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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between July 2004 and November 2005.

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. Anville 20:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Under the Alter Ego section, there's a section "Animals" where it's mentioned that sometimes Calvin appears as various animals after being transmogrified. However, transmogrification is very different from the "Alter Ego" strips, in which the entire reality is changed: not only is Calvin Spaceman Spiff, but he's walking around on an alien planet; or not only is he a T-Rex, but he's in the Jurassic. Even when the world stays as Calvin's accepted reality (as when he plays Stupendous Man and burns up his school with a magnifying glass) there's still a difference in tone and perspective. Many times, even the drawing style is different. When Calvin transmogrifies into a tiger, however, the perspective of the strip doesn't change -- he's still Calvin, it's just that he's a tiger. He's even a cartoony, Hobbes-like tiger, not a realistically-drawn tiger (which would move it over into the alter-ego realm). I think that this is an important distinction because the "feel" of the alter-ego strips is always very different from the normal strips.

I'm Malaysian and I've NEVER seen Calvin & Hobbes translated as such in any Malaysian paper that carried it. Where would the source of this be? -- Mydemand

The article says "Some Swiss German papers use the name 'Max und Mauli', while others use 'Calvin & Hobbes'.". I live in the german part of Switzerland, read lots of newspapers and have never seen this title before. This "fact" seems to get copied from website to website without double-checks. Is there any factual evidence somebody can present for this? --Anonymous

I have moved the list of attested translations to the page Calvin and Hobbes in translation. At the very least, the main article is now more solidly factual, which for an FA is a good thing. . . . -- Anville 17:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Am I completely wrong in my assumption that Calvin's dad was named "Conan"? I remember when the family went on the canoe trip (the one that Calvin dropped the camera in the water) and that the next morning, when Dad returned from fishing, Calvin's Mom called him "Conan the Barbarian".

Can anyone can verify this? Or is "Conan the Barbarian" not specifically calling him "Conan", but a reference to the book series Conan The Barbarian? -- cheater 19:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nowhere else is he called Conan, so I assume it's just a reference to Conan the Barbarian. Watterson is very careful about never using names for Calvin's parents. As a matter of fact, the reason why his uncle never reappears is because Watterson found is was very difficult for the character to be there without saying Calvin's parents' names.
-- Fern00:55, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, calling the dad 'Conan the Barbarian' makes perfect sense in the context of the strip, so it probably isn't the guy's actual name.

-- Maru Dubshinki 08:40 PM Sunday, 06 March 2005

The mention of 'not containing overt sexual themes' made me wonder if there's any other kind. Could someone perhaps quote a strip? -- Kizor 20:39, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wrote that phrase, so I'd probably better explain it. I seem to recall two strips (can't remember which collections, sorry) with Calvin watching TV. In one strip, Calvin is sick in bed and watching daytime TV. The characters on the TV show are, based on the "overheard" dialogue, conducting an extramarital affair and plotting the murder of their spouses. Calvin's punchline is something like (to paraphrase), "I learn a lot by staying home from school." In the other strip, Calvin reacts to the TV characters' kissing with such remarks as "Gross! Do they enjoy that?" In the next panel Calvin's mom is carrying him upstairs and saying, "Bedtime." The final panel shows Calvin in bed talking to the "camera" and saying, "There's a connection here, I just know it." Mild stuff to be sure, but these are hints of adult intimacy so I didn't want to claim that there was a complete absence of the theme. -- Alanyst 02:55, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also In one strip calvin asks suzie whats wrong with her snowman and she answers, "its a snow woman". In the last panel it shows calvins mom saying to a protesting calvin, "I don't care, no anatomicaly correct snowmen in the front yard. --Anonymous

Sex-themed media comes up a good deal --- Calvin asks his mother why it would be "worth four dollars a minute to talk to the goofy ladies who wear their underwear on TV". Hobbes suggests that they rent a video called "Venusian Vampire Vixens". (Another video title involves "Cannibal Stewardess Vixens Unchained" or somesuch -- one suspects that Watterson meant to parody horror/sex exploitation films.) -- jdb ❋ ( talk)

I recall a strip where Calvin asks his dad why he lives with Calvin's mom, as apposed to living in an appartment with several "scantily clad women". He promply gets his TV privledges revoked and wonders why.

