Talk:Calvin and Hobbes/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Link Suggestion

Hi guys, after reading Wikipedia's policy on external links, I have decided to request a link to my Calvin and Hobbes fan site. When I first added it I didn't know the webmasters were not supposed to add links to their own sites. You'll have to excuse my ignorance. :) I'm relatively new to adding to articles here. The address of my site is http://www.geocities.com/michaelgoonan0503/candh.html. Thanks for all of your time and patience with me. Mjg0503 10:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No problemo! It's nice to see you have gotten an account. BTW, if you use four tildes it will sign your edits and add a timestamp. I took a look at your link, and I'm afraid that I would be reluctant to add the link. I see you've added a bit of commentary to fit under the "fair use" guidelines, but I don't think there's enough commentary. Generally, this part of the guidelines is meant for people writing some kind of scholarly work. So you would need to write a lot more and go into some kind of analysis of the copyrighted work. Caveat: I'm not a copyright expert, but I do have some experience on Wikipedia and what will fly and what won't with others. Anyway, it seems you know quite a bit about Calvin and Hobbes and can make some fine contributions to this article. So I wouldn't focus too much on whether your link makes it in or not. --C S (Talk) 21:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I've acctually had this account for a while, I was just too lazy to log in :b. This article is already so good I'm not sure what I can add to it, but I'll go through and see if there's anything I can add. I like to show off my useless knowledge to random people. I wasn't aware that your requirements were so stringent for linking, I'll be more careful in the future, and when I get time I'll go through and add more commentary to make sure my site is within fair use. I think I'm probably pretty safe since I don't have an extensive collection, but I understand how wikipedia feels about it. I'm not all that worried about my link though, the only reason I put it here was to get some publicity for my site. It's fairly unknown right now, if you see what I mean. But hey, I'm not going to whine about it (at least, if I haven't already. lol.) Congratulations to all of you who have contributed to this article. You've done a great job!

Mjg0503 00:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions on the latest book set The complete Calvin and Hobbes

Is the word "complete" in the title implies "complete" collection of all of C&H books? Or does it means just "complete" set of published strips on newspaper. There are many original inserts added to the other books. Are these extras "complete"ly included in the latest book set also? The article mentioned all strips except one were in the complete set. Which strip? Kowloonese 10:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The comic that does not appear is the comic from the date of 11/26/85 and it has currently not appeared in any of the books.

Greatigers 17:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Unless the strip was labelled incorrectly, there is indeed a 11/26/85 entry in the new 3 volume set. The same strip is also in the other collections for that period. I'd suggest someone double check the date of the missing strip. I read from another source that the missing strip is May 23, 1987 instead. However, the 5/23/87 strip is in the new 3 volume set too. I didn't check the older collection though. Kowloonese 19:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

There is indeed a strip for that date in the books, but it's not the one that originally appeared in the papers– at least not all of them. For some reason, it was replaced back when the first book was published. I thought I read this information in the article, but I must have seen it during my research. I have a GIF file of the original strip, and it seems rather innocuous...

As for the "Complete"ness of the big collection, it apparently does have all the other cover art, and I've seen it advertised as containing all the extras, however, I can only confirm the Spiff feature from the C&H LSB. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Public Service Announcement for those interested in this: A quick Google search led me to two Nov. 26, 1985 comics. I won't post the URLs since both sites (and one in particular) are probably grossly illegal and in violation of copyright, and as a wise man once said, "lawsuits aren't really my thing." But a search for "November 26, 1985" "Calvin and Hobbes" will do it. -- Anyway, one referenced the pretend destruction of the Hoover Dam, and I'm guessing this is the suppressed one.

~~But I'm especially curious as to which strip has altered dialogue. Anyone know? --zenohockey 05:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)~~ [Incorrect -- see below]

I tried googling on the given phrase (plus some variants) and I couldn't come up with anything. However:

This collection is still missing one strip that has never appeared in any of the Calvin and Hobbes books. It appeared in some newspapers on November 28, 1985 and featured Hobbes receiving a bath in the washing machine. Also, one of the strips in the Complete C&H set has altered dialogue. The strip in question is from 25 November 1988, and originally looked like this:

CALVIN: Watch out, Mom. I'm in a bad mood.

