Talk:Pearls Before Swine (comics)

Comics: Strips Mid‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Comic strips work group.

Removal

I have removed the recurring characters section as at least part of it seems to come directly from [1]. I don't know about the rest, and it may be that this can be restored. I don't know enough about the strip to rewrite the offending portions. Basil Fawlty 14:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The characters should include when they first appeared in the strip. (I know rat and pig started it, goat and sheep not much later, but when did wee bear, guard duck and fraternity of crocs joins. Most specifiaclly JoJo. I when thw first crocodile apperaerd but not the frat house.

Article reverted to pre-copyvio version pre instructions on WP:CP--Duk 02:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Major cutting

I removed the long list of minor characters. I noticed that this was being updated almost daily, every time someone (something?) new appeared in the strip. The list had the potential to get really massive. It's one thing to mention a few sentences about minor characters who make multiple appearances, but I don't see a reason to list every single one-off appearance. The article isn't intended to summarize the entire fictional world of Pearls Before Swine. Joyous | Talk 19:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The fact that it is updated so often means that a lot of people are invested in it. Not everything that happens is included, but what's wrong with listing each of the characters? It's still a relatively young strip and today's minor characters become tomorrow's recurring characters (e.g. Pig's sister - she has a back story that's relevant to the strip or the seals and whale who recur regularly and are an interesting counterpoint to Zebra and the Crocodiles.) But more to the point - So it's a long entry? Who does that hurt? We're not talking about Star Wars or Star Trek length issues here. aww 15:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that it was becoming less like an encyclopedia entry, and more like something that you would see on a fan website. An article shouldn't be a strip-by-strip summary in near-real-time. It wouldn't take long before the article becomes bloated with trivia, and essentially a list of lists. (list of minor characters, list of characters from other strips who have appeared here, list of other strips that have made reference to Pearls Before Swine, list of objects from other strips that have been left behind...). Eventually, it would have to be trimmed down, as was done painfully at Homer Simpson. Joyous | Talk 21:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the record, I think you went too far. The "minor characters" were important, and more of a reference to cross-comic interaction was actually useful and relevant (there is a small cadre of these young/new comic strip authors that work off each other in contrast with and poking at the old style and subject matter of Keane, Hart, etc.). But I'm not going to be the one to battle over it. aww 23:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with aww, I was actually searching for information on the April fool's joke this year and could only find it in Google's cache. I think the cut was far too deep. Sure, we can maybe get rid of the "guest stars" like Cathy, but this is an encyclopedia unrestricted by space concerns, so why not be encyclopedic? I think the previous list of major and minor (appearing more than once) characters is entirely appropriate and should be restored. --Tedzzzz 22:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the article before ir got cut, but there are several recurring charectars that arn't mentioned, the only one I can think of now is Rat's boss. Rat's boss has appeared much more than one strip, and there is nothing that suggests he will stop appearing, so I think charectars like that should stay in.

Rat's boss will disappear eventually. Rat has gotten so many jobs and has had so many bosses, that it would make this article encreadibly and unnessicarally long if we listed them all.

I'm concerned about article quality. (in general, and this article specifically) I fear that a lot of articles degrade over time into cruft; other articles so effusively praise the topic that they simply can't be neutral. I'm not sure what the ideal article on a comic strip (even a great one like Pearls) should look like, but I fear that some articles start to become too long if we add too many minor details. MKoltnow 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something definitely ought to be done about the "minor characters" section. Recently "Timmy the Owl" was added, a character that appeared in a single strip as a one off joke. Many characters mentioned there were in the comic for no more than a single strip or series. Admittedly, there is about a years worth of PBS strips I've never read, but I'm willing to bet that Angry Bob has appeared, and is more important a character, than Staci Pastis. Please consider moving or deleting several of the characters in these sections. (I'm writing all this in the discussion because everything I change always seems to get reverted back. At least I'm learning...) 121.45.248.70

Disney acquiring PBS

That info comes from this "press release"

Note the language at the bottom of the page: "This site is not endorsed, approved, reviewed, or acknowledged by the Walt Disney Corporation. All information on this site is, to the best of our knowledge, false, and any resemblance to real insider information is purely coincidental. If any significant true information slips through, we apologize for that."

Oops...I didn't see that. --Wack'd About Wiki 15:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say the Walt Disney Corporation? There's no such thing as Walt Disney Corporation, just the Walt Disney Company. [User: Nate Speed]

Rat (Pearls Before Swine)

Did anybody notice the Rat page I wrote? --Wack'd About Wiki 19:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I actually added most of Rat's former jobs on that page to fill it out more.

Characters

I split the "minor characters" section between "recurring" and "minor." Here's my reasoning:

The recurring characters are the characters who appear more frequently, and seem to have had a larger affect on the strip. Farina and the Sea Anenomes have popped up frequently over the few years PBS has been around, and the Guard Duck has appeared many times since his first appearence.

The minor characters have appeared frequently enough to play a small role in the strip, but appear not as frequently as the recurring characters or only appeared for a limited time in a large series of strips. Lesser characters who do not fit these qualifications; in my opinion, do not warrent mention.

If you don't like my way, fine, but at least read this to see my reasoning. --Wack'd About Wiki

In the case of another character -- I re-added "Danny Donkey", because the character does appear occasionally and isn't a one-off character. (The drunken Danny Donkey doll might never appear again, but the illustrated one (drawn by Rat) has appeared since and probably will again.) Amnewsboy 16:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In another case of characters, I'm glad to see this page is spurring alot of character pages. --Wack'd About Wiki 11:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BP: Interesting fact about the Crocodiles, discovered by watching a PBS program on crocodiles in which I immediately recognized Pastis' distinctive narrow-snouted critters. They are not "your standard crocodile", but are gharials.

From  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearls_Before_Swine_(comic_strip)

“…they [the crocodiles] are usually involved in various attempts to kill and eat Zebra, all of which fail because of their stupidity.”

BP: Or perhaps they fail because they are gharials, and they are too dumb to realize it!

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gharial :

“The gharial … (Gavialis gangeticus), sometimes called the Indian gavial or gavial, is one of two surviving members of the family Gavialidae, a long-established group of crocodile-like reptiles with long, narrow jaws.”

Also see Diet in same article (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gharial#Diet) : “Young gharials eat insects, larvae, and small frogs. Mature adults feed almost solely on fish, although some individuals have been known to scavenge dead animals.” Bpolt (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)bpolt[reply]

September 26 Substitution

Do we want to mention this within the article because of the Jimella Tunstall case? It was still in this morning's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel so it was a paper-to-paper basis that the strip was subbed with the 2004 strip. Nate 22:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pastis often sends in a past strip to papers as an alternate for today's strip when he feels papers might not want to run the one that was supposed to be for that day. This is nothing new, but if you want to mention that he does this, it could fit in the article one way or another. --Wack'd About Wiki 10:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Guard Duck?

It's November and he's still in it a fair amount. Is he at the level of the Killer Whale yet?--T. Anthony 15:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's in the "recurring characters" section. He's higher level than the Killer Whale, who (may I point out) is offically deceased. I sort of find that odd, though - no major character who dies never stays that way for long. --Wack'd About Wiki 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think, at this point, Jason has become a main character. See his section for reasoning. --Wack'd About Wiki 17:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since his online character description only calls him "Duck," as well as the fact that he's NEVER been called Jason, the page has been changed to fix that error.

He was called Jason in one of the first strips he was in...wasn't he? If not, why does everyone call him Jason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.108.130 (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodile speech style

I'm not sure the Zebras speek in a phonetic style, as the article says. They seem to speak some sort of Caribbean pidgin. Their speech is also uniquely lowercase, like the bully in Calvin and Hobbes. I'd like to rewrite the description and will happily do so barring objections. MKoltnow 08:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck? The Crocidiles speak in that type of vioce, not the Zebra!

Heh. I forgot one of the commandmants--thou shalt not edit when sleepy. :-) Still stick by my statement that the ZZE members' speech is not phonetic. MKoltnow 18:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Additions

Has the incident about the Turkish president achieved enough notoriety to add a mention to it somewhere in the page? While I don't think it warrants a link to that quack's YouTube video (which isn't a reputable source anyway), if mainstream publications are picking up on it, it seems like it should be integrated into the controversies section. Anyone else with thoughts on this? SGreenwell 11:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodile Speech

Isn't it just the male crocs who speek in the dumbed down, phonetic style? The female crocodiles always seem to be perfectly articulate, from what I can tell.

The adult males, yes. The croc son who we've seen several times in 2007 seems to also speak articulate English. MissFiat (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters

Something seriously has to be done about the recurring/minor characters sections. Honestly, barely any of them should be there. Many were just one-strip gags, and some characters where there only for a brief storyline. A great example, Wilhelm the Aquatic Lamb. Wilhelm was in a single strip and I'm willing to bet he won't reappear. A single random joke. Connie the Judgemental Cow, pretty much a prop for jokes for about four days. Even Staci Pastis has barely been there. I reckon the recurring and minor characters section can be merged and include only the following characters:

Stephan Pastis
Farina
Pigita
Alphonse, the Needy Porcupine
Angry Bob
Danny Donkey
Chuckie, the Non-Anthropomorphic Sheep
Leonard
The Lions
Pepito
Toby the Agoraphobic Turtle
Wee Bear

All other characters are insanely unimportant to the point where they're not even "Pearls Before Swine characters". The section's starting to look like a fan site made by an die-hard Pearls fan instead of an encyclopaedia.

