Jump to content

Talk:Dinosaur Comics

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



As someone well versed in the DC lingo, I am removing the references to the over-use of "sexy" since it is simply not true. While anyone who asked "what are the sexy haps" on the DC forums (for instance) would not be seen as out of place, it is just not very common.

You mean other than the fact that every single page has the word 'sexy' on it because M North describes his merchandise as 'sexy' and 'exciting'? You mean other than that? Other than the instance of sexy being on every page, sexy isn't used that often? It's not very common, other than its presence every time you click on the page? Is that what you mean? Just so I'm clear? You mean that contrary to the word's appearance in the very code that makes up the page, it is simply not a commonly used word in the Dinosaur Comics parlance? Is that it? Is it? It is? Oh, okay. Just making sure! Double high-fives! 18:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was that supposed to be an argument? A word being used in a site's navigation is not at all like saying a word over and over on the site. Sexy is a commonly used word in the DC parlance, but not to the degree it was described in the article.
I find your reasoned defence to be very sexy! --maru (talk) contribs 00:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying the move 'Con Air' had a lot to do with the fat guy who was sitting in front of me during the movie. I don't even remember most of the movie, because that fat guy was occupying all my attention. Man, I couldn't keep my eyes off that guy, he was just so fat and also sort of lonely, and I wanted to buy him a popcorn but he'd probably just take it as some kind of cruel prank. I guess my point is that some people have been mistreated in life, and it's really hard to get past their emotional barriers in order to show them some kindness.
Good lord, is such a dumbass. That shall be all. -- 11:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lil' people and things


Calling the house and car "supporting characters" seems a bit daft, but they have to be included in the same category as the tiny woman, so what collective noun could best describe them? --Lee M 01:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe "scenery"? Tiny woman doesn't get to talk much.
Sometimes (maybe once or twice) speech has been attributed to people from inside the house. The tiny woman might be better called "scenery", anyhow.

One year ago...


One year ago I saw this comic on a comic archive site. I thought it was joke. One year later, I find this wiki article. You guys mean to tell me that this comic is still going? I thought it was dead. Well whatever the case, ima satires it in my webcomic. :P --TKGB

Stronger than ever, in fact. Did you check the website? You would certainly have seen live-ness. --Maru 15:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)<[reply]
I checked it out. Its hilarious for some reason. OI! --TKGB

Dinosaur sex


This discussion page is a good page I think to talk about Dinosaur Sex! Holy crap yes! Edit wars add to the unhappiness in the world and that makes me sad. --BreathingMeat 10:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I (obviously) am in favor of both dinosaur sex and sexy dinosaurs. It's the very blunt and hilarious punchline of the referenced joke. There's no reason to say 'they had a physical relationship in the past' when you can, directly referencing the strip in question, just say 'they had dinosaur sex'. Cos they did. Have dinosaur sex. -- 13:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more correct to say that it is T-Rex's stated perception that they had had dinosaur sex! Dromiceiomius has been less than forthcoming with confirmation on this sexy claim. --BreathingMeat 20:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to see our debate settled :) I am not a fan of using "dinosaur sex" in the article because it seems to suggest that it's a term used commonly in society, which it definitely isn't. However, I would be willing to include it if the words are placed within quotation marks. I agree with BreathingMeat that it would be appropriate to qualify the statement by saying that it's from T-Rex' claims (since we all know that it wouldn't be out of character for T-Rex to exaggerate his stories :D). How about: T-Rex once claimed that they have engaged in "dinosaur sex". --Transverse 21:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a great fan of the term dinosaur sex, however I feel that the above is an acceptable compromise. Though I tend to believe T-Rex's claim given that Utahraptor appears to give it some degree of credence, and Utahraptor is generally a fairly level headed guy. -- 02:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're missing the point. A red Wikipedia link to Dinosaur Sex is really funny! Oh alright, I see you all looking stern at me. Fine. Have it your way. --BreathingMeat 03:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BM, I could trust you more on this issue if you weren't made out of disgusting duplicitous meat! --maru (talk) contribs 03:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ow! My feelings! BreathingMeat 08:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, we're all made out of meat! I've edited the article with the compromised line (with a slight grammar fix). Transverse 05:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, 4 years and still no article about Dinosaur Sex! Wikipedia, I am disappoint! (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Character names


The article says characters are referred to by their genus names, but this is only true 2/3 of the time. T-Rex is referred to by his genus initial ("T" for "Tyrannosaurus") and his species name "Rex." It seems like the article should be adjusted to be more accurate about this, but I don't know of a particularly succinct way to make this distinction apparent to the reader.

added a quick reference, change as necessary. :-) Stu Hacking talk 21:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edited the reference to (hopefully) make it clearer and easier to understand; I'm still not completely satisfied with it though. -ryand 06:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus article, blatant bias


I know a hell-o-a-lot o dinosaurs and in reality -- as might be expected -- they all have cool ancient accents. Well, then how come they talk all normal in the strips? Excluding this discussion entry, nowhere is this peculiar omission mentioned!!! I wonder why...

".." — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 14:16, 10 November 2006.

Well, they have to be translated from Ancient Dinosaur; what do you expect but to find them rendered colloquially? North is of the contemporary rendering school of translation, it would seem. --Gwern (contribs) 17:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Changes


Made some minor changes to give people a better feel for the strip. Changed a coupla things - you know the drill. I think it's funny that the talk section for this article is so long. 11:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Jimbo Wales!


I'm giving 50 Wikipedia points to whoever routed "Fictional Jimbo Wales" here. But maybe it should go to Ryan's article?--FictionalJimboWales??!! 20:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)



I'd like to redirect qwantz.com to here, but iunno how to do it, so maybe someone else will? Or won't?-- 20:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think 'dino comics' is redirected here either. Can somebody do this?The freddinator 01:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm- I just did both redirects. The freddinator 01:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every Topic in the Universe Except Chickens


Every Topic in the world blablabla Perhaps a section about the above stated site should be included, seeing as it is the direct result of the comic (referenced already in the article)? If not a section, at least a reference. The freddinator 01:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Evil


Y'know, the comic is okay. Funny once in a while. But I'm getting tired of having to constantly revert Evil because of this comic. I hope some of the editors watching this article will help revert that vandalism when it pops up over there. -- Kesh 04:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping this random complaint here, I forgot where I had heard that joke. Too bad about the vandalism. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Guys, we should mention and link some of Ryan's Dinosaur Comics spinoffs, such as The Amazing Regret Index and Machine of Death! Also, I feel compelled to write like Ryan? --Kento 07:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webhost move


Because the comic is shifting webhosts, I don't think that today is a very good day for adding links to pages on Ryan's site. BreathingMeat 01:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Marks


You guys, can someone explain to me why Dinosaur Comics has made me find question marks so hilarious? Seriously, I use them all the time--for humorous purposes? Look, like right there. Seriously, please explain this phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

YOU MAY NOT BE THE ONLY ONE???????????? = ∫tc 5th Eye 09:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But I don't think that my friends appreciate the humor. Maybe I'm just smarter than them? But to keep this thread on topic, is there any way to incorporate North's creative use of question marks and capitalization into this article? (I'm taking a gamble by not reading this article. I read it before, just not recently) The freddinator 21:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Utahraptor gay?


OK, so I was reading the comic at http://www.qwantz.com/archive/000103.html and T-Rex implies that Utahraptor is "into dudes" (gay), and that made me wonder if Utahraptor is gay? Or bisexual? Or does it even matter or is the continuity even kept up to that degree or what? I seem to remember something about something going on with T-Rex and Utahraptor, but of course there's always stuff happening with T-Rex and Dromiceiomimus, so I don't know. Either way, something about this should probably be added to the article. Whatever... -Platypus Man | Talk 18:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just came here with ths same question; in this strip [1] (today's strip) he says: "Well I'm seeing this new guy. We went out to a movie last night and he held my hand when the lights went down. It was pretty classy." This is definitely the best news of the day. I'm going to go edit Utaraptor, and I'll cite these two strips. --PulpAffliction (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Sylvan Migdal's Spork had a qwantz-style strip — any others? —Tamfang 23:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xkcd parodied it a while back. —MuncherOfSpleens 01:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jerkcity did too: [2]. Flonnezilla (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unseen Characters


I think there should be some criteria for adding characters to "Unseen Characters". North makes lots of references to unseen characters, some of whom talk, others who do not. Even if the list is limited to unseen characters who talk, the list will become more and more trivial with each new character North concocts.

