Talk:Calvin And Hobbes/Archive 8 - Calvin And Hobbes Wallpaper

Miss Wormwood article (among others)

Is there a reason the Miss Wormwood article is on a userpage User: Alastor Moody/Miss Wormwood instead of having it's own article in the normal Wikispace (or whatever it's call.

P.S. Please don't bit the newbie. ;) Not An IP 03:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This is probably because Miss Wormwood used to have her oen article, which was merged into Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes. Some users like to save old versions of articles in their userspace. - Mike 16:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh Thanks. Not An IP 14:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Marvin?

In the history section it says that a side character named "Marvin" was the basis for Calvin. Does anybody have any source that it's Marvin? I don't remember Bill Watterson even saying what the character's name was. - Mike 14:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember a Marvin but I tink that's what Calvin named his pretend little brother in a plot to get more presents. adamfc 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that isn't the Marvin mentioned. I'm going to go ahead and remove that since nobody seems to have a source. I've read basically everything Bill Watterson have ever written, and I can assure you that I've never heard him mention a "Marvin". I've heard him mention that Calvin was based on the main character's little brother in another (rejected) strip he did, but he never said what Calvin's name was in that strip. - Mike 13:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to that comment that Calvin pretends to have a brother, this fake brother says that his name is Melville. 216.191.40.149 00:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed some links

I removed a few links to some fluff fan sites, and those that displayed copyrighted comic strips. The ones that I left are the ones that provide the best information and expand on the article without violating (majorly, anyway) any copyright. - Mike 03:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh just worked out how to use 'Talk' ... I think the 'copyright' reason is a dangerous one to use to remove a link. After all, this very Wiki article uses copyright images through out it. And in particular, I object to the Cool Calvin & Hobbes Collection link being removed (yes I'm biased since I added the link), but the reasons being: 1. the scanned strips are but a small component of the site 2. Copyrights are acknowledged and links provided back to the official site 3. the 'fluff' comment had better not have been aimed at that site :P ... the CC&HC is one of the few Calvin sites with original content - not a compilation of stuff found in newspapers, or products that someone else made/wrote .. it's got original fan art and original articles/mashups. The article on the other characters in the C&H comic existed way before Wikipedia even existed. Axim 16:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Axim, the 'fluff' comment was not aimed at CC&HC :-). Not that I don't like that site at all, I think it's a wonderful site. I just think that it had too many scanned comics to be fair use. But really, I agree with you, I don't think Wikipedia should be poilicing copyright as much as they do, but as the current policy is I'm kinda supposed to do it. Still, being that the Official site hasn't much to offer, I'm inclined to ignore the rule in this case. I know I'll get hammered for that, but hey, what are you gonna do.. - Mike 16:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, copyright is a perfectly legitimate reason to remove some links. What the article contains is a small handful of fair use images. The links that get removed often have way too many scans to be any level of "fair use". It's like how many articles on music artists have brief clips from songs, but not links to sites where you can download entire albums or discographies. Wikipedia is not the new bookwarez hub, thank you very much. - Ugliness Man 16:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that copyright is a legit reason to remove a link, the danger comes in defining where the line is. How do you define 'fair use'? After all, C&H contains 1000s of comic strips. I know of no site that has scanned even 1% of that number or has an entire book scanned. I think the proposal being discussed here is the policy that should be adopted. Axim 02:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Axim, just so you know, that proposed policy change is in part because of this artocle. adamfc 21:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Too many external links

I know we've Already talked about Cool Calvin and Hobbes Collection, but what does it provide that the other sites don't?? Same with Kim's Calvin and Hobbes Page, which is more of a patchwork of sites than original. Realisticallly, the only really good site that has new content is Calvin and Hobbes :Magic on Paper. I also removed the C&H Unofficial Website link because of it's lack of original content. adamfc 18:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

CC&HC does have lots of original content such as the photo mergers and movie rumors section - has a few too many scanned strips though. I'm not the most objective to judge my own C&H Online Museum, but I do know that I have worked very hard to make it one of the biggest resources for C&H on the web. I'll let somebody else comment there, though. C&H Album seems pretty good for downloads and such...but otherwise is kinda fluff (good fluff, but fluff none the less). Kim's Calvin and Hobbes page has alter egos and Calvinball pages that would be rather useful for readers, but still nothing really original or new to see. I also think that Simply Calvin and Hobbes should be added back, for its wonderful "weirdness" section with all kinds of great info.

