Talk:Peanuts/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Cedar Fair

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.

Sections

(Discussion moved from User talk:Mike1) - jc37 21:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice work on Peanuts : )

A couple thoughts:

• We're supposed to try to minimize the "trivia" section in "Good Articles". And Cultural Influences is one of the suggested sections for such articles.
• I don't know if we need so much material about Schulz's religious background (especially since it already exists in his own article). Noting that the strips had at times a religious theme, should be enough. (And The Gospel According to Peanuts is obviously a licensed property which should be listed with the others.)
• I honestly don't know what we should do with the final Sunday Strip. I think it's out of place higher up in the history section, but formatting-wise it's pretty bad at the end of that section as well. I thought placing it at the top of the cast section worked because it's adjacent to the end of the history section, and because it shows so many vignettes of the cast.

Watching here for your thoughts : ) - jc37 03:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume that means you would like me to respond here. Funny, I was just about to post a similar message to your talk page :-).

• I think that the previous wording about the religious themes is more appropriate as it better explains the religious aspects of the strip by briefly explaining Schulz's religious background, and in general to me is better written. If you would agree to change it back I would appreciate it. BTW, sorry for reverting that as I messed up your image re-sizing in the process. I'll be more careful next time :-).
• I agree that the trivia section is not the best idea, but what you did was simply a renaming of the trivia section and to me it looked kind od weird to see a list thrown in the middle of the article. I'm open to change in this area, perhaps changing it into paragraph form and taking out some of the cruft.
• I have no idea what to do with the final Sunday strip either, but I think it looks better as it is than the way you had formatted it. Maybe we can move it over to the left somewhere?

Your work on Peanuts has been fantastic as well! I hope that we can get this up to FA standards soon! - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 03:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Taking them in order : )

1. Perhaps I am missing something, but the two sections are exactly the same, except for fixing grammar and sense. Can you clarify?
2. I placed Cultural Influences at the end, just ahead of trivia. (Where I was/am presuming it should be.)
3. What didn't you like about it introducing the Cast?

- jc37 03:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

1. They are very similar, but I just think that the old version was better written with better flow :-).
2. That was a good idea, but I still think that we should convert it to paragraph form.
3. I don't know what you're talking about, sorry :-P. If you're talking about the use of the final Sunday strip for that purpose, I'm not sure I would agree with you. An image of the cast would be more appropriate (like the one in The Simpsons article) as the final comic strip is really the type of thing that belongs in the history. I'll try to find an image suitable for this.

Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 04:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I disagree, but then, I edited both versions : ) - I'll take a look at both later and try to see what you're talking about. (For one thing the version you support uses several uncitable comments.)
2. No problem with the idea of paragraph form, if it can be clear : )
3. Yes I meant the Sun. strip. As for the rest, the thing is, we're supposed to minimize the use of "fair use" images as well. While you're checking for images, try to find one to replace Charlie Brown in the infobox with a more inclusive one of the cast. (The Charlie Brown image is already in good use on that character's article page.)

That's all for me today, I'll check back later or tomorrow : ) - jc37 04:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. I've uploaded and added an image of the entire cast. Hope you like it! - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 04:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks great : ) - Is this another fair use image? - jc37 12:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I merged/deleted the trivia section (noting here in reference to comments above):

• Several examples were more charlie brown and snoopy examples, so I merged them to those pages.
• I added a baseball team paragraph to characters. (I was suprised it didn't already exist, considering that the team consists of nearly all the strip regulars.)
• I re-created the "influences" section. And also added links to the sections related to influences at the charlie brown and snoopy articles, since they were more inclusive, and this way it stems the tide of additions that are specific to those characters only.

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)

It was quite a bit of work, but Peanuts in popular culture now exists (though in desperate need of references). This also served to clean up several peanuts articles. Enjoy : ) - jc37 12:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, nice work! Thanks for taking the time to do that; the pop culture sections of this and the Snoopy article were getting pretty long, especially as nearly every cartoon seems to reference them at some point in the run. Just the nature of its popularity, I guess. --Birdhombre 13:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Religion

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)

Honestly I'm not sure what you "fused" : ) - jc37 12:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm kinda on wikibreak here, but I just noticed this. What I did was take both versions and kind of mix them together into a way that seemed most suitable. I see that you have removed the entire section, however. Why don't you consider the religious themes of Peanuts' to be appropriate for the article? It is obvious that Christianity has always had a place in the world of the strip, and a sentence or two about Schulz's religious background helps put that into perspective. - Mike | Talk 04:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The strip is a microcosm of the society of the times, and so obviously Shulz included religion as a part of that, but that doesn't mean it should have its own section, any more than the "controversy" comments in the history have their own section.

