Talk:Marmaduke

Character

This article is about Marmaduke the strip, but shouldn't there be an article on Marmaduke the character as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.73.251 (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Submissions

One thing that always confused me was the fact that, although "Dog-Gone Funny" is supposedly drawn from fan submissions, never once (to my knowledge) has a submission address been published. An admittedly brief online search for a submission address also came up empty. Isn't it possible that these are simply made up by the author to fill space? Antepenultimate 19:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, he does have a publicly available address at the United Media website. [1] My guess would be he distributed his address some other way before then, perhaps in his books. GarryKosmos 08:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Marmaduke is also a personage in the books of Jack Vance. Another Mr. Marmaduke can be found in Clifford D. Simak's book The Goblin Reservation.

Could someone add these to the stub, please? --Oop 19:17, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you?

Also, what is the definition of marmaduke as a regular noun?

Can someone please create a disambiguation page for all articles named Marmaduke? See [2]. --Geopgeop 12:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that marmaduke is the dumbbest comic ever? pinky

No, Heathcliff is -65.122.209.140 20:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What about a reference to Monk, and how he always makes comments about it

If you have or are around dogs, Marmaduke is funny. If you are a cat person you should not read Marmaduke and should stick to Garfield, because you are just not going to get it.

Does anyone think a passage about the prevalence of online humor sites making fun of Marmaduke would be a good addition?

I do not know a single person who likes marmaduke, including several dog lovers. I've actually asked. Nearly every single strip consists of various versions of "bark" and "woof", followed by a one liner involving regular dog behavior. I'm sorry if I can't find that amusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.191.32 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 18 February 2007

And I'm sorry the Wikpedia isn't your personal blog, so yes, I removed your "trivia" entry about Marmaduke not being funny. I personally can't stand Marmaduke either, but WP isn't the place to get on our soapboxes about it. Also take a look at our policy against Original Research and our aim to present a neutral point of view. -- Antepenultimate 00:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism?

Some guy working on a webcomic says he doesn't like it, and it is enough to be written in this article as criticism? I don't think so. I'll delete it in a week, if no one has any reason not to.GodShiru 01:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That guy, David Malki, and his webcomic, Wondermark, are both WP:Notable. You might instead consider balancing the criticism by adding a "Praise" section with some citations. --CliffC 04:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, as you have been here far longer than I have, and know more about the rules and guidelines than I do, or rather admittedly, care to learn, but isn't WP:Notable for articles, rather than sources? And I do think that just because someone has a bad opinion on a comic strip and they are known, it doesn't mean a section should be devoted to it. I would take your suggestion and add a list of people who personally like it, and sources, but that would sort of detract from the point of this article, to let people know about Marmaduke, not those who like it or not. But, if you really are sure nothing should be done about it, I'll leave it all be. GodShiru 15:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as sources go, it's just a comic strip, so we're probably not going to turn up many Noam Chomsky quotes. For that matter, none of the rest of the article is sourced.

I've learned not to be too sure of anything around here, so I took a look at WP:Criticism. That guideline encourages criticism (IMO, without criticism we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia), but generally discourages separate criticism sections, suggesting instead incorporating criticism into the body of the article, or as an alternative naming the section something more neutral than "Criticism". I thought of renaming it "Reviews" or "Reception" but those didn't sound right. If anyone has a renaming idea, please go ahead. Meanwhile, reviewing the Malki quote we use, its style seems out of balance with the rest of the article so I have shortened it. --CliffC 17:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, think it should be integrated somehow into the main body. You have removed most of it already, and it is merely a sentence now. It definitely isn't worth a whole section, especially if it cannot be named for what it really is, criticism. "Reception" and "Reviews" are not befitting, as there is only one person who 'reviewed' it. So, the only way to keep it, in my humble opinion, would be to just integrate it. However, I cannot think of a good way to do it. I am guessing something along the lines of "Some people, notably David Malki[source], creator of the webcomic Wondermark, dislike it, while others, such as Monk series creator, Andy Breckman, who deems it worthy of mention in the aforementionned series, think differently." It sounds very, very wrong to my ears, however, I have no other idea. GodShiru 15:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:Criticism doesn't say articles "cannot" have a criticism section, it's just generally discouraged. I don't have a problem with incorporating the current bit of criticism somewhere else in the article, as long as its text and links are kept intact. It's already been bowdlerized from

In his psychological analysis of the strip at Wondermark's The Comic Strip Doctor, David Malki ranks Marmaduke among "the worst newspaper comic strips" and comments, "In my local newspaper, the crappy square strips -- Marmaduke, Heathcliff, Dennis the Menace, and Family Circus -- all appear together, in a sort of matrix of suckitude."

to the G-rated and rather innocuous

In his psychological analysis of the strip at Wondermark's The Comic Strip Doctor, David Malki ranks Marmaduke among "the worst newspaper comic strips".

If you use Breckman for balance, I'm guessing he mentions Marmaduke in some ironic way, or to show off an unusual character trait, similar to when Matt Groening has Homer Simpson silently read the comics at the breakfast table and chuckle to himself "Oh, that Marmaduke!"

Once you have the pro and con quote(s) collected, maybe keep the separate section but name it "Critics and supporters"? Just a thought, and not meant to dissuade you from integrating them into the article. --CliffC 15:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As I don't believe we can truly reach a compromise, I will just abdicate and let you handle it, as you know more about it than I do. I know you are probably right, it just doesn't seem right to me, and probably never will. Also, I have to admit that what you says and have done makes more sense. Therefore, we will go your way. Thank you for enlightening me on how it should be done, I will keep it in mind the next time. GodShiru 20:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the very first statement in this line of conversation. Did you read the guy's article? He's totally off-base, talking about Marmaduke and rape. Please, it's a cartoon from most people's childhoods. I think his criticisms are more for humor than for actual literary value. If you direct people to this garbage, then you might as well add a criticism section for every single movie, show, book, etc. ever made. And just because a person is wikipedia notable doesn't mean that you need to mark down every thing they ever criticized. -SCW —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.22.45.148 (talk) 18:05, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't see that Malki's article is intended to be humorous and not actual criticism is a moron.--Josh Miles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.173.51 (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it common knowledge that Marmaduke is constantly criticized? Everyone who is involved with comics or comedy at all has always known and commented that Marmaduke is among the worst of syndicated comics. MAD's 50 worst things about comedy lists always rank Marmaduke highly, and whenever I have seen it brought up, everyone basically agrees that Marmaduke stinks. I am not sure how extensive a critism section has to be on this article, but I believe it is worth a mention, and perhaps add at least three sources to that section alone. It shouldn't be too hard to find them. 64.130.204.173 (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I think so too. In fact, just today: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/some_old_man_still_churning_out

Criticism section is too vague

The section on criticism contains referenced notes about people saying that the comic sucks, but has no information about why they think it sucks. In fairness for the comic itself, shouldn't there be some further, more specific details in this section? --Bando26 (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The "Joe Mathlete" quote struck me as being unprofessional so I went to read the actual source... for goodness sakes people, this quote has been allowed to remain in the article? I'm fine with the other one but this Mathlete thing is a blog quote from a guy who dedicates an entire blog to hating a comic. If that's allowed, what's to prevent anyone from creating their own blog and quoting themselves in a Wiki article? Quite frankly, nothing. If there's no (Reasonable) objection I'm removing this within a week. AncalagonTB (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it. Anyone disagreeing with the change should please respond here. --Iliaskarim (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Marmaduke Explained is a pretty notable blog and pretty well known in webcomic culture. I don't really know how to demonstrate that this meets the criteria, but I'd strongly wager that a lot of people coming to this page would expect to see some sort of reference to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baligant (talk • contribs) 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but Wikipedia hates Blogs for some reason because blogs could be above them in Google search engine rankings so they blocked them. Lame. Joe Mathlete explains Marmaduke is the #1 blog on the INternet, I hope all youse die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.123.222 (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who put that section back in, or when, but I've taken it out again. A "criticism" section should begin with describing the consensus more mainstream reviews and such; only after that fundamental is covered should we be worrying about adding personal opinions from fringe elements like bloggers—they may still be notable, but they don't impart the same sort of understanding to the reader that a discussion of mainstream reviews' consensus does. I'm not trying to defend Marmaduke—I don't really like Marmaduke, and I do like Wondermark, but nevertheless I don't think Wondermark is an appropriate place to be looking for material on the reception and/or criticism of Marmaduke. People can add that stuff in to the article if they want, but not until the more basic stuff is covered. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 06:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I restored it, minus the blog section, before noticing your message. Please help in looking for some mainstream reviews. --CliffC (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I still think Malki's review should be kept out of the article until a more "normal" review/reception is written, as having Malki's as the only one mentioned in the article gives it huge undue weight. I did a quick look around for reviews and the problem I seem to be running across is that Marmaduke has been around for so long there aren't really mainstream reviews, I've mostly just seen a few random kids' blogs.

I would also like to mention that the fact that a source is notable does not mean it's a good source for getting information on this topic. Britney Spears has a Wikipedia article; that doesn't mean I would put her opinions in other articles.

On a side note, the page that is actually linked ([3]) doesn't refer to Marmaduke as one of the "worst comics"; it's only at the index page ([4]) that he refers to it as that.

Anyway, I don't mind if someone adds Malki's two cents to the article after something more has been written (it doesn't even have to be super-complicated; even a single sentence along the lines of "Marmaduke has attracted much criticism for not being very good" with a single reliable source mentioning that lots of blogs/reviewers don't like Marmaduke, would do), but until such time I do think it should at least be commented out. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 15:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with you and would need to find time to do the research necessary to prove Wikipedia-style something we all already know, unless some onlooker here can come up with a source first. To that end, I suggest you insert your exact sentence, "Marmaduke has attracted much criticism for not being very good", followed by a 'citation needed' tag, {{cn}}. --CliffC (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've tried to post information about Marmaduke Explained, a relatively popular blog which lampoons Marmaduke several times. Here are several links to websites which validate my claim that people criticize Marmaduke:

http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1723880 http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,1205,l%253D216520%2526a%253D216536%2526po%253D54,00.asp?p=y http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6153865 http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2007/01/marmaduke_expla.html http://fbdev.collegehumor.com/tag:marmaduke-explained/articles http://godonnybrook.com/home/?p=608 http://www.bestweekever.tv/tag/Marmaduke http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/05/01/roflcon.sidebar/index.html http://www.knowledgehunter.info/wiki/Marmaduke

The last website is an article from a competitor of Wikipedia. I feel like these websites are more than ample proof of the existence of a blog which criticizes Marmaduke and would appreciate it if everyone stopped cockblocking me.

Thank you.