Talk:Ages of Characters

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search



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) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 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) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 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) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 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) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 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) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 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)

Trogdor 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) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 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) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 09:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
"Yes, sir, I did." :D Have a good night, Q. Trey56 09:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


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)


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) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 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) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 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) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 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) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 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) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 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)

Okay, maybe not.-LordQuackingstick 20:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I put the tags back on because this discussion is not finished, the article is still in horrible shape, and if we're gonna keep it we haven't even decided on a suitable name. This article should either be majorly cleaned up soon or deleted. — It's dot com 20:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
How about Possible ages of characters? That sounds good.-LordQuackingstick 20:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
No it doesn't! -- 03:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Why not? Shwoo 03:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It sounds as if the page was actually trying to figure out the ages. Something like "Allusions to Ages of Characters" or "Ages of Characters" (my favourite) would be more fitting.  Loafing 03:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I have recieved a complaint about the above comment and would like to apologise to anyone that took offence from it, as none was intended. -- 04:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I still think that this article should be deleted. I R F 15:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I vote keep. Since we put this article in the Research category, I think some deductive statements can be made about who's older then who (based of course on canonical references) without being considered speculative. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 17:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Cleanup and rename; don't delete. Heimstern Läufer 17:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Cleanup LOTS and rename SOON There is purpose and potential here, just needs a lot of work. - ISTC 17:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
KEEP! --Jnelson09 22:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. While it could use cleaning up, as already mentioned, it seems like a decent start at simply getting the relative ages (as opposed to guessing the actual ages) of the characters organized--a not unhelpful piece of information, especially for newbies.--H-ko 21:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
With respect to those supporting deletion, I really think it is time to remove the tag from this page. I think it is quite clear there is no consensus to delete this page, without which it must not be deleted per policy. We should most likely include the {{cleanup}} tag in its place, but I think retaining the deletion tag is rather pointless at this point in the discussion. Heimstern Läufer 21:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out, two years later, that this page is still hopeless speculation, contradictions, and speculation about contradictions that should be deleted. It would be one thing to say the King of Town is older than Coach Z, who is older than Strong Bad, who is older than Marzipan, but trying to pin down specific ages is an exercise in futility. — It's dot com 22:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, in my cleanup of this page, i'm removing all but hard facts from the probable ages. — Defender1031*Talk 22:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I still pretty much agree with dotcom. - 00:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Many of the research topics on the wiki are hopelessly inconsistent. That never stopped us before, and it shouldn't now. — Defender1031*Talk 01:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Which ones, specifically? Most of them seem pretty consistent, to me, aside from maybe the speech analysis ones. - 01:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
How about the estimated real-world location of FCUSA? Layout of the house of strong? Layout of FCUSA? — Defender1031*Talk 01:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, true. - 01:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Can't say I'm a fan of the "probable ages" thing. That seems to be going way too far with the speculation. I support the keeping of this page as a place to list all the data we have about the characters' ages, including noting the contradictions that exist (I don't see the contradictions on this page as anything that detracts from the article's merit; rather, they help make the topic more interesting). Trying to get exact ages, though, is taking it too far. Heimstern Läufer 04:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I kind of disagree on the probably ages thing. I found it kind of fun estimating what age range they might be in (as a form of summary of the information presented -- this is after all, a research page). However there were some places (like Homestart's age, where he is probably younger than 18 and probably older than 22) where tweaking to emphasize contradiction or removal of the estimate would be better. I do agree that the contradictions in face add to the humor and mystique of the page. One thing I must mention, though: going by the information on this page, it doesn't look like TBC have specified wether their characters age with respect to the normal passage of time, or are 'ageless' (à la The Simpsons, or other comic books where meer days or weeks pass as the strips are published over the years). It seems like a mixture of the two: time in Free Country, USA seems to coincide with events in our world, yet the characters themselves don't physically age much (just evolve). --Stux 06:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

looking old

Hey there, I know we took out all the crazy stuff about "he must be older than this guy because" or "it's likely that so and so was born between 1976-1983 because of references to..." but there were some specific numbers given in this sbemail that would suggest strong sad is between the ages of 18-24 (strong bad's target audience) and that strong bad is slightly older than that (say, 25-32)... in fact i would wager that strong bad is in the age range of the brothers chap. -cyndentia

