Talk:Bob and George

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Survey?[edit]

"In a survey conducted of the Bob and George forum members, 80% of survey respondants claimed to read Bob and George on a regular basis, with the remaining 20% either reading it occasionally or not at all."

This section seems to be based off this thread on the BnG forums http://forums.bobandgeorge.com/viewtopic.php?t=12878

However, it isn't very scientific... is it an approriate source? Pata Hikari 18:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, forums will more likely be a biased source. DeleteWngLdr34 01:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The survey was about whether or not forum members read the comic...
How can a survey of forum members be biased... because it's of a forum? Pata Hikari 06:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popular cartoon?[edit]

Is this a popular cartoon? Otherwise, this is just an article about someone's website, and Wikipedia is not a web directory. -- The Anome 08:07 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It is a web comic. IIRC, it is the first sprite comic as well. Anyway, I don't think it needs to be deleted! Emperorbma 09:46 3 Jul 2003 (UTC) Note: Actually, Neglected Characters from Nintendoland.com was the first
sprite comic.
--MAX Allen
P.S. The sprite comic link in the article already implies that it is a web comic. Emperorbma
This is, debatebly (Although I'm pretty sure it is), the first web comic to use sprites from a video game as it's form of illustration. Also, it's 7 years old, being among the older crowd of web comics, and has one of the largest fanbases outside of Penny-Arcade, 8-Bit Theater, and Mega Tokyo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Firestorm117 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As of March 2007, the site's forums have over 10,100 registered users and over 500,000 articles posted. no not popular at all

Registered users means nothing. Active users is what counts. Likewise, after 7 years one can expect the number of posted material to be high. To add my own opinion, Bob and George was popular at it's inception and for a long time, but by this point I daresay it's incredibly likely they're preaching more or less entirely to the sycophant element who would remain for eternity if time permitted such. - User:Luminar

Characters[edit]

I'm gonna point out that we in fact, do not have a character page. It redirects here.

That's because someone deleted the entire page and replaced it with a redirect, since most of the info was originally adapted from the B&G site's cast page. I've reverted the page and deleted the stuff that's actual copyvio. Nifboy 21:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Korium9 17:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC) The character page has gotten rather long -- I will admit to having contributed -- and think it needs to be either seriously revised or broken off to its own section. I re-organized the secondary character section so the alternates are together (and deleted Alternate George since he does not make major appearances after his introduction), the X characters sub-section, the George's Universe sub-section, and the merged characters sub-section. I added the merged character section since Bate had already been listed as a secondary character, but had not been seen since his use in the story. Others, however, like Protean and Charge, have made repeated appearances. The rest are more for just being thorough -- although Mega-Hulk(s) also appear twice. The "Axis of Bob" in the villains section is the unofficial name, it was what Dave suggested after I e-mailed him about it.[reply]

David Anez -- Separate Article?[edit]

Am I the only one who finds it a little...odd that the David Anez article redirects here, where the only information given about the author is whatever is relevant to the comic itself? What's included of him in this article makes sense, but I feel he should get his own article. As Emperorbma mentions, he started one of the first, if not the first, sprite comics, even if he didn't originally intend to do so. I feel there should also be some mention of the various subcomics and fancomics he hosts on his site somewhere. Feedback? --Snaxe920 07:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Easy -- Dave Anez is only notable for his webcomic, and there isn't enough information on him to justify having a separate article for him (which would be somewhere between a sentence and a paragraph describing him as "the Bob and George guy"). Hell, even Scott Kurtz redirects to PvP, even though Kurtz is a much more notable personality. It makes sense for an article on a webcomic's author to redirect to their only notable work. Nifboy 18:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob's location[edit]

I removed the recently-added line "Bob was last seen floating around an alternate universe, trying to find his way back to the Bob and George universe to exact his revenge." from Bob's character description (this is the second time I've done this). First, there's no indication that Bob was trying to exact revenge, so the line is just plain wrong. Other details are wrong (he's not floating, whether it's an 'alternate universe' is debatable, etc.); a more correct entry would be: "Bob was last seen stuck in a subspace rift".

However, the reason I deleted the line outright rather than make the necessary fixes is that I don't think Bob's current situation belongs on the main page; it's not a notable enough detail about his character (it merely details his position) to warrant inclusion in this section which is and should be primarily summaries, given the existance of the Characters of Bob and George page. Also, none of the other characters have their current location documented, and to document the locations of all the characters would take up more space than necessary, and not add any more details.

So, in summary, I think that the entries in the main article should summarize the characters' personalities and most relevant statistics only. A basic summary (as we have here) is enough to give the reader a sense of each character, which is really all that's necessary to understand their importance with respect to the topic of this article (Bob and George). The other details (history, current location, etc.) should stay on the more detailed Characters of Bob and George page.

