Talk:Garfield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

An event mentioned in this article is a June 19 selected anniversary

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

---

Contents 1 Older comments 2 Who's "dag"? 3 Garfield's Bird Diet 4 Garfield in Doonesbury 5 Dropped From Prominant Newspapers 6 Size concern 7 Books 8 Clean-up recommended 9 1978 or 1979? 10 External Link 11 External Links 12 New internet phenomenon 13 Odie 14 Mostly criticism on this article, some people do enjoy this strip you know 15 LORENZO GERBONZO (or Lorenzo Garbanzo) 16 The Halloween comic storyline of 1989... 17 Jon's address 18 Jon a mindreader? 19 What? 207.157.17.19 is deleting massive amounts of text 20 Curious Question 21 Similarity to Bucky Katt? 22 Garfello 23 Jon's info fixed 24 The real world 25 Color Image 26 English battle 27 Major rewrite of first paragraph needed 28 The "new" Garfield 29 Are you serious ? 30 Halloween storyline 31 Removed "Removing Garfield Thought Bubbles" 32 Boingboing as a source 33 Homosexuality 34 InfoBox Picture 35 Garfield... the Easter Bunny? 36 Liz's last name 37 Removed paragraph from "criticism" 38 Jon & Liz 39 Where Garfield Lives 40 Dates

[edit] Older comments

I wonder if it's a bizarre coincidence or intentional....

The late Lorenzo Music not only performed the voice of Garfield the cat in the cartoon, but also of Peter on the cartoon The Real Ghostbusters.... the character who Bill Murray portrayed in the film Ghostbusters (and Ghostbusters II). Now, Bill Murray will be voicing Garfield in the live action movie... weird. --Dante Alighieri 08:23 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

• I believe the answer is that Music was CHOSEN to be the voice of Bill Murray's character in the cartoon due to the similarity in their voices; and now, the reverse is true. 66.157.94.151 16:29, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Interesting article about Garfield in Slate a little while back: Why we hate the Mouse but not the cartoon copycat. Purports that Davis' success was due in part to his deliberate attempts to make a bland, inoffensive, marketable character. Too NPOV to really include, but interesting anyway. --Fastfission 01:36, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Maybe the blandness is POV, but a frank explanation of the committee set-up that creates it would be welcome. People will come to their own conclusion when they realize that Davis is a joyless miser, brooding in his cavernous mansion, grasping a glass of brandy with his thin, clawlike fingers, and a superior smirk on his greedy, soulless face... while some group of artists and writers churns out his cash-cow.

I remember a number of years ago I looked at some autobiography-styled anthology. He says point-blank that he wants it to be as inoffensive and as "global" as possible by avoiding any sort of cultural issues/editorializing, which, imho, makes it bland and boring. I remember that he showed one comic saying, basically "why can't we all get along", saying that was as political as he ever got.

--

Does anyone know what strips Strech was in?

Stretch? The rubber chicken? I just added that guy to the artical! Oh how I loved him...anyway, he appeared throughout the week of that fat cat's 7th b-day, and has made a few cameo appearences. --Wack'd About Wiki 00:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • I think it was in his 12th book where they introduced him... or that might be where he was last seen... why did they drop that character, anyway? He was just as good as Pooky! CanadianCaesar 05:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And is anyone starting a Garfield's Pet Force entry?--Teh Bomb Sophist 08:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--

Does anyone know which 1983 strip was Lyman's last regular appearance in?

• I don't know the last 1983 appearence (thus I'm not of TOO much help), but I do know he's not in Garfield's 10th book, which starts with strips from 10/24/83. So it's somewhere in his 9th book...

Thanks, that was pretty helpful. Now I know where to search.

Lyman's last Appearance was April 24th 1983. It was the one where Garfield and Jon are injured by a bubble that Garfield popped.

• Lyman makes one final cameo appearance in the title panel of Garfield's 10th birthday strip on 6/19/88. He is seated between Jon's Dad and Liz. There is also a flashback panel showing him in the strip.

[edit] Who's "dag"?

Todays strip [1] has some strangely person in it called "dag". I've never seen him before (though he looks strange familiar, like out of a thirties comic strip). Could anybody elaborate who he is? Thanks :-) Peter S. 12:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• It's Dagwood Bumstead! Matt 02:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks :-) Peter S. 09:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, that comic is part of a series of comic crossovers that center around Blondie and Dagwood inviting characters from other comic strips for their 75th Anniversary, and Garfield is involved in that particular crossover. Here is the article covering this, also showing a panel from the Beetle Bailey crossover. Of course, this is not the first time Garfield and Blondie and Dagwood crossed over with each other. One April Fools strip in 1997 has Garfield and Jon getting their house painted and having to visit the Blondie and Dagwood strip, and they are even drawn in the same style throughout it. You can read the comic in question here.

