From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Better Organization)
(Better Organization: agree'd)
Line 251: Line 251:
== Better Organization ==
== Better Organization ==
I'm thinking that the nickname giver would make a better and more relevant subcategory than the type of toon. :S - {{User:Joshua/sig}} 19:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the nickname giver would make a better and more relevant subcategory than the type of toon. :S - {{User:Joshua/sig}} 19:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
:That's been annoying me for quite a bit. I agree, it would. Or maybe negative names and positive names... I still think the name giver would be better.

Revision as of 19:47, 12 April 2006


Falsely Accused

Um, some poor soul got WikiTrolled for adding "false" nicknames that were 100% genuine. The problem is that he slightly misattributed them - they weren't in kids' book per se, they were in Strumstar Hammer (the fake version of the original book.) --Jay 14:43, 16 Feb 2005 (MST)

My fault. I searched on kids' book and didn't see the nicknames, so I assumed it was a troll. I should've searched the names before I accused him. I'll remove him from WikiTroll and clean up all this mess. →[[User:FireBird|FireBird]]
Yeah, it's okay. Enough troll edits will make you paranoid, I know. Just hope we didn't offend him. --Jay 16:37, 16 Feb 2005 (MST)
I doubt he even knew he was on WikiTroll (or even what WikiTroll is). →[[User:FireBird|FireBird]]
I thought he might have been blocked, but that doesn't seem to be the case. --Jay 16:49, 16 Feb 2005 (MST)


Wasn't Homestar referring to Strong Mad when he talked about the 'two-bit wrestleman'? After all, he didn't know that Strong Bad was on Strong Badia's side before he saw him playing badminton. Thus, shouldn't 'two-bit wrestleman' be listed as a Strong Mad nickname, but 'Wrestleman' be listed as a Strong Bad nickname?

From the transcript of army:
{scene changes to The Stick}
HOMESTAR RUNNER: Are you sick and tired of playing second-fiddle to a two bit wrestle man and his yellow dog?
I think Homestar is talking about Strong Bad and The Cheat here. I don't think Homestar refers to Strong Mad at all in the email. From reading the rest of Homestar's speech, it would seem he is referring to other things that either Strong Bad has done or Strong Bad has.
So as of right now, the nicknames listed are correct in this respect. -- Tom 13:52, 19 Feb 2005 (MST)

Meatball Face Butt

I removed this because Meatball Face Butt isn't technically attributed by Strong Bad to Homestar. It's given by Dangeresque to Dangeresque. --Upsilon 05:45, 30 Mar 2005 (MST)

An Ogre

Surely this doesn't count as a nickname? --Upsilon 06:02, 30 Mar 2005 (MST)

One character = another?

Does it count when one character (usually Homestar) refers to another character with a third character's name - ie. when Homestar calls Strong Bad "Strong Sad" in caper, or when he calls Strong Bad "Pom Pom" in the facts? --Jay 22:59, 8 Apr 2005 (MDT)

Homsar calls himself

Should the names that Homsar calls himself really be included? --Gafaddict 20:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We counted it when Homestar called himself "Batman", or when Strong Bad called himself Stark Dålig. So why not? --Jay 20:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stupid baby brother

I removed this because of its being a direct description of Strong Sad's person (in Strong Bad's point of view, mind you), not a different name for him, nor is it being used as such. Suicune64 01:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Already taken care of?

Is it just me, or does all of this info already exist on the character pages (also known as...)? Is a completely seperate page necessary to this wiki anyway? -- Tony Stony 02:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's just you :) Seriously, though, you're right that there is overlap, but the a.k.a. sections on character pages also include alternate incarnations (such as Dr. Christmas for Bubs) that aren't nicknames. The nickname page is just kinda fun by itself, I don't know why. Eric 12:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dapper Swindler

Do you think that The Dapper Swindler should also be included here? 09:29, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I was going to say no, because I'm pretty sure it's The Sneak's only nickname, but Balding Man, Visor Robot and others are listed with only one, so... Yeah, I think it should be included (though I'd wait for others to second this before adding it). -Polly 09:48, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Seconded and added. -- tomstiff 13:00, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Dangeresque character names- nicknames?

Okay, let me ask this once and for all, so I can get my confusion cleared up here: can the Dangeresque character names be considered nicknames? --ISlayedTheKerrek 04:14, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I would say no because they're characters in movies that Strong Bad made. They're fictional characters, but saying these are nicknames is kind of like calling actors by the names of characters they've played. SparkPlug 06:08, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I added KILLINGYOUGUY to Strong Mad's section because in the end credits it lists Killingyouguy as Himself.

Low and No

Strong Sad calls his brothers 'Low-brow' and 'No-brow' in his latest blog entry to these count as nicknames from Strong Mad and Strong Bad? The Pardack

Sounds logical. If you can figure out which Strong is Low-Brow and which one is No-Brow I'd say go for it.

Strong Bad's no-brow, because he has no brows... I think. - Joshua
Also, "lowbrow" = "unintellectual"; that fits Strong Mad, I think. — It's dot com 20:09, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Yeah but brow also means forehead, Strong Bad could be low brow since he's not exactly 'cultured' and Strong Mad could be no brow since he has no forehead. I'm just throwing this out there as a possibility. The Pardack

Eh! Greg

I think there's some disagreement here. I'm pretty sure that SB's 'Eh! Greg' was him forgetting Eh! Steve's name, not making Eh! Steve adress Prime Time. - KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(t)(c)(r)

I took it not as SB forgetting, but agreeing that this creation was very much like Eh! Steve, but not the same; hence he would need a similar but not-the-same name. —AbdiViklas 21:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
But is the name given to his drawing of Eh! Steve or Ready for Prime Time? That's what would determine where the nickname would go. - KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(t)(c)(r)
Ready for Prime Time. You could argue that its name is Eh! Greg, but certainly not Eh! Steve. —AbdiViklas 21:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Mustachioed Homestar Runner

How do we know that the Mustachioed Homestar Runner is nicknamed "Fabrosi" in Yes, the person who "sent" in the old email was called Fabrosi but just because M.H.R. followed Strong Bad's advice doesn't mean that he sent in the email. I don't see a strong enough link for this one. – The Chort 17:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Not a strong enough link to link the two. smileyface.PNG11945 (Talk/Ctrbs) 17:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Hang on! I've just watched it again and changed my mind! Observe:
STRONG BAD: 2nd and 3rd best friends?? What about Fabrosi? What'd you two do to Fabrosi? Eh, whatever. That guy's probably out lady-ing with that fake mustache he always wears. It's only gonna attract gold-diggers.
If M.H.R. is really Homestar Runner, or at least a clone with a fake mustache, then perhaps that's his nickname after all. – The Chort 22:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Good point, but I'm still thinking it's not a strong enough link to make this a definitive case. Perhaps if we added (debatable) to the reference? — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Splitting In Characters

I don't really see the point of splitting nick names by the type of toon they come from. The names themselves aren't really affected by the toon, so to me it seems distracting and stretches the TOC. I liked it when it was just alphabetical. - Joshua

I'll second that. This doesn't look as nice. --DorianGray
Hang on a sec... Why are these being split. (That's what I was going to post, and I see two people are already asking the question.) — It's dot com 22:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
*shrug* I was just helping - it looked like a good documentation effort to me, but come to think of it, I agree that it's making things cumbersome. - KieferSkunk 22:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Really, too many headers is bad. It's fine to split things like this when there's only one thing that needs splitting, like normal fun facts, but when there's this many it just looks bad. And long. - Joshua
Everything else is grouped by category. The list itself it serious long and looks ugly random. Actually is looks horrible. I R F 23:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I have an idea: To organize the nicknames the way IRF is going for, without affecting the formatting too much, why don't we just do it like this?:

  • Nickname from big toon (character, toon)
  • Nickname2 from big toon (character, toon)
  • Nickname3 from big toon (character, toon)

  • Nickname from SBEmail (character, email)
  • Nickname2 from SBEmail (character, email)
  • ... and so on

This way, you'd have the nicknames grouped together by toon type, but you wouldn't run into the huge TOC like we were before. - KieferSkunk 23:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

...because the type of toon doesn't effect the name at all. It'll be easier for someone to find the nickname they're looking for if they're all laid out in a simple, logical order. Like alphabetical. - Joshua 23:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] I don't see how grouping by toon type is an improvement, because then you've just got a list that's not in alphabetical order. My question is this, why would you need to search for a nickname in the context of what type of toon it is? — It's dot com 23:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
That's exactly my point! Splitting isn't good unless it splits it in a way that aids the average reader in finding what he's looking for. - Joshua 23:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Edit Conflict: Perhaps someone might look for a list of nicknames being used at a specific toon? Would a separate page ordered in this manner be of any benefit?--Stux 23:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
What about consistency? NOTHING else is listed in alphabetical order. Everything is listed in order of appearance. Menus, filmograhpies, other lists such as What_are_you_supposed_to_be, Hanging_Objects, Minor_Alternate_Versions... I could go on and on because everything on the wiki is listed by category. I R F 23:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but these aren't listed entirely in alphabetical order either. They're listed by character. Alphabetical order is just an unobtrusive sub-classification. And many other pages use similar, sub-alphabetical order classifications. Such as Characters, Items, Sightings and Games. (Although some of these only partially do so.) - Joshua 23:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I would look at your examples again because not one of them used alphabetic lists. I R F 23:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Noted that these pages are inconsistent in their formatting - some of them are done alphabetically (in some cases by last name), while others are done in order of popularity, rank, relevance, etc., and some seem random. - KieferSkunk 23:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
That is beside the point. The fact is using alphabetically order isn't inconsistant, as some of these pages do use it. Partially. - Joshua 23:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm switching my position. After looking closely at the article with categories, splitting does add a certain nuance. — It's dot com 00:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well it seems that Joshua and Dorian Gray are the only 'no' opinions here. I'd like to get some more input here before I spend time only to have some reverted. How about something like this:

Big Toons

  • Nickname (character, toon)
  • Nickname2 (character, toon)


  • Nickname (character, toon)
  • Nickname2 (character, toon)

I R F 13:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Better, but I still don't like it. The nicknames are easy to locate and browse through now. All those do is lengthen the page and make it a little bit harder to find individual nicknames, as you don't always know what type of toon the nickname you're looking for came from. - Joshua 13:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, no one complained when I did this Fourth_Wall_Breaks about a week ago. I R F 15:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately we're working with a more complicated "dataset" for lack of a better word. Your Fourth_Wall_Breaks rearrangement looks great because there is only two sublevels of information to deal with: the toons, and the breaks that happen in each toon. This beast is a little more complicated to tame. You are trying to create three sublevels of information: the character, the toon, and then the nickname for each toon. This adds a level of complexity that is not as pleasing to the eye. So coming up with something that both looks more organized and is simple enough to look at, is tricky, at best. --Stux 17:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

On a New Page...

I'd still like to see a new page that looks something like this:

Toon Name

  • Nickname (of character x) given by character y
  • Nickname2 (of character x) given by character y

Toon Name2

  • Nickname (of character x) given by character y
  • Nickname2 (of character x) given by character y

That way we could skim through the toons to see what nicknames were being used throughout that toon. The toons themselves could be ordered chonologically. --Stux 17:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This discussion brings to mind a question: Do we have the ability to do more complex scripting in Wiki pages? This seems like an ideal place to create a small relational database, and to create a frontend page that allows users to sort and organize the data however they like. So you'd have a table that contains the character, their nickname, who said it, what toon it was from, and when the toon was released, and the webpage could very easily sort by any one or two of these items. If such scripting is possible, I'd be happy to do it - this sort of thing is what I do for a living. :) — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
That kind of thing would be nice, but I'm not sure it's possible under our current security settings (and I'm not talking about the recent vandalism, just the way the wiki is set up in general). Changing it would probably require extensive modifications to the code. I didn't really make a case for splitting the nicknames up there, so I will do so now: When you split them into categories, you notice that the nicknames the characters use in Marzipan's Answering Machine, for example, are quite similar to each other, and of a completely different style from those in Big Toons. From the standpoint of simply browsing of the article, having them categorized is therefore more interesting than a simple alphabetical list. And, really, when are you going to search for one that alphabetical order would come in handy. (Even in that case, there's always Ctrl+F.) — It's dot com 19:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Edit Conflict: LoL I think i've heard it being mentioned before and sounds like a neat idea. Unfortunately MediaWiki is not built to handle such dynamic content (as far as I know). But the source code is just PHP working on a MySQL database. The nice thing is that mediawiki is extendible I have Tom to thank for that awesome link. Getting permission from the administration is totally different. If you're going to code for mediawiki, I strongly suggest installing a copy on your computer to play with. I assume you know how to get MySQL and Apache (or eek! IIS) running. Good Luck! --Stux 19:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Addendum: Dot Com is right, what I was vaguely referring to by permission was that yeah adding code can open up the site to all sorts of attack. My guess would be perhaps a more compact, simple, and secure extension would be more attractive to admins? --Stux 19:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like it would be easiest to just create the page statically. T'was an idea, but it doesn't sound like it's worth the effort required. So, any way to do the categorization without affecting the TOC? (Or perhaps we can make a static TOC as well?) — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
A manual TOC would be a workaround, but a better one would be to make categories using something other than sections. Simple big, bold text would do fine. — It's dot com 19:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

What about: Character

Nickname Given by appeared in
Big Toons
example1 strong bad toon
example2 strong bad toon
example3 strong bad toon
example4 strong bad toon