That's based on some supposition we shouldn't be engaging in, however. 18-24 is a highly sought demographic, of course, and Strong Bad implies he is 10 years older than that, placing him at very close to Matt's and Mike's age (30 and 33 respectively). But we have to also consider how reliable Strong Bad is and how likely this is any real evidence. As far as Strong Sad's agfe being implied by this, I can't see that. Strong Bad talks to his stupid baby brother all the time, there's no reason he did so in this email,because he's in the desired age range - or desired at all. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 21:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
While it is possible, I really don't think we have any additional hints as to Strong Bad's age. I know 50 and 60 yr olds who do things in order to appeal to the 18-24 demographic (Vince McMahon). And I have seen many within that demographic (such as those who become suddenly single after being married for some time) change their style in order to appeal to that demographic even as they are "part" of that demographic. So I don't see it as any clue to Strong Bad's age. It may (and that is a very speculative may) be a clue to Strong Sad's age as Strong Bad does seek him out to see if he appeals to the demographic after his "surgery" and it doesn't seem to me that it would be to give him a hard time in any way, but there are other reasons beyond just "because he is such an age" that are possible (such as he can't see exactly who he's talking to with the "lace lift," and probably other possible reasons.) So I can't see it at all relating to Strong Bad (unless you want to say he's at least 10, but even at that it is strong bad) and only a maybe for Strong Sad. - ISTC 18:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


Could someone tell me exactly what needs to be done to this article so I can work on it and save it from deletion?-LordQuackingstick 22:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it needs to tell us something we can actually say for sure based on the canon, and be free of speculation. And it could use some better organization - I'm not sure the character sections are the best way. I'm not certain what exactly needs to happen - if I were, I'd likely have already gone and done it. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 22:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, in this case, I don't think we have to be restricted to canoncity. Plus, when I first discovered this wiki, I was suprised this article didn't already exist, so I think it'd be a shame to delete it.-LordQuackingstick 22:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd caution, however, not to engage in speculation. It's my opinion we should state facts alone; allow the reader to form the resulting conclusions. But I might not be in line with consensus here. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 03:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Coach Z

Just watched caffeine and Coach Z refers to himself as an old man. I think more citations would help, and specific quotes to support the statements (as well as reasons why the statements might not be reliable, like in "looking old" above). I do think this is a good page; the wiki is designed to help the curious and many new people might want to know where the characters stand with each other (since Coach Z and Bubs might not be recognizable as "old men" or the brothers Strong as oldest, middle, and younger brothers)... anywho. -cyndentia who doesn't have a cool link to the cyndentia site yet

I refer to myself as an old man all the time, even to people older than me. I do it half-jokingly, or as an expression of how I am feeling. But in truth I'm not that old. Even my father, who earlier this month turned 71, is no "old man". So using Coach Z's statement as an indicator of his actual age is speculative. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 03:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


I was just looking over this article and seeing what exactly about it needs cleanup. I'm currently looking for a job to do (I'm bored, of course) and would be more than willing to clean this page up, but it looks done to me. Should I remove the tag? -Brightstar Shiner 20:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Rough Copy?

I think there's a hint at Strong Sad's age in rough copy. When Strong Sad throws snowballs at Strong Bad and The Cheat, Strong Sad says "I've been saving these in the freezer since I was eight!" This says that Strong Sad is more than 8 years old. Do you agree?

Yes. But obvious since he looks bigger than me. What? I'm eight KlingOnMyDreams 19:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Probable ages

I have to say that the "probable age" line that's been added to the articles kinda seems like bunk to me. Does anyone agree? - 19:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This was mentioned awhile back in the "Delete" discussion, although it seems no decision was reached. I agree with you; TBC clearly don't have set ages for the characters. The amount of chronological ambiguity and inconsistency in H*R makes attempting to determine an age a little ridiculous. —FireBird|Talk 21:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


In an edit summary, DeFender1031 mentioned using them to get out of having to change the numbers every year. What are they, how would they help, and do we need them? BBG 20:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

They're template functions that can (among doing many other things) calculate numbers based on the current date. Very useful for a page about ages. — Defender1031*Talk 20:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
See Help:ParserFunctions. — It's dot com 20:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
They're called Parser Functions. The system automatically change something that is plugged into the function. A perfect example would be DeFender1031's sig. MichaelXX2 mail_icon.gif link_icon.gif 20:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. They look useful; can someone give an example of how one for this article would look? BBG 20:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like it's already used in the article, in the Trogdor and Stinkoman section.  Green Helmet 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking that it might be smarter to make a {{yearssince}} template that gets passed a date and just outputs a number, rather than having all of the messy parser code repeated all over the page. — Defender1031*Talk 21:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I had actually been trying to do just that, and it appears to be working. I guess I'll go ahead and click 'save'.  Green Helmet 21:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
PS: I see you are already working on it too, I'll leave it alone and let you finish. (my version of it is not quite right, as seen in the current sandbox).  Green Helmet 21:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Great jorb.