MOM: Be in a bad mood somewhere else, OK? I'm busy.

CALVIN: Hmph! I'll bet my biological mother would've bought me a comic book and made me feel better instead of shunning me like you.

MOM: Kid, anyone but your biological mother would've left you to the wolves long ago.

CALVIN: Yeah right. Really, how much did you pay for me?

In the Complete C&H, the phrase 'my/your biological mother' is changed to 'a good mother,' and Calvin's final bit of dialogue has been altered to: 'Yeah, right. Let's see your training certificate.' From "Calvin and Hobbes book collections". Anville 13:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Anville. I hate feeling ignorant.

Anyway, I retract my earlier theory about the Hoover Dam strip. Here's why:

This site (hereafter "the first site") (search "washing machine") gives Dec. 11, 1985 as the date for the Hobbes-in-washing-machine strip. (This is almost certainly the omitted one -- the syndicator probably thought/knew that kids would get the idea to put their pets in the washer) But one of the aforementioned copyvio sites -- here (the other one is here -- just agree not to smoke marijuana, and I'll pretend my principles are intact ;), gives a different strip for that date. The first site, in turn, says that strip appeared Dec. 12. The second site gives yet another strip for Dec. 12, which the first site says appeared Dec. 13. Then, because of a hunch, I searched a random date -- Aug. 17, 1986 -- into the second site. Lo and behold, on the strip, Watterson wrote "8-18", and the first site confirmed it appeared Aug. 18, 1986.

So, armed with this knowledge, I press onward. I confirm, first, that the Hoover Dam strip appeared on Nov. 27, 1985. So I'm guessing that its dialogue was never changed. The May 23, 1987 strip given by the copyvio site ([1]) seems totally uncontroversial, and its text is confirmed for that date by the first site. I have asked WikidSmaht on his talk page rather his version is the same.

I look for Nov. 28, 1985. Both sites give the same strip ([2]), another fairly tame one.

Unfortunately, the copyvio site doesn't extend to November 1988. The first site, however, gives the "how much did you pay for me?" text for Nov. 25, 1988. I don't know whether the site's propietor got his text from the papers or from the books (but I'm guessing the latter). I left my C&H books at home, but I'm guessing that whichever anthology covers this date gives the original text, and only the Complete C&H gives the bowderlized version.

I apologize if any of the preceding text is unclear, imcomplete, or wrong. But here's a summary of our findings:

OMITTED STRIP: Dec. 11, 1985 (Hobbes in washing machine)

STRIP WITH MODIFIED TEXT: Nov. 25, 1988 ("Birth mother" > "a good mother"; "How much did you pay for me?" > "Yeah right, let's see your training certificate")

NOT YET EXPLAINED: May 23, 1987 (iced tea -- but WikidSmaht claims that on this date, a different [albeit "rather innocuous"] strip originally appeared. Awaiting word from him on this).

Once WikidSmaht has replied, this can go on the article page. --zenohockey 17:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC) [Modified slightly to add more detail in last paras. --zenohockey 04:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)]

Er, I believe I've been misinterpretted. I never said anything about May '87. Kowloonese did, and I guess I wasn't clear enough that I was referring to the 26 November '85 Kowloonese also mentioned. I've since realized that the one I have is 28 November, and it is indeed the Washing Machine bath. Probably, as suggested, for fear of kids washing their pets and themselves that way. So if you want to go ahead and mention both 28/11/85 and 25/11/88 in the article, you're all set. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 08:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay... Now, I may have just confused myself into a knot, or I'm using really unreliable sources, but I got 12-11-85 for the washing machine (on the first site). If you have 11-28-85...well, the first site could be using one of the books, with strips that Watterson redated or something, or... well, what do you think's going on here? --zenohockey 03:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to state here, since I added it to the article, that the 7 January 1987 strip WAS reprinted with new dialogue in The Complete C&H. The original can be found in The Tenth Anniversary book, along with Watterson's commentary about the controversy that followed its publication. The very first balloon, spoken by Calvin, was originally "Mom, was I adopted?" and has been changed to "Mom, was I genetically engineered or cloned?" --JohnDBuell | Talk 03:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

What? Two strips referencing adoption have been edited because one caused a controversy? That's ridiculous. Since I don't have my C&H books here and I'm not sure I even own 10th, can you tell us more about it? Maybe it merits inclusion in the article. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The original is found on page 43 of the Tenth Anniversary book. Original dialogue:

Calvin: Mom, was I adopted?

