes, but fake? --Jay (Talk) 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I just remembered it to be fake. Maybe I thought that "Very Official" was meant to be ironic. Loafing 05:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Trogador Bday

Although Troggie's and Stinkoman's birthdays are known, that doesn't make them 3- they just debut 3 years ago. What does everyone else think?

In Happy Trogday. Stinkoman says, "Hey! My birthday was last week! I don't see anyone making any Stinkoman-shaped pancakes!" In addition to claiming that his birthday is on January 6, I think he's also insinuating that Trogdor's "Trogday" is Trogdor's birthday. Trey56 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not their birthdays, it just that they weren't neccessarily their first birthdays. They could have existed before their debuts. Oh, and that was me.-LordQuackingstick 23:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're saying. I do think TBC mean for Happy Trogday to be Trogdor's third birthday, from this screenshot. Trey56 00:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Explanation for this edit: If you accept that Happy Trogday is claiming to be Trogdor's birthday, then I think it directly follows that Stinkoman's first birthday was the week before Trogdor's. This is why immediately after the screen showing Trogdor wearing a party hat with the number "3" on it, the screen shifts to Stinkoman and he complains that no one celebrated his birthday the week before. I think it's reasonable to infer that this birthday is also his third, since Strong Bad really did create both of them exactly three years beforehand. Trey56 01:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we know Trogdor's first b-day, (making him currently 3), but I still don't think that japanese cartoon was necessarily Stinkoman's first. I guess I'm equating Trogdor's age with something like "dog years", whereas Stinkoman ages, well, in human years. And it just doesn't add up for him to have the physic of a fully grown man at the age of 3... Even though it's just a cartoon... Made up by a cartoon no less... (my wording is terrible, but you get the jist). kai lyn 01:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

(I'm kinda struggling here). I suppose, even though we did sort of witness Stinkoman's creation, that maybe he was already existing, (in a parallel universe), or will exist, or whatever. I think it's sort of like Senor Cardgage, (at first, we weren't sure if he was his own entity, but know he is...) Sorry, this's all's I gots... kai lyn 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point about his full-grown-ness, but I think that it just means that he was "born" full-grown, just like Trogdor. I'm just one voice, though. If there's consensus the other way, I'm okay with removing it. Trey56 02:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm already regretting typing this, but what the heck! (I'm laughing at myself right now, just so's ya know's)... There is a baby Trogdor featured on some baby clothing, (*oh brother...I am so sorry!*), leading me to believe that he was born a baby, and just matured fast, like most reptiles, (let me once again apologize). We saw Strong Bad create Trogdor's adult visage in "dragon".... But I also see your point, Trey! kai lyn 02:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No apology necessary :) Trey56 03:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Trogdor was born when Strong Bad drew him. The pic of him with the party hat and all seals the deal there. But there's no real analogy with the Stinkoman situation. Would we say Senor Cardgage was born in kind of cool just because Strong Bad first described him there? Certainly not. Strong Bad's description of Stinkoman does not equal "creation" or "birth", thus there's no indication that Strong Bad gave birth to Stinkoman in anything like the same way he gave birth to Trogdor. So we look to other indicators; these exist for Trogdor, and not for Stinkoman. So, while today is Stinkoman's "birthday", it's not necessarily his fourth birthday. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  08:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, you have a good point that while Trogdor was created from scratch (starting with two more different S's), Strong Bad "created" Stinkoman by starting with himself and altering his features to conform to anime stereotypes. A week or two after japanese cartoon was released, I wouldn't be surprised if TBC didn't even consider him to be a separate character, but rather just a stylized version of Strong Bad. Since then, however, I think it's clear that Stinkoman has evolved into his own character, and to confirm this, he even interacts with non-20X6 characters (e.g., Marzipan in Marzipan's Answering Machine Version 8.0).

Now that Stinkoman is a separate character, if the question is asked, "When did Stinkoman come into existence?", the two possible answers are "January 6, 2003" and "Some undetermined time beforehand". The two pieces of evidence supporting the former answer are (1) Stinkoman took form before our eyes on this particular date, in japanese cartoon, and (2) Stinkoman claims that his birthday is some January 6th; why should it happen to be a January 6th of a different year if japanese cartoon is unrelated to his birth?