Isn't Stupendous Man a parody of Superman ? Or do we see traces of other superheroes too ? -- Jay 04:18, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a general parody of stereotypical ideas of superheroes - less Superman himself. -- Andre 06:52, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It parodies Superman too- what other superhero changes in places like phone booths or closets? -- Maru Dubshinki 08:43 PM Sunday, 06 March 2005

From Stupendous Man's debut (last strip in Authoritative/Weirdos): "Who is this mysterious masked man?? And why has he never been photographed together with handsome, 6-year-old millionaire playboy Calvin?" So that's obviously a Batman reference. And he has horn-like "ears" on top of his mask. However, he also turns back time by spinning the earth backwards, which is a reference to Superman the Movie. Really, he's just an archetypical superhero, and how much more archetypical can you get? -- MrBawn 03:25, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

What indications are there that Calvin, Hobbes and Calvin's parents live in Suburbia? There are some indications that it is more rural (the extensive woods in which they sled and wagon, for instance). -- Daniel C. Boyer 16:38, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In one of the strips Calvin apparently goes in search of his dad who's at work. It shows him looking at a city full of skyscrapers, but it's obviously Calvin's imagination. Another of the strips show the family going to a dinosaur museum which could be nearby in a city. -- Jay 17:53, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Calvin's dad also (sometimes) takes the bus to work, unlikely if he lives somewhere rural. Maybe it's the edge of a suburb, so there's a city in one direction and the woods in the other. -- Acheron 19:44, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Although this is by no means determinative, I think this is the most likely explanation. Or the suburb contains a large enclave of woods. -- Daniel C. Boyer 15:05, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Being as Calvin's dad works in a city, I would say it's probably Suburbia. -- Andre 06:53, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note that I live in the suburbs and there are a lot of woods to next to my house - you can walk for awhile without seeing a road. I think it's easily comparable to Calvin's woods. -- Andre 19:53, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I also recall a strip (the one were Calvin can't do his homework where his size increases 'til he grows bigger than the house, then bigger than the planet) where it show Calvin racing through the suburbs and reaching what he called "Downtown" (the part of the city full of sky scrapers). The next strip showed him continue to walk through the city untill he reached the sea.
-- Fern 11:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hobbes does comment that "Life in the great suburban outback is certainly fraught with peril." I believe he says this after Calvin runs screaming from a ferocious bee. —-- Anville 18:24, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The description of the setting is rather lengthy - maybe we could move it and make a section called Setting? -- Andre 06:54, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that there should be a sumarized version of the setting at the beginning, followed by a more detailed description in the "Setting" section.
-- Fern 11:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the detailed discussion into a "Settings" section, leaving a stub in the introduction. While most of the "real world" scenes are consistent with Ohio—and the back cover of Essential shows a Kenyon pastry shop—I think it's also important to note the geology we see in the fantasies, particularly the Spaceman Spiff sequences. Watterson moved from "rather generic" settings to more specific topographies, which he claimed to base on southern Utah's rock formations. (Compare his comments about making Dad a patent attorney, rather than a generic cartoon white-collar worker.) Spiff's alien planets also resemble Arizona (home of Krazy Kat) and New Mexico (didn't the reclusive Watterson send one postcard from Albuquerque?).
—-- Anville 17:08, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article states this:

"Many readers assume Hobbes is just a creation of Calvin's imagination, or that Hobbes only "comes alive" when Calvin is the only one around, but Watterson has stated neither of these scenarios are true. Hobbes' reality is thus left deliberately vague." [Emphasis added]

Did Watterson actually make a statement that both of these scenarios are false? If so, where did he state that? Judging from the edit history, I believe that the author of this sentence actually meant to say something more like this:

... but Watterson has been careful to avoid supporting one theory or the other. Hobbes' reality is thus left deliberately vague.

