Talk:Lack of Visible Arms

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Ding! Lack of Visible Arms is a featured article, which means it showcases an important part of the Homestar Runner body of work and/or highlights the fine work of this wiki. We also might just think it's cool. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

The King of Town also doesn't appear to have any visible arms (nor does the Prince of Town in flashback), but no direct reference is made to this.


[edit] He just gave me the bird!

Homestar flips Strong Bad off, and Strong Bad reacts as if he can see it.

I think the joke in the bird was that Homestar "flips off" Strong Bad by responding "right back at you" to Strong Bad's Single Deuce, as if he didn't even need to flip a hand. Understand? --Sam Goldfish 22:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

...Actually, you're right, I think. --DorianGray
Yeah, I was about to make that very same comment before I saw I was beaten to it. If not totally removed, I think the entry should be heavily reworded. --Jay (Talk) 03:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Nah, it's supposed to be taken straightforward; Homestar really flips him the bird. If somebody merely told me they were flipping me off, I don't think I would take it as badly as Strong Bad does. — It's dot com 04:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I had always seen it as a real, invisible one rather than "it's the thought that counts." I'm not arguing definitely against that. But a little bit of humor in the whole email comes from the fact that none of the flip-offs are visible, since even the characters with visible hands lack independent finger movement. Strong Bad's and Pom Pom's "deuces" are mere hand movements, yet all the characters seem to be perceiving the gesture. —AbdiViklas 04:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
All we know for certain is that Homestar says "right back atcha," which (since it's Homestar) probably means that he either didn't see or didn't understand the gesture. (I mean two different things by that: "didn't see" would be due to the boxing gloves; "didn't understand" would be due to him being Homestar.) We do not know that Homestar really made any "hand gestures" at all, invisible hands or no; he probably just thought Strong Bad was waving, hence the "right back atcha." Since the joke works whether Homestar is actually making an invisible hand gesture or not, time to apply Occham's (sp?) Razor. --Jay (Talk) 05:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
PS. Abdi makes a good point. The only main characters who could make a visible "bird" would be Strong Mad, Strong Sad, and The Poopsmith, none of whom appeared in that email.
Exactly! Homestar thought Strong Bad was waving! I get it now! As for Strong Bad taking it so bad, I think that's part of the joke: He can dish it out, but he can't take it. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 06:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Though note that Strong Mad would be the only one who could do it properly, as he has five fingers, while Strong Sad and The Poopsmith have four. -- Tom 06:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Dot com is right: It is clear that Homestar's gesture or lack thereof was taken by Strong Bad as an actual one-fingered salute. We should take it just as seriously as we take Strong Bad and Pom Pom's deuces. Yes, he may have thought Strong Bad was just "waving", but if he did, it appears that he "waved" back, and therefore, for all practical purposes, Homestar did in fact flip Strong Bad off. I hope that wasn't ridiculouly confusing; I feel like I'm rambling. If it doesn't make sense, let me know; I'll try to clarify. Heimstern Läufer 07:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The quotation marks on waving seem to convey it just right. Couldn't have said it better myself (and I tried to above). — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 18:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I really think you guys are overanalyzing this. The joke was that you can't see either Strong Bad or Pom Pom's gestures - just the suggestion of them given the context. The joke is continued when Strong Bad "flips off" Homestar, and Homestar just reflects it right back. Given the lack of visible evidence, but also given Strong Bad's responses to both Pom Pom ("Pom Pom prefers the single deuce") and Homestar ("He just gave me the bird!"), I think it's safe to assume that the gesture (visible only to Strong Bad) was repeated both times. - KieferSkunk 19:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I've always perceived this as exactly how the current wording explains it. Strong Bad flips Homestar off, so Homestar responds by flipping Strong Bad off, and Strong Bad reacts as if he can see it. It doesn't need any more explanation than that. In fact, it's funny precisely because it's ambiguous. Let's not squeeze the poop out of the fly here. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 20:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm willing to believe that Homestar doesn't actually understand the gesture - he's pretty dim. Say you're from another country, and you've never seen or heard of the middle-finger gesture before. Someone does it to you, and you might interpret it as a friendly gesture and do it right back to them. Of course, the first person might then be offended by it. Since Homestar generally tends to have memory lapses and is otherwise just a dim-witted fellow to begin with, I think it's perfectly reasonable to interpret this as him seeing the flip-off and just not understanding it. - KieferSkunk 20:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
As my mother always said: It's the thought that counts. It doesn't metter if they actualy did it or not. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 20:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the joke here is the ambiguity. Is Homestar wittily flashing the bird back, or does he not realize the back of String Bad's boxing glove is actually the finger, making his response a wave? That's what puts the hummor in the situation. I don't think we can take SB's reply as evidence to support either side. small_logo.pngUsername-talk 20:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Hence the original statement: Strong Bad reacts as though he can see (the gesture). - KieferSkunk 20:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Proposed Revision: "When Strong Bad flips off Homestar, Homestar apparently returns the gesture, causing Strong Bad's feelings to be hurt." - KieferSkunk 20:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Meh, the feelings hurt part is not that relevant. The key is that Strong Bad says, "He just gave me the bird," something someone wouldn't be expected to say if they hadn't actually been flipped off. This whole page is based on trying to interpret something that doesn't make sense in the real world. Its purpose is to highlight the ambiguity where we find it. I think there's enough support for including the instance found in the bird to put it back on the page, but I suggest my own revision: Strong Bad flips Homestar off, and after Homestar replies "Right back atcha," Strong Bad exclaims, "He just gave me the bird!"It's dot com 20:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. That's nice and unambiguous. - KieferSkunk 20:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, very good. It's got no speculation. - KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(t)(c)(r)

That sounds re-ZON-able. (Or however you spell that.) Heimstern Läufer 23:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pic?