Since I've reverted this twice, I figured it warranted a discussion on the talk page, in case the consensus is that I'm in the wrong. So, thoughts people?

- Matthew0028 09:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Topman and other minor yet funny characters[edit]

Should we include them? Topman is one of the memorable moments from the 3 years of Bob and George I read in 2 hours. Should we also include Zero in the characters list? Lots of questions. - The Doorknob Thief

No to the Topman character (and other similar one-arc characters), as he was a minor character in one particular story arc, and knowledge of the character isn't necessary to understand what Bob and George is. As for Zero, I could see including him in reference to his involvement with the Cataclysm, which is an important event in the Bob and Geroge universe. -- Matthew0028 02:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The little picture thingy[edit]

I think the article is fine, but the picture at the top is in need of work. It doesn't really represent what Bob and George is! Simply, MP

David Anez likes Wikipedia, interesting[edit]

David Anez is a big fan of Wikipedia. He says, quote, "I think Wikipedia is one of the greatest things on the internet. An online, community-run, self-correcting encyclopedia? (forget what he says at this point) I can be sitting down on the couch watching TV when suddenly I think about something, and if I want to go and look up that thing all I have to do is step over to the computer and type it in the search box, and bam, it's right there. If something is even the slightest bit notable, you'll bet you'll find an article about it." , or basically that's what he said, not 100% accurate (due to the fact that the blurb in question was too old and was deleted) but still basically it. Just thought I'd point that out, not that it needs to be added to the article. -Jetman123 17:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing in the intent of just pointing it out, he lists links to specific Wikipedia articles in his links page. Kalo 14:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary cast[edit]

I think all of this should be removed, after checking there is nothing missing from the list in the subarticle. Having the main cast should be enough for the parent article considering there has been a subarticle spun off from it, otherwise it defeats the entire point. Maybe some of the less commonly appearing villians should go and that part renamed Primary villians, or just the main ones (Wily, maybe 1 or 2 others) could just be combined with the main cast for the purposes of the main article. -- Sfnhltb 02:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the subarticle goes into far greater detail than the main one about all the charaters, so it arguably does not "defeat the point". Plus, all the secondary characters are somewhat notable, and their summaries are very short. I think removing some extraneous details that aren't necessary to understand the characters' roles in the comic would be good (I've just finished doing a little of this), though I'm not convinced that the characters should be removed from the main page entirely. -- Matthew0028 21:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subcomics[edit]

Somebody with familiarity with the subcomics should clean up the section (i.e. not me). Specifically, the Misadventures section needs to be cleaned up and better summarized. Also, a summary of Oddball fancomics is needed. -- Matthew0028 03:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fancomics[edit]

"There exist more former Fancomics, however, since they have subsequently left the site, it is difficult to find proper information on them."

I doubt that this is really a true statement. The Bob and George website is archived on archive.org at many points over the past several years, and it wouldn't be difficult (though it might be time consuming) to find "proper information" on them. Somebody who wants to make this portion of the article more complete in this regards could easily check through the various archivings, and list the ones that are no longer fancomics. —Matthew0028 02:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old News?[edit]

Does anyone have local archives of http://www.bobandgeorge.com/News.html ? The citation needed for the remark that Bob is a Mary Sue was in one of his fairly recent blurbs—probably only a few weeks before the anniversary. Although a source that is no longer online and has never appeared in print is highly questionable, it is really the only source that adequately fulfills that requirement, and would be better than removing that comparison entirely. - user:rasd

Out of commission?[edit]

I haven't been able to load the site for about a week now. It's not just me, I've asked people from around the world and they're having the same problem.

  • Same here...anybody know what's up?--DarthKobold 02:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The site is moving to a new server. Pata Hikari 04:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm pretty sure the reason B&G is down is because it was hacked. At least that's what they were saying on the B&G forums (which were still up, thanks to the fact that they were on a different server). The forum member Coda (whom I gathered had something to do with site maintenance) stated it could be a few days before everything is back up. I'd post the exact text, but I haven't been able to access the forums lately either.
        • No, they're moving to a new server. There was no hack, that was from some months ago. Kuroji 12:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Bob & George so Popular?[edit]

This is probably not the best place for this, but I gotta wonder... Why is Bob & George so popular, exactly? I genuinely don't understand. Is it because it was the first really-noticed sprite comic out there?(Despite the fact it allegedly didn't start out that way.) Is it because it has Rockman and friends? Is it because the writing is good? Or is it just a huge fluke all the way around which sparked an era of darkness while sprinkling random flickers of pure light to the comic community?(In case you're...well...stupid...that's a metaphore for "Caused a pantload of people to make some really heinous comics but also spawned the rare good one.") I simply do not understand. The graphics and special effects are nothing special. The writing isn't that great. The jokes are seriously hit-and-miss. And despite the fact Dave's improved over the years he's done this comic(god, I pity him and his thousand comics), he hasn't actually made a habit of using complex backgrounds, non-standard PhotoShop effects, or even original sprites(with some obvious exceptions).

