Talk:Calvin and Hobbes/Archive 9

message: Can someone move it? I don't know how. 69.61.237.137 14:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add the category to the bottom of the page. To do this, insert Calvin and Hobbes below the external links. Hope this helps. - Mike | Trick or Treat 15:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't this in Category: American Comics? 

message: If Susie Derkins is the "only character with first and last names", how come Mrs. Wormwood and Rosalyn both have them below that?  I don't ever recall seeing Mrs. Wormwood being referred to as "Mary", but I do have some recollection somewhere of Rosalyn's last name being "Weeks".  What do you guys think?  I'd change it, but I don't know what the right answer is...  Banpei 01:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all untrue information that an anon IP keeps adding. I've reverted it back. - Mike | Trick or Treat 02:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Susie Derkins & surnames 

message: I removed the image of the never-printed strip, as it violates the stsement on Universal Press Syndicate's site saying that no C&H strip may be reproduced on any internet or intranet site. adamfc 18:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Adam. I have re-uploaded the file as only 2 panels, so I have now added it back. - Mike | Talk 03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It looked rather out of place in the article, so I have simply linked to the image page in the section. - Mike | Talk 03:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes). There's a lot of info there. - Mike | Talk 00:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Alternate" strip 

message: Someone vandalized this page and cut out many characters, such as 'Moe'. I'm going to try to fix it... Snowonster 02:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, new discussions go at the end of talk pages, not the beginning.  Second, Moe is not a main character, he's secondary, just like Wormwood and Rosalyn.  Calvin, Hobbes and Calvin's parents are main characters.  Susie is debateable, and I don't have a position on that either way, but Moe is most definitely not a main character.  In total he appears in less than 1% of the strips.  So please make sure you know what you're doing before you "fix" anything. - Ugliness Man 12:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dont believe Moe was ever on this page...--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 19:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. This article's getting a bit too long. I didn't change anything. Snowonster 02:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He said "many characters", not "main" characters. Read before getting aggressive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filecore (talk • contribs) 07:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: It seems to me that the sections on the characters and the subject matter of Calvin and Hobbes should appear BEFORE the explorations into Watterson's artistic standards, social criticisms, etc.  A visitor who is completely unfamiliar with the comic strip would first be interested in what's on the surface rather than what lies below the surface, if you get my meaning.  Anyone else agree?  Vandelay 01:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. We should organize it so you get the basic info, then dig deeper and deeper into the strip.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 23:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorder sections?

message: So many people have argued that we can't cut much out, but I really think we can take all of the characters bios down to 2 sentences except for Calvin and Hobbes. They have their own article, they dont need an in-depth explanantion here.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 03:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this.  I also repeat my suggestion that the (shortened) character section should appear BEFORE the "Style and influences" section.  Vandelay 19:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "LONG ARTICLE"

message: Do the book covers and other images need fair use rationales according to instructions in the licenses? Just wanted to mention it in case it would cause it to remove its FA status in the future. --Nehrams2020 05:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I have no official idea, I'd say the covers, beacuse they are all over the web and are sort of an ad for the book, are permitted. Some of the other images probably should be cut to make it really fair use, but until someone comes after us, I see no reason to cut them.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 22:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationales

message: A friend of mine told me that Calvin and Hobbes is coming back as a book series free of comic-strip format - and while he wasn't sure of that, he said he was positive Watterson was returing to cartooning. Seeing that Watterson loved the strip and hated newspaper restrictions, I thought this seemed likely. I'm guessing either it's a rumor or he made it up, because I don't see info on that anywhere. --Wack'd About Wiki 02:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Havent heard of this, but I hope he doesn't unless he has fresh new ideas. I've said it before, but if he comes back like Berke Breathed did with Opus and makes a fool out of the comic strip, I will be Ticked off.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment)`
It doesn't matter...if B.W. comes back with the comic and its exactly the same idea as the last one then that'll be awesome and if he comes back with new ideas that will be even awesomer....but if hemakes Calvin and Hobbes look stupid, that's his problem, but no matter what he'll still be a legend. That should be no reason for you to be ticked....and HOBBES RULES XP -eyeshield 21  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.26.254 (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New? 

