Talk:Goofy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Original reserach

I removed:

In the Goof Troop products, Goofy came across to some (and might have been deliberately portrayed) as completely brainless rather than as endearingly silly -- note his performance as a mime where he was mistaken as an alien. He could easily have spoken and set matters straight instead of being carried off by the armed forces.

Please read Wikipedia policy regarding original research. — Amcaja 21:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

About Max Goof

How was Max Goof born? However, Goofy did not really adopt Max from another family. --PJ Pete

As far as anyone has been able to say on this page, there is no official answer. A guy claimed here a few weeks ago that Disney says that Clarabelle Cow is the mother, but he could never provide any proof. It's really not all that important for Wikipedia to worry itself with, though; we should be talking about Goofy (and Max) as a fictional character, not a real person. -- Amcaja 04:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Max is Goofy's son. Goofy is married to his wife, who is a human woman. Please see the 1951 short "Cold War" for when they were dating, "Get Rich Quick" after marriage, "Fathers are People", max is born, and the 1953 short "Father's Day off" for a better picture of his wife. --[Someguywriting his thesis]

Nephew?

What happened with Goofy's nephew, Gilbert? Shouldn't he at least be mentioned in the article? Raystorm 14:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Who? — Amcaja 09:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on, don't tell me you never read a story with both Goofy and his nephew Gilbert! :) He was this know-it-all smart mini version of Goofy. Wore glasses. Gilbert also transformed into Super Goof, ever read those adventures? Raystorm 21:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts

A long, detailed discussion of a scene from one video game is hardly worth including in an article on a cartoon character who transcends any one work; therefore, I removed it. — Amcaja 20:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't too much trouble, could someone use this picture for Goofy as his KH picture? I believe that official artwork of Goofy in that outfit is more fitting than a 3D character model: http://www.kh2.co.uk/assets/kh/artwork/030.jpg NeoSeifer

The discussion showed up again, but I think I see what the author's trying to do. I trimmed the whole section down to put the focus more on Goofy and less on the game. Meanwhile, could someone who knows the game better than I do clarify the term "selectively perceptive"? — Urocyon 19:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Relation to Pluto

They are both dawgs.

Interesting thing there. I read some time ago that Goofy's actually a horse. AndyB 21:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In the movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" Goofy describes himself as a dog. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Martin.

Goofy's Lastname

"but in A Goofy Movie, it's said to be Goofy Goofey"

I dont know where that came from, but it's untrue. In my recording of "The Phonecall", Principal Mazur clearly calls him Mr. Goof twice. I'll change the article until proved otherwise. --Drnilescrane 11:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

In an early cartoon, his surname was Walker. (I remember that as it was the surname of my geography teacher). However, he was a pedestrian in that episode, and Goofy was being an "everyman", so it is possible that, if in a follow up cartoon he was in a car his surname could have been "driver". TimothyJacobson (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Contradicting my above posting however, the flick cards that come with PGTips (yes, I collect them) did a series on Disney Characters, where it said that Goofy was the only character that DIDN'T have a surnamed, and Pluto's surname was/is PUP.TimothyJacobson (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

---

keep an eye on people who are inserting fake random "realnames" for goofy in order to make fun of somebody they know, i reverted the edit. google doesnt give me a single hit for "goofy neufeld". -- Paniq 23:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is there any other history on the word goofy besides the Walt Disney character? - Beans

From www.etymonline.com: "goof"

1916, Amer.Eng., "stupid person," perhaps a variant of Eng. dial. goff "foolish clown" (1869), from 16c. goffe, probably from M.Fr. goffe "awkward, stupid," of uncertain origin. Or Eng. goffe may be from M.E. goffen "speak in a frivolous manner," possibly from O.E. gegaf "buffoonery," and gaffetung "scolding." Sense of "a blunder" is c.1954, probably infl. by gaffe. The verbal meaning "waste time" is 1932; the verb meaning "make a mistake" is from 1941. Goof off "loaf" is also from 1941. Adj. goofy is attested from 1921. The Disney character of that name began life as Dippy Dawg c.1932 ( in Mickey's Revue ). Goofball "narcotic" is from 1938; as an intensive of goof, it dates from 1959.

Infobox: some infos not shown + Arizona Goof

Hello everyobody.
Well... does anyone know why some items of the infobox are not shown? After "aliases" there should be "relatives", "friends" and "rivals" (check by editing the article)... but I can't see them (under both IE and Firefox).
Do you think we can add (I suggest near Gilbert Goof) a line about Goofy's cousin Arizona Goof (created by Italian Disney writers, check it:Indiana Pipps)? Bye! --151.38.18.125 09:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now translated fi:Indiana Hopo as Indiana Goof. JIP | Talk 16:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Incomprehensible sentence

From the article:

Contemporary sources, show A Goofy Movie, now give the character's full name to be Goofy Goof.

I can't parse this sentence. what does it mean? JIP | Talk 16:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I give up

Numerous times tweo cartoons have been added; How to Ride A Horse and El Gaucho Goofy, segments from The Reluctant Dragon and Saludos Amigos. For some reason, one or both of these are removed from time to time, and if not the titles are removed, then the information about which movies then appears in is. Also, it assumed that it was the year they were released theatrically as a solo cartoon that counted, not when they first appeared in a feature. Information about this has also been added, but again, removed without explanation or anything. 80.202.40.85 (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

What is the meaning (or source) of the alternate name "scott" on the first goofy image? And the name "kyky morv" shown on the black and white one? Since those names aren't mentioned in the article, it makes me think they could have been inserted by a vandal. --164.77.106.50 01:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the sentence "He is an anthropomorphic Cow fridge-werewolf, and is one of Snowflake's best friends." looks like vandalism also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.53.49.244 (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Later apperances

In addition to the brief role in Roger Rabbit & other cameos, he also was in Mickey's Christmas Carol (1983) as the ghost of Jacob Marley. This info should be added by an editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.71.137 (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion! Feel free to add it yourself, friend; you're just as much an editor as the rest of us are. Powers ^T 15:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

First apper

In Kingdom Hearths 2 why say Goofy First apper in the Two Week Vacation?User talk:Chiro9 —Preceding undated comment added 11:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC).

Observation

Goofy IS NOT a dog, he is a Australian dingo, a relative of the dogs! The dogs NOT HAVE tusks; and have tails; OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.215.140 (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Goofy is a CARTHORSE in WW2 era cartoons he is called a CARTHORSE by the narrator. Theladfromtheeast (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Dippy the Goof

I saw an early Mickey Mouse board game on an antique appraisal show, on the box it had Goofy named Dippy the Goof, has anyone else ever saw this game?98.225.54.141 (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarabelle Cow?

Please provide a source for the fact that Max Goof's mother is Clarabelle Cow. The fact that Disney would have any official explanation for this conundrum sounds extremely farfetched, and this particular answer is even moreso. First, it implies that Goofy had sexual intercourse, second it implies that he had it with a cow. I refuse to believe this until a print source is provided. — Amcaja 11:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The mere fact that Goofy has a son implies that he had sexual intercourse, not the fact that the son has a mother. I will work on finding you some printed verification that is allowed to be released to the public. All I have access to currently is what can be found in WDW's training manuals, which are proprietary, and can't be released or copied. We had this information verified by Walt Disney Imagineering back in 1999, and it is part of WDW Entertainment Cast Member training. There are millions of factoids about all the characters that aren't publicly available. Imagineering has full bios of all the characters, which includes more info that you would ever imagine. There's a reason people who work for the company know more about the characters than anyone else. Like I said, I'll work on finding you some more verification. - DippyDawg1932

Okay, thanks. But until this is verfied, I'm removing it again. (Plus some random user keeps changing it to "Penny" something or another.) We need a definitive citation one way or another. I do like the way you phrased things though ("According to Disney Imagineering . . . ") Too often people assume there is some sort of Disney "canon", when in fact, it's best to view these characters as exactly that, characters, who have changed over time and whose internal continuity should never be a cause of worry. Goofy does what the director of the cartoon wants him to do, regardless of whether it contradicts something from a previous cartoon. — Amcaja 18:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If Clarabel Cow is with anyone it's Horace Horsecollar, not Goofy. We never hear about Max's mom. If you can infer from Goofy Movie she is also a dog like thingy.

Agreed. The two (Clarabel and Horace) are always seen together. Interesting to speculate what breed Max is thoughTimothyJacobson (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that Goofy was a part wolf too. But this is just my speculation. mice 06:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I used the "Disney Bio of Goofy" link on the main page to reach the Disney online website. I then went to the search link at the top of the page and typed in: Max Goof mother. Here is the reply--There is No definite answer! In the 1950's; Goofy and Goofy Jr. were shown on screen and in front of the camera in a series of cartoons. Goofy's wife, (Mrs. Goofy), was only heard, (and never shown), thru a off screen voice. When the tv series "Goof Troop" was aired; Goofy Jr. became Max, and his mother was never shown or heard. Disney has not identifed Max's mother, execpt for the 1950's heard, but not seen, character. I am sure it will be a while before they identify her by visuals, if they ever do. Since she has not been heard or seen since the 1950's, I would think, (since divorce is not likely for a Disney cartoon character), she must be dead. Disney cartoons can deal with death better than divorce, especially if angels are involved with the departed going to Heaven.204.80.61.10 20:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Okay, the person who referred to Goofy's having had sexual intercourse at some point just made me lose my breakfast. I'd REALLY rather not picture that assignation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.77.219 (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That last comment was even more useless than this. 84.48.123.106 (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Goofy and Pluto

Does it bother anyone that Pluto is a dog, and clearly Goofy is some sort of dog type thing, and Pluto has to sleep in a dog house (sometimes) where Goofy gets a nice comfortable bed... and a T.V.?Guitarmania 1 00:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what bothers me about a talking dog with a driver's licence...--THobern 23:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

Goofy clearly is a human with dog-like tendencies. He has never, ever been forced to wear a collar like Pluto, nor is he called upon by Mickey Mouse to fetch sticks, as Pluto has. I don't care what Disney's website says. They are part of the conspiracy. Maybe someday Goofy will be able to come out as trans-specied. We can hope, at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.77.219 (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Goofy is not human, he's a dog.

I don't know how important this is to the Goofy article, but in the movie Stand By Me , the kids had the same discussion about the "Goofy and Pluto" dilemna. I am really kind of shocked this hasn't been mentioned yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boogiebugger (talk • contribs) 05:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Goofy stands like a human (two legs), so is treated like one. Pluto stands like a dog (four legs) hence kennel etc. But I refer here only to cartoons. In the theme parks, Pluto stands on back legs and (because he is a VIP, Disney slang for a character that MUST appear at least once a day) is the only one of the "walking-on-all-fours-in-the-cartoons" characters that can do meet and greets etc because, by standing on two he is not-the-same character as in the cartoons. Phrased that badly, abd went slightly off topic, but it started off relevant...TimothyJacobson (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Chip & Dale an exception to the above? Seen them in the parks. Suppose they stood on two legs for Rescue Rangers

Goofy is "dog-like" in appearance but he was actually meant to be a moose originally. I guess the artist never saw a moose before... ---Drowz0r — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.172.209 (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I like to think of it as being similar to the relationship between humans and chimps.

Removing one sentence, validating first...

In the Goofy/Pluto section, in the paragraph listing all the references to the Goofy/Pluto conundrum, is this sentence: "In the Disney's Toontown Online event "April Toons Week, characters switch playgrounds and everything is silly. Pluto switches places with Minnie Mouse, and he speaks." This isn't an example of the goofy/pluto conundrum, just a time where Pluto is anthropomorphized--but doesn't mention Goofy. We have enough examples without stretching that far. I'm solely saying that here in case anyone wants to comment before I delete the line...--Mrcolj (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 September 2012

Please change the "species: goat" to dog in the bio section of the article at the top right of the page. It is plainly stated throughout the article that Goofy is indeed a dog, not a goat. Alive03 (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for pointing this error out. It was simple vandalism. --Onorem♠Dil 00:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 November 2012

Goofy is a Goof, a fictional character, not a dog. Walt Disney said so himself Jamrang (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

His original name was "Dippy Dog", which suggests he's a dog. The dog-like ears are kind of a clue also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Categorization request on 3 December 2012

This article is a suitable addition to these categories:

Anthropomorphic dogs Anthropomorphic animal characters

Jason (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Animal superheroes is a subcategory of Category:Anthropomorphic animal characters and I've removed Category:Animal superheroes and replaced it Category:Dog superheroes which is a subcateogry of Category:Anthropomorphic dogs. Anthropomorphic dogs & Anthropomorphic animal characters shouldn't be added as there are more specific subcategories which apply (see WP:OVERCAT). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect to see Goofy categorized as any kind of superhero. Are there criteria for that? Jason (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Goofy is killed in a Disney cartoon

I am not sure if anyone wants to add this to the article, however, there is a Disney cartoon where Goofy is killed. It's "Goofy's Extreme Sports: Shark Feeding", which aired on February 26, 2000, on episode 20 of Mickey Mouse Works. Goofy got out of a shark cage to try and feed a shark some brocolli, and the shark ate Goofy, and only his hat emerged from the mouth of the shark at the end of the cartoon. The cartoon can be found at Google/video/.com. This is an geniune Disney cartoon, but, it's one that they probably wish they had not made.204.80.61.110 (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Cartoons don't necessarily follow a continuity, meaning that in the mind of the filmmakers, Mickey Donald and Goofy are kind of like cartoon actors who can play any role and doesn't necessarily change who they are. Goofy getting killed isn't really more significant than any other human actor getting killed in a movie. All the same, feel free to add it in the appropriate place; it's an example of how the character has been used. Pigby (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The point is not of Continuity, but, the fact that Disney actually made a cartoon where one of their major characters was killed. Disney usually makes the most family friendly cartoons, where death almost never occurs. The fact that they made a cartoon where a character was killed and it's Goofy, one of the biggest fictional characters in the Disney universe, (after Mickey, Minnie and Donald), was a change of pace for the company. In other "Extreme Sports" cartoons; Goofy might be extremly injured, but, he would never be killed. I do not know of any Disney cartoon where Mickey, Minnie, Donald, Daisy, or even Pluto was killed. That seemed to be a very unique cartoon for Disney. A type of cartoon, they had not made before, and are not likely to make again.204.80.61.110 (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Um, this is Disney. Assuming that a character is killed simply because he was swallowed by a shark is original research. Powers ^T 20:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

When a character is swallowed whole, (execpt for his hat), by a shark and the cartoon comes to a complete end afterwards, the character is dead. That's the only conclusion anyone who sees the cartoon can arrive at. There was no followup cartoon to explain in anyway whatsoever how Goofy could have escaped from the shark after being swallowed. It was a unique Disney cartoon and Goofy was killed by the shark in Extreme Sports: Sharkfeeding.204.80.61.110 (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Bennnett Turk

That's your conclusion. The Disney conclusion would be more akin to what Pigby said. Shark swallows Goofy, credits roll, director yells "Cut!" and Goofy and the shark share a latte in the studio commissary to celebrate a job well done. But, if it makes you feel better, Goofy is apparently alive and well and teaching us how to set up a home entertainment system, to say nothing of greeting millions of guests at Disney parks worldwide. --McDoobAU93 22:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The OP needs to watch Who Framed Roger Rabbit and he'll learn that cartoon characters are actors playing different roles. They don't actually get killed. And if he thinks implying Goofy got eaten is a horrible thing, maybe he's never seen any of the old Mickey Mouse Club shows of the 1950s, where Donald would bang a gong and all kinds of violent things would happen to him, including once when he was hit by a huge jolt of electricity that lit up his skeleton. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That movie also makes it clear that the only thing that can kill a toon is "dip" (dissolves their paint). Even when a character's ghost leaves its body, playing a harp, it isn't dead. A "laughed to death" cartoon weasel can still pull levers on dip cannons as well as any "living" weasel. But a dipped toon is dead, period. If this shark had dip in its digestive tract, yes, Goofy would be finished. But the cartoon shark would have melted first, so that's clearly not the case. It is pretty sad to hear he lost his hat, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Goofy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131205163943/http://www.nbc.com/30-rock/video/goofy-pluto/1385613/ to http://www.nbc.com/30-rock/video/goofy-pluto/1385613

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Species vandalism

What is an "Anthropomorphic spanos"? I think this is more vandalism to the species section of the bio box. Tim D. Williamson^yakkety-yak 18:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Repeat vandalism

So, how do we know when an article has reached the 5% threshold to warrant semi-protection? This article seems to be a popular target. - Tim D. Williamson ^yak-yak 01:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Goofy. 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/20081204045016/http://www.cartoonbrew.com/events/report-from-ottawa to http://www.cartoonbrew.com/events/report-from-ottawa

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Goofy's creator

It is mentioned on the top that Goofy was created by Walt Disney and Frank Webb but on the background section it says Art Babbit is credited with creating the character and the aforementioned Frank Webb did the original concept drawings Bob3458 (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2017

Disneycow777 (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 22:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2017

In the How to... series section here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goofy#The_How_to..._series, there were several mistakes I spotted in there. At the begin, it says Colvig left Disney in 1938, but he actually left Disney in 1939 after he voiced Pluto for the last time in 1939, the 1938 info in the info character box is right, him voicing Goofy in 1938 for the last time is correct. Lastly, it says he returned to Disney in 1944, it was actually 1941 he return to Disney, 1941 is when he resume voicing Pluto, and he didn't resume the role of Goofy until 1944. So the 1944 info in the info box can be left the way it because it's correct, It's just those two errors that needs to be fixed in their. Hope this makes sense to the person that will fix it, I'm trying not to confuse anyone. 174.192.3.227 (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The fate of Goofy's wife in Goof Troop.

In the Background section of this article is written the following: "Goofy's (unnamed) wife has appeared—but always with her face unseen—in 1950s-produced cartoon shorts depicting the character as a "family man". Goofy's wife dies later on and Goofy states to his son Max in "Goof Troop," "She's up there with the stars" so his modern day appearances portray Goofy as a widower." The specific notion Goofy's wife/Max's mother having been said to have died is simply not true. I just finished binge-watching the entire Goof Troop cartoon, including the Christmas special, as well as A Goofy Movie, An Extremely Goofy Movie, and the Goofy/Max portion of Mickey's Once Upon Christmas, and the subject of Goofy's wife/Max's mother is never once mentioned in any these, meaning the "She's up there with the stars" line is never spoken by Goofy or anyone in Goof Troop. Goofy is presented in all of these as simply a single father without any explanation or implication as to the fate or whereabouts of Max's biological mother. Furthermore, this archived FAQ from Disney's Guest Services officially declared there to be "no definitive answer" to the fate or whereabouts of Goofy's wife/Max's mother, meaning that any and all claims of her having died originate from unofficial speculation and presumption. Please change the line of "Goofy's (unnamed) wife has appeared—but always with her face unseen—in 1950s-produced cartoon shorts depicting the character as a "family man". Goofy's wife dies later on and Goofy states to his son Max in "Goof Troop," "She's up there with the stars" so his modern day appearances portray Goofy as a widower." to "Goofy's (unnamed) wife has appeared - but always with her face unseen - in 1950's-produced cartoon shorts depicting the character as a "family man", but his modern appearances portray Goofy as a single father." --75.115.40.71 (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I note that the content you're objecting to is also unsourced. I have added a "citation needed" tag, but it's subject to removal if it remains unsourced. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The cartoon itself is readily available online. In no episode does Goofy make any statement about Max's mother or her fate. The original edits that specifically claimed Goofy's wife/Max's mother to have died prior to Goof Troop were made by some anonymous users without any citation beyond "the cartoon said so", when the cartoon never mentioned her at all. Whereas it absolutely portrayed Goofy as a single father. --75.115.40.71 (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, this archived FAQ from Disney's Guest Services officially declared there to be "no definitive answer" to the fate or whereabouts of Goofy's wife/Max's mother. --75.115.40.71 (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm reopening the edit request to allow other editors to take a look. My inclination is simply to remove the content, but I'll leave it for now. My suggestion would be that you make a very specific request (as it says in the edit request instructions) of change X to Y, and include any source(s) you propose to cite. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe I've made the necessary edits to my original request per your instructions. Did I do it right? --75.115.40.71 (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 00:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2017

The Pinto Colvig info in the infobox needs to be changed, he actually returned in "1940" and resumed the role until "1965", so "1944" in the infobox needs to be changed to "1940", as "1940–65". And the "How To series" info of him returning to Disney should be changed to "1940", also the other info in the infobox of "1932–38" can be leaved the way it is, because that part is correct. 174.192.10.210 (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources say he return in 1940 in the Billposters cartoon: https://books.google.com/books?id=e1RTP8thtR0C&pg=PA3&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false, keep scrolling down and it will say it on page 248.174.192.29.85 (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2017

The Pinto Colvig info in the infobox needs to be changed, he actually returned in "1940" in the Billposters cartoon and resumed the role until "1965", so "1944" in the infobox needs to be changed to "1940", as "1940–65". And the "How To series" info of him returning to Disney should be changed to "1940", also the other info in the infobox of "1932–38" can be leaved the way it is, because that part is correct. 174.192.29.85 (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources say he return in 1940 in the Billposters cartoon: https://books.google.com/books?id=e1RTP8thtR0C&pg=PA3&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false, keep scrolling down and it will say it on page 248.174.192.29.85 (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 00:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Goofy. 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/20120215140838/http://www.cartoonbrew.com/advertising/checkin-in-with-goofy.html to http://www.cartoonbrew.com/advertising/checkin-in-with-goofy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150313131713/http://users.cwnet.com/xephyr/rich/dzone/hoozoo/glorybee.html to http://users.cwnet.com/xephyr/rich/dzone/hoozoo/glorybee.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Species

I removed "Dog" from his species entry in the infobox. I was unable to find any reputable third-party source verifying him unambiguously as a dog. This source goes out of its way to point out that a 1930s memo at Disney clearly stated him not to be a dog. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

That sounds good, but FWIW the article still uses the word "dog" referring to Goofy quite a few times, and the section "Confusion concerning Goofy and Pluto" (tagged as original research) compares how they allegedly are both dogs, too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Carrero: Fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Bloodhound

For heaven's sake, people, Goofy is a Bloodhound. Take one look at this lovable breed, and you will have no doubts any longer. The comical face of the Bloodhound, with his mournful eyes, long pendent ears, and long muzzle with a large black nose, are emphasized all the more, when set off against his clumsy gait and wonderful personality. He is continuously led by his nose; he has, in fact, been aptly described as "a dog walking behind a nose." So you have the comical effect of a serious working dog, with an extraordinarily keen sense of smell and tracking instinct, set off against his comical appearance and demeanor. Look at a Bloodound, and you will have no more doubts as to whence the inspiration for this character originated. 66.108.4.183 05:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Nash's Companion Allen Roth

Now, someone with more b*lls than myself, or more familiarity with the animated character (I know little about the character, but it is just crystal clear that he is based on the Bloodhound), please insert a comment somewhere appropriate in the body of the article regarding the Bloodhound. Thanks. 66.108.4.183 06:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Same as Pluto! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:CB00:4310:5D47:7CDF:92EF:E1EA (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Goof Holler

If you follow the Goofy holler link, it has George Johnson as the artist that recorded this sound effect.

So...who's the real artist? That mistake can't be corrected if it isn't confirmed which is right and which is wrong. Yengkit19 16:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Added a comment to the Goofy Holler that the effect appears in a Tale Spin episode ("The Road to Macadamia"). It's one of the few Disney TV Animation shows that I know of (Goof Troop notwithstanding) that uses the holler. Wxkat (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

holler. est. 1940/41. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:CB00:4310:5D47:7CDF:92EF:E1EA (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

"Pinto Colvig, who was a man of primarily one voice . . ." This is a harsh and pointless assessment of the talent that gave us the voices of Bluto and Gabby, among others. Would it bother anyone if I deleted the "one voice" part? Ragoon (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. In fact, that whole sentence was a completely uncited, seemingly OR / POV claim.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Today's edits

This edit appears to be WP:SYNTH analysis combined with OR observations. I have reverted it and in the edit summary noted that this should be discussed on the talk page first, for those reasons. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

That was not SYNTH or OR: I simply added a disclaimer to warn the reader that the cited source fails a basic fact checking, getting obvious things wrong like a character name, a publication date, and mixing a concept introduced in a 2002 TV episode with something from the original comic. I guess replacing that source with another one would have been better. Beside that, I think it was really unfair to rollback all of today's edits I made. I'll try to explain them below, since there is much more space than in an edit summary:

• "George G. Goof": I had removed it because that was an OR, combining the name of the character he played in the 1950s, George G. Geef, with the surname Goof from the Goof Troop.
• "Mrs. Goof/Mrs. Geef": no point in keeping a character with no given name, especially since the template assumes, without a source, that Mrs. Goof and Mrs. Geef are the same person.
• Do we really need the names of 19 relatives in the template, most of which are one-shot, with people continuously adding more names? Other pages have a rule that only a character with an article can be mentioned in a template, but I wasn't that strict and so I kept the recurring characters, even though they don't have an article. A running gag in Goofy's comics is that he has countless relatives, so if we want to add every one-shot relative ever mentioned in either comics or animation we could easily end up with hundreds of names. Plus, what's the point of listing "His mother" without even a name?
• The short How to Play Football wasn't in italics and wasn't linked in the incipit, how come I was reverted even though I had fixed that? Now the mistake is back on the page again.
• "In his 50s persona, Goofy was called George Geef, or G. G. Geef": redundant. It's simpler to say that he was called George G. Geef.
• "implying that "Goofy" was merely a nickname": that is POV, not the fact that I removed this.
• "In Goofy Gymnastics (1949) he fills out a coupon, leaving the "Name" field blank but writing James Boyd in the "Address" field. James Boyd was the name of a Disney staffer who worked on the cartoon.": I think I did the right thing in removing this. First, it's not true that he leaves the "Name" field black. Second, his address is just trivia. Third, the fact that James Boyd supposedly was the name of a Disney staffer has been unsourced for almost five years.
• "give the character's full name as "Goofy" Goof, or G. G. Goof": redundant. Goofy G. Goof convey the same thing.
• Good Samaritan: I can see many young readers of this article not knowing what the expression means, so the wikilink was useful and I don't understand why it was removed.
• If the Goof Troop franchise doesn't explicitly say that he is a vidower in that continuity, then I was wrong in remembering some articles claiming that. Still, a small mistake wasn't worth a full rollback.
• I don't know why the explanation on how animation and comics differ was deleted. Max not existing in comics, excluding the few ones that took place in the Goof Troop continuity, is a very important fact, given that comics are Goofy's primary medium. I mean, he made his comics debut in 1933 and since then he has appeared in over 19,000 stories, with new comics about him coming out every week. I didn't cite a source for the Goofy of the comics being fatherless, I'll concede that, but this is because each one of those 19,000+ comics is a source. Which one of them should I link as a source? I could use all of them as a source with this chronological list of his appearances, but using 19,000 sources at once seems ridiculous.
• The article about Max says he made his last animated appearance in 2004, and I couldn't find any source that mentioned a post-2004 appearance, so what was wrong with me simply saying that his last animated appearance was in 2004?
• "Goofy lives in Mouseton in the comics and in Spoonerville in Goof Troop": the removal of this line almost seems like a vandalism, like removing the fact that Superman lives in Metropolis or Batman lives in Gotham City. But I'll assume good faith. Also, what's wrong in saying that Goofy is Mickey's sidekick in most of his comics appearances?
• "Disney showing how to draw Goofy for a group of girls in Argentina, 1941": it's better not to use "how to", since it's also the title of that section and it could be misleading. "Disney drawing Goofy..." is better. Incidentally, could it be that the image was mirrored?
• The list of the entries of the Goofy film series is so short that dividing it by decades doesn't look very good. Also, how is it that we first list appearances in films, then in television, then in films again? Wouldn't it better to move forward the television section?
• The Super Goof section was definitely improved by my edit, I am not afraid of saying that. I mean, after the rollback there's not even a mention of Bob Ogle, the man who actually wrote his first proper story. There's not even a mention of his hat, or the letters on his chest. There's no mention of how and when Gilbert discovered his identity. And there's still the misconception about meteorite radiations being in the original comic, while everyone can check the story and see it's not there, as that was an idea of the 2002 TV episode.
• "Grandpa Goofbeard": we don't need a section about a one-shot relative, since there are hundreds of them.

These are the arguments supporting my edit and, while I think the revert was unfair, I won't edit the article until we can find a consensus. --Newblackwhite (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Reading this. Give me a couple minutes.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

First, thank you for taking the time to discuss and for the admirable amount of work you did in the name of collaboration. You are an excellent Wikipedian, and I'm glad to have made your acquaintance.

The vast majority of your points, now that they're bulleted and more comprehensible than in a bulk edit, are entirely reasonable and I, for one, am certainly in consensus. I might quibble that it's worth keeping the middle initial in G.G. Goof, if that's accurate, but that's a small matter and I'll certainly go along with what you think is best.

The main issue — besides the widower thing, which I guess you've seen the discussion about, so I guess we're good —— is the footnote comments. It really is OR to state "The article contains a mistake" and that (paraphrasing and condensing) "Here are the real facts, based on my OR observations, which contradict the RS cited source." If we disagree with a cited source, the thing to do is A) find another cited source that perhaps is more current to replace it, or B) stick a "better source needed" tag next to the footnote.

Or, a third way might be this trimming of the original version combined with your additions:

The initial version of Super Goof appeared in "The Phantom Blot meets Super Goof", in The Phantom Blot #2 (Feb. 1965) by Connell (story) and Paul Murry (art). There Goofy mistakenly believes he has developed superpowers. A second version appeared as an actual superhero in the four-page story "All's Well that Ends Awful" in Donald Duck #102 (July 1965), also by Connell and Murry. The third and definitive version debuted in "The Thief of Zanzipar" in Super Goof #1 (Oct. 1965), written by Bob Ogle and drawn by Murry, in which the origin of his powers are special peanuts Goofy finds in his backyard. Gold Key Comics subsequently published a Super Goof comic-book series that for 74 issues through 1984. A handful of stories were scripted by Mark Evanier. Additional Super Goof stories (both original and reprints) appeared in Walt Disney Comics Digest. The Dynabrite comics imprint issued by Western in the late 1970s and Disney Comic Album #8 (1990) from Disney Comics contained reprints. Gemstone reprinted a Disney Studio Program story written by Evanier and drawn by Jack Bradbury as a backup in its 2006 release Return of the Blotman.

Also, this paragraph is uncited OR analysis and probably should be left out:

The comics have a marked division between the Mickey Mouse universe and the Donald Duck universe, with rare crossovers, and Goofy belongs to the former: although he is occasionally a protagonist, he most often appears as Mickey's sidekick. Goofy lives in Mouseton in the comics and in Spoonerville in Goof Troop. In comics books and strips, Goofy's closest relatives are his nephew Gilbert, his adventurer cousin Arizona Goof (original Italian name: Indiana Pipps), who is a spoof of the fictional archaeologist Indiana Jones, and his grandmother, simply called Grandma Goofy.

So basically except for one or two things we're in agreement, and I've edited two versions of the Super Goof section into one version that I think addresses all our concerns. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I want to thank you for calling me an excellent Wikipedian and for all the nice things you wrote about me.

I am glad that you said you are in consensus for most of my edit. Since you wrote "I might quibble that it's worth keeping the middle initial in G.G. Goof, if that's accurate", I'll clarify that I am not sure if the "G." middle name is accurate or not: that was already in the article before my edit. However, if we are going to keep it, I think "Goofy G. Goof" is less redundant than "Goofy Goof or G. G. Goof". That would be like saying "John F. Kennedy" instead of "John Kennedy or J. F. Kennedy".

I only noticed the discussion "The fate of Goofy's wife in Goof Troop" after making my edit, so I didn't know that was a controversial point. But the issue can be easily solved by changing "vidower" into "single father" in my proposed edit.

As for the footnoote, I don't think it's really an original research if I write (paraphrasing and condensing) "Contrary to what the cited source says, The Thief of Zanzipar doesn't mention metorite radiations". I mean, the story is there for everybody to see, it's a quick read, and anybody can see there's no mention of meteorite radiations. I even thought of contacting the author of that website to point him out the mistakes, but I saw that he died in 2012. Anyway, the issue can be easily solved by replacing that source with another one, like the Inducks link of the story in question.

As for the paragraph that you think should be left out, that is in part a slightly rewritten version of what the article already said, i.e. that there are recurring relatives in the comics such as Gilbert and Arizona Goof; perhaps the Inducks page of these characters can be used as a source.

I did add that there is a division between the Mickey Mouse universe and the Donald Duck universe in the comics, but I feel this part should stay. It may seem strange to an American audience, since Americans usually associate Disney characters with animation (where Mickey, Donald and Goofy are together most of the time), but it is a natural comment for a European audience, since Europeans usually associate Disney characters with comics (where there is a marked division between the two universes, and crossovers are rare). There are many books and articles explaining the origin of this division, though I don't have them at hand at the moment. The story goes that the division started in the second half of the 1930s when the Dsney comics were mostly composed of the Mickey Mouse newspaper strip drawn by Gottfredson and the then-recently created Donald Duck newspaper strip drawn by Taliaferro: the King Features Syndicate didn't want the same characters to appear in two differents strips that would be sold to different newspapers, so Gottfredson removed Donald from his strip and Taliaferro removed Goofy/Horace/Pluto/Clarabelle/Morty & Ferdie from his strip (he didn't remove Mickey because he was never in the strip in the first place), and the division of the universe later carried on into comic books. But regardless of when and why the division started, it's important to point out the division exists to people unfamiliar with the comics. Inducks is an implicit source for this, since it has a page for the universe Mice and the universe Ducks, not to mention Inducks has a list of every Disney comics ever published from the first one in 1930 to the most recent ones, and for each story there is a list of characters appearing in it, so it's not really OR to point out that characters associated with Mickey don't usually appear in Donald stories, and vice versa. Indeed, if it was an OR we wouldn't have two Wikipedia articles about the Mickey universe and the Donald universe, right?

Goofy being mostly Mickey's sidekick: once again, Inducks is an implicit source. Yesterday I posted here a list of the 19,000+ comics featuring Goofy, and for each one of these stories Inducks says if the protagonist is Mickey, Goofy himself, or a third character. There's no point in going over the entries of the list one by one and calculate the percentages, since it would be a virtually infinite work and it would become outdated quickly because new comics come out every week, but it's a self-evident fact that stories with Goofy as Mickey's sidekick far outnumber stories with Goofy as the main character. This leads us to another difference between animation and comics: in the comics the Mickey-Goofy duo has been a staple for the last 80 years or so, while animation has had the Mickey-Donald-Goofy trio and a few examples of the Mickey-Donald duo and the Donald-Goofy duo, but never a Mickey-Goofy duo.

"Goofy lives in Mouseton in the comics and in Spoonerville in Goof Troop": not sure how I can provide a source for Mouseton, since it has been mentioned in so many comics that it would seem POV to list a single story that references it; perhaps the wikilink in which the creation of that name is explained and sourced could be enough. I don't know about Spoonerville as I never watched Goof Troop, but I've seen it mentioned in so many articles that I don't think is a misconception, unlike the vidower thing. Perhaps one of these articles could be used as a source.

I'll wait for your opinion on my comments, but I think we are close to the point in which we can edit the article with some compromises and a little common sense. --Newblackwhite (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I'm afraid that footnote paragraph really is original research that is contradicted by a cited source. I think the two-paragraph version I wrote, incorporating existing material and your material, and removing the contentious passages, are a way around that.

Without specific citing, as you suggest obtaining from INDUCKS, the Micky-universe/Donald-universe paragraph is uncited OR analysis.

By mutual consensus, roughly 90% of your edit is going in as your wrote it. That remaining 10% is OR observation and analysis. My feeling is that compromise and consensus is the backbone of Wikipedia, and when one has consensus on 90% of one's edits, it might be collegial to accept a good-faith comment about the remaining 10%. Insisting on 100% one's way is not really conducive to constructive collaboration. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess there's no point in arguing whether that footnote is OR or not: we can simply replace that problematic source with this one, and there would be no need of a footnote anyway.

Also, instead of writing this:

The comics have a marked division between the Mickey Mouse universe and the Donald Duck universe, with rare crossovers, and Goofy belongs to the former: although he is occasionally a protagonist, he most often appears as Mickey's sidekick.

... I could write this:

In the comics, Goofy usually appears as Mickey's sidekick, though he also occasionally a protagonist.

This way, there would be no mention of the separated universes, and the claim could be sourced by this link. --Newblackwhite (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Since there were no answer in ten days, I am going to edit the article in a way that I think will meet the consensus of Tenebrae. The article can still be edited after that if there will be some objections to my version. --Newblackwhite (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I had the flu, which surely contributed to my forgetting about this. I agree with you on everything but the Super Goof edits, which I've restored to the plain-vanilla way we discussed above (and from which in a separate paragraph I trimmed OR/POV and added a couple of cite requests). --Tenebrae (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you had the flu, but I am glad that you are OK now. I am also glad that the part of my edit that you disagree with is a really small part of it. Can you tell me why do you think that the current version is better than my edit? While not perfect, I think my version was better for at least five reasons:

1) The current version uses the Toonpedia article about the character as a source even though we have determined it to be an unreliable source. In my version, the Toonpedia article had been replaced with a better source, the Inducks link of the story "All's Well that Ends Awful".

2) Since we don't have an image, I think it's important to describe what he looks like, and the S and G on his costume are an important part of his design. At the same time, we should mention how the two proto-Super Goof had a slightly different designs: a G on the chest rather than the S and G, no hat, and, in the first case, the cape was actually a sack of potatoes.

3) Since we say that nobody can recognize that Goofy and Super Goof are the same person, it is important to say that this is only true for the third and definite version of the character, while in the first version Mickey, Gyro, the Phantom Blot and the one-shot sheriff all recognized Super Goof as being Goofy with different clothes. I don't know about the second version, since I have only read the first page but don't have access to pages 2-3-4: all I know is that no other character appears in page 1, and Inducks don't list any recurring character as appearing in this story.

4) You deleted the fact that he keeps his goobers hidden under his hat, something that was established as early as his first appearance in "The Thief of Zanzipar" and that has been re-affirmed in virtually every subsequent appearance. Don't you think this info is very important for describing the character?

5) "Super Goof's secret identity is known only to his nephew Gilbert [...] On occasion, Gilbert uses the super goobers to become a superhero under the name Super Gilbert": that feels incomplete. I think we should add the fact that Gilbert didn't know his uncle's secret identity at the beginning, he only discovered it by accident in the story "The Twister Resisters" (Super Goof #5, December 1966), which is also the first story in which he became Super Gilbert.

As usual, I'll wait for the consensus to form before editing the article. Let me know about your opinion on my five points. --Newblackwhite (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Now I'm just playing catch-up with my work!

Your paragraph is based on your own personal observations; that's considered original research, and Wikipedia has a policy of no original research. We have to used citable WP:SECONDARY sources. Now, you say Toonopedia is unreliable, yet it is a much-lauded website used by mainstream media as a resource. Like any other reference it may not be perfect, but making a blanket statement that it's unreliable is simply untrue. In any event, the version currently in the article is a compromise between what you claim and what Toonopedia says: Where you and Toonopedia disagree, I've removed the statement, and have left only the parts where you agree.

Technically, we're not even supposed to do that: We can't take the word of an anonymous Wikipedian's personal observations other that of a reliable secondary source. But as I said, I've assumed good faith on your part and created a simple compromise version that takes your observations into account without contradicting anything in Wikipedia. I hope this helps clear things up.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

About Toonpedia: generally speaking, the website is reliable, and I'm fine with it being used as a source in many articles. However, no source is 100% reliable or 100% unreliable, but each source should be evalued by judging the context. To make an example: The New York Times is a reliable source in general, but if they were to publish an article tomorrow saying Newton and Einstein lived in the same period, such an article would obviously be regarded as an unreliable source despite coming from The New York Times. Or, to cite a real example instead of an imaginary one: The Guardian is a reliable source in general, but if they publish an article saying an obviously untrue fact like "Doyle's last 13 stories were published as The Return of Sherlock Holmes in 1905", then such an article cannot be regarded as a reliable source. The same is true for Toonpedia's article about Super Goof: it contains many gaffes that don't match up with the content they describe, so I don't see the reason why we should use it while the alternate source I proposed is uncontroversially reliable.

Anyway, I don't think my version as explained in those five points was really original research. It's just that in some occasions I cited in the sources in the body of the article, using expressions like "In "The Twister Resisters" (Super Goof #5, December 1966)", rather than citing them as footnotes. But a source is still a source, regardless of where it is mentioned. If we prefer to also have footnotes with external links, we can use Inducks as a source, with links like this one. Such sources would basically cover all five of my points. What do you think? --Newblackwhite (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Anything you can site to a secondary source, I'm all for. (Citing primary sources gets into questions of interpretation.) INDUCKS is a database, so I'm not sure what it has that the Grand Comics Database doesn't, but yeah, let's cite the hell out it!   :)   --Tenebrae (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Grand Comics Database, that's why I proposed Inducks instead, as I know Inducks has always been regardedd as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Of course, we can add links from both websites if you say GCD is reliable: using multiple sources instead of just a single source isn't going to hurt. Anyway, my idea is to use this as a source for everything related to "The Phantom Blot meets Super Goof", this for everything related to "All's Well that Ends Awful", this for everything related to "The Thief of Zanzipar", and this for everything related to "The Twister Resisters". These links are also an implicit source for the description of his costume. All we are left is a source for the fact that he hides his peanuts under his hats, but I think that for the moment we can close an eye on it... after all, it's not really an opinion or an original research, but something that is shown in virtually every Super Goof story. --Newblackwhite (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I'm not seeing what they specifically add that's different to what we have currently in the article. They don't have plot synopses, for example.

FYI, here are Walt Disney's The Phantom Blot #2 at the Grand Comics Database, as well as Donald Duck #102, Walt Disney Super Goof (Western, 1965 Series), and Walt Disney Super Goof #1. I would note that the comic's official title is Walt Disney Super Goof. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

What would my Inducks links add to the article? Well, I think that they would corroborate sentences like "Fact X happens in story Y". A person reading such a line could think: How do I know that story Y really exists and is not an invention of the user who wrote this? And even if it exists, where could I find the story in question so that I can verify the claim? This was, if I understood correctly, the reason you removed certain sentences, like the one saying Gilbert discovered his uncle's secret in "The Twister Resisters". By using an Inducks link, we can prove with a reliable source that the cited comics really exist, and we can also show the user a list of every single edition in every single country that printed the cited comics, because that's what Inducks has. I think we can use these sources to support "Fact X happens in story Y" even if the link doesn't specifically mention fact X. By the way, Inducks does have plot synopses of most comics, even though they are usually very short.

Now I recognize that website: I didn't remember that name, but Google often sent me there. We can also use these links as sources.

As for the title of the comic starring the character, some covers say "Walt Disney's Super Goof" and other covers say "Walt Disney Super Goof". However, the way the titles are written suggest "Walt Disney" or "Walt Disney's" is just the name of the company producing the title and not part of the title itself, just like Uncle Scrooge is not referred to as Walt Disney's Uncle Scrooge despite what we see on the cover. At least, all sources I know calling it just Super Goof. --Newblackwhite (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you point me to where at INDUCKS it says "Gilbert discovered his uncle's secret in 'The Twister Resisters'," since offhand I'm not seeing that there?

This being an encyclopedia, we use the factual, copyrighted/trademarked titles of things, and not colloquial shorthand. That's why, for example, our article on the comic strip is Brenda Starr, Reporter even though people colloquially call it Brenda Starr. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It's true that INDUCKS doesn't say Gilbert discovered his uncle's secret in 'The Twister Resisters', but we are talking about an uncontroversial fact, since that's what happens in the story. It is said in Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary that "Citations about the plot summary itself [...] may refer to the primary source—the work of fiction itself". Something similar it is said in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Plot: "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source. As Wikipedia's policy on primary sources says, "... a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge ... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary." Of course, "The Twister Resisters" is a comic and not a film, but the basic concept is the same: it is a verifiable fact that the story in question shows Gilbert discovering Super Goof's real identity, and the source is the story itself. The current version ("Super Goof's secret identity is known only to his nephew Gilbert") is incomplete and even misleading, since some readers may mistakenly assume that Gilbert has known that since day 1.

On the other hand, the INDUCKS page about "The Twister Resisters" does say, twice, that the story in question is Super Gilbert's first appearance, thus we don't even need to rely on the primary source for that. The current version ("On occasion, Gilbert uses the super goobers to become a superhero under the name Super Gilbert") is incomplete, since it doesn't even mention the title of his debut story.

I'm all for using the factual, copyrighted/trademarked title, but I have yet to see that the title is Walt Disney Super Goof rather than just Super Goof. Unfortunately, I don't own any issue of the series so I can't check which is the term used in the copyright notice, but INDUCKS says it's Super Goof, Comic Vine says it's Super Goof, and other articles I have read also say it's Super Goof. Even that controversial Toonpedia article says it's Super Goof: I would be really surprised if it turns out Super Goof is not the actual title. --Newblackwhite (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

My concerns are twofold: 1) interpretive statements based on the comic, especially claims of somethign being "first" or "official" or anything like that; and 2) fancruft overdetail about minutiae only of interest to hardcore fans and not general readers. If you can take the existing text, which I know is neutral and fact-checked, and add additional content and post it here, let's try to get a consensus on that.

Grand Comics Database, which aggregates content added by name-identified historians that is then fact-checked, bases its titles on the copyrighted title, as available in the published indicia and at the Library of Congress. At WikiProject Comics, that's the title we use. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that fancruft and minutiae should not be included in the article, but it's not clear to me what do you consider fancruft, and I also don't understand which sentences are you referring when you talk about interpretive statements.

Anyway, my previous messages mentioned this reliable source clearly saying, twice, that "The Twister Resisters" is Super Gilbert's debut story, so we can start by adding this fact to the article before moving on to the other points.

As for the copyrighted titles: images like this one show "Walt Disney SUPER GOOF" on the copyright notice. In this cases, it is widely accepted that only what is written in capital letters is part of the copyrighted title, while the part before it is just the name of the producer. Compare that page with this one, in which the copyright notice says "Walt Disney's UNCLE SCROOGE", and it's universally known and accepted that Uncle Scrooge is thee title of the comic, while what comes before it is just the name of the publisher. No source would say that "Walt Disney's Uncle Scrooge" is the copyrighted title. --Newblackwhite (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

That source does verify first Super Gilbert, so, yes, that should go in. I should note don't need my permission to add non-contentious, RS-cited facts.

It's POV to claim what is "universally known and accepted" re: the complicated area of copyright. Unless you are a copyright attorney or a law professor specializing in copyright law, I'm not sure you can say that — and that claim would still need a cite. In any event, we need to go with the accurate title — which in this case in addition to being the copyrighted title is very clearly the cover title — and not a POV shorthand.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Since we have citing now, I've added Super Gilbert's first appearance, and I've also added more footnoting overall, which I imagine is non-contentious. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Good to see that we have found consensus on the fact that "The Twister Resisters" being Super Gilbert's debut is a non-contentious fact. Now my next goal is to find consensus for adding in some form the following fact: "The Twister Resisters" is also the story in which Gilbert discovers his uncle's secret. As for the sources, I see two easy ways out: we can take advantage of the rule saying it's perfectly ok to use primary sources when desscribing the plot of a fictional story, and thus the story itself would be the source... or, alternatively, we could use this image as the source.

I am not a copyright attorney nor a law professor, but I want to point out that every Disney comic book series has "Walt Disney" or "Walt Disney's" before the title, always written with a different style than the actual title. Look at the page posted on the article Uncle Scrooge: the cover says "Walt Disney's Uncle Scrooge", the copyright notice is the same, and yet I don't think you'll propose to rename the article Walt Disney's Uncle Scrooge. And for good reaon, since I can find dozens of RS articles regarding "Uncle Scrooge" as the actual title. The same would be true for other Disney products, like movies: would you say that The Lion King is actually titled "Walt Disney Pictures Presents The Lion King" because that's the cover title and that it is POV to say "The Lion King" is the cover title? --Newblackwhite (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

"Walt Disney Presents" is no more part of the title of The Lion King than "Paramount Pictures presents" or "MGM Pictures" presents is part of those studios' movies' titles. And not all the Disney comics have "Walt Disney" as part of the title: The first 84 issues if Donald Duck, for example. [1].

I'm not sure it's necessary to put the page of art in the article, but now that all the editors in this discussion (you and me!) have each seen that page, we have clear consensus that Gilbert knows Super Goof's identity. I would say we cite it with the story and the page #. (We can't say Gilbert is the only one who knows Super Goof's identity unless we can cite that.) --Tenebrae (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that "Walt Disney Presents"/"Paramount Pictures presents"/"MGM Pictures presents" are not part of the various movies' titles, but I don't see why this would be different for the Super Goof series. And I confess that I didn't get your point about the Donald Duck series: can you link the cover of a DD issue that doesn't have "Walt Disney" or "Walt Disney's" above the title?

As for Gilbert discovering Super Goof's identity, we seem to have found a consensus about which story showed the disovery. If we want to cite the page number of the story: the image I linked in my previous message is page 6 of the story, and page 8 of the issue. I won't defend the line saying that Gilbert is the only one to know, since I wasn't the one who added it in the first place, and since it's not even literally true: there are also other characters who know it, but most of them are either one-shot or are non important enough to get a mention in the page. Still, I think we must somehow point out that Gilbert knowing is more the exception than the rule, as the majority of characters are unaware of Super Goof's identity. A separate issue is Mickey's supposed knowledge in French-produced stories, which I think is worth a mention as soon as we find a reference: the fact that this is the English-language Wikipedia shouldn't really matter. --Newblackwhite (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, while I disagree about the French-language mention, I surely won't contest you on that now that it seems we've gotten consensus on Super Gilbert. The page number is a great idea.

The copyrighted title, as I linked to above, is Donald Duck for, as it turns out, not just the first 84 issues but the entire series. Donald Duck, Dell, 1952 Series, Donald Duck, Western, 1962 Series. The trademarked over title is different. WikiProject Comics goes with the copyrighted title. That's why we call the comic Thor and not The Mighty Thor. If you'd like to argue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics that it should be different, of course you can. In the meantime, we need to adhere to what in the case of the Goofy comics both the copyrighted and trademarked titles.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in and mention that I've been adding/editing information about Goofy provided by Goof Troop and its related media, as I'm kind of an expert about that show and its related material (the movies, the Christmas specials, the Goof Troop comics, etc.). Namely, I'm the one who added/corrected/organized the names of all of Goofy's relatives that were seen or mentioned in Goof Troop.

As for some of the stuff discussed above, Spoonerville is not only where Goofy lives in Goof Troop, it's his hometown, where he attended (for seven years, even) high school and graduated from Spoonerville High along with Pete and his wife Peg. And Goofy's wife/Max's mother is absolutely never mentioned in Goof Troop or in any of its related media. The one and only episode that ever brought up the subject of Max not having a mother never went any deeper than that basic notion of "Max doesn't have a mother"/"Goofy is Max's only parent". The idea of Goofy being a widower has never been officially canon. He's officially a single father in that show and its related media, but nothing more than that.

And as for Goofy's other names, the only formal names (as opposed to nicknames or pet names) that Goof Troop ever had him be referred him to as, specifically by other characters who spoke to or about him, were either just "Goofy" or "Mr. Goof". The name "Goofy Goof" was never actually spoken by anyone onscreen, but that name did exist in the show as it was visually seen, in one episode, printed in Goofy's high school yearbook under his graduation photo, albeit rendered as " "Goofy" Goof", as though the "Goofy" part written in quotations in that yearbook was meant to imply that, in at least just Goof Troop, "Goofy" mightn't be his actual given name but instead just his nickname. In the pilot episode of the show, however, Goofy is presented with a diploma in the mail whose text is read aloud by the How-to Narrator (voiced by Corey Burton), in which the narrator refers to Goofy as "Mr. G. G. Goof". Taking these two formal name instances into account, we can surmise that Goofy's full name in the continuity of Goof Troop would be "G. G. "Goofy" Goof". BUT, as that specific name rendering was never used in any official capacity, we really shouldn't treat it as such while the renderings of "G. G. Goof" and " "Goofy" Goof" are official.

Likewise, the whole "George G. Geef" vs. "George Geef or G.G. Geef" thing from the 1950s shorts is that, while we can surmise that the former is what Goofy's full name in those shorts would be, it's only the latter two that were actually used in the shorts themselves. Or rather, to elaborate, the name "G.G. Geef" was used by the narrator in the short titled "Father's Lion" (with the name "George" also not used in that short), while the large majority of the 1950s shorts had Goofy referred to as just "George" by his wife and as either "Geef" or "Mr. Geef" by his friends/coworkers/neighbors/etc. So while the name "George Geef" itself wasn't technically used in that "first name last name" format, the fact that both "George" and "Geef" were used to refer to the same person within those shorts makes it safe enough to say that Goofy was named "George Geef" in those shorts. BUT, to my knowledge, never once was he ever called "George G. Geef" in those shorts, so it's not really an official name like "George Geef" and "G.G. Geef" are.

Hope that clarifies a few things, and feel free to ask about anything else related to Goof Troop. Sabrblade (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2019

In the box on the upper right, change "Created by Art Babbit" to "Created by Art Babbitt" 37.159.196.42 (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

Anyone who reviews Joe E. Brown's films, in particular "Alibi Ike," can't help but notice the resemblances to the Goofy cartoon character. There is the same "gawrsh!" expression, the same speaking voice, the same propensity for landing in ridiculous situations. Perhaps Pinto Colvig was a Joe E. Brown fan

64.236.243.16 23:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Ian Elliott play

Goofy is not a dog. This is complete disinformation, as he clearly has flat molars instead of canines as well as a cow tail. This post need to be unlocked so it can be corrected. Just because Disney doesn’t want it disclosed that they made a cow from Germany in 1939 during the Nationalism movement is of no concern to the truth. Stop spreading lies and covering up truth trying to change history! Red Elephant33 (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Dingo

Where is it ever said that Goofy is a dingo? -- Zoe

>>> Goofy is called Dingo ONLY in the Disney comics produced in France, I don't think the studio EVER called him that!

A DINGO!!! If goofy is meant to be a dingo, there who evr drew him should be shot. -fonzy

confusing Goofy for a dingo isn't that bad - For ages, I thought he was meant to be a cow! - Hazhar

Actually, I read Goofy was supposed to be a dingo in a Dutch Donald Duck comic - Draco

Dutch Donald Duck taught me this too. Anyway, he looks different from all these dogs that make up the main population of Duckburg. I have a question though: what's up with this anthropomorphic dog, this difficult word is just a mystification, i want to learn what kind of animal he's supposed to be, i already know it's somekind of representation of an animal. Ok, i changed it. - biggiesmartypants

The original Danish translator implies he's an equine of some kind, as he's named "Fedtmule" (fat-muzzle). He's probably the Disney animal that most people mistake, that's for sure! Mikkel 09:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Goofy is a bear guys! - Filyen

No, actually, I learned in Baluchistanian comics, Goofy is half platypus & half sea cucumber. That should settle it for you. RubyQ

Goofy is not a dingo and not a bear. According to Walt Disney Imagineering, and the entertainment department of Walt Disney World (where I worked for 5 years), Goofy is a dog, with human qualities. If you visit Disneyland Paris in France, you will notice that his NAME in France is "Dingo", but that's just his name - not his 'race'. - DippyDawg1932

Despite his canine appearance, according to Disney, he's not a dog, a human, a bear, a cow, a horse or a Dingo. He's just Goofy, simple as that.-StealthsneakII

"Dingo" is what Goofy is known in France, because the Walt Disney Studio in France renamed him to "Dingo", literally "dog". --PJ Pete

"Dingo" is not "dog" in french (which would be chien). Apparently we do not know the origins of why it is called Dingo, just that Goofy probably wouldn't be nice sounding in French 65.7.174.123 01:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"Dingo", his French name, means about the same thing as the word goofy in English. The way I understand it in English, "Goofy" means someone who is funny in his awkwardness, while calling someone a "Dingo" in French would qualify him as funny because he's a little bit crazy and stupid. It is derivated from the word "Dingue", an adjective that means "inconsiderate and crazy".

A defrosted Walt Disney told me he (Goofy) is actually a sperm-whale, sadly Walter fell into the freezer again and died of frost-damage, I will prove this as soon as he is resurrected yet again. (French is my native language) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.34.115 (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to cite specific pages, but this book states Goofy is a "human with doglike characteristics" (an anthropomorphic dog more or less) https://books.google.com/books?id=nEGaj75GhXcC&pg=PT66&dq=disney+goofy+dog&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjfwvaXmsPWAhXSZiYKHcRwCQkQ6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&q=disney%20goofy%20dog&f=false 2605:A601:560:2600:D992:859:1EB4:2E0 (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please. It’s really very simple. The French slang word for « crazy » or « nutty » is « dingue » (pronounced like « dang » in English). So « Dingo » (pronounced like « Dang-o » in English) works quite well as an équivalent for « Goofy ». There is no implication whatsoever that he is the animal called a « dingo » (as in « a dingo ate my baby »). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Partnerfrance (talk • contribs) 23:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2020

In his voice actors section in the infobox, someone incorrectly changed "George Johnson" to "Danny Webb" saying he did the voice of Goofy. However, the source itself directly says George Johnson did the voice of Goofy from (1939–1943). If someone can change it back, it would be good. 174.196.204.145 (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2020

Just checked back on the article again just now and the "voice actors" section in the infobox still hasn't been fixed yet, it needs to be fixed back to "George Johnson" instead of "Danny Webb". The source directly says George Johnson did the voice from 1939 to 1943. 2600:1000:B070:5542:E0CF:46A:A7D2:40DB (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

That is completely false! I added the source back in March 2019 and it says Danny Webb. This IP is clearly a vandal. LittleJerry (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This source says George Johnson in the description and the narrative at 0:35: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdgoXiEjQs4. Other sources that say George Johnson was Goofy: a wiki; IMDB; Behind the Voice Actors; the credits for this DVD; this book; this other book. The first few are not necessarily reliable sources, but the books are pretty clear. More sources are available if you search the web for "voices of goofy george johnson". Searching for "voices of goofy danny webb" gets you essentially nothing. I'm going to change it back. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

John Canemaker is far more reliable than the ones you cited. IMDB, Disney.Wiki, Amazon and behindthevoiceactors.com are not at all reliable. Just because something is repeated on the internet doesn't mean its true. Please don't change this again. LittleJerry (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the John Canemaker book with the right voice actor here, but someone carelessly changed it to George Johnson, making it not accurately reflect the source. John Canemaker is a respected animation historian who had access to the Disney Archives. His word has authority over unverified internet hearsay. LittleJerry (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's the full quotation to hammer this home: "After four years, Walt apparently forgave Colvig for he returned to Disney to record Goofy's voice for the next twenty-six years. (During his absence Goofy was recorded by a Colvig imitator named Danny Webb)". You can look it up here. LittleJerry (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources conflict, clearly. It appears that we should include both. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources you cite are as reliable as Canemaker. Not even the books. Thomas S. Hischak is "internationally recognized author and teacher in the Performing Arts and one of the foremost authorities on the American Musical Theatre" while Douglas L. McCall "is the author of Monty Python: A Chronology, 1969-2012 (2013, McFarland & Co.) and Yule Tunes: A Guide to the Music and Recordings of the Christmas Season (2016, Newhall Press)". Neither one of them appear to be an authority on animation nor have special information on Disney. More than likely, they are repeating what is popularly reported. LittleJerry (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Please see my reference above to Google search results. Common sense dictates that we should at least mention that many sources claim that George Johnson provided the voice for Goofy during those years. Your removal of reliably sourced prose from this article is disruptive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't accuse anyone for being a vandal, all because they changed the voice actor back to "George Johnson". The reason why I asked for it to be changed back is because I thought Danny Webb was the wrong actor, because several sites say George Johnson did the voice while user:LittleJerry showed in his source that Danny Webb did the voice. It was getting really confusing because that's the reason why I kept on changing it back to George Johnson, it was getting really confusing. 2600:1000:B01D:47DC:3906:BA74:7AF4:5F49 (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

What is so "confusing"? A reliable source says Danny Webb. You shouldn't just change the name so that it doesn't reflect the source accurately. LittleJerry (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It's because other sources says George Johnson did the voice too, that's why it's confusing. Even the book "Disney Voice Actors: A Biographical Dictionary" says George Johnson did the voice. 174.196.199.241 (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

See my comments above. Those authors and websites are not as reliable as Canemaker and are likely just repeating popular lore. LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Goofy

Goofy is a dog who has A PET DOG!!! WHAT im am shocked help me figure if this is right or not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilianaNeuner1269 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2020

Can someone please bluelink Crazy with the Heat (1947) under the section of Theatrical Donald and Goofy cartoons as a wiki article exists. Thanks

 Done WeirdMatter (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Species

Why in the world does it give Goofy's species as a goat? It is plainly stated throughout the article that he is a dog. However, in the Bio on the right it states his species as a goat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogo Dodo (talk • contribs) 05:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2021

Since when is goofy a dog? He's actually a cow. Please fix this so Noone forgets. Thanks 2600:1011:B1E9:72DB:1C54:7627:DC95:2D5 (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Goofy is a cow

2600:1014:B002:4B78:D94B:A5EC:818B:F06B (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Goofy is not a cow. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Psychobabble in Everyman section

That crap about Goofy cartoons in the 50's reinforcing "conformity" (on the idiotic basis of one cartoon showing everyone hitching their boats in the same way and the characters looking similar to each other) needs to be removed. It's non-NPV nonsense that has a tangential connection (at best) to the factual information that is being described. Some fanatical ideologue subverting an animated cartoon character to bash the 1950's does not belong in this section (or this article for that matter). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:580F:B900:4401:6A11:C309:9802 (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Add films to lead?

It's odd that the lead goes on to metion Goofy's TV shows, but not his feature films, of which there were two, and pretty widely known. Does anyone care if I add? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Goofy is a cow

Goofy was originally a cow this page needs to be changed Camoroja (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Udder nonsense. Is Disney’s Goofy Character Actually a Cow? Snopes.com Canute (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't milk this for more puns, but I'm bull-headed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

From the diff with your edit I erroneously first went to the identically named section below, but that was just a bum steer. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 17:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment: What is Goofy?

What is the best way to describe Goofy?

• A: A dog
  • A1: a "dog" or "a cartoon dog"
  • A2: an "anthropomorphic dog"
  • A3: other (dog)
• B: A non-dog
  • B1: an "anthropomorphic animal"
  • B2: an "anthropomorphic character with some doglike features" or maybe "anthropomorphic character with both human and dog features"
  • B3: a "dogface character"
  • B4: other (non-dog)

Herostratus (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC) Added later per a cogent comment: B1 could be "zoomorphized human" instead. Somewhat similar, but means human-with-animal-characteristics rather than animal-with-human-characteristics; if B1 wins the day we can figure out then which is best/most popular I guess. Herostratus (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• A2: An anthropomorphic dog. This is how we introduce all anthropomorphic animal characters, many of which are basically human in animal skins, and we shouldn't make an exception for Goofy. The sources describing Goofy as a "half man half dog" don't contradict this. Goofy is anthropomorphic like other members of the Disney core cast, but we don't call them "human-like with [insert animal]-characteristics". With that said, I'd be willing to compromise and label Goofy "an anthropomorphic dog or dogface" in the lead. So A2 or A2+B3 LittleJerry (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• A2: An anthropomorphic dog. Mickey is a mouse, Minnie is a mouse, Donald and Daisy are ducks, Horace is a horse, Clarabella is a cow, Pete is a cat (nowadays), Oswald is a rabbit; all these are anthropomorphic, unlike Pluto. Simple Wikipedia doesn't have a problem recognizing that these characters are humanized versions of the animals they represent, in the tradition of talking animals in fairy tales and fables. Pluto and Goofy share the same facial features representing dogs in Disney's visual style, with Pluto being a pet and Goofy being a human-like character; thus, anthropomorphic dog. Diego (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• A2 per the above. To the extent Dogfaces (comics) should be mentioned (and it probably should since the article claims Goofy is the most prominent example), it should come later in the lead or just be in the article body. It's not a term that means anything to anyone but a certain class of Disney geek. PS: That article should be moved to Dogface (comics), per WP:SINGULAR. PPS: This article could probably use a section on the disputation about what Goofy is, given the thread above versus the fact that his surname is, in two of several variations, "Dawg", i.e. Dog, and people have argued about it for a long time (even famously, e.g. in a scene in Stand by Me). This would be a good place to explain what a "dogface" is and that they're common in Disney material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  I concur, explaining the controversy about what kind of animal is Goofy should definitely be a subsection in the article. We already have material to write it in the above previous talk. This would be a benefit brought about by this discussion. Diego (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• A2 per the above and, with all due respect, obviously. To be clear: all the characters mentioned by Diego are anthropomorphic animals, except Pluto, who's an actual (cartoon) dog. I'm often amazed to see what pops up on the RfC announcement pages, and this one did it to me again. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• B4, second choice B3/B2/B1. Just not A. Just don't mention Goofy's species. In my last version the article stated "Goofy is tall, has facial features of a dog, typically wears a turtle neck..." which is both accurate and true to the source. Bill Farmer is the most authoritative source we have on the matter and he literally said "He's not a dog". Saying that he is is original research. convinced by Mx. Granger — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• B1. In my house, he's not a dog, and anyone who doesn't agree can eat in the kitchen. He's a "dogface" and as that article says "Dogfaces usually resemble cartoon human beings, but with some special characteristics". If Goofy is a dog, what is Pluto? Who are Lady and the Tramp? Dogs too? Isn't that stretching "dog" a bit much? I just added some sources below of which the most authoritative are Goofy's creator and his long-time voice, and they say he's not a dog.

Ultimately there's no way to prove it either way, it is opinion. His creator says he's not a dog, and that might matter some, but it's not definitive since creators are often not the best people to describe their own creations (f Thomas Wolfe describes a trunk full of notebooks as a "novel", so what, it's still not, etc.). In any case, we should be conservative I think and not come down on one side or the other of the Eternal Question. "Anthropomorphic animal" includes "Anthropomorphic dog" so it's definitely accurate, just broader. Let the reader decide if he's a dog (if she cares), there's even a picture to help that, let's not lead her to any foregone conclusion.

