![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The section about Cedar Fair using Snoopy as a mascot is missing a reference. From what I remember, the acquisition of Knott's and Camp Snoopy (In the Mall of America) by Cedar Fair LP was almost exclusively for the Peanuts license, I believed. I could be wrong, though. But that wouldn't make sense if Cedar Fair was using it years before the park sale. I'd just like confirmation.
(Discussion moved from User talk:Mike1) - jc37 21:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice work on Peanuts : )
A couple thoughts:
Watching here for your thoughts : ) - jc37 03:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I merged/deleted the trivia section (noting here in reference to comments above):
I am thinking that maybe we should create: List of Peanuts influences, analogues, and parodies (or some such name). It's quite a large section on several pages (as noted above). - jc37 06:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday I did sort of a fusion of the two versions that should be in the article now. Hope that works! - Mike | Talk 01:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed this section was removed. I think that it was a decent overview, but sort of out of place. Still, I think that a little info about the creator is certainly relevany and worthy of mention somewhere in the article. May I revert this edit so we can discuss the change first? - Mike | Talk 01:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually it's the first "sub-section". The first section (the introduction) explains rather clearly who Charles Schulz is:
I don't see how that can be considered "confusing"?
Also, the "history" section should only be about the strip itself, not it's creator, not licensed material, not the subsequent animation, just the strip. : ) - jc37 05:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I just nominated this for "Good Article" standing. Even if it fails, we should get a fair amount of insight on what further should be done. - jc37 14:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, I think we will need to have spoiler warnings on the "last comics". - jc37 12:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought that spoilers were to keep people from losing shock from a big event. I would think every one would know about peanuts not being around. Phoenix741 14:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Very few of the images used in this article have fair use rationale. I could fail your GA nomination right now without even reading the article, but I'm too tired for that. Just fix it before the next reviewer comes along. -- SeizureDog 03:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I read through the article, and while it seems pretty good, it is criminially short on references. Only two real citations are given for the whole article. I say two because we're not supposed to cite ourselves (Wikipedia), so give that a new cite too. One glaring problem I see is in examples such as "A poll in 2002 found...". A poll could have been anything, even made up. You have to say were you got your information. I added tags to some information I noticed that has to be cited, but that's just the beginning. Even the more general information needs to have as many citations as you can find. For an comic of Peanuts' standing, I would expect at least 15 cites, with many being print sources. I didn't even check the images this time around. Sorry guys, but due these multiple problems I'm going to have to go ahead and fail the article.-- SeizureDog 22:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
In the history section we state "Li'l Folks was dropped in 1949", but most sources say Schulz quit because he was refused a raise, more space and a move from the women's page to the comic's page. What's the source on the dropping? Hiding Talk 23:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This one book ((c) 1964) has a lot of "detail" that may or may not be useful for this article, or even associated articles:
Hope it helps : ) - jc37 22:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
But was there any reference to The Beatles, Jefferson Airplane, The Rolling Stones, Velvet Underground, The Doors, Janis Joplin, or Jimi Hendrix? (unsigned)
I have been looking at it, and there seems to be alot of vandalism going on? I know that this is the comics colab of the month, but shouldn't we block it from unresisted users to make all the vandalism stop. Phoenix741 21:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain what Category:Peanuts people is for? What do these people have to do with Peanuts, and what should the category be named instead to be less confusing? — coelacan talk — 18:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know the origin of this image? I would much appreciate any help I could get tracking it down. Thanks, Yurimxpxman 15:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The 'Cast of Characters' section says that the mean cat next door is named World War II. That seems a little bit odd. Is it correct? -- Clay Collier 21:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw that the " He's a Bully, Charlie Brown" article had a remark stating that the final Peanuts special would be out in 2009 or 2010. Can that be sourced? WAVY 10 18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I took the liberty of doing a google search to find articles you can use to cite parts of this article. Here are a few: http://www.comicartville.com/peanutscomics.htm http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1073972 http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/02/14/MNE87245.DTL http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/archive/2005-07/2005-07-16-voa1.cfm http://ignatz.brinkster.net/cpeanuts.html Karanacs 17:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Can someone post the text of this comic , on the image page its pretty useless without it and doesn't really illustrate anything and so it's fair use claim seem's weak at the moment ( Gnevin 17:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC))
I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while, so I was surprised to see how the Peanuts article has changed. I noticed that even the characters have their own articles, with accurate birthdates. Good job, Wikipedia! Janet6 21:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is much too long, especially considering there are already two sub articles (List of Characters and TV & Film Appearances) for the topic. A third sub article for "History" should be made and much of the three major subsections should be moved into their respective sub articles. Also, there is some subtle cruft and a bit of unreferenced material which should be deleted. Lastly, the "Other Licensed Media" section is very close to being a trivia section and should probably be removed or greatly condensed. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 19:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone keeps putting this section into the article. I've removed up, but since it's been reinstated, I've come here in an attempt to find consensus. Peanuts has been referenced in countless cartoons, comics, tv shows, etc. over the years. A full list would be impossible to maintain. Furthermore, it is absolutely irrelevant trivia. Who cares if Peanuts was satirized on Family Guy or Drawn Together? Why is that relevant to this article? Anyone agree? faithless (speak) 22:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone should write an article where the "PEANUTS" Gang actually live. - 1Zeba 27 23:47, 29 March 2008
Notice a change of tone in "Peanuts" the 50's were Charlie Brown being an ordinary person; the 1960's-1970's were Charlie as the lovable loser with 2 classic TV Specials- Its the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown and A Charlie Brown Christmas. The 1980-1990's just not quite as it was- a repeating running gag of Peppermint Patty-who doesn't understand Snoopy is a dog- and her sidekick Marcy-who always calls Patty "Sir"-plus all those new "Peanuts" Specials- Race For Your Life Charlie Brown or He's a Bully Charlie brown...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.204 ( talk) 13:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Although the classic Its the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown has Charlie Brown with too many holes in his costume-it was actually Linus who has too many holes-{Sunday Comic Strip}! {I guess Charlie Brown was funnier!)
The article says, Schulz did not explicitly address racial and gender equality issues so much as he assumed them to be self-evident in the first place.
It then says, Though violence would happen from time to time, only once was a boy ever depicted hitting a girl (Charlie Brown, who accidentally hit Lucy; when Lucy complained about it, Charlie Brown went down to her psychiatric booth where she returned the slug much harder). Schulz once said, "A girl hitting a boy is funny. A boy hitting a girl is not funny."
After reading the second sentence, it's unclear to me what precisely is "assumed" "to be self evident" in the first sentence. Is it "gender equality?" Blackworm ( talk) 06:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The image File:CharlieBrownThanksgiving.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 13:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
It has been proposed that List of Peanuts characters be either merged or redirected (I'm not sure which) to Peanuts. If you're interested, please join the discussion at Talk:List of Peanuts characters#Merge/redirect. Thank you. faithless (speak) 01:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I started to have a look at Peanuts. This one suffers from some of the same issues that keep a lot of large B-class articles on major subjects from going on to GA class, particularly regarding citations to sources. Citations are largely demanded to be omnipresent, and while this one does have quite a few citations to sources, some sections have little or none. In the History section, the 1940s part is basically fine, but once you move past that you basically have a grand total of two citations for an enormous chunk of the remaining History section. The Cast of characters section, likewise, has only two citations, and the "Ages of the Peanuts characters" would largely be considered original research without pointing to a source. The Critical acclaim section is definitely in better shape, and doesn't really need any work. The "Theatrical productions", and "Other licensed appearances and merchandise" sections are good with citations, but the Television and film productions, Record albums, and Books sections go back to being barren. That's a very superficial, quick review on my part, but we're not moving this one to GA unless the lack of citations can get fixed so might as well get started there. :)
I'll take a good look at the lead section though, which is a far more important section than many people realize, and is often taken for granted. First thing's first, you do not want to have information in the lead which is not repeated elsewhere in the article. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, and should not introduce material not found elsewhere in the article. Some people might take this to mean that we would therefore remove these things from the lead, but they would have it all wrong; if you've got a sourced item in the lead, then you should add it somewhere in the body of the article and if possible elaborate on it. For example, most of the text currently in the first and third paragraphs should also appear in the "Critical acclaim" and/or some sort of "Legacy" section, using the same sources currently cited in the lead. BOZ ( talk) 19:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
What does "Peanuts" mean in this context?-- 80.141.182.30 ( talk) 10:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Is the page better off at Peanuts or Peanuts (comic strip)? Hiding T 13:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The section about Cedar Fair using Snoopy as a mascot is missing a reference. From what I remember, the acquisition of Knott's and Camp Snoopy (In the Mall of America) by Cedar Fair LP was almost exclusively for the Peanuts license, I believed. I could be wrong, though. But that wouldn't make sense if Cedar Fair was using it years before the park sale. I'd just like confirmation.
(Discussion moved from User talk:Mike1) - jc37 21:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice work on Peanuts : )
A couple thoughts:
Watching here for your thoughts : ) - jc37 03:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I merged/deleted the trivia section (noting here in reference to comments above):
I am thinking that maybe we should create: List of Peanuts influences, analogues, and parodies (or some such name). It's quite a large section on several pages (as noted above). - jc37 06:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday I did sort of a fusion of the two versions that should be in the article now. Hope that works! - Mike | Talk 01:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed this section was removed. I think that it was a decent overview, but sort of out of place. Still, I think that a little info about the creator is certainly relevany and worthy of mention somewhere in the article. May I revert this edit so we can discuss the change first? - Mike | Talk 01:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually it's the first "sub-section". The first section (the introduction) explains rather clearly who Charles Schulz is:
I don't see how that can be considered "confusing"?
Also, the "history" section should only be about the strip itself, not it's creator, not licensed material, not the subsequent animation, just the strip. : ) - jc37 05:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I just nominated this for "Good Article" standing. Even if it fails, we should get a fair amount of insight on what further should be done. - jc37 14:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, I think we will need to have spoiler warnings on the "last comics". - jc37 12:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought that spoilers were to keep people from losing shock from a big event. I would think every one would know about peanuts not being around. Phoenix741 14:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Very few of the images used in this article have fair use rationale. I could fail your GA nomination right now without even reading the article, but I'm too tired for that. Just fix it before the next reviewer comes along. -- SeizureDog 03:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I read through the article, and while it seems pretty good, it is criminially short on references. Only two real citations are given for the whole article. I say two because we're not supposed to cite ourselves (Wikipedia), so give that a new cite too. One glaring problem I see is in examples such as "A poll in 2002 found...". A poll could have been anything, even made up. You have to say were you got your information. I added tags to some information I noticed that has to be cited, but that's just the beginning. Even the more general information needs to have as many citations as you can find. For an comic of Peanuts' standing, I would expect at least 15 cites, with many being print sources. I didn't even check the images this time around. Sorry guys, but due these multiple problems I'm going to have to go ahead and fail the article.-- SeizureDog 22:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
In the history section we state "Li'l Folks was dropped in 1949", but most sources say Schulz quit because he was refused a raise, more space and a move from the women's page to the comic's page. What's the source on the dropping? Hiding Talk 23:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This one book ((c) 1964) has a lot of "detail" that may or may not be useful for this article, or even associated articles:
Hope it helps : ) - jc37 22:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
But was there any reference to The Beatles, Jefferson Airplane, The Rolling Stones, Velvet Underground, The Doors, Janis Joplin, or Jimi Hendrix? (unsigned)
I have been looking at it, and there seems to be alot of vandalism going on? I know that this is the comics colab of the month, but shouldn't we block it from unresisted users to make all the vandalism stop. Phoenix741 21:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain what Category:Peanuts people is for? What do these people have to do with Peanuts, and what should the category be named instead to be less confusing? — coelacan talk — 18:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know the origin of this image? I would much appreciate any help I could get tracking it down. Thanks, Yurimxpxman 15:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The 'Cast of Characters' section says that the mean cat next door is named World War II. That seems a little bit odd. Is it correct? -- Clay Collier 21:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw that the " He's a Bully, Charlie Brown" article had a remark stating that the final Peanuts special would be out in 2009 or 2010. Can that be sourced? WAVY 10 18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I took the liberty of doing a google search to find articles you can use to cite parts of this article. Here are a few: http://www.comicartville.com/peanutscomics.htm http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1073972 http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/02/14/MNE87245.DTL http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/archive/2005-07/2005-07-16-voa1.cfm http://ignatz.brinkster.net/cpeanuts.html Karanacs 17:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Can someone post the text of this comic , on the image page its pretty useless without it and doesn't really illustrate anything and so it's fair use claim seem's weak at the moment ( Gnevin 17:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC))
I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while, so I was surprised to see how the Peanuts article has changed. I noticed that even the characters have their own articles, with accurate birthdates. Good job, Wikipedia! Janet6 21:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is much too long, especially considering there are already two sub articles (List of Characters and TV & Film Appearances) for the topic. A third sub article for "History" should be made and much of the three major subsections should be moved into their respective sub articles. Also, there is some subtle cruft and a bit of unreferenced material which should be deleted. Lastly, the "Other Licensed Media" section is very close to being a trivia section and should probably be removed or greatly condensed. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 19:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone keeps putting this section into the article. I've removed up, but since it's been reinstated, I've come here in an attempt to find consensus. Peanuts has been referenced in countless cartoons, comics, tv shows, etc. over the years. A full list would be impossible to maintain. Furthermore, it is absolutely irrelevant trivia. Who cares if Peanuts was satirized on Family Guy or Drawn Together? Why is that relevant to this article? Anyone agree? faithless (speak) 22:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone should write an article where the "PEANUTS" Gang actually live. - 1Zeba 27 23:47, 29 March 2008
Notice a change of tone in "Peanuts" the 50's were Charlie Brown being an ordinary person; the 1960's-1970's were Charlie as the lovable loser with 2 classic TV Specials- Its the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown and A Charlie Brown Christmas. The 1980-1990's just not quite as it was- a repeating running gag of Peppermint Patty-who doesn't understand Snoopy is a dog- and her sidekick Marcy-who always calls Patty "Sir"-plus all those new "Peanuts" Specials- Race For Your Life Charlie Brown or He's a Bully Charlie brown...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.204 ( talk) 13:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Although the classic Its the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown has Charlie Brown with too many holes in his costume-it was actually Linus who has too many holes-{Sunday Comic Strip}! {I guess Charlie Brown was funnier!)
The article says, Schulz did not explicitly address racial and gender equality issues so much as he assumed them to be self-evident in the first place.
It then says, Though violence would happen from time to time, only once was a boy ever depicted hitting a girl (Charlie Brown, who accidentally hit Lucy; when Lucy complained about it, Charlie Brown went down to her psychiatric booth where she returned the slug much harder). Schulz once said, "A girl hitting a boy is funny. A boy hitting a girl is not funny."
After reading the second sentence, it's unclear to me what precisely is "assumed" "to be self evident" in the first sentence. Is it "gender equality?" Blackworm ( talk) 06:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The image File:CharlieBrownThanksgiving.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 13:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
It has been proposed that List of Peanuts characters be either merged or redirected (I'm not sure which) to Peanuts. If you're interested, please join the discussion at Talk:List of Peanuts characters#Merge/redirect. Thank you. faithless (speak) 01:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I started to have a look at Peanuts. This one suffers from some of the same issues that keep a lot of large B-class articles on major subjects from going on to GA class, particularly regarding citations to sources. Citations are largely demanded to be omnipresent, and while this one does have quite a few citations to sources, some sections have little or none. In the History section, the 1940s part is basically fine, but once you move past that you basically have a grand total of two citations for an enormous chunk of the remaining History section. The Cast of characters section, likewise, has only two citations, and the "Ages of the Peanuts characters" would largely be considered original research without pointing to a source. The Critical acclaim section is definitely in better shape, and doesn't really need any work. The "Theatrical productions", and "Other licensed appearances and merchandise" sections are good with citations, but the Television and film productions, Record albums, and Books sections go back to being barren. That's a very superficial, quick review on my part, but we're not moving this one to GA unless the lack of citations can get fixed so might as well get started there. :)
I'll take a good look at the lead section though, which is a far more important section than many people realize, and is often taken for granted. First thing's first, you do not want to have information in the lead which is not repeated elsewhere in the article. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, and should not introduce material not found elsewhere in the article. Some people might take this to mean that we would therefore remove these things from the lead, but they would have it all wrong; if you've got a sourced item in the lead, then you should add it somewhere in the body of the article and if possible elaborate on it. For example, most of the text currently in the first and third paragraphs should also appear in the "Critical acclaim" and/or some sort of "Legacy" section, using the same sources currently cited in the lead. BOZ ( talk) 19:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
What does "Peanuts" mean in this context?-- 80.141.182.30 ( talk) 10:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Is the page better off at Peanuts or Peanuts (comic strip)? Hiding T 13:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)