Talk:Pom Pom

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 18:41, 2 July 2009

Pom Pom is a featured article, which means it showcases an important part of the Homestar Runner body of work and/or highlights the fine work of this wiki. We also might just think it's cool. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

Still disambiguous?

Hmm. Does the case fix get rid of this problem? Pom Pom is the character, pom pom is the email, right? Or is that way to confusing? Also, links to the page "Pom Pom" aren't directed here anymore. We need to fix this. Somehow. -- Tom 12:03, 28 Jul 2004 (MST)

Case seems to be adequate enough to disambiguify something to the engine, but I don't think it's good enough for readers. Case-sensitivity would/will confuse a lot of people. I think we should stick with what we've got. — Joey (talk·edits) 12:13, 28 Jul 2004 (MST)

Oh right, I think it was the move that I was looking for. That works... But still, ideally, nothing should link here. They should all link to either Pom Pom (character) or pom pom (email). Would it be easier to have the pages be "Pom Pom" and "pom pom"? Wait, that's still confusing. I guess... Which type of confusion do we want then? -- Tom 12:19, 28 Jul 2004 (MST)

I dunno. This case stuff is going to confuse some people, but I don't think it's unnecessarily complicated. — Joey (talk·edits)

Okay, I'm not sure anyone will ever link to "pom pom (character)", so I deleted that. Nothing linked to it, and it just redirected to "Pom Pom (character)" I think we might be out thinking ourselves. What's going to happen when someone copies a page here? What will the links say? "PomPom" or ""StrongBadEmail/pom pom", right? So they are going to have to be changed either way... Should we change them to "Pom Pom (character)" and "pom pom (email)" or simply "Pom Pom" and "pom pom" I guess that's my question. -- Tom 12:34, 28 Jul 2004 (MST)

I really think we should keep "Pom Pom (character)" and "pom pom (email)" because it will help people understand what they're looking at. If the name is exactly the same (even if the case is different) people will get confused. New links should go to one or the other, not to the disambiguation page. Links should only go to the disambiguation page when people aren't paying attention to what they're doing (something I do a lot). — Joey (talk·edits) 12:49, 28 Jul 2004 (MST)

The disambiguation page is also nice when people are looking for "Pom Pom" and they type it into the search box and hit "Go". — Joey (talk·edits) 12:53, 28 Jul 2004 (MST)

Yeah, that makes sense. We'll have to add that to the list of things to change when bringing something over. To try to prevent some of the confusion. And to that user guide we still have to make... -- Tom 12:55, 28 Jul 2004 (MST)

I've pointed out before this page is unnecessary. Pom Pom (character) should be moved here, and pom pom should be the e-mail, and they can each have disambiguation notices at the top, like: You might be looking for the Strong Bad Email named pom pom. It's good enough for Wikipedia and I think it's still good enough for us. - furrykef 12:35, 14 Sep 2004 (MST)

In any case, we need to standardise this. Marzipan and Homsar's pages both have "(character)" and "(email)", whereas Pom Pom is just governed by case. Either way is fine, but it seems awkward to use both. --Upsilon

I think the email should be pom pom (email), but this page being changed to pom pom (character) is ridiculous. After all, what if there was an email entitled "strong bad"? Would we have to change the Strong Bad character page to Strong Bad (character)?

Last time we've seen Pom Pom?

When was the last time we have seen Pom Pom? Homestramy20|^Talk 03:48, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I think it was way back in Bug In Mouth Disease, which was released on May 9th. That IS a long time for such a main character to go without an appearance. --DorianGray

Family Resemblence was more recent than that, in July, although it wasn't on the site. Last time on the site was modeling, on June 27. --Jay (Talk) 21:32, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)

That's still a long time, isn't it? In the early toons, you couldn't have one without Pom Pom. Although, I guess there are only so many things you can do with a big bouncy guy who speaks in bubbles, yeah? --DorianGray

'Specially since Pom Pom lacks the character flaws that plague every other member of the main cast. --Jay (Talk) 08:13, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Pom Pom has one character flaw: lack of character. We barely know anything about him. Personally, I'd rather TBC use him more or delete him from the main cast. I don't like a "main" character being ignored like this. But that's just me. - Joshua

Things change. I think TBC ran out of gas for the Pom-ster - as it says above, he has no clearly defined character, and can't speak (except in bubbles). Not speaking hasn't seemed to have hurt The Poopsmith much, but there's only so much you can do with Pom-Pom...it was still interesting to see him go from Homestar's steadfast companion, to supporting character, to a once-in-a-blue-moon kinda guy. I don't think he'll totally disappear, but his halcion days are clearly passed. THE SMOKING MONKEY 13:49, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

"Ran out of gas." That's funny. — It's dot com

Huh? Oh...he's, like, a gas-filled balloon. Oh, man. THE SMOKING MONKEY

Truth be told, Pom Pom still has more appearances than The Poopsmith (who also hasn't appeared in anything for a while) or Homsar, but the former is catching up, and he's already been surpassed by The King of Town. --Jay (Talk) 18:37, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

The Poopsmith appeared in Trogdor Con, but it was just a little cameo. (but so was Pom Pom in modeling) Homsar, on the other hand, is becoming popular. - Joshua

Ah, yes, forgot about that. Pom Pom's name was at least explicitly mentioned in modeling. --Jay (Talk) 18:52, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

That was very insightful about Pom Pom's lack of character flaws. He gets along with most everyone, he's confident, smart, a ladies' man... no wonder he hasn't been going places! Tell him to get an anxiety disorder or a fungus or something and he might have a comeback. ;)Trelawney 00:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that Pom Pom is more of a running gag, than an actual character, at least now, the joke with him being that he is a cool ladies man with tons of girlfriends, the Mack, when he is never really seen doing anything on screen, sort of like Morn getting the reputation of being the funniest guy around on Star Trek DS9. Lord-z 14:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that in his last four or five toons, he hasn't done anything but stand there. I think he should have at least been seen throwing the remote in strong badathlon or making out in the movies. I still don't think he deserves to die as much as the Poopsmith does, though. Bad Bad Guy 02:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference?

