Talk:Crack in the Wall
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
(→Redundant) |
(→Redundant: Long reply.) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
::It's a pseudocharacter and therefore warrants its own page in my opinion. In addition, merging without gaining consensus is a little too bold. I have undone the merge. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 04:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC) | ::It's a pseudocharacter and therefore warrants its own page in my opinion. In addition, merging without gaining consensus is a little too bold. I have undone the merge. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 04:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::To throw in my comment on redunancy, I'd have to concur. The only thing that makes it a pseudocharacter is the fact that Strong Bad addresses a line to it in Dangeresque 3, but Strong Bad talks to everything in SBCG4AP. In fact, a quick search shows that one line is the only time any character has ever mentioned it at all - mostly it's just there in the background. It's more that the crack '''has''' character than '''is''' character. --[[User:Belthazar|Belthazar]] 04:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC) | :::To throw in my comment on redunancy, I'd have to concur. The only thing that makes it a pseudocharacter is the fact that Strong Bad addresses a line to it in Dangeresque 3, but Strong Bad talks to everything in SBCG4AP. In fact, a quick search shows that one line is the only time any character has ever mentioned it at all - mostly it's just there in the background. It's more that the crack '''has''' character than '''is''' character. --[[User:Belthazar|Belthazar]] 04:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::::Yeah, I'd have to agree. In fact, I think we have *way* too loose a definition of what a "pseudocharacter" *is*. Seems like "if a character talks to something, it's automatically a pseudocharacter" is the general consensus here. In my opinion, what makes something a genuine pseudocharacter is if it has an actual "personality" that extends beyond one or two lines spoken to it by a character. For instance, [[The Geddup Noise]] and the [[Wagon Fulla Pancakes]] have both been shown *acting* like characters. "Pseudocharacters" such as [[The Denzel]] and [[Carol]] seem to be borderline, as neither have actually *done* anything; one is a "stuffed animal", if you will, and another is a musical instrument, which people *are* sometimes known to name and talk to. And then there're "pseudocharacters" like this one... what makes it a "character", other than that Dangeresque talks to it in SBCG4AP? He talks to the Dangerdesque and the lamp in [[Dangeresque Roomisode 1]], too, but that doesn't make *those* pseudocharacters... -{{User:YK/sig}} 04:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 04:37, 31 December 2008
Pseudocharacter?
Regarding categories, Crack in the Wall might qualify as a pseudocharacter. Strong Bad even tells it that it has character. And have TBC just been inconsistent with its location, or can the crack in the wall move on its own??? =] 
OptimisticFool 08:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Redundant
I would say this page is a little redundant. There is a page for the Smoky Office which is essentially the same list - just add a short piece explaining how the Crack is important in its own right. TsuyoiWarui 強悪 22:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I merged the pages, because they really belong together. — MichaelXX2
03:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's a pseudocharacter and therefore warrants its own page in my opinion. In addition, merging without gaining consensus is a little too bold. I have undone the merge. — Defender1031*Talk 04:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- To throw in my comment on redunancy, I'd have to concur. The only thing that makes it a pseudocharacter is the fact that Strong Bad addresses a line to it in Dangeresque 3, but Strong Bad talks to everything in SBCG4AP. In fact, a quick search shows that one line is the only time any character has ever mentioned it at all - mostly it's just there in the background. It's more that the crack has character than is character. --Belthazar 04:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd have to agree. In fact, I think we have *way* too loose a definition of what a "pseudocharacter" *is*. Seems like "if a character talks to something, it's automatically a pseudocharacter" is the general consensus here. In my opinion, what makes something a genuine pseudocharacter is if it has an actual "personality" that extends beyond one or two lines spoken to it by a character. For instance, The Geddup Noise and the Wagon Fulla Pancakes have both been shown *acting* like characters. "Pseudocharacters" such as The Denzel and Carol seem to be borderline, as neither have actually *done* anything; one is a "stuffed animal", if you will, and another is a musical instrument, which people *are* sometimes known to name and talk to. And then there're "pseudocharacters" like this one... what makes it a "character", other than that Dangeresque talks to it in SBCG4AP? He talks to the Dangerdesque and the lamp in Dangeresque Roomisode 1, too, but that doesn't make *those* pseudocharacters... -YK
04:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd have to agree. In fact, I think we have *way* too loose a definition of what a "pseudocharacter" *is*. Seems like "if a character talks to something, it's automatically a pseudocharacter" is the general consensus here. In my opinion, what makes something a genuine pseudocharacter is if it has an actual "personality" that extends beyond one or two lines spoken to it by a character. For instance, The Geddup Noise and the Wagon Fulla Pancakes have both been shown *acting* like characters. "Pseudocharacters" such as The Denzel and Carol seem to be borderline, as neither have actually *done* anything; one is a "stuffed animal", if you will, and another is a musical instrument, which people *are* sometimes known to name and talk to. And then there're "pseudocharacters" like this one... what makes it a "character", other than that Dangeresque talks to it in SBCG4AP? He talks to the Dangerdesque and the lamp in Dangeresque Roomisode 1, too, but that doesn't make *those* pseudocharacters... -YK
- To throw in my comment on redunancy, I'd have to concur. The only thing that makes it a pseudocharacter is the fact that Strong Bad addresses a line to it in Dangeresque 3, but Strong Bad talks to everything in SBCG4AP. In fact, a quick search shows that one line is the only time any character has ever mentioned it at all - mostly it's just there in the background. It's more that the crack has character than is character. --Belthazar 04:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's a pseudocharacter and therefore warrants its own page in my opinion. In addition, merging without gaining consensus is a little too bold. I have undone the merge. — Defender1031*Talk 04:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
