Talk:Calvin and Hobbes/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Most Popular Comic Strip Ever?

Possible out-sourcing

This article is way over the Wikipedia:Article size guidelines..currently at 74k. However, I'm at a total loss of what types of sub-articles can be made to make this make more managable. Any ideas? - Mike | Trick or Treat 01:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not one to be slavish to the size guidelines when the length is justified and I happen to think the article is pretty good as is, the obvious target is the Recurring subject matter section. Migrate the section to Recurring themes in Calvin and Hobbes and leave an overview that highlights the most important themes and/or groups them into categories somehow for a more generalized discussion. Additionally, though it won't buy you much from the size point of view, the individual sub-sections of the Supporting characters section seem a bit longish considering the section already has a separate article, Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 05:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Autiger brings up the point that the "summaries" of the matter with their own articles are much too long. The Calvin section of the Article could be as simple as:
"Calvin is the six-year old main character of Calvin and Hobbes. More on Calvin."
Likewise with recurring themes. adamfc 19:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Ummm.. for the core character, I don't think that would be appropriate. I commented on Supporting characters and recurring themes. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 20:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm just using Calvin as an example. It could be longer than that, but it is unnecessary to have the paragraph or two we already have if he has his own article. adamfc 18:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me it would be best to leave the article as it is for now. We've already done a lot of character outsourcing, and I do not think outsourcing the recurring themes is a good idea, as many of them are essential to a reader's understanding of Calvin and Hobbes and for this reason should be left in the main article. However, some of the less important themes such as comic books and learning to ride a bike might be moved to a sub-article, possibly Minor recurring themes in Calvin and Hobbes? - Mike | Talk 01:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Reducing the size : much as I like Calvin & Hobbes, I can't see why 5k of content just on Mealtimes is needed. Further, the characters ought to have a single sentence on each character, rather than a paragraph (leave the full details to go in the characters article itself). --Oscarthecat 20:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I suppose that the recurring themes need to be outsourced, leaving some brief info on the most important ones (carboard boxes, gross, etc.). Not sure that Calvin and Hobbes should have their info reduced though, as AUtiger says above. - Mike | Talk 03:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the new recurring themes article and trimmed down the section in the article, leaving only the most important recurring themes with less detail. The article is down to 54k now. - Mike | Talk 00:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't this in Category: American Comics?

Can someone move it? I don't know how. 14:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add the category to the bottom of the page. To do this, insert [[Category:American Comics|Calvin and Hobbes]] below the external links. Hope this helps. - Mike | Trick or Treat 15:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Susie Derkins & surnames

If Susie Derkins is the "only character with first and last names", how come Mrs. Wormwood and Rosalyn both have them below that? I don't ever recall seeing Mrs. Wormwood being referred to as "Mary", but I do have some recollection somewhere of Rosalyn's last name being "Weeks". What do you guys think? I'd change it, but I don't know what the right answer is... Banpei 01:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That's all untrue information that an anon IP keeps adding. I've reverted it back. - Mike | Trick or Treat 02:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Alternate" strip

I removed the image of the never-printed strip, as it violates the stsement on Universal Press Syndicate's site saying that no C&H strip may be reproduced on any internet or intranet site. adamfc 18:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Adam. I have re-uploaded the file as only 2 panels, so I have now added it back. - Mike | Talk 03:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It looked rather out of place in the article, so I have simply linked to the image page in the section. - Mike | Talk 03:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Under recurring themes, how about a section on Calvin's alter-egos? Spaceman Spiff, the superhero (whose name is escaping me) and there may be more I'm forgetting.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Please see Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes). There's a lot of info there. - Mike | Talk 00:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

External Links

For the next time that a war starts over whether a website should be included, I suggest a EL code for Calvin and Hobbes. Something along the lines of "The site must provide info not able to be put in this article. The information must have some bearing (i.e. not 'Bill Watterson likes cats.') Also, the site must have other informative areas and information that cannot be found in the same detail level elsewhere." I realize that in saying this, I may spark another war, but I think this may be a good idea if given more specificity. --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 03:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