Even though I think the idea of this page still sucks, I'd like to thank everyone who made it tact and proffesional. The ages seem slightly young and/or, but now at least we can safely make parameters without having to ignore any facts. --Jellote 15:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Calculated ages

I'm confused. Why does this article automatically increase the probable ages of each character by one each year, when it is generally accepted that that characters don't age over time and never will? Isn't this an inconsistency? Will the King of Town still be in his sixties in 2019 or not? The way I see it, all the characters are about the same biological age as they were 5 years ago, even though they've existed for an additional 5 years since 2004. I tried to add a statement pointing out that the figures should really be referring to "years alive" rather than their biological ages but it got removed for reasons I don't understand. Can someone please clear this up for me? – The Chort 20:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you, The Chort. It's like Charlie Brown. From the Wikipedia article: "Charlie Brown stated in an early strip (November 3, 1950) that he was 'only four years old', but he aged over the next two decades, being six years old as of November 17, 1957 and 'eight-and-a-half years old' by July 11, 1979. Later references continue to peg Charlie Brown as being approximately eight years old." No one insists that Charlie Brown is 77. So, yeah, I'm not quite digging how the ages are currently being calculated in this article. OptimisticFool 20:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
When i cleaned up this article, i did it on the assumption that the FCUSA characters age in real-time but the TGS ones stay the same. At the moment, that's how the article is set up, therefore, as of now, the statement i reverted was contradictory to the page as it stands. It's a perfectly valid discussion whether that's how it SHOULD be set up, and if we decide that it should be assumed that they don't age, then we can replace all of my equations with constants, and re-add that line then. That's all. — Defender1031*Talk 21:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I prefer to think they live in a "floating timeline", defined on Wikipedia as a timeline that only progresses indefinitely as the story requires. An other words (oh look, some other words) they do not age as we do, only changing their ages in flash-backs, future viewing or when deliviering a pun. So unless there are obvious signs that they grow older as real time goes by, there is no reason we continue this trend. --Jellote 21:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the references to specific, calculated ages. (I also removed all mentions of highschool, since it's not reliable and doesn't fix well.) I replaced the specific ages with general statements that fit the toons. — It's dot com 05:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Probable Age of The Cheat

If all we know is that The Cheat was probably NOT born on 4/18/1961, then how can we tell that he is in his twenties, as stated by the Probable Age section?

well, the verifiability of this is debatable, but i think The Cheat might have been born sometime around whenever the events described in flashback occurred. but come to think of it, that would only be possible in the first place if The Cheat was a monotreme. however, it's unspecified how long before that email said events happened, (if they happened at all, as that email seems to suggest.) The Knights Who Say Ni 23:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
what i mean by the part in parentheses is, if in flashback, Strong Bad watched The Cheat being born, he should have known exactly when it happened in cheatday. The Knights Who Say Ni 00:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

30-Year Old Electronics

Somebody added that having the Printer as kids makes Strong Bad, Mad, and Sad all in their thirties today. That's a stretch considering the 1st printer and The Paper are probably older than all three of them when the young Brothers Strong were shown in flashbacks in emails The Paper and high school. This isn't a perfect example, but I got my regular Nintendo in '88 (or '89), the system first came out in '85, and I was born in '83. I'm not in my early 20s. I'm in my late 20s (27 currently). Hopefully the point is understood even if wasn't a perfect example. — Ngamer01 19:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Said more simply, the printer could be used.

Probable Age of Homsar

Should we add Homsar to this list? I can't imagine how. --JohnnyLurg 01:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, he's a song from the sixties, so that puts him at like fifty-some. He's the son of a chipwich and chipwiches were invented in 1981, so that makes him 31 maximum—assuming the chipwich was female and could be impregnated immediately after birth and that Homsar had a gestation period of 9 months. What else? --Image:Homsariconformysig.gifBroncoTroll 03:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
And yet, in Pumpkin Carve-nival, Homestar called him "little man," implying that Homestar is older than Homsar. But Homestar is an idiot, so that shouldn't be taken seriously, should it? --JohnnyLurg 03:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, he is blue midget Homestar. --Image:Homsariconformysig.gifBroncoTroll 02:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
My friend John said, while I was doing an impression of Homsar, that he sounded old, so I'm saying........Homsar's immortal.
I second this claim. Minecraft lover147 19:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Sickly Sam on the Page

Does anyone really think it's worth mentioning Sickly Sam on this page? --Minecraft lover147 19:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Personal tools