Jump to content

Talk:Calvin and Hobbes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleCalvin and Hobbes is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 7, 2004.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 14, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
June 26, 2005Featured article reviewKept
May 12, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
August 22, 2010Good article nomineeListed
December 28, 2016Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 18, 2004, November 18, 2007, November 18, 2010, and November 18, 2015.
Current status: Former featured article

Wasteful Talk Pages

[edit]

While it says this is not a forum for the articles subject that's pretty much what it has become. Opinionated conversations and irrelevent material have dominated the forum. I suggest that anything posted before March 2011 should be archived. TAS1957 (talk) 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you User:Alexf. TAS1957 (talk) 16 August 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

What was its top circulation?

[edit]

In how many papers did "Calvin and Hobbes" appear at the height of its circulation?97.73.64.153 (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think 2,400, but I can't remember where I read that.Madeleined2 (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

he only made two strips 65.31.96.127 (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hulsizer's fan site

[edit]

There are FOUR links to Tim Hulsizer's fan site, Calvin and Hobbes: Magic on Paper, in the footnotes alone — we don't need a FIFTH one in External links. That's promotional and it's overlinkage to a single site (which contains unlicensed copyrighted material, by the way). --Tenebrae (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbes and Bacon

[edit]

Should the article may include a reference to the fan comic strip "Hobbes and Bacon"? These two blogposts describe the comic stribs [1] [2].--Modgamers (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my opinion. Ckruschke (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
I think it's popular enough to be relevant. I actually came to this article to find information about it (couldn't remember the name). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.53.59 (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's popular/notable enough to mention you need to prove it. This is the first time I've ever heard of it. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 04:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is notable, and also not authored by Bill Waterson or related to original C&H. --TheMandarin (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbes and Bacon's popularity is directly related to the lasting impact the original comic had on us all. One finds it hard not to get choked up at these wonderful additions to the Calvin and Hobbes Lore. I for one think these should be included at the bottom of the article. "Hobbes and Bacon 1" "Hobbes and Bacon 2" "Hobbes and Bacon 3" "Hobbes and Bacon 4" Dennis M. Myers (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional reactions should have no impact on deciding whether or not links should be added. It's a fan work with no proven notability. It does not belong in this article. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 15:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

add awards?

[edit]

I noticed that several other comic pages include a list of awards the comic strip has one.

Calvin and Hobbes has won numerous awards, but none of them are listed here. However, they are listed on Bill Watterson's biography page.

Should we just copy that section and paste it onto here as well? Explorser (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No - if it's already on another page, simply put in a statement about the awards and link it to Watterson's page. Ckruschke (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
Thank you, I recently did so. Feel free to look in the history section for the edit. Explorser (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top Importance?

[edit]

There's a discussion on which comic-related articles should be listed as "Top Importance" on the importance scale, and I feel this article should not be included. If any user disagrees or wishes to contribute, please do so there. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Calvin and Hobbes/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I feel doubtful that this article still meets the GAC. First of all, it fails 2b because a) there are {{Citation needed}} tags in the "Style and influences" and "Books" sections and b) according to a maintenance tag (which has been in the article since March), there are primary sources throughout the article. GAs should have neither unsourced information nor primary sources. Anyway, that's my review. Interlude 65 (Push to talk) 03:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed the BS {{primary sources}}: primary sources are fine when used for what they contain without introducing other analysis (just like every other source, which is why I continue to maintain that the "primary/secondary/tertiary" distinction is mostly useless), and it appears that these are. But the sourcing could certainly use work—there's a weird mix of short-form refs and full refs to some sources, and some lack page numbers in places, and unsourced statements both flagged and unflagged. Anomie⚔ 11:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article no longer meets the criteria. Jinkinson talk to me 15:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming reassessment

[edit]

Although this individual reassessment has not been touched for over two years, and is itself over three years old, a look at the article indicates that the issues raised are still problems, and the article clearly needs significant work to meet the GA criteria.

There are a number of issues beyond those raised initially. Unfortunately, one of them is the lead section, where the third paragraph consists of information not found anywhere in the body of the article, a clear violation of WP:LEAD, one of the basic GA criteria.

