Category talk:Character Relationships

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Marzipan and Strong Sad's Relationship

Would you say there are enough references? I thought about it for a while after finishing Marzipan and The Cheat's Relationship, but then I realized most of the references were simply Strong Sad calling just to talk to someone; and we have yet to find out if he definitely loves her, unlike when The Cheat animated an "I ♥ that Cheat" thought baloon over Marzipan's head. Bad Bad Guy 02:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

References outside Answering Machines that I can remember now include Strong Sad#Character Video Transcript, 3 Times Halloween Funjob, strong badathlon, unnatural, and Strong Bad is in Jail Cartoon. If we need contradictory examples, there's Homestarloween Party and The House That Gave Sucky Treats. Bad Bad Guy 02:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think their relationship is well-defined or consistent enough to warrant an article yet. On the other hand, we could use an article for something like Bubs and Coach Z's Relationship, in my opinion, where they frequently interact in consistent ways. Trey56 03:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You can go write that if you want. I'm gonna wait for Marzipan and/or Strong Sad to make their love clearer to write what I said. Right now it feels kinda like Marzipan thinks she and Strong Sad are just friends. Bad Bad Guy 03:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I can kinda see why else you've been putting that Bubs/Coach Z article off. (My 1st assumption is you're busy on other things) It would be hard to write subsections for it. Bad Bad Guy 19:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Should I count Marzipan asking Gron Sad out in nightlife as a definite sign they might have a love? Bad Bad Guy 03:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strong Mad and The Cheat

That's quite a dandy list of relationships. How about Strong Mad and The Cheat? You usually see them together you know. — 166.129.32.117 (Talk | contribs) 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC) (left unsigned)

Strong Mad and The Cheat's Relationship — that's a great idea. If you feel like working on it, go ahead! Trey56 18:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too Many Relationships

I think we have way too many relationships. The only ones that I think should stay are Homestar Runner and Marzipan's Relationship, Bubs and Coach Z's Relationship, Strong Bad and Homestar Runner's Relationship, Marzipan and The Cheat's Relationship, The Cheat and Strong Mad's Relationship and Strong Bad and The Cheat's Relationship. The rest like Strong Bad and Bubs's Relationship, are uneeded. Anybody agree? User talk:Sam the Man Sam the Man 14:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've also noticed this, and think we should have a limit. Pretty soon, we'll start to get pages like "Senor Cardgage and Homsar's relationship". So, yeah, I think your list is pretty good. Although we might add Homestar Runner and Homestar Runner's Relationship. MIGHT. Anyone disagree? Bluebry 14:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I forgot Homestar Runner and Homestar Runner's Relationship. Thanks. That should stay too. And maybe, just maybe, Strong Bad and Strong Sad's Relationship and Homestar Runner and Pom Pom's Relationship. User talk:Sam the Man Sam the Man 14:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm okay with those two. Bluebry 00:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 22:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I think Strong Bad and Pom Pom's relationship should stay. It's a good contrast to Homestar and Pom Pom's. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 23:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with keeping those eight and am in utter confusion as to why no one tagged Strong Bad and Pom Pom's Relationship for deletion. Bad Bad Guy 16:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming Convention

I've noticed that there seems to be no consistant order to how the pages are named. I propose the following, the names go in the order they appear on the characters page, namely, Homestar, Strong Bad, The Cheat, Strong Mad, Strong Sad, Pom Pom, Marzipan, Coach Z, Bubs, KoT, Poopsmith, Homsar Whichever of them is first in this list is first. Anyone else agree? I don't mind going through and moving them once this is decided. — DeFender1031*Talk 14:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I favor that order, since it more or less goes in descending order for who has the most appearances or lines, and Homsar is last because you know, he's "the secret guy". — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 14:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Where is the inconsistency? (All of the current pages would fit the following order: Homestar, Strong Bad, Strong Mad, Strong Sad, Marzipan, The Cheat, Bubs, Coach Z, Pom Pom.) I can't see any reason to move any of the pages. — It's dot com 16:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Any order is inherently arbitrary. Go with what works. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 22:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that we need to move them, simply that we set a standard to follow. — DeFender1031*Talk 19:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strong Bad and Coach Z

Here's to hoping some people are watching the recent changes list. Anyway, I know some relationship pages are unnecesary, but I think Strong Bad and Coach Z's Relationship could be potentially interesting. I mean, Strong Bad usually (almost always) makes it very clear that he thinks Coach Z is totally lame (total, man), but there are a few times during which they get along. For example, in lures & jigs, Coach Z takes Strong Bad fishing. Anyone else have an opinion? 140.247.10.148 06:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope

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)
[2008-01-23 05:58:10] <DeFender1031> Heimstern, you fool, you tried to build a house without a foundation!
[2008-01-23 05:58:40] <Heimstern> Sounds like a parable to me. B)
[2008-01-23 05:59:03] <DeFender1031> sounds like we need a scope resolution operator to me
[2008-01-23 05:59:10] <DeFender1031> you read my latest post yet?
[2008-01-23 05:59:10] <Heimstern> Yes, is a problem. But it may be that the only way to determine what our standards
                                  are for relationship articles is to have deletion discussions like this.
[2008-01-23 05:59:19] <DeFender1031> blargh
[2008-01-23 05:59:29] <DeFender1031> and then we end up inconsistant
[2008-01-23 05:59:32] <Heimstern> Our guidelines on inclusion are descriptive, not prescriptive.
[2008-01-23 06:00:22] <Heimstern> So we may not be able write any now because there's not enough to describe.
[2008-01-23 06:00:31] <DeFender1031> i can see it now... [[Talk:The Community and the Relationship Category's Relationship]]
                                     "this is erratic and inconsistant, it should be deleted"
[2008-01-23 06:00:40] <DeFender1031> :P
[2008-01-23 06:00:58] <DeFender1031> but it's true, we're being inconsistant, we're taking things as givens when they're
                                     really not
[2008-01-23 06:01:11] <Heimstern> The problem with trying to write rules about this is that they change as soon as an
                                  unexpected example comes up.
[2008-01-23 06:01:22] <DeFender1031> so let them change
[2008-01-23 06:01:28] <DeFender1031> we need a starting point
[2008-01-23 06:01:42] <DeFender1031> i'll use an example from relationships
[2008-01-23 06:01:59] <DeFender1031> how can i tell if a girl has what i'm looking for if i don't know what i'm looking for?
[2008-01-23 06:02:07] <Heimstern> At a time when precedent is still limited, it's pretty hard to make useful rules.
[2008-01-23 06:02:22] <DeFender1031> how can i tell if a page fits a certain scope if i don't know the scope?
[2008-01-23 06:02:25] <Heimstern> Though there are a few we could look into, at least.
[2008-01-23 06:02:44] <Heimstern> I can tell you my own rules, that's for sure. Just not the community's.
[2008-01-23 06:02:45] <DeFender1031> we have two completely opposite ideas here
[2008-01-23 06:03:04] <DeFender1031> and if we listen to both, then the whole category is useless
[2008-01-23 06:03:35] <DeFender1031> i say, listen to neither. i say, take both chocolate and vanilla, and if you happen
                                     to not like one of them, you don't need to eat it

I think these two conversations sum up my question here, which is "what types of articles should be included here?" Just to repeat my opinion (in case you only skimmed the quotes or whatnot) is that any relationship that has been referenced, any time characters have worked together or conflicted (or both) on more than one occasion, should be included. What does the rest of the community think? — DeFender1031*Talk 03:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I quote from another talk. I quote... myself. "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." To me, that's probably the test - what affects a plot and how much? Poopy and the KOT interact in a rather routine way, while H*R and SB interact all over the map. Which is more notable? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 05:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It's hard. We don't have that many relationship articles, compared to items or characters, so it's hard to establish precedent. And whether we like it or not, our inclusion guidelines are heavily based on precedent (like I said, prescriptive rather than descriptive). I think Qermaq's guideline of affecting the plot is one very good litmus test, though it's not the only one I'm willing to use. For relationships that affect the plot less, my biggest criterion tends to be that there's more than one side to the relationship, thus setting up a contrast to be shown in the article. That's why I was willing to support Strong Sad and The Cheat's Relationship, even though theirs is a rather low-profile relationship. Heimstern Läufer 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I have an idea: any time where two characters interact almost when ever they appear should have an article describing their relationship. Good idea or bad idea? HaldoHelscome!

One characteristic that makes two characters' relationship documentable on its own page is when they consistently interact in two very different ways. For example, Homestar and Strong Bad are usually staunch enemies, but they often cooperate closely. This stark contrast makes for a good article. Conversely, when two characters almost always interact in exactly the same way — such as the KOT and the Poopsmith — there's nothing interesting that can't be fit into their character pages.

However, when two characters interact differently every single time they encounter each other, that does not make for an interesting article. There has to be some sort of strong pattern, and preferably two (possibly three) strong patterns that seem to contradict each other. Trey56 23:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Interesting?" Hell, neither is this.
If I'm not mistaken Homestar and Coach Z have conflict that no one bothered to write about. Bad Bad Guy 20:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coach Z and Strong Sad

The following conversation was moved from Talk:Blubb-O's Commercial#Coach Z and Strong Sad
Since they have plenty of conversations (Pumpkin Carve-nival, anything, Ever and More, Blubb-o's) and Strong Sad cured part of Coach Z's accent, does their relationship deserve its own article? Bad Bad Guy 02:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure conversations are enough to build a relationship on, nor am I sure this is the best place to discuss this. --DorianGray 04:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it notable that every conversation of theirs seems to end with Strong Sad saying something slightly mean to Coach Z? Bad Bad Guy 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Is that really true though? If so, then that's pretty cool. — DeFender1031*Talk 19:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's all the 1s I can name now:
I rarely know what you're talking about.
That's a horrible recipe!
Sometimes it seems like you're trying to go to prison (this toon).
Also, there's plenty of conflict between them in A Folky Tale and caffeine. Bad Bad Guy 19:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Another toon of conflict I can name is DNA Evidence, when Strong Sad tells Coach Z he has a sucky imagination. BBG 02:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strong Mad and Homestar?

Excuse me if I'm reiterating what others have said or if this is in a totally wrong categlory- this is the first time I've ever tried to edit a wiki- but, in light of "Play Date", do you think a Strong Mad/Homestar page is worthwhile? He seemed to show more friendliness to Strong Mad than he has to any of The Brothers Strong previously.

[edit] Homsar and Poopsmith?

Alright, I know this might be a bit of a stretch, seeing as they only have a relationship in terms of the Halloween Easter eggs, and wow this is a run-on sentence, but don't you think this could be a page? Opinions? --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 03:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so... It's merely a common element in Halloween toons. They don't even interact when you do so. It's not really a relationship at all. However, if it's not noted in one or both of their bios, and maybe the Halloween page, it should be. --DorianGray 03:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools