Talk:Krazy Kat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Krazy Kat is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 6, 2006.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Andrew Levine
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
Peer review This Langlit article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] Gender

In the Krazy Kat strips I've seen, Ignatz is always referred to in the masculine; Offisa Pupp is never referred to in a gender-specific manner; and Krazy, on the rare occasions when that one is referred to in a gender-specific manner, is always referred to in the masculine. I don't recall ever having seen Krazy referred to in the feminine, and it's not as if I haven't looked... —Paul A 00:51 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Update: Now I've seen Krazy referred to in the feminine. Weird. —Paul A 06:58, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Herriman never did definitively identify Krazy's gender. You can find examples of pronouns used, but there's no consistently, and, when asked, he admitted that it was not a known factor. Elisabeth Crocker has a fairly well-known essay on the subject at "'TO HE, I AM FOR EVVA TRUE'": KRAZY KAT'S INDETERMINATE GENDER. - Peter Campbell Coconino County Homepage
I came to think of a Sunday page I read, where Krazy is male, but it is interesting, nonetheless. Description comes
1 (Image of two antropomorphic cactus-like trees leaning toward each other, bright day.) "Noon" - The "Sun" fills the desert with heat, and Mr. & Mrs. "Joshua" with slumber.
  1. (The sun sets, it darkens, and the two "trees" starts rising up) "Vespers" The "Sun" retires, the "Heat waves" come out of the "Desert", and Mr. & Mrs. "Joshua" awake.
  2. (Pitch dark, the moon rises, the two "trees" starts moving in a dance-like manner.) "Night" And so, with a sandstone moon swimming in the heat waves, a ruisenor's canticle coming from the smoke bush, Don Kiyote "ragging the scales" somewhere, everywhere, nowhere. Why shouldn't Mr. & Mrs. "Joshua" dance?
  3. (A chinese-looking duck arrives through some curtains.) -"My flen, "Blinkey Ben", he say "Joshway Tlee" make big Fandango. I say , "Blinkey", you hip klazy, Joshway Tlee no can do. "Blinkey", he say, "Mock Duck", you big simp, yopu no shobby nothin. You come wit me by moontime tonight ova by "Chuckwalla Butte". I show you "Joshway Tlee" make big dance. so I go, and bleeb me, my flen "Blinkey Ben", he no talky fib". (Narration) And now, what with our "scientific prologue", and "Mock Duck"s affidavit, "Ignatz Mouse" is not to be too severly censured for "seeing things". Now, go on with the story.
  4. (Krazy leaves into the sunset, Ignatz watches surprised behind a tree) [One] -?
  5. (Krazy goes and inquiries some Coconino inhabitants) [Two] (Ignatz)-"What do you s'pose he's going out in that desert alone for. Huh, what?" (Giraffe-like creature) -"Sly "kat"" (Bird) -"Ah - a tryst." (Offisa Pupp) - -"Hah - I'd say he was keeping a date."
  6. (Ignatz sits on his chair, lonely in a dark room, close to a small lit candle on a table.) [Three] (Thought bubble with Demon face) - (Arrow) And we call it jealousy.
  7. (Ignatz goes into the sunset, leaving for the desert) [Four]
  8. (Ignatz encounters the two cactus-like "trees") [Five]
  9. (The two trees start "dancing", and Ignatz freaks out) [Six] (Voice in background) "Eee yee ee-ee-ee yi-yi-yi yeeeee!!!" (Narrator) Just now the moon comes up like a golden galleon riding the wavesof warmth. "Don Kiyote" trills the opening bar of his overture. Mr. & Mrs. "Joshua" sway in the first steps of their nocturnal minuet, and "fear" lays a cold clutch upon the heart of "Ignatz Mouse" ___ ___ ___ .
  10. (Ignatz running home on panic) [Seven] -"Ghosts!!!" Yes, somebody is going a-way from here muy pronto.
  11. (Moby Duck explains what has been going on with Krazy to the Coconino inhabitants in Offisa Pupp's(?) house. Ignatz is hiding in the door opening.) [Eight] (MD) -"No, my flen "Krazy Kat", he no got lady flen. He only go down by "Chuckwalla Butte" to look see "Joshway Tlee" make big jig-jig come moontime - yizza -" (Bird) -"So that's where he went - ? -" (Giraffe) -"Gosh, we thought it was a lady or something" (Pupp) -"Wal, it's a cinch that "mouse" didn't follow him, a "Dancing Joshua" would scare "Ignatz" into a million fits."
  12. (Ignatz sis waiting outside "Kelly's Brick Yard" for the yard to open, the sun rises.) [Nine] (Narration) Signs of an early morning rush of business for Mr. "Kolin Kelly", the brick merchant.
Hope this is clear enough, it's quite difficult to explain this in a text-only manner, not even the punctuation is that clear, but it's interesting to see both that Ignatz gets jealous, and that Krazy is referred to a "he" with a "lady flen". Unfortunately I cannot find any date on the page I have.
I was going to start a new topic but this is appropriate enough. With all the ambiguity should Krazy even be referred to with gender-spefici pronouns? Animals and cartoon characters are typically referred to as "it", so shouldn't "she" be replaced with such? -Zappernapper 17:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Gilbert Seldes and Robert Warshow use male-gendered pronouns; E.E. Cummings and Patrick McDonnell use female-gendered pronouns. I have never come across a published author who refers to Krazy Kat as an "it." I opted to go with female, partly because of Crafton's assertion that after Cummings, "nearly all critics and comics historians have since referred to Krazy as 'she'", and partly because use of "he" for Krazy would lead to some ambiguity in a few sentences. Andrew Levine 01:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
if krazy kat has no gender, that's incorrect. i removed the female pronouns. 67.172.61.222 20:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I reverted this change, which produced several ungrammatical sentences. As noted in the article, most writers use female pronouns when referring to Krazy and so we have adhered to this longstanding convention. Andrew Levine 02:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, sorry. I forgot to check Talk first, so I'm mentioning it now. I changed it back the the previous gender ambiguity. We should look at the text of the cartoon itself and respect Herriman's own comments, rather than those of critics who have a particularly dated mindset.Rocko1124 16:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
In fact, the image attached to this article shows Ignatz refering the Krazy as "he." "Ah it is he!" Ignatz says. But whatever. Let's keep it ambiguous; less grammatical but more accurate. Rocko1124 16:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
perhaps that something that should be mentioned in the intro. i don't have the knowledge of this subject to ref it properly. the fact that there's gender ambiguity in fact confused me by the lack of "it" so perhaps this has occured to other readers, but that paragraph you just wrote was informative and, i think, necessary to the article. -Zappernapper 10:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Should there be Krazy trivia mentioned here, as on this page?: http://www.krazy.com/current.htm

In a word, no. --Andrew Levine 21:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Congratulations, Andrew Levine

Excellent article improvement. --Rick Norwood 19:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Be sure to vote on its Featured Article nomination. --Andrew Levine 21:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Done! --Rick Norwood 00:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Best article on wikipedia what a joke! it doesnt even mention itchy and scratchy from the simpsons is based on it!

Isn't Itchy and Scratchy more likely based on Tom and Jerry? 81.232.109.175 09:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this. It seems like they've poked fun at Krazy Kat & Ignatz once in a while, but I would suspect it's more based on Tom & Jerry overall... but I'll look for confirmation on this and update the article if required. Dormammu 15:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeats of Wikilinks

Last time I checked, prefered style was to wikilink terms names at their first appearance, not every time. I notice my unlinking of a few names the second time they appeared as a link has been reverted. Why? Wondering simply, --Infrogmation 21:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Multiple linking is bad only when the same article is linked twice in one section. Linking something in the lead and then linking it later in a section is okay since it's likely the user will not want to scroll back up. --Andrew Levine 22:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Krazy's accent/dialect

What is the objection to mentioning New Orleans in relation to Krazy's accent/dialect? --Infrogmation 21:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The New Orleans accent, with the wording you used, is an unsourced statement, and it was added with weasel words. If you can come up with a proper citation, it can be added to the article. --Andrew Levine 22:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the wording used in the cartoon baloons - when pronounced by someone from the New York Metropolitan Area, especially Brooklyn, The Bronx or some parts of Northern New Jersey, could easily be the written version of the dialect still heard in those areas, and long assiciated with those areas. Given that Krazy Kat first appeared in the New York Evening Journal, which - in both its original iteration, and the later Journal-American iteration was a Tabloid paper that had a lot of poorer and less literate readers over the years, it is understandable that she should talk with that dialect. The Journal was what the New York Post is today. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 14:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

But Herriman is from New Orleans, and there are certainly allusions to many accents, including Mexican, New Orleanian, and Brooklyn, in the sophisticated dialog of the strip. Rick Norwood 15:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as the "Brooklynese" accent, this is actually the dialect of New Orleans, called Yat which is often confused with that of Brooklyn, simply because there are far more New Yorkers than people from New Orleans. I added the New Orleans reference before seeing this debate on this discussion page, but felt that it might be obvious enough not to have a source? Staroftheshow86 00:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar and referencing fixes reverted