I'll go ahead and make this change because I'm pretty sure this is the intended meaning. If it is not, it would be good if someone would clarify where Watterson made the alluded-to statement. — Wayned 20:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

According to the Tenth Anniversary Book, "Hobbes is more about the subjective nature of reality than dolls coming to life" (on Hobbes's page in the character list). Watterson also states that he doesn't regard Hobbes as the product of Calvin's imagination—just that each participant sees a different reality, which gets drawn literally whenever the strip takes that character's point of view. Perhaps the "more about" qualifier is grounds for the current version's wording; I'm tempted to say that it isn't. — Anville 21:21, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I like your updated edit of my edit. It makes things much clearer now. Thanks, — Wayned 09:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You're very welcome—glad to do what I can! -- Anville 20:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The part on Susie Derkins implies that Susie sees Hobbes in his "alive" form by saying that her fantasy world includes him and that he's seen in life-like form unlike Mr. Bun. However, Susie sees Hobbes as a stuffed tigger, as a panel during their water balloon fight (page 38 of The Authoritative Calvin and Hobbes if you have it) shows Susie and Hobbes alone in a panel and he is in his "stuffed toy" form. Also note that when Susie arrives at the bus stop, Hobbes is shown in his "stuffed toy" form even if there's no one else, though this could be because Calvin thinks she sees Hobbes this way.
To the point, I think that that part of the article needs to be rephrased to make it clear that in Susie's POV, Hobbes is still just another stuffed toy.
-- Fern 09:52, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
PS:There is one opportunity where Mr. Bun is seen like a live animal which is the sunday strip where Calvin and Susie are playing "House", which shows them as grown ups.

I know about one panel where Susie and the live Hobbes are being shown together. In an old strip, Susie, Mr. Bun and Hobbes are having a tea-time party, (Susie picked up Hobbes when Calvin left him out, I think...) and Hobbes are shown as a happy tiger, while Susie faces the other way to look at Calvin. (Hope this description is clear) The Sunday Page you are talking about where Mr. Bun is a real animal clearly seems to be a fantasy. --Anonymous

I've always interpreted that as because Calvin showed up, and possibly because Susie looked away. Remember that when Susie found him in that storyline, he was clearly a stuffed toy to her. -- Anomie 13:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to say, that Calvin hadn't left Hobbes out when Susie picked him up. Well, he had, sort of. Calvin had been attacked by by a big dog and he dropped Hobbes. That's when Susie picked Hobbes up. HyperHobbes 10:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, so one of my edits got reverted. I think the current statement is flat as all heck:

Also he lacks the company of Hobbes at school. Sometimes Hobbes does his homework and reading while Calvin watches TV or reads comic books.

Saying that he lacks Hobbes's companionship isn't as meaningful as telling how he tries to solve this problem. In the earliest strips (reprinted in the first collection) he takes Hobbes to school, using him as a "show-and-tell" exhibit. It is implied that he does this more than once, enough that Mom worries the other children will mock him: "Don't the other children make fun of you?" To which Calvin replies, "Tommy Chesnutt did once, and now nobody does."

"Why, what happened to Tommy Chesnutt?"

"Hobbes ate him."

In one strip, Hobbes scrunches up under Calvin's chair and provides math help (7 + 3 = 73). I believe this strip is one of Mrs. Wormwood's first appearances—her debut or soon after. Several years later, Calvin uses a walkie-talkie to receive similar assistance: "Boy Genius to Fanged Terror, come in! Kkrgh! . . . Ixsay inusmay ourfay! Urryhay!"

I also recall at least two occasions when Calvin slips out of class to use the hall telephone. Once, he calls his father for arithmetic help; the other time, he calls his house and asks his mother to put Hobbes on the line. When she declines, he says, "I gotta get my own secretary."

