Talk:Calvin and Hobbes/Archive 2

message: This archive page covers approximately the dates between July 2004 and November 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.  Please add new archivals to Talk:Calvin and Hobbes/Archive3. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Anville 20:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

message: I'm Malaysian and I've NEVER seen Calvin & Hobbes translated as such in any Malaysian paper that carried it. Where would the source of this be? --Mydemand
:The article says "Some Swiss German papers use the name 'Max und Mauli', while others use 'Calvin & Hobbes'.". I live in the german part of Switzerland, read lots of newspapers and have never seen this title before. This "fact" seems to get copied from website to website without double-checks. Is there any factual evidence somebody can present for this? --Anonymous
::I have moved the list of attested translations to the page Calvin and Hobbes in translation.  At the very least, the main article is now more solidly factual, which for an FA is a good thing. . . . --Anville 17:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Kahlvinne dan Hobbes"? "Max und Mauli"? 

message: What indications are there that Calvin, Hobbes and Calvin's parents live in Suburbia?  There are some indications that it is more rural (the extensive woods in which they sled and wagon, for instance).  --Daniel C. Boyer 16:38, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In one of the strips Calvin apparently goes in search of his dad who's at work. It shows him looking at a city full of skyscrapers, but it's obviously Calvin's imagination. Another of the strips show the family going to a dinosaur museum which could be nearby in a city. --Jay 17:53, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Calvin's dad also (sometimes) takes the bus to work, unlikely if he lives somewhere rural. Maybe it's the edge of a suburb, so there's a city in one direction and the woods in the other. --Acheron 19:44, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Although this is by no means determinative, I think this is the most likely explanation.  Or the suburb contains a large enclave of woods.  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:05, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Being as Calvin's dad works in a city, I would say it's probably Suburbia. --Andre 06:53, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that I live in the suburbs and there are a lot of woods to next to my house - you can walk for awhile without seeing a road. I think it's easily comparable to Calvin's woods. --Andre 19:53, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I also recall a strip (the one were Calvin can't do his homework where his size increases 'til he grows bigger than the house, then bigger than the planet) where it show Calvin racing through the suburbs and reaching what he called "Downtown" (the part of the city full of sky scrapers). The next strip showed him continue to walk through the city untill he reached the sea.<BR>--Fern 11:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hobbes does comment that "Life in the great suburban outback is certainly fraught with peril."  I believe he says this after Calvin runs screaming from a ferocious bee. —--Anville 18:24, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suburbia 

message: The description of the setting is rather lengthy - maybe we could move it and make a section called Setting? --Andre 06:54, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there should be a sumarized version of the setting at the beginning, followed by a more detailed description in the "Setting" section.<BR>--Fern 11:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the detailed discussion into a "Settings" section, leaving a stub in the introduction.  While most of the "real world" scenes are consistent with Ohio—and the back cover of Essential shows a Kenyon pastry shop—I think it's also important to note the geology we see in the fantasies, particularly the Spaceman Spiff sequences.  Watterson moved from "rather generic" settings to more specific topographies, which he claimed to base on southern Utah's rock formations.  (Compare his comments about making Dad a patent attorney, rather than a generic cartoon white-collar worker.)  Spiff's alien planets also resemble Arizona (home of Krazy Kat) and New Mexico (didn't the reclusive Watterson send one postcard from Albuquerque?).—--Anville 17:08, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Setting 

message: The article states this:
:"Many readers assume Hobbes is just a creation of Calvin's imagination, or that Hobbes only "comes alive" when Calvin is the only one around, but Watterson has stated neither of these scenarios are true. Hobbes' reality is thus left deliberately vague." [Emphasis added]
Did Watterson actually make a statement that both of these scenarios are false?  If so, where did he state that?  Judging from the edit history, I believe that the author of this sentence actually meant to say something more like this:
:... but Watterson has been careful to avoid supporting one theory or the other. Hobbes' reality is thus left deliberately vague.
I'll go ahead and make this change because I'm pretty sure this is the intended meaning.  If it is not, it would be good if someone would clarify where Watterson made the alluded-to statement. —Wayned 20:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Tenth Anniversary Book, "Hobbes is more about the subjective nature of reality than dolls coming to life"  (on Hobbes's page in the character list).  Watterson also states that he doesn't regard Hobbes as the product of Calvin's imagination—just that each participant sees a different reality, which gets drawn literally whenever the strip takes that character's point of view. Perhaps the "more about" qualifier is grounds for the current version's wording; I'm tempted to say that it isn't. —Anville 21:21, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like your updated edit of my edit.  It makes things much clearer now. Thanks, —Wayned 09:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're very welcome—glad to do what I can! --Anville 20:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hobbes' Reality 

message: I removed the following statement from the paragraph on Calvin's classmates.
:Sometimes, the same person is given two or more different names. For example, one girl was given both "Janice" and "Candace" in two different strips.
Most of Calvin's classmates are drawn with much the same appearance.  (The two key exceptions are Susie, whose head is rounder than several others, and Moe, who is just a hulking brute.)  Because the background classmates are so visually similar, and since we have practically no biographical information on any of them, the only solid indication we have that two children are distinct is that their names are different.
I recall a fan site, which may since have been discontinued, which offered a trivia section.  One question asked the reader to name as many of Calvin's classmates as possible.  I got through Tommy Chesnutt, "Filthy" Rich, Candace and Roger before I gave up—but, all in all, there aren't that many of them.  As Watterson said about the early strips where Calvin was a Boy Scout, surrounding him and Hobbes with other children doesn't generate much material.  In fact, I'd say that other than Susie and Hobbes, Calvin's classmates are mostly there to exemplify mob behavior.  "Filthy" Rich exists to uphold a pun, and Tommy Chesnutt is a one-strip gag who never even appears (probably because he got eaten).  Roger and Candace are only named because they react individually to Calvin's weirdness, which isn't normal behavior.  More often, the class reacts as a whole: think of the roomful of children all screaming "Bats aren't bugs!", or the collective stare Calvin receives after acting out his dinosaur fantasy, which he fobs off as "a little sinus congestion".  --Anville 20:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed statement from "Minor characters" 

message: I removed the link to the Metaphilm article and my change was reverted by User:JosephBarillari.  His edit summary asked that I explain my reasons for wanting to remove the link, so here I am.
Essentially, the Metaphilm article attempts to draw a parallel between Hobbes and Fight Club's Tyler Durden, as well as parallels between other C&H and Fight Club characters.  The article provides no real evidence (such as quotes from the screenwriters or directors) that the Fight Club characters are actually based on C&H characters; rather, it seems simply to be an indulgence in noting certain similarities and then imagining how the C&H characters could have grown to become the Fight Club characters.  As such, it is no different than an article that attempts to show how Star Trek and Star Wars could have taken place in the same universe: amusing perhaps, but not informative and certainly not encyclopedic.  If there were a Wikipedia article that discussed the phenomenon of how some fans of different fictional worlds try to reconcile them, this Metaphilm article might be an appropriate citation.  But it doesn't seem to add anything useful to the C&H article. --Alanyst 16:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give this comment a day or so and if nobody responds, I'll remove the Metaphilm link again.  If others are persuaded by my argument, they should feel free to remove the link themselves. --Alanyst 18:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. Your line of reasoning is persuasive, although I think you might be interpreting policy a bit narrowly on this. The CH/FC article isn't meant to be canon, it's meant to be commentary. As it was much-linked-to when it was first written (I recall having read it some years ago on a different website), I thought it notable enough to merit listing. (As did whoever added it -- I didn't notice the initial addition.) best, jdb ❋ (talk) 20:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will probably remove the link again unless you or anyone else strongly objects.  I do want to clarify, though, that I'm pursuing this not with any particular Wikipedia policy in mind, but rather from the standpoint that the link just doesn't contribute any particular insight or information about C&H and so it ought to be removed.  If the Metaphilm article had presented evidence that C&H did in fact influence Fight Club then I would favor it staying, but I'm having a hard time seeing how having the link makes the C&H article any better.  Glad to have your input on this, though; please don't hesitate to raise objections if you think I'm off base. --Alanyst 20:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather liked the article, since it showed the way C&H influenced other minds (and an FA should, by rights, illustrate the significance and impact of its subject).  It was certainly more uplifting than the urinating Calvin stickers, which are almost the only other "artistic" things influenced by C&H which we talk about. --Anville 20:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that the article does not assert that C&H actually did influence the creators of Fight Club; it simply drew parallels between the characters.  To me, that fails to illustrate the significance and impact of C&H, because we aren't informed that the supposed impact of C&H on Fight Club is based on anything more than the article author's imagination.  However, if the consensus is that the link to the article should again be listed, I'll accede to the consensus and not try to remove it again.  --Alanyst 21:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking more of the way that C&H influenced the guy who wrote the Metaphilm article, and more generally the Internet readership, but hey, I'm pretty indifferent to whether the link stays or goes. --Anville 18:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metaphilm link 