Here's how my fansite EL would look:

• Cool Calvin and Hobbes Collection
• Simply Calvin and Hobbes
• Calvin and Hobbes :: Magic On Paper

- Mike 23:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok i feel I have to defend myself on the C&H Album. We have original character bios that are longer than anywhere else save possibly wikipedia [1 ]. A long, informative, original look at the Calvin and Hobbes Legacy [2 ] As you said, cool goodies [3 ] A large animations gallery [4 ] Many foreign strips [5 ] More C&H movies than anyone else [6 ] and so much more that is'nt perhaps as exclusive but is still worth looking at. It's all original, nothing stolen from anyones site. Not trying to start a contest but "what'choo got?" I think this stuff is more extensive than what the CHOM has.adamfc 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ho ho, them's fightin' words boy! :-) I've got 33 individual sections which is the most of any Calvin site on the web, fan art and tributes, one of the better and most well known Bill Watterson sections around, lots of quotes, info on Calvinball, downloads and wallpaper. Need I go on? And I know I'm not the best person to judge my own site, so anybody who wants to, please jump in. And Adam, I'm not sayin that I don't love the C&H Album. IT's one of the best designed and fun Calvin sites on the net. But on Wikipedia for links, I don't think that people are going to be interested in animations, and (cool, but) amature "movies", as much as in great info. The average Calvin and Hobbes fan wouls be extremely impressed with your site. I know I am. But I think since this is an encyclopedia, we should be more interested in linking to good informational resources rather than stuff that's fun for the fans, but doesn't really contribute much to your understanding of the strip. - Mi ke

Oh, I realize that the site is more wel known for the fun stuff.... And I know you like it ;) but I'm just saying, your 33 sections consist of :

What's New

Site Map

FAQ

Characters

Bill Watterson

The Beginning

The Ending

Merchandising

Snow Art

Wagon & Sled

Calvinball

G.R.O.S.S.

TV

Tributes

Fan Art

Books

Articles

Discussion

Polls

Games

Quotes

Wallpaper

Downloads

International

Animation showcase!!

Links

Awards

Credits

About

Guestbook

Guestmap

Feedback

Disclaimer

So going through these, I can say that the only info pages are:

Characters

Bill Watterson

The Beginning

The Ending

Merchandising

Snow Art

Wagon & Sled

Calvinball

G.R.O.S.S.

TV

Articles

Quotes

International

Links

Characters The Calvin and Hobbes Album's got COVERED... {1} Bill Watterson I'll admit is more of a resource page, but we've got the Rare Bill Art interacive slideshow {2} The Beginning, The Ending, and Mierchandising are all covered well in the About C&H Page {3} Snow Art we got covered (if we can really call it informational) {4}Wagon and Sled and Calvin ball we don't have, but many other sites have identical pages, and as of now the Wagon page is just wikipedia's entry. G.R.O.S.S. gets covered throughout my site, but we don't admittedly have a page... but once aagain as of this time CHOM only has a wikipedia entry up. TV and Articles you got on me eveen though both pages don't exist yet. Quotes I got. I got an international page and you don't yet. {5} I got the links {6} too. So that brings us to...