To clarify, on April 1, 1997, a bunch of popular syndicated cartoonists swapped strips for the day. Jim Davis (or his team) wrote and drew Blondie that day, and Denis LeBrun drew Garfield. I also note that Jim's design for Dagwood is much closer to Chic Young/Denis Lebrun's style than Lebrun's style for Jon and Garfield is to Jim's. Finally, a question about the 1997 strip: where's Odie? Powers 20:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Trivia item about this said Blondie visited but then used the term 'he' to refer to Blondie. I changed them to 'she' but was it actually Dagwood that visited, such that the name was wrong and the pronouns correct? Flamesplash 04:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garfield's Bird Diet

Garfield usually eats pet cananries and wild sparrows. --Wack'd About Wiki 14:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

And fish and ferns.199.224.81.132 19:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garfield in Doonesbury

I don't know if it was Doonesbury but I'm pretty sure it's in one comic by the guy who draws em.

In the comic section, my brother told me to read this comic and it featured this guy doing an experiment and told him something horrible went wrong. The other guy looks inside the room and sees a room full of Garfields with black bowties on his head. He runs out to barf and the 1st guy comments "I must of drooled in the beakers".

Anyone know that comic. I'd like to make reference to it to this article under a Trivia section?--TKGB 22:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dropped From Prominant Newspapers

I know recently that Garfield has been dropped by some major papers' comics sections. I think one out in LA, and I know that the Star Ledger in NJ did this. Does anybody have more information on these events (losing distribution in major papers can be a big blow to the comic strip). --THollan 11:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's been dropped from at least three major newspapers this year,[2] but if you're going to include this information, be careful about claiming it's a recent trend due to the blandness of the strip. I don't know if it actually makes that much difference to the bottom line for Paws.--John Lynch 04:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Size concern

Bit large isn't it? I think at the very least the character section could be moved to it's own article.--John Lynch 04:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• I have moved it. An anonymous user moved it back, kind of defeating the purpose of a separate article, so I reverted him. — JIP | Talk 15:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Books

Could anybody tell me the correct order of the following books: Garfield Gets Cookin', How to Draw Garfield, Furry Tails, Party Now, Age Later, Never Accept a Gift With Air Holes, Garfield Beefs Up, Insults. Put Downs and Slams, and Stupid Cupid? Scorpionman 02:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up recommended

This has article been nominated for clean-up. A negative spin has been imparted on most of the articles content (some of which is un-sourced and inaccurate) thus not conforming to the non-POV policy. The article itself is also quite patchy and reads more like a soapbox than an encyclopedic article.--Knuckle 08:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Specifically? — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 13:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Knuckle, this article seems to be more focused on POV criticisms than encyclopedic information on Garfield. And the small amount of biographical data there is far from complete. If you compare it to other comic strip articles, its very obvious. I have a good amount of well sourced information on Garfield, and over the next few weeks I will endeavor to complete this article in more of an encyclopedic format.--Jimi Snukka 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There is one criticism section. Articles on other widely-criticized and parodied strips including Family Circus, Boondocks, Doonesbury, and Dilbert either have criticism sections or sorely need them. Instead of congratulatory and apologetic fancruft, we need an article that adequately details what it is and what people think of it. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 07:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What you say here is true. The article itself does benefit from having a criticism section. My only concern was that the criticisms made by a minority would overwhelm the article and distort it. But that no longer seems to be a problem now, so i have no objections--Jimi Snukka 09:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1978 or 1979?

This is regarding the following section:

Garfield had its debut on June 19, 1978, which is also considered Garfield's birthday. Comic strips on June 19th depict the cat celebrating his birthday, except in 1979 when he was shown celebrating his birthday on the 20th.

This edit changed the year from 1979 to 1978. Which was it? The IP hasn't made any other edits, so there's no way to tell if the user is going around making good or bad edits. I'll change it back to 1979 until we find some way of verifying when it was. --Mr. Billion 09:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Verified: It was actually 1978. The reason garfield had his birthday on the 20th is because his actual birthday (the 19th) was the first garfield strip, which was needed to introduce the characters and setting. At any rate this bit of info really isn't necessary in this portion of the article, so i think i'll take it out. It reads better without it anyway.--Jimi Snukka 00:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that's probably best. Thanks. --Mr. Billion 03:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Link

