Talk:Emily the Strange/Archives/2012

Speedy delete?
This discussion moved from Speedy deletions by User:Finlay McWalter

Emily Strange - vanity --ALargeElk 10:14, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually not vanity - this is a fairly well-known counterculture comic character. The text was, however, a dupe of, so it's good that it's deleted. I'll get around to a decent version sometime. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:05, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * That copy it itself a dupe of the official Emily Strange website. Man, I'd love to see what an Emily Strange cease-and-desist letter would look like! :) -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 13:43, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

The offending page was subsequently deleted, and a new original version written to replace it MY NAME IS JAMIE BUT IT IS SUPOSE TO BE EMILY

Para 2
"HE"... Para 3 "She," I would fix it is I had any understanding of the subject. PaulinSaudi 13:57, 19 May 2004 (UTC)]]

Nice Lego
http://www.emilystrange.com/beware/scrapbook/fans/09lego.cfm

Emily Strange
All of the articles for Emily's cats were marked as stubs and it did not appear that they could be expanded further. The imformation from the articles was merged into the article on Emily and the titles were redirected to the site on Emily. The general consensus is that only the most well known of major characters in fictional works should have separate articles. Indeed, I believe that combining the information on the cats into the article makes for a more informative article as a whole. Should you disagree with my edits you are welcome to revert them. Ganymead 22:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC) Comment moved from the now-deleted Talk:RescueHero, where it made no sense whatsoever.

Paragraph removed from article
I just removed the following paragraph from the article...if it's going to stay, it needs to be rephrased and cleaned up. I'd just do that, but I think the whole paragraph goes into way more detail than is necessary.
 * She apears as a boss in the videogame "Adventures of Rahad", she had taken all of the lightworld as her queen, and transformed it into the darkworld, only Haartoth and his friend, Gashaad, can destroy her. When she knows that two man are trying to kill her, she makes him to be arrested, so they scapes and go to fight with her to the Dark Palace, with a new character in your party called Monica (from the videogame Darck Cloud 2/ Dark Chronicle 2), Emily transforms into a monster during the battle, and to beat her you have to attack her wings and hands. When finished, she will open a portal to the Soul Lake, if the choosen one (that is actually Haartoth) enters to that portal, all of Rahad would be destroyed. So she starts to being absorbed by the portal, she takes hold of a broken wall in order to don´t being absorbed, she tries to pick up Haartoth´s leg, so Monica cuts with her sword her right arm, Gashaad moors his leg into Emily´s leg, so Emily is detached from the wall for the pain of her cutted arm, and Gashaad and her gets sucked by the portal. Gashaad is not the choosen one, so Rahad is safe for now, Rahaad starts to cry because of the death of his best friend, so he and Monica travels to the soul lake. That is the end of chapter 1. In the travel they meet a new party member, Max (from the same game as Monica), who is Monica´s boyfriend. In the Lake of Souls, they found Emily´s soul (her soul is like a lightball with two dott eyes an long and black hair), she promises that she will be good, if you find her cat Mistery and help her to recover her body and Gashaad´s body in the Soul World, so you find her cat and gives it to her, she opens a portal to Soul World, where you know Exdeath, a boss from Final Fantasy V, you have to have a normal swordsman battle, when you beat him, he will open a portal to his world, Kathrea. You find Emily´s and Gashaad´s bodies floating in that dark, space like dimenssion. Suddenly, the evil guardian of soluls, Ashura, eats both bodies, so you have a fight with her, to have victory, you have to destroy her 3 faces in this order: Ashura´s face, grey face, red face. If you don´d follow this order, Ashura will regenerate her faces. When beaten, Emily have to accept her soul state, so yuo includes her soul in your party.

Ferkelparade π 07:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Clarify origins?
If someone is more familiar with the actual origin of Emily, could you please add something? (Real-world origin, not character biography -- although I guess that would be helpful as well.) I'm wondering exactly how a "comic character" becomes a widespread fashion icon in 2003 (and earlier; the way-cool lego linked above dates from late 2001) with comic number one not being printed until 2005. My best guess is that she was created as a marketing/fashion element first, with the comic and other media following, but that's entirely a guess on my part. A press release on the official website about the comics notes that Dark Horse prints a "successful line of comics based on popular properties [including] Star Wars, ... Conan, Emily the Strange", so presumably she came from somewhere else. Thanks! ByeByeBaby 10:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * emily appeared as a character on clothing in about 2001 or so. The comics were a much later addition.  The clothing is primary, the comic is secondary

--Notenderwiggin 01:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Emily Rocks
Emily the Strange rocks. They must shell clohths from Emily the strange here in South-Afrika Cape town.I Love Emily.

