Talk:Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

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.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	Cats Portal This article is supported by the Cats WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] quote

somebody should insert this quote into the section "Hobbes' reality"

“

I don't think of Hobbes as a doll that miraculously comes to life whenever Calvin's around. Neither do I think of him as the product of Calvin's imagination. The nature of Hobbes's reality doesn't intrest me, and each story goes out of it's way to avoid resolving the issue

”

[edit] Ext link

I've removed the link http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/1449/ because the images there don't appear to work. Have tried in both Mozilla Firefox and Internet Explorer. Without the images, the site offers very little. --OscarTheCat^talk 09:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That's strange. They work for me. - Mike (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Try this link. I don't get any calvin gif shown, I just get some geocities cruft on the right. http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/1449/strips.html?cabw1.gif --Oscarthecat 09:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

== Weiner ! ==

I want to thank those responsible for the current state of the article. Not only is it exhaustive and informative, but its prose is simply marvellous. --Kizor 22:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement

Everyone seems to mark this article as good... but it really needs cleanup at the moment I think, does anyone else agree? Seems very un-encyclopedic. 67.140.227.39 03:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)