Mom: No, why do you ask?

C: Are you planning to put me to work in a cannery for 14 hours a day when I turn seven?

M: Of course not!

C: You're not just fattening me up to eat me, are you?

M: Good heavens, Calvin! Who put all these rediculous ideas in your head?

Last panel, Calvin is back in his bedroom with Hobbes

Calvin: That's right. "Rediculous ideas" she called them.

Hobbes: Oh, sure. You think your mom's going to tell you?

The reprint in the Complete C&H book is exact EXCEPT for the changed first sentence! --JohnDBuell | Talk 06:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Just confusion, I guess. Since we can't check the date against any books, it's hearsay. At least we've identified the strip... haven't we? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's almost certainly just confusion -- a dozen different websites, rumors, books, and whatnot will do that to even the most dedicated fans. At least I will no longer have to live without the knowledge of that bizarre iced tea strip.

Strangely, I seem to remember quite clearly that washing machine strip. Are you all sure it's never run in any of the books? --zenohockey 05:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have the complete set yet, and don't happen to have my copies of the other books on hand but I know for a fact I've seen the washing machine strip you're referring to in at least one of them. ASchmoo 12:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

There has been more than one washing machine strip... This site seems to have the deleted one. --Anomie 04:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)--Anomie 04:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason Bill Watterson has elected to change those two strips may be because he himself adopted. I once read here that Bill lives with his "wife and adopted children". This is only a fan site, and I've never seen the information confirmed anywhere, but the fact that Bill edited those two adoption strips makes me more likely to believe it is true. Still, I need solid proof before I can be sure... Mjg0503 11:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

In the Tenth Anniversary Book, he reprints the "Mom, was I adopted?" strip and comments, more or less, "Boy, did I get mail about this one. Some people thought I was maligning adoption by placing it in the same context as child labor and cannibalism. I thought the juxtaposition was ludicrous enough that no one would take it seriously, but as I've learned, some people take everything seriously" (quote approximate). Relevant? Anville 10:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

g-string

When, exactly, did the strip suggest that Calvin's mom wears a g-string? [Unsigned comment by Lord Atreyu 23:55, 25 October, 2005 (UTC)]

Many. Once, when they go camping, Calvin's Dad opens a bag and goes though the items, and one is thongs. I'm pretty sure there are more. The Republican 16:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

"Thongs" is also a term for sandals (flip-flops), which I think is by far the more likely connotation in the context of a camping trip. (The strip in question is in the Yukon Ho! collection, if anyone wants to read it for themselves.) I don't know where The Republican gets the idea that g-strings are mentioned at all, let alone "many" times. Alanyst 20:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur with your interpretation of that strip, and since it's the only one I can recall even using the word "thong" (my memory is pretty darn good for comic strips, though not for people), I zapped the sentence. Anville 13:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Pardon the question, but what exactly is a g-string? I've never heard the word before now. Scorpionman 02:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

A "g-string", also known as a "thong bikini" is a type of underwear. Go to any mall in America, and you are sure to see some 16-year old girl wearing one. I think that Watterson is refering to sandals though. I work in a shoe store, and I use the word "thongs" for sandals all the time.Wastelandsw 24:48, 26 November 2005

Index anyone?