At the end of the second paragraph, it says "then they went to telituby land to find the magical rabbit and save it from the ugly googal" Is this in need of grammatical correction, or is it vandalism?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Please sign your name to any message. This is most definetely vandalism and I have deleted it. --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 00:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added my link. I'm not sure why it was removed. I believe commentary on the strip is valuable and warranted. Dannyfast 06:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC) dannyfast

It was removed for being a copyright violation, as it contains multiple high resolution scans of individual Calvin and Hobbes strips. I'm not sure if what you're doing qualifies as fair use, but I can tell you that it's generally seen as poor form to add links to your own website on Wikipedia. Please see our external links policy for more information. Feezo (Talk) 07:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this topic has got to the point where all external links should be removed (bar the official website) .. this discussion has been ongoing for years and is never going to end unless a clearly unambiguous rule is established. I appreciate Adam's attempt to establish a rule, but it's still too much a grey area. Rather than have this debated for the next decade, I think remove all external links. It's fair and consistent. Tobtoh (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, as this would be ejecting the infant with the effluent. Tobtoh, I don't understand your characterization of this discussion as "ongoing" since it's been dormant for nearly a full year and I'm not aware of any more recent significant disagreements over external links. It seems to me the matter is not an ongoing problem here; can you explain what you see from your perspective that makes you think this is still an issue to be resolved? alanyst /talk/ 17:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

altered dialogue strips in Complete C&H

Does anyone have a citation for this? I'm sure it's a simple matter of comparing the versions from the original books with those in the Complete, but I've not seen an actual source which does this, though I've heard, widely, that the strips were altered. Thatcrazycommie 01:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless you want to somehow cite the two book sources, which are different I know that there are no "Official" sites which speak of this. --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 00:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Citing the two book sources seems the best solution to me. I can tell you from owning the Complete and the original collection that this indeed is true, but there's not really much else I can do to cite it. --Mike
I've done this. --Mike
I appreciated this information, but isn't this Original Research? (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not original research to cite two sources that disagree and state "These disagree"; see WP:NOTOR for a more detailed explanation. Anomie 13:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


Who is insessantly removing the section entitled "Dinosaurs"? Dinosaurs are an important part of the strip and deserve a section. STOP REMOVING IT, WHOEVER YOU ARE. It is very annoying to have to keep replacing it. Scorpionman 20:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We are trying to keep the article at a reasonable length, and so the dinosaur info, along with the bulk on the information on other recurring subject matter is now at Recurring themes in Calvin and Hobbes --Mike
Next time, perhaps, bring it up on the talk page first before getting all mad about it... It can be frustrating for no reason. Usually there is a good reason for it. --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 02:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Someone vandalized this page and cut out many characters, such as 'Moe'. I'm going to try to fix it... Snowonster 02:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, new discussions go at the end of talk pages, not the beginning. Second, Moe is not a main character, he's secondary, just like Wormwood and Rosalyn. Calvin, Hobbes and Calvin's parents are main characters. Susie is debateable, and I don't have a position on that either way, but Moe is most definitely not a main character. In total he appears in less than 1% of the strips. So please make sure you know what you're doing before you "fix" anything. - Ugliness Man 12:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I dont believe Moe was ever on this page...--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 19:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You're right. This article's getting a bit too long. I didn't change anything. Snowonster 02:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
He said "many characters", not "main" characters. Read before getting aggressive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filecore (talkcontribs) 07:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Reorder sections?

It seems to me that the sections on the characters and the subject matter of Calvin and Hobbes should appear BEFORE the explorations into Watterson's artistic standards, social criticisms, etc. A visitor who is completely unfamiliar with the comic strip would first be interested in what's on the surface rather than what lies below the surface, if you get my meaning. Anyone else agree? Vandelay 01:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. We should organize it so you get the basic info, then dig deeper and deeper into the strip.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 23:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


So many people have argued that we can't cut much out, but I really think we can take all of the characters bios down to 2 sentences except for Calvin and Hobbes. They have their own article, they dont need an in-depth explanantion here.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 03:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. I also repeat my suggestion that the (shortened) character section should appear BEFORE the "Style and influences" section. Vandelay 19:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationales

Do the book covers and other images need fair use rationales according to instructions in the licenses? Just wanted to mention it in case it would cause it to remove its FA status in the future. --Nehrams2020 05:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I have no official idea, I'd say the covers, beacuse they are all over the web and are sort of an ad for the book, are permitted. Some of the other images probably should be cut to make it really fair use, but until someone comes after us, I see no reason to cut them.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 22:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


A friend of mine told me that Calvin and Hobbes is coming back as a book series free of comic-strip format - and while he wasn't sure of that, he said he was positive Watterson was returing to cartooning. Seeing that Watterson loved the strip and hated newspaper restrictions, I thought this seemed likely. I'm guessing either it's a rumor or he made it up, because I don't see info on that anywhere. --Wack'd About Wiki 02:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Havent heard of this, but I hope he doesn't unless he has fresh new ideas. I've said it before, but if he comes back like Berke Breathed did with Opus and makes a fool out of the comic strip, I will be Ticked off.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment)`

It doesn't matter...if B.W. comes back with the comic and its exactly the same idea as the last one then that'll be awesome and if he comes back with new ideas that will be even awesomer....but if hemakes Calvin and Hobbes look stupid, that's his problem, but no matter what he'll still be a legend. That should be no reason for you to be ticked....and HOBBES RULES XP -eyeshield 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


Is it worth mentioning Calvin's (mis)adventures with baths? It was a running theme throughout the series. Maybe just a sentence or two? Mcr29 07:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Since there is such a large section on this type of thing, maybe asmall paragraph could be added into Recurring Subject Matter.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 22:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Final Strip

I removed the fianl strip. Any other strips will be removed, as per the Universal Press Syndicate Mandate that no strips should be published in whole on the internet.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 00:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've undone most of your edit, only because the text is valid content. However, in keeping with your intent, I've commented out the image. --Ckatzchatspy 01:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

With my experience on Wikipedia, much of this article should be considered a disgusting mess of "original research": Analysis of art without citing an authority figure. However, since I really appreciate the OR on the articles I read (people notice things I don't, make good observations), I have added to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Only one question. Someone wrote: "Throughout the series, [Calvin] is also revealed to be a "try and err" sort of person." Calvin certainly "errs" a lot, but he never learns anything about responsibility--which is the lesson all the other characters always want to teach him.


I made a valid attempt to update the article using known facts from the strip, which had apparently not been noticed by certain parties. As this spoiled there veiw of the world it was lifted, albeit with a reasonable excuse (SEE HISTORY). It was edited, re entered, and then scrapped again. As far as I am concerned, this type of FANBOY mentality is a form af vandalism in itself. Wghat is the point of Wikipedia if it cannot be added to ?

It must be noted, however, that upon one of Calvin's flights of fancy, which involved a flying cardboard box, the pair flew high enough to perceive the Continental United States as a whole, similar to a map, even to the fact that words appeared, as in an atlas. Calvin stated his home was near to the letter 'A', and is pointing towards the final letter of the word 'America', clearly scripted across the New England area. In the same strip, the flying box zooms through a metropolitan area very similar to Boston.(Changed to 'Coastal Areas). Witness also the regular snowfall and autumnal trees so descriptive of the New England scene, as well as the fact that Calvin has several times visited the beach during summer, only a short car trip away.

This information is canonical.

Stealth Ranger. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by STEALTH RANGER (talkcontribs) 22:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Umm... as the editor who removed your text, I'm wondering why you feel it is necessary to start insulting people over this matter. "Fanboy" mentality? What on earth prompted that response? Heck, I like the series - quite a bit actually - but I certainly don't have any personal investment in where it is set. (It's a comic strip, after all. The location is irrelevant - Calvin could live in Ulan Bator for all the difference it would make to him.) As you've admitted above, the rationale for removing your material was valid. It is a personal interpretation of the comic strip - quite possibly a very good one - but it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability. --Ckatzchatspy 22:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to request some input from other editors in regards to this matter, as "Stealth Ranger" is now resorting to personal attacks instead of discussion. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 22:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it feels too much like original research, but don't we already have Setting_of_Calvin_and_Hobbes for this anyway? WLGades 00:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The material that Stealth Ranger wants to add does not belong here. I think it's groundless original research, but if Stealth Ranger wants to push the issue, he/she should do so on Talk:Setting of Calvin and Hobbes instead. But, Stealth Ranger, please review Setting of Calvin and Hobbes; it cites what clues can be gleaned from the strip and its creator, and those clues taken together strongly suggest that the environs of Chagrin Falls, Ohio are the likely setting for the strip. Wikipedia is not a place for people to advance their original theories. If you can't find a reliable source to support the notion that C&H is set on the east coast of the U.S., then please refrain from advancing that theory on Wikipedia. Please also assume that the editors who have removed your additions have done so in good faith, desiring to keep original research out of the article, and not out of a "fanboy mentality", as you put it. alanyst /talk/ 00:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There is entirely too much speculation re: the location of the strip as it is irrelevant to the comic itself. The material provided by Stealth Ranger should stay gone, and the Setting of Calvin and Hobbes article should be deleted. Mcr29 04:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to ALANYST for a reasoned discussion. However, the following facts are irreversable. To wit;

