Talk:Garfield/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)

Rehcsif- I put the logo in color on here. I still kept the picture of Garfield.

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)

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)

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: [1] vs. [2]. 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)

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: [3]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

Subplots

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)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.121.144.52 (talk)

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)

Has anyone thought that Jim Davis is actually a literary genius and that he's simultaneously writing two comics: A comic for which the readers can read mildly humrous faux interactions between a man and his cat, and A comic detailing one mans downward spiral into complete lonliness and psychosis? Because really, It's not like any of us are changing anything about the comic. All we do is make it easier to read the comic from Jon's perspective. What is in these "realfield" edits, is actually what Jon himself sees in his every day life. He is a man completely consumed by obsession. An utterly defeated man in the social arena.

How else do you explain a second level like this? It is made abundantly clear by both the comic, and Jim Davis himself that Jon cannot read Garfields mind, and that Garfield is not actually speaking. What we see is just Jon pretending to have some sort of relevant conversation with Garfield. What we see is a man pretending that his cat is speaking back to him. The actual humor is layed out in front of us, but we do not see it unless we completely ignore Garfields speech bubbles (a helpful interface for regular people).--75.64.56.129 14:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

InfoBox Picture

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

Is it considered fair use to simply colorize the one that's already there? Octan 20:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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: [4]. 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)

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.

What the heck is Garfield the Third? Ryan Holloway

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

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)

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)

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)

September 2, '07: My prediction for book 44 was right... so I've added the ending date of that one and the starting date of book 45 to the main page. 69.141.234.101 23:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

article length

the length of this article is bordering on the ridiculous. Garfield is quite a popular, and wiki-worthy character, but this article needs a massive cleanup. Lucastheory 13:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right about that, Lucastheory. On Microsoft Word, it is over 20 pages! I think we need to make a seperate page about Garfield merchandise or history. Ryan Holloway

Jon and Liz... meant to be?

One page of the book In Dog Years I'd Be Dead features a pitch sheet, either the original one Davis sent to the syndicate or one the syndicate sent to newspapers. In it, Liz is described as something like "Jon's vet. Later, his girlfriend. Then...who knows?" So apparently they were originally meant to eventually get together (though I doubt they expected to drag it out this long!) Would this point be worth including -- especially now that they're a couple and all? Octan 20:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

Shall I just chuck out the trivia section altogether?Drahcir 20:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wait a minute. I know this is unrelated and everything, but how the heck did my sig go automatic? Drahcir 20:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No you dumb fuck, idiots like you are frequently ruining wikipedia by doing that. It's nice to have a trivia section, it reveals interesting fun facts about things. You dumbasses are already ruining episode articles, we don't need it to spread any further just because you have a low IQ as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.197.249.26 (talk) 16:41, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ga070413.gif

Image:Ga070413.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Content?

Considering an entire seperate page exists for List of Garfield characters, there seems to be no logic whatsoever for the inclusion of supporting characters on this page. Whereas the main characters can and should be included, having such a huge list of supporting characters simply clutters the page and makes it more bloated than it already is. I propose merging all the information related to the supporting characters into List of Garfield characters and remove it from this page. Regards,xC | ☎ 10:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As theres been no response is almost 3 days, I'm starting the merge of supporting characters back into the other page.xC | ☎ 11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

paragraph change in criticism

I have removed all but the first sentence in the first paragraph from Criticism, as it appears (almost exactly with a few word changes) earlier in the article (in Overview), and has nothing (to my knowledge at least, if this is simply ignorance on my part, then it should have been in the article) to do with the criticism . Here is the original paragraph(copied and pasted from edit page):

Despite the widespread popularity of the comic strip, Garfield has earned negative criticism over the years. Like many comics, it is no longer written and drawn exclusively by its creator. Jim Davis still writes and makes rough sketches for the strip and assistants complete the artwork and brushing.

Also, if the citation needed tag is actually warranted (which I feel it is not, or at least it is poorly placed), it should be placed in the sentence that it seems to be copied from (or was copied from it, with information added) in 'Overview'. If any revision or reinsertion of this is needed, feel free to do so. Oneoverzero 16:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Cul-de-sac  ?

In Garfield (film), Garfield himself mentions sometimes the phrase "cul-de-sac". What does it mean? 125.24.50.19 02:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• In common parlance, a street, lane, or other similar road which is closed at one end, also called a blind alley or dead-end street. In military terminology, the term is sometimes used to describe a situation where a military force is hemmed in on all sides except from behind, and has little choice but to retreat. In anatomy, the term is sometimes used to reference a sack-like cavity, tube, or similar structure which is only open at one end (specifically the appendix, but there are other structures sometimes referred to as cul-de-sacs in the body). The term is also used to mean any situation in which further progress is impossible, such as in expanding the use of paper-printed dictionaries in this, the age of the internet. Xaa 21:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Kicked Odie into next week?

Under "Short Storylines" it mentions Garfield kicking Odie into next week, and then realizing life is not the same without Odie. When did this happen? Can someone give me the date so I can check the Garfield Vault? --Alice2 15:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one who added it, but while I don't remember when it happened I remember that it did happen. It's an earlier strip sequence that occured after he had started walking on 2 legs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.197.249.26 (talk) 16:46, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Books: Treasuries?

I noticed the absence of the Garfield Treasuries in the lists of books. When the collections were in the b/w, the sundays were duplicated in color in the Treasuries every few years. Should these books be added to the page? 70.56.71.93 16:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fat Cat books

In addition to the compilations and the Treasuries, perhaps there should be some mention of the Fat Cat 3-Pack books. Here's a start:

Each Fat Cat volume contains the contents of three successive compilations stacked back to back. The first volume, containing black-and-white strips from compilations 1-3, was published in 1993. Fat Cats were published semiannually up to Vol. 11 (compilations 31-33) in 1999. Since then, the publication schedule has slowed: Vol. 12 (compilations 34-36) was published in 2001, followed by Vol. 13 (compilations 37-39) in 2006.

Here's a link to search results of in-print Fat Cat books at Random House's web site.

The first two Fat Cat volumes have been reissued in larger, colorized versions, starting with Vol. 1 in 2003 and Vol. 2 in 2005. A colorized Vol. 3 is scheduled for publication in September 2007. Fat Cat Vol. 13 (2006) uses the larger, full-color format of the reissued volumes.

DrewDC 03:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Adult humor

Like a lot of media, garfield(in both the comic strip and the TV show) had adult humor hidden everywhere(like the spiked punch he drinks at new years before coming home dazed from playing ppin the tail on the host). But this doesn't even get a passing mention in the article. Is it because that dumb fuck drahcir is keeping it from being posted or something?

Concerning Odies.

Where where we explicity told that Odie is a beagle? I've read Garfied for about 2 decades and I remember one strip in which Garfied stated that Odie is part beagle part brick, as we can rather safely assume that bricks can't mate dogs, this is an invalid statement, right? Right... In another strip, I don't remember weather it was an earlier or a later strip, Jon's father suggests that Odie is, and I quote, "stupid"... While not necessarily wrong, it doesn't really tell us Odie's race now, does it? It doesn't... Today, 260807, Garfield once again tried to identify Odie... He arrived on the conclusion that Odie was a "purebred clown". So, what race is Odie really? 81.224.28.54 15:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone keeps adding "Jon does Ba-limp in almost every cartoon" to this page. This is getting old and on my nerves. What is Ba-limp? That's stupid. Ryan Holloway 17:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Who's Valette?

64.163.222.115 08:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind

64.163.222.115 08:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)