I just reverted this edit. While I suppose that there is plenty of room for people to disagree about such things as passive voice and short vs. long section headings, the edit also removed proper date formatting and referencing fixes that are part of the article's WP:FAC process. I am commenting here in case there's something that I am missing about why those fixes shouldn't be made. --Jkelly 19:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the fact that in reverting changes from good grammar to bad I also reverted the reference fixes. Let me give you one example of my reason for my revert.
The earlier version said:
"Krazy Kat takes place in a heavily stylized version of Coconino County, Arizona, with Herriman filling the page with landscapes typical of the Painted Desert."
The version I reverted, which you restored, says:
"Krazy Kat takes place in a heavily stylized version of Coconino County, Arizona, which Herriman fills with landscapes typical of the Painted Desert."
Note that now the anticedent of "which" is Coconino County, Arizona, so we have Herriman filling the county rather than the panels with his landscapes.
The earlier version was very well written -- the changes were not an improvement. I'll try to fix them one at a time, so as to leave the references fixes alone. --Rick Norwood 19:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I see your point on that one example. I changed it, as "with Herriman filling" is awkward. Proposed compromise:
"Krazy Kat takes place in a heavily stylized version of Coconino County, Arizona, and Herriman fills the page with landscapes typical of the Painted Desert."
I doubt that all of my changes did nothing but harm the article, though. — Amcaja 19:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
To some extent, style is a matter of taste, but consider that, except for yourself, everyone who has voted supported the earlier version for featured article status. That is not an honor to be taken lightly. --Rick Norwood 20:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Grammar and style are rarely used to oppose an FA nomination, and the usual grammarian, Tony1, is on a wikibreak. But here I'll outline the changes I made that are not merely a matter of style:
  • "These backgrounds tended [tend] to change completely between panels even while the characters remained [remain] stationary." This should be in literary present tense. See [1] and [2]. There are many more sites that back this up.
  • "Herriman was fond of experimenting with unconventional page layouts in his Sunday strips, including panels of various shapes and sizes, arranged in whatever fashion he thought would best tell the story." If we change to literary present tense (which we should), it's jarring to shift suddenly to past tense. Thus, my proposed change: "Herriman's Sunday layouts show the artist's fondness for experimentation; panels appear in various shapes and sizes, arranged in whatever fashion best tells the story."
  • "Though the basic concept of the strip is straightforward, Herriman always found [finds] ways to tweak the formula." Literary present tense. We're talking about Herriman now, so it's not as cut-and-dried as before, but I'd prefer the present tense; we're describing the work more than the creator in this instance.
  • 'She is also completely unaware of the bitter rivalry between Ignatz and Officer Pupp, and [she] mistakes the dog's frequent imprisonment of the mouse as an innocent game of tag ("Ever times I see them two playing games togedda, Ignatz seems to be It").' No subject change, so it's a comma splice without a second subject.
  • "On those occasions where [when] Ignatz is caught before he can launch his brick, Krazy is left pining for her "l'il ainjil" and wonders where her beloved mouse has gone." "Where" describes locations, not occasions.
Some that are stylisic, but with justification:
  • "Public reaction at the time [of Krazy Kat's appearance] was mixed; many [readers] were puzzled by its iconoclastic refusal to conform to comic strip conventions and simple gags." Both changes are for the sake of clarity.
  • "Her creator was more ambiguous [on the subject] and even published several strips poking fun at this uncertainty." Clarity. Without the addition, it could be taken to mean he was ambiguously sexed, just like Krazy Kat.
  • A few random years are now wikified while most simple years in the article are not. This should be done consistently, which it was after my changes.
  • There was one instance where I tried to change a passive-voice sentence, though I realize that's not a big deal.
I'm not sure why my invisible requests for source citations were removed. At any rate, I don't really care about the second group of changes. I do about the first. I do want to support this article's nomination. —Amcaja 20:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Reply to Amcaja

I love discussing grammar. Taking each of your points in turn:

  • "These backgrounds tended [tend] to change completely between panels even while the characters remained [remain] stationary."

The difference is subtle, but profound. The subject is how a cartoonist deals with time and space. The past tense grounds the concept in a way that the literary present does not.

If it's kept as is, I still disagree. The subject is the comic strip, which does not change with time and is a present phenomenon each time it is read. Perhaps we should compromise by changing the subject to Herriman: "Herriman tended to change these backgrounds completely between panels even while keeping the characters stationary."
Unlike the next two changes, this use of the literary present is needed (my initial error) and I preserved Brian's wording. Andrew Levine 02:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Herriman was fond of experimenting with unconventional page layouts in his Sunday strips, including panels of various shapes and sizes, arranged in whatever fashion he thought would best tell the story." If we change to literary present tense (which we should), it's jarring to shift suddenly to past tense. Thus, my proposed change: "Herriman's Sunday layouts show the artist's fondness for experimentation; panels appear in various shapes and sizes, arranged in whatever fashion best tells the story."

And one change leads to another. "Herriman was fond of experimenting..." is strong; "Herriman's Sunday layouts show..." is weak.

I disagree about the weakness of literary present, but I'll let go of any of my proposed changes where Herriman is the subject of the sentence.
Herriman has been dead for 62 years. He's not doing anything in the present tense anymore. Andrew Levine 02:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm in agreement on this now. — Amcaja 04:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Though the basic concept of the strip is straightforward, Herriman always found [finds] ways to tweak the formula." Literary present tense. We're talking about Herriman now, so it's not as cut-and-dried as before, but I'd prefer the present tense; we're describing the work more than the creator in this instance.

The past tense, "Herriman always found ways..." suggests effort and skill. "Herriman always finds ways..." suggests deviousness and avoidence.

Disagree again, but, as above, I'll let go of sentences wherein Herriman is the subject.
See last comment. Andrew Levine 02:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
From this site: "The use of the historical present becomes especially problematic when one discusses the author's position, opinions, etc. as presented in the text as well as the author as a historical figure. In such cases, the best tack is to split the author into two personas--actually approach the writing assignments as if you were writing about two different people. The first is the authorial voice, that which speaks to us from the pages as we read; this voice is a continual present and must be expressed with the historical present. The second persona is the historical figure, the man or woman who lived, wrote, and died; the actions, thoughts, etc., of this individual must be expressed with the past tense." I'd say this is in the gray area between Herriman the "authorial voice" and Herriman the historical figure. But I'm willing to drop this point. — Amcaja 04:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 'She is also completely unaware of the bitter rivalry between Ignatz and Officer Pupp, and [she] mistakes the dog's frequent imprisonment of the mouse as an innocent game of tag ("Ever times I see them two playing games togedda, Ignatz seems to be It").' No subject change, so it's a comma splice without a second subject.

The comma may be unnecessary, as it would be in "John went to the store and bought a loaf of bread." But the sentence is long (and yet carefully balanced), so I think the comma is justified. The insertion of a second "she" does not contribute to understanding and is pedantic.

The comma should go then. Call me a pedant. :)
The comma is needed. Andrew Levine 02:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
If the comma stays, the "she" is needed. Otherwise, drop the comma. This is one I cannot compromise on. — Amcaja 04:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "On those occasions where [when] Ignatz is caught before he can launch his brick, Krazy is left pining for her "l'il ainjil" and wonders where her beloved mouse has gone." "Where" describes locations, not occasions.

I gave this one quite a bit of thought. "Where" is better than "when" because the occasions are not things that occur at a particular time, as in "On those occasions when I go to work..." but rather a particular kind of event, as in "On those occasions where I feel frustrated and alone...". "Where" calls attention to the situation rather than the time.

Disagree on this one. Occasions are events, whether they occur once or several indefinite times. And "occasions where" just does not sound right to my ears.
"Occasions where" or "when" are just fine either way. Andrew Levine 02:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's go with "where", then; it's okay with you and it will make me happy. ;) — Amcaja 04:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Public reaction at the time [of Krazy Kat's appearance] was mixed; many [readers] were puzzled by its iconoclastic refusal to conform to comic strip conventions and simple gags." Both changes are for the sake of clarity.

The phrases in brackets break the flow of the sentence without supplying useful information. "At the time of Krazy Kat's appearence" provokes the reaction, well "duh" -- what other time could the public react. Similarly, if not "readers", then who?

I'll drop the "of Krazy Kat's appearance]. As for the second change, if not readers, then perhaps critics or editors or cartoonists. Also remember that many of our readers are not native English speakers; when we can clarify something without hurting the sentence (and I don't think my additions do), we should.
Using "at the time of KK's appearance" gives the mistaken impression that the strip confused readers when it first appeared, which was not the case. Andrew Levine 02:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Then what's it supposed to mean? That's what I was trying to clarify. Is it at the time the strip ran? I'd still like to see the readers instated, but I'm not married to the idea. — Amcaja 04:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Her creator was more ambiguous [on the subject] and even published several strips poking fun at this uncertainty." Clarity. Without the addition, it could be taken to mean he was ambiguously sexed, just like Krazy Kat.

The misreading you suggest is a stretch. The sentence is strong and clear.

I disagree. It's ambiguous and needn't be so.
"On the subject" is probably not needed, but it could go either way, I suppose. Andrew Levine 02:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A few random years are now wikified while most simple years in the article are not. This should be done consistently, which it was after my changes.

No objection from me -- wikify or dewikify years as you will. It was not my intention to mess with that, though I automatically wikify years when I wiki.

Will do.

As best I remember, the only request for a citation that I removed was a request for a citation for the fact that Herriman used odd shaped panels to good effect. A citation for that would be like asking for a citation that Milton Caniff knew how to draw airplanes.

No, "to good effect" is an opinion, if a broadly held one, and should be cited. But that's no big deal.
The phrase "to good effect" or any other judgment on the efficacy of Herriman's layouts does not now exist in the article, nor did it ever. There's nothing to cite.Andrew Levine 02:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, now I remember. "Herriman was fond of . . ." How do we know he was fond of it? That's why I requested the citation. It's not that big of a deal, but I do tend to err on the side of caution with inline references. — Amcaja 04:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If we still can't agree, then I suggest we call in a third party -- I'm happy to go along with a third opinion. Rick Norwood 21:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

We can do that. You've whittled down the list of changes I'm insistent about. Pretty soon, there may be none left. :) — Amcaja 21:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I've crafted my own medium of Rick's and Brian's grammatical suggestions. See what you both think of them. Andrew Levine 02:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me know which are most important to you, and I hope we can agree on a compromise. Rick Norwood 22:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Based on y'all's willingness to compromise on some of this, here are my final requests:
  • Either drop one comma or add a "she" in the sentence discussed above.
  • "On those occasions where" --> "On those occasions when"
  • "Her creator was more ambiguous [on the subject]"
That's it! I hate to come off as a pedantic nuisance or (even worse) an idiot from the peanut gallery. I think it's telling that these are the only problems I can find with the article, and I congratulate the editors who worked on this piece. And I look forward to striking out my objection on the FAC page. :) — Amcaja 04:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

How about this. Drop the comma, change "where" to "when", but leave "ambiguous" alone. Rick Norwood 13:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're so keen to obstruct "on the subject". If it's the meter you don't like, I'd also be happy with "on this" or "about this".
Damn, guys- I can't even parse this to fix the formatting; who is saying what? --maru (talk) Contribs 05:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Pedestrianism vs. ambiguity

Here's the section in question:

"Krazy's own gender is never made clear, with most authors post-Herriman (beginning with E. E. Cummings) referring to her as female. Her creator was more ambiguous and even published several strips poking fun at this uncertainty." We go from talking about the ambiguity of the character's sex and then state that the creator was "more ambiguous"; as much as you might think that this interpretation is a stretch, it sounds to me like we're talking about Herriman's gender.

I'd even prefer eliminating "ambiguous" completely: "Krazy's own gender is never made clear, with most authors post-Herriman (beginning with E. E. Cummings) referring to her as female. Her creator even published several strips poking fun at this uncertainty." But there are many other ways I can think of to avoid this ambiguity: "Her creator did little [or "nothing"] to clarify the matter and even published several strips poking fun at this uncertainty." "Herriman made the issue more ambiguous by published several strips poking fun at this uncertainty." "Herriman [heightened/highlighted/embraced] the ambiguity and published several strips poking fun at this uncertainty."

At any rate, this isn't a dealbreaker for me. But I do sincerely wish you would reconsider this one specific turn of phrase. As for the comma and where/when changes, I'm of course for them, but I'll let Andrew weigh in before we go ahead. — Amcaja 14:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a big difference between being ambiguous and being unclear. Herriman was often ambiguous, but never unclear. Leave that sentence as it is, and you have your other changes, as far as I'm concerned. --Rick Norwood 20:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Then let me be perfectly blunt: The sentence is unclear. Andrew changed it in good faith; why did you change it back? And in your edit statement, you claim we disagreed on only three items. Reading this discussion above shows that we disagreed on many, many more. I let most of them go your way. I don't get your stubbornness on this one point. Would you agree to one of the alternatives I provided above? —Amcaja 21:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I can only say that the rewrite was in a delightful style and it seems a shame to make pedestrian changes. You say the sentence is unclear. I can't imagine any other reading but the obvious one. --Rick Norwood 00:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we're at a standoff just yet. Would you please take a look at the alternatives I posted above? I gave four subtle rewrites of that sentence that I'd be happy with. —Amcaja 04:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
You still following this page, Rick? —Amcaja 01:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'm still here. Rick Norwood 23:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] featured article