  • It is speculated that Calvin's Home Town (CHT)is based on Chagrin Falls. This seems reasonable, given the fact that it is the Author's Home town.
  • It is not Automatic Fact that it is Chagrin Falls itself. Ergo, it does not immediately follow that it is in the state of Ohio.
  • I had always assumed CHT to be set in a 'typical' Midwestern Americana of fond nostalgia, rather like the settings of Ray Bradbury.
  • I had further imagined the setting to be a stereotypical small town, perhaps in the manner of Springfield of The Simpsons.
  • The Simpsons may not be the best comparison, except on certain levels; Calvin may not age, nor have birthdays, but Christmas has come and gone several times.
  • I had no difficulty accepting these impressions until two things happened.
  • The speed, and the Ease with which the family can drive to the beach. Not to be confused with the rivers and lakes they have often visited. It is an actual continental coastline.
  • More importantly, the particular strip in question. Our heroes are airborne in a cardboard box, so high they are able to see the continental united stses as a whole, much like a map of America in an Atlas. It has the word 'America' written across the country. (Perhaps it does- We don't usually fly that high) Calvin ststes that home - CHT - is near the A. It is clear from the art work that he is refering to the last letter of the word. It is further clear from the same panel that the final letter A is covering the New England Area. In the same story, the box flies past a tower building typical of a Metroplitan area. Calvin's father is seen at work through a window. We see more of the city as they do so. It has a Redbrick City look to it. It is clear from other strips that no such buildings exist in CHT. Ergo, it is clear from this, as well as other more direct references, that Calvin's Father commutes to work.
  • This tells us that CHT is either a suburb of a Metropolitan City, or is a Semi Rural community (witness the woods and hills around the town) not too far away.
  • The distance between both areas may be estimated by the mean travel time between the two; I.e, what time does dad leave and and arrive home each day. My estimation is about an hour's drive based on empirical evidence.
  • Reitereate the fact that the beach is in driving distance. Perhaps 2 hours drive ? This depends on your definition of 'Driving Distance'. Suppose 2 hours to be true, and place Dad's office in the other direction (supposition admittedly - there are no working fact other than observation) and you still end up with a City 3 miles or so from a sea coast.
  • Add to this the earlier information that CHT is in the New England Area. This gives several states to choose from, remember. Boston was a guess on my part based on the buildings and the coastal proximity. It could just as easily be Rhode Island. Or Long Island.

A reasonable hypothesis: According to the evidence, CHT is a Ruralised small town BASED on but NOT exactly Chagrin Falls. Having never been there, It could be an exact replica for all I know (if it was I'd move there tomorrow). If this was in fact the case, why not name it (like Springfield) ?. So it is only based on Chagrin Falls, we speculate. But not in the Great State of Ohio; why would it be ? CHT is a small town. The evidence of the strips themselves clearly states that it is in the New England area, in commuting distance of a Metropolitan area, and within driving distance of the beach.

  • This is not speculation, nor theory, rather a reasonable conclusion based entirely on facts gleaned only from the original work of the Author.
  • Discuss

Stealth Ranger

On second thoughts, Don't bother. I can see where this is going to go. 14th Century thinking isn't really what I care to become embroiled in. It is exactly this kind of thing that has caused me to to become disillusioned and disenchanted with Wikipedia and it's Fan-Barricade tactics. My love of Calvin and Hobbes has taken a beating too. My collection now available to the first person to request it.


A few points. First, if you have evidence to support a theory, it doesn't make it any less theoretical. A theory is not a fact until it's proven. If you have points to support a speculation, it doesn't make it any less speculative. Speculation is not fact until it's proven. What you've done above is shown a number of points which support your speculation, but you haven't proven anything to be fact. This isn't "14th century thinking", this is logic.
Second, your sporadic use of ALLCAPS, your flagrant abuse of bullets, and your absolute refusal to properly sign your contributions (is it really that difficult to type four tildes?) are all evidence (see what I did there?) that perhaps you don't really know how Wikipedia works. You apparantly think that it's some evil dictatorship or fascist state where anyone with something to say gets taken down by "The Man", but your complete disregard for long-established Wikipedia guidelines and formats is chaotic. Believe it or not, there is something in between total chaos and anal retentive adherance. For the most part, Wikipedia represents that grey area.
Third your reaction borders on being either childish or psychotic, I'm not sure which. To claim that your love of the C&H universe has "taken a beating" because the majority of contributors to a Wikipedia article don't want your wild speculations to be reported as fact... isn't that a little like someone declaring they no longer like Harry Potter because the characters on South Park once said that playing HP was "gay"? I mean, I will gladly take your collection off your hands if you're willing to pay the shipping, but sheesh, lay off the sugar! If Wikipedia never existed, the C&H universe would be exactly the same as it is now, and a group of Wiki editors trying to maintain guidelines based on logic and accuracy should have no effect on the fanship of any sane person.
In summary, I will not outright accuse you of being a troll or a kook (that would be abusive), but I will offer the honest opinion that your behaviour thus far does indeed resemble one or both (that's observation). You're still welcome to make productive contributions, but Wikipedia isn't "anything goes", and trying to maintain logic and sanity is not "Fan-Barricade tactics". - Ugliness Man 19:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC

Wasn't going to do this, but fine: Taking English/English grammar lessons from some kid whose favourite subjects are South Park, Plastic Spoons, and the word Fuck ? Whose site proudly states he can speak English ? Welcome to the Wiki Community... Uglymind states that his tricks of observation tedium are how it's done. That's what I did. And I drew a logical conclusion. He says a lot of things intended to cod-psychoanalyse me, and uses big words to do so. This is an Error on his part (You do not want to go there- your own diatribe is less than laudable to those of us who know; Statistician, heal thy self. My appreciation of Cand H has taken a beating because of the people I have come in contact with via Wiki; I realise now, but not before, what kind of people froth at the mouth and jump to this stuff. Ergo, your South Park /Harry Potter hypothesis is completely invalid; it isn't about the subject matter, it's about the FanBoy reaction, and the fear that I may be like you. That's why I dropped the whole thing. I have a very busy life and little time to waste on nonesense and it's acolytes. You can gladly have the collection. Just tell me where you want it sent, A.R.

Stealth Ranger. (PS. I do know how Wiki works, and I'll sign my name how I please. Take to long to expalin and you won't get it, Mein Gauleiter)

Stealth Ranger- Getting nasty with people certainly wont help your cause at all, and formatting your messgaes is a great help to all. Please do it in the future.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 03:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

CHT theories as proposed by Stealth Ranger, while valid to a point, fall down on 2 points which he himself makes. Firstly, that Calvin's family can drive to the beach. SR argues this means it is a continental coastline, however "beach" is defined as an area of sand or pebbles on a shore. Shore is defined as the edge of a sea or lake. Ohio borders Lake Erie. Secondly, the argument that Calvin's father commutes to a metropolitan area to go to work. Chagrin Falls is a suburb of Cleveland, surely a metropolitan area?

As I remember the strip referred to stated that their house was next to the large letter E in the word States, but that may be a memory failure on my part.

Did anyone ever even consider the fact that BW was just a joke when Calvin was talking? Just because it was mentioned in the strip doesn't mean anything. The only thing that can be drawn from the entire series on the setting, is that it is obviously in a rural small-town area. That's about it. I don't think BW wants us to know the setting. Case closed seriously.