Does getting Homestar out of some really tight pants count as a reference to Seinfeld?--Robert Benedicio 13:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. Username-talk 15:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a referance to homestar not wearing pants. Not to a seinfeld show. — _talk Bubsty _edits 21:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah so there's the pants reference. It all makes sense.Geshmalder 21:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Beats me.But Homestar Wore Daisy Dukes in "Long Pants".But The Cheat Ignited them.--Gir007 20:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Name

I've been wondering: how many times is the name "Pom Pom" (without the hyphen) actually used on the site? I've noticed that in almost all Strong Bad Emails, Strong Bad types it as "Pom-Pom". We did this with Strong Badia, and I think we should do it with Pom(-)Pom as well. Anyone willing to do a more thorough investigation on this mystery? — Has Matt? (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Billiard Ball

Is the orange line on Pom Pom's belly a stripe or a midriff? Curious in Kankakee, Trey56 18:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to say it was a stripe, based on the other picture on the page. 130.127.84.204 01:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet ANOTHER reference?

Pomeranians are called so because they're from the Island of Pomerania. Is Pom-Pom called so because he's from the Isle(and) of Pom? (Pomeranians are also known as Poms.)72.68.200.118 23:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think most things are named for the island they come from. Skye terriers come from the Island of Skye, Hawaiians come from the Hawaiian Islands, and so forth. --DorianGray

Pom Pom apearances as diffferent people

Some one should add that Pom Pom also appears as baby Pom in the email highschool.

pants

should it be noted there is a reference to homestar's pants in this toon?

Sure, why not? Done. --DorianGray 21:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Polyamorous?

Is Pom Pom polyamorous? I think that where it says girlfriends on the article, it should simply say 'girls', because I don't believe something such as this would appear in a Homestar cartoon, not to mention, they have never been named as his 'girlfriends', I know only polyamorous marrage is against the law, but I don't think TBC would toe the line like that.--~ SlipStream 10:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Well, Yeah, he obviously is. having multiple girlfriends is something strong bad TRIES to have, and pom pom actually has.

Gin & Juice

Homestar is quoting Snoop's song Gin & Juice when he's saying 'every single day' with that tone in the character video. Marvelrulez 11:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Pom Pom noises?

Pom Pom's bubbling sound is never called "Pom Pom noises", while The Cheat's noises are called "The Cheat noises". --98.162.148.46 21:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC) (I am a number?)

Because Pom Pom's are identifiable as bubbles, whereas The Cheat's are a variety of high-pitched squeaks, growls, yelps, and mutters. There is a single word for Pom Pom's noises, but not for The Cheat's. At least, I'm guessing that was the reasoning used by whoever first transcribed them as such. --DorianGray 21:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Kongfu?

I think we have the right to know where Pom Pom learned his kong fu skills. Why shouldn't we know? Fingerface 21:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Pager number

Ok, seriously. http://web.archive.org/web/20010207213147/www.homestarrunner.com/autographs.html look at that. it's so obviously 718 655 1059. but when i change it, it gets reverted. just go look at it!theres no doubt that is a 6.

It looks more like a 6 than any of those 5's, and it looks more like a 5 than the 6 in the home number. i'm not sure which one it is. given it's being compared next to a bunch of 5's, i'll go with 6.
my question is, the first number of the cell's area code looks more like the 3 home number's area code than the 1 in the home number's area code, or the 1 in the pager's area code. 323 is the area code for Hollywood, California; do y'all think tbc (1) knew that (2) would intend such a thing for pom pom if they did know it? The Knights Who Say Ni 02:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I still think it's a 5 and a 1, respectively. It's simulating handwriting, so it's supposed to differ subtly between numbers, but I think the intent is clear. -140.247.10.171 02:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

if you zoom in, you can see clearly that the upper and lower portions of what would be a 5 are clearly connected with an extra line. — Defender1031*Talk 03:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

i think a Hollywood cell phone number would fit pom pom's character, and i think that does look more like a 3 than a 1. and (reality about 555 #'s aside) if i had two phone numbers, one's prefix was 555 and one's was 655, i would probably get them confused. it looks to me like pom pom wrote 555 and tried to correct it to 655. ok i'm sticking with 6. and the second one's first number doesn't look like a 1 at all imo. it doesn't look much like a 3 either, but it looks more like a 3 than anything else. The Knights Who Say Ni 03:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it makes sense that his home number and cell would have the same area code, whereas the pager could be a wild card. Here's a close up of the Cell area code.

personally, i think it's a one. It Really depends on how you look at it. if you expect a one, you see a one. Same goes for three. User:MechaKingBubsGonzola

Here's a properly zoomed-in version of the numbers. — Defender1031*Talk 18:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)