Talk:Pokey the Penguin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Comics / Webcomics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Webcomics work group.

box issue[edit]

I reinserted the webcomics box. I see no reason why this isn't applicable to this article. -RandomCowboy

Is this really an appropriate article for an encyclopedia?? I doubt anyone would really be looking for this. --Jzcool

It's wholly appropriate, I believe. It contains nontrivial factual information (though I'll do a bit of NPOV in just a moment) --KA

It's appropriate. Just minutes ago, I came here looking for it, and I'm glad it was here. --Agentseven

Appropriate indeed. Not only it's über-hilarious as it is one strong point of today's pop culture! - User:MiguelFC

agree with the chaps above who liked this article. one of the finest webcomics to have ever been made. ✈ James C. 03:45, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)


does anyone else find PtP to be vaguely reminiscent of a less edgy jerkcity? ✈ James C. 03:50, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

Yes, vaguely. The non-sequitors arrive at about the same rate. I find Jerkcity to be more topic-oriented though (or narrowly-focused). Much prefer Pokey. --Yath 03:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Pokey Principle[edit]

The Pokey Principle needs to be linked at the end of the article, or at least mentioned. It provides keen insight for beginners and Pokey veterans as well.

go for it Yath 20:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Anyone got a pdf of this? I'm sure I had one once, but lost it. Can't find it online anywhere either! -Kfor (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
fwiw, the pokey principle appears to still be available on the internet archives. i may try to create an archive of it, if no one beats me to it. Jon Lon Sito (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Found it in postscript format, yay. I've made it available here. -Kfor (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Article circle-candy[edit]

is *always* written as "circle-candy", not "circle candy", in the strip, as far as I remember. Dehumanizer 07:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is sometimes hyphenated (#1 #6 8:3 #236) (or like this: #303) and sometimes not (8:2 #11 #62 #67 #71 #112 #138 #232 #364). --Yath 21:58, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
oh rot. ✈ James C. 12:41, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)


Should we change the quotes to ALL CAPS? They'd "sound" more like they do in the comic, that way... Dehumanizer 20:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

i'd agree to that. ✈ James C. 01:21, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)
I have edited the quotes in the first paragraph to be italicized, as they were already capitalized, and confrom more closly to the style of the comic. -- 23:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As a pokey fan, I want all caps as much as the next guy. It seems to me though, that since this isn't a pokey fansite and meant as a source of information, that quotes should be typed with normal capitalization. This will make the information easier to digest for people unfamiliar with the comic.


This article looks rather biased to me. More of a positive review or blurb than an objective encyclopedic article. I'm not the right person to do it, but perhaps some of the more obvious praise should be altered? EldKatt 17:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Praise? Where? Please quote at least one sentence, since I can't find one in the article. :) I do, however, believe that removing the sentence "looks like the work of a 4 year old with poor motor control and a short attention span" was wrong, since it does describe the art very well. Still love the comic, though. Dehumanizer 17:57, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm afraid I must embarrass myself by being unable to point at a particular sentence. The whole article, though, seems (to me) to have an air of subtle subjectiveness. I guess it's mostly gut feeling. EldKatt 09:14, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Image position[edit]

I've noticed the image with the Pokey comic panel can't be simply added to that article. Not without paying attention to something first. Aligning it to the right (the way images are positioned on most articles) might be a bad idea, since it'll look weird that way (in my opinion, at least).

It might look fine for people using the Nostalgia Wikipedia skin, but it looks pretty bad for people using the MonoBook skin, for example, or people using lower resolutions like 800x600, which are many. Just switch to that one and check the article to see how it looks like. For that reason, I'll let the image locked in the center. That way, it'll look fine on every skin. Sounds reasonable to me. – Kaonashi 02:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mackeriv, I apologize. I hadn't realized that the horizontal alignment of the image was particularly significant, such that you would consider my edit a reversion. Even so, placing this image centered above the article text isn't a good way to start an article (notice that almost no other article does this). I see that the main issue is to prevent a few words sitting beside the image on small displays, so here's an alternate solution: place it after a paragraph and prevent text from flowing around it. --Yath 04:11, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's alright. I see the way you edited now, and well, I actually think it still looks irregular. No text in the way, but I dunno. Still looks a little out of place. About centering the image in the beginning of the article, I know it's not common (I myself have never seen it), but it's not like it's discouraged by Wikipedia. The "center" command for the Image tag is there, so yes, I'd say it's fine to use it. I haven't heard of it until I tried and saw it working, though. Here is the way it looks like for me, by the way. Centered.