Slate.com has been removed from the external links selection because it does conform with Wikipedia's policy for external links. The garfield related article on the site does not contain neutral and accurate material that wikipedia requires. The article itself is very one sided, where some facts have been twisted or omitted to suit a particular point of view.--Jimi Snukka 01:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't have an external link policy, and it's not a violation of NPOV to link to criticism. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 06:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant that its not in line with the style guide for external links, oops. At any rate some of the material itself is also incorrect: Garfield was actually not successful in the early days; with it being cancelled from the Chicago Sun-Times after 3 months of test runs. The comment of the strip being completely inoffensive is also incorrect, as certain strips, including the killing of spiders, the nerd hall of fame, garfields use of the words 'sex' and 'sucked', and others, have attracted numerous angry letters. Inaccurate material such as this, as well as it demonstrating a heavy bias, is all against what the style guide says, so i'm removing it. It was aggreed in a past discussion also, that the link should not be included in the article; but someone seems to have put it back in though, with no explaination. If you think the official website should be removed as well (because of heavy advertising) Phil, feel free to remove it.--Jimi Snukka 07:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If we point out these facts in the article—not in relation to the external link but just in general—I think we can still keep the external link. (I still think that as a generalization, the assertion that it was successful in the early days is true, in context. The article was talking about the first few *years*, not the first few *months*.) We sorely need the link, since it does serve as criticism, however much you may disagree with it. Incidentally, instead of edit warring, try to discuss these issues on the relevant talk page before making a final edit. Anyway, the style guide specifically recommends: "On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view." The external link you removed serves this purpose well. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 07:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against fair criticism of this article, or any other. But if the article linked uses incorrect information to back up its criticisms (which it does), then it should not be added. The only reason the Garfield.com site is present is because its the official comic strip website, not for the purpose of creating a POV external link. But like i said before, if you feel this should be removed anyway, then i have no objections whatsoever--Jimi Snukka 07:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What information is incorrect? You haven't pointed out any real factual errors in the article—for instance, the article's mention of Garfield's early success was clearly written in the context of years as opposed to months, while the comment about its inoffensiveness is largely a matter of opinion. Garfield is certainly inoffensive compared to, say, The Boondocks or Doonesbury. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 07:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The article also conveniately forgets Davis' unsuccessful 5 year outing with his first comic strip Gnorm Gnat created prior to garfield. The notion that he needed an accessible character such as Garfield came from an editor who commented on Gnorm Gnat stating: 'you art is good, your gags are great, but bugs - nobody can identify with bugs!'. The slate article gives the reader to impression that Davis' only desire from the beginning was to create a very marketable comic strip for merchandising, if this were true then he wouldn't have created such a niche concept as Gnorm Gnat. And, like i've said before there have been numerous offended readers have sent angry letters regarding some of the daily strips, thus it can't be as completely inoffensive and bland as the slate article leads the reader to believe. It is not a good idea to put a pov link in an article meant to be un-biased. Other people in past discussions on this subject also seem to agree. But, given that you've now stuck it in the criticism section where it belongs, i really don't care to argue any further bout it.--Jimi Snukka 08:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Your apparent opposition to providing links to outside webpages that don't conform to Wikipedia's standards of neutrality doesn't make sense. You can't expect the entire Internet to live up to Wikipedia's ideal of neutrality, and it's never been Wikipedia policy to only provide external links to neutral web pages. --Mr. Billion 23:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I was following the recommendations of the style guide to external linking, i'm aware there is no policy. I don't expect the entire internet to live up to Wikipedia's ideal of neutrality, but i do expect the sources and links in wikipedia articles to be more than one sided rabblings of individuals based on facts twisted to support their opinions. That said though, I no longer have any objections since the link in question is now in the appropriate criticism section.--Jimi Snukka 01:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I believe that the Maddox link is completely appropriate in the sense that the man actually has a Wikipedia entry of his own; not to mention receieves enough traffic to be noteworthy of such recognition. Personal opinions are one thing, but I concider this a critical citation. It would be the same if Dan Rather made a comment about mullets, then someone links to that report to a mullet-related article. --solstice 04:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that the Maddox parody is already mentioned and linked in the article itself, there is no need to have it in the external links section. Check out the Wikipedia style guide for external links.--Count Chocula 02:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New internet phenomenon

It's not notable enough for the article yet (and probably never will be), but there's a new Internet trend where folks are removing Garfield's thought bubbles from various strips...with hilariously surreal results. Check it out: Garfield Redux

Neil Gaiman posted a note about it on his blog, so who knows...maybe this will take off. -- MisterHand 20:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been added. My gut feeling is that it's still not notable enough for inclusion, but it's close enough I'm not ready to revert the addition, either. Powers 14:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I say keep it, but use Neil Gaiman's blog as a reference to establish notability. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 19:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made a note of it in the article. -- MisterHand 20:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odie

Doesnt Odie now walk on four legs like a regular dog? --Gimpy 04:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Inconsistantly.

[edit] Mostly criticism on this article, some people do enjoy this strip you know

If people despise the "mass marketing" of Garfield, they're of course free to ignore the comic. I don't read it anymore myself (I did in middle school). I've never heard a coherent reason from any single person, including the Calvin and Hobbes creator, as to how turning an inoffensive comic strip character into stuffed animals and other assorted junk is some great evil. It's the epitome of elitist hogwash. The Boondocks is heavily marketed also, does that mean its political content is somehow muted (actually it does in the Castro-worshiping McGruder's case, but anyway).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.11.45.124 (talk • contribs) .

I agree with you (whoever you are). Personally, I'm in favour of letting the reader draw his own conclusion about Garfield's innoffensive nature and merchandising - it's not up to us to draw the conclusion that it's a bad thing.--Count Chocula 04:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

How does the article do that? All it does is make a statement of fact--namely, that certain critics say these things about the strip. — Phil Welch 06:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the main issue the user was raising is that the article in its present form is giving the reader the impression that being 'inoffensive', having 'characters and sitiuations constant' and 'merchandising' are automatically bad, as they've all been put in the criticsm section. The reader should be left to draw his or her own conclusions about these aspects. What is criticism to one isn't necessarily criticism to another. I've done a bit of rearranging that hopefully will fix this issue.--Count Chocula 07:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree; that was an odd combination. Good work separating it. — Phil Welch 20:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LORENZO GERBONZO (or Lorenzo Garbanzo)

I can find no supporting evidence that there is such a character; the description sounds a little fishy too. Please provide some evidence that there is such a character before re-adding it to the article. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I found a quote referencing Lorenzo Garbanzo. 00:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the character appeared in one strip, identifying himself in the manner of Inigo Montoya. I suspect he was squished at the end. Our intrepid contributor is likely conflating all previous and subsequent spider nemeses as Mr. Garbanzo, which is entirely unsupportable. Powers 16:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Halloween comic storyline of 1989...

Can anybody tell me what was the actual storyline behind the Garfield halloween comic? Why wasn't it as funny as the rest of the Garfield comic and what was the ending about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.31.186.46 (talk • contribs) .

• It was Jim Davis indulging his non-funny side for a week, and showing a deeper side to Garfield's characterization than normal; Garfield realized that if he continued to treat Jon and Odie so badly, one day they might just up and leave him, and his always powerful imagination dragged him into this dark fantasy. At the end he has to snap himself back to reality by convincing himself this bleak future can't POSSIBLY be real and that Jon and Odie would never just leave him alone. Sort of like A Christmas Carol, at the end Garfield decides to appreciate the people in his life.

Of course, there is the alternative hypothesis that the bleak is real and the happy is fantasy, but I doubt Jim Davis wants us to believe that Garfield is alone in a deserted house with nothing but delusions to keep him happy. Thanos6 03:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up for me! I love Garfield the comic cat!

In one panel, Garfield seems to realize that he isn’t alive. I’m wondering if this is some sort of Lost Highway/Mulholland Drive/Jacob’s Ladder afterlife-bardo scenario. Felicity4711 05:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I like this idea! And let me just say that this senquence of strips is quite possibly the most disturbing thing I've ever read. But that's a good thing. The-dissonance-reports 15:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jon's address

I've just discovered in this strip (which is one of those Sunday strips tied to a storyline; in this case Garfield going out of the house when he is sent to fetch the paper and Odie went after him) that Jon's address is "711 Maple Street". I wanted to put this in the article, since it doesn't mention it at this time, but I don't know the appropiate place to put it. I did put it in the list of the addresses of fictional characters, though. - NES Boy 01:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jon a mindreader?

The article states that Jon reacts to Garfield's thoughts. Has Jim Davis ever confirmed this? I always saw it as Jon reacting to Garfield's expressions.

Jon certainly appears to be very adept at understanding what Garfield means. However, it's clear from a few individual strips that Jon cannot literally read Garfield's precise thoughts. He has said on occassion that there are times he wishes he could. As far as I know, the only Garfield strip in which Jon can clearly hear and react to Garfield's "words" is the April Fool's strip written by Chic Young of Blondie. Powers 13:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What? 207.157.17.19 is deleting massive amounts of text

Fuscob, in the audit trail, what are you talking about? 207.157.17.19 is deleting massive amounts of text from the page. I think you might be accusing the wrong party of the vandalism here. ;-)

Atlant 16:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Further investigation seems to reveal both valid edits and blanking edits from that IP address. Perhaps there are two (or more?) kids in the same school "competing" here, one adding to the article and one wiping it out?

Atlant 16:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I may have been fixing that at the same time you were, effectively reverting your changes. Sorry about that! Fuscob 22:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries! As I mentioned, it turned out to be a very confusing series of edits with some probably okay and some looking very vandalistic.

