Talk:Achewood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	comics Portal This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
More information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related work groups (general): Webcomics work group

[edit] tiger?

Lyle does not look like a tiger. Where does Onstad say Lyle is a tiger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.42 (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the opening paragraph. I don't think the humour is really 'surreal'. 194.247.239.180 14:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There are enough elements of magical realism and absurdity to definitely qualify surreal humour. Case in point, Ray and Bensington's trip to Cabo. http://achewood.com/index.php?date=09282006. Fateddy 23:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

However, describing the visual punchline of the the first strip as "surprising" is woefully inaccurate. Panel 2 has Teodor saying "Philippe is standing on it." Panel 3 shows an individual, who the reader now knows is Philippe, standing on the manual. Not a surprise; in fact, the very opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.203.224 (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

This article definately needs some sort of image, two or three would be nice, since its about something so visual. Anything thats definately fair use, or do we have to talk to Chris about this? —siroχo 17:27, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

It's clearly copyrighted. I don't know much about fair use laws though. I would say just ask. He seems nice.  :-) - Omegatron 20:28, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

I asked:

"We would like to use some (copyrighted) images from your strip in an encyclopedia article about it."

He replied:

"That's a very interesting article, thank you. Yes, you may use clipped art from the strips."

- Omegatron 19:03, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

So uh... What images do you want to use? I am imagining one full strip (which one is most "accessible" to newcomers?) and then small portraits of each character. too much? - Omegatron 17:23, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but the "What we need more of is science" logo seems essential. You could also use the portraits from the blogs-- that should be pretty easy.siafu 06:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Really? I don't know about the logo. I don't want to clutter it up with hella images. I am uploading the portraits from the blogs right now.  :-) - Omegatron 15:49, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Do we have any desire to add pictures for the minor characters? Also, if we want a logo we could use one of the smaller strips. I found a couple. Here, here, or here. I think I'll look for more later if we want one still. Shploo 18:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded portraits for all the main characters. A link to the Wikipedia article has been posted on the strip, so we're getting a lot of anons today. - Omegatron 22:54, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I added some information on the geography of Achewood and its relation to Palo Alto. - Scenque 00:47, June 13, 2008 (UTC)

I added links to the appropriate strip and a Google Maps link showing the relationship between the two, in response to the request for citation. Fourmica 17:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the source for Roast Beef having been born intersexed? I don't remember this. john k 18:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know they put Roast Beef on his door in heaven and he thought that was neat because his real name was cassandra which he doesn't like because they thought he was a girl. - Omegatron 22:56, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was intersexed, does it? john k 00:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, I just looked at the "Roast Beef in Heaven 1" section. There is a bit where he notices that the door says C. "Roast Beef" Kazentzakis, and thinks it's cool that they knew he didn't like his real first name. But that strip doesn't even say what his real first name is. Still looking through, though. john k 00:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"An intersexual or intersex person (or animal of any unisexual species) is one who is born with genitalia and/or secondary sexual characteristics of indeterminate sex" - Omegatron 01:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I believe it's found in Ray and Beef's road trip arc, the same one where Beef raps as Notorious L.I.N.C.O.L.N. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus is correct - the strip is December 2, 2002. Roast Beefs line is "When I was born, I wasn't really developed all the way. They couldn't tell if I was gonna be a man or a lady." -- curious_jp

[edit] Sunday Strips

Should we add something about the Sunday Strips no longer being available on Serializer? I know he stopped updating it regularly, but I looked recently and found that even the archives were gone from Serializer. And the Achewood forum was deleted.

Agreed JD79 04:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

heyhey, it's back online Jmlk17 15:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Onstad

I notice that the query 'Chris Onstad' is a redirect to this entry. This article offers absolutely no biographical information about him. I'm still a novice, could some kind soul un-redirect Chris?

Done. —siroχo 07:27, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Onstad and freezepop

married to the singer from freezepop? this sounds kind of like random speculation, although im currently researching... it'd be nice if someone would cite their source for it.