Calvin and Hobbes Album- 8/14 Calvin and Hobbes Online Museum- 8/14 real content pages as of yet...

adamfc 21:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Well, the Wikipedia pages on my site are only temporary and will be replaced soon. I've been rather preoccupied with other things and haven't had much of an oppurtunity to write anything there yet, but I assure you it will be done. I'm leaning towards favoring a link to the Album, but that would have to be it. As of now, the WP:EL debate states five sites as a maximum should the proposal go through. And I would call the books and informational page too. That is, once I get around to writing it ;-). - Mike 21:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of debate i have a books page too ;) definetely 5 sites should be the max. â€"Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamfc (talk • contribs)

I think you either have to accept *all* sites that people add or have none at all. As we are seeing from this debate, none of us can have an objective unbiased discussion of what sites should be included. As we have seen, as soon as Mike says Adams's site shouldn't be in the EL, Adam hasn't liked that idea. Same goes for everyone including me. So I think given that many of us in this discussion are frequent contributors to this page, that we either just leave the EL as is and stop dragging this topic back up, or remove all the EL once and for all. Continually discussing it won't get us anywhere and we are *never* going to come to an agreement besides and 'all or nothing' position. Axim 09:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say it shouldn't be listed at all. What I meant to say is if we're going to thin it out, those would be the sites I would use. Adam was the one who said there were too many external links, not me. So I just decided that if there are too many, than these are the ones we should keep. - Mike 21:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Update

Well, the problem seems solved now. User:Oscarthecat removed a few and then added a note to discuss any more links on the talk page before adding them. Currently, there are links to three fan sites - the three that obviously don't violate any copyright. -  Mike | trick or treat  00:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - i totally disagree and will be adding my site back in. Not least because there is no C&H fan site that doesn't breach copyright. None of the fan sites even come under fair use rules. Read http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html to see what the courts have ruled as examples. I'll accept a 'no fan site' or 'all fan sites' policy. If Adamfc thinks there are too many sites, let him remove his site. Funny how those who are so eager to remove other people's site aren't so keen to remove their own. Axim 18:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so you are Axim!! lol I totally agree with you and dont really think that Oscarthecat should have done that... It's true that this carguing could go on forever, but let it. let me explain my position as I seem to have comeacross as anti- long fan site listings. let me also say that I did not take anyone's site off of the list besides The Unofficial Site.

" I know we've Already talked about Cool Calvin and Hobbes Collection, but what does it provide that the other sites don't?? Same with Kim's Calvin and Hobbes Page, which is more of a patchwork of sites than original. Realistically, the only really good site that has new content is Calvin and Hobbes :Magic on Paper. I also removed the C&H Unofficial Website link because of it's lack of original content. "

Here I am not implying that there are too many links ( even though, by the poorly chosen title, it definitely seems that way :) ) I disagree with the wikipedia no fansite policy whole haertedly. (1) (2)

So, I am in favor of keeping a large, good links sectio, even if it violates TOS. If you're going to be rule-following to the letter, NO LINKS! adamfc 20:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been long-standing on my position that Wikipedia is too harsh on external links. However, I respect Oscarthecat a great deal and I have the one who nominated him to be an adminstrator. I think that what he did was admirable and diplomatic. While I probably wouldn't have removed the links as he did (although, according to WP:EL as it stands at the moment, they were against guidelines), I think it was a wise thing to add the "please discuss the addition of new links at the talk page first" note. There have been many edit wars about the linking to fan sites around here. Another admin even went so far to delete every single fansite link from the list and insisted on not allowing it back. Obviously the majority of us wanted them back, or else they wouldn't be here now. I think that the best thing to do is just post a link to the site up here and let us dicuss whether it is appropriate to add. While Axim's site fails the copyright bit of WP:EL, I am inclined to ignore the rule because despite that, I believe that it adds something substantial to the readers' understanding of the strip. We should also note that WP:EL is a guideline, and not a policy, so it does not need to be followed to the letter as many editors claim it does. -  Mike | trick or treat  20:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ho hum, here we go again. Don't want to start a C&H-style snowball/water balloon fight here, but looking at ext links such as this, containing many pieces of Watterson's work, how can this be deemed suitable for Wikipedia? In doing so, you're harming Watterson by breaching his copyright and lining up Wikipedia for a fall, see text below. Am I right in thinking that we're all fans of Watterson's work and also fans of wikipedia? If so, we're helping neither of them by adding such links. Links to sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. Sites which fail to provide licensing information or to respond to requests for licensing information should not be used. (Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States.) at WP:EL. --Oscarthecat 21:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that the syndicate would sue Wikipedia for linking to another site that violates their copyright. For example, Calvin and Hobbes at Martijn's, the most popular Calvin and Hobbes fan site in its day, was shut down two years ago for copyright violations. It was a clear flagrant violation - displayed every single Calvin and Hobbes strip ever printed on it (although there was plenty of other great content, despite this), however the syndicate didn't go on a rampage and shut down every site that had a link to it.

