Talk:Monty (comic strip)

Fair use rationale for Image:MontyCartoon.gif
Image:MontyCartoon.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair use info added. Same as Garfield or other cartoons. Timneu22 09:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Deciding what is Robotman as opposed to what is Monty
I'd like to open a discussion, please.

1) I have read that Jim Meddick was contracted to do Robotman, and was not happy with the strip, and the restrictions imposed on him. (The source here may be "The Comics Journal", I don't have it in hand.)

2) The cartoon, as Robotman, was very popular in my area, and a local poll kept it from being deleted from a major newspaper.

3) The change to Monty is represented here as a difficulty with marketing (the source being Meddick). However, it would be more straightforward to say that it was the point at which Meddick gained more artistic control. I would like to see an independent, third-party citation that there was a "difficulty with marketing" and what that difficulty was. The source I read said that Meddick didn't like the whole concept, and couldn't wait to be rid of it.

This article does not make clear that there are two, rather different strips. The Wiki redirect of Robotman to a comic that does not even contain the charater Robotman is inappropriate. Also the characters are not the same, the situations are not the same, and the humor differs.

I'm sorry, but, I think Robotman was very clever. I don't even read Monty. That's how much difference there is between them, and it is...inappropriate...to represent them as the same strip. They are not. When Meddick was under pressure, he performed exceptionally. When he indulged in his own concepts, it was different. In my opinion, less successful. It's important to recognize that artists sometimes work best within constraints that they find distasteful.

24.130.128.157 (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about any contractual difficulties Meddick may or may not have had, but I don't really see that as necessarily all that relevant. I do quite clearly remember, however, when Robotman and his girlfriend (hmm, can't remember her name) left the strip, leaving Monty to carry on alone.  So while I can accept the assertion that the strips aren't really the same, the one certainly evolved from the other.  It's my opinion that the "formerly Robotman" text should be restored. HiramShadraski (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note also that I've restored the disambig page for Robotman. The strips may not be the same, but there's no reason to purposefully inject vagueness into searches for material.  The question of whether it's appropriate to include the link to this article is a separate one (and should be discussed over there). HiramShadraski (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The confusion lies with the change that Meddick purposefully made. To avoid addressing it supports the claim that two different comic strips are the same. See below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.127.74 (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the "formerly Robotman" text can be remain removed, because the first section of the article discusses Robotman. I also like that you have restored the disambiguation page for Robotman. Thus, I think the current state of things is appropriate. I feel bad for the 24.130 user who doesn't read Monty. It's just as good as Robotman and better! (IMHO) Timneu22 (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Timneu22, I think we can use the fact that you like Monty better than Robotman as evidence that the two are not in fact the same comic strip.


 * Jim Meddick produced two different comic strips: one which he liked, and another which he had less control over, which he liked (unsurprisingly) to a less degree.


 * There are two strips, involved here, not one. Meddick's presentation of them as the same is a marketing ploy: Companies regularly name different generations of products similarly to avoid losing the "shelf space" that they have already won. That's exactly what Meddick did. In my strong opinion, he acted dishonestly, and this Wiki article covers up his action. It's not simply that the marketing device is dishonest, it's the concept that Meddick is a superior artist without editorial control. That should be open to deliberation. Without differentiating between two quite different artistic situations, the debate cannot take place.


 * 67.169.127.74 (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ross Perot in Robotman?
Wasn't there a parody of Ross Perot who appeared in the strip periodically back during the 1992 Presidential election? He was called "Boss Payroll" and often spouted mangled versions the eccentric billionaire's catch phrases and mannerisms. --The_Iconoclast (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Dead Link
The first of external links is a dead one. Anyone have a suggestion for alternative link? RITUKALOS (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 00:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monty (comic strip). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060513234533/http://www.comics.com/comics/monty/html/about_comic.html to http://www.comics.com/comics/monty/html/about_comic.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Brief Monty period drawn with defined curlique lines and two foreign to the US seeming characters with trapezoid hats
For a few weeks during the 20th century the comic was still called Monty but drawn in a completely different style with amazing visuals, there were thin bold lines, zig-zags, and men with trapezoidal hats. if you saw this and can remember some detail it would benefit the article Treonsverdery (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)