Does anyone have an index to C&H strips and books? For example, if I like to look up all the strips about snowmen, I would need either the date, or the book title and page number etc. It would be ideally if all the words in the dialog in the strips are also searchable. I found an index on the web at [3] It was great work to index the content of each book. However, the indexes are organized by books. i.e. if you want to look up a topic, you have to look through all the indexes. A combined index would make the search much easier. Also it would be nice if the index would also show the date of the strips so that it would be useful on the new 3 volume book set. 67.170.239.52 08:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

search dialog by text, project still in progress

References and allusions

I've started a References to Calvin and Hobbes page, where we can compile stuff like the "Hobbes is Tyler Durden" Metaphilm article, allusions in other comic strips, et cetera. Hopefully this will help keep the cruft level down. Anville 14:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The Death of Hobbes?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v120/LadyMalchav/ONOES.jpg

Does this comic represent the death of Hobbes? Calvin working diligently on schoolwork, taking pills to make him how his parents want him, not paying attention to Hobbes...and, in the final panel, Hobbes reverts to his doll form. Could this mean that Calvin 'grew out' of Hobbes, and thus Hobbes 'died'?

Was this the last Calvin and Hobbes comic ever made? If not, then what was?

This is fan art; my guess is that somebody scanned in some strips and did a copy-and-paste job. The font in the word balloons is noticably different from Watterson's lettering, you'll notice. I've come across this particular one before; you can see another version here. The last genuine strip is, as the article says, the Sunday strip which ends, "Let's go exploring!" Anville 10:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Anybody could tell that this strip wasn't written by Watterson. Even the art doesn't look like his. It looks like plagarism to me! Scorpionman 02:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Um... Actually, the art itself looks very like Watterson's. It should, since it's a direct copy of a frame I could identify if I had my library with me. My personal guess would be that whoever put it together used one of the strips where Calvin complains about his math homework. "These two numbers are in mortal combat. . . one of them will be subtracted, but how? What will be left of him?" or something roughly like that. The other possibility is the strip where Calvin declares math to be a religion — "As a math atheist, I should be excused from this." It's the position of his hands: look carefully at his right hand in the second and fourth frames, and you can see that the pencil has been drawn in, using a different line thickness than Watterson's own drawings. I'm pretty sure that hand position drawn while Calvin is sitting at his desk only occurs once, in one of the math strips I mentioned; I just can't remember which one. Anville 19:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

True, I was about to change my comment above. The art is of couse Watterson's, but the strip wasn't done by him. I think it's really stupid, though. Calvin taking pills so that he will be perfect; completely not what Watterson would do, nor would he approve of. If he saw the strip, he would probably heavily denegrate it. Scorpionman 03:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

At one point, Calvin does say, "I wish I could just take a pill to be perfect and push a button to get anything I want. . . Why should I have to work for everything? It's like saying I don't deserve it!" It's in the Tenth Anniversary Book, I believe. But the "joke" here is that Calvin's parents have put him on Ritalin, and thus all his wonderful fantasies go away. Yes?

And while we're at it, you might like to compare that little copy-and-paste job with Frank Ahrens's article "So Long, Kid: An Obituary for a Kid, His Tiger and Our Innocence", which first appeared in the Washington Post on 19 November 1995, available online at the Derkins Library. Anville 11:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It's very obviously fan art - the stuffed Hobbes in the final panel is angled wrong, probably because they couldn't get a good drawing of Hobbes for that pose. The critique is powerful enough - though really nothing that hasn't been done with dozens of other children's worlds. But yeah - ultimately nonnotable. Phil Sandifer 18:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is especially strong because it was always Calvin who flew off the deepend and Hobbes was often the rational one. Hobbes becoming a stuffed animal along side Calvin shows a complete shift in Calvin's world view which has forced him to adopt the view of the adults around him and has changed the very core of who he is. - 24.7.186.22 06:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I found the author of this "remix": Jordan Fish, in the Wesleyan Argus. Ashibaka tock 20:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Anville 20:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Bill Watterson's Address

Does anyone know where Watterson currently lives? I heard that he has recently moved from Chagrin.

Safari Al

OK. I'd like to hear a discussion on this. First, am I correct in saying that "Safari Al" appears once, exactly once, namely on page 76 of The Essential Calvin and Hobbes? Second, given that, and given that the FARC discussed above resulted in a consensus against single-strip gags, does Safari Al really need to be in the "Alter Egos" list?

