Talk:Calvin and Hobbes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers edits made between 10 August 2001 and 18 July 2004.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary. Please add new archivals to Talk:Calvin and Hobbes/Archive3. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.

Sleigh rides

A nice page, but I changed the bit about the sleigh rides. They do not always end in a crash and are not always on philosophy, unless you include political philosophy. In one strip the two were having a discussion about how it seems senseless to get involved sometimes; the series of course featured Hobbes in his capacity as Ironic Observer. But since the message wasn't blatantly obvious, I think people with opposite points of view probably both walked away saying "exactly!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koyaanis Qatsi (talk • contribs) 06:53, 10 August 2001 (UTC)

Public domain

I think the section about C & H passing into the public domain needs to be edited - while the maximum recorded human lifespan may be 122 it is _highly_ unlikely that Watterson will live that long!

PMelvilleAustin 15:52 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

Don't just talk about it, do it! If someone objects, they'll simply restore it. Consider it taken care of.

fvincent 20:45, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)

links

Why did User:Paul A remove the see also link cartoon characters named after people ? Jay 07:16, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He didn't. He moved it to the bottom of the article, just above "External links", which is the usual place for see also links. —Paul A 01:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh ok ! I missed that one. However there are 2 kinds of "See also"s: one thats relevant to a section or para and one thats relevant to the entire article. I wonder if cartoon characters named after people is relevant to the entire article. Jay 09:26, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

last strip

I may be crazy, but I thought I remembered that the last strip was on Jan. 1 1996, not Dec. 31 1995. And the official site does say: "The strip, first syndicated in 1985, was carried in more than 2,400 newspapers when it ceased publication January 1, 1996." [1] On the other hand, that might just mean it was the first day they didn't publish, I don't know. Everyking 05:05, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The last strip was a large-format Sunday strip. December 31 1995, as noted in the article, was a Sunday. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty confident the last strip was on December 31 1995. --Paul A 03:30, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you must be right, Dec. 31 1995 was indeed a Sunday, and I remember the last strip was on a Sunday. Should've looked that up to begin with. Thanks. Everyking 03:33, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Main section wording

Perhaps some of the main section here could be edited to not sound so much like it is parroting the 50th anniversary C&H treasury. Not that the info is bad, but maybe some wording could be changed?

User:tofor

Necessary books

Could someone who has all the books (or who knows anyway) add to the article a section with the books necessary to buy if one wants all the strips ever released, preferably in chronological order. Some of the books appear to be compilations on themes, and I don't want those. I know they're releasing an anthology, but I'd prefer to have the original books first. Thanks!--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo|TALK]] 09:14, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

There's a guide on Amazon on this subject: [2]. It would be useful to work some of this info into the books section. --Taak 20:26, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Maybe books should be listed categorically (Book, Treasury, Compilation) rather than chronologically. Or not.--[[User:HamYoyo|Bendž

|Ť]] 10:12, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

I think it would make sense/be more readable to put them in a big table with all the info laid out that way. --Taak 19:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Breaking walls?

"Sometimes, however, Hobbes breaks the fourth wall or does things that Calvin cannot possibly have witnessed or imagined himself to witness." Huh? When? Everyking 20:07, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not that I can remember. Waterson never goes into fantasy outside of Calvin's mind.--[[User:HamYoyo|Bendž

|Ť]] 10:12, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

I swear this is true but I can't back it up. Will try to find some examples. Morwen - Talk 15:23, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are strips where Hobbes is shown stalking Calvin even when Calvin is unaware of this. Does that help? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:25, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's the sort of thing I'm thinking about. Also, Hobbes addressing the reader sardonically, with Calvin off-screen. ISTR this sort of thing happening quite rarely though. Sadly I don't think I have the books (unless i forgot to give them back). Morwen - Talk 15:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Likewise. I know they exist, however. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:33, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Anville has put in some nice examples, but I doubt if that is what is meant by fourth wall. But it should have some other term if not the fourth wall. Calvin always comes home from school dirty and scathed, and he imagines its because Hobbes pounces at him from behind the door and throws him into the slush. Calvin does have to do something in real life to get that dirty !

Also I've noticed one particular frame involving Calvin and Susie where Hobbes is not a stuffed tiger. Thats because Susie is looking away from Hobbes. Wonder what that is called. Jay 15:35, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yea, I remember that happening as well. --Taak 19:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Likewise, I recall a story where C & H have released the parking brake on the car and it begins to roll downhill and ends up across the street in a ditch. Calvin's Mom is seen thinking aloud in the kitchen, and in the window behind her are Calvin and Live Hobbes chasing the car. TrbleClef 04:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The one I remember was with C & H on a toboggan about to hit Susie. --Taak 06:09, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Calvin's Last Name

The strips do not disclose Calvin's last name. Actually, If I recall, in one series of strips where Calvin enters a contest involving safety posters, he imagines the newspaper headings and one of them is "Classmates shamed by Wunderkind's Incredible talent." Do you suppose "Wunderkind" is Calvin's last name? --33451 15:14, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lol! Certainly not. Wunderkind means "child prodigy" in German. Lupo 15:18, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Image Copyvio

I have removed the individual character images because they are likely violations of copyright. I regret this because they add a great deal to the article, but Watterson's work is pretty well protected so it's a tricky matter to find a fair use illustration for a Calvin and Hobbes article. These particular images were taken from the ucomics.com website [3] though, and it's pretty clear that they are copyrighted. As nice as it is to have them, it's far better to respect Watterson's rights. Alanyst 15:44, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For a more direct link of the original images, go to [4]. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:49, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Personal pronouns

Is it ok to have personal pronouns like 'we' in the article ? Jay 22:36, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Changed 'we' to 'the reader' throughout when not in quotes. Alanyst 01:35, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is there a reason why it wouldn't be OK? I think it's fairly obvious in this context that the "we" really means "the audience" or "the reader".

You can always replace these kinds of statements like "We rarely see Calvin's mom gardening" with some passive voice equivalent like "Calvin's mom is rarely seen gardening." However, all that does is imply the "we" -- it's still there, it's just unstated. Calvin's mom is rarely seen gardening by whom? It's just left out.

To use a contrasting example, say "Terrorism is a major problem we have". Here the "we" is clearly POV. The equivalent without the "we" is "Terrorism is a major problem", which is equally POV, because the POV'd "we" is implied but still present -- terrorism is a major problem for whom?

In our case, the "we" implies "the reader" or "the audience" or "the perceiver" and that's POV that's simply unavoidable. You couldn't write an article about any particular object without the POV of someone able to perceive it. You also couldn't say "Calvin's mom likes gardening" because we can't perceive that, we can only report on observables of her behavior. So, you're stuck with the "we" problem, it's just a matter of whether you want to leave it implied or not.

But I don't know, is there a policy on this somewhere?

--Taak 02:18, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Social commentary

I think a lot can still be said about Watterson's social commentary in Calvin and Hobbes. But, I think it would make the article too long. What does everyone think about creating an article just on this subject? I'd welcome volunteers to give it a first cut, as I'm short on time to devote to it right now. Alanyst 01:39, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The "recurring themes" section right now is really "recurring plot themes". We could also have something like "general themes" such as friendship, growing up, mischief, imagination, etc. --Taak 01:45, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I suppose we could, but I'm concerned that the article could get waaay too long if we started covering the various themes that C&H dealt with over ten years. This is why I'm leaning towards a separate article. Alanyst 01:53, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just start writing in the main article and if it gets too big we'll break it up. Better than having a plethora of stubs leading from the page.--[[User:HamYoyo|Bendž

|Ť]] 22:31, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

Removal of Trivia stub section

I removed the Trivia section because it was very stub-like. It read:

==Trivia==
 Calvin, Hobbes, and his parents appeared in a [[Superman]] comic book in the 1990s.

If anyone can add more information about this bit of trivia (which issue? why did they appear? who was the artist? did Watterson approve of it?), it should go back in. As it stands now, though, it's too brief to stand alone as a section.

The section could also go back in if more trivia items were added. I'm not sure it would really add to the article, though. I'd much rather see some discussion on social and political themes Watterson touches upon in the strip. I'm thinking of adding some material on that topic myself... when I get some more free time. Alanyst 20:32, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Relocated images

I have relocated the images to various locations in the article where they seemed to be appropriate: the book cover shown has some connection with the article text, whether it's a direct mention of the book or just some similarity between the action on the cover and the description in the text. When I got to the end I had omitted only two books (The Days are Just Packed and There's Treasure Everywhere), so I stuck them in just for completeness. If anyone feels that the images overwhelm the article or are too confusing in the order presented, you're welcome to try different arrangements. I was mostly responding to the suggestions on the featured article page; many people seemed to feel that having the images crammed down at the bottom of the article didn't work very well. If my work is no improvement, though, go right ahead and fix it. Alanyst 06:34, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I thought the idea was to have the book covers close to the listing of the individual books? Mortene 08:38, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How does actually in the table look? — Matt 09:30, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that looks excellent, good job. Mortene 15:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Article should be broken up

This article is too long and should now be broken up into pieces, or at least, some of the longer sections should be set apart as separate articles. It's simply too long and too much to wade through. Revolver 10:33, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No. Please do not break up the article, except maybe moving the section "Calvin and Hobbes books", together with "Around the world" onto a separate page (but not on two separate pages!). While it is true that the article has some length and requires more than a 20-second attention span, I do not think anything is to be gained by scattering this article and placing its bits and pieces onto different pages here and there. Lupo 11:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hold your horses. I didn't do anything. My judgment that the article should be broken up isn't based on people having short attention spans. It's based partly on the fact that it becomes very difficult to find anything. It's also based partly on the fact that some of the subsections go into more detail than necessary for the main article. The main article on CH does not have to have involved descriptions of a dozen minor characters. It's not that I don't enjoy this section -- it's just on another level. Certainly, descriptions of major characters should stay, but a link to descriptions of minor characters would unclutter things. This happens a lot in lengthy subsections -- the main subsection eventually gets moved and replaced by a significant but scaled-back subsection in the main article. We should be reading this article from the potential POV of someone who knows little of comic strips and nothing of CH. These people will want the main points to take away about the strip. In general, descriptions of 25 characters (or however many) is not what they're looking for. Revolver 22:33, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We should be reading this article from the potential POV of someone who knows little of comic strips and nothing of CH.

Why? (Updated to add: ) What I mean is, should this POV take precedence?--Taak 02:43, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not so much a POV, really. It's more just asking "what information are we trying to get across?", the article (like most articles that don't involve technical or specialised terms or knowledge) can't assume the reader knows anything about the subject already. It's just getting a handle on what the scope and depth of this particular article should be, it's not really a "POV" issue at all. BTW, the article (when I checked last) was 40K, which is well over the "recommended maximum" of 32K, so this is not just my opinion, it's a semiformal policy. Revolver 07:08, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Probably the resistance to breaking up the article would come because a lot of people have worked hard to make this a wikipedia:featured article. And since this is a featured article already it means a lot of people have reviewed and okayed it to be featured on the Main page. I don't know however if there is a maximum page size limit for an article to be featured. There should be one. Jay 13:07, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simply being a featured article is a poor justification to offer. I still think the characters and recurring themes sections are the ones that push it over, esp. the recurring themes could easily be an article on its own. The recurring themes themselves could be mentioned with a link. Same for discussion of all characters. But, whatever. Obviously, I'm in the minority. (??) Revolver 00:42, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I get the feeling that people feel I'm advocating censorship or something. It's just organisation; I'm not saying any content has to be reduced or changed at all. It's just that 40K is easier to read from, learn from, and navigate, if it's arranged in articles of 25K, 10K, and 5K, instead of one long 40K article. That's all. Revolver 00:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Grammar

If we use the word "is", we can at least make it unambiguous. When you write, "CH is a comic strip written by BW", the grammar of this sentence seems to imply that BW is currently writing the comic strip NOW. At the very least, most people will interpret it this way. This is why I added "which was" which makes it clear. I suppose the choice of tense maybe reflects whether the creation is a "discrete" or "continuous" (real-time) event -- i.e. most "discrete" art, (books, movies, paintings, etc.) use the present tense because it's clear once they're done, they're done. But "continuous" art (comic strips, television shows, magazines, etc.) which by nature is made over a period of time, usually use the past tense, in order (I assume) so that people don't mistakenly assume it's still going on (if it's not). Substitute any other kind of thing for "CH" and "BW" and see how the sentence reads -- it's almost impossible (without knowing the subject matter) not to interpret it in the present tense. Maybe someone from the grammar police who knows more than me on this can offer something. Revolver 23:02, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And I like it much better the way you put it now. Nice job. Alanyst 03:01, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Featured Article candidacy comments (successfuly promoted)

Calvin and Hobbes

(Uncontested -- Jul 5)

Self-nomination, though the best work is done by others. Images are of book covers so they fall under fair use. Alanyst 06:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Pretty good article, but something needs to be done with the organization of the cover images. Everyking 06:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I think I managed to do something nicer with them; it's actually really cool to have all of them in the article. (Nominator/uploader should tag them with fair use and rationale though) [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 15:43, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Oppose, for several reasons. Image overkill. Possibly too short, if you take out the images. Thirdly, if it stopped being syndicated in 1995, why? Ambivalenthysteria 06:27, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Good points. I'll try to add some more background on the strip's history, Watterson's issues with syndication, etc. I have concerns about copyvio for some of the images added recently, so unless we can get those resolved I might have to withdraw the nomination. Alanyst 23:39, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I have resolved the copyvio concerns and the article is longer with more information on syndication. Ambivalenthysteria, can you revisit your objection to see if it still holds? Thanks. Alanyst 02:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • It's looking much better. It's a much more interesting read now. I've changed my vote, but still two small suggestions. Firstly, the "Needed to have complete collection" header overlaps with the picture column in my browser (Firefox), and it looks icky. Secondly, how about spreading the images throughout the article, rather than having them in a heap at the bottom? Anyway, these are just small gripes, and I'm supporting this nomination now. Ambivalenthysteria 15:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• All intro, no article. There's several paragraphs of text and a pile of images and lists. Where's the article? - David Gerard 13:52, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • In all fairness, there's not terribly much that can be said about the topic, so I think that's a bit harsh. Still, it's not quite up to feature standard. Ambivalenthysteria 13:54, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Surely there is. A vastly popular cartoon strip that ran for many years? I want to read the article I'd like to see ;-) - David Gerard 14:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • It could do with a bit more analysis as to whether Hobbes is real. ISTR he was sometimes seen doing stuff that Calvin couldn't possibly have witnessed. Morwen - Talk 14:43, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I've reorganised things, which I think helps a lot, but I I didn't add much contetn. Morwen - Talk 20:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • David Gerard, do you see any improvement in the content now? I've added quite a bit more on the background of the strip. Is this the article you'd like to see? Alanyst 08:40, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I do think it is. Thank you :-) - David Gerard 00:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Oppose. While I think that this article has grown considerably, I have copyright concerns about all of the new images. I don't think that fair use can just be thrown around to justify use of any images, particularly considering that Bill Watterson has been very diligent in prosecuting copyright violations of Calvin's image in the past. If the images' copyright status are cleared up or if alternate images can be found I will change to support. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:07, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • "Any" images is a bit strong; after all, the book covers certainly seem to fall under fair use. I have removed the individual character images because I think they were indeed copyright violations. As of right now, I believe the article is in compliance. Alanyst 15:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I misspoke, I just meant any of the new images. I'm changing to a support, but I wouldn't mind some more content. C&H was kick-ass. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:14, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral for now. Oppose, a number of subsections are short and list-like. -Sean Curtin 21:53, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Could you be a bit more specific: which subsections? how should they be improved? Just because they're short and list-like doesn't necessarily mean they're bad; a list of concisely written items can often be much more readable than lengthy prose. I'm not sure your objection is actionable at this point; please enlighten me. Alanyst 02:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The lists of characters are recurring themes really don't need to be sections - microsections like that for Coach Lockjaw ("Runs the school baseball team. Rarely seen.") don't need to be flagged up from the table of contents. Rearranging some of the subsections like that of the "Calvin's Alter-Egos" section would help in that regard. Also, the history and style sections would make the article flow better if they were moved to the beginning. -Sean Curtin 17:49, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've combined the less frequently seen supporting characters under one section per your suggestion, and it does seem better. I've also re-ordered the sections to put history and style at the front of the article. I think it makes the continuity better. Any more objections? Alanyst 19:48, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The use of "we" should probably instead say "the reader" or something similar. -Sean Curtin 01:10, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Done. Alanyst 01:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Suppose. With all the work that's been done since this was nominated, it deserves featured status. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:41, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, it can still be unworthy of featured status no matter how much work has been done, but I appreciate the sentiment. Am I to understand that you meant to say "support" rather than "suppose," or were you being purposely ambivalent? :-) Alanyst 02:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support after the recent changes. Anarion 08:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Strongly object - TOC is overwhelming (even at 1600 x 800 I couldn't see see the body until I replaced some heads with ; ), lead section is way too short for an article this size (3 good sized paras needed), and the article triggers a page size warning (but that is probably OK due to the size of the books table). Many of the sections are also stubs - there is little reason to give each paragraph a title (the result is rather inflexible and jarring). Instead I suggest combining many of the stub sections into larger sections (of say several paragraphs). The ==Recurring themes== section needs this badly. --mav 07:26, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I fixed the Recurring Themes section so the sub-heads are definition-style. The TOC is much more manageable at this point. I also added to the intro section. I will work on the more stub-like sections to address that objection. Alanyst 00:07, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Better - enough for my mild support. --mav 02:03, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Object (easily resolved though) - In the opening paragraph, Intellectual and witty, the strip changed the way Americans viewed comic strips is not backed up by anything in the prose. How did it change the way Americans viewed comic strips? It sounds ethnocentric, too - did it not change the way anyone else in the world viewed comic strips? Is the fact that it was (sometimes) intellectual and (often) witty a first in American comic strips? (I'm sure Garry Trudeau and Berke Breathed would have something to say about that). Delete the whole phrase, IMHO. Mention the wit and cleverness some other way. -- mjb 07:44, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've removed it for now. It didn't really add much. Will look for an attributable quote to describe it. I suppose what we want is comic book artists saying it had an influence on their work. Morwen - Talk 17:17, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Looks good to me. -- mjb 08:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. A fine article about a superb comic strip. I still miss 'em. Denni☯ 22:15, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
• Object; 1) agree with User:Maveric149 that the lead section is too short. 2) However, I think most of the "stub sections" are probably OK, because they're in a "definition" style, but that "Style and influences" and "Trivia" are too short to warrant an entire section to themselves. 3) I think we have too many images; the "Calvin and Hobbes books" section suffers for it, and they don't really add anything that just one or two images wouldn't convey. 4) In the "Calvin and Hobbes books" table, the month dates are red links; are we linking to the right place for these? — — Matt 17:45, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I have addressed (1); I'll work on the others in the next few hours. Alanyst 00:07, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that's a great lead. — Matt 00:13, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The others, (2) thru (4), are now addressed. Better? Alanyst 08:05, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, thanks; I've squeezed the images back into the "Calvin and Hobbes books" table more neatly than before, undoing your "spreading out" work from before — I hope you agree that it's an improvement.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Calvin and Hobbes/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The best comics article I've seen on Wikipedia. - Mike | Trick or Treat 20:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Needs some out-sourcing into sub-articles. Please discuss these changes on the talk page. I am also currently working on getting some of the fancruft out of here. - Mike | Talk 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)