Just for a bit of final information, I'm looking at the very strip with Calvin in space with his wagon, and A) Hobbes reports that 'our house is by the giant letter "E" in the word "States"' B) You cannot actually see any letters on the globe Keegsshipguy 03:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Calvin's misanthropy

I just removed this section from the article, because it seems even more like original research than the rest of the section. Thoughts?

"Calvin is clearly misanthropic, but his situation makes this understandable. His parents seem only to punish him again and again for his bad behavior, and as a result Calvin usually imagines his mother and always his father as villains or hideous monsters. At school, Calvin daydreams of being the hero "Spaceman Spiff". This causes him to fail in class, which results in more punishment and fuels Calvin's misanthropy."

WLGades 10:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

AGREED. "Calvin is clearly misanthropic, but his situation makes this understandable." Calvin is clearly a six-year old boy testing the boundaries of his life (such as his parents patience) like any youngster. He is too young to be considered a Misanthrope by anybody's stretch of the imagination. His own imagination (parents as monsters, etc) is nothing more sinister than this. The writer is trying to hard to attribute reasons beyond the evidence.

STEALTH RANGER 10:29, 28 February 2007

Agreed.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 03:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


Wow, someone wants to do something about this "little" gem? "The Atomic Cerebral Enhance-O-Tron (or quite simply, a thinking cap) was created from the same cardboard box, turned open-side-down, but with three strings attatched to it (input and output strings and a grounding strings (like a lightning rod for brainstorms so Calvin could keep his ideas grounded in reality (Hobbes thought he was too late for that), and the other ends of the strings tied to a metal colander, which served as the thinking cap." Especially the nested parentheses could use some work. I'm not a native English speaker, shouldn't there be ))) at the end of that thing? Manuzhai 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the parenthesis are closed within the sentence. --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think they are closed within the sentence. It looks like a ( should have been a ). Either way, though, it feels like there's too many parentheses in that sentence as it is. I'll re-write it now, feel free to comment (or edit it) if you don't think it's appropriate. WLGades

Alter egos

While cleaning up some recent additions, I've noticed that there is no mention of Calvin's alter egos in the article. While we are of of course trying to contain the article's size, there should be at least some reference to Spaceman Spiff, Stupendous Man, etc. along with a link to the appropriate article. --Ckatzchatspy 19:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes Wiki

Should I add a link to the Calvin and Hobbes Wiki? Wikiman232 06:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see... Google ads (no reputable wiki should have ads of any kind), the vast majority of articles are stubs, and the "today's strip" on the front page may very well be a COPYVIO... I'd say don't add it just yet, maybe if these issues are worked out in the near future it can be considered. - Ugliness Man 07:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Broken URL?

this link seems to be broken Calvin and Hobbes Books. it just redirects you back to the same article. Is there any list of the books of Calvin and Hobbes? 11:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


I can't find the information about why he left the strip. Is it in there at all? Maybe it should be more easily findable. 17:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's easily findable. basically he no longer felt he could maintain the quality of C&H and so stopped.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 03:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Fight Club

I found an interesting comparison between Calvin & Hobbes and Palahniuk's Fight Club.
src =
Might be of use to you guys. 03:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's "interesting" for sure, but it's also a crackpot theory, and not encyclopedic. Much like a crackpot theory that I personally support regarding the Harry Potter universe (we'll be finding out in a few short months if it's right) doesn't (yet) belong in the Hedwig article. - Ugliness Man 06:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Section re: TV show removed

This text was added today:

Televisied broadcast
During the Late 1980s and early 1990s Fans, editors, And even the syndicate urged Watterson to make a TV show Of Calvin and Hobbes for diffrent reasons. Fans said it would increase the chance to see Calvin and Hobbes, Editors said that there would be no reason for them to make sunday strips larger, the syndicate said that the popularity would increase, and since Many of Calvin's antics were involved with action and adventure they would Go evenly with animation. However like always Watterson rejected the idea for two reasons. One was that cartoonists around the nation were complaining of this idea claming the syndicatde was trying to make a competitor to the TV show and comic strip Dennis the Menace in which Nickelodeon was broadcasting at the time. Second was that it was against Watterson's beliefs about cartooning. In a letter to a editor who was asking about why not broadcasting the strip Watterson replied,
{{Cquote|If you look at the end of each Calvin and Hobbes strip you can see my name written to the side and this shows that this strip was officaly made by me. But in a TV show you hire a man who may not know anything about the strip and does it for the pay not the spirit of Cartooning. When you hire a dozen of people who create the strip for pay and shows it without my approval the work will not be mine won't it? I belive it is a disgrace to cartooning and will ruin the spirit of the strip. Cartooning is for the humor when someone is reading and therefore TV is not cartooning at all.
After this letter was written most people changed their mind about this idea of animation and the project was later abandoned by the syndicate. To this day the Universal Press Syndicate has not made a TV show at all.