I put the article Safari Al — yes, an anon took the trouble to make one — up for deletion. The consensus forming there is to merge it back here; however, what is there really to merge? The fact that Calvin owns a safari hat? Anville 11:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes Day

Can anybody add something to the article about Calvin and Hobbes Day? (November 18) I read something about it in the Nov. 18 article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.223.90.109 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 6 December 2005.

Other than that there's no such thing, and that YOU added the reference to November 18 your own self, Mr. 69.223.90.109 (talk · contribs), no, not really. --Calton | Talk 15:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

For everyone's entertainment, see "A Boy, His Tiger, and Their World" by Vanessa Farquharson (Toronto National Post, 18 November 2005):

To celebrate what is now officially Calvin and Hobbes Day -- at least according to Wikipedia and numerous on-line sources -- bookstores are promoting the recently published anthology, The Complete Calvin and Hobbes (Andrews McMeel, $200), an already best-selling collection that, in hardback, comes in at three volumes, 23 pounds and 1440 pages.

Well, the price is wrong by US$50, but at least we got to see an example of how putting something on the WP can make it more respectable than it deserves. Some other statistics later in the article look like they came from this page, too, though I can't be sure. Oh, yeah, and The Onion A.V. Club's "Surprisingly Specific Holiday Gift Guide" lists The Complete C&H under "For People Who Feel A Pang Of Loss Every Time They Pick Up The Sunday Funnies". I quote some excerpts:

Few comic strips deserve the kind of lavish-edition treatment more commonly bestowed on dictionaries and the Bible, but Bill Watterson's Calvin And Hobbes is just as useful and inspired as any reference book or scripture, and it's utterly worthy of this massive slipcased three-volume set. [...] Like Charles Schulz's Peanuts, Watterson's strip is often remembered as sweeter and more gag-oriented than it actually was, but he actually tried to capture the truth of childhood through triangulation, by considering Calvin as a simultaneous fount of boyhood imagination, example of his generation's insufferable egotism, and exhausted observer of soul-killing conformity. All that, and Calvin And Hobbes was also the best-drawn, most consistently funny part of the comics page for a whole miraculous decade.

Best, Anville 16:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Comic Stubs

I'm tired of all these insignificant comic stubs articles. Are Calvin's alter egos really that important to have their own articles?--FelineFanatic13 16:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Why heck yes! The are main charachters in the comic and need there own article

Simplifying this page

I feel this article could be greatly streamlined by cutting out the "Supporting Characters" and "Recurring Themes" sections and putting them on their own pages. The section headings could be kept, with only a link to their pages beneath them. That way, if the reader would like to learn about the numerous supporting characters, they can. As of now, this article is dauntingly large. -- Simpatico 12:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, one person suggests splitting this page up, and another wants to merge Calvin and Hobbes in translation back in.... My thoughts:

Keep the translation stuff in a sub-article, the way it is now. It's simply too peripheral.
Keep most of "Recurring Themes" where it is, since that's a big chunk of what the strip is about.
Move "Calvin's alter-egos" to its own article, and merge Stupendous Man, Spaceman Spiff and Tracer Bullet into that, to give it a little meat.

Anville 20:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO, a lot of the so-called "recurring themes" are not so much significant themes as recurring subject matter. Mealtimes? School and homework? Are these really themes? And if we are including those, why aren't we including things like Television-watching, Sports (football, baseball, croquet, etc), and Bath-time? This list of "themes" could go on and on til it covered everything C&H ever did. The only true theme on there is "Distorted reality." The Wagon/sled philosophical discussions might be considered a kind of theme, because it was so often used, but that's still stretching it.