I think one of the big problems throughout the article is the amount of analysis that has no supporting sourcing. Traits of the various characters in the strip are given without any secondary sourcing in many cases (and very little to Watterson directly). In a number of instances, strip dialogue is reprinted without sourcing, and Watterson is quoted also without sourcing—every quote should be sourced in an article, and for a GA, such verifiability is absolutely required.

There are also a great many details given about what strips are in what books, including the unexplained strip substitution of November 28, 1985, without any sourcing whatever. This needs to be fixed.

Sections that need significantly more sourcing (or are lacking any sourcing) include:

  • Calvin's parents
  • Susie Derkins
  • Rosalyn
  • Mr. Spittle
  • Calvin's roles
  • Cardboard boxes
  • Snow sculptures
  • G.R.O.S.S.
  • Books

That's it for the moment. I plan to allow at least double the standard seven days for these issues to be addressed, though if work is in progress, since there is a lot to do, I will naturally extend the time. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments

[edit]

There have been no edits on the article to address any of the issues raised above in the past two weeks, despite notifications to all the relevant parties, including WikiProjects. Given the amount of unsupported analysis and number of sections without any sourcing at all, and information in the lead not found anywhere else, this clearly fails to meet the GA criteria in those areas. The article is therefore being delisted as a Good Article. Any editor is welcome to work on the issues noted above, and when they have been fully addressed, nominate the article again for GA status. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The HSK

[edit]

A problem I have stumbled upon in the somewhat recent past is that the date of the new name's appearance is/was wrong. I have found that the date I always find it referred to is May 5, 1991, which is inaccurate. The real date for the strip in question is June 21, 1992. I know this for a fact because it is in the free-form half-page panel format, a format the Universal Press Syndicate only allowed Watterson to use after his first sabbatical, which started on May 6, 1991, the very next day. The thing that frustrates me is that whenever I attempt to fix this error, SOMEONE- (I don't know who) almost always changes the date from June 21, 1992- the correct date, to May 5, 1991, the wrong one. Please feel free to add comments and questions below. P.S. If they change it back again, I will report this incident to the administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.84.7 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 18 July 2013‎

What you "know" isn't important on Wikipedia. But it happens that The Complete Calvin & Hobbes says it's June 21, 1992, so I've replaced the incorrect GoComics reference with the TCCH one. RossPatterson (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just making sure, you own a copy of the complete collection and it was definitely published in June? I was the one who was changing it back (and you can see who made what changes by click the "View history" button by the search bar) so I just want to be 100% certain on this so that I know better next time. I had originally thought that the GoComics source had simply made a mistake since they had the HSK strip for both May '91 and June '92, and some searching on the Internet seemed to confirm that. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 16:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I had the book open in front of me when I typed the citation :-) And in fact, TCCH notes at the bottom of v. 3 p. 225, which ends with the strip from May 4, 1991, "Bill Watterson goes on sabbatical until February 1992", and the next strip (v. 3 p. 227) is February 2, 1992. So there never was a May 5, 1991 strip. RossPatterson (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Cool, thanks for letting me know. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 14:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary United States

[edit]

Currently, the intro says, "Calvin and Hobbes is set in the contemporary United States in an unspecified suburban area," which seemed strange for a comic that hasn't been published in almost 2 decades. Should we add "then-contemporary" or something like that? 76.95.194.202 (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Late 20th century? Everyking (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Everyking. it's possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdude122 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's not saying that "it's possible", he's just asking for a possible alternate wording. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 18:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Noodle Incident

[edit]

the thing that really boggles my mind is that Bill Watterson doesn't explain what the noodle incident is. not even Wikipedia (I apologize) knows. and it knows everything! so I have racked up a list of possible noodle incident theories.

- Calvin brought spaghetti for lunch, but accidently tripped while holding the spaghetti, and it fell on the teacher. - Calvin smuggled in a water pistol and wanted to shoot people with it, but he accidently shot the oven that was making the noodles, and it exploded noodles everywhere. - related to one of the comics, Calvin ordered lunch, and it was manicotti. so, to avoid eating it, he stuffed into his shirt, then opened his shirt to Susie Derkins, pretending his intestines were bursting out of his stomach wall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdude122 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No fan theories, please. It's left unknown/vague on purpose. See this. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 18:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i think it's okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdude122 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, per Wikipedia policy. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 18:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place for general discussion or theorizing, per WP:NOTFORUM. Please keep discussions on the talk page relevant to improving the article. Thanks. G S Palmer (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, remember that Watterson himself said that the "Noodle Incident", and "Hamster Huey and the Gooey Kablooie" were to be left to the reader's imagination. I myself have a theory about the incident. But remember, there never was a true story about this, so we shouldn't add something that never happened. Jak474 (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move Protected?