Watterson selected a Sunday page for the Ohio State retrospective which told a day in Calvin's life, beginning with his donning the rocket-ship underpants and following him through a dozen disasters at school. The commentary caption indicated that this strip, like many others, had a strong Krazy Kat influence: the heavy black rectangle enclosed the school-day vignettes, visually separating them from his time with Hobbes. -- Anville 19:33, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I didn't revert it, just changed one part back. I thought the part about school sounded like it was all in the context of being bored at school and missing Hobbes, and both the telephone and walkie-talkie mention were about needing help for stuff he didn't know. I don't mind them being added in that context, it just had me confused. I do think that we should try to reference recurring elements and themes, though, lest we misrepresent the strip by focusing on one-time episodes. -- Everyking 19:57, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would argue that the attempted telephone coversation was more about missing Hobbes than needing a math problem solved—Calvin is much more sedate in the former case. I say I would argue, because I don't think it's significant and my eyes are too bleary anyway. It's probably more helpful to treat all the cases where Calvin flees a bad situation and seeks out Hobbes's company. Not all of these relate to school; playing "house" or "doctor" with Susie springs to mind. ("Me Wonga-Taa, King of Jungle! . . . Find tiger friend, live with animals.")

Why I can remember these things when I can't recall what my relatives look like is somewhat troubling. Maybe one day I'll find myself reciting the secret superhero origin of each member of Captain Napalm's Thermonuclear League of Liberty. . . . -- Anville 21:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the influence of Calvin and Hobbes on future comic works; I think it is something the article should include. In particular, the webcomic Count Your Sheep is heavily influenced by Calvin and Hobbes. Ship, the sheep, is roughly equivilent to Hobbes, although he does not appear to be based in any physical object (both Katie, the daughter, and Laurie, the mother, can see him, but they both understand he is an imaginary friend ( one strip reveals that Laurie's parents could not see Ship)). Katie, is sort of like a female version of Calvin, and Laurie is sort of like an adult, female version of Calvin (this is perticuraly noticable in the strips about her childhood; ironically, in many ways she seems more like Calvin than Katie). There are many examples of imagination-based play (Katie uses a box as a time machine in direct tribute to Calvin and Hobbes), dramatic irony based on confusion between the generations (made even more funny by the fact that Ship understands both Katie and Laurie), and imaginary friends being figures of wisdom. However, this alone is not enough for an article section. Anyone else have knowledge on the influence of Calvin and Hobbes on comics in general? -- L33tminion 04:40, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Also, to some extent: the webcomic SinFest... http://www.sinfest.net (?) I believe a strong impact was the Creator Ownership he managed to obtain, (just as some other cartoonists like Gary Larson, during that period, I think.) I think that served as an influence to many cartoonists. --Anonymous

And you are wrong about Count Your Sheep- see http://www.countyoursheep.com/d/20030910.html

W/r/t Sinfest: Check out http://sinfest.net/d/20000324.html . -- Maru Dubshinki 07:36 PM Sunday, 06 March 2005

See also, http://sinfest.net/d/20031129.html which is practically pulled straight out of C&H. Scotto 10:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I made a chart detailing the influences of Calvin & Hobbes. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

What are your sources for this chart? -- Norvy (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

For Sinfest, an early comic wherein the two main characters talk about how they are not in fact imitating C&H, and then take off their costumes- they are in fact, Calvin and Hobbes. Then they walk away.

For Peanuts and Krazy Kat, a wide-spread speech by Watterson where he waxes eloquently about both as inspirations to him. That speech should be in the CH or BW external links section.