Things like cardboard boxes, Snowmen/snowballs, G.R.O.S.S., etc, need to be addressed in the article, but not in the context of themes. Perhaps they could be taken out and put in an article detailing the subject matter of the strip. Perhaps this could even be grouped with Calvin's alter-egos and minor characters. These could be discussed in the context of various major storylines as well as oft-recurring storylines. I don't know if this is a good idea or not, I'm just not liking the way this stuff is presented right now. -- Simpatico 07:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Content to be merged here

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracer Bullet, the text from the history at Tracer Bullet should be merged here. Said text can be found here. I'll leave this task to somebody familiar with the subject. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 20:41, Dec. 27, 2005

Well, I reworked the TB description to include all the information from the old page, so the content is pretty much merged. Hope that's the right way to do this. -- Simpatico 03:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"Pete" the Barber?

Didn't this character only appear in one strip? And did he even have any lines? He surely isn't a "character" in terms of having a personality. Is he really notable? -- Simpatico 08:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

From what I've said before upon many occasions, one can easily anticipate my answer: no. More precisely, he appears in two strips (printed on successive days) and has a few lines of dialogue. This is far from enough to warrant his inclusion here. Anville 19:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Cardboard box

Clavin has often used a cardboard box to pretend to be a robot.

Proposed merge from Weirdoes from another planet

It has been suggested that Weirdoes from another planet be merged into this article. The article has been tagged since 13 November 2005. I'm just bringing this to your attention, I don't really have an opinion either way. Please post any comments on the proposal here. - N (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

We could condense all the useful information from that article into a single sentence in this one. That single sentence may already exist; I need to reread this article to make sure we wouldn't be needlessly duplicating content. Anville 20:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Plus, "Weirdos" is spelled wrong, which is really bothersome to both C&H fans and spelling fans. -- Simpatico 06:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems a bit random to have an article about 1 loose book. Considering the article is actually just a stub, I'm for the merger as well. (It seems the article has been renamed (moved) to Weirdos From Another Planet! by now. Retodon8 03:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Jumping on the 'merge it' bandwagon. Technogeek 05:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've done the merge/redirect. I'll leave you guys to do what you want with the text.. - N (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Spaceman Spiff

Why this can't be merged simple: Spiff's importance exceeds that of every charachter exept calvin and hobbes. _{[Unsigned comment by PopiethePopester (talk · contribs). I am assuming this is a response to the merge tag on the Spaceman Spiff article, so I have formatted it appropriately - N (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)}
Merging would make sense if the Calvin and Hobbes article were small. Instead, it's huge as most Wikipedia articles go. It would make better sense to break it up. --AlainV 04:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC) _{[copied from Talk:Spaceman Spiff - N (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)]}
This tag was added on 13 December 2005, before the article survived an AfD. This one does look better suited to having its own article, being a central character. Any comments? - N (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it until the end of the week and if there are no objections, I'll remove this tag.. - N (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As per the various discussions going on in different parts of this page, I decided to "be bold" and move Spaceman Spiff's biography into the secondary characters page. If that article grows too big, we could split it up again, but I think the only things which could make it grow that much are original research and cruft anyway. Anville 07:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. —simpatico ^hi 05:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

C&H disambiguation

I searched for C&H, the sugar company, and I was redirected here. I think this redirect instead should be a disambiguation page, but I don't know where to find the C&H article... If I find it myself, I'll make the disambiguation myself. - Gilgamesh 22:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"cookie incident"

Another argument for Hobbes' reality is the "cookie incident", when he is taken by a dog and Calvin finds him at one of Susie's tea parties. Someone ate all the cookies, but it cannot be Calvin.

I can't at all agree with this being an example of Hobbes' affecting things beyond Calvin's capabilities.
Suzie's shout about where the cookies have all gone immediately follows her musing to Mr. Bun that, for once, Calvin was a gentleman. Obviously the cookies being gone is evidence that -- even busy being grateful for her having found Hobbes -- Calvin's never one to miss an opportunity to commit mischief against Suzie, or to pass up cookies for that matter.
I dunno. Just seems pretty obvious that that's the joke, and it's not one of the mysterious Hobbes' Reality bits.
JTannus 09:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

G.R.O.S.S. "redundant"?

From the article:

The name is an acronym that stands for Get Rid Of Slimy girlS (which Calvin admits is a bit redundant, "but otherwise it doesn't spell anything").