Agreed check out the proposal to merge the characters page to the main page. Snowfreak91287 (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed External Link

I removed an external link link from the article. The one linking to "Pearlswine: LiveJournal Daily Feed of Pearls Before Swine".

Although it does service the reader, the publication of strips there is probably unauthorized. It therefore is restricted without without exception as per Wikipedia:External links. - Apartmento (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodiles

It seems as though the crocs are appearing more and more in the recent comics. It also seems that Rat is making less isolation devices for himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.103.248 (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodile Accent

"When spoken aloud this strongly resembles a thick Hispanic accent."

I think I read in comic collection that Pastis didn't intend for the crocodiles' speech to resemble any particular accent. I'm not going to go track that citation down, but I don't think the above quote has any place in the article. Ueli-PLS (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. --Lambiam 10:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge List of Pearls Before Swine characters to here

The article List of Pearls Before Swine characters largely duplicates content found here, and for most characters this article (Pearls Before Swine) is actually the more comprehensive and informative one. The length of the article is not a prohibitive factor. --Lambiam 10:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The main article is much more detailed. In addition, the "Main Articles" for several of the major characters here simply redirect back to the same section that they're linked from (for example, the main article for Pig simply redirects to the section of this article about Pig). Oldiesmann (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another agree. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There's no need in two different articles. The article itself is definitely NOT that long. WinKi-tyan (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definately not. The "List of Characters" is there for a reason! Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another disagree. If the main article is more detailed, then move "those" descriptions to the character page. Pearls Before Swine has a LOT of characters and detailing them on the main article will detract from the focus - which is to inform about the strip rather than get bogged down on the character - on the main page. I do not agree that each character should be given its own page (like, for instance, many characters have for Peanuts, or other comics and/or television shows) but a separate character page is definitely called for. I would say such a page should be divided into major and minor and transient characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.163.37 (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say we should merge them. There's already a section of the "Pearls Before Swine" article dedicated to "List of Characters," so what's the point of having an extra article? We could even include a list of minor characters as a subset of the main category. There's no point in making people scroll between two different articles. If either were long enough that we would have trouble loading it into a web browser, that would be another story, but as of right now, I say merge the two articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.210.120 (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it is there are two choices, merge everything onto the main page or make a brief description of the characters on the main page and merge the two current texts as well as add more characters to the characters page. Personally I would go with keeping it and giving them both a thorough overhaul. Snowfreak91287 (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's simple, there are quite a bunch of Pearls Before Swine characters, and they all need a proper description. That is a little too much to fit on the Pearls Before Swine page, so therefore there should simply be another article. Coby (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It would make the article too long. MadManAmeica (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pearls Before Swine excerpt.png

Image:Pearls Before Swine excerpt.png 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 ensure 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) 15:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pearlsmain.jpg

Image:Pearlsmain.jpg 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 ensure 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) 15:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comic References

I am going through and editing this article, as the dates of appearances are wrong and several facts have been incorrectly stated. I am including proof that can be found in the comic it self. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syntheticmoon (talk • contribs) 20:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless...

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to remove the detailed list of characters, which is totally unreferenced, and replace it with a summary, like "Pastis' characters include Rat, Pig... etc." and add a sentence that links to the List of PBS characters. This is an article about the comic strip Pearls before Swine, and it's irrelevant to know that Rat writes the Dickie the Cockroach strip or other trivia like that. Instead, the article should describe the history, reception, etc. of the actual strip. I thought I'd ask, however, before I did it, because I can see a lot of work went in to the summaries. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Material in list articles needs to be sourced as well. I agree that the content should not be duplicated in two articles, but I am unconvinced that there is enough reliably sourced material to warrant the second article at all. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why Pearls Before Swine cannot be structured in the same way as many other wiki articles, even those covering specific comic strips. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanuts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Peanuts_characters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppermint_Patty

What's good for many is just as good for one. What we currently have on wiki regarding pearls before swine may be poorly done but that's not the fault of the structure and arrangement. What we need are well written articles, not somebody trigger happy on the delete key.

Having comprehensive spin off/daughter articles is fine, if the content of the daughter articles is supported with material that meets our article guidelines and policies WP:V and WP:OR for primary examples. Currently even the content of the main article does not meet those criteria. -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fansite

There is way too much detail on the individual characters. Just a brief summary is fine. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed the "black comedy" category as that's original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need everything?

I've noticed a lot of unnecessary facts are written in the articles (especially the Crocs). Do we really need to write down everything every single character did in the past nine years? I think the croc article could just slim down to the most appearing crocs i.e. Bob. The only other thing we really need about them is their failed attempts at killing Zebra. Just my one-fifth of a dime. Fishhead (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, we don't need to write out every single event that ever happened in the strip. Fishhead (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little problem

"[Larry and his family] still live in the Zeeba Zeeba Eeta frat house; it is possible he was too dumb to leave."

It could just be that the new Pearls book is new, but in the book, Pastis says that Zebra has three neighbors: The Lions, the Zeeba Zeeba Eeta frat house, and Larry's house. Apparently, Larry's house his behind Zebra's house, with the other two houses being to the left and right of Zebra's house. --WeezleBeezle (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good note. Please provide citation and add it. MJ56003 (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know how to provide citation. Wanna help with that? --WeezleBeezle (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I haven't done it before. I'd think that putting your paragraph into the info on Zebra or the frat house, kind of like "According to this_book_name, Zebra has three neighbors....." and then put something in references like Pearls Before Swine: BLTs Taste So Darn GoodMarch 2, 2003 ISBN 0-7407-3437-7 which I cut/pasted from the books section MJ56003 (talk) 05:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE. A commentary by Pastis is OK, but what we really need are third party sources. And we should not be making analysis based on the content of the strips. -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Pen of Doom, everything you said made little sense. If Pastis said it, then it has to be true. That's just how it works, right? After all, Pastis made the strip. He controls all the rules. --WeezleBeezle (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well not quite - if Pastis said it, we can say that Pastis said it. We dont claim to have the truth, we print what we can verify in reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Weezle, you know the book name. You can add text and reference like I suggested, then someone can correct your wordage if you do it wrong. I don't see where my suggestion violates cite rules. MJ56003 (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snuffels

I think Snuffels the cat has become a main character by now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.187.59 (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite though. From what I remember, he's still secondary.Abce2 (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's spelled "Snuffles", by the way. I don't see him as often as, say, Guard Duck.67.180.128.232 (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bippy listed at Redirects for discussion

Bippy currently redirects here. I've nominated it for deletion; please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_21#Bippy. Powers ^T 22:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intro paragraph numbering inconsistancy

the intro paragraph currently says:

[Pearls Before Swine] chronicles the daily lives of four anthropomorphic animals, Pig, Rat, Zebra, Goat and the crocs.

I would like to change it to make the numbering consistent, but I couldn't come up with wording that is accurate and also preserves the current meaning of the sentence as I read it. The best rewrite that I have come up with:

It chronicles the daily lives of a few anthropomorphic animals, Pig, Rat, Zebra, Goat, and the crocs.

Is not really that good in my opinion. I would only consider it marginally better than the existing text. Is there someone with a little more copyediting experience here that could help out?

TheTrueMikeBrown (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pearls Characters.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pearls Characters.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 16 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"You stupid fairy!" section

This isn't sourced at all, looks dubious (partly because of its writing style), and I can't find anything to support its veracity. Some help here, folks? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was directly quoting text under a treasury, I'm going to change it to make it more encyclopedic. CheezRulez (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2003

In December he also had the controversial strips about the slaughterhouse and the criticizing the comics (Lions tigers and crocs, oh my!). Do those deserve mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.206.248 (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are worth mentioning in the Wikipedia article if there was a lot of media (newspaper, presumably) coverage of the controversy (see here for which sources actually can be used). Otherwise, no. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fansite II

Editors have complained since 2008 that this page is nothing more than trivia-filled fansite. It's nowhere near WIkipedia standards, and much of this OR and minutiae needs to be excised in order for it to reach standard. Before a cleanup begins, please engage in discussion here now. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pearls Before Swine (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121010211712/http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComic.mpl?date=2007/5/31&name=Pearls_Before_Swine to http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComic.mpl?date=2007/5/31&name=Pearls_Before_Swine

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"More commonly known as Pearls"

As one editor remarked, this is uncited, unnecessary, info. It is common to refer to works by shortening the name to the first word.

Editors keep adding it back. Anyone have a reason to keep this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XSevn (talk • contribs) 22:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planned cleanup

Hi all, I'm planning to do some cleanup work within the next few days to substantially streamline the Characters section. My goals are to remove trivial details that only appear in one strip or storyline, to be more selective with characters listed under the "Minor Characters" section, and to tighten up the prose where necessary. I noticed that, according to the page history, the Characters section is still accumulating detail on a semi-regular basis, so I wanted to give people some advance notice of my plans in case there are any concerns. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]