One other thing, whatever is done, we should link to Dogfaces (comics) but pipe it so it doesn't appear on the page (unless B3 is adopted). It's a very useful link, but the term itself is obscure and usually refers to WWII GI's I think, so it would just confuse. Herostratus (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• A2 Goofy is very much an anthropormophic dog, in the same way that Mickey Mouse is an anthropormophic mouse. Both of their bodies are mostly human (Mickey does have a tail), with the exception of their faces, which shows their animal characteristics. Isabelle ^🔔 16:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• A2 is the clearest. Per WP:V, we should base articles on "reliable, independent, published sources". Art Babbitt and Bill Farmer (quoted below) are not independent from the subject, so we should look for other sources. I did some searching for academic sources and found these:
  • "A dog in Disney cartoons." The Oxford Companion to Children's Literature
  • "a fictional, anthropomorphic dog" MedSurg Nursing
  • "a clumsy antropomorphic dog" Americana E-Journal of American Studies in Hungary
  • "les chiens Pluto et Goofy" (translation: "the dogs Pluto and Goofy") Esprit

Whether "MedSurg Nursing" is a reliable source for info about cartoon characters I don't know, but I think The Oxford Companion to Children's Literature seems like a very high-quality source for this topic. I also came across this Snopes article which calls Goofy a "beloved Disney dog". All of these sources call Goofy a dog or an anthropomorphic dog, and I didn't find any that call him an "anthropomorphic animal" or a "dogface character". By the way, I support discussing the controversy in the article if it can be sourced. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• A2 - This is what the sources most commonly call him, so that's what wikipedia should say as well. We reflect the sources. In response to some of the discussion below, we can't use "zoomorphic" even if you argue it is more technically correct, because no sources use that word. Responding to above, we can't use dogface for the same reason (and dogface seems to not be a standard term anyway). Fieari (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• A2. Per Mx. Granger. Stick to what the sources say. --Elonka 05:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• B2 He seems to do human-like things, in comparison to Pluto, who does not seem sentient. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps it would enhance the persuasiveness or your argument if you looked up sentience and reworded your !vote. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps you could reword your statement. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  I see no need to reword, as I'm not making any kind of attack (and I'm sorry you seem to feel that way). I just think you're missing your target because you have misused or mistyped a word. Pluto's obvious sentient, so probably you meant something else than what you wrote. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 09:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Conversation

Here are some sources, cribbed from the above conversation. Art Babbitt, here:

It is true that there is a vague similarity in the construction of the Goof’s head and Pluto’s. The use of the eyes, mouth and ears are entirely different. One is dog, the other human.

Bill Farmer, here:

He is not a dog. Pluto is a dog, but Goofy seems to be in the canine family in the same way that a wolf is not a dog, but they also are in the canine family. I think Canis Goofus is the technical Latin term for what Goofy is. He’s just Goofy.

Here (no byline) we have

Goofy was created as a human character, as opposed to Pluto, who was a pet, so he walked upright and had a speaking voice.

But then, Goofy's original incarnation was named Dawg, and "Goofus D. Dawg" has been used recently. [Here, we have one Rachel Berman including Goofy in a list of 54 Disney dogs along with Lady and the Tramp and so forth.

And of course the famous scene in in Stand By Me (edited) shows that the question has vexed humanity for some time:

Gordie : Alright, alright, Mickey's a mouse, Donald's a duck, Pluto's a dog. What's Goofy?
Teddy : Goofy's a dog. He's definitely a dog.
Chris : He can't be a dog. He drives a car and wears a hat.

Vern : Oh, God. That's weird. What the hell is Goofy?

And I'm sure there are other sources. Herostratus (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Anthropomorphize means "to attribute human form or personality to things not human". In the event a non-animal character (in the "living thing that is not a human being or plant" sense of animal, so including humans, plants and inanimate objects) has an animal head and nothing else (otherwise human body, human behavior, human sound, can't talk to animals, etc), it's not an anthropomorphized animal. It's a zoomorphized human. What Goofy actually is will be a source of debate for decades to come (I'm with Farmer: Canis Goofus), but we have no sufficiently authoritative source to say he's a dog. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Excellent point. The only downside is that "zoomorphized" is not a very common word, and "anthropomorphized" is more common. Herostratus (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

We could link zoomorphism to help with that. As we are not Simple English Wikipedia and there is no more common term we probably shouldn't refrain from using it when appropriate. Whether it's appropriate to use this term for Goofy is to be determined, but it's more appropriate than anthropomorphism. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, your points are all good. I remain a B1 voter, but I'll move to neutral on the anthropomorphic/zoomorphic. Anthropomorphic because it's more famililar (linking takes at least a few readers off the page to learn a new word, which interrupts flow) and also I haven't seen any source use "zoomorphic" so that's kind of original research. And it doesn't follow common practice here. On the other hand, zoomorphic is more correct I think, and being correct matters a good deal. Herostratus (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

N.B. for comparison, the Beagle Boys are actually named "Beagle" but have zero dog characteristics other than an animal-like (not necessary doglike) black nose. Their ears, haircuts, mouths, etc, are entirely human. Even less doglike than Goofy, they are described as "Anthropomorphic dog or dogface" in their article and their name supports this. Just a data point. Herostratus (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Herostratus, then again, Beagle is also a surname and the character naming follows that. Unlikely to be a total coincidence but still. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Bill Farmer is just speculating and giving his opinion. Goofy is Disney's character not his. If we take his word then we should call Goofy an anthropomorphic canine. Art Babbit is merely stating that Goofy fills the role of a human as opposed to a pet like Pluto (and contrary to popular belief he did not create the character). You guys are taking off-hand comments waaaay to seriously. LittleJerry (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Farmer didn't say "anthropomorphic" so that's OR. (but I'll give you that it's better than outright calling him a dog) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

It's true (I think) that as I pointed out, a creator's opinion is less important than you think, but neither is it nothing. It's a data point in favor of not-a-dog I think. Herostratus (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Herostratus, indeed if the creator's opinion is obviously bollocks it's irrelevant. But when there is no definitive answer (which is the case here), directly contradicting the creator's opinion would be OR. LittleJerry, the opinion of the people who actually shaped the character (which includes both visual artists and voice actors) generally has more relevance than what the copyright holder says. If Jeff Bezos bought Goofy and claimed he's a cow that wouldn't make it so. It needs to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, but all else being equal the opinion of those who shaped the character is more important. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The cartoons themselves confirm that Goofy is a dog. The Paul Rudish Mickey cartoons "Dog Show" and "Easy Street" play on Goofy and Pluto both being dogs. And if creator opinion are important then Walt Disney himself has stated "When people laugh at Mickey Mouse it's because he's so human; and that is the secret of his popularity." LittleJerry (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Looking over the dogface article, I think a case can be made for its deletion. It relies on only one relevant reliable third-party source (the other doesn't mention them) for one sentence and the rest is mainly original research. The term exists mainly in fandom and does not reach Wikipedia's standards of Notability. LittleJerry (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

LittleJerry, I'll review this and open an AfD discussion if appropriate. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't do that, User:Alexis Jazz. I looked, and there aren't any more real sources online (or maybe anywhere), but 1) It's pretty clear that the definition given in the article is accurate, and 2) it's clear that term is used generally in the comics fan community to a notable extent I think.

It's true that we can't go "Well, here and here and here are examples of people using the term sufficient to demonstrate some notability" (maybe we should be able to), but still. It is at least a bit notable in real-life-meatspace, and the definition is correct, and its not really contentious or contested. (Here is a whole page at TV Tropes which I believe we don't use, but still, it's accurate. So I'd recommend going after other articles. Herostratus (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Isabelle Belato, unlike Goofy, Mickey frequently wears no upper garment even when that would be inappropriate for humans, Mickey is small, has (as you mentioned) a tail, has no neck, and he has a high squeaky voice. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Alexis Jazz: Aside from the tail, I don't really see how Goofy's other characteristics are different enough from Mickey's that they should be described differently. It's not uncommon for anthropomorphic characters in the same universe to have different characteristics like that (such as some having thumbs and other wings or paws, long necks and no necks etc.). Isabelle ^🔔 00:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Mickey barely resembles a real mouse. Compare him to other Disney mice such as Timothy Q. Mouse and the Rescuers, No flattened ears, fully furred, rodent teethed and actually mouse-sized. LittleJerry (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

And the mouse in Dumbo. Herostratus (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Herostratus, its almost a week and we have eight in favor of A2 and Alexis Jazz has withdrawn their support for B4. I think we're ready to close. LittleJerry (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Absolutely. --Herostratus (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Link Rash

It's altogether too common on Wikipedia to find a clutch of irrational links in an article. For instance take the following three sentences from this article: 'He was an old man with a white beard, a puffy tail and no trousers, shorts or undergarments. But the short introduced Goofy's distinct laughter. This laughter was provided by Pinto Colvig.' Here, the words 'trousers', shorts', & 'undergarments' are linked. So is 'Pinto Colvig'. Leave aside the clumsy sentence structure. Now, in the context of an this article, bearing in mind it's supposed to be an encyclopedia article, it's useful to link 'Pinto Colvig', but does it make sense to link the other three? Basic familiarity with the language is to be assumed. Linking to those elementary words serves no purpose in illuminating anything about the article's topic, or even any tangential topics within any reasonable scope. One might as easily link to 'laughter', 'old', 'man', 'tail', 'beard', 'short' (this one might actually make sense), & so on & so forth. RubyQ — Preceding undated comment added 05:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)