Talk:Bob and George

message: Is this a popular cartoon? Otherwise, this is just an article about someone's website, and Wikipedia is not a web directory. -- The Anome 08:07 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:It is a web comic.  IIRC, it is the first sprite comic as well.  Anyway, I don't think it needs to be deleted! Emperorbma 09:46 3 Jul 2003 (UTC) Note: Actually, Neglected Characters from Nintendoland.com was the first
:sprite comic.
:--MAX Allen
:P.S. The sprite comic link in the article already implies that it is a web comic. Emperorbma
**WRONG. NC was on smbhq.com.Sprited Spheniscidae 22:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is, debatebly (Although I'm pretty sure it is), the first web comic to use sprites from a video game as it's form of illustration. Also, it's 7 years old, being among the older crowd of web comics, and has one of the largest fanbases outside of Penny-Arcade, 8-Bit Theater, and Mega Tokyo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Firestorm117 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular cartoon?

message: I'm gonna point out that we in fact, do not have a character page. It redirects here.
: That's because someone deleted the entire page and replaced it with a redirect, since most of the info was originally adapted from the B&G site's cast page.  I've reverted the page and deleted the stuff that's actual copyvio. Nifboy 21:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters 

message: Am I the only one who finds it a little...odd that the David Anez article redirects here, where the only information given about the author is whatever is relevant to the comic itself? What's included of him in this article makes sense, but I feel he should get his own article. As Emperorbma mentions, he started one of the first, if not the first, sprite comics, even if he didn't originally intend to do so. I feel there should also be some mention of the various subcomics and fancomics he hosts on his site somewhere. Feedback? --Snaxe920 07:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy -- Dave Anez is only notable for his webcomic, and there isn't enough information on him to justify having a separate article for him (which would be somewhere between a sentence and a paragraph describing him as "the Bob and George guy"). Hell, even Scott Kurtz redirects to PvP, even though Kurtz is a much more notable personality. It makes sense for an article on a webcomic's author to redirect to their only notable work. Nifboy 18:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Anez -- Separate Article? 

message: I removed the recently-added line "Bob was last seen floating around an alternate universe, trying to find his way back to the Bob and George universe to exact his revenge." from Bob's character description (this is the second time I've done this).  First, there's no indication that Bob was trying to exact revenge, so the line is just plain wrong.  Other details are wrong (he's not floating, whether it's an 'alternate universe' is debatable, etc.); a more correct entry would be: "Bob was last seen stuck in a subspace rift".
However, the reason I deleted the line outright rather than make the necessary fixes is that I don't think Bob's current situation belongs on the main page; it's not a notable enough detail about his character (it merely details his position) to warrant inclusion in this section which is and should be primarily summaries, given the existance of the Characters of Bob and George page.  Also, none of the other characters have their current location documented, and to document the locations of all the characters would take up more space than necessary, and not add any more details.
So, in summary, I think that the entries in the main article should summarize the characters' personalities and most relevant statistics only.  A basic summary (as we have here) is enough to give the reader a sense of each character, which is really all that's necessary to understand their importance with respect to the topic of this article (Bob and George).  The other details (history, current location, etc.) should stay on the more detailed  Characters of Bob and George page.
Since I've reverted this twice, I figured it warranted a discussion on the talk page, in case the consensus is that I'm in the wrong.  So, thoughts people?
- Matthew0028 09:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob's location 

message: Should we include them? Topman is one of the memorable moments from the 3 years of Bob and George I read in 2 hours. Should we also include Zero in the characters list? Lots of questions. -
The Doorknob Thief
:No to the Topman character (and other similar one-arc characters), as he was a minor character in one particular story arc, and knowledge of the character isn't necessary to understand what Bob and George is.  As for Zero, I could see including him in reference to his involvement with the Cataclysm, which is an important event in the Bob and Geroge universe. -- Matthew0028 02:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topman and other minor yet funny characters 

message: David Anez is a big fan of Wikipedia. He says, quote, "I think Wikipedia is one of the greatest things on the internet. An online, community-run, self-correcting encyclopedia? (forget what he says at this point) I can be sitting down on the couch watching TV when suddenly I think about something, and if I want to go and look up that thing all I have to do is step over to the computer and type it in the search box, and bam, it's right there. If something is even the slightest bit notable, you'll bet you'll find an article about it." , or basically that's what he said, not 100% accurate (due to the fact that the blurb in question was too old and was deleted) but still basically it. Just thought I'd point that out, not that it needs to be added to the article. -Jetman123 17:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Continuing in the intent of just pointing it out, he lists links to specific Wikipedia articles in his links page. Kalo 14:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Anez likes Wikipedia, interesting 

message: I think all of this should be removed, after checking there is nothing missing from the list in the subarticle. Having the main cast should be enough for the parent article considering there has been a subarticle spun off from it, otherwise it defeats the entire point. Maybe some of the less commonly appearing villians should go and that part renamed Primary villians, or just the main ones (Wily, maybe 1 or 2 others) could just be combined with the main cast for the purposes of the main article. -- Sfnhltb 02:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, the subarticle goes into far greater detail than the main one about all the charaters, so it arguably does not "defeat the point".  Plus, all the secondary characters are somewhat notable, and their summaries are very short.  I think removing some extraneous details that aren't necessary to understand the characters' roles in the comic would be good (I've just finished doing a little of this), though I'm not convinced that the characters should be removed from the main page entirely. -- Matthew0028 21:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary cast

message: Somebody with familiarity with the subcomics should clean up the section (i.e. not me).  Specifically, the Misadventures section needs to be cleaned up and better summarized.  Also, a summary of Oddball fancomics is needed. -- Matthew0028 03:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subcomics

message: "There exist more former Fancomics, however, since they have subsequently left the site, it is difficult to find proper information on them."
I doubt that this is really a true statement.  The Bob and George website is archived on archive.org at many points over the past several years, and it wouldn't be difficult (though it might be time consuming) to find "proper information" on them.  Somebody who wants to make this portion of the article more complete in this regards could easily check through the various archivings, and list the ones that are no longer fancomics. —Matthew0028 02:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fancomics

message: I haven't been able to load the site for about a week now. It's not just me, I've asked people from around the world and they're having the same problem.
*Same here...anybody know what's up?--DarthKobold 02:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of commission? 