On a google search for "Chris Onstad" and "Freezepop", the first hit includes the text "thanks Liz and Chris Onstad!" There are a number of hits for this search term. Ipsenaut 03:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The first hit seems to be the only one that might imply they are married, and it still seems like it could go either way. the rest of the bonks are from the freezepop song about phillipe. I guess i'd just like more solid evidence, but i suppose there no solid evidence against either. shrug. Syynapse 06:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

You're 100% right, I should have a source to cite. Unfortunately, I only heard this anecdotally. The famous-- even the tangentially internet-famous-- often keep their business away from their family lives, I suppose. Ipsenaut 13:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, i've fixed it up a bit to better reflect the reality of the situation. Hope its to your liking Syynapse 18:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I find this claim extremely unlikely, given that a) Freezepop are based in Boston, while Onstad lives in California, and also that b) the lead singer of Freezepop isn't actually named Liz. Ms. Gamache's homepage seems to suggest that she currently lives in Massachusetts, and that she does not use her pseudonym in everyday life. Branwell, 02:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Haha. This article has been downgraded from "Explained" to "Explained, sort of" on the link from achewood. — Omegatron 03:53, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of Achewood

I love Achewood. Bunches. But no comic is perfect. In the spirit of NPOV, would it make sense to link to anything that criticizes Achewood? Anecdotally I know of people saying that the arcs are too long or you have to read from the beginning to understand things, etc. JUST AN IDEA! JD79 03:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Linking to a criticism of an ideology is acceptable practice, but this is wikipedia. It is here to state objective facts, not review art. I believe criticisms would be unnecessary. Ipsenaut 04:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I suppose so, though some of the pages on Religion and Political Thought have links to specific criticisms. However, I will concede the point that criticisms of things like Christianity, Nihilism, and Socialism are all widely-studied fields in and of themselves, whereas criticism of Achewood rests solely with people that just don't like fun. JD79 01:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think that "criticisms of an online comic" are a notable subject for wikipedia. Plus, Achewood is awesome. john k 04:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Confirming this. Ashibaka tock 04:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

claiming that all things need a criticisms sections when not all things are criticized in the same manner is POV. 71.60.151.41 23:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

-Criticisms of art and entertainment is really reserved on wikipedia for items that are in the mainstream and viewed as particularly divisice or controversial. Achewood doesn't really fit into that.

[edit] those div tags

Recent edits removed some of the <div style="clear: both"></div> markup, calling it "bogus HTML". To see what those tags were for, try viewing the page while making the text size extremely small; you'll see that the floating pictures for Pat and Teodor now bump into the following sections in an ugly way. If you removed the tags in a section that has less text, like Lyle's, the problem would be apparent at a normal text size. Not "bogus", just a useful precaution when you have text wrapped around pictures - so please don't remove the rest of the tags. ←Hob 21:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Just use {{clear}}. — Omegatron 22:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Those tags are exactly what's in the {{clear}} template. If you type {{subst:clear}} you'll get the same thing (and it's really not a great idea to use templates without "subst" for minor formatting like that, as it makes the server do extra work). Regardless, there's no reason to remove valid HTML without checking what it does first. ←Hob 22:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Btw, I don't mean to sound too huffy - just a difference of opinion. But, see Wikipedia:Template substitution#Templates that should be subst'd; if you don't use subst for these, Bluebot may end up doing it for you. ←Hob 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know all about that stuff. — Omegatron 23:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uncle Culpepper

In one strip, Uncle Culpepper's name appears to be "Marion," but in another strip (when the real Culpepper shows up), the letter looks more like an "l." Can anyone with a hardcopy of the books or a reliable source clear this up?

Sometimes the 'l's and 'i's look like each other. Onstad says it's my screen resolution; I say it's his font anti-aliasing. — Omegatron 15:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

"Chris Onstad has since admitted during an interview that achewater was never actually a psychedelic drink." I took this out, since what authority does he have in the section? The exact same section states that the drink actually IS psychedelic. Jmlk17 03:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Um. His authority is that he made it up. It's an imaginary drink and an imaginary plant that he made up. — Omegatron 16:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updates

Changing the box in the upper-right from 2-5 to 3-5. Yes, I know I'm nit-picking, but when has it only been two, unless maybe the first week he had his kid. JD79 13:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh, he does go through some pretty decent time where almost a week passes between his updates. It has currently been 5 days right now, and has been that way a few times. Could you go for 2-4? Jmlk17 08:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are people so uptight about the update frequency? I see some anon IP just changed it to 2-4. MKV

[edit] Roast Beef's WiFi

Roast Beef's biography in the article currently reads

however, the actual alt-text for that comic states that Ray is 9600 baud. I'm not really sure how to phrase the necessary change within the article, so would just removing that bit work? --Redstormpopcorn 19:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Just made changes to this dude - have a look and see if you approve. --Ggiles77 00:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Books

OK, I made the change once and got the smarmy "thanks for testing out wikipedia, your changes have been reverted." template message, but I'm changing the article to reflect that Nice Pete and Roast Beef are, in the Achewood world, the authors of their respective books. EVEN THOUGH everyone knows that Onstad wrote them, they are purported to be written by the characters the same way the blogs are by the characters. -66.226.105.42 20:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor characters

Somebody should cull the list of minor characters, because it's getting kind of ridiculous. I think only characters who have appeared in multiple story arcs should be included (and who weren't the primary subject of the arcs they were in), i.e. the Tenmen, Nice Pete, Todd, Little Nephew, the robots, and so on. Also Molly should be considered a minor character. 132.236.113.119 19:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Molly is definitely a major character, IMO. She's at least as prominent these days as, say, Pat. I say the eight major characters should stay as is.

I count 30 minor characters on the list (counting collective entries like The Tenmen as one each). I'd say start by culling it to 25. I nominate these characters for deletion:

• Andy (least prominent robot character; never even has a spoken line AFAIK)
• Barry Bass
• Leo Fontanette (I wrote most of his bit, so I'd be sort of sad to see him go, but he wasn't around for long)
• Magreaux dog (doesn't even deserve to be listed, much less have his own article)
• Milklin Honniker

All pretty peripheral characters. Hardly regulars, and never played a role in a major story arc.--BigglesTh9 08:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, get rid of those five —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.22.42.204 (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Why don't we start a List of characters in Achewood article? john k 10:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

List of characters in Achewood article is a good idea, actually. You could include as many characters as you wanted in that. And maybe separate articles for major characters, though we'd have to come to an agreement on what a "major character" is. Keep the present eight "major characters"?--BigglesTh9 10:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vlad/Polish?

Where is it stated Vlad is Polish?

Vlad's not a Polish name, I'll say that much - it'd be "Wlad" if it were polish. Looks Russian to me. john k 10:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It is never directly stated that Vlad is Polish, but in a comic that appears in the paid archive and also in the back of book 2 as a bonus comic, he mentions that "In Poland ... the women are paying as much as 50 Zloty to sleep with man with basic Hotmail account." Because of the paid archive thing, I can't link it, but it's the best we've got. Coldfrog 20:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Early in Achewood history, Chris Onstad held an AOL Instant Messenger chat for fans of Achewood. The conversation turned to talks of any animated Achewood. Onstad said he had no definite plans, but said it was an amusing idea. When one chatter proffered his voice for Vlad, Onstad declined, saying he enjoyed doing a cheesy Russian accent himself. It's probably not worth the effort to debate much about the outlying characters. Rabbidpanda 17:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Censorship Controversy"

Onstad has already sent out replies to questioning e-mails stating that he removed the image of Pat's penis because he "did not like having a big animal erection in the strip as much as I originally thought I would." There's no censorship at work here.

Let's wait until this is more than two days old before we get our dork on and create a new section of the article, shall we?

[edit] Pronunciation of Achewood

Does anyone know to properly pronounce Achewood? I think this is important information to have in the article.

I read somewhere that Chris's official answer is that it's pronounced "Aik-wood" like "headache". I've always said "ash-wood". I don't want to email him with such an insipid question and I figure someone already has a reference for this.

It's definitely (head) ache-wood. Ash-wood makes no sense. Achewood is what you get if you drink Achewater. And it's sort of a pun on Oakwood.

Ahem; from the "about" link at the top of Achewood.com's main page:

"Achewood," like wormwood, was used by antebellum slaves in the production of "achewater," a long- since outmoded and outlawed Southern beverage.

Drinkers of achewater experienced hallucinations and euphoria, but the after-effects of the liquor produced a deep and lasting melancholy (hence its name).

Modern science has confirmed that achewood oil, the active ingredient in achewater, is a powerful depressant which causes irreversible neurological damage.

So in other words, it's pronounced like "aches and pains", and you don't get a painful hard-on from drinking it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.210.14 (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion?

Why was this article suggested for deletion? I'm curious as to what the story is here. Rmj12345 18:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Many on Wikipedia feel that webcomics are not relevant to Wikipedia or notable in the real world, and hence should be removed. This is not limited to webcomics, but happens on articles about fictional materials of all sorts. The thing is, in this case, I agree with them. This article is nothing more than a synopsis of Achewood, and while this article is astounding in that it gives every detail of the comic characters' in-universe in-character history with references, all those references are to the Achewood site and the whole thing looks like a fanboyish FAQ one might find posted on a forum about Achewood. All the text in this article could easily be removed and replaced with a single link to Achewood's homepage without fear of omitting any of the article's content. And when an article can be so simplified, it does not belong on Wikipedia. After all, that is what Google is for.

It never should have been. Jmlk17 09:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

popular webcomics in which books have been published and the author is well-known should be subject to inclusion. IE Achewood has several books, a product line, "characters" write for publications, etc. Now, stuff like the works of David Willis(who, despite his constant wikipedia editing saying otherwise, is NOT famous) should be purged. The author is not famous(he has 1 book and no other work whatsoever, unlike Onstad- clarified above- or the Cyanide & Happiness authors, who have done TV commercials), nor is the strip notable. If David Willis is classified as "famous" just because he says so(his only claim to fame being his ego), then anyone who draws a webcomic online could make such a claim, regardless of readership or other works which would make them famous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.162.204.6 (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crispin Glover?

Check out Crispin Glover's website: www.crispinglover.com Reading his descriptions of his books and such, I was reminded of Nice Pete. Could the latter be based on the former? It would make sense.

[edit] Ray is a Tit man

Ray is no longer pleased by the female rump, because all chicks got one. Ray is pleased by big fat titties.--Natjo1986 08:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That he is...that he is. Jmlk17 09:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] orginal research tag

The facts or descriptions in that part of the article are extremely date based. The setting the scene is true, and the description of the humor is well described. Despite Onstad never actually giving his own description of the type of humor or the first strip, those are verifiable and not personal opinion/research. If there are other issues? What are they? Please ammend this talk page with concerns. M.manary 19:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Absurd versus Surreal

Seriously, the opening paragraph that describes Achewood as "commonly surreal" is just plain false. Over the last couple of years, there have been on a few story arcs that could be described as surreal. Achewood's humor more commonly relies on the absurd. I made a change to the opening paragraph. I hope it sticks. --Dogbreathcanada 20:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The currrent wording is fine for now, though such a description is best if attributed. --Dragonfiend 04:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is often pretty odd and surreal as well though :). Jmlk17 04:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

But is it absurdy surreal or surreally absurd? Rather than us try to describe what type of humor we think it is, we should just document how Onstad and reputable critics describe it. I'll see if I can find the Comics Journal review referenced in the article, for example. --Dragonfiend 04:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol, it's a bit of both sometimes! Good idea on the source however. Jmlk17 04:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)