Talk:Looney Tunes: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 07:23, 16 April 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Looney Tunes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Animation: American / Warner Bros. / Looney Tunes Top‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Warner Bros. Animation work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Looney Tunes work group (assessed as Top-importance).

Film: American / Animated

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Animated films task force.

Comics: DC Comics Mid‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by DC Comics work group.

United States: Animation / Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Animation portal This article is supported by WikiProject Animation - American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Media franchises Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Relationship between Looney Tunes, Merrie Melodies[edit]

The Merrie Melodies article (opening section) refers to Looney Tunes as a parent series, while the Looney Tunes article (opening section) refers to Merrie Melodies as a sister series. Which is more accurate? In the absence of such thing as some sort of series incest, these relationships apparently contradict.

2warped@gmail.com 71.238.46.250 (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Sister series" is correct for the historical context of the shorts series, "parent" is more correct as far as branding is considered today. The lead has been fixed to reflect this. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with The Looney Tunes Show (2002 TV series)[edit]

Article contains no useful info and it was just a reruns of the original series/ JDDJS (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

good idea 13jospin (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of The Martian Queen content[edit]

In these sets of edits [1][2] user Zjec added content about a Martian Queen character. I feel this content is clunky and distracts from the scope of the paragraph, which is to present a quick prose list of various Looney Tunes series. I also don't think the parentheticals that indicate who "stars" in the series is useful and it invites more additions like the Martian Queen. For this reason (which I explained in my original edit summary I am removing the content again. If the paragraph were specifically about Duck Dodgers, it would make more sense to mention the Martian Queen, but that is not what the paragraph intends to cover. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the problem is. She's another looney tunes character and thought it'd be nice to give her some recognition - 18:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC) user Zjec

We don't give "recognition" to characters; information shouldn't be gratuitously included. If there is a logical reason for writing about a character in a paragraph that is focused on the different series, you haven't yet explained it. The focus of the paragraph isn't "characters in Looney Tunes shows" or "new characters introduced in Looney Tunes shows". Thus, I find it an unnecessary inclusion, especially when stuffed into a parenthetical. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Rabbit an epic?[edit]

Does Who Framed Roger Rabbit qualify as an epic film? While I enjoyed the film I don't think it has particularly "large scale, sweeping scope and spectacle". — Preceding unsigned comment added by CryptographicallyInsecure (talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CryptographicallyInsecure Hi, I don't think it's the correct way to describe the film. I changed epic to film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the Looney Tunes article[edit]

Why was it reverted back to the previous one? The Merrie Melodies article still mentions the one-off 1988 revival, so why can't this article mention the 1987 to present revival? 24.180.56.157 (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the last pre-revival Looney Tunes short ended in 1969, not 1970. 24.180.56.157 (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Looney Tunes. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.davemackey.com/animation/wb/fieldguide.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://geocities.com/argussventon/cartoondistributors/aap/aap.html

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Looney Tunes. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.chicagoreader.com/moviesarchives/2003/1103/031121.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101202172431/http://looney.goldenagecartoons.com/tv/ to http://looney.goldenagecartoons.com/tv/

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

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) 01:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Shorts[edit]

The new shorts which are said to be released in 2019 could possibly be the third and final season of Wabbit/New Looney Tunes. Doesn't make sense they would start a new series before finishing the current series. YouDontKnowSponge (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be. Bergman isn't voicing Bugs, Eric Bauza is. Peter Browngardt isn't on Wabbit staff. Wabbit cartoons are longer than these shorts--Harmony944 (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The third season could be retooled like how the second season was retooled from the first season. Perhaps different people also worked on the third season. They could have changed the voice of Bugs for Season 3. Daffy is also in his New Looney Tunes design in a teaser image. Time will only tell. YouDontKnowSponge (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're really grasping at straws--Harmony944 (talk, Twitter) 15:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comics[edit]

dose anyone what to help with Draft:List of looney tunes comic books Fanoflionking

Taz[edit]

dose any want to help with Draft:List of Taz-Mania episodes Fanoflionking

TV[edit]

dose anyone want to help with List of Looney Tunes television series Fanoflionking

"Goonie Tunes" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Goonie Tunes. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2020[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

In the third paragraph of the introduction it has been changed to say Bugs Bunny is a rapist and has died. (outlined in bold below) Page was then semi-protected so falsehoods cannot be changed. Rollback to previous true version is required

Looney Tunes has since become a worldwide media franchise, spawning several television series, feature films, comic books, music albums, video games, and amusement park rides, as well as serving as Warner Bros.' flagship franchise. Many of the characters have made and continue to make cameo appearances in various other television shows, films, and advertisements. The most famous Looney Tunes character is Bugs Bunny, a struggling rapist who left the world on the 22nd of March, 2020 to witness perfection.[4] Several Looney Tunes films are considered among the greatest animated cartoons of all time (e.g. Duck Amuck, One Froggy Evening and What's Opera, Doc?; All three Merrie Melodies), and five (three Merrie Melodies: Tweetie Pie, Speedy Gonzales and Birds Anonymous; and two Looney Tunes: Knighty Knight Bugs and For Scent-imental Reasons) have won Academy Awards.[5] Bhar7198Bhar (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already done Javathunderman and Trivialist have already removed the vandalism. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time Warner caves to far-left extremist anti-gun nuts.[edit]

The anti-gun rights radical leftists in control of the corporation won't let the hunter Elmer Fudd or Yosemite Sam have guns because of "gun violence": [3] I see no reason why only criticism of the cartoon by leftists hysterically screaming "Racism!" over certain episodes created eighty years ago should be included in the article. If you truly are a neutral encyclopedia, you will include criticism by normal Americans over the show's recent radical leftist political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.203.11.231 (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can mention that the new cartoons do not include guns (in fact, I'd used the quote "“We’re not doing guns,” Browngardt said. “But we can do cartoony violence — TNT, the Acme stuff. All that was kind of grandfathered in.”" from [4]. But we can't be critical of that without reliable sources being critical of it, even the Fox news piece is not that. --Masem (t) 06:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that the characters being shot at were anthropomorphic, so it was essentially gun violence against persons. BMJ-pdx (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan vs Lebron[edit]

Ok, who wrote this article? Are we seriously gonna call Lebron a basketball mega superstar and just call Jordan a basketball player? If anyone was the mega superstar it was Jordan. Whoever wrote that must be too young to remember the phenomenon that was Michael Jordan. There’s no need to go all King James like Space Jam 2 did. Either call them both basketball players or switch the descriptions. It’s absolutely disgraceful to pretend that James is on a level beyond Jordan. It would be like comparing any actor today to one of the true stars of golden age Hollywood. There’s no comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:8100:D270:9C3D:1FD3:14CD:F1E (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Typing[edit]

I know that Lola bunny name after my sister name Lola 2600:6C64:7800:A9E:4422:6FA9:CDF2:4E33 (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward Introductory Phrasing[edit]

The second sentence in this entire article has pretty awkward phrasing:

"Then some new cartoons were produced from the late 1980s to the mid 2010s as well as other made productions beginning in 1972."

Could this be written more elegantly? 2601:44:404:23F1:18EC:1BA5:2647:C7CC (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Looney Tunes[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Looney Tunes's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Amazon":

From Scooby-Doo! Moon Monster Madness: "Scooby-Doo! Moon Monster Madness". 17 February 2015 – via Amazon.
From Scooby-Doo! and the Witch's Ghost: "Scooby-Doo! and the Witch's Ghost". Amazon. 1999. Retrieved July 17, 2011.
From Scooby-Doo! Pirates Ahoy!: "Scooby-Doo! Pirates Ahoy!". 19 September 2006 – via Amazon.
From Lego Scooby-Doo! Haunted Hollywood: "Scooby Doo and Lego: Haunted Hollywood". 10 May 2016 – via Amazon.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coyote vs. Acme[edit]

I want Mike Allen to add information about the cancelled Coyote vs. Acme in the revival section. The Media Expert (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi just now noticing this. Maybe we should wait until we see how it pans out. We should know by next month. Mike Allen 22:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]