If the KK article keeps changing, then it will not be listed as a featured article. I decided it was best to stop fighting over small changes, because I think the article deserves featured article status. Rick Norwood 13:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, it looks as if my hope for a stable article was unrealistic. I have gone against my resolution above, and deleted a single word. Rick Norwood 13:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is normal for FA nominees. A lot of editors like to "fix" a few things before they are willing to support. Part of the general "be bold" axiom, I guess. That said, I would hope you wouldn't give up so easily. I think our conversation about my proposed changes was quite civil (although it seems you've decided to let it drop); I'd hope other editors would be willing to engage in the same way. In fact, I was just planning to revert a few of the recent changes to the article, as some of the stylistic changes weren't necessarily warranted. — Amcaja 14:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, complete list of what I changed back:
  1. Restored "click to enlarge" to the full comic strips. It's not entirely obvious to new readers and random web browsers that they can do this, and these are full comic strips we're talking about. They are unreadable in their thumbnailed format, so it's best to make the enlarging option explicit. I also advocate for a change back to italicized Click to enlarge, but I left that alone.
  2. There's a bit where I thought we had agreed on literary present: "These backgrounds tend to change dramatically between panels even while the characters remain stationary." If I'm mistaken, change it back.
  3. I restored a couple of instances where I preferred the old style. ("Simple-minded and curious, the strip's title character drifts through life in Coconino County without a care.") Reads better, IMO.
  4. I pared down two character descriptions that had gotten longer than the others. These should be relatively equal in length, which means one or two traits for each minor character should be listed.
  5. I understand the change from "was given" to "received" in regards to the reviews. However, this instance of passive doesn't bother me and fits better with the colloquial style of the subject matter. — Amcaja 14:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all but one of the above. I found the adjectives "aristocratic" applied to Don Koyote and "coolie" applied to Mock Duck too acurate to omit. Rick Norwood 14:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As a featured article, shouldn't there be a way to prevent editing of the article to stop this rampant vandalism? (sorry if I'm not following the conventions. I just want to bring this to attention)

No, even featured articles may be edited. A good article needs guardian angels who revert vandalism. Rick Norwood 20:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just passing thru

I haven't looked at this article in a long while (take a peak in the history for my last important edits), but I thought I'd comment that I'm pleased with how it's developed. I doubt it would have gone any better had I been more involved. -- llywrch 19:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Direct external link to strip archive?

I looked through the external links and I can't find any sort of archieves of the strips, I've now read a bunch of great reviews and critical acclaim of Krazy Kat so I'd love to actually be able to read the comic itself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.37.211 (talk • contribs)

Reprints are available from Manuscript Press, Fantagraphics, and Pacific Comics Club. Also, reprints are available on the King Features Syndicate web page.
Anon, there aren't any large archives online that I know of, but since several years' worth of strips should be in the public domain, there's nothing to stop you from remedying this grievous situation. --maru (talk) contribs 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The two full-size strips included in the article are pretty exemplary. You have to click on them to view the image page, then click again to view them in a readable size (and make sure your browser isn't set to automatically resize image). If you want more, I recommend the book Krazy Kat: The Comic Art of George Herriman mentioned in the article; it is readily available at many large bookstores, or your library might have it. Andrew Levine 17:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
There are three early animated shorts, now in public domain, saved in the Library of Congress American Memory website. (Search "krazy" at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/paprquery.html.) Whether a link to one of them in the links section would add much to the article is debatable, but I thought I'd mention it here on the talk page. Bombyx 15:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there's been a link to one of them in the links section for several months now. Andrew Levine 15:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

i was able to view the blasphemous image that was linked to this featured article before the change was made, are there others out there who know what i am refering to?, and because this is the 6-6-06 dating i am sure that was the reason for the image and the message

Whats with the weird sock-puppet attack? --Artw 00:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] e. e. cummings

I believe it is customary to use all lower case when referring to this poet...

I thought so too, but according to the E.E. Cummings article, he did not approve of that particular spelling. --Impaciente 02:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

Vandalism has taken place on the caption for the picture at the top of the page. The line "expression of love" has been changed to "expression of crap". 68.39.127.114 02:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

* my apologies, I forgot to sign in before I added the above remark BethEnd 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I was blocked from this page when I tried to edit it (namely the title), and I was wondering why. Please help. =)

By the way, I think it was my IP that was blocked. -Joooona


There's got to be some problem, I am seeing a "you have been blocked due to vandalism" message!! I checked the history of the article and no IP address even remotely similar to mine was used to edit this page!!! Kindly do not reply at my ip address page. --06:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Oh well, the message itself was vandalism :)

[edit] Help?

The article's currently at Krazy Cat - it needs to go to Krazy Kat but I don't know how to make it - the move fails when I do it.

[edit] Animated adaptations

I seem to recall seeing a (new) Krazy Kat animated short in 1996 at the Edinburgh Film Festival, but can't find any reference to it on the www, so could be mistaken. --duncan 17:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article

So, this is what happens when an article is featured. Interesting. Rick Norwood 18:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much, yeah =) - of course, the date didn't really help either. -MBlume 19:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I was just looking at this article, and I don't know anything about Krazy Kat, but it really seems like something a fan would write or like a promo or something. That's from my point-of-view as a non-fan. So, perhaps this article should be rewritten before it's made a featured article. I can't imagine what reading this as a Krazy Kat hater would be like. — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 23:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem with this is that there's not really any widely-published Krazy Kat haters out there. Believe me, I searched extensively in preparing the article. All the notable writers on the subject of the strip are, at the most, effusive in praising it; or, at the least, acknowledge it as an important historical influence. Andrew Levine 14:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
This accords with my own experience. Indeed, the only criticism I found were random bashing on Amazon and similar places, and contemporary newspaper-borne criticism of Krazy Kat (which, for obvious reasons, is rather inaccessible). --maru (talk) contribs 01:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it really is almost impossible to actually dislike. I can easily see people reacting to it with confusion or incomprehension, but not actual dislike. You either really like it, or you just don't get it at all. Carlo 02:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you all have missed the point. The statement I quoted above is a bit weasel word-ish, weasel word enough for this article not to deserve featured status. — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 08:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Which statement did you quote? --duncan 09:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Phantasy Phanatik says that he doesn't know anything about Krazy Kat, it seems very highhanded to slap a Weasel Word tag on a featured article. He refers to a "statement quoted above" but I cannot find such a quote. Rick Norwood 13:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I found the quote to which he refers, it was on his own talk page - "Set in a dreamlike portrayal of Herriman's vacation home of Coconino County, Arizona, Krazy Kat's mixture of surrealism, innocent playfulness, and poetic language have made it a favorite of comics aficionados and art critics for more than eighty years." --duncan 17:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I could add an advertisement tag and a general POV one as well (that's not a threat), but I think the weasel word tag suffices probably. And I know you guys don't like the fact that I'm questioning this articles neutrality since it'd be kind of hard to fix, and I don't blame any of you, but please remember that I'm helping. Am I therefore your enemy, because I tell you the truth? — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 04:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You've said that you don't know anything about the comic strip, and it's a featured article. Carlo 14:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I don't understand what weasel words are, but I don't see anything wrong with that sentence. Krazy Kat *is* surreal and playful and poetic, and it definitely is a favourite for many people, including aficionados and critics, as it has been pretty much since its inception. What's the problem? Trashchannel 06:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
"The key to improving weasel words in articles is either a) to name a source for the opinion or b) to change opinionated language to concrete facts." The sentence you seem to have issue with has 3 sources, so meets criteria a). I also fail to see how the article meets the advertisement template. --duncan 06:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Screw it. That's the last time I try to help you hard heads. Perhaps if someone you people actually consider worth your time like a sysop notices that the description is an advertisement, you'll listen. — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 03:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I am an admin. --maru (talk) contribs 04:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Phantasy Phanatik, you don't seem to understand the advertisement template. "Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability." Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Krazy Kat is neither a product nor a company, but a fictional comic strip character; what exactly is being advertised? If there's factual errors in the article, correct them. If there's unsourced opinions, use the {{fact}} tag. If you think the whole thing is a puff piece, give us the alternative slant about criticisms of Krazy Kat. --duncan 06:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I was a bit too harsh, but why don't you understand this? The thing is a featured article. That means folks looked at it and said, "Hey, this is a good one." You slapped a tag on it AFTER it was determined to be a particularly good article. And you've never READ the thing, and said that you know nothing about it. Everybody who HAS read it and DOES know about it seems to disagree with you. Has it occurred to you that maybe you're wrong? Carlo 12:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Has it occured to you that you're not even flippin' listening to me? The only REASON I hadn't READ this ARTICLE before is BECAUSE I didn't even KNOW what Krazy Kat was! I just SAW it on the main page and NOTICED that it used WEASEL WORDS. I'M going to TRY to FIX this ARTICLE. — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 05:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think if the article does need fixing, someone with a calmer head and some knowledge of the subject would do a better job. For you to try to "fix" this article is comparable to someone who has never listened to rock music trying to fix the article on The Beatles. (Come on, guys. Listen to me. A bunch of long-haired guitar players don't deserve this kind of puff piece.) Rick Norwood 15:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This may help Phantasy Phanatik to understand why I reverted his recent edit:

Wikipedia:What is a featured article?