As for the section itself:

• 1.) There's a stanza about The Gospel according to Peanuts. - This shouldn't be a part of the article proper, it's a licensed product that also falls under "influences". If in doubt, compare to the myriad books which reference Star Wars : )
• 2.) Read the following section and tell me that it belongs anywhere in the "Peanuts" article. (I considered the Schulz bio section, but it just seemed out-of-place):

• "Reared in the Lutheran faith, he had been active in the Church of God as a young adult, and then later taught Sunday school at a United Methodist Church. However, by the late 1980s he told one of his biographers (Rheta Grimsley Johnson, 1989) that he identified with Secular Humanism."

• 3.) That leaves only a single stanza, which I merged into the strip history.

Hopes this helps clarify. - jc37 02:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Charles M. Schulz section

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)

I'm sorry but I believe that section was non-relevant to the article, and having the creator mentioned in the article's beginning was enough. Although, we can merge the biography of the creator inside the article, using terms such as: "due to Schulz's health problems, the quality of the final strips has significantly changed". Besides, such section doesn't exist in most other comics-releated articles, for example, X-Men and Spider-Man. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mike here. Also Spiderman, and X-Men are a different situation entirely. (Single contributor vs. multiple contributors). - jc37 12:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Michael that the section should be merged into the History section. And as for single contributor vs. multiple contributors, check out the Calvin and Hobbes article, which even is a featured article, and has no section on Bill Watterson either... --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because it doesn't have one, doesn't mean it's "wrong" to have one. : ) - jc37 02:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I never said it is "wrong", I just think it isn't needed and doesn't really add anything to the article (except length). And maybe a little confusion to the reader since the first section in an article on Peanuts goes without mentioning the strip. I think merging that little text into the History section would make much more sense. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's the first "sub-section". The first section (the introduction) explains rather clearly who Charles Schulz is:

• "Peanuts was a syndicated daily comic strip written and illustrated by Charles M. Schulz, which ran from October 2, 1950, to February 13, 2000--the day after Schulz's death. The strip was one of the most popular and influential in the history of the medium. At its peak, Peanuts ran in over 2,600 newspapers, with a readership of 355 million in 75 countries, and was translated into 40 languages. It helped to cement the four-panel gag strip as the standard in the United States. Reprints of the strip are still syndicated and run in many newspapers."

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)

Even if it's "just" the first sub-section, it's still a little off-topic, don't you think? All other sections deal with some aspect of Peanuts while this one doesn't even mention it. What I meant by "confusing" is that in an article on Peanuts, I would expect to read something actually about Peanuts -- especially in the first sub-section -- and I feel this section strays from the topic. But if you think it should really be there, I'm fine with that. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Good article?

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)

good idea, lets just hope that people wont disagree with out any reason.Phoenix741 14:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Final comics

Also, I think we will need to have spoiler warnings on the "last comics". - jc37 12:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not certain of my above comment, I do think we should discuss what to do about the two final comics. I don't think placing either of the final comics at the top of the history section is a good idea. Formatting suggestions are also welcome : ) - jc37 14:22, 19 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)

Needs fair use rationale

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)