message: This is probably not the best place for this, but I gotta wonder...  Why is Bob & George so popular, exactly?  I genuinely don't understand.  Is it because it was the first really-noticed sprite comic out there?(Despite the fact it allegedly didn't start out that way.)  Is it because it has Rockman and friends?  Is it because the writing is good?  Or is it just a huge fluke all the way around which sparked an era of darkness while sprinkling random flickers of pure light to the comic community?(In case you're...well...stupid...that's a metaphore for "Caused a pantload of people to make some really heinous comics but also spawned the rare good one.")  I simply do not understand.  The graphics and special effects are nothing special.  The writing isn't that great.  The jokes are seriously hit-and-miss.  And despite the fact Dave's improved over the years he's done this comic(god, I pity him and his thousand comics), he hasn't actually made a habit of using complex backgrounds, non-standard PhotoShop effects, or even original sprites(with some obvious exceptions).
So my final question to you...  What...makes Bob & George so special when there are prettier, funnier, and far, far more interesting sprite comics out there?  And for the record, yes, I am a fan.  And I genuinely don't know why.  It's like subliminal advertising or something...  --Joseph Collins 08:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Bob & George so Popular? 

message: Should OCWTSIFT be added to this article? It was an old subcomic just like Project: Suck.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011024080343/www.bobandgeorge.com/OCWTSIFT/index.html
Ivvan Cain 13:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OCWTSIFT 

message: Since when have Bob and George had last names?
:I have no idea, and since the editor who added it hasn't explained, I've removed it.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  last names 

message: The last comic has been produced and done, Shall we change this to "Bobandgeorge was a webcomic..."?
:Hmm. I'd say no, we don't say it of books. --Kizor 11:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The End 

message: Does anyone else think the picture provided (one of the strips) should be changed? It doesn't really demonstrate the strip well, given that none of the main characters are in it. Dr. Wily appears, but he's only a supporting character and only appears in one panel. I don't know, it just doesn't seem like the right strip to pick. I'm not sure what strip would be the best, but that one doesn't seem to fit. (Edit: Sorry, forgot to sign my name when I first put this post in) Lord Seth 05:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I added a couple of references from secondary sources. It might not be enough to save the article, so if anyone else can find any better sources, now is the time to reference them. Kamek (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added an entire "Significance" section to try to explain to people why Bob and George is noteworthy in the history of webcomics.Ig8887 (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: :Image:BnG Strip.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added fair use rationale to the image. — Matthew0028 11:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Added fair use rationale to the other images on the page. — Matthew0028 11:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It uses sprites, dude. Have you considered that? 71.131.199.8 (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:BnG Strip.gif

message: Quoting from the article:
The comic's final strip revealed that the true Shadowy Author was really The Author the whole time, having blamed himself for the deaths of the main cast - and working to prevent it.. Are you sure regarding this? Has this been stated in the comic by Anez himself? or is common fanon.
--132.77.4.43 (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The final strip didn't reveal anything of the sort, the second to last strip showed that the more recent appearances of him (specifically the ones where he has white eyes and his text boxes connect to him) are George in disguise. If no one objects I'm changing that (if I remember)Dalek9 (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The epilogue video shows the Shadowy author behind the regular author at th epoint in time that the audio says something along the lines of "he spent the rest of his days blaming himself for th deaths of everyone." This lead to a lot of fan speculation that Shador was a future version of the regualr author gone back in time. But it's just that, speculation, so it should be removed. The only thigns known for sure are the the text box Shadowy author was George and that the previous one was someone else. In addition, I recall someone making reference to George having "merged" with the Shadowy Author (I think in the last non-epilogue video). To my knowledge, Anez has never commented on any of this. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shadowy Author 

message: The "pixelated look" in webcomics that Bob and George popularized is also considered an influence on later original pixel art comics like Diesel Sweeties and Dinosaur Comics.
Dinosaur Comics does not use original pixel art either -- the pictures are from an old clipart assortment the author found -- so this is an incorrect statement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.220.66.147 (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinosaur Comics 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bob and George. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051122135102/http://www.bobandgeorge.com/Other/AboutMe.html to http://www.bobandgeorge.com/Other/AboutMe.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615122449/http://bobandgeorge.com/Other/Begin.html to http://www.bobandgeorge.com/Other/Begin.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wired.com/news/culture/0%2C1284%2C63691%2C00.html?tw=wn_2culthead
*Added  tag to http://media.www.kykernel.com/media/storage/paper305/news/2002/04/19/Kerneltech/Quirky.Comics.Find.An.Online.Home-241146.shtml
*Added  tag to http://media.www.kykernel.com/media/storage/paper305/news/2002/04/19/Kerneltech/Quirky.Comics.Find.An.Online.Home-241146.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified