Talk:Calvin and Hobbes/Archive 5

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

"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)

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. --OscarTheCat ^talk

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? --OscarTheCat ^talk 04:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think people should list the special features right here in the "discussion page".--FelineFanatic13 ^talk

Proposal - how about we remove all the fan sites from the article? Each of them appear to host copies of Calvin strips[1], host entire pages cut+pasted from Watterson material [2], or indeed host every Calvin+Hobbes strip ever produced [3]. They each do Watterson a disservice by effectively "giving away" his material in this way, in my opinion. --OscarTheCat ^talk 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

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? --OscarTheCat ^talk

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? --OscarTheCat ^talk

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?.--FelineFanatic13 talk

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)

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. --OscarTheCat ^talk 08:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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. --OscarTheCat ^talk

10:55, 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. --OscarTheCat ^talk

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.--FelineFanatic13 ^talk

I agree that all secondary characters should be merged to Secondary_characters_in_Calvin_and_Hobbes, per WP:FICTION. However, I would disagree that Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes character) be merged here. This article is already 70kb, which is too long for article length. Editors should consider splitting this article somewhat per guidance at WP:BREAK. Happy editing! Hiding talk 14:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)