Atlant 00:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply to above: I don't think Garfield should be vandalized like that. I wonder what school that is responsible for the IP address "207.157.17.19". I'm willing to bet that the people vandalizing this page with that IP are somewhat either punk or goth kids sent by either Jeff Hardy or Bam Margera. The "competing" thing might be possible, but I'd suggest taking affirmative action on the "vandalistic" changes to Garfield. Garfield is too good to be vandalized, and I don't think that Jim Davis would like it one bit if he saw something unacceptable on this page if he were to browse Wikipedia. Have they been around here lately?

D.F. Williams 14:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Curious Question

Do the Japanese have a love for Garfield? --D.F. Williams 19:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similarity to Bucky Katt?

I was just considering Garfield and "Pooky" and it made me think of Get Fuzzy's Bucky Katt and his bear Smacky. Anyone feel this is worth a mention, or just most likely a coincidence? Kendall 05:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bucky does reference Garfield as if a deity at times ("For the love of Garfield", "What in the name of Garfield?", "Praise Garfield", et cetera). The S 02:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garfello

I seem to remember a comic strip in the old Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles magazine where Garfield appeared to the green four in a TMNT-like costume, calling himself Garfello, and holding a pizza cutter as a "weapon". I can't find anything about this online, though. Am I looney, or did something like that actually happen? The S 02:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that there was something about Garfield doing that, although no matter what search engine I try I can't find it. Oh well. 02:40, 17 June 2006

[edit] Jon's info fixed

Jon doesn't age any more than Garfield or Oddy in this strip. Accordingly I've fixed this section. Jon 14:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Granted, but technically... Garfield does age. His age is mentioned nearly every year around his birthday, and the number of candles on his cake matched for at least the first several years. Powers 14:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The real world

Discussion of canonical minutae is all fine and good (I used to indulge in all manner of that), but can we expand the discussion of the comic's place in the world at large? I've just added a bit about international licensing of the character, but there's far more to it than that. Also, before you can discuss "removing the speech balloons", for instance, you really have to discuss the context of why such a viewpoint would exist in the first place, etc. (refering to the backlash against the comic and why it has come into mainstream awareness) –Unint 05:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, the backlash seems to be mainly comprised of some internet critics; and mostly aimed at the new movie. Aside from that, the strip seems as popular as ever. I agree with you though, this article needs to be expanded to include information about the strip from a real world standpoint (provided that information is well sourced of course).--Kingston Jr. 05:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What about when the Los Angeles Times dropped the strip last year? That news made the rounds quite a bit (though I'm not sure if it's just limited to the blogosphere). –Unint 03:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't heard about that, though being dropped from one newspaper when its syndicated by around 2570 newspapers and journals isn't exactly what I'd call a backlash. I'm not exactly clued in on Garfield, but so far when looking for some sources I haven't seen much that extends beyond the blogosphere. If you do have any information from reputable sources, that would be very helpful.--Kingston Jr. 03:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Color Image

This article really needs a color image (the current one is b/w) --Rehcsif 16:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of uploading a colour picture as the main image. Though the previous images I've uploaded (character pics and the first comic strip) I kept black and white for a couple of reasons: one that many of the strips were b/w anyway, and two that it adds some more weight to the claim of fair use by using non-colour images. I'll try and find a color image that has Garfield, Jon, and Odie together; that should make a good main image.--Kingston Jr. 05:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I favor restoring the monochrome version of the first strip. Not only is a color version historically inaccurate, it's also misleading regarding the strip's origin as a daily newspaper strip rather than a Web-supported comic. Not a big deal now, maybe, but your grandkids won't automatically know that. 71.231.116.244 08:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English battle

Folks, lets quit quibbling over English spelling. Garfield is an American publication, so it seems fitting that we'd use American English to discuss it, just as I'd feel it appopriate to use British English to discuss a UK subject matter. --Rehcsif 04:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The people changing it to British spelling are actually violating WP policy and they've been warned (repeatedly). --Samuel Webster 10:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major rewrite of first paragraph needed

Yuck! The first paragraph in the overview section is ghastly. For some reason, the author feels the need to continue to detail the minutiae of when and how Odie was able to communicate in English. This is a rambling digression from what should otherwise be a high-level introduction to the Garfield strip. I recommend that this paragraph alone make this entry a candidate for a "bad quality flag" on the main page. --Gyllstromk 07:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Powers 12:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "new" Garfield

Somewhere, it has to be mentioned that Garfield has changed, or is changing. Looking at the actual story arc that's been going on since the seventeenth, and especially at today, I think it's obvious (even without looking at the website's front page. I mean, Liz actually liking Jon? I can't be the only one to notice this. 67.10.175.242 06:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Haven't read today's yet; I'm getting a broken image both at garfield.com and ucomics.com. Still, the storyline's been going for over a month, actually. It goes back to just after Garfield's birthday, when Jon got an e-mail reminder for Garfield's annual checkup. (There was a one-week break, with gag-a-day strips, between the appointment and Jon's phone call to Ellen, craftily misleading readers into thinking there was no connection!) And now, I've read today's strip. As this is an ongoing storyline, we should be careful not to change aspects of the article too hastily. A lot of things could change day-to-day, and it's too early to judge long-term impact. That's a common pitfall among articles on comics. We should have restraint. Powers 13:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

For me it looks as if the whole Cartoon is coming to a stop. If you've read the strips carefully over the years, Garfields main reason not "allowing" Jon to have a Girlfriend is because he is affraid of childrens. Because he thinks that he will be replaced than. The ongoing Story might be some endpoint. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.122.82.226 (talk • contribs) .

It's definitely coming to an end. It's a classic plot: everything seems to go perfectly, it falls apart, comes back together even better, and they lived happily ever after - for about 2 seconds before something completely destroys the relationship. --Dlevenstein 13:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Compare and contrast: [3] vs. [4]. Powers 15:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a follow-up on the old one, or was the story never continued/concluded?--Dlevenstein 22:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. You can look as easily as I can. I do know that was a Saturday strip, and come Monday it was back to gag-a-day or a new storyline. Powers 23:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it, not that I've looked thoroughly.--Dlevenstein 23:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The Houston Chronicle often delivers the Sunday paper on Saturday, so I've seen Sunday's Garfield. It's gag-a-day, involving a dream of Odie's. It should be on the site in a few hours. 67.10.175.242 02:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sunday is never related to the rest of the week.--Dlevenstein 02:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes it is. Last week it was. The five-week arc of 1986 included Sundays. 67.10.175.242 05:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that: Sunday is rarely related to the rest of the week.--Dlevenstein 19:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Still gag-a-day today. Might be another arc in a week or so, if they do the same thing as between the vet appointment and the date with Ellen. 67.10.175.242 05:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the story is going to end. I read somewhere, Jim Davis said that if he dies he would like his children or others to continue with the comic. --202.7.166.173 11:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when I said it was coming to an end, I meant the relationship between Jon and Liz that week.--Dlevenstein 13:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

With today's strip, I think it's safe to say that Garfield has developed a pattern of two weeks plotline, one week gag-a-day. At least that's what it looks like to me. Anyone else think so? 67.10.175.242 05:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it's obvious it's been going that way since Garfield's birthday or so, but it's impossible to say how much longer it will hold to that pattern. Powers 19:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are you serious ?

Sorry i don't want to offend anybody but reading:

One storyline, which lasted a week from October 23, 1989 (possibly to coincide with Halloween, although the 31st actually fell the following week), is unique in that it is not meant to be humorous. It depicts Garfield awakening in a future in which the house is abandoned and he no longer exists. This is revealed to have been a dream of some kind, and ends with this narration:

“An imagination is a powerful tool. It can tint memories of the past, shade perceptions of the present, or paint a future so vivid that it can entice...or terrify, all depending on how we conduct ourselves today.”

Alternatively, some theorize that the end of this storyline actually implies that the rest of the series, the more conventional strips, are all fantasies Garfield is playing out in his head to delude himself from realizing the dark turn his life has taken, as he slowly starves to death in an abandoned house. This is arguably supported by the text, as right before Jon and Odie reappear, the narration reads:

“After years of taking life for granted, Garfield is shaken by a horrifying vision of the inevitable process called ‘time.’ He has only one weapon...denial...”

This emphasis on “denial,” with the word given its own box in the panel it appears in, and being followed immediately by the earlier text on the power of the imagination, could support the horrifying theory. However, it could also be that denial is what Garfield needed to snap himself out of this dark vision. This is also more likely considering the only way Garfield could have gotten into “a world where he no longer exists” is if that world was a dream. Many, however, attribute the bleak world to the future Ebeneezer Scrooge witnessed in A Christmas Carol, where he beholds the dark and bleak image the world has become because of his negligence and lack of gratitude for other people’s efforts.

I think this is just a fake and should't be at wikipedia, either is a fake made by an anonymous comic-drawer, or it was just a fake or a Halloween myth, perhaps some of you will remember the famous urban legened about the ending of Doraemon, which was supposed that all was NObita's dream, and nothing existed, this was very extended fake and rumour that was dismissed by the own drawer Fujio F Fujiko, before publishing things like this in wikipedia author should citate reliable sources or otherwise article should be retired.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.213.38.122 (talk • contribs) .