As far as your assessment of pages containing copyrighted comic strips harming Watterson, I agree with you. It's not so bad to include a strip or two on your site (as this very article does), but having many strips published makes people less likely to buy the Calvin and Hobbes books for themselves. Conversely, a small collection of strips, like on this site can have the exact opposite effect - displaying this small number may convince readers to make the move to go out and buy the books for more. As you know, I don't republish any of the comic strips on my site, mainly because of the reasons you stated (harming Watterson) and because I'd prefer not to get a "cease and desist" letter from the syndicate. So here's and idea, maybe if Axim removed the strips section from his site, we would all agree to post the link? There are still some posted elsewhere on the site, but as in the Wikipedia article, they are few and posted in context. -  Mike | trick or treat  22:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Mike's idea that Digital C&H's original strips page is an incentive to buy the books, and Cool Calvin Collection's is not. They both include about the same amount, and anyway Watterson made thousands of strips. Plus, Digital C&H has no bearing on this case as it is not linked to in the article.adamfc 00:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

First, I apologise for being petulant in my earlier post - i was having a bad day. I don't really want to continue a 'C&H Snowball' fight as Oscar amusingly described it. To compromise, I will remove the 3 pages where I display a whole set of strips. Axim 17:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise. I think that we can all agree to link to it now. - Mike  Talk 17:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Does indeed sound good, thanks for the constructive debate. --Oscarthecat 17:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Noodle Incident

In the 10th Anniversary book Bill Watterson states that he intentionally never explains the noodle incident. Does this contradict the information about Calvin's school project edit that was recently made? Suggesting the boundaries of a school project may detract from his intentions. In light of Watterson's 10th Anniversary comments, what are your opinions on the recent edit? Mapache 03:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That's just fan speculation that, while common, probably shouldn't be included since Watterson didn't mention it one way or another. -  Mike | trick or treat  03:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with mike,... adamfc 19:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Susie Derkins Picture

Ok then.. I personally think that the graphic for Susie is completely inconsistant with the other graphics in the section on other characters. I just added one which I felt added to the congruence of the article, and Oscarthecat reverted it immediately.

I see above that Oscar's been voted 'administrator' of this article, whatever that means, so if his word is gospel I just can't be bothered engaging in a war to put a less hideous picture on the page.

But that's very unwikipedian, you fascist!! Patch 08:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi NewMessiah, first of all, welcome to the Calvin page. I'd spotted that your edit had placed two identical pics of Suzie onto the article, in addition to the existing one (see here). Couldn't really see the point of such duplications, so I reverted the edit. Your subsequent edit looks fine though, I certainly won't be reverting that, providing you add license information to the picture (otherwise, it will be automatically removed on October 21st see here) Hadn't had time to respond to just just yet, busy getting rid of some vandalism here and there, I'm certainly no facist! Anyway, good luck with your editing of wikipedia, thanks for the contribution to C&H. --Oscarthecat 09:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Oscar is not "administrator" of this article, rather he is a Wikipedia admin. This however does not make is word gospel - his opinions on the article have no more bearing than any other registered user's does. Basically, he just has access to some extra tools. -  Mike | trick or treat  14:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)