Talk:Garfield/Archive 1

message: I wonder if it's a bizarre coincidence or intentional....
The late Lorenzo Music not only performed the voice of Garfield the cat in the cartoon, but also of Peter on the cartoon The Real Ghostbusters.... the character who Bill Murray portrayed in the film Ghostbusters (and Ghostbusters II). Now, Bill Murray will be voicing Garfield in the live action movie... weird. --Dante Alighieri 08:23 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
* I believe the answer is that Music was CHOSEN to be the voice of Bill Murray's character in the cartoon due to the similarity in their voices; and now, the reverse is true. 66.157.94.151 16:29, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Stretch? The rubber chicken? I just added that guy to the artical! Oh how I loved him...anyway, he appeared throughout the week of that fat cat's 7th b-day, and has made a few cameo appearences. --Wack'd About Wiki 00:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Older comments

message: Garfield usually eats pet cananries and wild sparrows. --Wack'd About Wiki 14:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And fish and ferns.199.224.81.132 19:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garfield's Bird Diet 

message: I don't know if it was Doonesbury but I'm pretty sure it's in one comic by the guy who draws em.
In the comic section, my brother told me to read this comic and it featured this guy doing an experiment and told him something horrible went wrong. The other guy looks inside the room and sees a room full of Garfields with black bowties on his head. He runs out to barf and the 1st guy comments "I must of drooled in the beakers".
Anyone know that comic. I'd like to make reference to it to this article under a Trivia section?--TKGB 22:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not Doonsebury, Bloom County  --Woland 21:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garfield in Doonesbury 

message: I know recently that Garfield has been dropped by some major papers' comics sections. I think one out in LA, and I know that the Star Ledger in NJ did this. Does anybody have more information on these events (losing distribution in major papers can be a big blow to the comic strip).
--THollan 11:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * It's been dropped from at least three major newspapers this year, but if you're going to include this information, be careful about claiming it's a recent trend due to the blandness of the strip. I don't know if it actually makes that much difference to the bottom line for Paws.--John Lynch 04:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dropped From Prominant Newspapers 

message: Bit large isn't it? I think at the very least the character section could be moved to it's own article.--John Lynch 04:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Size concern

message: Could anybody tell me the correct order of the following books: Garfield Gets Cookin', How to Draw Garfield, Furry Tails, Party Now, Age Later, Never Accept a Gift With Air Holes, Garfield Beefs Up, Insults. Put Downs and Slams, and Stupid Cupid? Scorpionman 02:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books 

message: This has article been nominated for clean-up. A negative spin has been imparted on most of the articles content (some of which is un-sourced and inaccurate) thus not conforming to the non-POV policy. The article itself is also quite patchy and reads more like a soapbox than an encyclopedic article.--Knuckle 08:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically? — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 13:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There is one criticism section. Articles on other widely-criticized and parodied strips including Family Circus, Boondocks, Doonesbury, and Dilbert either have criticism sections or sorely need them. Instead of congratulatory and apologetic fancruft, we need an article that adequately details what it is and what people think of it. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 07:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up recommended 

message: This is regarding the following section: Garfield had its debut on June 19, 1978, which is also considered Garfield's birthday. Comic strips on June 19th depict the cat celebrating his birthday, except in 1979 when he was shown celebrating his birthday on the 20th.
This edit changed the year from 1979 to 1978.  Which was it?  The IP hasn't made any other edits, so there's no way to tell if the user is going around making good or bad edits.  I'll change it back to 1979 until we find some way of verifying when it was.  --Mr. Billion 09:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1978 or 1979? 

message: Slate.com has been removed from the external links selection because it does conform with Wikipedia's policy for external links. The garfield related article on the site does not contain neutral and accurate material that wikipedia requires. The article itself is very one sided, where some facts have  been twisted or omitted to suit a particular point of view.--Jimi Snukka 01:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have an external link policy, and it's not a violation of NPOV to link to criticism. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 06:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If we point out these facts in the article—not in relation to the external link but just in general—I think we can still keep the external link. (I still think that as a generalization, the assertion that it was successful in the early days is true, in context. The article was talking about the first few *years*, not the first few *months*.) We sorely need the link, since it does serve as criticism, however much you may disagree with it. Incidentally, instead of edit warring, try to discuss these issues on the relevant talk page before making a final edit. Anyway, the style guide specifically recommends: "On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view." The external link you removed serves this purpose well. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 07:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What information is incorrect? You haven't pointed out any real factual errors in the article—for instance, the article's mention of Garfield's early success was clearly written in the context of years as opposed to months, while the comment about its inoffensiveness is largely a matter of opinion. Garfield is certainly inoffensive compared to, say, The Boondocks or Doonesbury.  — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 07:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Your apparent opposition to providing links to outside webpages that don't conform to Wikipedia's standards of neutrality doesn't make sense.  You can't expect the entire Internet to live up to Wikipedia's ideal of neutrality, and it's never been Wikipedia policy to only provide external links to neutral web pages.  --Mr. Billion 23:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link 

message: I believe that the Maddox link is completely appropriate in the sense that the man actually has a Wikipedia entry of his own; not to mention receieves enough traffic to be noteworthy of such recognition.  Personal opinions are one thing, but I concider this a critical citation.  It would be the same if Dan Rather made a comment about mullets, then someone links to that report to a mullet-related article.  --solstice 04:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: It's not notable enough for the article yet (and probably never will be), but there's a new Internet trend where folks are removing Garfield's thought bubbles from various strips...with hilariously surreal results.  Check it out: Garfield Redux
Neil Gaiman posted a note about it on his blog, so who knows...maybe this will take off. -- MisterHand 20:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been added.  My gut feeling is that it's still not notable enough for inclusion, but it's close enough I'm not ready to revert the addition, either.  Powers 14:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I say keep it, but use Neil Gaiman's blog as a reference to establish notability. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 19:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've made a note of it in the article. -- MisterHand 20:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New internet phenomenon 

message: Doesnt Odie now walk on four legs like a regular dog? --Gimpy 04:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odie 

message: If people despise the "mass marketing" of Garfield, they're of course free to ignore the comic.  I don't read it anymore myself (I did in middle school). I've never heard a coherent reason from any single person, including the Calvin and Hobbes creator, as to how turning an inoffensive comic strip character into stuffed animals and other assorted junk is some great evil.  It's the epitome of elitist hogwash.  The Boondocks is heavily marketed also, does that mean its political content is somehow muted (actually it does in the Castro-worshiping McGruder's case, but anyway).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.11.45.124 (talk • contribs) .
I agree with you (whoever you are). Personally, I'm in favour of letting the reader draw his own conclusion about Garfield's innoffensive nature and merchandising - it's not up to us to draw the conclusion that it's a bad thing.--Count Chocula 04:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does the article do that? All it does is make a statement of fact--namely, that certain critics say these things about the strip. — Phil Welch 06:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree; that was an odd combination. Good work separating it. — Phil Welch 20:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mostly criticism on this article, some people do enjoy this strip you know 

message: I can find no supporting evidence that there is such a character; the description sounds a little fishy too. Please provide some evidence that there is such a character before re-adding it to the article. Thanks, OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I found a quote referencing Lorenzo Garbanzo. 00:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I can tell, the character appeared in one strip, identifying himself in the manner of Inigo Montoya.  I suspect he was squished at the end.  Our intrepid contributor is likely conflating all previous and subsequent spider nemeses as Mr. Garbanzo, which is entirely unsupportable.  Powers 16:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LORENZO GERBONZO (or Lorenzo Garbanzo)

message: Can anybody tell me what was the actual storyline behind the Garfield halloween comic? Why wasn't it as funny as the rest of the Garfield comic and what was the ending about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.31.186.46 (talk • contribs) .
*It was Jim Davis indulging his non-funny side for a week, and showing a deeper side to Garfield's characterization than normal; Garfield realized that if he continued to treat Jon and Odie so badly, one day they might just up and leave him, and his always powerful imagination dragged him into this dark fantasy.  At the end he has to snap himself back to reality by convincing himself this bleak future can't POSSIBLY be real and that Jon and Odie would never just leave him alone.  Sort of like A Christmas Carol, at the end Garfield decides to appreciate the people in his life.
Of course, there is the alternative hypothesis that the bleak is real and the happy is fantasy, but I doubt Jim Davis wants us to believe that Garfield is alone in a deserted house with nothing but delusions to keep him happy. Thanos6 03:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In one panel, Garfield seems to realize that he isn’t alive. I’m wondering if this is some sort of Lost Highway/Mulholland Drive/Jacob’s Ladder afterlife-bardo scenario. Felicity4711 05:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Halloween comic storyline of 1989...

message: I've just discovered in this strip (which is one of those Sunday strips tied to a storyline; in this case Garfield going out of the house when he is sent to fetch the paper and Odie went after him) that Jon's address is "711 Maple Street". I wanted to put this in the article, since it doesn't mention it at this time, but I don't know the appropiate place to put it. I did put it in the list of the addresses of fictional characters, though. - NES Boy 01:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the TV series it was "357 Shady Grove Lane" though, at least according to the episode where Garfield repeatedly attempts to make the pizza guy late so he can get the pizza for free. Octan 20:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jon's address 

message: The article states that Jon reacts to Garfield's thoughts.  Has Jim Davis ever confirmed this?  I always saw it as Jon reacting to Garfield's expressions.
: Jon certainly appears to be very adept at understanding what Garfield means.  However, it's clear from a few individual strips that Jon cannot literally read Garfield's precise thoughts.  He has said on occassion that there are times he wishes he could.  As far as I know, the only Garfield strip in which Jon can clearly hear and react to Garfield's "words" is the April Fool's strip written by Chic Young of Blondie.  Powers 13:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jon a mindreader?

message: Do the Japanese have a love for Garfield?
--D.F. Williams 19:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious Question 

message: I was just considering Garfield and "Pooky" and it made me think of Get Fuzzy's Bucky Katt and his bear Smacky. Anyone feel this is worth a mention, or just most likely a coincidence? Kendall 05:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bucky does reference Garfield as if a deity at times ("For the love of Garfield", "What in the name of Garfield?", "Praise Garfield", et cetera). The S 02:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarity to Bucky Katt? 

message: I seem to remember a comic strip in the old Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles magazine where Garfield appeared to the green four in a TMNT-like costume, calling himself Garfello, and holding a pizza cutter as a "weapon". I can't find anything about this online, though. Am I looney, or did something like that actually happen? The S 02:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garfello 

message: Jon doesn't age any more than Garfield or Oddy in this strip. Accordingly I've fixed this section. Jon 14:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted, but technically... Garfield does age.  His age is mentioned nearly every year around his birthday, and the number of candles on his cake matched for at least the first several years.  Powers 14:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jon's info fixed