You might want to actually check the Garfield archives for the week in question. If you had you would have found this: [5]. Powers 18:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It is, indeed, true, as the above mentioned archives show. I think the question here, then, is if Davis ever adressed this arc in an interview or anything, and what it means and has to do with current Garfield stories.--70.123.218.252 21:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This is true. Sombody should revert it. --alex 02:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halloween storyline

It seems people are adding their own theories to the article. I think all but some more popular/linked ones should be removed. --DevastatorIIC 01:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed most of the half-baked theories as being "original research". Also, while the 1989 strips are certainly a departure from typical Garfield, the section pertaining to it was starting to get a little long. Thunderbunny 03:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the theories should be put back in. I found it both interesting to read about and pretty convincing. If Jim Davis was going for scary, applying that theory certainly gives me the creeps, so including it in the article helps give Davis more credit for that achievement. Schwael 05:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a place for the starvation theories...just not on Wikipedia. I deleted the theories on account of WP:NOR and WP:AWW. Furthermore, it is important to remember: Garfield is a fictional character in a (fairly insipid) comic strip, intended for innocuous, family-friendly humor. The one person in the world that knows what Garfield is "really" up to is Jim Davis. In 27 years of drawing his comic, he hasn't given a whole lot of reasons to make anyone believe that Garfield is "really" hallucinating everything around him while he starves in an abandoned house. Thunderbunny 06:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading these strips when i was a kid and found them deeply disturbing. It's definetly worth a mention, but it why not move it to a sub page or something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.18.24.66 (talk • contribs) .

I believe the theories should be restored. It seems fairly obvious that Thunderbunny is biased towards his/her own opinion in regards to the Garfield comic strip. After reviewing the comics in question the deleted theories seem to more accurately describe the storyline than the Christmas Carol explanation. In A Christmas Carol Ebeneezer sees a vision of what his life would be like in the future and finds the strength to change his ways. In the Garfield storyline the fat feline discovers himself alone and through the power of denial and his own imagination re-creates the family that he neglected. Whether Garfield was abandoned by Jon and is delusional or has died and gone to kitty hell is anybodies guess. However, these theories have more in-comic support than the Christmas Carol explanation and should be restored. I’ll start researching it tonight….. Jhurlburt 10:10, 8 August 2006

Thunderbunny, even if these theories are regarded as improbable and speculation, that doesn't mean they should be removed. Should the Elvis article have nothing about the theories that he is still alive, even though those theories are not accepted by most? I agree with the idea of having a sub-page to go into more details about the theories. In that case, there should still be a paragraph in this article that introduces the various ideas. I think the article on Jim Morrison is a good example too. Schwael 18:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"It seems fairly obvious that Thunderbunny is biased towards his/her own opinion in regards to the Garfield comic strip." What the hell does that mean? Of course I'm biased towards my own opinion. Who isn't? Thunderbunny 00:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't even have to look at those articles to know that the information on rumors found in the Jim Morrison and Elvis Presley articles is referenced with reliable sources. If you can find a similar reliable source that states that Garfield might just be slowly starving to death, deluding himself in to all subsequent events in the comic strip, by all means, post it up. Powers 18:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That was what I was getting at. The "theory" that Garfield was starving to death in an abandoned house was added by an unregistered Wikipedia user with no sources cited. Thunderbunny 19:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I recommend looking at the other articles closely. The Jim Morrison article has no citations for the theories that he is still alive, and the Elvis article only references fans' websites. Nevertheless, the content remains even though it hasn't been reliably cited yet. Schwael 19:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew I should have checked. Yet despite the poor state of the citations on those articles they're still better referenced than the Garfield speculation. Powers 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. For all we know, the "rumor" was made up by a YTMND user who posted it to Wikipedia to further his argument. Thunderbunny 00:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the theory's been there at least a week before the ytmnd was created.

Actually, the theory's been there at least months and months before the ytmnd was created. --Lizard Dude 09:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Lizard Dude is correct. Sorry, Thunderbunny. - Kookykman|(t)e 11:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "Removing Garfield Thought Bubbles"

Just because Neil Gaiman noted the practice, that doesn't mean it has become an "internet trend". Moreso, the article talks about this so-called trend originating from a single thread on an internet discussion board.Scott 110 05:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted in the article in some way that there is a new interesting aspect of the comic when your remove garfield's lines. Even if it doesnt warrent a section it should have a sentence somwhere and a link or 2 or 3. Patcat88 08:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think that that violates WP:OR... Thunderbunny 03:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That was rather harsh - it's gained internet acceptance, it is an internet phenomenon, it's got credible sources. There's no reason to remove the section except that you don't agree with it. I'm putting it back.Rebochan 05:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What credible sources? We've been waiting for some for months. Powers ^T 19:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't be an ass, Scott. Probably a moron from the T&BB boards wanting to distance himself from it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.215.217.196 (talk • contribs) .