message: Is it worth mentioning Calvin's (mis)adventures with baths? It was a running theme throughout the series. Maybe just a sentence or two? Mcr29 07:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is such a large section on this type of thing, maybe asmall paragraph could be added into Recurring Subject Matter.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 22:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Baths

message: I removed the fianl strip. Any other strips will be removed, as per the Universal Press Syndicate Mandate that no strips should be published in whole on the internet.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 00:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've undone most of your edit, only because the text is valid content. However, in keeping with your intent, I've commented out the image. --Ckatzchatspy 01:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Final Strip

message: With my experience on Wikipedia, much of this article should be considered a disgusting mess of "original research": Analysis of art without citing an authority figure. However, since I really appreciate the OR on the articles I read (people notice things I don't, make good observations), I have added to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.146.171.208 (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: I just removed this section from the article, because it seems even more like original research than the rest of the section.  Thoughts?
"Calvin is clearly misanthropic, but his situation makes this understandable. His parents seem only to punish him again and again for his bad behavior, and as a result Calvin usually imagines his mother and always his father as villains or hideous monsters. At school, Calvin daydreams of being the hero "Spaceman Spiff". This causes him to fail in class, which results in more punishment and fuels Calvin's misanthropy."
WLGades 10:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 03:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Calvin's misanthropy

message: While cleaning up some recent additions, I've noticed that there is no mention of Calvin's alter egos in the article. While we are of of course trying to contain the article's size, there should be at least some reference to Spaceman Spiff, Stupendous Man, etc. along with a link to the appropriate article. --Ckatzchatspy 19:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alter egos 

message: Should I add a link to the Calvin and Hobbes Wiki?
Wikiman232 06:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see... Google ads (no reputable wiki should have ads of any kind), the vast majority of articles are stubs, and the "today's strip" on the front page may very well be a COPYVIO... I'd say don't add it just yet, maybe if these issues are worked out in the near future it can be considered. - Ugliness Man 07:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Calvin and Hobbes Wiki

message: this link seems to be broken Calvin and Hobbes Books. it just redirects you back to the same article. Is there any list of the books of Calvin and Hobbes?155.247.166.31 11:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken URL?

message: I can't find the information about why he left the strip. Is it in there at all? Maybe it should be more easily findable. 192.122.237.11 17:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaving 

message: I found an interesting comparison between Calvin & Hobbes and Palahniuk's Fight Club.
src = http://metaphilm.com/philm.php?id=29_0_2_0
Might be of use to you guys.  24.4.12.186 03:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "interesting" for sure, but it's also a crackpot theory, and not encyclopedic.  Much like a crackpot theory that I personally support regarding the Harry Potter universe (we'll be finding out in a few short months if it's right) doesn't (yet) belong in the Hedwig article. - Ugliness Man 06:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fight Club 

message: Four times now, DXRAW has either removed the names, added citation requests, or edited the "named after" text to make it vague. I've provided a direct link to the publisher's page where it says "Both are named after famous philosophers. Calvin is named for a sixteenth-century theologian who believed in predestination, while Hobbes is named after a seventeenth-century philosopher with a dim view of human nature." After posting this, DXRAW performed the third revert, saying "Names still not mentioned in source". I think this is unreasonable - for one thing, "named after" implies that that name (i.e. "Calvin") came from the source. Beyond that, one has to ask how many "sixteenth-century theologians who believed in predestination" were named "Calvin", and how many "seventeenth-century philosophers with a dim view of human nature" were named "Hobbes". Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 07:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  DXRAW being a little overzealous here. --Oscarthecat 09:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 15:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who they're named after 

message: I think noting that Miss Wormwood necks maalox is significant, I'm shy as editing goes though, so I've done nothing about it--Shadebug 19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really only mentioned once. The only place that it would be good to see that fact is in the Wormwood Character Article, but I think it may already be there.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 16:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wormwood's drinking 

message: The tag that was recently added to the "Scientific Progress Goes Boink" cover is causing something odd to happen.  Click here to see how it looks on my screen in Opera.  I double-checked in MSIE and it's the same deal.  Haven't tried Firefox.  And don't tell me that the problem is my screen resolution, if 1024 x 768 isn't big enough, then Wikipedia isn't as "universal" as it claims to be. - Ugliness Man 07:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see what the problem is, looking at your screenshot, could you clarify? --Oscarthecat 07:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume the problem Uglinessman was referring to - which was not limited to Opera - was the fact that the speedy deletion tag was at the start of the section's text, rather than in the box containing the photo it was referring to. This has been fixed. --Adam the Alien 08:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  image speedy delete tag 

message: I have a few issues about the trivia section here. Wikipedia strongly recommends against trivia sections, correct? Adding to that, virtually all of the "trivia" featured in said section are references to horrid, grotesque misappropriations of Calvin's mischevious-but-innocent nature (a show where Calvin kills his parents, or references to urine). Given that, is there anything that is actually NECCESARY in that trivia section? Honestly, given the total lack of redeeming information in it, there doesn't seem to be a reason for it to exist. The unauthorized "peeing Calvin" parodies, the only noteable (and of course, still offensive and unauthorized) parody, is already referenced in a different section. 67.94.201.2 12:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; the section is entirely unencyclopedic and should be removed. Go ahead and delete it. — Feezo (Talk) 13:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you delete it, please review the changes I made.  Let me know if they are sufficient. Comments appreciated. Ccrashh 13:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, the problem isn't that the section wasn't well organized. The problem is that references to a mainstream newspaper comic simply aren't encyclopedic content. While this is a contentious subject, I think it's more clear-cut in the case of topics already well known in popular culture. We don't list every political cartoon featuring Gerald Ford; we don't list every reference to Star Trek in other TV shows. Content like this can be interesting and useful — and because of Wikipedia's  licensing, is perfect material for fansites. Feezo (Talk) 16:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Ccrashh 19:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Section 

message: I noticed that the individual page for G.R.O.S.S. is "spelled" so that it doesn't have the last period at the end (thus, "G.R.O.S.S"). I was going to take the initiative to just move the page, but "G.R.O.S.S." (with period) redirects to the main Calvin and Hobbes page, and so it won't allow the move (or at least, I assume this is why the move won't go through). SO, then I thought, "I will discuss this with others before I go any further." So, what do others think? The individual G.R.O.S.S. page is sort of a mess anyway, and G.R.O.S.S. is described both here on the main C&H page in a nice concise manner as well as on the "Recurring themes in Calvin and Hobbes" page (which is where the G.R.O.S.S page is linked from and thus how I discovered it). So in all, I wonder, do we still even want an individual page about G.R.O.S.S. anyway? Does every detail of its existence need to be spelled out? If we decide no, we can delete, but -- coming back to my original point -- if we decide yes, then we need to fix up the page title and so forth.
Ack, sorry for the longwindedness. Cheers! Fieryrogue 16:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: G.R.O.S.S.

message: Someone has nominated Recurring themes in Calvin and Hobbes for deletion. If you have any position on this proposed deletion, comment on the AfD page. Anomie 22:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD for Recurring themes in Calvin and Hobbes 

message: Is there some sort of connection?  If you listen to this demo on Jennifer Hale's website, http://www.jenniferhale.net/sounds/animation.mp3
You'll notice that near the beginning there's a line from a Calvin and Hobbes strip, the one when he runs away from home cause he pushed a car into the ditch. Drewboy64 05:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jennifer Hale and calvin and hobbes? 

message: It seems to me that the article should mention this breakfast cereal of Calvin's - however, I'm unsure if there was one brand or several, so I won't enter anything until this has been found out... But I mean, come on, it's such a huge part of Calvin's life, it should be in there!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.186.29 (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, a breakfast cereal that he enjoys eating is a big part of his character and its impact on the world, anyone know a good spot to add it in? --Banime (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chocolate frosted sugar bombs 

message: Hobbes also comments on Calvin's unwholesome habits, but from a more cynical perspective; he is more likely to make a wry observation than actually intervene. Sometimes he merely looks on as Calvin inadvertently makes the point himself. In one instance, Calvin tells Hobbes about a science fiction story he has read in which machines turn humans into zombie slaves. Hobbes makes a comment about the irony of machines controlling us instead of the other way around, when Calvin then exclaims, "Hey! What time is it?? My TV show is on!" and sprints back inside to watch it, leaving Hobbes to contemplate the irony of the situation once again.Calvin seems to have sympathy only for animals. He admires Hobbes for not being human, something the tiger trumpets often. Calvin and Hobbes often hug and vocalize their affections. "Not so hard," Calvin sobs, embraced by his animal friend, "...You squeeze my tears out." Calvin's affection for animals in turn adds to his misanthropy: he often directly mocks his father for joining the "rat race" and talks often with Hobbes of his resolve to behave like an animal in order to "get the most out of life".
these are the last 2 paras of the Social Criticisms section section (which has only 3 paras total). what does the above text have to do with Social Criticisms?? more importantly, is this section about social criticism towards C & H or criticisms within C & H???
--Bilbo elffriend | Talk 07:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social criticisms?? 

message: Hello. There's a Quote on the Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes Page, in the Miss Wormwood Section:
"After Calvin once declared that school was a big waste of time, she tried catching him while he yelled into the hallway, "Help! It's the Thought Police!"", can someone give the source (e.g. which Calvin and Hobbes book) to this quote? I am personally interested in getting that strip :) -- 87.184.85.180  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thought Police Strip