Talk:Calvin and Hobbes
Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:FAOL Template:Mainpage date
 | Spoken Wikipedia | |||
| ||||
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
Previous discussions:
Setting
The interview in Comics Journal makes it amply clear that this comic strip is not set in New York. These constant incorrect reversions are not helpful. Avi 16:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Bill Watterson has said him self, I believe in that interview, that Calvin and Hobbes takes place in the Midwest, and he has hinted that it takes place in his hometown in Chagrin Falls Ohio, although he's never directly stated this.
Removed fansite from External Links
I removed a fansite which an anon IP had added to External Links. Browsing through it, the most appropriate content I could find (as far as anything the WP's articles would be referencing) was the page on foreign translations, which includes scans of translated strips. I'm adding this link to Calvin and Hobbes in translation now. Anville 07:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
link added
i could access the link, so adding it back. --vineeth 09:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- I still can't; my browser sits at "Loading. . ." and never gets further. (The server's pingable, though.) What's the page about? Anville 11:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- The site has the completion collection of calvin and hobbes cartoon strips, another good thing is that the text in the strips have been indexed and is searchable, for e.g., if you search for "spiff" , you get all strips pertaining to the spaceman spiff. very good site. Try accessing it on firefox, some bug in IE might be preventing it from loading :) --vineeth 14:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- I am using Firefox. My userbox doesn't lie. (-; I can't access it using any other browser on my computer, either (including lynx). From your description, though, it sounds like the site may be violating Bill Watterson's copyright. Does it give the images or just the text of the dialog balloons? If it has the images of all the strips, then it is a clear copyright violation, no fair use arguments about it, and standing Wikipedia policy prohibits linking to it. Anville 16:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry didnt see the firefox userbox :^), they have mentioned the copyright properly, even the date when it was published, i dont see any copyright infringement issues in the site. Do you want me to mail the screenshot of the website? --vineeth 16:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- To be honest , i am not very good at judging copyright stuff, so you can help --vineeth 16:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if they say "copyright 1995 Bill Watterson"; if they duplicate massive amounts of his work, then they're still infringing. If you could mail me a screenshot, I'd be glad to give a more informed opinion. Anville 08:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have uploaded it here, please check and take necessary action. --vineeth 17:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strips reproduced at high resolution and with no commentary or other things that could potentially justify fair use. . . All the strips reproduced. . . I'm going to remove the link on copyright grounds. Anville 07:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I belive you are allowed to post large amounts of Universal Press's comics on a site. (with permission) Read the text under "content" on the following web page:[1]. --FelineFanatic13 22:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
More evidence that UPS allows the reprinting of its comics. Click here [2].--FelineFanatic13 15:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Footnotes
This article could really benefit from wikipedia footnotes, rather than the "(Andrew, 1989)" type tags on various paragraphs. Any (more able than me) wikipedians fancy updating it? --OscarTheCattalk
17:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- I would, except that yesterday I put a whole lot of work into changing the references in Thomas Pynchon over to cite.php footnotes. Then I looked a couple hours later, and someone had changed them all back. Anville 07:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- I will set up the in-line citations as wikilinks to the reference sections now. In line citations (Harvard citations) are better than footnotes, per se, because you have the source in the text. But you are correct in that linking them helps. Give me a few minutes. -- Avi 22:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, look at it now, I think that it's much better. Let me know if I left one out. -- Avi 23:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Copied from User:Oscarthecat
Hello Oscar. Did you not read the talk page? I spent a long time wiki-ing all of the in-line citations so that they link to the references, specifically to keep the nature of the in-line citation, and you went and footnoted them all. I appreciate your being bold but it was not necessary. Secondly, please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes#Converting_citation_styles. It is preferable not to change footnote styles, especially if the issue of linking was already solved. Please carry on further conversation on Talk:Calvin and Hobbes. Thank you. -- Avi 15:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oh crikey. Sorry Avi, I thought the footnotes hadn't worked, as they weren't appearing as [1] and the like. I see how I've misinterpreted it now. Once the page is enabled for editing once again, will you be able to revert back to your edit, and trash my erroneous edits? --OscarTheCattalk
15:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Being bold is always a good thing. The protection is my fault anyway, I asked for it after Tripod et al kept on switching the setting back to western NY. I'll ask a few admins, and hopefully it will be reverted soon :-) . Thanks -- Avi 15:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Reversion Request
Can somone revert back to this edition: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvin_and_Hobbes&oldid=39799418 Thank you. -- Avi 15:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Woohookitty. -- Avi 15:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Calvin and Hobbes setting
To quote Bill Watterson himself (emphasis added is my own):
"It’s a midwestern strip. I think I have midwestern sensibilities, and I think the strip clearly reflects that. I’m comfortable with that aspect of it, especially from the standpoint that it would ring false if I tried to do something else."
