Talk:The King of Town and The Poopsmith's Relationship

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 21:41, 22 March 2008

The title: why did it change?

There was a reson I made the poopsmith's name first in the title when I first wrote: Their relationship mainly centers around the poopsmith's like/admiration of the king. So I ask you; why did the title change so the king's name would be first? HaldoHelscome!

This page said The KOT's name should go first, and he is more significant to the H*R body of work than that guy who says nothing and shovels lots of crap is. Bad Bad Guy 22:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I see. Could you at least see my reasoning? HaldoHelscome!

Bad Bad Guy, DeFender's table of character relationships is just to show which character relationship articles do and do not exist. It is not designed to dictate what they will be named when they get created; that would be too presumptuous. OptimisticFool 22:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete

I don't think this relationship is worth an article. There's just nothing to make the King of Town's relationship with The Poopsmith interesting or special: It's a one-sided relationship, with nothing contrary to how we would expect the King to treat a servant/employee or vice versa. It also doesn't play a really major role in the H*R body of work, the way H*R and Strong Bad's or Coach Z and Bubs's does. I suggest deletion. Heimstern Läufer 22:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The same could be said about strong sad and homsar. HaldoHelscome!

How's that? Homsar isn't a "servant/employee" of Strong Sad's. They just have a weird "friendship". Not really relevant here, IMO. -YK 02:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that Strong Sad and Homsar don't have a very conflicted relationship. There is some conflict on strong sad's part, though. I think that this article is relevant because it contradicts the entire Homestar Runner Universe. There is ALWAYS conflict in two character's relationships, right? Not here. It is the only relationship were there is much contact that is "perfect." The King cares about the Poopsmith, and in return the Poopsmith admires the King. See? The perfect relationship. HaldoHelscome!

"I keep telling him the sun don't rise and set on that pile of whatsit, but he don't wanna listen." Sounds like conflict to me. --DorianGray 20:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Heimstern, there is nothing special about their relationship. The article should be deleted. Loafing 20:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yarg, did anyone listen to my long, drawn out reply?! HaldoHelscome!

DorainGray probably did since he pointed out a flaw. Did you listen to him? Bad Bad Guy 01:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, I did. And I found another time where the king insults the poopsmith: "Poopsmith? you smell like a crapsmith!" That's exactly the number of disturbances in the relationship there are in "Strong Sad and Homsar's Relationship". And there was one more, it was... AUGH, way computer shut down before I finished and I forgot what the other one was! Anyway, I still say KEEP.

HEY, wait a second! If THIS can't have it's own page why should Homestar Runner and Coach Z's Relationship?!?! YARG!!

Actually, that's not a bad point: Homestar Runner and Coach Z's relationship isn't especially interesting. Either way, you ought to relax. And anyway, that's not what this talk page is about. As for this article, I'd say it can go. Delete. OptimisticFool 01:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

KK. Question: If I added the two times where they didn't get along, would you accept it? HaldoHelscome!

Until there is a clear consensus, I'd invite you to update the page how you see fit. Anytime you can improve an article, improve an article. If the opinions change as a result, they change. If they don't, then they don't. Be bold. Add them. OptimisticFool 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot, then. But I have to do my homework right now T_T

Concerning the remark about the sun not rising/setting on the pile of whatsit: I just don't think a single remark with no real significance in the plot of the toon (and that doesn't exactly imply a strong conflict, anyway) does enough to make the relationship notable. Heimstern Läufer 02:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This may seem a bit defensive on my part, but that's about as significant as the "Homsar, we're playing connect four!" line in SS/H's Relationship. And now for something completely different: Is there something wrong with a pure relationship? Even when the King said "You smell like a crapsmith!" he asked the Poopsmith if he had tried to fix this problem as soon as he saw the that the Poopsmith was hurt by that. HaldoHelscome!

Hmm, now that i've said this I'm kinda reluctant to add the bad-ish part of their relationship to the article... Your thoughts?

Okay, i don't get this. Any time we have a relationship page, someone wants to delete it. When we have a page about a relationship that's consistent, we get the "this isn't really worth describing as it's always the same" but when we have pages where it isn't consistant we get arguments that "this relationship has no pattern and is too erratic to be worth documenting." Either we don't like chocolate ice cream, or we don't like vanilla, but if we're going to have ice cream at all, we can't not like both, it's like going mudsliding and complaining about getting dirty. I personally feel like we should have pages on all of the relationships, as long as there's something to note, be it consistent or not. Maybe this comment is a bit broad and should be brought up on a more general page, but whatever, for the moment i say keep — Defender1031*Talk 03:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's playing both sides of the fence, Defender. The community at large probably does not yet agree on what standards we should have for relationship articles, but so far as I can tell no one is being inconsistent here. Heimstern Läufer 03:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that any one person was being inconsistent, i was saying that the community as a whole was. Just pointing out that however convincing these arguments may be that this relationship is consistent, it doesn't address the idea of whether the article should be here. I'm pointing out that those in this discussion seem to be taking it as a given that a consistent relationship doesn't merit an article, when in fact, no such rule has been established. I think that before any more discussions are had about deletion of these types of pages, we should really figure out what the scope of this category is so that we don't assume on this page that consistency is bad but on that page that variety is bad. That's all i'm saying. Figure out what we want before we decide whether this fits it. Foundation before the building. — Defender1031*Talk 03:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Me, I think some vetting is necessary in determining which character relationship pages are needed. I'm not sure of what the litmus test is, but there needs to be consensus on one. Some are obviously plot devices over and over, but others are never strong determiners of plot. Perhaps that's where we need to head. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

yo, check out this discussion, where we can discuss the broader subject. — Defender1031*Talk 04:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I say this page should be deleted. The Poopsmith's relationship with the KOT is almost synonymous with who he is, and since their relationship is so one-dimensional, I don't think that we need to have this page separate from The Poopsmith. Trey56 23:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep it. Religious Corn   21:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)