Talk:Fully Human Characters

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Current revision as of 00:36, 1 December 2023

[edit] Minor humans

What about minor characters like the guitar player from for kids and the hot '60s looking girls and SBASAF personnel from space program? Do entries on this page have to have more prominent roles? Trey56 05:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You could create a "minor characters" category. Retromaniac 22:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biscuit Hands

If Biscuit Dough Hands Man has biscuits for hands, he wouldn't be CLEARLY a human, would he? Homestar-winner 11:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agreee. He's human "except for...". This theory could be applied to a lot of characters, most notably, Strong Mad and the members of TGS.--.Johnny Jupiter! ^talk _cont 21:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I just saw he was on there, and i thought that just b/c he has a human head and torso doesn't trump the fact that his hands of biscuit dough and his short, small legs which make him not "Clearly Human". The Knights Who Say Ni 20:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Page title

Is there something better than "Clearly human characters" that we could consider? I realize it's subtly different from "Human characters", but it just seems not-quite-right to me. — It's dot com 15:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that when I made Human characters as a redirect. It kinda reminds me of how "Obviously Phony Aliases" was changed to "Aliases Used in Prank Calls". I think we should change it to "Human characters" or something similar. — Has Matt? (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly "Human-like Characters"? --TotalSpaceshipGirl3 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"Humanoid characters?" --Jnelson09 22:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Humanoid Characters? C'mon. That sounds like their robots. In my opinion, it should be "Human-like Characters", like TSG3 said. Sam the Man 14:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong Bad could be considered a humanoid character... DEI DAT VM^┌_{datvm center}\^{super contra}_┘ 14:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep the title! HAJ 17:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

How about just we just drop the "Clearly" and have Human Characters? – The Chort 11:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully. DrPepper42 19:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think human references or something of that nature would be good Homsarstrongbad150 22:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I know this discussion has been dead for almost a year now, but I'd like to bring it up again, just because the word "Clearly" jumps out at me. I think a move to Human Characters would work nicely. —Guard Duck ^talk 23:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Human Characters. Makes more sense, anyway. Besides, is Crack REALLY that clear. For all we know, his legs could be Da Huuuuuuudge-like.--Jellote wuz here 23:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And for all we know, Strong Bad could have a pair of human hands underneath his boxing gloves. It doesn't really matter. It also looks like the majority of us wants "Human Characters," is that right? — MichaelXX2 18:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree,it should be just "Human Characters" Rondleman! Stuff I did.Talk. 01:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think plain "Human Characters" is missing something vital. We don't really know that the main characters aren't human (the term dumb animal characters notwithstanding); the point of this article is to list characters that look human. Someone moved this page, but instead of moving it back I moved it to "Normal Human Characters" to see if that name would fit better. — It's dot com 00:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I like this new name. The word "normal" seems kind of subjective and POV to me. I think the original title was better than this, as it more clearly expressed the distinguishing characteristic: that they are clearly and unambiguously human, not that they're "normal". Heimstern Läufer 05:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I added a hyphen. Does that help? I don't think the original title was better than this one, because it isn't at all clear or to me that, say, Strong Bad isn't human. — It's dot com 15:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

And "The guy who does the bad guy's voice" is human-like but not a normal human. ColdReactive 16:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Should that guy be on this page? He's got a bit of a sickly complexion, but he still essentially resembles a human. We list on the page a humanoid character that has biscuits for hands. -132.183.151.157 17:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Then this should be named "Humanoid" Characters. Though, it would mean SB fits into that. BDHM also bears a resemblence to SB as well, except for the face. BDHM should actually not be on this list, seeing only his face looks human. ColdReactive 18:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this article is supposed to be about humanoid characters. Many characters can reasonably be considered humanoid; this page is about those that are clearly just ordinary humans, with no weirdities like boxing gloves or biscuit dough for hands or faces that are right between the shoulders. As for "...it isn't at all clear or to me that, say, Strong Bad isn't human," fine, but it's also not clear he is, and therefore he still wouldn't fit the title "Clearly Human Characters", so that title doesn't conflict with your concern at all. The title means it's for characters who are clearly human, not those for whom it's not clear they aren't (a double negative does not always equal a positive, and here they don't mean exactly the same thing). What about "Ordinary Human Characters"? I think the word "ordinary" has less of the POV of the word "normal" and fits this universe better (there's little "normal" about anything in HR, really). Heimstern Läufer 18:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and sorry, no, I don't like the hyphen. It makes it look like "normal-human" is some type of compound word or something. I just don't see that it has a clear meaning. Heimstern Läufer 18:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is a compound word—specifically, a compound adjective. It's not that they are human characters who are normal; they're characters who look like normal humans. How about "Characters Who Look Like Normal Humans"? To clarify what I wrote earlier, I think it's clear that Strong Bad is human. (What else would he be?) — It's dot com 22:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That lengthier title is definitely much clearer than anything else we've tried. And before we call "Too long, Clanky!", let's remember something: a title should define the scope an article in the best way possible, so clarity really can sometimes trump brevity. Heimstern Läufer 22:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think we've been trying to be too succinct here. Sometimes a longer title works when a shorter one is confusing. This article is about the characters' appearance, so stating how they look is important (as opposed to saying that they are human characters or are clearly human characters). — It's dot com 22:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think "Characters Who Look Like Normal Humans" is a good title, but I'm not sure if I like the adjective "normal" in this case. Either way, it's the best thing that's come out of this discussion in my opinion. -- Super Martyo boing! 18:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

What about "Anatomically Human Characters"? — Defender1031*Talk 18:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that would have, uh, unintended connotations. I also think it's another example where, in an effort to be concise, we're looking for one perfect word, but the word in question doesn't quite cover the scope of the article. Super Martyo Brother: I think the word is necessary. Strong Bad looks like a human, just not a normal human. — It's dot com 19:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess I would be more okay with it in the suggested page title than I am now. Crack Stuntman is certainly not normal. -- Super Martyo boing! 19:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"Typical" perhaps? "Characters Who Look Like Typical Humans"? — It's dot com 19:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of "ordinary", though I suppose "typical" works too. Heimstern Läufer 20:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Fully Human Characters? It refers to characters who are human in every way. Character likes Strong Bad are Stylized Human Characters, as they are human-like but not an accurate profile. Fully Human ones are like Crack Stuntman, with distinctly human shape, size, proportion and detail (fingers, clothing, etc.). Sounds fair?--Jellote wuz here 01:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"Fully Human" would probably comprehensively cover it. -- Super Martyo boing! 04:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Fully Human Characters" sounds good. "Characters Who Look Like Normal/Typical/Ordinary Humans" works too, but it's a bit long, so perhaps it can be shortened to "Visually Normal/Typical/Ordinary Human Characters" (whichever adjective works best). Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 19:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm definitely leaning toward "Fully Human Characters". Any objections? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 03:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi! This is MeowMeow. Here's the thing: why not just call it Human Characters? Give me one good reason why not. No, seriously, if you have an opinion about this, just let me know. I'd be glad to hear your opinion.

Your friendly wiki editor,

MeowMeow

[edit] Human Mike?

In Six Sadded, Die Strong Sad refers to Mike as "Human Mike" (adding another layer of confusion to what the crap Strong Sad is) and I think it's worthy of note but I can't see a place to put it here. Should there be a "mentions" section? Guybrush20X6 17:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)