Please stop changing this to New York. Thank you -- Avi 18:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Removed Fansites and Slate Article
I have removed Michael's Calvin and Hobbes Website, the Calvin and Hobbes Album, and the Slate article from the links because their material is already present in the other sites linked here. From now, please only link unique Calvin and Hobbes sites. You've seen one Calvin and Hobbes geocity site, you've seen them all.--FelineFanatic13 14:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"Altered dialog" and "missing strip"
Can anyone point me in the direction of more information of the entire changed strip, and two strips with altered dialog, mentioned in this article? 138.38.32.84 00:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Go to http://calvinandhobbes.michaelgoonan.net/daily.html. At the bottom of the page is the original version of the edited strip, along with information about the edit. Hope this helps.
- Mjg0503 01:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Cheers for that. I actually found the original two of the edited strip, along with the generally-released version of the "missing" strip, and I'm pleased to say I know them all :D Still like to know the other set of altered dialog, and to find the "original" version of the missing strip, if anyone else can help.
- 138.38.32.84 11:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- See this old discussion, which we went through trying to figure out just which strips were missing and altered. Anville 14:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Transmog-rifier
I think this may be spelled Transmog-rifier...that's how Calvin writes ot, and that's how it appears in speech bubbles... --Wack'd About Wiki 15:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe it's written differently outside the US & UK, but every published strip in those countries uses transmogrifier. Feezo (Talk) 22:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm with Feezo on this, am pretty sure it's just spelled transmogrifier in its original incarnation, and so the article ought to show it as such. --OscarTheCattalk 22:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Social criticisms
I rewrote this section to improve the style, and it seems to me that the last paragraph is out of place. I removed it from "social criticisms" section, since it's more of a detailed example of Calvin's complex relationship with Hobbes. The original version of the section is here. Feezo (Talk) 10:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
This section should also describe how the strip deals with environmental issues and opinion polls. Feezo (Talk) 10:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
External links again
Number of external links is growing again. Perhaps the External links section ought to highlight what's special about each site, rather than just "Mike's C&H Site", "Billy-Bob's C&H Site" etc, and any which don't have redeeming features get removed? --OscarTheCattalk 04:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think people should list the special features right here in the "discussion page".--FelineFanatic13talk
Proposal - how about we remove all the fan sites from the article? Each of them appear to host copies of Calvin strips[3], host entire pages cut+pasted from Watterson material [4], or indeed host every Calvin+Hobbes strip ever produced [5]. They each do Watterson a disservice by effectively "giving away" his material in this way, in my opinion. --OscarTheCattalk 07:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that that is going a bit to far to remove EVERY SINGLE fan site. After all, the fans usually have a better output of Calvin and Hobbes than the official site has to offer. Having a few strips like Calvin and Hobbes Hideout can be allowed by fair use. The collection is minimal and they really serve as nothing but free advertising for the book collections. I do, however, agree with deleting the site with Every Calvin and Hobbes strip ever produced, as even though it has disclaimers it is still massively infringing on the Calvin and Hobbes copyright. I mean, you'd normally have to pay the official site for that archive. So I have no doubt it should be deleted. In fact, I'll do so right now. Mjg0503 02:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Character Articles
Since Calvin and Hobbes is published worldwide, would it be a good idea to create an article on different translations?
An early translation in Dutch changed the names to 'Casper and Hobbes.' Later translators would have to keep these changes in. Though the names of minor characters were later corrected again. The name of Susie Derkins was 'Ilse' in Dutch and ms Wormwood was 'mevr Wormhout.'
Sincerely,
Kaye (in The Netherlands)
It really doesn't make sense to me that Moe has his own article, but Hobbes doesn't, And the charcters' articles are essentially what is listed here. There is some good expansion in them, but it isn't worth having their own articles. I think we should just migrate them over here and close them down. Does anybody else feel the same way? - Mjg0503 16:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- How about the characters have a single sentence about them in the main article, with a link to their own article? Would merging all the character articles into this one make the main article a little too cumbersome? --OscarTheCattalk 17:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- I just mean we should merge them with this article, and leave the charcter section basically the same, since the character articles are basically "bigged up" versions of what is already here. And at least if you are going to have them for Moe (Who is really nothing but a prototypical jerk), make one for Hobbes. - Mjg0503 18:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- See this RfC relating to the character articles. Feezo (Talk) 22:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info Feezo. So looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moe, the concensus is to keep individual character articles. Suggest the only remaining actions are to
- create an article on Hobbes
- review the character details on the main Calvin and Hobbes page, in order to keep duplication with individual character articles to a minimum
- Sound reasonable? --OscarTheCattalk 07:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, it does not sound reasonable. Instead, I think we should just merge all the character stubs into Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes, and keep Hobbes in the main article. Anybody agree with me?.--FelineFanatic13talk
- I agree with FelineFanatic13. The two main characters are described well enough in the main article, and there isn't enough information to fill a well written article about any of the minor characters. Feezo (Talk) 03:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, it does not sound reasonable. Instead, I think we should just merge all the character stubs into Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes, and keep Hobbes in the main article. Anybody agree with me?.--FelineFanatic13talk
- Thanks for the info Feezo. So looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moe, the concensus is to keep individual character articles. Suggest the only remaining actions are to
Okay everyone, we appear to have an edit war between User:John oh (who wants character articles seperate) and User:FelineFanatic13 (who wants character articles merged). I have asked each of them to post their reasoning behind their preference here on this Talk page. Anyone else having opinions should also discuss here. I hope we can quickly come to a reasonable concensus between us all.
Background : it is proposed that the following articles be merged into the Secondary_characters_in_Calvin_and_Hobbes article and then removed as articles themselves. --OscarTheCattalk 08:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Susie Derkins (Calvin and Hobbes character)Miss Wormwood (Calvin and Hobbes Character)- Rosalyn (Calvin and Hobbes character)
- Moe (Calvin and Hobbes character)
- I also agree with FelineFanatic13, about the character articles moving to secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes. Having a million articles about the same subject is just not going to work. It would be as if we made each section of this article into its own individual article. - Mjg0503 19:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sometimes it's appropriate to have multiple articles on the same topic, (See Wikipedia is not paper) but I don't think that's the case here. Feezo (Talk) 10:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- My only concern was that the Secondary characters article could grow too big. However, given that more C&H strips are unlikely, the size of the pieces on each character should be fairly static. So a merge sounds good to me. --OscarTheCattalk 10:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- My only concern was that the Secondary characters article could grow too big. However, given that more C&H strips are unlikely, the size of the pieces on each character should be fairly static. So a merge sounds good to me. --OscarTheCattalk
- Sometimes it's appropriate to have multiple articles on the same topic, (See Wikipedia is not paper) but I don't think that's the case here. Feezo (Talk) 10:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- I just went back and read the AfD debates for Susie (1, 2), Moe (3), and Miss Wormwood. (4) There is a strong consensus to keep Miss Wormwood and Susie, so I'm going to go ahead and remove those merge tags. Feezo (Talk) 11:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, I've striked out those from the list above. --OscarTheCattalk 11:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I think we should merge all of the character stubs, including Miss Wormwood and Susie Derkins, into Secondary_characters_in_Calvin_and_Hobbes. But if no one else agrees with me, we should at least merge Moe, Rosalyn, and Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes character), which aren't to well written.--FelineFanatic13talk
- Personally, I think we should merge all of the character stubs, including Miss Wormwood and Susie Derkins, into Secondary_characters_in_Calvin_and_Hobbes. But if no one else agrees with me, we should at least merge Moe, Rosalyn, and Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes character), which aren't to well written.--FelineFanatic13talk
External links redux
