From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


[edit] Princess of Town

Should there be a note (say in a Fun Facts section) that the KOT was mentioned as Marzipan's father, as per fun fact in Marzipan, although that is clearly no longer the case? Anagrammarian 20:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I think so. Makes sense --Ju Ju Master 19:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Done, although if this section should be called something other than Fun Fact (singular for now?), please feel free to change. Also reworded Fun Fact on Marzipan to match. Anagrammarian 02:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edga

How about the whole, Edger, Edger jr, Edger's baby's daddy? Should that have a place here? I R F 02:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strond Dad?

Should we mention the museum fan stuff picture of "Strong Dad as portrayed by Kevin Spacey?" :Mila 18:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Even though it's a fan creation, I don't see why not... --DorianGray

[edit] Reasoning

In my opinion, the reasoning behind not showing parents is because that means new main characters will have to be introduced into the Homestar Runner series, which would severly disrupt the formula for the toons. Parents would appear like a "jumping the shark"-type bit, and thus decrease the quality of the series (Rugrats ultimately was ruined after all those new characters were introduced). References to parents are acceptible, because it proves that they do have parents, but are not important enough to become main characters. Just a thought. --ThomasO 11:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. The Big Eye 16:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

What would people think about a rename to "Parents (and Other Family)" or something along the lines of that? This would allow a few otherwise homeless bits abbout uncles and such. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 09:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robot Prospector

What about Tompkins' mom from the most recent Teen Girl Squad? I'd add it but I'm new and all so I'm asking first. → ☮y P Y'all biscuitheads! 18:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Good catch. So makey outy 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great-Grandmother of the Brothers Strong

The following discussion was moved here from Talk:Great-Grandmother of the Brothers Strong when it was decided to turn that article into a redirect to this one.
This information should really go on Parents. The character is too minor to have its own article (and may not even exist: Strong Sad could have just been annoying Strong Bad). Redirect. – The Chort 11:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, definately, she probably existed, but as we never saw her, and she wasn't even properly mentioned, merge.--~ SlipStream 11:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Unseen Characters. That's all i have to say except DELETED! — Defender1031*Talk 11:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree — redirect (to Parents). Trey56 14:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Objection to redirecting to Unseen Characters. Although we can add her to that list, I'd rather we redirected to Parents instead. Like their Mom and Dad, we never see her and there is more space on that article to add the information. – The Chort 14:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Added her to Mentioned Unseen Characters. Redirect to Parents, update links as usual. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 21:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Guys

Hey GUYS Why Aren't These Better Organised? I Mean, They SHOULD Be BETTER OrgaNISED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- 22:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Clam down. What do you mean not organized? It is organized. User talk:Sam the Man Sam the Man 00:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
What the user probably means is that the page is just two lists of appearances. These can be better grouped by category and/or related character. As it stands the information looks jumbled. --Stux 02:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example order

With regard to this edit I would like to bring up the topic of section order. While the article is grouped by characters, the subsections I tried to order by character as well. In this case, I grouped all of Homsar's examples in the same set of lines, Coach Z's, etc. I think it makes more sense and makes it easier to understand. I don't think chronological order here is as crucial. I'm going to revert it for now but I would definitely like to hear some feedback. --Stux 05:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think sub-headings might simplify understanding this. But a few seem oddly placed. Why is the environment one under "minor characters"? What's the rationale? Same with mini-golf. Both are said by Strong Bad. I cleaned up a few other items, but shouldn't we be organizing by whose parent we are discussing? So the Weclome Back one should be in the Main Characters section, but under "Other" or something. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 03:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't want to "overdo" the headings, but if simplicity and clarity call for another depth of subheadings (or greater number), I am not opposed. As for environment and mini-golf... I have no idea what I was thinking when I put those there. They've been fixed. As for Weclome back, I didn't watch the toons again for this, I only went with the transcript, and at first it wasn't obvious that Strong Bad was talking to the audience. Since I didn't want a subsection with only one item, it's in Minor Characters. If it's still not right, it could have its own header. This is closely tied to the issue of whether or not we want further individial subheadings: one for each main character mentioned. --Stux 04:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, my thought was that Weclome Back's example was directed at the main characters gathered, but not at a specific one, so it's really not appropriate for "Minor Characters" either. I'm not sure where to go with it now. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 04:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be a much better organization technique to put them in chronological order, because anytime someone finds a new one, they're going to assume that's what the order is and add to the bottom of the list (as has happened in the time since you brought this up), which could (and did) result in duplicate facts. I can understand the inclination toward grouping by characters, but this would just result in a mess unless you actually use subheadings, and there just aren't enough facts per character to justify doing this. LikeAsItself 20:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools