Talk:Pseudocharacters
From Homestar Runner Wiki
What to include?
Currently, the page is only about Strong Bad's relation to technology. Should we also include Frank Bennedetto? Loafing
21:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Inclusion
Okay, I'm not necessarily suggesting that this info should be deleted, but the focus of this article is too narrow and is a rehash of things we already have. The items currently on the page are not more important than the other pseudocharacters save for the fact that we have seen them more often. I suggest we either move this page and expand it into a whole Pseudocharacters article or delete it and let the above category and respective articles speak for themselves. — It's dot com 04:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. I think it should be expanded and moved to Personification of Inanimate Objects. — Defender1031*Talk 10:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- The expansion part is given; observe the {{stub}} template at the bottom of the page. Personification of Inanimate Objects is a good title to move. And, on the topic of potential deletion, I disagree. This information is certainly valuable: it's inarguably a prevalent part of the website, as you can see based on the amount of facts that have been compiled already. The title of Pseudocharacters doesn't exactly create the correct focus for the article, as the point is that these inanimate objects are treated like and act like people, as opposed to just being characters. Move to Personification of Inanimate Objects.· · T2|Things 13:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- "Personification of Inanimate Objects" is cumbersome and wordy, whereas "Pseudocharacters" is concise and much easier to fit in a sentence when you want to hang a link. We've also been using the term psdeudocharacters just fine for over a year and a half. — It's dot com 16:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Dot Com, you miss the point. This is a different page than pseudocharacters. — Defender1031*Talk 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with DeFender. This page is not about Pseudocharacters. It's about objects that are treated like people.· · T2|Things 18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- And are thus pseudocharacters. Heimstern Läufer
18:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Heimstern, i think what he means to say is that this is about the running joke of personifying objects and their instances. The name "pseudocharacters" implies that it's about the objects themselves. — Defender1031*Talk 18:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- The purpose is not to DESCRIBE them, which is what a Pseudocharacters page would do. This is to talk about how they are both treated like and act like people. Pseudocharacters would just be descriptions of the characters.· · T2|Things 18:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- DeFender: Please don't claim that I missed the point without even offering any evidence to back it up. Ten Ten: One definition of "pseudocharacter" is "an object that is treated like a person". If this page is about objects that are treated like people, then it's about pseudocharacters. Yes, I get that there is a very subtle difference between describing the psdeudocharacters and describing the thought process that makes them pseudocharacters, but I think that is a very tenuous distinction at best, with quite a bit of overlap. If we renamed the page "Pseudocharacters", everything in the list would be good to go as-is, and the intro would only need to be reworded a little. It would still be a running gag (although, this whole phenomenon is more of a recurring theme than a running gag, but that's another discussion). — It's dot com 19:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Dot Com, that's true, I'm sorry. Anyway, it's not so subtle. A pseudocharacters page would have a description of what pseudocharacter means, a list of each one, maybe presented as a gallery. What we're talking about here is a description of how it often occurs, and a list of toons in which personification has occurred. these two things are as different as night and day. Don't you think that night and day are different? — Defender1031*Talk 19:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently not, because I see both of the things you listed as two sides of the same coin, all of which would be appropriate on the Pseudocharacters page. — It's dot com 19:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- The point is, the title is not meant to convey that this page is about the pseudocharacters. It's about how how the regular characters personify them. Yes, I realize that they indeed ARE pseudocharacters. But that's not what the title was meant to convey. If I wanted this to be about the fact that they were pseudocharacters, I would have made the title to reflect that. It's about how they are treated as people.· · T2|Things 19:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless of what you meant, the fact remains that we have had for a relatively long time a word for the concept that is the subject of this article, which besides being an older term is also simpler to use. We should therefore use it. Moreover, the Pseudocharacters article can be whatever we make it. If we want to list how the pseudocharacters are treated as people (which seems perfectly natural to me), then we certainly can. — It's dot com 19:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- First, I'd like to say that, if the title were Pseudocharacters, the title would belie the content, creating the impression that the content was a list of Pseudocharacters and descriptions. Second, I'd like to point out that nobody will be swayed in this argument. Clearly we need more people to join in else we will never reach a conclusion.· · T2|Things 19:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think Pseudocharacters would be an excellent title. It does not imply that it's simply a list of characters. It woudl certainly include such a list, but that's a good thing. Loafing 19:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think Pseudocharacters would be an excellent title. It does not imply that it's simply a list of characters. It woudl certainly include such a list, but that's a good thing. Loafing
- First, I'd like to say that, if the title were Pseudocharacters, the title would belie the content, creating the impression that the content was a list of Pseudocharacters and descriptions. Second, I'd like to point out that nobody will be swayed in this argument. Clearly we need more people to join in else we will never reach a conclusion.· · T2|Things 19:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless of what you meant, the fact remains that we have had for a relatively long time a word for the concept that is the subject of this article, which besides being an older term is also simpler to use. We should therefore use it. Moreover, the Pseudocharacters article can be whatever we make it. If we want to list how the pseudocharacters are treated as people (which seems perfectly natural to me), then we certainly can. — It's dot com 19:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- The point is, the title is not meant to convey that this page is about the pseudocharacters. It's about how how the regular characters personify them. Yes, I realize that they indeed ARE pseudocharacters. But that's not what the title was meant to convey. If I wanted this to be about the fact that they were pseudocharacters, I would have made the title to reflect that. It's about how they are treated as people.· · T2|Things 19:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently not, because I see both of the things you listed as two sides of the same coin, all of which would be appropriate on the Pseudocharacters page. — It's dot com 19:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Dot Com, that's true, I'm sorry. Anyway, it's not so subtle. A pseudocharacters page would have a description of what pseudocharacter means, a list of each one, maybe presented as a gallery. What we're talking about here is a description of how it often occurs, and a list of toons in which personification has occurred. these two things are as different as night and day. Don't you think that night and day are different? — Defender1031*Talk 19:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- DeFender: Please don't claim that I missed the point without even offering any evidence to back it up. Ten Ten: One definition of "pseudocharacter" is "an object that is treated like a person". If this page is about objects that are treated like people, then it's about pseudocharacters. Yes, I get that there is a very subtle difference between describing the psdeudocharacters and describing the thought process that makes them pseudocharacters, but I think that is a very tenuous distinction at best, with quite a bit of overlap. If we renamed the page "Pseudocharacters", everything in the list would be good to go as-is, and the intro would only need to be reworded a little. It would still be a running gag (although, this whole phenomenon is more of a recurring theme than a running gag, but that's another discussion). — It's dot com 19:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- The purpose is not to DESCRIBE them, which is what a Pseudocharacters page would do. This is to talk about how they are both treated like and act like people. Pseudocharacters would just be descriptions of the characters.· · T2|Things 18:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Heimstern, i think what he means to say is that this is about the running joke of personifying objects and their instances. The name "pseudocharacters" implies that it's about the objects themselves. — Defender1031*Talk 18:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- And are thus pseudocharacters. Heimstern Läufer
- I agree with DeFender. This page is not about Pseudocharacters. It's about objects that are treated like people.· · T2|Things 18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Dot Com, you miss the point. This is a different page than pseudocharacters. — Defender1031*Talk 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- "Personification of Inanimate Objects" is cumbersome and wordy, whereas "Pseudocharacters" is concise and much easier to fit in a sentence when you want to hang a link. We've also been using the term psdeudocharacters just fine for over a year and a half. — It's dot com 16:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- The expansion part is given; observe the {{stub}} template at the bottom of the page. Personification of Inanimate Objects is a good title to move. And, on the topic of potential deletion, I disagree. This information is certainly valuable: it's inarguably a prevalent part of the website, as you can see based on the amount of facts that have been compiled already. The title of Pseudocharacters doesn't exactly create the correct focus for the article, as the point is that these inanimate objects are treated like and act like people, as opposed to just being characters. Move to Personification of Inanimate Objects.· · T2|Things 13:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
We need to come to a conclusion. It appears that Pseudocharacters has won, 6 to 2. I shall act boldly and move it.· · T2|Things 20:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not going to undo your boldness, but less than a day is kind of brief for a discussion (especially when it's not unanimous and given that opinion was evenly divided until the last half hour). Just FYI. — It's dot com 20:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- While it is true that the discussion was short, it is also true that we have 17 indents. A 3 to 1 margin is significant, though if you want to keep discussing, you may. Regardless, the focus of this whole article has shifted from the article to the argument on the talk page. I'm going to continue adding to that list in order to potentially remove the stub.· · T2|Things 20:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sharp Dean
So, wait, doesn't Sharp Dean count as a Pseudocharacter? I know she only made 2 appearances but it was just a suggestion--90.203.233.77 15:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Because pseudocharacters are what we call "objects that are treated as living things". Sharp Dean is an alias used by Strong Bad. --DorianGray 15:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- EDIT CONFLICT! Sharp Dean wouldn't be a pseudocharacter. Pseudocharacters are inanimate objects that are treated as characters. Sharp Dean is more of an alter ego. While we're on the subject, I think people have suggested giving Sharp Dean her own page. I think that might be a good idea. Anyone else? Lira (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