Which do you think we should use for this article's picture? I'm for Homestar's "arms" from fingers.-KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(t)(c)(r)

EDIT: Lunar Jesters uploaded[1]. I like it.KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(t)(c)(r)

[edit] Page Title

Invisible Arms? I don't think that Homestar, Marzi & KOT have arms at all. I think it's some kind of force field or something. I mean, the fact about time capsule (Homestar holding three things at once) was already declined on STUFF because the majority of people here think it's not clear that Homestar has arms as such. Can we get a better name for this page? And perhaps remove that dubious fact? Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 23:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

How about "Ambiguious Arms" or simply "Arms"? KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(t)(c)(r)
I don't like just "arms" because this page is actually about lack of arms. Say, how about "Lack of Arms" ;) Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 23:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
"Lack of Arms" has the same problem that "Invisible Arms" has. Namely, it assumes as fact one of the possible explanations for the situation. (I admit I chose "Invisible Arms" because that's the camp I'm in. Is there something (besides just "Arms") that is more neutral?) — It's dot com 23:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I did propose Ambiguous Arms earlier... - KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(t)(c)(r)
"Ambiguous Arms" is a step in the right direction, although something about it (maybe the alliteration?) doesn't sound quite right to me. — It's dot com 23:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the alliteration kind of threw me off, too. *looks up synonyms* "ambiguous, cryptic, dark, darkling, deep, enigmatic (also enigmatical), equivocal, inscrutable, murky, mysterious, mystic, nebulous, occult." Not a good list. - KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(t)(c)(r)
How about "Vague"? - KieferSkunk 23:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
What about "Extremities"? Homestar uses that term in the DVD commentary in time capsule. :) - KieferSkunk 23:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
That has the same problem as just "Arms", though. :P - KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(t)(c)(r)
Yeah, "Extremities" doesn't really address the adjective problem. How about "Missing or Invisible Arms"? "The Arm Situation"? "No Visible Arms"? "How the Crap Do They Pick Stuff Up"? — It's dot com 23:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
"Missing or Invisible Arms" does adress both sides of the problem. - KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(t)(c)(r)
"Vague Extremities", then. :) - KieferSkunk 23:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I say "Arms?"—with the question mark. —AbdiViklas 23:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking at my most recent list, I like "No Visible Arms." It gets the point across, it's easy to remember, and it works for both completely missing arms and arms that are just invisible. Plus, it can be worked into a fun fact: "This is another reference to Homestar's having no visible arms." — It's dot com 23:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm for "No Visible Arms". KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(t)(c)(r)
Yeah, that's a good solution to all sides. —AbdiViklas 23:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to move it in about 5 minutes if there's no objections. KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(t)(c)(r)
Well, now let's give everyone a chance to weigh in. Just to be thorough, here are the choices so far:
It's dot com
Alright, I'll wait. Though, looking at that list, it looks pretty obvious. :) - KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(t)(c)(r)
I'll go along with no visible arms. It seems the best of both worlds. --DorianGray
It's a bit awkward, but I'd go with "No Visible Arms." How about "Lack of Visible Arms"? Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 23:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The point of "no visible arms" is that it will be linked easily from fun facts pages (see the list above) - KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(t)(c)(r)
"This is another reference to Homestar's lack of visible arms." It sounds better, see? Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 00:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
You're right. "Lack of Visible Arms" does sound better. We're going to need a clear agreement before we move it. Any way we could have a quick STUFF-style vote, or should we just move it now? - KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(t)(c)(r)
I emphatically agree that a negative statement about visible arms is the way to go (it makes no statement about invisible or none), and I enthusiastically agree with H. Coder that "Homestar's lack" is preferable to "Homestar's having." That gerund gamme the gerbblies. (Not to be confused with the gerbilys.) —AbdiViklas 00:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd say lack of visible arms is good too. As long as it finally gets a name everyone can agree on, yeah? --DorianGray
Done. — It's dot com 01:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be called "You don't have arms", which is a line from Strong Bad is a Bad Guy. --NERD42  email  talk   h²g²  pedia  uncyc  20:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homestar's perception

Note that just because clearly Strong Bad and Strong Mad are of the opinion he doesn't have arms doesn't prove it for sure; that's their opinion. Homestar seems to think he does. This could be Homestar being delusional, or one could argue that he ought to know best. Seems to me this is similar to the pants issue—he maintains he's wearing pants although others disagree. —AbdiViklas 23:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sarcasm?

When Strong Bad notes that Marzipan has "really nice hands" in the Yellow Dello commentary, I think it's possible that he was being sarcastic. His tone (notice his emphasis on the word "hands"), combined with the fact that he seems to have a pretty good handle on just who has arms in Free Country U.S.A, indicates that he may have been making a joke. Of course, that doesn't mean Homestar's agreement wasn't completely earnest... Rocketlex 00:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure it was TBC who were making the joke. It's a sort of dramatic irony- the audience knows that Marzipan has no arms, but for the moment the characters don't seem to. It wouldn't be funny if Strong Bad was referring to some invisible hands that were "really nice".Trelawney 23:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another character with no visible arms

The Wheelchair is seen lifting the lid to his pot of burled holiday cabbage in Decemberween Sweet Cuppin' Cakes. Any significance? - KieferSkunk 21:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, add it on. He has definitely got no arms. - KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(t)(c)(r)
Done. Added a note that he actually DOES have visible arms, but they don't move. (You can see the arms, but they obviously aren't designed to pick things up. :)) - KieferSkunk 22:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Good call on adding the wheelchair. But I have to disagree, he does not have arms. I R F 22:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Uh, he means the wheels. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 23:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I meant the wheels? Actually, I was talking about the arms (the parts that you'd rest your arms on if you were sitting in a wheelchair. I had forgotten that The Wheelchair's arms (in this case) serve as his mouth. - KieferSkunk 23:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Nevermind. I didn't do any fact checking. I am probably just going crazy...again. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 23:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Like Kieferskunk said, the arms of the wheelchair (small w) are actually part of his mouth when he speaks. The arms of the Wheelchair (big w) are non-existent/invisible. The object has arms like any other wheelchair, but they're not the same as the arms of the character Wheelchair. And because the object's arms are part of the character's mouth, you gotta say that the character is a good example of an armless/invisible armed character. - Tbone762 13:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not quite so visible

Be it in another page or this page, this might be a good idea! --Stux 04:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, we added the bit about Strong Bad "flicking" Strong Sad's "ears" to the Type-With-Boxing-Gloves page... I see nothing wrong with this. And the coach must have some sort of mouth, as we've seen him blow a whistle AND eat... But it might just be an invisible one. --DorianGray

[edit] No telekinetic abilities. Just arms.

This is my opinion on it, taken from the Homestar talk page:

If you want something close to proof, look at the bird. But really, you're just analyzing it too hard. Look at his eyes on the picture in the upper left. They're clearly on the front of his head, with him facing diagonally. Notice that you can see the underside of the hat? Notice the mouth is seen from a diagonal angle? It's like an Egyptian painting. Yes, the puppet has the eyes on the side, but can't you tell that's just to make it work in real life? It's a cartoon, it's like Egyptian paintings, it doesn't have to be exactly like that in real life. There is no real life, in fact, so reality is simply what the creators intended. How can he flip Strong Bad the bird with telepathic abilities? It's like Pom-Pom's voice, they can understand it but we can't. The arms exist but we can't see them. His eyes are just eyes. </rant> Uh...Cwapface 03:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ummm..I totally forgot what I wrote on the other page so I'm just gonna wing it- It's just one of those many questions everyone has for TBC, but they have no answer for. Like "How come Marzipan has no legs" or "Why does Bubs' mouth not move when he talks or just barely does"? It's one of those things the world may never know.--Gir007 00:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  • If Homestar had arms, there would be holes in his shirt/skirt for them to come out of. I think this decisively shows that he must be telekinetic.
  • To add to that (still anonymous diffrent poster) in the same E-mail Strong Bad slaps the scoisors out of Marzipan's hands, or the lack thereof. This implys that people with arms can interact with those without, giving play to the "invisble arms" argument.
  • Homestar can manipulate more than two items telekenetically, which he could not do if he had invisible arms. I would second the significance of the lack of holes in Homestar's "red skirt", and I would also say that from watching Homestar (and the others) manipulate objects, it just looks more like they are levitating them than using invisible appendages. This no-armed whitey's powers of levitation may explain the hilarious blinking about of long pants: when upset so badly, his psychic powers blink him about. None of the references to the characters' hands or arms would be ironic or funny if we the audience were not supposed to believe that they had none. In the words of Strong Mad, "You don't have aaa-" Trelawney 23:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the Brothers Chaps may have finally answered the arms vs. telekinesis question with the recent Strong Bad E-mail lady fan. Since Homestar's workout clothes include a leotard/onesie thing, the shoulder straps would fall if he didn't have *something* holding them up. --Zhaleskra

This type of logic doesn't hold up. If you allow "His straps don't fall, so he must have arms", then you also have to admit that the following deductions are true: "He can carry stuff, so he must have arms" and "You can't see any arms, so he can't have arms". They can't all be true at the same time. Loafing 22:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way and I feel your analysis suffers from false causality. You set up a straw man only so you could knock it down. --Zhaleskra
If Marzipan has no arms how did her slap leave a handprint on Homestar? Bad Bad Guy 02:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's a cartoon and you probably shouldn't worry about it. 02:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the most smartest thing I've heard all day. – The Chort 15:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well hey, if Homestar's arms are invisible, who's to say he only has two? ;)

[edit] They're not the only ones...

I happen to know, and I would really appreciate if no one asked me why I know, that the characters from VeggieTales also don't have arms, but can pick stuff up. Who came first, anyways?--Jnelson09 23:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

VeggieTales came first. PurpleKoopa 21:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with liking VeggieTales, Jnelson09. They rock. One of my favorite jokes is in the one about Jericho where someone is giving a speech and everyone applauds. One of the characters leans to another and says, "How are we clapping??" Good stuff. — It's dot com 23:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not that I like VeggieTales (honestly, I think they're weird, no offense), it's just that I saw it a few times, and the first time I saw Homestar in Experimental Film, it just reminded me of that.--Jnelson09 23:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I like VeggieTales! :) The Newgrounds Clock Crew are another flash cartoon series with characters who don't have arms but still pick stuff up. It's not an original concept at all. --NERD42  email  talk   h²g²  pedia  uncyc  20:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I like to think of VeggieTales as "Homestar with morals" (which means I like it) since in addition to the lack of visible arms, neither of them talk down to audiences, and both shows go for sublte humor, obscure references, and breaking the fourth wall. I just realized quite a few VeggieTale videos also involve fan mail, but I don't know if anyone really writes to them. Bad Bad Guy 01:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I can report that kids do in fact write to them because I've seen one of them at it. But I think they admitted on one of the DVD commentaries that all the letters they use are fake.

[edit] Something Worth Knowing

There's an article on Homestar's discussion page about the "no arms" mystery, but it discusses the reasoning behind the lack of arms. Anybody care to add to it?

[edit] The Wheelchair

The Wheelchair does 'technically' have arms(handles). And even if not so, this isn't a character that should actually be designed to have arms. Shouldn't the title of that section be labeled differently, instead of just listing what abscure characters don't have arms? If your intention is that, then why not add "The Huuuuuudge" and other mentioned characters without libs? Homestramy20|Talk 22:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the main point of including the Wheelchair is that it has been seen manipulating an object if it had arms--or, rather, invisible ones. --DorianGray
That's it exactly. The Wheelchair opened a pot of burled cabbage with invisible arms. This page isn't discussing the armrests, but actual manipulative arms we cannot see but have seen evidence of. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 22:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
It might be worth having a closer look at some of the characters on this page: I'm not sure all of them have ever been seen moving objects as though they had invisible arms. It seems to me this page shouuld only feature those characters who have done so, not just any character with no visible arms. I'll check up on this when I have more time. Heimstern Läufer 22:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
A list and a check if there is a verified example of proof there are arms that are not invisible, and not just no arms:
  • DoneHomestar Runner
  • DoneMarzipan
  • DoneThe King of Town
  • DoneHomsar (Homestar Presents: Presents - using paintbrush as bell)
  • DoneThe Yodeling Man (he holds the horn somehow)
  • DoneThe Knight (bass drum mallets in Fall Float Parade
  • DoneThe Little Chef Guy
  • To doThe Prince of Town
  • DoneThe Goblin (unzips costume in Pumpkin Carve-nival)
  • To doThe Sad Kids
  • DoneThe Homestar Runner (parsnip soup)
  • DoneOld-Timey Marzipan
  • Done1-Up (puuding)
  • DoneThe Wheelchair (burled cabbage)
  • To doUnnamed Girl
  • To doHomeschool Winner
  • To doThe Unguraits
Add checks and confirmations as you find them. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 22:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The chef guy seems to be holding a knife somehow, but he doesn't move it at all. The others are all unconfirmed, as far as I know. --DorianGray
Shouldn't we be able to assume that The Prince of Town has invisible arms, as he is the storybook counterpart to The King of Town? Has Matt? (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't Homsar holding a paintbrush in Homestar Presents: Presents? I think that would count... - Image:TinySaturn2.GIF Saturn 23:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
He was also holding a magic wand and dropped a bunch of confetti in Halloween Potion-ma-jig. Good call. :) — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict) I'd also suggest that any character who looks human or vaguely human (The Sad Kids, Unnamed Girl, etc) should also be considered as having invisible arms if they're not actually shown. If you choose to accept that, then this leave The Goblin, Homeschool Winner and the Unguraits. And you can probably assume that Homsar and Homeschool Winner have the same or similar qualities to Homestar Runner, since they are similar creatures. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Prince Of Town: hey, maybe if they aren't arms but are telekinesis, he hadn't yet developed the power at that point. Add to that the PoT is apocryphal, and I see no reason to assume he has arms.
  • The Goblin, The Unguraits: possibly no arms. Probably, even, considering we don't know their physiology. By that logic we add Da Huuudge and other such nonsense.
  • The Sad Kids, Unnamed Girl, Homeschool: while we might deduce by analogy that they must have arms, there remains no proof, and therefore we don't actually know for sure.

I think The Goblin and The Unguraits should be removed, and the others debated. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 00:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

How about if we put them in a separate section? "Debatable/Unproven Characters" or something like that? — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. I could see removing the Goblin and the Unguraits (especially the Unguraits), but I think there's enough to assume that the prince, the kids, the girl, and Homeschool meet the criteria for this page, even without explicit proof. — It's dot com 05:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
If The Goblin was gonna have arms, that means he doesn't have now. I say confirmed. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 07:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how that picture of the Goblin confirms that he has no arms at all. If anything, it confirms for me that he has invisible arms. — It's dot com 15:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved all the questionables to a new subsection: "Debatable Characters". Is that good enough? — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If the Goblin doesn't have invisible arms or telekenesis, how does he properly disguise himself as Strong Bad in Pumpkin Carve-nival? --Jay (Talk) 07:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The same way Homsar can hang upside down and still keep his hat on. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 07:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. The Strong Bad costume moved its arms and opened its own zipper, so the Goblin had to have been manipulating it somehow... --Jay (Talk) 07:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
How about this theory: It's just is. Trying to found out how he did that is like trying to find out how Strong Bad types with boxing gloves on. They just do. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 08:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Then that makes this entire debate (and article) moot. How does Homestar pick stuff up? He just does. --Jay (Talk) 08:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Jay's point on The Goblin is valid, he should be moved out of Debatable Characters. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 16:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Updated the item upstairs, too. The Goblin is confirmed. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
(Preserved from top of page, by Anonymous Contributor)
Hey Wait a moment...
Didn't the goblin unzip that costume?

[edit] Invisible Hands Only theorem

I consider Strong Bad is a Bad Guy canon, so Homestar (and presumably the rest of the cast) really doesn't have arms, invisible or otherwise. However, Marzipan clearly have hands, so this is how I think things work:

Each armless character has two invisible hands, which are manipulated psychokinetically. These hands are the only things that can be so manipulated. Meneth 06:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Only, Homestar has been seen manipulating at least three things before. In time capsule, for example, he was seen holding the gross old wig, the box it came in, and the lid to the box all at once. - Clever Ben

Homestar definately just has hands, no arms. Anyone notice that almost none of Homestar's shirts have any sleeves for an "arm" to go through? - ThomasO

I think that's part of the joke. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Either that or his deodorant leaves stains the exact color of his s(h/k)irts. --Zhaleskra

[edit] Flat Face Guy

Just for the records: Strong Bad could still have a nose, even if his face is flat (or flattened by the mask). We won't know if he really has a nose or not until he takes his mask off (or, in the words of one of my favourite comedians, "Mask? What mask?"). Anyway, most other characters don't have noses, so I'm happy with how it's currently phrased. Loafing 03:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

TBC have stated that they think the mask is his face. — It's dot com 03:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Example--H*Bad 03:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, this: "It’s not like he’s actually got a face under that mask, that’s basically his head." convinced me. But now I'm scared ;-)  Loafing 04:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strong Bad's fingers

While it was mentioned above that the "wrestling mask" seems to be Strong Bad's face, what about the fact that the "boxing gloves" are his hands? Does anybody else think there should be a section on this page for gags about Strong Bad having no fingers, or might that be better as a subsection of How Do You Type With Boxing Gloves On? It seems like these are closely related topics, although certainly the boxing gloves thing needs its own page, as it is a much more major phenomenon overall.

[edit] Wagon Fulla Pancakes

It doesn't count because it's more of a prop. Retromaniac 22:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I replaced it in the article because it's treated as a character. Yep, it's strange. :) Trey56 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Has it ever been shown using anything? If not, it should be moved to the other gallery. Retromaniac 15:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think it has. The wine glass was wedged between pancakes, and it never lifted the weight, just had the handle fall on it. It hasn't manipulated anything. --DorianGray
Well, it somehow beat Homestar... --Jay (Talk) 18:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
In montage, Wagon is seen carrying a briefcase, it hovers beside the wagon (closer to the screen). - Quolnok 02:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You're absolutely right — good find. Trey56 02:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Coincidentally, I noted it on the edit history when I first put Wagon on the list. - Quolnok 15:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coach Z's mouth

Doesn't Coach Z blow a whistle twice in A Jorb Well Done despite having no visible mouth? Jimmy91 19:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup. His cheeks even puff up. --DorianGray
So shouldn't it be added? Jimmy91 17:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sketchy

I see the pic of an earlier sketbook drawing where homestar has arms and now this week's sketch has an arm reference. Should this appear on the artice? I R F 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Made from the best suff

What about Marshie? Does he qualify. I can't remember him manipulating anything and marshmallow don't have arms but since that wagon is here and the geddup noise, I thought I'd ask. I R F 19:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Marshie waves a cane around in the email retirement when he says "I'm a song and dance man!". I'm thinking that he qualifies. NotWyoming 02:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Good catch! You should add it to the article :-) Loafing 03:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll get on that! NotWyoming 03:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slapping headbutt

Maybe it should be noten in the oddities that marzipan APPAERS to headbutt homestar, but heaves an hand-shaped mark.

Already mentioned. Well, except the headbutting part. --DorianGray

[edit] Strong Bad With Telekinesis?

1: How Do You Type With Boxing Gloves On?

2: How could he have "dinged" people while dressed up as Homestar in Pumpkin Carve-nival??? Timic83 (Talk | contribs) 11:29, 31 October 2006 (left unsigned)

You're very right. I think I'll add it under oddities if someone hasn't already added it. SaltyTalk! 15:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

!- Have you ever noticed that in looking old, the cards appear without Strong Bad having to move them?

[edit] Thank You to whoever wrote this

Armless Invaders — Homestar is the titular "armless invader"

The titular part made me laugh

It was Homestar Coder who originally added the ref, but it was The Mu who introduced the word "titular". --DorianGray

[edit] Images showing lack of arms

I think it would be helpful for the gallery in Lack of Visible Arms#Characters With No Visible Arms to have images which actually show the characters doing things that would normally require arms. If someone agrees, I'ma go get a few and put 'em in the gallery. Trey56 18:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I say go for it. I R F 19:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Alright, done. Trey56 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
When can I expect a proper pic of Homestar's cousin to be up? Bad Bad Guy 18:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undeniable proof

I talked with the Bros. Chaps IRL, and they said his arms were invisible. Stop saying they don't have arms and they can't do stuff.

Hi anony. Can you provide undeniable proof of your conversation with TBC? — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of ghosts reference in "Ears" section

Just a quick note to explain why I removed ghosts from the list of references to "invisible ears" in the "Other Apparently Invisible Body Parts" section: In this email, Strong Bad is wearing a mask that has fake ears. This is actually unremarkable in this case, because even if he had normally visible ears, the fake ears would cover them and render them invisible anyway. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible location of SB's nose

You don't suppose that the pointy part of the gray piece of Strong Bad's face is his nose, do you? I mean if you looked at that jail cartoon, where he puts a mask over his face you can see where his nose would be. And in Sbemail 169 Deleted Scene, his nose is right where the pointy part of the gray piece would be. Whaddya think?

[edit] Storybook Characters

If The Prince of Town is a Debatable Character despite the fact he is simply the storybook version of the KOT, who is a Character With No Visible Arms, then Duckshirt Homestar and Storybook Marzipan are debatable as well. Should I add them or delete the POT? Bad Bad Guy 02:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

For a few months I've been leaning towards deleting the POT. Bad Bad Guy 02:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Fine, then. He's gone. And Modestly Hot Homsar as well. Bad Bad Guy 18:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invisible Arm Proof

Homestar is clearly using an invisible arm when he drinks his Mountain Dew in DNA Evidence. What does this mean? O.O - Joshua 01:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It means TBC are sick of people thinking Homestar and others have telekinesis. Bad Bad Guy 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
In Search of the Yello Dello proved Marzipan has hands, Missing Lappy proved the KOT has fingers, and now this DNA toon proves Homestar has arms. The only major character left is Homsar, but if he says something about his hands we won't be able to take it seriously. Bad Bad Guy 22:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
If Homestar has arms then why does he not have sleeves or shoulders? How can he manipulate more than 2 objects at one time? And why does he refer to the Homestarmy as "the no-armed forces" in E-mail more armies? Anonymous Contributor

How does Missing Lappy prove the KOT has fingers?, all he says is furious fingers! if he has telekinetic abilites he can manipulate a guitar pick.

Well, Ever and More! proves he has hands. Bad Bad Guy 15:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Can't we just assume everyone has invisible hands as well as telekinesis? That's a good enough explanation for me. – The Chort 15:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marzipan's Legs

Do they deserve their own section, or can it be assumed her dress is hiding them? Bad Bad Guy 02:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it deserves a section. — It's dot com 23:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Does the section look done to you? Bad Bad Guy 22:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teeth?

First, with such a diverse array of missing body parts being covered here, the current title is insufficient. Who would look to a "lack of visible arms" article to find notes on toons mentioning where characters claim to have teeth? And then, I find the notion of "invisible teeth" highly suspect at that. Many people don't show their teeth, and cartoon characters often don't reveal teeth unless it's necessary to the story. Thus, when Strong Sad brushes his teeth, is it really at all notable? Might he indeed have teeth he just never smiles wide enough to reveal? I think the scope of the page must be revisited. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 02:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong Bad does seem to think that Strong Sad doesn't have any teeth. Otherwise I agree with you. Shwoo 02:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
While you out-trivia'ed me, and that is totally kick-butt awesome, I do hold to my point. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 03:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna delete the part about Marzipan's teeth, since there has never been anything that said she didn't have teeth. Should "Other Apparently Invisible Body Parts" be split into a separate article? Bad Bad Guy 22:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
If we split them, we don't have to rename this page. Otherwise, we can move it to Apparently Invisible Body Parts. Bad Bad Guy 23:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
That is a great idea. Super!SantanaDuper!
It's great to split the articles or to move this one? Bad Bad Guy 00:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone please judge the job I did cleaning up Teeth by removing the examples that weren't contradicted (Marzipan's smile, Strong Bad's "I feel like I need to brush my teeth"). Also, we still haven't decided whether we should rename this article or move the "Other Apparently Visible Body Parts" section to its own page. Bad Bad Guy 16:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Any splitting or renaming would need to keep the "lack of visible" phrasing (as opposed to "invisible"), per the discussion where we arrived at the current page title. — It's dot com 18:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably best to keep the conversation here, even though Lack of Visible Body Parts now exists. Anyway, regarding teeth, what references are we keeping? I think that Strong Bad saying he doesn't know if Strong Sad has any teeth would warrant inclusion of Strong Sad's lack of visible teeth based on that. I also think it's noteworthy to list Strong Bad's lack of visible teeth since he has fake teeth in Jibblies 2. Where do you put fake teeth? On top of real teeth. So, isn't that enough to pretty much say that Strong Bad has invisible teeth? (If I'm wrong and this has truly been "contradicted", please correct me.) However, I doubt the noteworthiness of listing Homestar Runner saying "Teeth?" when he DOES actually have visible teeth as evidenced in this image. OptimisticFool 21:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to keep times characters publically admitted they had no teeth and times those confessions were contradicted. That image you linked to was just a figment of Strong Bad's imagination, as I've already said at least twice. Bad Bad Guy 01:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, Strong Bad definitely has teeth, although it's currently hard to say if they're "invisible" or "always behind the red of his mask". Bad Bad Guy 01:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The point I believe I'm trying to make, Homestar had to open his mouth really wide to show any teeth, so I believe Qermaq was wondering if everybody would have teeth if they opened their mouths really wide. So it's currently hard to say if their teeth are truly invisible or simply hidden. Do you understand? Bad Bad Guy 15:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where should the sad kids go?

This picture was offered as proof that The Sad Kids had no visible arms. I undid it because I believed those were shoulder bags, but I am willing to know what the others believe. Bad Bad Guy 23:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The kid dressed up as The King of Town looks like the bag could actually rest on him like that due to his large stomach, but the girl...seems unlikely.--~ SlipStream 06:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Poopsmith also doesn't seem to have visible arms

Otherwise you'd be able to see his shoulders above the edge of his gauntlets.

No, the gloves are totally his arms. Like, entirely. --DorianGray 04:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictory Statement in Marzipan's Legs section

   *The House That Gave Sucky Treats — A rip in Marzipan's Joey Ramone costume reveals that she has no legs.

Considering this is the second thing in a list of things that supposedly stand in oposition to the idea that Marzipan has no legs, it really doesn't belong. Therefore, I will remove this line from the list. 14:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The list provides instances where "Marzipan does not appear to have legs" as well as "a few other 'toons [that] claim otherwise". OptimisticFool 14:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
If you remove that point, the section creates reactions like, "What if we lifted up Marzipan's skirt and found real legs?" Bad Bad Guy 16:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but Marzipan's costume in Happy Hallowday appears to prove that Marzipan has no legs. Just a pink lump. Pointy King 01:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strong Bad's Hair

  1. One Two, One Two — Strong Bad wears a shower cap.
  2. Email looking old — Strong Bad wears a towel on his head.
  3. Email web comics — The Strong Bad-like character from the GamerJox webcomic is drawn with hair.
  4. In Haircut Strong Bad says that he has no hair.

I don't like any of these 4 lines, myself, since the section is supposedly documenting times when Strong Bad acts as though he has hair. Any bald person could conceivably do the first two (though they may not normally), the third isn't really even Strong Bad, it's a different version (just like his Old Timey and 20X6 versions's having hair doesn't affect him), and the last is him explicitly saying he doesn't have hair. What do people think? Also, in theme park, he is shown with (a) hair, but it's not listed. (I know this post isn't the most eloquent, but I hope people understand what I'm sayin') DAGRON 09:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I got rid of the last 3 and put back the note about Strong Bad's hairnet. (It's not a helmet!) The shower cap thing came from One Two's remarks. Bad Bad Guy 14:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
And i put them back because i think they're notable. Doing things to protect hair when you don't have any is notable, regardless of whether it's possible for a hairless person to do the same things. — Defender1031*Talk 15:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, do you have a stance on the other things I mentioned? DAGRON 00:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DNA Evidence commentary

From the DVD commentary for DNA Evidence:

MATT: When Homestar picks up this glass and you actually see his—

MIKE: Evidence that his arms are invisible.

MIKE: Right.

MATT: And not that he's telekinetic.

MATT: Yeah. That he actually has arms, but they're invisible.

Should this be regarded as final, definitive proof for the invisible arms theory? Has Matt? (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I always thought "h-star and the others have telekinesis" was a terrible idea, to say the least, but there's bound to be at least one other who would like that theory to stay. Bad Bad Guy 01:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
"Evidence" that his arms are invisible. Not "proof", evidence. Heimstern Läufer 02:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand where there could still be some mystery involving telekinesis vs. a possible third invisible arm. See remarks for time capsule and the show. OptimisticFool 07:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Another thing to remember: creator commentaries are very good at revealing the intentions of the creators, but are not the absolute last word on the nature of the creators' work. For example, creator commentaries can reveal if TBC really meant to refer to Family Guy in do over (though unfortunately, they didn't reveal this). They cannot reveal every little element of their characters, universe etc., though. As an analogy: If Shakespeare came to life now and told me everything he knew about Hamlet: it would be very interesting and a well-respected opinion, but it would not be the last word: some scholars would disagree with elements of his analysis and would argue in favor of their own analyses. Likewise a commentary by TBC (who, sorry, guys, are actually much lesser artists than Shakespeare) cannot really be considered definitive about anything except their own intentions and methods. Heimstern Läufer 08:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I get what you're saying; even though TBC may intend something to be some way, we still have to go by what happens in the cartoons. Kind of a case of the art becoming bigger than the artist. The commentary should still be mentioned somewhere in the article, but I don't know how to do so without making it come across as "Screw all y'all with different opinions." Has Matt? (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with this, at least to a certain extent. I can buy the fact that interpretations of a work can extend beyond its creators' intentions and still have significance. But those interpretations are severely crippled if the creator blatantly contradicts them. For example, a lot of people have claimed that The Lord of the Rings is an allegory for the nuclear bomb, industrialization, etc. But Tolkien has stoutly declared that he detests allegory and intended no such thing. In this case, some value may still be derived by comparing The Ring to the nuclear bomb, observing similarities, and learning lessons about human nature, but it would be wrong to say that this comparison is part of the work itself.
Now, for Homestar Runner, his creators have allegedly claimed that he has invisible arms (unless they're joking; I haven't heard their inflection on the DVD). We must assume that TBC have largely been intending to animate him this way all along, and instances in which this seems to be impossible must be either direct jokes from TBC about the controversy, or else mere inconsistencies that understandably arise from churning out weekly cartoons.
Rather than continue to assume that there's no way to know whether Homestar has invisible arms, uses telekinesis, or something else, I think we should assume that what the creators intended to animate is indeed the case, and perhaps keep a list somewhere of situations in which he acts in a way that seems to be impossible with invisible arms.
I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion, by the way :D Trey56 16:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we could handle it quite fine by adding something saying that TBC give credence to the invisible arms theory, and then explain the possible counterevidence (lack of sleeves, manipulating three objects at once etc.) It doesn't clearly come down in favor of the invisible arms theory, but still points out the strong possibility TBC mean it to be this way. (I say "strong possibility" because I don't feel TBC's words really make it clear this is definitely how they think of it. Like many remarks on their commentaries, it comes off as a casual musing rather than a pronouncement.) This also allows us to explain the difficulties with this theory. Heimstern Läufer 17:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split?

I think this page is getting too long, and has too large a scope. I propose that we A) drop our grapes B) Create Coach Z's Lack of a Visible Face, Strong Bad's Lack of a Visible Nose and Hair, Marzipan's Lack of Visible legs, Lack of Visible Ears, and Other Apparently Invisible Body Parts. What do y'all think? — Defender1031*Talk 18:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree on the splits, I don't think it should be split to so many articles. We'd be discussing merging before New Year's. I would propse splitting on character wise and then everything else to one article. Furthermore, I really don't like this new trend of giving articles novel names.
In short, let's split, yes, but into less fragments and with shorter article names. --Sysrq868 19:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Earlier I proposed putting the entire Lack of Visible Arms#Other Apparently Invisible Body Parts section into its own article. Would you be okay with just that? Bad Bad Guy 01:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's the format I came up with for the other article. Bad Bad Guy 00:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Similar to some of the concerns expressed when this page was being named, I have a problem with "Apparently Invisible" as part of the title of the split-off page. Even if it turns out that TBC may indeed intend for the arms of Homestar et al. to be invisible (see above thread), the problem arises with things like Marzipan's legs. It isn't a question of whether we can see them; they genuinely seem to not be there at all (dunno what is there, and, man, I don't wanna know). "Lack of (Other) Body Parts" would not be high on my list of alternatives, however. — It's dot com 01:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see the need to list missing bodyparts at all. Missing body parts are common practice in cartoons and not notable. Invisible body parts are notable. Loafing 01:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Which of the body parts would you like to see removed? Bad Bad Guy 01:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Loafing: While for the most part I agree with you, it becomes notable when the characters or the creators specifically comment on the missing part(s). — It's dot com 02:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The part I couldn't find any comments for is "Strong Bad's Hair". I think alternate universe contains extremely subtle comments about Strong Bad's nose and his ears, but I could be wrong. Bad Bad Guy 02:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you could count haircut as a comment about his hair, but it's already been decided that it does not belong on the article. Bad Bad Guy 02:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Dot com: True dat. Loafing 02:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The best new name I could think of for the other article is "Visibly Lacking Body Parts". So good or no good? Bad Bad Guy 17:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Should I go turn it into a normal article now? Bad Bad Guy 04:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think we've quite hit on the right name yet. Keep try! — It's dot com 04:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... "Visibly Lacking Body Parts" doesn't seem to flow that well to me. Is "Lack of Visible Body Parts" any better? Trey56 04:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that title is too broad, but I won't throw a fit if someone disagrees with me. Bad Bad Guy 21:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Should I go turn it into a real article with a rename template? Bad Bad Guy 20:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

DeFender, since you started this discussion, do you have any thoughts on my rewrite suggestion and its title? Bad Bad Guy 20:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] more pizzazz

This conversation was moved to Talk:Lack of Visible Body Parts#more pizzazz

[edit] Debate

I don't think the Weelchair should be here. I mean he is a Sweet Cuppin' Cakes character. I'm a man on the prowl and I stick up for myself! The city is at night and I'm dancin' dancin'! Homsar solo!Master of Nature

Still, he does lack visible arms, and therefore belongs on this page. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 21:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence for telekinesis

Strongest Man In The World. Look at Homestar's grapes, as compared to everyone else's. Everyone with visible arms has their grapes steadily in the air, but Homestar's float up and down regularly.

Also, should Senor be added into "oddities", as he's definitely not holding his grapes evenly?--Gaeamil 01:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Lack of Visible body parts? -Justin Master of Nature 15:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Lack of Visible Body Parts?

The two pages seem very similar to me, and so I see no reason to have separate pages for both of them. Homsarian79 15:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The body parts page was actually split from the arms page when that section got too big. See #Split?. — It's dot com 16:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Goblin

I think that the Goblin picture should be changed. The current picture makes it look like it has Strong Bad's arms.

Well whoever, something something something! (Translation: Well Annonie, I have been bothered by this too, but the fact is we have to show them manipulating something. As this is the only seen instance of this it is our only option--Jellote 00:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

[edit] Pasquel

What about Pasquel? He/she was able to close the door without any visible arms. TheStick

First of all, Pazquel's arms are perfectly visible. Secondly, we don't get to see how he (or one of the other bats; it's unclear) opens the door, and one can plainly see him (or, again, a von Blaublood) closing the door by grabbing the knob with his feet. Doesn't cut it. --Jay (Talk) 22:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 8-Bit is Enough

Homestar manipulates his pop-up window, picks up food lying around and eats it, and accesses Strong Bad's online calendar, among other things, even though he was presumably "chained" ever since Strong Bad put the logic board into the Trogdor machine. I don't get why no one else has realized this. 01:30, 26 January 2009

[edit] Hrupdate?

I becheive that we update Homestar's picture in the gallery. Perhaps him holding socks and shoes in hremail 2000? --Jellote 00:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable Body Parts.

I can't help but want to see colums deticated specificaly to Marsipan's legs or lack of legs, & Strong Bad's invisible fingers or lack of fingers. They're as common a running gag as Homestar's Pants or lack thereof (which has it's own page). & then the Grape Fairy has a mouth that dissapears when he's not talking while Harold/Hornblower never speaks & doesn;t appear to have a mouth at all. & I'm pretty sure Coach Z wore earrings one Halloween that must have been connected to invisible ears. In other words, I'm suggesting to rename the article to "Lack of Visible Body Parts."

Did you check the entire article? Check the "See Also". It'll give you this. StrongAwesome 13:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Character Order

The "Characters With No Visible Arms" section doesn't appear to be in any particular order, which isn't a big deal by any means, but the arbitrariness of it just kind of mildly bothers me for some reason. Should it be chronological based on characters' appearance, or when they were first seen picking up an object, or the order on the Characters page, or some other order I haven't thought of? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 23:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

For the main characters I think the current order is fine, vaguely in order of prominence/debut. For the others, I think chronological is a good move though I believe characters from the same "universe" should be grouped together (e.g. Mr Shmallow should be grouped with the other old-timey characters). -- Bleu Ninja 06:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
It does seem like characters have been added in the order that people thought to put them in the list. For the first section, ordering chronologically by when they're first seen holding an object seems like it would make the most sense since holding objects is the focus of the list, but it might be difficult to determine that for some characters given filmography categories are in alphabetical and not chronological order. It might also be hard to document that on-page as the article currently is, but the page could be modified to list each characters' first instance of holding something. If we don't want to do all that to sort them by item-hold chronology, then listing the characters in order by their first appearance in general could work. The latter order would also work for the "debatable characters" section. DEI DAT VMdatvm center\super contra 10:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Personal tools