So, I think there's good support for saying that his date of birth is 1/6/2003. But, despite my extremely long reply, it won't break my heart if Stinkoman is removed from this page. Trey56 08:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me add to your conflicted heart these words: "Hey, Stinkoman!" "Did you just call me Stinkoman?" Perhaps that's when he was truly born. Or perhaps any suggestion he was born anytime is mere speculation. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  09:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Yes, sir, I did." :D Have a good night, Q. Trey56 09:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

1974

Does everyone agree with what I put under Strong Bad?-LordQuackingstick 18:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a safe assumption. — Lapper (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete

This page is hopeless speculation, contradictions, and speculation about contradictions, mainly because TBC don't actually adhere to a timeline that would make this page possible. — It's dot com 06:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is true that, with a couple of exceptions, the information on this page is either of the type "X is older than Y" or "Z was alive in 19XX, so he must be at least YY old". And, as you've said, the TBC apparently have no interest in establishing anything more than vague age ranges for their characters. As such, it probably would be best to delete this article and move any verifiable information to those characters' articles, if it's not on there already. Trey56 06:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't even think we will ever get enough information from TBC to estimate an age range. Conclusions of the type "Z was alive in 19XX, so he must be at least YY old" assume much more chronological consistency than there is in TBC toons. Loafing 06:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If we assume the point of this page is to pinpoint exactly the ages of characters, that will prove futile. But I don't see that as the point. Rather, this documents the few times TBC have offered real cues as to the ages of the characters. The information gathered here should be non-speculative, but certainly the conclusions one might draw from it may be. There's nothing really wrong with that. Keep. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  07:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I doubt that most of these cues are "real cues". Loafing 07:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And fully 50% of what we note as "references" are likely not intentional references by TBC either, yet we seem to have no qualms about keeping them in the article. Your comment would seem to imply that we apply different editorial standards in different places. Are TBC intentionally giving us clues to follow, like some demented antagonist in a murder mystery? Of course not. But they are tipping their hat toward a reality that, while they are in no way bound to keep to, indicates something important about their creation and the reality they work with when creating this which ought to be noted. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  07:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So, less than half of what we list in RWR is actually intended by TBC? I think that's a gross exaggeration. — It's dot com 19:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't argue there, but the point stands. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  20:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Qermaq. It's more of a list of times the characters' ages are alluded to than an attempt to figure out their exact ages. —Shwoo 07:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you guys have convinced me. I think it could be a good article if it simply lists references or allusions to the characters' ages. Without any speculation. And, Qermaq, I don't agree with most "references" either, but I don't think I have enough strength to revisit and debate every single one ;-) Loafing 08:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case, is there a better name than "Ages of Characters"? No character's age is actually listed. — It's dot com 19:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of a better name for the page (though perhaps one exists). It would be more accurate to call the page, "Vague Ages of Characters", but that seems to reflect poorly on the article. But if that's really what this page consists of (even if they're true age ranges), is really worthy of a whole article? It just seems like we don't have enough substance to report. On a side note, there are two ages that are actually listed—Trogdor's and Stinkoman's (see above). Trey56 20:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No delort. I contributed to this page, and it's helpful. Deleting this would be a bad idea!! --TheYellowDart—(t/c)

Trey, where else would we present evidence of the relative ages of the characters? On the Character pages is an option, but as many of the facts depend on relationships between characters, isn't a centralized exploration of this better than duplicating the info on each characters' page? I wish I knew the best title, maybe it will come. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  03:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"References to ages of characters", maybe? Or is that too long winded? —Shwoo 03:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Qermaq: I'm still not convinced that an article mainly about the characters' relative ages is substantial enough. I mean, really, there's not too much to say, other than, "The King of Town is the oldest, then Bubs and Coach Z, and then everyone else. Probably." That's an exaggeration, but I'm just demonstrating my take on it. There are more tidbits out there, but I sense that that's about the extent that of TBC's consistency on the matter.

That being said, I think I would probably be okay with the article if it was entitled something like Relative Age of Characters—I think it's a fruitless pursuit to try to collect random mentions of years and piece them together to establish numerical values of characters' ages. That's probably what makes me uncomfortable with the article as it currently stands. Trey56 04:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the gist of what I am arguing is just that - this page is less about determining the ages of the characters (which I'm sure we all agree is fruitless) and more about documenting the clues TBC have left to determine what can be determined. Relative Age of Characters might be the best choice. I advocate deciding on a suitable name for this article assuming it is only exploring these citable references, and move to that title, editing article as necessary. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  04:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I find this page useful; although I do share the same concerns about it being vague. -Cyndentia

If nobody objects within five minute, I'm going to take the delete template off. It seems unlikely this will be deleted.-LordQuackingstick 20:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)