As for Pogo, no idea. -- Maru (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, the #@$#@ wiki didn't save my reply on the research. For Pogo, look at the Works influenced by Pogo section. This chart was compiled by reading the articles for the relevant comics. See also the image page itself. If you have any updates or corrections to make, let me know and I will make the changes (preferably on the image's talk page or here). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

A big complaint I have with the image is that it overly simplifies the influences, both moving backwards and forwards. I think the text of the article does a good job highlighting some of the influences, but presenting it in graphic form like this rules out the possibility of other influences. The this leads the viewer to believe that C&H only was influenced by three comics, and only had an influence on one. -- Norvy (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You have a good point. I'll add the arrows in my next update. Note that I put in the strips that Watterson said had the biggest influence on C&H, not all of the influencing strips. I also listed the strips that said C&H was a big influence on them. I concede that this chart does need work. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The page currently mentions " The series does not mention specific political figures or issues.". I don't think that's true: Several strips deal with environmental issues, how man destroys the planet etc. This is very much a political issue. One could even go as far as calling any issue a political issue: Calvin believes strongly in personal freedom but it is shown how freedom is a two-edged sword when others express their freedom to the fullest (right vs. left party lines). Anyway, I don't think the political sentence makes a lot of sense.

Hence the word "specific." I wrote that phrase, intending to show the contrast between C&H and comics like Doonesbury, Boondocks, or even Bloom County, which have been much more explicitly political. -- Alanyst 08:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree- simply saying we ought to take care of the enviroment is not controversial; when was the last time you heard a politician promote the active deliberate destruction and degradation of the enviroment? -- Maru Dubshinki 07:36 PM Sunday, 06 March 2005

Calvin is quite a bit more vocal than merely advocating care and stewardship for the earth: one strip in particular criticizes suburban development (when Calvin discovers that "Shady Acres Condominiums" has invaded the woods he plays in) -- which is certainly controversial. -- jdb ❋ ( talk) 03:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following statement from the paragraph on Calvin's classmates.

Sometimes, the same person is given two or more different names. For example, one girl was given both "Janice" and "Candace" in two different strips.

Most of Calvin's classmates are drawn with much the same appearance. (The two key exceptions are Susie, whose head is rounder than several others, and Moe, who is just a hulking brute.) Because the background classmates are so visually similar, and since we have practically no biographical information on any of them, the only solid indication we have that two children are distinct is that their names are different.

I recall a fan site, which may since have been discontinued, which offered a trivia section. One question asked the reader to name as many of Calvin's classmates as possible. I got through Tommy Chesnutt, "Filthy" Rich, Candace and Roger before I gave up—but, all in all, there aren't that many of them. As Watterson said about the early strips where Calvin was a Boy Scout, surrounding him and Hobbes with other children doesn't generate much material. In fact, I'd say that other than Susie and Hobbes, Calvin's classmates are mostly there to exemplify mob behavior. "Filthy" Rich exists to uphold a pun, and Tommy Chesnutt is a one-strip gag who never even appears (probably because he got eaten). Roger and Candace are only named because they react individually to Calvin's weirdness, which isn't normal behavior. More often, the class reacts as a whole: think of the roomful of children all screaming "Bats aren't bugs!", or the collective stare Calvin receives after acting out his dinosaur fantasy, which he fobs off as "a little sinus congestion". -- Anville 20:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that this article is 58 Kb long, while my web browser reports that William Shakespeare is only 17.14 Kb in length. Even if I'm comparing measurements of two different things, the relative sizes of the slider bars on the sides of my browser tabs is enough to tell me something.

More and more, this article appears to be moving toward a collection of all users' pet favourite strips. While we certainly do need to illustrate the points we make with specific items culled from Watterson's work, suffocating under a mass of single-strip gags doesn't do us any good. At the moment, I just have a vague feeling of dissatisfaction, but if I make any "drastic" changes in the future, now you'll know why.

The "Recurring themes" section may be the best example of this phenomenon. Strictly speaking, the way it is written now would better be termed a "recurring motif" section. (I hate to sound like my twelfth-grade English teacher, but I think here the distinction is useful.) Listing every use Calvin finds for his cardboard box is "encyclopedic" in the worst sense of the word; I'd be happier seeing a general thesis about his imagination followed—bam, bam, bam—with a strong set of supporting examples.

An encyclopedia is one thing; an episode compendium is something else.

While I think this article is still plenty good enough for Featured status, it may well be time to start farming out the details to subsidiary pages.

Me again, Anville 22:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As one of the guilty parties involved in inflating the article with my favorite strips, I have to agree. -- jdb ❋ ( talk) 05:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I weeded heavily, mostly taking out references to single strip gags. It went from 67kb to 46kb. -- Norvy (talk) 1 July 2005 09:12 (UTC)

Many, many thanks! -- Anville 18:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be alot of information on Bill Watterson that really should be on his page, not on the Calvin and Hobbes page. I do, however, feel that Calvin's box is a major part of Calvins world (with several "stories" centered around it) and should be treated so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir Lewk ( talk •  contribs) 23:53, 4 August 2005.

The Bill Watterson information isn't general biographical information, it's directly related to Calvin and Hobbes, and would fit poorly in his article. Actually, I've had my eye on the cardboard box, and I think it could be easily turned from a 8 paragraph entry to a 1-2 paragraph summary. -- Norvy (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

And it has been. -- Norvy (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. -- Taxman 16:30, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Much improved, thank you, Alanyst. -- Taxman ^Talk July 2, 2005 12:24 (UTC)

I removed the link to the Metaphilm article and my change was reverted by User:JosephBarillari. His edit summary asked that I explain my reasons for wanting to remove the link, so here I am.

Essentially, the Metaphilm article attempts to draw a parallel between Hobbes and Fight Club's Tyler Durden, as well as parallels between other C&H and Fight Club characters. The article provides no real evidence (such as quotes from the screenwriters or directors) that the Fight Club characters are actually based on C&H characters; rather, it seems simply to be an indulgence in noting certain similarities and then imagining how the C&H characters could have grown to become the Fight Club characters. As such, it is no different than an article that attempts to show how Star Trek and Star Wars could have taken place in the same universe: amusing perhaps, but not informative and certainly not encyclopedic. If there were a Wikipedia article that discussed the phenomenon of how some fans of different fictional worlds try to reconcile them, this Metaphilm article might be an appropriate citation. But it doesn't seem to add anything useful to the C&H article. -- Alanyst 16:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll give this comment a day or so and if nobody responds, I'll remove the Metaphilm link again. If others are persuaded by my argument, they should feel free to remove the link themselves. -- Alanyst 18:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Your line of reasoning is persuasive, although I think you might be interpreting policy a bit narrowly on this. The CH/FC article isn't meant to be canon, it's meant to be commentary. As it was much-linked-to when it was first written (I recall having read it some years ago on a different website), I thought it notable enough to merit listing. (As did whoever added it -- I didn't notice the initial addition.) best, jdb ❋ ( talk) 20:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will probably remove the link again unless you or anyone else strongly objects. I do want to clarify, though, that I'm pursuing this not with any particular Wikipedia policy in mind, but rather from the standpoint that the link just doesn't contribute any particular insight or information about C&H and so it ought to be removed. If the Metaphilm article had presented evidence that C&H did in fact influence Fight Club then I would favor it staying, but I'm having a hard time seeing how having the link makes the C&H article any better. Glad to have your input on this, though; please don't hesitate to raise objections if you think I'm off base. -- Alanyst 20:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I rather liked the article, since it showed the way C&H influenced other minds (and an FA should, by rights, illustrate the significance and impact of its subject). It was certainly more uplifting than the urinating Calvin stickers, which are almost the only other "artistic" things influenced by C&H which we talk about. -- Anville 20:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that the article does not assert that C&H actually did influence the creators of Fight Club; it simply drew parallels between the characters. To me, that fails to illustrate the significance and impact of C&H, because we aren't informed that the supposed impact of C&H on Fight Club is based on anything more than the article author's imagination. However, if the consensus is that the link to the article should again be listed, I'll accede to the consensus and not try to remove it again. -- Alanyst 21:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking more of the way that C&H influenced the guy who wrote the Metaphilm article, and more generally the Internet readership, but hey, I'm pretty indifferent to whether the link stays or goes. -- Anville 18:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following statement from the "Hamster Huey" discussion:

Compare also with this joke from one of Robin Williams' first HBO specials in the early 1980s. Williams is playing a Mr. Rogers type, and says to the kiddies in the audience, "Let's put Mr. Hamster in the microwave! (short pause) (sings) Pop goes the weasel!"