It is interesting, and - if verifiable - might be worth adding. However, I think it should be well-referenced first. Anyone have thoughts on where to find citations? --Ckatzchatspy

Who they're named after

Four times now, DXRAW has either removed the names, added citation requests, or edited the "named after" text to make it vague. I've provided a direct link to the publisher's page where it says "Both are named after famous philosophers. Calvin is named for a sixteenth-century theologian who believed in predestination, while Hobbes is named after a seventeenth-century philosopher with a dim view of human nature." After posting this, DXRAW performed the third revert, saying "Names still not mentioned in source". I think this is unreasonable - for one thing, "named after" implies that that name (i.e. "Calvin") came from the source. Beyond that, one has to ask how many "sixteenth-century theologians who believed in predestination" were named "Calvin", and how many "seventeenth-century philosophers with a dim view of human nature" were named "Hobbes". Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 07:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. DXRAW being a little overzealous here. --Oscarthecat 09:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 15:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wormwood's drinking

I think noting that Miss Wormwood necks maalox is significant, I'm shy as editing goes though, so I've done nothing about it--Shadebug 19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's really only mentioned once. The only place that it would be good to see that fact is in the Wormwood Character Article, but I think it may already be there.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 16:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

image speedy delete tag

The tag that was recently added to the "Scientific Progress Goes Boink" cover is causing something odd to happen. Click here to see how it looks on my screen in Opera. I double-checked in MSIE and it's the same deal. Haven't tried Firefox. And don't tell me that the problem is my screen resolution, if 1024 x 768 isn't big enough, then Wikipedia isn't as "universal" as it claims to be. - Ugliness Man 07:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see what the problem is, looking at your screenshot, could you clarify? --Oscarthecat 07:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I assume the problem Uglinessman was referring to - which was not limited to Opera - was the fact that the speedy deletion tag was at the start of the section's text, rather than in the box containing the photo it was referring to. This has been fixed. --Adam the Alien 08:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sunday layout

I've created some diagrams of the standard Sunday layout Watterson eventually rejected, which might be useful for the article to show just what he was rejecting.

I think this was discussed with similar diagrams in the Lazy Sunday Book, but I don't have that one with me so I can't verify it or find the page number. Anomie 14:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It was the tenth anniversary book. --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 00:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Which page? I couldn't find the diagrams I thought I remembered when I looked. Anomie 03:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Somewhere in the beginning quarter. Sorry, I don't actually have a copy to look at.
There it is, pages 14–15. For some reason I remembered the diagrams in color, so I missed it the first time through. I must be getting old or something. Anomie 17:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section

I have a few issues about the trivia section here. Wikipedia strongly recommends against trivia sections, correct? Adding to that, virtually all of the "trivia" featured in said section are references to horrid, grotesque misappropriations of Calvin's mischevious-but-innocent nature (a show where Calvin kills his parents, or references to urine). Given that, is there anything that is actually NECCESARY in that trivia section? Honestly, given the total lack of redeeming information in it, there doesn't seem to be a reason for it to exist. The unauthorized "peeing Calvin" parodies, the only noteable (and of course, still offensive and unauthorized) parody, is already referenced in a different section. 12:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree; the section is entirely unencyclopedic and should be removed. Go ahead and delete it. — Feezo (Talk) 13:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Before you delete it, please review the changes I made. Let me know if they are sufficient. Comments appreciated. Ccrashh 13:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, the problem isn't that the section wasn't well organized. The problem is that references to a mainstream newspaper comic simply aren't encyclopedic content. While this is a contentious subject, I think it's more clear-cut in the case of topics already well known in popular culture. We don't list every political cartoon featuring Gerald Ford; we don't list every reference to Star Trek in other TV shows. Content like this can be interesting and useful — and because of Wikipedia's licensing, is perfect material for fansites. Feezo (Talk) 16:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Ccrashh 19:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


I noticed that the individual page for G.R.O.S.S. is "spelled" so that it doesn't have the last period at the end (thus, "G.R.O.S.S"). I was going to take the initiative to just move the page, but "G.R.O.S.S." (with period) redirects to the main Calvin and Hobbes page, and so it won't allow the move (or at least, I assume this is why the move won't go through). SO, then I thought, "I will discuss this with others before I go any further." So, what do others think? The individual G.R.O.S.S. page is sort of a mess anyway, and G.R.O.S.S. is described both here on the main C&H page in a nice concise manner as well as on the "Recurring themes in Calvin and Hobbes" page (which is where the G.R.O.S.S page is linked from and thus how I discovered it). So in all, I wonder, do we still even want an individual page about G.R.O.S.S. anyway? Does every detail of its existence need to be spelled out? If we decide no, we can delete, but -- coming back to my original point -- if we decide yes, then we need to fix up the page title and so forth.

Ack, sorry for the longwindedness. Cheers! Fieryrogue 16:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The acronym stands for Get Rid Of Slimy girlS, so I'm not sure that it would need a period after the last S. -Emily D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD for Recurring themes in Calvin and Hobbes

Someone has nominated Recurring themes in Calvin and Hobbes for deletion. If you have any position on this proposed deletion, comment on the AfD page. Anomie 22:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Hale and calvin and hobbes?

Is there some sort of connection? If you listen to this demo on Jennifer Hale's website,

You'll notice that near the beginning there's a line from a Calvin and Hobbes strip, the one when he runs away from home cause he pushed a car into the ditch. Drewboy64 05:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Chocolate frosted sugar bombs

It seems to me that the article should mention this breakfast cereal of Calvin's - however, I'm unsure if there was one brand or several, so I won't enter anything until this has been found out... But I mean, come on, it's such a huge part of Calvin's life, it should be in there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

U Make An awesome point i Agree. CHOC. FROSTED SUGAR BOMBS; he ate them like every other saturday, but they always made him hyper....or sick -eyeshield 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, a breakfast cereal that he enjoys eating is a big part of his character and its impact on the world, anyone know a good spot to add it in? --Banime (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Social criticisms??

Hobbes also comments on Calvin's unwholesome habits, but from a more cynical perspective; he is more likely to make a wry observation than actually intervene. Sometimes he merely looks on as Calvin inadvertently makes the point himself. In one instance, Calvin tells Hobbes about a science fiction story he has read in which machines turn humans into zombie slaves. Hobbes makes a comment about the irony of machines controlling us instead of the other way around, when Calvin then exclaims, "Hey! What time is it?? My TV show is on!" and sprints back inside to watch it, leaving Hobbes to contemplate the irony of the situation once again.Calvin seems to have sympathy only for animals. He admires Hobbes for not being human, something the tiger trumpets often. Calvin and Hobbes often hug and vocalize their affections. "Not so hard," Calvin sobs, embraced by his animal friend, "...You squeeze my tears out." Calvin's affection for animals in turn adds to his misanthropy: he often directly mocks his father for joining the "rat race" and talks often with Hobbes of his resolve to behave like an animal in order to "get the most out of life".

these are the last 2 paras of the Social Criticisms section section (which has only 3 paras total). what does the above text have to do with Social Criticisms?? more importantly, is this section about social criticism towards C & H or criticisms within C & H???

--Bilbo elffriend | Talk 07:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thought Police Strip

Hello. There's a Quote on the Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes Page, in the Miss Wormwood Section: "After Calvin once declared that school was a big waste of time, she tried catching him while he yelled into the hallway, "Help! It's the Thought Police!"", can someone give the source (e.g. which Calvin and Hobbes book) to this quote? I am personally interested in getting that strip :) -- —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Homicidal Psycho Jungle Cat - pg. 128 Poonerpoob (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)