"A featured article has the following attributes.

It exemplifies our very best work. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. Read Great writing and The perfect article to see how high the standards are set. In this respect: (a) "well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant."

Rick Norwood 15:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it needs to be neutral. Reverting my edit was asinine. And yes, I don't know much about The Beatles, but if I went to their article and it said, "The Beatles are so awesome, I don't know what to do!" it'd be plain to see that the article contained bias. Why I'm even wasting my time I don't know. You guys just be a pain. Your loss. — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 01:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
'if I went to their article and it said, "The Beatles are so awesome, I don't know what to do!"'
But this article doesn't say that, and it doesn't say anything LIKE that. Carlo 12:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to waste any more time with this. You guys figure it out for yourself. — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 06:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
This thread is probably dead & forgotten, but I'd like to point out that in the version I originally wrote, I described the comic as "Portrayed against a dreamlike portrayal of northern Arizona landscape, the world of Krazy Kat is something that was never seen before its creation -- and rarely since." If you peak at the history of the article, this sentence was eventually written out & probably forgotten (this sentence is evidence enough of the klunky, scribble-it-out-in-fifteen-minutes style of my original), but I find it noteworthy that someone else independently thought "dreamlike" was a worthy adjective of this unique cartoon. To use an analogy, if it says in Wikipedia that Shakespeare was the greatest playwright of the English language (& it might -- I haven't bothered to look), it just blanking silly to inssit that someone to either source the comment (good luck: it's a platitude that every literary critic agreeswith, but I doubt even one has stated this in those exact words in print) or find someone who disagrees with that statement (& is not a certifiable crackpot). -- llywrch 01:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, that sentence really sounds like a promo. I would tone it down with a split: Krazy Kat is set in a dreamlike portrayal of Herriman's vacation home (Coconino County, Arizona), and provides a mixture of surrealism, innocent playfulness, and poetic language. Krazy Kat has been a favorite of comics aficionados and art critics for more than eighty years.--BMF81 02:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Provides"? I don't see how this wording makes it sound less promo-like. If anything it just seems a little too wordy and awkward. Andrew Levine 17:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image of Felix?

An excellent article, congratulations to everyone who worked on it. I was just wondering whether image Mintz-krazy.jpg‎ does refer to Krazy Kat or it refers to Felix the cat instead! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Popopp (talk • contribs) 14:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

I think you're right. It looks a lot more like Felix. MURGH disc. 15:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It does look like Felix, but I don't remember the KK animations of being of crazy quality. Perhaps we can ask the uploader? --Gwern (contribs) 16:55 11 April 2007 (GMT)

There is a KK cartoon titled "Lambs Will Gamble" (note spelling, different from the caption on the picture). Those animals look more like cows than lambs, and the Cat does not look like a Kat. Rick Norwood 21:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

LAMBS WILL GAMBLE was retitled LAMBS WILL GAMBOL in some prints, and that's definitely a scene from it; it's a cartoon about bulls and bears fleecing investors at the stock market, where the investors are portrayed as sheep (i. e. lambs, thus the title pun). The bull characters are the ones pictured in the still. Krazy, wearing a top hat, is sort of their leader. The Columbia Crow's Nest link has a gallery page with numerous stills showing Columbia's unorthodox version of Krazy, and I assure you that for quite awhile he looked just like this... it's not Felix. Ramapith 02:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for illuminating that. MURGH disc. 08:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] image deletion

Image:1937 1107 kkat brick 500.jpg has been tagged for deletion; I've disputed it. Anyone want to confirm the copyright status of the image; was its copyright renewed? John Vandenberg 12:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Link to Comic Strip Library

Consider adding a link to the Comic Strip Library, a site that contains many scans of Krazy Kat strips (But only those that are in the public domain in the US). It is my own site, so a conflict of interest keeps me from adding it myself. Thanks. --Zpc (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been added. --Gwern (contribs) 23:20 9 April 2008 (GMT)