We know that the way the story is normally read, it does not end with the townsfolk trying to find Hamster Huey's head. From this, I infer that it is plausible Hamster Huey does not die. Watterson may likely have chosen the title for its phonetic silliness, to spoof the typical characteristics of "children's literature". The fact that the book turns out to be written by "Mabel Syrup", who then goes on to write a sequel entitled Commander Coriander Salamander and 'Er Singlehander Bellylander, lends point to this view. Is there a Robin Williams sketch about spicy amphibians with aviation training? Without more indication that Williams actually influenced Watterson, this statement doesn't have a leg to stand on.

It's a pity we missed our chance to find out, too. Up until last week, Universal Press Syndicate was taking reader questions to which Watterson would write answers, as a promotional gig for the Complete Calvin and Hobbes hardcover set (which I am like totally buying, dude). -- Anville 23:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about a concerted effort to fix this article up to avoid FA removal? I think we need to reduce the length, and give it more of a clear focus with fewer details and digressions. But I don't want to lose any good info, so how do we do that? If we create subarticles, how should we divide up the content? -- Everyking 07:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should be reverted to its original "feature article" form, and then cross checked against the current version to add back only the significant additions. Additionally, I've removed the link to the "official" site (www.calvinandhobbes.com). It doesn't look official, and I don't think that the site itself is in keeping with Watterson's veiws concerning commercialism. What little content there is, is obscured by obnoxious ads and commercial links. -- 63.84.89.169 01:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I just restored the link to the official site because it's owned by Universal Press Syndicate, which is a division of Andrews McMeel Universal, and is the publisher of Calvin and Hobbes. Thus it is also one of the few (if not the only) place where you can view Calvin and Hobbes comics legally online. The ads are regrettable of course, but that's no reason IMHO not to provide a link. -- 66.92.161.45 04:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

When Calvin and Hobbes got FA status, it was 40kB long. Currently it is 46. A lot of information has been deleted from the 'FA' version, and the only sections that seem to have been added are the Art and academia, School and homework, and Items left to the reader's imagination. Are we supposed to make it shorter than the original in order to keep FA status? It seems to me that some of the deleted info was useful in rounding out the article, and that the article just can't be made much shorter. -- Loggie 03:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I dug the "Setting" section out of the archives and put it into its own article, Setting of Calvin and Hobbes. IMNSHO, this was the most "encyclopedic" of the material which the recent trimmings have taken out, and I think we should still have it available. I also cleaned it up a bit and footnoted it throughout, because I'm that kind of guy.

What do you people think about a new sub-article called References to Calvin and Hobbes? To me, it seems like a good place to leave the bits of trivia which establish C&H's cultural impact but don't belong in the main page.

Thanks to everybody for returning this article to a good shape! It's currently the 7th Google hit [1], so go ahead and feel proud. -- Anville 18:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The references seem to be broken... they're all listed as "[http:// ARTICLE TITLE]" which is weird. I checked the template use though, and it seems to be according to paramaters... url=http:// without anything else should just show that there is no weblink, not break the template. Anyone know what's going on, or how to fix it? -- Fieari 05:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there's definitely something weird about the template. Since we don't really need a template for the references anyway, I just subst'd and cleaned them up. If anyone has a good reason to put them back into templates, go ahead. -- Norvy (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone find a citation to the number of strips that were produced or ran? I haven't been able to find any in articles about the strip's finale, and I think it would make a great addition. -- Norvy (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned in the article that when Calvin makes a duplicate of himself, it's not revealed to the reader the true nature of the duplication. For instance, it's not known whether the duplicate is merely Calvin pretending or an actual duplicate. -- Scorpionman 20:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

There were 3150 comics.