100% GOTHIC
goth culture 4ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertrocker (talk • contribs) 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC) She apears as a boss in the videogame "Adventures of Rahad", she had taken all of the lightworld as her queen, and transformed it into the darkworld, only Haartoth and his friend, Gashaad, can destroy her. When she knows that two man are trying to kill her, she makes him to be arrested, so they scapes and go to fight with her to the Dark Palace, with a new character in your party called Monica (from the videogame Darck Cloud 2/ Dark Chronicle 2), Emily transforms into a monster during the battle, and to beat her you have to attack her wings and hands. When finished, she will open a portal to the Soul Lake, if the choosen one (that is actually Haartoth) enters to that portal, all of Rahad would be destroyed. So she starts to being absorbed by the portal, she takes hold of a broken wall in order to don´t being absorbed, she tries to pick up Haartoth´s leg, so Monica cuts with her sword her right arm, Gashaad moors his leg into Emily´s leg, so Emily is detached from the wall for the pain of her cutted arm, and Gashaad and her gets sucked by the portal. Gashaad is not the choosen one, so Rahad is safe for now, Rahaad starts to cry because of the death of his best friend, so he and Monica travels to the soul lake. That is the end of chapter 1. In the travel they meet a new party member, Max (from the same game as Monica), who is Monica´s boyfriend. In the Lake of Souls, they found Emily´s soul (her soul is like a lightball with two dott eyes an long and black hair), she promises that she will be good, if you find her cat Mistery and help her to recover her body and Gashaad´s body in the Soul World, so you find her cat and gives it to her, she opens a portal to Soul World, where you know Exdeath, a boss from Final Fantasy V, you have to have a normal swordsman battle, when you beat him, he will open a portal to his world, Kathrea. You find Emily´s and Gashaad´s bodies floating in that dark, space like dimenssion. Suddenly, the evil guardian of soluls, Ashura, eats both bodies, so you have a fight with her, to have victory, you have to destroy her 3 faces in this order: Ashura´s face, grey face, red face. If you don´d follow this order, Ashura will regenerate her faces. When beaten, Emily have to accept her soul state, so yuo includes her soul in your party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.108.142 (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

SG?
Maybe we should mention the Epiphone SG of her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.173.68 (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Nate the Great rip-off?
It's obviously not widely known, but I think it should be at least mentioned--perhaps in the Origins/Making-Of section?--that Emily the Strange is very likely a direct descendant of the character Rosamond from the children's book series Nate the Great. Here is just one comparison of the two characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.89.92 (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also see http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?p=1701 for a compelling illustration comparison.


 * While this does appear to be the case, I'm not sure how best to handle this unless there is something to cite somewhere. In the meantime I removed the stuff from the opening section which clearly violates WP policy (e.g., WP:NPOV ). Bfootdav (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's pretty interesting. I wonder if more information will spill out in the future. Orangesyringe (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A section was added which unfortunately was phrased in a NPOV way and containing weasel words and OR. Moving it here to see if it can be changed into something more encyclopedic. A source other than a single post in a blog is necessary as well. The section, which is just below here, also included a link to the youthoughtwewouldntnotice post and two photobucket image links. --Bonadea (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Rosamond is a character in Nate the Great series of books, a book that predates the creation of Emily by more then a decade. Observers have noted that there are blatancy similarities between Rosamond and Emily. Below is the first known image of Emily which appeared as a Bumper sticker along side a picture Rosamond from book in question. Aside from some minor changes and the absence of one cat even the position and proportion of the cats are the same.

Here's your source, courtesy of Mediabistro.com, found through Google News (NEWS, not BLOG). "Goth Pop Icon" a Children's Book Knockoff? I certainly hope that efforts to censor this important information will not be stifled any further. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I added a sub section, "Origins in Other Works", to mention this issue. I think there are enough external sources that this does not constitute original research and is certainly of interest to those who are reading the article.Robbyslaughter (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitely. Good job, Robbyslaughter. --Bonadea (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Another article from a large newspaper in Spain, ADN. La extraña Emily, un plagio multimillonario 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I added the "Origin In Other Works" section back in. I don't think it's perfect but it's not horrible. The main point is that I think the issue deserves discussion before being deleted or added. There seemed to be a general and reasoned agreement reached here to include this information so unless/until someone comes up with a good reason for removing it I think it should stay. Bfootdav (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

JillBeaverson, while I certainly appreciate your attempts to replace the Origin section with the Influences, this should probably be discussed here. Bfootdav (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The LA Times blog entry and content referenced on Amazon.com do not count as a reliable sources.

The LA Times reference has no original research and is a blog entry, not a published article. Additionally, this reference has no original primary research, but quotes blogs from anonymous sources. The LA Times blog also uses comments allegedly left on a Laughing Squid entry by Marc Simont as a source, and the authenticity of this comment cannot be verified. The comments section of any a blog serves as a cloak of anonymity, and anyone can assume the identity of another. There is no way to confirm the veracity of such comments without confirming them directly with the alleged source, which has not been done with this blog comment allegedly left by Mr. Simont. The journalists’ code of ethics requires that multiple primary research attempts be made in order to write a factually sound article that meets basic ethical requirements.

The Amazon.com reference makes mention of Rosamond and her cats, but provides no visual reference of Rosamond. Additionally, Amazon has a user-generated, opinion and interpretation-based content interface (reviews, adding images, etc.) which makes large portions of the site an unreliable source.

The similarities between the original “Emily” design by Nathan Carrico and Rosamond are notable, but even more remarkable is the significant differences between Rosamond and Emily the Strange, a character wholly fleshed out by artist Rob Reger and Buzz Parker. Neither artist knew of Rosamond when they created Emily’s world and this major difference between the characters is more notable than their similarities. While the wording is undeniably similar, one would be hard pressed to claim copyright on little girls with long black hair, little dresses and cats.

While a few sources of limited authority have noticed the similarities between the two characters this does not make it a factual case of plagiarism. This issue deserves significantly less attention and should be located at the bottom of the “Emily the Strange” article.

See the WP article on “Heathcliff (comic strip)” to see a more appropriate and neutral way of presenting information on similarities.--05:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)CatMoJo (talk)

Prior edits in "controversy" section include spelling & grammatical errors, irrelevant information (details on a prior interview with Reger that has nothing to do with the lawsuit), and skew heavily against the creators of Emily the strange. Added in the official statement from Cosmic Debris as to why they struck up the lawsuit as it provides a primary source reasoning for the information available. If another editor wishes to revert back to their changes, they should provide clear source material & justification for such edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.13.35.234 (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've updated it to reflect recent events. I also wonder if it's possible to mention that reaction on the internet to Cosmic Debris' lawsuit against the Nate the Great authors has been unanimously negative (towards Cosmic Debris); also, if a picture comparing the two images side-by-side can be uploaded. The article was previously biased in favor of CD, and this should be closely monitored to ensure this article doesn't turn into something that sounds like marketing for them. Hannabee (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone tell me why the 'Nate the Great' Section was removed? I see nothing about removing it in the discussion... it's just gone. 74.87.4.122 (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of "Origin of Character" section
This section appears to be under concerted attacks to remove it from the page by anon IPs. I would note that the last blanking was by 64.142.93.188, who was also responsible for similar blanking on the following occasions:
 * 23:42, 1 December 2008
 * 05:50, 24 March 2009
 * 05:52, 24 March 2009

A previous edit by this IP had the summary of, "edit made by Rob Reger," which - if true - clearly represents a gross conflict of interest. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone identifying themselves as Reger has allegedly posted on a number of sites in this regard, including mention of the Wikipedia article. One such claimed post is here. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Reger appears to be passing the "original" buck to Nathan Carrico, but that doesn't alter the fact that the very earliest incarnation of Emily (Carrico's?) is a direct lift of one illustrated text of the Rosamund character. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Counterculture?
So, this character is a marketing mascot for a clothing company. There are retail stores devoted to the mascot. There is a spin-off comic book series published by a major comics publisher, and a young adult novel series published by a major book publisher which is owned by one of the world's largest media conglomerates. There's a section in the article listing mainstream celebrities wearing this clothing.

This is _very_ mainstream marketing. In what way is this character "counterculture" as the first sentence claims? ~CS (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A week later, no response, so I'm going to go ahead and change it. ~CS (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)