I R F 20:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm good with that. Helps to make the thing more legible, too. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
That's kinda complicated. How about something simple. See the page as it is now. — It's dot com 20:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
That looks pretty nice, actually. Good jorb! — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The question is then, when the a character gives another character several nicknames in one toon are they listing on the same line (such as Hamstray, Hamster, Stramstar, Stairmaster, Homegrown, Ramrod, Humphel (Coach Z, A Jorb Well Done)) or on different line like flashback is now. I R F 20:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, Coach Z says all of those pretty much in one breath, so I can see how we would justify putting them on one line. And I don't mind the flashbacks being on several lines. — It's dot com 20:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Now within each section should the items be listed alphabetically or in date order? Just let me know and I'll start on it. I R F 22:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I vote alphabetical. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I vote date order. That keeps all the flashbacks together, which should be a secondary goal if we're really going to organize the page topically. — It's dot com 23:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I will wait again to get more feedback I R F 23:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion either way on this - alphabetical order might make it easier to find the nickname in question, but I can also see how most people visiting this page are going to be more interested in the context of the nickname (and discovering nicknames rather than knowing a specific one), so grouping by toon / chronological order makes sense. Go for it! (and lemme know if I can help!) — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
To put it another way, if we're putting the nicknames in categories based on the type of toon they come from, we should then take the next logical step of grouping them by toon. Chronological order therefore makes sense. — It's dot com 23:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I finished my work on this page this morning. I R F 18:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


this page needs just a few pictures.-- Benol, aka Coach B 02:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. This is more of a list, and a picture or two might clutter it. Besides, the subject of the page really doesn't translate into picture form that well either. --DorianGray

Marzipan's Answering Machine

Invisible Robot Fish, you made two changes I don't understand:

1. You moved Senator Bobblehead to Homestar's section. This is not correct. Apparently you interpreted it as a jab at Homestar, but Strong Bad would not have had Bobblehead handily winning the election if it was supposed to be a Homestar slam. Senator Bobblehead is just the conclusion of the Bob Statesman - Senator Statesbob - Senator Bobblehead corruption; all three are the same character. Can we move it back where it belongs?

2. You deleted the dialog snippets for Mr. Nobody et al. Why? These provide useful context, and it can be argued that they are extensions of the characters' names. What was the harm?

On the other hand, thanks for reverting my Ron Dardman error. It didn't quite click that the name in the parentheses was already understood to be the person speaking, rather than the person aliased; but now I get it. And thanks to KieferSkunk for putting little underbite man in the right place. D'oh!

Bill 16:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to move anything. I apologize. I thoought I put it back in the right spot but I guess not. I was mainly keeping the confirmity of this page. Each item is listed as Nickname (person_who_said_it, where_it_appeared). I think we all realize that many of these are not actually nicknames but rather names in which a character is reffered. I don't think its nessesary to put all that explanation into the parenthesis since it's just a list and not a commentary. I R F 16:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Point taken, although I think it's helpful to have the context listed somewhere. Okay, how about this then: I'll create a new entry for all of Strong Bad's obviously bogus aliases, make it a Running Gag, and put the text snippets on that page. This should at least be as legitimate a running gag as names ending in -erson, right? Bill 17:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Sounds kosher to me. I'd wait to get feedback from some more people though if I were you. I R F 17:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Here's feedback: I like that idea Bill. — talk Bubsty edits 05:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I concur - Strong Bad's Answering Machine aliases seem to be in a category all their own. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Lol! The act of concurring and concurrence are two different things! Oh, wait maybe not. They can be the same. For concurrence I use the defition the simultaneous occurrence of events or circumstances. Anyway, I too, concur. --Stux 12:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I created the page as Obviously Phony Aliases. Since a couple of other characters have done basically the same thing, it seemed appropriate to make it generic. See what you think. — Bill 12:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Putting "The Chort" in Order

I managed to combine all of the times Coach Z called The Cheat "The Chort" in four Strong Bad E-mails to free up possible space for future nicknames for him. James Craven 11:40 PM US EST Dec 8 2005

I took it a step further, and put all of The Chorts together at the top. That just seems to be Coach Z's name for The Cheat, regardless of the context. — It's dot com 18:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

portrait de SB?

In portrait, the portrait of Strong Bad is labeled "Strongio de Badio". Would this be a nickname, or no, because it's the title of the portrait, not SB? SaltyTalk! 05:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It could be considered a nickname, I guess. — talk Bubsty edits 05:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Just a note: It actually reads "Strongio da Baddio" - you can verify this by viewing the Flash file and zooming in. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Really? It looks like Strongio De Badio. Weird. — talk Bubsty edits 22:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
No Da!
Nope, see for yourself. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

TOC cleanup

I'm thinking of changing the nav headers for the individual minor characters to plain-text headers so they don't appear in the table of contents. This would reduce the "Minor Characters" section to six subsections (for each of the universes they belong to) and reduce the overall size of the TOC. I think this would make sense especially since most of those characters have only one or two "nicknames" listed. Any objections? — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No objections here. - Joshua 19:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Better Organization

I'm thinking that the nickname giver would make a better and more relevant subcategory than the type of toon. :S - Joshua 19:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That's been annoying me for quite a bit. I agree, it would. Or maybe negative names and positive names... I still think the name giver would be better.
Personal tools