[edit]

I noticed this article is move protected and was wondering if that's still needed since it doesn't seem any issues with unauthorized/undiscussed moves have made it onto this talk page over the past three years. Maybe there's some issue I'm not aware of. If it's to protect this article from well-meaning IP's, I'm all for it; I just find it odd that I can't find any discussion within the past three or four years on this page about this issue. Luthien22 (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like way back in 2008 (according to this log) there was some vandalism trouble, so an admin just move protected because he figured that there would be no reason to remove it. Were you thinking about moving it? TheStickMan[✆Talk] 07:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article's fine; I just thought that if there hadn't been any trouble within a reasonable amount of time, there's no reason for it to stay protected. Honestly, I'm not sure what people would even want to move this to. The title is pretty self-explanatory. Luthien22 (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like that was the admin's logic actually. No one would ever have any reason to move the article to a different title, so no one would really have much to complain if it was move protected. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 14:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HSK part 2

[edit]

Is the HSK really used as an alternate name for the big bang? The only times I can find that it has been referred to as that is by humorous scientists or opponents of the Big Bang.Alexschmidt711 (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

errors

[edit]

Calvin and Hobbes was launched in 1985 not 1965. The LA Times article was in 1987 not 1967. Also, while I can't find the exact number of strips, it can't possibly be 10996 since the strip only ran for 10 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.129.124 (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Calvin and Hobbes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Paragraph

[edit]

"The pair is named after John Calvin, a 16th-century French Reformation theologian, and Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century English political philosopher." - I suggest this sentence be moved to another section. It's an interesting detail, but in my view not necessarily relevant to the notability or importance of the comic as a whole. Adondai (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, put new sections at the bottom of the page, not the top. I have moved it. Second, that sounds fine to me. It would probably fit better at the opening of the "History" section. Vyselink (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Calvin and Hobbes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with main article

[edit]
Moved from Talk:Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes § Merging with main article

As I understand it, there needs to be CONSENSUS before a change like merging two articles can take place. I don't believe that has happened here. Songwaters (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there does...if there is a dispute. If you don't feel it the articles should be merged, would you please explain why? (And for the record, I am a big Calvin and Hobbes fan, but this article reads like it would be a better fit at Wikia, not here.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 15:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- This article should be about Calvin and Hobbes and the primary attributes of the strip. The secondary characters page should not be merged here as it is a rather large page and would make this page, imo, unwieldy. I think the "Secondary Characters" section here is already too big and should be deleted, with the link to the "Secondary Characters" page that already exists under the "Main Characters" section being more than sufficient.Vyselink (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I agree, the content would be excessie for the main article. That secondary character page is deficient on references also and would degrade this page even more with its lack of references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging doesn't necessarily mean including everything from the merged article. Also, it appears that things are getting clouded; is the opposition about the merging, or about the proposed merged article even existing? (Personally, I have no problem with the article staying if reliable sources can be added.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 12:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite see how the issue has been "clouded" as both of us definitively state that it shouldn't be merged, and neither of us say to delete the other article. I did mention that the "Secondary characters" section that is a part of this article is, imo, already too big and should be deleted, so maybe that is where the confusion sits. Vyselink (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The other article shouldn't be written like a fan site though; in addition, most of the "sources" in that article are actually selected comic strips. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But irrelevant here. That discussion needs to take place there. Vyselink (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the options being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes (2nd nomination) is merging that article into this one. Comments there would be much appreciated. XOR'easter (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any Winsor McCay & Little Nemo influence?

[edit]

Off hand, I can not imagine that Calvin and Hobbes isn't a descendant of Winsor McCays' Little Nemo in Slumberland, the early work especially. There are a number of parallels between the two strips. Has anyone with Bill Watterson knowledge come across this, that McCay influenced this strip? Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found only one site which quotes from Bill Watterson's preface to one of the chapters of a "Little Nemo" book. From the sound of the quote, while Watterson was obviously aware of the work and appreciated it, he wasn't all that impressed with the writing and characters, more the artwork. C&H is very much the opposite. While Watterson could draw spectacularly when he wanted, his works were far more often visually simplistic, while he let his words and characters drive the story. Unfortunately the article is a blogpost and doesn't meet the level of WP:RS. Should the book itself be found that could potentially be used, but if the preface is quoted in it's entirety on this site (i.e. there isn't more in the book itself) being aware of McCay does not mean a direct connection, let alone being a "descendant" of "Little Nemo". There would need to be more concrete evidence such as a Watterson interview (which are insanely rare), academic review connecting the works, etc, in order to make the claim you do above. As of now it would be WP:OR and therefore not appropriate to include. Vyselink (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin's Age

[edit]

In the character sketch section, it states that Calvin is six (as well as other personal characteristics) and cites Watterson's book as a ref. However, six seems VERY young considering Calvin is obviously attending a normal class (i.e. not Kindergarten). Since I do not have this book, I cannot check whether the citation page includes this age or whether the number was a later inclusion into this sentence. Can someone corroborate the age citation? Thanks - Ckruschke (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

I'll see if I can find it, but six is not young in America to be in school. Six is the average age for first grade. I did find this also. NPR is a RS so if necessary this can be popped in. Vyselink (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. Since most of my peers were either 7 or turned 7 soon after 1st grade started (remembering back 43 yrs), my thoughts were that six was young for a first grader. Maybe I'm wrong... Ckruschke (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

"*Stupendous Man" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect *Stupendous Man. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Zok death sloop" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Zok death sloop. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20#Zok death sloop until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 03:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Zqfmgb" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Zqfmgb. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20#Zqfmgb until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 03:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Safari Al" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Safari Al. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20#Safari Al until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 03:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20#Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 03:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Movies?

[edit]

I see references online to recent movies and animated shows, including a list of cast, but I can't find where to watch any of the actual content. Their existence is not mentioned in this article. Is it all a joke? DAVilla (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible additions to external links?

[edit]

A Calvin and Hobbes search engine: https://michaelyingling.com/random/calvin_and_hobbes/

A timeline of all the story arcs: https://calvinandhobbes.fandom.com/wiki/Story_arcs 192.198.57.207 (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Neither have anything to do with the actual Calvin and Hobbes, and as both (especially "Fandom") are fan made, with Fandom being a wiki, they cannot be considered a RS. Vyselink (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity

[edit]

Just as a curiosity, but isn't Hobbes pretty similar to many tigers that appear in many media? Such as Tigger from Winnie the Pooh and Shere Khan from The Jungle Book 186.124.137.225 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Books

[edit]

The Books section needs a rewrite for clarity and chronology. "There are 18 Calvin and Hobbes books, published from 1987 to 1997. These include 11 collections, which form a complete archive of the newspaper strips, except for a single daily strip from November 28, 1985. (The collections do contain a strip for this date, but it is not the same strip that appeared in some newspapers.) Treasuries usually combine the two preceding collections with bonus material and include color reprints of Sunday comics." Notice that we are told that there are 18 books and that 11 of these are collections. What are the other 7? No clue. We are later told that there are "treasuries". Are these the other 7? Or are there books beyond the collections and treasuries? We are made to deduce from the statement that they "combine the two preceding collections" that the treasuries were released during the run of the collections instead of afterwards. And this is just the first paragraph. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence is wrong anyways, according to the "List of Calvin and Hobbes books" page here on WP. Vyselink (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Calvinosaurus" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Calvinosaurus has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 27 § Calvinosaurus until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbes' status

[edit]

Regarding this reversion - I'm aware that sources can be offline, behind paywalls etc, but that doesn't detract from the reason behind the {{better source}} rationale - Hobbes has been shown in the strips to be a stuffed animal, one that goes in the washing machine and has been stitched up for repairs in the past.

The {{better source}} template has been added not because the source cannot be checked, but because it goes against what is seen in the strips, so further confirmation and clarification is required. If it's as clear-cut as assumed, then additional sources that don't simply refer back to the implied Watterson interview should be easy to find and add in. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Calvin_and_Hobbes&oldid=1263255361"