Talk:Wally Gator
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sealab 2021
editWally did also appear in an episode of Sealab 2021. The episodes title was "Fusebox" and Wally is first mentioned and can later be seen for a while. --212.65.19.208 20:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
You forgot Wally Gator in Harvey Birdman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.208.61 (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Boomerang
editJust, wondering, but does the Wally Gator show air on Boomerang currently?? 68.195.110.145 00:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Titles in other languages
editI don't see the German, Dutch, Chinese, Hebrew, Swedish or Russian titles. What is Wally Gator known as in those languages? 128.135.73.21 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
When was Wally added to the "weak masters" argument
editI only recall that on Quick Draw, but regardless the Warner Archive has already promised everything from the library will at least see release from the archive if not in stores, and i feel the whole argument doesn't hold up. Some of the store releases clearly weren't from the best masters, and more than likely that have some decent rolls around to make the dvd transfer, they can't be that bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.158 (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Analysis section removed - NPOV violation
editA few weeks ago I happened upon an 'Analysis' section in the Yogi Bear article which struck me as being out of place given that it contained an application of Critical Theory to a subject not related to this field. Since Critical Theory is a decidedly non-neutral paradigm this was very much out of place in the article on a cartoon bear. I also noticed the section had been removed and re-instated several times with justifications which themselves violated NPOV by claiming that the material was relevant to the subject. I therefore added a note to the talk page for the article and removed the section with the admonition to justify a re-instatement in some way. The section was re-instated without justification so I removed it a second time, again asking for a justification why this clear NPOV violation should be upheld. Given the strange combination of subject matter - critical theory applied to cartoon figures - I decided to check whether this NPOV violation occurred in other articles, which it turned out it does. Since Wikipedia is not a political action platform these sections have no place here. I will therefore remove the 'Analysis' section with the stated justification. If another editor wants to revert this removal he or she should justify this in some way by explaining why an expression of political activism has a place in a Wikipedia entry on a cartoon figure.