I cleaned out the external links per WP:EL, removing a number of fan sites. Given the vast number of C&H fan sites, I added a link to DMOZ's listing for Calvin and Hobbes sites, again per WP:EL. I also added a few links for which I couldn't see mention within the article, they might be useful as references at some point? Happy editing! Steve block talk 22:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
External Links Compromise (Hopefully)
I noticed that earlier today somebody went through and deleted all of the fan sites from the external links. I have added them back, and also kept the links to various articles and official websites they added. Although a few people seem to feel very strongly about removing the fan sites from the links, the general concensus seems to be to keep them. Thus, I have reorganized the link section based on the format I have seen in most other articles (which by the way, link to fan sites). I have categorized the links into three parts, official sites, fan sites, and articles and other misc. links. Please add fan sites with caution, as some, such as the recently removed "Calvin and Hobbes Browser" have far to many comics on them and thus violate copyright law. Plus, not all fan sites are created equal, so please only add links to useful, and comprehensive sites. In other words, only add the good ones. I hope that this is a compromise that everybody here can agree upon. How does everybody feel about it? - Mjg0503 22:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, when you add to a talk page it's usual practise to add to the bottom. I hope you can agree that picking and choosing fan sites constitutes POV somewhat. Also, note that only the sites Calvin and Hobbes::Magic on Paper and The Calvin and Hobbes Jumpstation do not violate Watterson's copyright, and wikipedia has a policy against linking to sites which violate copyright. Given the vast number of Calvin and Hobbes fan sites, I hope people would agree with policy at WP:EL that the best practise is to remove copyright violation sites: External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. I would also suggest that we follow the policy at WP:EL with regards the clause regarding Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. I would suggest we link to the DMOZ open source directory, since WP:EL notes with preference to open directories, rather than linking to just one specific fan site, but opinions are welcome. I would appreciate it if people could generate good reason for specifically ignoring established policy. Happy editing! Steve block talk 23:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I will add to the bottom from now on. I diagree that the other sites on the list violate copyright. In fact, Calvin and Hobbes' Magical World has been visited by lawyers from the UPS, and was allowed to stay online. I am the webmaster at Michael's Calvin and Hobbes Site, and in my next update (within a few days, and maybe today if I have time) I plan to remove the comic gallery from the site. I do believe that it is within the confines of fair use, but it is better to be safe than sorry. I plan to instead add a "comic of the month" section, which will only include a few comics on the page for visitors to discuss, and vote for their favorites. In the archive of preivous months, I'll remove the actual strip from the site and add book references. In other words, at any given time I will only have about 5 comics posted on the site, for disucssion purposes only, which is no doubt fair use. Simply Calvin and Hobbes, and the Calvin and Hobbes Hideout have small comic sections, but the collection is so minimal that it serves are basically nothing but an incentive to buy the books. Thus, I do not feel that any of the sites violate copyright.
- About the open directory listing: Feel free to add it to links, but I would be against removing the links to the fan sites since many of them are not in the open directory listing, and I feel that they have a lot more to offer than the sites in the directory. In fact, I hae an idea. We should leave only the links to the fan sites already listed, and add a link to the open direcory listing. Then, we should delte links to sites already listed there, and only allow links to sites that have something useful and unique to offer for Calvin and Hobbes fans. In other words, don't link to a site that hasn't been updated in ages and has nothing but two comic strips on it. Sound reasonable? - Mjg0503 23:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, since you admit to being a webmaster of one of the sites in question, do you think you are the most objective person? Also, since policy is clear that we only link to one site, I'd be interested in hgearing a strong argument as to why we disregard that. Please be aware of WP:SPAM, and note that Wikipedia is not a space for the promotion Web sites. Sites which are added by the web master are removed as spam. I think it's also worth noting Watterson's specific views on the characters and copyright. Again, I see no reason why policy should be disregarded. Happy editing! Steve block talk 23:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- I did not add the link to my site, somebody at an anon IP did so. Plus, it is more or less impossible to submit sites to the Calvin and Hobbes listing in the directory, as there is no editor for it, and judging by the amount of dead links, I'd say there hasn't been one for a very long time. I have volunteered for the job about a week ago and still haven't heard from them. Plus, don't you think that we should wait for some other people to respond before you decide to change it? We are looking for a concensus of what to do, so I'm going to change it back before we have the chance to hear some more opinions. In fact, I will leave messages on some of the regulars' talk pages. Happy editing! - Mjg0503 23:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
John oh
Can someone please ban John oh? He keeps removing my merge tags before an agreement has been settled. It's really beginning to annoy me.--FelineFanatic13talk