message: I removed the following statement from the "Hamster Huey" discussion:
:Compare also with this joke from one of Robin Williams' first HBO specials in the early 1980s.  Williams is playing a Mr. Rogers type, and says to the kiddies in the audience, "Let's put Mr. Hamster in the microwave! (short pause) (sings) Pop goes the weasel!"
We know that the way the story is normally read, it does not end with the townsfolk trying to find Hamster Huey's head.  From this, I infer that it is plausible Hamster Huey does not die.  Watterson may likely have chosen the title for its phonetic silliness, to spoof the typical characteristics of "children's literature".  The fact that the book turns out to be written by "Mabel Syrup", who then goes on to write a sequel entitled Commander Coriander Salamander and 'Er Singlehander Bellylander, lends point to this view.  Is there a Robin Williams sketch about spicy amphibians with aviation training?  Without more indication that Williams actually influenced Watterson, this statement doesn't have a leg to stand on.
It's a pity we missed our chance to find out, too.  Up until last week, Universal Press Syndicate was taking reader questions to which Watterson would write answers, as a promotional gig for the Complete Calvin and Hobbes hardcover set (which I am like totally buying, dude). --Anville 23:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamster Huey 

message: The references seem to be broken... they're all listed as "[http:// ARTICLE TITLE]" which is weird.  I checked the template use though, and it seems to be according to paramaters... url=http:// without anything else should just show that there is no weblink, not break the template.  Anyone know what's going on, or how to fix it? --Fieari 05:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
:Yeah, there's definitely something weird about the template.  Since we don't really need a template for the references anyway, I just subst'd and cleaned them up.  If anyone has a good reason to put them back into templates, go ahead.  --Norvy (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Can anyone find a citation to the number of strips that were produced or ran?  I haven't been able to find any in articles about the strip's finale, and I think it would make a great addition.  -- Norvy (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of strips 

message: I think it should be mentioned in the article that when Calvin makes a duplicate of himself, it's not revealed to the reader the true nature of the duplication. For instance, it's not known whether the duplicate is merely Calvin pretending or an actual duplicate. --Scorpionman 20:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicates 

message: This is a beautifully written article; I can see why it is a FA. Grateful thanks to the folks who worked on it. I do have one question: why does the article employ the Harvard reference style? [for example, "Calvin and Hobbes blah blah blah (Archeson 1988)."] The Harvard style is used in scholarly journals and texts, but not, I believe, in encyclopedias. Is there a guide as to the preferable reference styles for various Wikipedia articles? Do scientific articles employ Vancouver, and arts/humanities Harvard? Or is there simply an external link at the end of a sentence and internal links within sentences (ie. a text link)? Thanks. →Encephalon | T | C 11:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
:Hmmm... I believe you're right... Wikipedia:Cite sources may have something to say on the subject. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The images recently added to illustrate the characters require fair use rationales.  --Anville 15:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Calvin and hobbes tv show episode list
(Note; This is not rarley known, but I found this at a top-secret website.)
G.R.O.S.S. club punishment 
Calvin forever 
Oh gross Susie / The replacement 
Hobbes's playmate''
This seems to go against everything Bill Watterson ever said about marketing.  I highly doubt that this was ever a possibility.  Can anyone reference this "top-secret" website?  --Eric 03:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. I reverted it. --Maru (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television show? 

message: I kind of understand why Bill Watterson wouldn't allow his strip to be merchandized. That would really destroy the integrity of the strip, as Watterson himself said. I mean, look at Jim Davis and Garfield! It says in the Garfield article that Jim Davis mostly deals with the business and merchandizing, while a bunch of other jerks who cared nothing about the strip's integrity take care of the comic strips and characters, which is what Davis should be doing! Just think what would have happened if Bill Watterson had merchandized his comic strip! He would have spent all his time taking care of merchandise, while his staff took care of the characters of Calvin and Hobbes! People would be saying about Calvin and Hobbes: "The merchandising terds that creator Bill Watterson pinches out ever Sunday in newspapers around the world, traumatizing millions with his bland humor week after tragic week.", just like they said about Garfield! Calvin and Hobbes would be just another bland, tasteless comic strip without any personality at all! Of course, many of you have already figured this out, I'm sure. I'm just saying this for all those people out there who would criticize Watterson for his refusal to merchandise his strip. Scorpionman 02:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Soul of the work? Strip's integrity? I thought Garfield was intended as a non-offensive marketing vehicle in the first place. Even if Watterson allowed merchandising, I don't think it would have ever become a Garfield situation. While Bill should certainly be admired for his devotion to the artistic, I don't think that those living in a commercial culture have a right to slam an entrepreneur like Davis so hard. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merchandising