So my final question to you... What...makes Bob & George so special when there are prettier, funnier, and far, far more interesting sprite comics out there? And for the record, yes, I am a fan. And I genuinely don't know why. It's like subliminal advertising or something... --Joseph Collins 08:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the lack of complex backgrounds are part of the appeal, at least. And I'm not sure where you're coming from on the "hit or miss" thing, I genuinely think it's all funny... but don't listen to me, I think Sexy Losers is stupid, also. Danny Lilithborne 10:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because he was the 'first.' To put it bluntly, almost everything you see in a list of things not to do in a sprite comic, it's because he did them first and was copied a billion times. BnG may be more "primitive" then other works, but it is allowed to be primitive. Because it basicly started a whole form of webcomic. Pata Hikari 04:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not only that, but another factor I'd say is the fact that up until the server outage, he updated every single day. In webcomics, an audience would rather look at a mediocre comic that updates every weekday than a better comic that updates only once or twice a week. Don't ask me why. With rare exceptions, I actually prefer comics that update only once a week. Checking a comic every day is too time consuming.
        • Remember, it wasn't the first sprite webcomic. ChunkyKong12345 04:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • But one of the earliest, and probably the most notable, aside from perhaps 8-bit Theater

Nekrogeist 08:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OCWTSIFT[edit]

Should OCWTSIFT be added to this article? It was an old subcomic just like Project: Suck. http://web.archive.org/web/20011024080343/www.bobandgeorge.com/OCWTSIFT/index.html Ivvan Cain 13:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

last names[edit]

Since when have Bob and George had last names?

I have no idea, and since the editor who added it hasn't explained, I've removed it.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The End[edit]

The last comic has been produced and done, Shall we change this to "Bobandgeorge was a webcomic..."?

Hmm. I'd say no, we don't say it of books. --Kizor 11:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

Does anyone else think the picture provided (one of the strips) should be changed? It doesn't really demonstrate the strip well, given that none of the main characters are in it. Dr. Wily appears, but he's only a supporting character and only appears in one panel. I don't know, it just doesn't seem like the right strip to pick. I'm not sure what strip would be the best, but that one doesn't seem to fit. (Edit: Sorry, forgot to sign my name when I first put this post in) Lord Seth 05:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to one I thought was more appropriate. Korium9 (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I added a couple of references from secondary sources. It might not be enough to save the article, so if anyone else can find any better sources, now is the time to reference them. Kamek (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added an entire "Significance" section to try to explain to people why Bob and George is noteworthy in the history of webcomics.Ig8887 (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BnG Strip.gif[edit]

Image:BnG Strip.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added fair use rationale to the image. — Matthew0028 11:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added fair use rationale to the other images on the page. — Matthew0028 11:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It uses sprites, dude. Have you considered that? 71.131.199.8 (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowy Author[edit]

Quoting from the article: The comic's final strip revealed that the true Shadowy Author was really The Author the whole time, having blamed himself for the deaths of the main cast - and working to prevent it.. Are you sure regarding this? Has this been stated in the comic by Anez himself? or is common fanon. --132.77.4.43 (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The final strip didn't reveal anything of the sort, the second to last strip showed that the more recent appearances of him (specifically the ones where he has white eyes and his text boxes connect to him) are George in disguise. If no one objects I'm changing that (if I remember)Dalek9 (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The epilogue video shows the Shadowy author behind the regular author at th epoint in time that the audio says something along the lines of "he spent the rest of his days blaming himself for th deaths of everyone." This lead to a lot of fan speculation that Shador was a future version of the regualr author gone back in time. But it's just that, speculation, so it should be removed. The only thigns known for sure are the the text box Shadowy author was George and that the previous one was someone else. In addition, I recall someone making reference to George having "merged" with the Shadowy Author (I think in the last non-epilogue video). To my knowledge, Anez has never commented on any of this. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Comics[edit]

The "pixelated look" in webcomics that Bob and George popularized is also considered an influence on later original pixel art comics like Diesel Sweeties and Dinosaur Comics. Dinosaur Comics does not use original pixel art either -- the pictures are from an old clipart assortment the author found -- so this is an incorrect statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.220.66.147 (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bob and George. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_and_George&oldid=1200217119"