Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 Trimmed  
2 comments  




2 Characters  
1 comment  




3 Lola Bunny is not a primary character  
2 comments  




4 Michigan J. Frog a secondary character?  
2 comments  




5 Gossamer (Looney Tunes) primary ?  
1 comment  




6 Split this template?  
3 comments  




7 Collapse?  
1 comment  




8 Should Batman: The Killing Joke (film) be listed as a theatrical release instead of straight to video?  
1 comment  




9 So much redundancy  
1 comment  













Template talk:Warner Bros. animation and comics




Page contents not supported in other languages.  









Template
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


Trimmed[edit]

This navigational template is too large. I removed the links to characters that don't have their own articles. This includes the Histeria! characters, which were only linking to the same list. Users can click on the link to the list to see all the characters. I also removed some red links and the link that redirected to the article on Freakazoid!. The template is still too large and should probably be split - maybe one for Looney Tunes characters and another for other Warner Bros. cartoons. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I agree about it being too large (however many qualifying characters there are is how many there are), but I do feel that a distinction should be made between lead characters who didn't become genuinely famous (from Bosko to Cool Cat), and supporting characters, especially those whose fame is on the level of at least some of the big leads (e.g., Granny and Sylvester Jr.), and if we do this, then IMHO Marvin the Martian and the Tasmanian Devil should be moved from "Primary" to that list. Elmer F. and Y. Sam had solo shorts, which is more than can be said of either of these two (the Taz-Mania TV series is a different animal, as the box itself stipulates). Ted Watson (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters[edit]

Currently, Henery Hawk is listed as a Primary Character, however would he not be better listed as a Secondary considering he lacks the popular fame or merchandising prevalence that the other Primary characters are accustomed to. Additionally, with regards to the character Melissa Duck, although her largest role came from the spin-off show Baby Looney Tunes, she did still appear in one of the original shorts under that name and a further three as Daffy's blonde girlfriend in unnamed parts. As such, would it not be more accurate to place her under Secondary status considering her appearances before Comics and TV shows? Just a thought. Olympian (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Bunny is not a primary character[edit]

I have rectified this. Ug (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, people still think she is!! 209.175.117.2 (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan J. Frog a secondary character?[edit]

He was the WB mascott and had his first appearance in 1955. If Gossamer is primary, so too should Michigan J. Frog be. 71.34.67.135 (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other way 'round, actually. I don't see how Gossamer could be considered primary. I am quite surprised to see such frequent and/or highly regarded characters as Marc Antony and Pussyfoot, Goofy Gophers and Wolf and Sheepdog on the same level as he and Slowpoke Rodriguez. That each even has his own article is dubious. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one appears to make no sense at all, as he appeared in just 3 shorts, as many as Witch Hazel (Looney Tunes); the Goofy Gophers haven't been marketed much in the 1990s and 2000s. At least Pussyfoot and the Tasmanian Devil have benefited from marketing in the 1990s to today. I will probably downgrade Gossamer to secondary. For the same reason, I downgraded Hippety Hopper too. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split this template?[edit]

This template is very large. How about splitting into two templates? Say, one for『Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies』and one for "Television animation"? 76.18.85.254 (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of this simply for clarity sake. Since there is already a "Scooby Doo" section, any thoughts on simply including a redirect for pre-1999 Hanna Barbera productions? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the Looney Tunes & Merrie Melodies template here: Template:Looney Tunes & Merrie Melodies Feel free to start using it on appropriate articles.Yonskii (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse?[edit]

Can we collapse sections of this template? It sure is large. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should Batman: The Killing Joke (film) be listed as a theatrical release instead of straight to video?[edit]

Batman: The Killing Joke (film) is included on the straight to video section, and yet it played in over 1300 screens across the US thanks to Fathom Events. Should it therefore be moved tot he theatrical section?The Editor 155 (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So much redundancy[edit]

Seriously, the entire first two sections consist entirely of links also in the lower sections. That's unacceptable. Why are they repeated? oknazevad (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Warner_Bros._animation_and_comics&oldid=1034803099"

Categories: 
Template-Class Animation articles
NA-importance Animation articles
Template-Class Animation articles of NA-importance
Template-Class American animation articles
NA-importance American animation articles
American animation work group articles
Template-Class Warner Bros. Animation articles
NA-importance Warner Bros. Animation articles
Warner Bros. Animation work group articles
Template-Class Looney Tunes articles
NA-importance Looney Tunes articles
Looney Tunes work group articles
WikiProject Animation articles
Template-Class Comics articles
NA-importance Comics articles
Template-Class Comics articles of NA-importance
Template-Class DC Comics articles
DC Comics work group articles
WikiProject Comics articles
Template-Class film articles
Template-Class filmmaking articles
Filmmaking task force articles
WikiProject Film articles
 



This page was last edited on 21 July 2021, at 22:33 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Code of Conduct

Developers

Statistics

Cookie statement

Mobile view



Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki