Talk:The King of Town and The Poopsmith's Relationship

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 18:20, 27 April 2009 by MICGAGUH (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search
This is the talk page of a deleted article. Please do not participate in the discussions archived here. If you can provide a reason for the existence of this page that hasn't been discussed below, you may start a new section. Please refer to the inclusion guidelines that are generally applied to judge an article's merit.


The title: why did it change?

There was a reson I made the poopsmith's name first in the title when I first wrote: Their relationship mainly centers around the poopsmith's like/admiration of the king. So I ask you; why did the title change so the king's name would be first? HaldoHelscome!

This page said The KOT's name should go first, and he is more significant to the H*R body of work than that guy who says nothing and shovels lots of crap is. Bad Bad Guy 22:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh. I see. Could you at least see my reasoning? HaldoHelscome!
Bad Bad Guy, DeFender's table of character relationships is just to show which character relationship articles do and do not exist. It is not designed to dictate what they will be named when they get created; that would be too presumptuous. OptimisticFool 22:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


I don't think this relationship is worth an article. There's just nothing to make the King of Town's relationship with The Poopsmith interesting or special: It's a one-sided relationship, with nothing contrary to how we would expect the King to treat a servant/employee or vice versa. It also doesn't play a really major role in the H*R body of work, the way H*R and Strong Bad's or Coach Z and Bubs's does. I suggest deletion. Heimstern Läufer 22:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The same could be said about strong sad and homsar. HaldoHelscome!
How's that? Homsar isn't a "servant/employee" of Strong Sad's. They just have a weird "friendship". Not really relevant here, IMO. -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 02:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
What I meant was that Strong Sad and Homsar don't have a very conflicted relationship. There is some conflict on strong sad's part, though. I think that this article is relevant because it contradicts the entire Homestar Runner Universe. There is ALWAYS conflict in two character's relationships, right? Not here. It is the only relationship were there is much contact that is "perfect." The King cares about the Poopsmith, and in return the Poopsmith admires the King. See? The perfect relationship. HaldoHelscome!
"I keep telling him the sun don't rise and set on that pile of whatsit, but he don't wanna listen." Sounds like conflict to me. --DorianGray 20:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Heimstern, there is nothing special about their relationship. The article should be deletedLoafing 20:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yarg, did anyone listen to my long, drawn out reply?! HaldoHelscome!
DorainGray probably did since he pointed out a flaw. Did you listen to him? Bad Bad Guy 01:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Yes, I did. And I found another time where the king insults the poopsmith: "Poopsmith? you smell like a crapsmith!" That's exactly the number of disturbances in the relationship there are in "Strong Sad and Homsar's Relationship". And there was one more, it was... AUGH, way computer shut down before I finished and I forgot what the other one was! Anyway, I still say KEEP.
HEY, wait a second! If THIS can't have it's own page why should Homestar Runner and Coach Z's Relationship?!?! YARG!!
Actually, that's not a bad point: Homestar Runner and Coach Z's relationship isn't especially interesting. Either way, you ought to relax. And anyway, that's not what this talk page is about. As for this article, I'd say it can go. Delete. OptimisticFool 01:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
KK. Question: If I added the two times where they didn't get along, would you accept it? HaldoHelscome!
Until there is a clear consensus, I'd invite you to update the page how you see fit. Anytime you can improve an article, improve an article. If the opinions change as a result, they change. If they don't, then they don't. Be bold. Add them. OptimisticFool 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll give it a shot, then. But I have to do my homework right now T_T

Concerning the remark about the sun not rising/setting on the pile of whatsit: I just don't think a single remark with no real significance in the plot of the toon (and that doesn't exactly imply a strong conflict, anyway) does enough to make the relationship notable. Heimstern Läufer 02:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This may seem a bit defensive on my part, but that's about as significant as the "Homsar, we're playing connect four!" line in SS/H's Relationship. And now for something completely different: Is there something wrong with a pure relationship? Even when the King said "You smell like a crapsmith!" he asked the Poopsmith if he had tried to fix this problem as soon as he saw the that the Poopsmith was hurt by that. HaldoHelscome!
Hmm, now that i've said this I'm kinda reluctant to add the bad-ish part of their relationship to the article... Your thoughts?
Okay, i don't get this. Any time we have a relationship page, someone wants to delete it. When we have a page about a relationship that's consistent, we get the "this isn't really worth describing as it's always the same" but when we have pages where it isn't consistant we get arguments that "this relationship has no pattern and is too erratic to be worth documenting." Either we don't like chocolate ice cream, or we don't like vanilla, but if we're going to have ice cream at all, we can't not like both, it's like going mudsliding and complaining about getting dirty. I personally feel like we should have pages on all of the relationships, as long as there's something to note, be it consistent or not. Maybe this comment is a bit broad and should be brought up on a more general page, but whatever, for the moment i say keep — Defender1031*Talk 03:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's playing both sides of the fence, Defender. The community at large probably does not yet agree on what standards we should have for relationship articles, but so far as I can tell no one is being inconsistent here. Heimstern Läufer 03:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say that any one person was being inconsistent, i was saying that the community as a whole was. Just pointing out that however convincing these arguments may be that this relationship is consistent, it doesn't address the idea of whether the article should be here. I'm pointing out that those in this discussion seem to be taking it as a given that a consistent relationship doesn't merit an article, when in fact, no such rule has been established. I think that before any more discussions are had about deletion of these types of pages, we should really figure out what the scope of this category is so that we don't assume on this page that consistency is bad but on that page that variety is bad. That's all i'm saying. Figure out what we want before we decide whether this fits it. Foundation before the building. — Defender1031*Talk 03:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Me, I think some vetting is necessary in determining which character relationship pages are needed. I'm not sure of what the litmus test is, but there needs to be consensus on one. Some are obviously plot devices over and over, but others are never strong determiners of plot. Perhaps that's where we need to head. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

yo, check out this discussion, where we can discuss the broader subject. — Defender1031*Talk 04:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I say this page should be deleted. The Poopsmith's relationship with the KOT is almost synonymous with who he is, and since their relationship is so one-dimensional, I don't think that we need to have this page separate from The Poopsmith. Trey56 23:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep it. Religious Corn   21:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I will keep this short Deleted this is a one sided relationship. The-homsarrunner 22:17, 2008 March 22

agree with homsarrunner, delete. there isnt really any way to tell what the poopsmiwth thihnks of the KOT, being that he never talks. --Acam30 01:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted this article. This was a difficult decision, but the consensus is clear, both in terms of the ratio of proponents to opponents of deletion and the weight of their arguments. I still think it will be worthwhile, as DeFender1031 suggested a few months ago, to agree on some clearer guidelines for relationship articles, but unfortunately that discussion never took off. So, for the time being, the consensus to delete this article is clear. Trey56 01:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


It was a bad idea to bring this back, but I had no idea it had already been deleted. I always thought we needed this page, but I guess I was wrong... ThnikkOwen 23:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, no one should expect every user to know every page that's previously been deleted. Further, if you think you have an argument for why this page should be revived, you can definitely bring it up. - 00:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Request to bring the page back

The KOT and The Poopsmith must have a friendship in there hearts! Come on people, let this thing stay, including you, Jay! User:MICGAGUH

I only deleted it as that's what the consensus said. I'm neutral on the page's merits. It's all the people who said "delete" in the above conversation you need to convince. --Jay (Gobble) 20:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Calling those with a dissenting view "LOSERS!" won't do much to change their minds, either. (For what it's worth, I'm neutral on this page's inclusion, too; I was also just going by consensus.) -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 22:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
You know, your'e right. I've changed the title to DELETING LOSERS!. User:MICGAGUH
That's not any better and you know it. You're walking a thin line right now. If you want respect, you have to earn it and you have to give some in return. I'm changing the subject line myself. --Jay (Gobble) 23:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the appropiate title. Now, who else is with us? User:MICGAGUH
Given that you haven't made a case for what the scope of the page would be, i think it's safe to say "no one". — Defender1031*Talk 04:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
What?! I'll have you know that things should be right. In fact if I had you're job DeFender, I'd return that page. User:MICGAGUH
What job are you referring to? DeFender's not a sysop last I checked, if that's what you mean. Anyway, you still haven't made a case for returning the page. --Jay (Gobble) 16:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention that sysop is more of a position than a job, per se, and that no one sysop has the ability to return a page if consensus remains against its notability. - 16:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Back on topic, the whole page is summed up in: "The Poopsmith and the King of Town have a classic 'Tyrant-lackey' relationship. They always get along, and it could even be said that the Poopsmith admires the King," followed by a somewhat boring list of toons where they appear together. There's no drama, and there's really not anything notable that isn't already on their respective character pages. — It's dot com 18:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Stop everyone!!!! Look, I know we are in a talk war, but I think I found a way to solve this, a poll! User: MICGAGUH
You ever see polls on Talk Pages before? BBG 19:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
" could even be said that the Poopsmith admires the King." Um, what the crap? Is there any evidence at all that supports this dubious statement? Does the Poopsmith have pictures of the King stuck up on his bedroom walls? Does the Poopsmith remember the King's birthday? Also, I believe that, due to the Poopsmith's silent personality, there is little to discuss of the relationship between these two characters. One shovels whatsit for a living, the other tells him to shovel whatsit for a living, and that's it. They don't fight, they don't work together and they certainly don't admire each other. It would just be a boring list of list of toons in which they appear together, just like what It's dot com said. – The Chort 19:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, MICGAGUH, even if we *did* do polls (which, actually, is essentially what the now defunct STUFF was), it almost certainly wouldn't change a thing. Looking at this talk page, it seems such a vote would undoubtedly end up something like 30-3 in favor of "No Article". -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 23:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure YK? User: MICGAGUH
I can't guarantee *anything*. But given the way this thread (and indeed, the entire talk page) is shaping up, it seems like a safe bet it'd end overwhelmingly in the negative. It really doesn't *matter*, ultimately, as we don't do votes/polls here, so I'm just speaking hypothetically, here. Moreover, after reading the arguments made by It's dot com and The Chort, I'm shifting my neutral stance to one of opposition, as I'm inclined to agree with them that this wouldn't, in the end, make for a terribly interesting page. -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 02:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Just to go back to what you said, I don't see a "talk war". I see one person pushing for a page without even making a case for what its scope would be and why it would be interesting, and the rest of the community saying "you need to make a case for what its scope would be and why it would be interesting." Even in the times when we did polls for certain things, a poll was only as a last resort, when the opinion on the talk page was at a standstill deadlock. That's not the case here. — Defender1031*Talk 18:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be good to see a page like this back up. User: MICGAGUH
Personal tools