How is that redundant? I don't think the word is being used properly here. Is this something Calvin himself said? Am I just not understanding it? "Redundant" was changed to "contrived" a while back, which makes more sense, but now it's back to "redundant." Please explain? -- simpatico ^hi 03:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I seem to recall that Calvin himself used the word "redundant" in describing it... I suspect he meant that "slimy girls" is redundant, rather than commenting on the contrived formation of his acronym. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure of it. That's what he said. "Redundant" .--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, after I posted this, ironically I came across the actual stip where he says it's redundant (on page 111 of Book 2 of the Complete C&H). And he was refering to "slimy girls" not the acronym. I'll clarify that in the article. — simpatico ^hi 09:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Mjg0503 - Comics Journal quote

Mjg0503, ~~do you have citation information for that animation quote you added (author, volume number, etc)? We could add that to the references.~~ Nevermind, I see it's already in the references - will cite in text. Also, I trimmed down the quote you added so it wasn't so long and rewrote a little of it so it would be more streamlined. I took out the links you added because they didn't add anything substantial—see Wikipedia:External links. Nothing personal... :) — simpatico ^hi 07:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for formatting that for me. I'm new to this :). I added back a small portion of Bill's quote, just because I thought it was important. I didn't add the whole thing back though. Mjg0503 17:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's good. :) — simpatico ^hi 19:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Merging Duplicator into Section: Cardboard Boxes

There's really not much on the Duplicator page that isn't in the main C&H article already. Because Duplicators are exclusive to the C&H universe (unlike the Transmogrifier), it doesn't really need it's own page. Thoughts? — simpatico ^hi 18:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It really should be moved back here. It is essentially a stub, and it's all about Calvin and Hobbes basically.

Mjg0503 22:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

I think it would be a good idea to merge *Secondary Characters in Calvin and Hobbes with this. It is basically a copied version of the Calvin's alter egos section, except it includes deescriptions of them. One thing I think this article is missing is better info on Calvin's Alter Egos, which is basically all that page has. It is a very small article, and I really don't see a need for a separate article about it. Just include it here so it will flow better. :)

Mjg0503 19:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

We just moved the Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes out of this article, because this article was too long. If you ask me, it's still too long; we need to summarize the "Recurring subject matter" and maybe farm out the details to their own subsidiary article. Anville 10:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)what?

But what makes this article great is the fact that it is so long and has so much great information. Why would you want to condense it? We'd just be making it worse!

Mjg0503 22:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to lose information; I want to be able to find the information that's already here. Having a main article as a summary and "daughter" articles for specific sub-topics is a reasonable way to do this. In addition to saving the trouble of scrolling past too much text, it helps avoid technical issues like long page load times. An encyclopaedia article is not a random dumping ground for trivia. Countless times, I've seen good articles overwhelmed by "cruft": bits and pieces added one at a time by well-meaning editors which taken individually are nothing, but taken together drown the signal under massive quantities of noise. It happened here (see the Featured Article Removal debate); it happened at Schrödinger's cat and Christmas and Cyberpunk. Here, we made References to Calvin and Hobbes, Setting of Calvin and Hobbes and Calvin and Hobbes in translation. All of those pages have information which I don't want to give up, but I don't want it crowding the basic essentials we record here. In the other cases, people decided to split off important but secondary information to make Schrödinger's cat in fiction, List of cyberpunk works and so on. This is how we keep articles usable—maybe not the best way, but it works. Anville 15:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree that moving Setting of Calvin and Hobbes, Calvin and Hobbes in translation, and References to Calvin and Hobbes to their own articles, but that is because they have enough information to make an entire article out of. Frankly, I can't see how Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes is not a stub. It is copied exactly from here, except for descriptions of the alter egos, and minor characters, which are all very brief. I really don't want to give up that information, but I don't think it makes sense to put it into its own article, and we should just move it on back here. I consider Calvin's Alter Egos to be in th "essential basics" category. This is just my personal opinion :).

Mjg0503 22:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I merged Spaceman Spiff's article into the Secondary characters page. Anville 07:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)