While IANAL, I think I have at least a decent idea about fair use. However, in general, I'm not well versed in image use on Wikipedia. The images would seem to be tagged. What further needs to be done? (Pleas edumacate me : ) - jc37 08:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, you have to say why you feel it to be considered fair use in addition to the tag. Most users really don't bother with this step until they try to get GA or FA status (they are very anal about it at Featured level). For a basic idea of what you need to do, visit any Featured Article concerning a trademarked franchise. Superman is a good example. Two things to always include is the fact that a free image is impossible due to the nature of the matter and the purpose that perticular picture serves. Additional things on how the use of the image shouldn't hurt the copyright owner due to it being low resolution, meant for public distribution, etc. are nice extras. In the article I recently nominated for GA, Shuffle!, I kept the image rationale short and simple. For example, in Image:AverageShuffle!Day.JPG I merely have "Navel has released no free images of Shuffle!" and "The image serves to illustrate the basic gameplay of Shuffle!" That pretty much covers why I have those use unfree images. People generally won't fail an article for GA for having too little rationale, just for not having any rationale. However, once you get up to trying for featured article, it's best to play it safe and go overboard a little. Observe the following image's fair use rationale from E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600): Image:ET2600-Pit.gif. Though you probably shouldn't do that last reasoning, I was just getting a get tired of anal nitpickers ;) All in vain too, still wasn't able to get it to FA. Oh well, I ended up talking a lot there, but hopefully you understand what to do now. And if you wouldn't mind reviewing Shuffle! I'd be happy to review Peanuts again (in-depth this time). I'm so very impatient, it'll drive me mad to see Shuffle! just setting there waiting to get reviewed in the coming days. --SeizureDog 08:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that perhaps the last comment at the ET image should probably be removed, but it did make me laugh : )

So the concept is to list on the image page, under the image itself, a section for each article in which it's included, which explains the reasons why it should be considered fair use? Also, Is this something anyone can do, or can only the uploader? - jc37 10:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's pretty much the jist of it. Though on a side note, you have to be sure to include a new set of fair use rationale for each article you use in the image in. You can't just have a universal fair use rationale, as different articles may need the same picture for different reasons. As a recent personal example, I included Image:Push!!May2006.jpg in the Push!! article to show how the magazine itself looks, but I included it in Nostradamus ni Kiite Miro♪ to illustrate the game that it was previewing. Image:CharlieBrown.jpg should probably technically be split into two rationales, but its basically fine merged like it is. For future habit though, have different sections: even if it is mostly just the same copied and pasted statements reworded a little. As for who adds the fair use rationale, anyone can do it, but generally the uploader should seeing how he was the one with the specific idea of how it was needed. I'm not adding them though, as I want to be hands-off so I can review the article without being a major contributor. --SeizureDog 10:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems User:Hiding has taken care of it on the lead image. I'll take a look at some of the other images, but I'm admittedly not the best at judging copyright stuff. - Mike (Talk) 20:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a fair use rationale to the final sunday comic strip. Please check to make sure this is sufficient. - Mike (Talk) 20:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading it, it occurs to me that we should probably remove the last daily strip, and merely comment about it, since everything in the last daily strip is also in the last Sunday strip. I'll make the change, and you all can let me know what you think. - jc37 20:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. - Mike (Talk) 20:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you find a clearer version of it though? It's too blurry, I can't read it. Failing that, could you at least transcribe what is being said?--SeizureDog 22:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link to the final daily: Image:FinaldailyPeanuts.jpg. - jc37 22:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• As noted above, I've been having a bash at the rationales per Jc's invite on my talk page. I think you are going to have to choose one collection's image in the collections section though, fair use images should generally be kept to an absolute minimum. Hiding Talk 22:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  And it's much appreciated : ) - If one has to go, then the back-to-school one should go. It's a general example, and really, not the one I would choose as the sole example. (The cover to The Wonderful World of Peanuts, would have been my first choice). Plus, we should probably have the first volume of the reprint series as an example for that template. - jc37 22:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  Sweet. I also removed the gospel according to image, I think that may also be one too many. I haven't done the Snoopy image as yet, since it's actually rather bad. It has shading on the right hand side, presumably because it's off a thermos and cylindrical surfaces don't maintain the best contact with a flatbed scanner. I'm going to look for a better image for Snoopy. Also, the final sunday strip has no source. People might want to track one down. The image is probably brilliant, it's muddy and unclear. I'd guess it is scanned from a newspaper, but I couldn't swear to it. The uploader has been absent since Aug, so maybe no luck there either. Hiding Talk 22:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  This may help? - jc37 22:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah. I don't know how strict we have to be with the source nowadays, but normally it is to protect/identify the copyright holders. Since we don't have an issue there, it doesn't overly matter which source we credit. SO we'll go with that and see what happens. Hiding Talk 22:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  Oh. I was answering the concern about "blurriness" as well. Didn't know if we could just use that image from the site. - jc37 22:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  I like the fact that it is blurry. That means we have a more solid fair use claim. Hiding Talk 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

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)

Well, that's disappointing, but at least we know what needs to be done next. Speaking of which, you mentioned print sources, what sort of things are you looking for? Peanuts publications, or some other publication writing about Peanuts/Schulz? - jc37 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

While I think that the article has vastly improved, I do agree with failing the GA on refs for now. When this first became the collab there were no refs at all, and although we have added a few, work is still needed on that. I'll see what I can do when I get more time. - Mike (Talk) 23:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Woah, it failed that quickly? Cripes, another hour or so I'd have given you the sources. Meh. I love this place. Hiding Talk 23:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  Well, perhaps we can just relist it once "fixed"? Or is there a time frame that must exist between listings? - jc37 23:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, but it would be a good idea to wait some time, in order to allow time to fix stuff.Phoenix741 23:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll remind you that there is no downtime for GA. Once you've managed to fix it up I'd be happy to re-review it for you. And in responce to Hiding's comment, you're supposed to have everything ready with you put it up for consideration :P --SeizureDog 23:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

FA

• Jc, just go straight for Featured Article status. There you get a chance to react to comments rather than comments and an axe falling together. It's not ready yet, but it is cooking. Of the FA criteria, I'm not worried about the writing, they can fix that, but the sources do need to be addressed. I'll dust off my library and have a bash in the coming week, hit the books, find the sources and we'll take it there. What do you reckon? Hiding Talk 23:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds fine with me. Let me know when you think I should "put it up". I only did the "GA" step because I was under the impression that we needed to do that first : ) - I have a small library of Peanuts myself, so I'll help however I can : ) - jc37 01:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Peer review is the first step, really. Looking at the good article criteria and the featired article criteria I can't tell the difference. Really though, I find them all bureaucratic nightmares. My experiences of both of them have bordered on the surreal, and like I say, I'm not really a badge wearer. But it would be nice to see this article at featured status. What is needed is that every statement which asserts something which could be disputed is sourced. Then we need to check the article over for comprehensiveness. I think there will be problems with the prose, but I think there will be people in the Featured review who are amenable to helping. If not, I will try and tap up some loose contacts. So sourcing first. Hiding Talk 20:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that peer review would be an excellent idea at this point. with all the new sources, I actually think it would pass a GA nom now, but it's never a bad idea to get a second opinion. I would love to see this get up to FA status! ~ Mike (Talk) 20:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Li'l Folks was dropped in 1949

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)

You need help Charlie Brown

This one book ((c) 1964) has a lot of "detail" that may or may not be useful for this article, or even associated articles:

• First example of Snoopy's tardis-like dog house: "I can always tell when they have come to my Van Gogh."
• Linus for school pres, and Charie Brown for vp (and the great pumpkin as the spoiler : )
• Felicitas est parvus canis calidus
• Charlie brown and the book report on Gulliver's Travels
• Linus: "How depressing..." "ANNETTE FUNICELLO HAS GROWN UP!"
• Miss Othmar going envelope happy, and needing some time "away".
• Linus' blanket going anthropomorphic, several times attacking Lucy.
• First time Charlie Brown meets of Roy (at camp)
• Sally and "New Math"
• Sally first wearing her eye patch.
• And what the heck is the deal with "Sydney or the Bush"? (Guessing it's an australian reference?)

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)

Shouldn't we block this article??

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)

what is this category?

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)

I think I have to agree that as a category, it's could be somewhat confusing. Perhaps this would be better as a list? - jc37 21:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it? I don't even know what it is. Are these people who like Peanuts? People who have done voice acting for Peanuts specials? People who parodied Peanuts? People who eat peanuts? All or none of the above? I'm lost. If I knew what the category was supposed to be, I'd nominate it for renaming to be a little clearer. — coelacan talk — 22:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Origin of an image

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)

Trivia

• The last appearence of a Peanuts Sunday comic strip was just 9 days before the 63rd anniversary of Schulz's first published cartoon which appeared in a Ripley's Believe It or Not 2-22-1937! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.53.145.30 (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
• The last appearence of a Peanuts Sunday comic strip was three hours after Schulz's death. (This needs confirmation - there is no uniform "instant" for a published comic.)

Character Name

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)

Yes. Lambertman 00:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is, or became so, but I am pretty sure I remember an interview with Schultz, possibly in the anthology "Peanuts Jubilee", where he notes that Snoopy was becoming too 'doglike' in his reaction to Frieda's cat Faron, and so he moves it 'out of shot' to next door, suggesting the cat next door was originally Faron. 12:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

He didn't say he moved it, he just said he stopped drawing it... then 10 years later or so, he introduced a new cat, this one "offscreen". They definitely aren't the same cat.—Chowbok ☠ 20:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The new cat was named "World War II". The running gag is that "WW II" is never seen; Snoopy is very afraid of him; and "WW II" is always ripping up Snoopy's doghouse.

No more TV Specials?

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)

AS I understood it-Schultz asked no more new Peanuts be drawn after he passed away- don't know it that applies to the Peanuts specials-unless perhaps they were in production stages when Schultz passed away....we will have to see if any more come up.............{Christmas {Classic}; Halloween {classic}; Thanksgiving; Easter..World War II special...water races...bullying...what's new? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.126.88 (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Potential Articles for citation

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)

Image:Last peanuts comic.PNG

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))

Good Peanuts article

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)

Too long

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)

The article is only about 45k, including infoboxes, pictures, tables, external links, etc. While it could possibly be trimmed down a bit, creating new articles isn't the way to do it. It isn't nearly long enough for that. But if you've spotted some stuff which ought to be deleted, be bold! faithless (^speak) 19:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I just think one new article should be made (2 sub articles already exist), and that much of the existing current article should be moved into said sub articles. Unfortunately, I rarely touch articles directly myself unless it's to correct an obvious error or to add tags. I don't have enough edits for most wikipedians/admins to take me serious so it's not worth getting into edit war or, even worse, being labeled a vandal. My concerns are noted here which should get some additional pairs of eyes on the article and hopefully produce some meaningful edits. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 22:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In pop culture

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)

Peanuts in popular culture was where all such information was merged to. Someone blnked a chunk of it, it was placed at AfD, and it was deleted. I'll be happy to restore it to a sandbox somewhere if you'd like to help work on it. - jc37 22:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is though that a list of cartoons in which Peanuts has been referenced to is an indiscriminate collection of information, and as such I don't think it belongs anywhere on Wikipedia. What makes such references notable? If the information is somewhere on WP, I would certainly say it should have its own article, as I don't see why it is relevant to this one. Still, such an article would be nothing but an incomplete list of trivia, and as such doesn't belong in the encyclopedia, IMHO. WP:TRIVIA seems to apply here (the section is merely named "Peanuts in popular culture" rather than "Trivia"), as this information will never be integrated into the article.

If nothing else, I'd say that the section needs to be written as prose, rather than as a bulleted list. And we certainly don't need a detailed account of every episode in which they are mentioned. Something along the lines of "Peanuts have been referenced extensively in popular culture, including The Simpsons, Family Guy, Drawn Together, etc." The problem with that being that probably 90% of television shows and every comic strip has made at least a passing reference to Peanuts. In my opinion, the best thing to do is to just scrap it altogether. faithless (^speak) 23:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I really agree. The text seems so trivial I'd think no sources would mention it, making it original research. If it were split into its own article it would surely be deleted again, so why should it be kept as a section? Seriously, can sources for this be produced? MURGH ^disc. 23:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Restored it to my sandbox. While it has quite a few references, it still needs work. - jc37 23:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Setting

Someone should write an article where the "PEANUTS" Gang actually live. - 1Zeba 27 23:47, 29 March 2008

There are hints in the early strips that the location is Schultz's boyhood home; the later strips point to California-where Schultz lived the later part of his life. (unsigned)

I think I've read that Schulz once said that he always pictured them as living in a military housing area. Steveo2 13:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There certainly is that feeling (military housing), at least in the early strips; however, this may be reflecting a simple drawing style. In the 1957-58 volume of The Complete Peanuts, Lucy shows Charlie Brown a trophy labeled "Outstanding Fussbudget of Hennepin County". The only Hennepin County in the United States is in Minnesota (the gang celebrates July 4th, so there shouldn't be any doubt that they are in the US), which fits just about all the evidence: regular snow in winter, driving distance to a beach, etc. CFLeon (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Change of Tone

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)

Adults in Peanuts

• Actually Schultz drew "Adults" twice in Peanuts: once when Linus was reading to Snoopy a Story about a little girl going to a Doctor-but the doctor is drawn as a 5 year old would draw a cartoon! another time Schultz drew a Sunday comic which had Lucy and Charlie Brown at a Golf Tournament-but all that can be seen of Adults is their legs-however although Schultz inked and drew the comic in black and white-he never used it!
• Today was a reprint of a 1963 cartoon-Charlie brown draws a adult cowboy on a horse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.126.88 (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC) {2/14/2010}

Halloween gag

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!)

Article seems to contradict itself

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)

Image copyright problem with File:CharlieBrownThanksgiving.jpg

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

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

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)

Merge/redirect proposal

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)

Merge

• I'm not trying to cause a problem, but if people really don't want to see List of minor Peanuts characters merged into this article, why isn't anyone trying to list some sources? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • 50 Years of Happiness, by Derrick Band and Victor Lee is a source. Between Pgs 21 and 39, it has a list of all the human and animal characters that have graced the strip are listed, including the minor characters listed on the List of minor Peanuts characters page. While it's not directly available (best to order it through The Charles M. Schulz Museum Store) the book can be gotten and is a good source of information. Also listed is the The Complete Peanuts series of books, which has the actual comics (mostly) in order; in these pages are the actual appearances of the minor characters. Maybe the sourcing needs to be properly formatted, however the subject is interesting enough and the parent subject is big enough that this page should be its own page. Godozo (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

this split is needed, purely because of the amount of verifiable material. DGG (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• There's no room to merge it back here. It's that simple. Sometimes you just have to WP:IAR. That said, this article is in our maintenance queue at WP:COMICS and we're hoping to get it to GA status, and looking at what there is to summarise and how the article will turn out, there isn't the room for the list to be merged in. There's quite a few Comics Journal articles to use as sources, but it is a question of time at the moment. We're currently working on Fantastic Four, Jack Kirby, Alex Raymond, Spider-Man, which just passed GA, and Silver Age of Comic Books, which is under review. I think after that we have Spider-Man: One More Day, and then you can see the list of what next at [1]. So if you're prepared to allow a little time, we're hoping to have this at GA in a couple of months at the outside. We'll have a look at how best to present the ancillary information then. Cheers, Hiding T 09:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Good Article redux?

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)

Also, as I mentioned on the WikiProject Comics talk page, for other issues which may still be present, start here and read up through the "Failed GA" section. While you're at it, also see the peer review which was done several months later. It's a good bet that any unresolved issues from either of those will still be a stumbling block for the next GAN. BOZ (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a crazy amount of referencing. Good places to start.[2][3][4] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Peanuts"

What does "Peanuts" mean in this context?--80.141.182.30 (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Reportedly, someone at the syndicate thought it was a slang word meaning "children" (probably because the Howdy Doody show used the term "the peanut gallery" to refer to their audience of mainly kids). Schultz never liked the name, but his own choice ("Li'l Folks") was thought to be impossible to trademark since there were existing strips with similar names already. 68.105.71.75 (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Page move

Is the page better off at Peanuts or Peanuts (comic strip)? Hiding T 13:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason for unnecessary disambiguation. Per WP:TITLE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it seems to me that "Peanuts" should refer to the comic strip, and "Peanut" to the legume. Our articles, for example, are "Potato" and "Carrot", not "Potatoes" and "Carrots" (which are redirects to the former articles). Hence there is no need to disambiguate in the article title, but a hatnote may be helpful to those readers who may mistype the article they are seeking. Rodhullandemu 13:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a hatnote there, is that sufficient? Hiding T 13:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the DAB page, it seems to me that of the alternative meanings of "Peanuts", this is the primary one, given its longevity and cultural penetration in relation to the others. SO the hatnote is fine, IMO. Rodhullandemu 13:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the article should remain here. If they're talking about the actual nut, they can simply go to Peanut. Anakinjmt (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the hatnote easily picks up anyone looking for something else and possibly confusion will be minor and fleeting. I say leave it here. It might be worth checking through the incoming links once a year just to mak sure no one has linked into this article incorrectly but other than that it is fine. (Emperor (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

If the title of the article was singular, I'd want to move it, but since it is not, I think the hatnote is sufficient. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been "open" 7 days. Unless another admin sees a need to keep this open longer, I think the "stays" have it. - jc37 15:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy for it to close. It's a shame User:BulsaraAndDeacon didn't comment after twice moving the page, but I think the consensus above is fairly clear. Hiding T 16:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)