Please avoid personal attacks. Powers ^T 15:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think it is important because, Jesus man, we've been laughing at a delusional schizophrenic man and his imaginary conversations with his cat and his dog all this years. I wonder if Jon Arbuckle will commit suicide in the very last Garfield strip ever? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.57.13.97 (talk • contribs) .

i wouldn't say it's a trend, but it has been done by different groups -- there's the t&bb board, that weird site that they linked to early on that erased garfield's thoughts and mirrored the strips, and tailsteak -- and neil gaiman, a respected voice in comics, talks about it. it's at least worth a mention in the article. --dan 08:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It may be a trend, but its not encyclopaedic information and really adds nothing to the article. Let this trivial stuff live on in forums with people who have nothing better to do with their time, not here. 150.203.2.85 06:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm re-adding a small note about it. Internet memes deserve to be mentioned. Esn 09:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boingboing as a source

Hi folks. I continue to maintain that we cannot use the paragraph about Jim Davis laughing at the thought that the famous Halloween storyline indicates that Garfield is delusional the rest of the time. The only source for this assertion is http://www.boingboing.net/ , which is a blog, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources is very clear on using blogs as a source: "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources." I'm not sure how much more explicit the policy could be. Powers ^T 13:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuality

Isn't this work infamous for Jon's homosexual relationship with Lyman shown in their behaviour and both the kind of pets they have and their behaviour towards them (which matches homosexual stereotypes even if they are not seen in homosexual behaviour)? {{subst:unsigned|200.121.144.52}

No. Powers ^T 01:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean, WTF!

No, definitely not. Unless you wish to interpret the comics in a way that his approaches towards women are only cover acts to conceal his homosexuality, which probably takes things a bit too far. We're talking about a strip from the funny pages, not a work of high literature here. Garfield is not exactly known for its deep subtext. — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)} 10:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] InfoBox Picture

Isn't there a color alternative to the picture of garfield thats in the infobox? Clamster5 15:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garfield... the Easter Bunny?

I have this book. Should it be in the books section somewhere? Amazon.com link --Crnk Mnky 19:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liz's last name

When was it revealed in the comics that Liz's last name was Wilson? QuestionMark56 19:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was in the Thanksgiving special. Rhaego

The most recent time was two weeks ago: [6]. But there were many other times prior to that. I don't know what the first was. Powers ^T 16:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed paragraph from "criticism"

I removed the following from the "criticism" section, because it seems to have little to do with the topic, and is merely a redundant declaration of Davis's merchandising persistence:

Despite the fact that US Acres was an unpopular comic strip, Davis continued to use it as part of his show Garfield & Friends. Despite Garfield: The Movie being panned by many global audiences a sequel was released, Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties. Even though the second movie lacked success at the box office, Davis still pushed for the upcoming sequel Garfield The Third.

Feel free to revise and/or re-insert the information somewhere appropriate. --Lenoxus 01:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jon & Liz

I just wanted to mention that in reference to Jon and Liz's shared kisses, they shared one back when the comic basically first began. Do not know if it is relevant or not, and I am not adding it myself because it seems anything I try to do gets undone anyway. So... yeah. CardDuelWars 05:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure when exactly you're talking about. Could you provide a link from the Garfield Vault?

• • Sure. Sorry I didn't before. Obviously, this is not when they are officially together, but you know, Jon tried. That's why I'm not sure if it REALLY counts or not...

http://www.garfield.com/comics/comics_archives_strip.html?1981-ga811219 CardDuelWars 15:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I say add it; the text is misleading:

Jon and Liz shared their first kiss after a slight dating fiasco on July 28, 2006

If this is not the case, then it should be modified.--Dlevenstein 16:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where Garfield Lives

I rented a Garfield DVD and watched the Garfield Goes Hollywood special. In one scene the host of the Pet Search program said that Jon, Garfield and Odie live in Muncie, Indiana. Someone should add this. --209.244.31.39 06:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A simple find of the page showed me it was already there, under the subsection "Garfield" of "Main characters". --Dlevenstein 22:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

March 13, '07: Edited the seven books published only as Classics, adding the correct strip dates (referencing the books directly).

69.141.234.101 03:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

March 14, '07: Predicted the dates of the next five books (listed here only), going by the previous seven books with 30 Sundays each and ending on a Saturday for each one.

• 44. 9-21-03 - 4-17-04
• 45. 4-18-04 - 11-13-04
• 46. 11-14-04 - 6-11-05
• 47. 6-12-05 - 1-7-06
• 48. 1-8-06 - 8-5-06

69.141.234.101 05:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)