Maybe we could use other people's opinions on this. – Kaonashi 23:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We could center it under the introduction. -Pyrop 02:56, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

I did as you said regarding the image. Looks a little better now. I also removed that Quotes section, since there's a link for the Wikiquote page on that article that has all of those quotes, exactly that way. – Kaonashi 05:22, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mother and brothers[edit]

Anybody know which strips feature Pokey's mother and brothers? I'm not too sure about that edit mentioning "Pesky and Sudsy". --Yath 04:34, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pokey Returns Home Kuralyov 02:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is a matter of little import. The Small Child is the only essential character related to him.


Does anyone know who created Pokey? I think there should be something about them.

  • Steve Havelka. It says so on the article. Dehumanizer 12:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is the basis for claiming him as the author? His official website and resume do not mention the webcomic. The only things that I can find tying Havelka to Pokey are Everything2, Wikipedia and clones, other wikis, blogs, and message boards. None of these are reliable sources. This review from "Comixpedia" mentions Havelka's name as the creator but does not say how the reviewer learned the name of an anonymous author. Fishal 04:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

there are a number of compelling reasons to believe Havelka is The Authors. perhaps they are not proof, but strong implications. for example, is registered to "Steve H." at the same address the t-shirt orders should be sent to. other projects on appear to be the work of Havelka. curiously, the t-shirt ordering page says to make payments to a Jason Havelka -- perhaps a sibling? also, to the best of my knowledge Steve Havelka has never disputed the fact, nor has anyone else (seriously) claimed to be The Authors. Jon Lon Sito 07:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, then, we should add "probably" or "apparently" to the statement in the article that mentions Havelka, since it is not actually known for certain. Maybe you could even add a paragraph about the authorship. Fishal 22:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • agreed; the wording should reflect the less-than-certain aspect, despite strong suggestion. maybe i could track him down and ask. heh. (i live in portland.) thanks for changing the wording. Jon Lon Sito 05:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
In this thread in an old Yahoo! group, someone calling himself Steve Havelka claims ownership. Here's a link to the weblog of Scott Vandehey, a personal friend of Steve Havelka, where it mentions Steve by name (though not by last name as well) as Pokey's creator. (Scott also made comments in the first link, under the name 'Super Scott.') Is it enough that a lot of people know through personal correspondence with Steve Havelka to cite him as the creator? matt 15:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Steve Havelka is the author. This used to be publicly acknowledged on his homepage at (now-defunct), and what's more, I used to IRC with him all the time back when he started it up. He was parodying crappy webcomics (which there weren't nearly as many of at the time), notably Bob The Triangle who he had a feud with the author of. It was originally a short-term gag which spread via #coders on AnotherNet (only a few of us knew he was behind it though - the rest just thought it was some random brilliantly-retarded thing). The rest of used to be a bunch of other parodies; itself was the homepage of the fictional "Yellow No. 5," a Portland-based band with delusions of grandeur and no actual songs (but plenty of merchandise to buy anyway). In the meantime, feel free to check the WHOIS information for the domain, which is registered to one "Steve H." (not conclusive I know, but whatever). 03:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I too was in that channel (first efnet, then anothernet), and I remember a number of people talking about and claiming ownership, like maybe it was made in some sort of collective, but of course being irc it could have been all boastery. I vaguely remember Steve being there, but I don't remember him being particularly involved at all, except for ownership of Grain of salt, maybe? The band stuff on yellow5, though, was all the project of someone else's entirely (Scott?) Mannn 11:54, 23 December 2005 (CST)
Oh yeah, I forgot about Scott... Come to think of it, he actually had a sense of humor much more in-line with the style of the comic, so it's possible that Steve didn't have a whole lot to do with it after all. 03:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Steve is just a facade for many people who do the comic. Many templates have been made to ease the creation and these templates have been distributed. (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

JASON HAVELKA has to be part of it too, since he's the one that people are supposed to write checks to. [1] 22:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Title in all-caps?[edit]

Since the narration of the comic is in all-caps, shouldn't 'Pokey the Penguin' read 'POKEY THE PENGUIN'?

Even if it is changed, WP's naming convention will prune out the capitals and still redirect to the current article. I think.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I remain a humble n00b. matt 19:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about the article title, I believe we should stick to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) unless there's a very good reason not to. And, unlike in cases like LaTeX or iPod, where non-standard capitalisation is an important part of the name, Pokey the Penguin is only in all-caps in the comic because the author chose all-caps as an overall typographic standard.
For similar reasons I'm somewhat opposed to WRITING ALL POKEY QUOTES IN THE ARTICLE LIKE THIS, since we don't use Comic Sans every time we quote Dilbert. I'll argue about that some other time, though. ^_^ EldKatt (Talk) 14:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Mixed caps in quotes again[edit]

I propose that we remove italicization and all caps from quotes, on the simple grounds that we don't imitate typographic design when quoting anything else. If the motivation for the all caps italics were applied to its full extent, we would use a comic sans font in all caps when quoting Dilbert (and feel free to think up other examples yourselves). I'm not being bold and editing right now, since a decision was made on this talk page to format things the way they are now. If nobody disagrees, though, I will be bold. EldKatt (Talk) 17:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I typed the first quotes here (not the later additions), and initially they were written "normally". But, for some reason, I found that they "read" much less funny that way. It wasn't me who changed them to all caps, but I fully supported that change. I'd rather they remained as all caps. But it's not my call... Dehumanizer 18:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd prefer the inline quotes remain capitalised/italicised. Whereas the font (ref. Dilbert comment above) is (I argue) arbitrary and doesn't affect the way a strip is read, the deliberate ALL CAPS is a relevant stylistic device and definitely changes the impact of the narrative. Denotation/connotation, that sort of thing. It's the difference between reading the lyrics to a song versus listening to it. matt 18:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree. They have a certain quality that would be lost by removing the formatting. --Yath 23:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Crossed-out words[edit]

I think it may be worth noting the difference between crossed-out words (incomplete words scribbled out) and strike-out font used for emphasis. Yes? No? Maybeso? To all the naysayers, if a massive article about a single (mediocre) Gwen Stefani song can be a featured article on Wikipedia, Pokey certainly belongs here as well. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the words with a strike-out are thoughts that are meant. The scribbles lead me to believe that if the author had a typo, they would just keep it and when editting, would just scribble it out. 22:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Some ot the dialogue reminds me of Engrish. Is this intentional, do you think? 06:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


It seems to me like it is pixel art, drawn "primatively" on purpose. Though I think "The Authors" have an art background since they've done some animations as well as introduced a few Piet_Mondrian paintings that I recognize. [2] 22:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit of a stretch.


Why is does this article have almost the exact same wording as the article for Friend Bear? Supposedly, the Friend Bear comic was started as a parody for this comic. Its kind of hard to tell what information is factual between the two articles. Or are they so similar in nature that only a slight change in wording aptly describes them both? -Concerned Anonymous Internet Person

where's pokey?[edit]

i hadn't been back to pokey in a while, and i checked back yesterday, and it was gone! no longer exists! does anyone have any info? also, is there another place where pokey is archived? i cant stand the thought of pokey being gone forever! ~--Resister 22:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, it's still there. - Emt147 Burninate! 23:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Gone again as of Nov 05, 2007. The domain seems to have lapsed and now goes to a Verizon placeholder page. D'oh. Anybody know if Pokey has shown up anywhere else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It's back, as of November 11. 11:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
And gone again, almost exactly two years after the outage noted above. (November 6, 2009) The Authors seem to have trouble remembering to re-register their domain. (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This article's history[edit]

This seems to be one of the oldest articles on Wikipedia! How strange. Fishal (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

File:Pokey the penguin.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:Pokey the penguin.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 9 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)