This is a beautifully written article; I can see why it is a FA. Grateful thanks to the folks who worked on it. I do have one question: why does the article employ the Harvard reference style? [for example, "Calvin and Hobbes blah blah blah (Archeson 1988)."] The Harvard style is used in scholarly journals and texts, but not, I believe, in encyclopedias. Is there a guide as to the preferable reference styles for various Wikipedia articles? Do scientific articles employ Vancouver, and arts/humanities Harvard? Or is there simply an external link at the end of a sentence and internal links within sentences (ie. a text link)? Thanks. → Encephalon | T | C 11:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I believe you're right... Wikipedia:Cite sources may have something to say on the subject. -- WikidSmaht ( talk) 22:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The images recently added to illustrate the characters require fair use rationales. -- Anville 15:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed this line: "a mentality the character Hobbes shares" (referring to the famous quotation of Hobbes the philosopher). I don't agree at all, but moreover it's not a substantiated fact -- if it can be substantiated authoritatively, then it should be put back in.

I've removed the following edit, which sounded fishy to me:

The first strip sat on the desk of the editor for months, before finally being published. Watterson wasn't alerted of the first publication of his comic, and never got to see the first strip in the newspaper.

Can anyone confirm/refute this? -- Norvy (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

From the 10th anniversary book, regarding the first C&H strip: "My hometown paper didn't pick up the strip for several months, so I didn't see this strip in the newspaper either." That only partially confirms the quote. Nothing in the 10th anniversary book about sitting on an editor's desk or not being alerted. -- MrBawn 02:52, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear between the notes in the 10th Anniversary book and the Complete book, he knew about the first publication but his hometown paper just didn't carry the comic. -- Anomie 12:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Calvin and hobbes tv show episode list (Note; This is not rarley known, but I found this at a top-secret website.)

G.R.O.S.S. club punishment Calvin forever Oh gross Susie / The replacement Hobbes's playmate

This seems to go against everything Bill Watterson ever said about marketing. I highly doubt that this was ever a possibility. Can anyone reference this "top-secret" website? -- Eric 03:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope. I reverted it. -- Maru (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I kind of understand why Bill Watterson wouldn't allow his strip to be merchandized. That would really destroy the integrity of the strip, as Watterson himself said. I mean, look at Jim Davis and Garfield! It says in the Garfield article that Jim Davis mostly deals with the business and merchandizing, while a bunch of other jerks who cared nothing about the strip's integrity take care of the comic strips and characters, which is what Davis should be doing! Just think what would have happened if Bill Watterson had merchandized his comic strip! He would have spent all his time taking care of merchandise, while his staff took care of the characters of Calvin and Hobbes! People would be saying about Calvin and Hobbes: "The merchandising terds that creator Bill Watterson pinches out ever Sunday in newspapers around the world, traumatizing millions with his bland humor week after tragic week.", just like they said about Garfield! Calvin and Hobbes would be just another bland, tasteless comic strip without any personality at all! Of course, many of you have already figured this out, I'm sure. I'm just saying this for all those people out there who would criticize Watterson for his refusal to merchandise his strip. Scorpionman 02:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Soul of the work? Strip's integrity? I thought Garfield was intended as a non-offensive marketing vehicle in the first place. Even if Watterson allowed merchandising, I don't think it would have ever become a Garfield situation. While Bill should certainly be admired for his devotion to the artistic, I don't think that those living in a commercial culture have a right to slam an entrepreneur like Davis so hard. -- WikidSmaht ( talk) 22:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't slamming Davis at all. I don't know whether or not Garfield was originally intended to be non-offensive; the Garfield article says that Garfield now doesn't offend anyone because Davis' company does all the strips now. Scorpionman 19:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)