I think that unseen characters should be added only if they appear in two or more comics, or, in the case of the diplodocus, they appear on merchandise. The freddinator (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's reasonable, but we should be prepared to make exceptions. For example, if a character makes it into a piece of merchandise or is referenced elsewhere, maybe that would make it interesting enough to be included even if it appears once. --Gwern (contribs) 20:28 21 December 2007 (GMT)
I just removed a bunch of characters, including Professor Science, who did appear on merchandise but still is not notable in the comic itself (he is never mentioned outside of the one strip in which he appears). I am considering also removing the goateed versions of the regular characters ("evil T-rex," etc.), as they do not appear anymore...the only characters that should be included are characters that have appeared frequently enough to be considered part of the comic's style or part of what the comic is. Politizer (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually not true I'm afraid – Professor Science appears or is mentioned in 5 separate strips, spanning a period of over five years: strips 636, 918, 1030, 1031 and 1379. (Future reference: OhNoRobot searches comic text.) Seeing as the latest of these strips is 2nd Jan 2009, and they span such a period of time, Professor Science probably has more right to be in the article than most of the others. I'll be restoring the most recent piece on him I can find. (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging up those links... I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree, though, about the character's prominence. Three of the five are "ask professor science" comics and don't really seem to mention him as a character, they're just kind of there; in fact, i had never realized there were that many "professor science" comics until you pointed it out explicitly. All in all, I think this article is already way too close to fancruft (and I am a big Dinosaur Comics fan, so for me to call it fancruft is really saying something) and we probably shouldn't be adding more trivial bits when there is much more major cleanup to be done. Politizer talk/contribs 04:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per my talk page, I'm happy to defer on this one. I guess it's pointless trying to explain every in-joke. Raises the question of the validity of this whole section – perhaps it should be all or nothing? (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem odd though that we would include "Mr. Tusks" and "Edgar Allen Poe" but not Professor Science when Professor Science appears more frequently than they do. (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? Prof science appears once, and on a t-shirt. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New strip about wikipedia


New strip today about wikipedia. Maybe something to include in the article? Wikipedia strip --Kopmis (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, for a few reasons (WP:ASR/WP:N). = ∫tc 5th Eye 19:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ASR does not apply, has here we are talking about a character in the comic, which is the personification of Wikipedia. As for notability, I would say that the general notability guidelines linked to above are probably not met by the claim that T-Rex stomps a cabin in the third panel and a woman in the fourth; I doubt very much that any number of sources of sufficient editorial integrity, which are independant of www.qwantz.com, actually mention this. As well, the author's wish to include such a line in the wikipedia article, stated on the archive page for this comic, on Dec 22 2008, might well constitute that T-Rex's having kissed up Wikipedia is actually a notable fact. Ryan (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ASR still applies—if the only thing special about the fact is that it's sort of about Wikipedia, then ASR applies.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say about notability (it appears to be some sort of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument), but the description of T-Rex's stomping has nothing to do with WP:N; the description is there to explain to readers the format of the comic, and give them a better understanding of what the comic is. I don't know why you're comparing this single comic to that issue.
Finally, Ryan North's suggestion in the archive that people add that information to Wikipedia is in no way proof that the single comic is notable; it's just a game. Maybe you've forgotten what North did with the chicken article a few years ago? —Politizer talk/contribs 00:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one last thing...look at the timestamps on the messages to which you're responding. Those people were discussing an entirely different comic than you are. —Politizer talk/contribs 00:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Section


This article is in need of serious editing, but one especially important thing is to add a section on the comic's themes and style. I will start working on that soon, but I'm just mentioning it here in case anyone else wants to get started on it, too.

Also, the sections on Easter Eggs, Japan English class, and April Fool's joke all need to be integrated into other parts of the article, as 1) some are not really notable enough to warrant having their own sections (especially the April Fool's sections); and 2) it's just plain ugly to have lots of very short sections rather than a few well-organized heirarchical sections.

--Politizer (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification... the Easter Eggs section should go under a Format subsection (once this part is written...Format and/or Style, and Themes, should all be under one section...for example, a large section called Style, with subsections Format and Themes) along with information on the production of the comic, how it comes from clip art, etc. As for the Japan English class and April Fool's joke sections, I can't think of anything to do with those other than put them under some sort of Miscellaneous section--I know those are frowned upon in general. If they can't be fit into any better section soon, they will have to be deleted. --Politizer (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scenery characters original research


I tagged some sentences in that section as original research because no one has currently added a source that corroborates that information. The in the summary for the previous edit, pointed out that the statements there (that the scenery characters "almost never speak," and "later strips barely acknowledge them") are easily verifiable by looking through the archives. That is not enough to make them not OR:

  1. The statement that they are "barely acknowledged" has to be verified in some third-party source, because we personally can't arbitrarily decide what constitutes being "acknowledged" by a particular character, or by the writer.
  2. We should keep primary source citations at a minimum. The point of verifiability is not to tell the reader "hey, go read it yourself if you wanna check"--what's the use of an encyclopedia if you just tell everyone to go straight to the original source? Everyone would have to read anything. Rather, we're supposed to be the ones doing the legwork to find a reliable source.

So please leave the {{or}} tag there. --Politizer (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're taking too extreme a stance on what sorts of facts require 3rd party verification. Anyone who has read the comic can see that these characters "almost never speak," and "later strips barely acknowledge them". We can reach consensus on what constitutes "almost never" or "barely", the same as we do on any other factual dispute. Although I doubt there is much dispute on this point.
By your standard, I couldn't put a plot summary for "Harry Potter" on wikipedia, but rather would have to regurgitate quotes from a plot summary published elsewhere. That's distorting the point of the "no original research" rule. The point, as I understand it, is to tell you where I got my information from, so you could check it yourself if you wanted. If I want to tell you about the plot of Harry Potter, then the Harry Potter books themselves are a legitimate source. If I want to tell you something about Dinosaur Comics, then Dinosaur Comics are a legitimate source.
Your objection that it shouldn't say "go read it yourself if you want to check" is totally missing the point of the "no original research" rule. The point is to give the reader of wikipedia a way to fact the information that appears on wikipedia. If we can cite a publically available primary source, that's the best possible cite, since it most definitively confirms what we're saying. Obviously the reader isn't going to track down every cite, only the ones where they doubt wikipedia's accuracy. -- Tim314 (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In short, the point of the "no original research" rule is that the reader of wikipedia should have a way to check the facts that appear on this site. If a primary source is available that confirms what we're saying, then it's not original research.
The point is not to ban wikipedia contributors from describing things in their own words. If I want to say "The villain in the first Spider-Man movie is the Green Goblin", I don't have to add "...according to Roger Ebert." --Tim314 (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions drawn from "interpreting" primary sources like this aren't very tenable on WP without outside sources backing them up. For example, you could point out 100 comics in which the characters don't appear to acknowledge the house, the car, or the woman, and a Dinosaur Comics reader would believe you, even without the comics as references...but I could also point out 100 comics where those things are acknowledged (either explicitly by the characters, or in the "easter eggs"), and to someone who doesn't read Dinosaur Comics (which we have to assume is true of some editors and readers) that would appear to carry just as much weight. It's one thing to just regurgitate information ("There is a house in the third panel"); it's another thing to apply various actions and intentions to the characters ("not acknowledging") based on your own analysis. Politizer talk/contribs 15:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey Edit


This is not a major issue, but I want to bring it up here to avoid being in the middle of an edit war. I just reverted T-Rex's bio away from the last edit[[3]]. If anyone can explain to me why TRex claiming that he will, one day, punch out a turkey is relevant or encyclopedic, I will allow the edit to stand. But at the moment, I do not see any reason why the claim, made only one time, should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The freddinator (talkcontribs) 19:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this comic - http://www.qwantz.com/archive/000782.html --1sneakers6 (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple references to it does not make it notable. = ∫tc 5th Eye 02:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to punching turkeys it does! --1sneakers6 (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, it it wasn't for a "few references", a lot of the info on this page would not exist. --1sneakers6 (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's specifically mentioned IN COMIC that it should appear.

Huh. I must've missed the part where we all signed in blood an oath to do whatever a comic commanded us to. --Gwern (contribs) 04:19 4 January 2009 (GMT)

The link http://qwantz.com/fanart/japan/ called "posted to the Dinosaur Comics fan art page" does not work it just leads to http://qwantz.com/index.php.

// gpjiapo —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the page was lost when North redesigned the site a couple months ago. I've replaced the link with this archived link. Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

34 out of the 41 references for this article are Dinosaur Comics


That can't be appropriate. --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Have core guidelines and policies been revised yet again to speak of percentages rather than absolute numbers? Surely not. --Gwern (contribs) 19:15 10 January 2011 (GMT)
Galaxy: you're right that it's not appropriate ({{primarysources}}). That's a problem that can be fixed by editing, not deletion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no one has said anything about deletion. I wonder if it would be better to just have one reference for the main qwantz.com page, instead of a whole bunch for each relevant comic. --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

origin of the imagery?


"Each comic uses the same artwork,[4]" citation 4 is ^ a b Swaim, Michael. "The 8 Funniest Webcomics". Cracked.com. http://www.cracked.com/article_15240_8-funniest-webcomics.html. Retrieved 15 November 2008. Which states - "A six-panel comic featuring clip-art dinosaurs... " - where are this clip art from? -- (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! This is the information I came to the Wikipedia article to obtain. (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually mystery solved, MSPA forums has a great exposé. Attempting to link http://www.mspaforums.com/showthread.php?40543-Clip-art-palaeontology-WHAT-LIES-WITHIN-%28DC-CLIPART-UNEARTHED%29 (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image License


Isn't the logo too basic to qualify for copyright protection? ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 00:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dinosaur Comics. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Fictional Jimbo Wales has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § Fictional Jimbo Wales until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]