Jump to content

Talk:Animaniacs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleAnimaniacs is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 14, 2007Good article nomineeListed
September 15, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
November 18, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Theme song inspiration?

[edit]

The theme song of the show seems very similar to "Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes" and/or "There is a Tavern in the Town". I noticed comments about this while searching for the origins of the children's song. Has this been noted in any sources?

Peter Isotalo 17:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, the verses of Yakko's "Nations of the World" seem to be taken from "Atsa Matta" by Michael Maltese, not the Mexican Hat Dance. MFNickster (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Animaniacs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rewording the lead paragraph

[edit]
The first two sentences reads: "Animaniacs is an American animated television series, produced by Warner Bros. Animation and Amblin Television. Animaniacs is the second animated series produced by the collaboration of Steven Spielberg and Warner Bros. Animation during the animation renaissance of the late 1980s and early 1990s."
Repeating the first two sentences with "Animaniacs" is redundant. It is also redundant to repeat "Warner Bros. Animation" in the first two sentences, and I don't feel the first two sentences meets Wiki's standards. I'm bringing it up on the talk page since this is a featured article.
I'm considering rewording them to: "Animaniacs is an American animated television series presented by Steven Spielberg and produced under his Amblin Television label in collaboration with Warner Bros. Animation. It is the second animated series created by Tom Ruegger, which developed during the animation renaissance of the late 1980s and early 1990s."
I want to get approval from other editors before rewording the lead. Any thoughts? ATC . Talk 00:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If not one is objected to these purposed changes, I'll be updating the lead section. ATC . Talk 15:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the purposes of your changes, as the text should be very polished. I would, though, introduce the first sentence with Steven Spielberg Presents Animaniacs is..., as that is the show's actual title. (The article's title should remain Animaniacs per Wikipedia guidelines). Also, I would remove the word "which" in the second sentence. The rest of the intro needs to be punched up as well. I'll get on it. Thanks for your input! Gak Blimby (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Animaniacs. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 11:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section and possible FA check?

[edit]

Hello. While I made a few edits to the page, I just realized that the lead section is two paragraphs. I think it should be at least three to four paragraphs since the article has more than 30,000 characters. Also, given that the article has been an FA since 2007 when standards were lower as opposed to the current ones, I'm wondering if we should consider doing a checkup to see if it satisfies the current FA criteria to avoid a potential FA review in the future. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support an FA review. I wrote the bulk of this article 10 years ago, when I was a teenager. The article has a lot going for it, but the standards have probably changed since then. Gak Blimby (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tour

[edit]

Will the tour come to the UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the reboot rumor

[edit]

I know that the story from Indiewire is a rumor, and normally we tread carefully with industry rumors. However:

  • Nearly every major entertainment RS has re-reported this without questioning Indiewire's integrity. They haven't cooroborated yet, but that is to say that they aren't dismissing Indiewire's reliability here.
  • From my experience on other articles, unless we put this to full protection, everyone and their brother is going to be trying to add the news if it keeps on getting removed, making it a maintenance PITA.

It would seem to be more appropriate to leave the rumor in, attributed to Indiewire, which maintains the fact that the rest of the entertainment industry doesn't question this, and avoids editors trying to keep on pushing it, making this far less of a headache. If we keep it in, though, it needs to remain out of the lede, until we get that announcement; putting it in the lede now gives that far too much weight. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. Adding a mention farther down in the article sounds like the best option for now. Trivialist (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Until further information comes out to substantiate. Gak Blimby (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Animaniacs. 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:

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) 19:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the incorrect information

[edit]

Hello. A user by the name of TomRuegger (talk · contribs) seems to have concerns on this page (he appears to be the subject closely related to this article, Pinky and the Brain and Tom Ruegger). He replaced a reliable source on this page regarding the producers, saying that Andrea Romero's information on the DVDs are incorrect, even though they appear to be legitimate. Also, the user listed Ruegger as the senior producer in the infobox, even though convention is to list only the primary producers in it. I have some concerns about these issues and I don't want to get involved in edit warring, which is forbidden.

As per WP:BRD, I'm taking this up to the talk page to discuss potential ideas with the article. Any thoughts or ideas on what to do here? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has User:TomRuegger provided any evidence that they are actually Tom Ruegger, other than saying they are? Trivialist (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Animaniacs Live

[edit]

Why was the Animaniacs Live section removed82.38.157.176 (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably because you are using the website of the tour as the only source. We need third-party sources for things like this, which fortunately exist. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thanks is there any more sources we could use.82.38.157.176 (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Revival" by Hulu?

[edit]

Not sure how to include this Juxlos (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already handled: we had a section when Indiewire had that rumor last year, I just morphed it with the news. Now, it might be appopriate to consider a new page if a lot of new production details come out, but right it is far far far too early. --Masem (t) 21:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will we give this a new page Animaniacs (2020 TV series) or treat it as a sixth season personal as the main crew seam to back i think it should be treated as season 6 and season 7 92.232.119.244 (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have to wait and see. It may be like Doctor Who. --Masem (t) 00:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make more sense if the reboot was picked up by HBO Max instead of Hulu? --ChowderRulez (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

goodnight everybody

[edit]

was this section moved https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Animaniacs&oldid=809079329#Animaniacs_Live If it was because how it was written can somebody rewrite it and put it in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.119.244 (talk • contribs) 00:49, January 6, 2018 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with four tildes like ~~~~. This will append your signature and time stamp to your posts, so that other editors know who said what and when. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Animaniacs revival premiere date

[edit]

When will the revival have a premiere date late this year on Hulu? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Tamayo (talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split Proposal

[edit]

I propose that the section Animaniacs#2020 revival be split into a separate page called Animaniacs (2020). If needed, this article could be renamed Animaniacs (1993) and the Animaniacs page could be a disambiguation. The reboot seems likely to be substantive enough to warrant a separate wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxoIotI (talk • contribs) 00:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When the revival actually broadcasts - or we can include an episode list (not just that we know there 13 episode, but that we can include titles, etc.) then a split makes sense. Right now all that we know still is sufficiently contained here. In a month that will likely change. --Masem (t) 01:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it should most likely be split after release since it's coming back after so long (no just on hiatus for a year or two), with likely much of the production info, etc, to be different, but it can/should probably wait until after the episodes drop. -- 2600:1702:39A0:5090:51FD:2F0D:9E12:D9B0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an article prepared in draft space under Draft:Animaniacs (2020 TV series). With an additional season confirmed, I am surprised that it has not moved to the mainspace earlier. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that draft article copies from here is a small problem only that we want to keep attribution from this article (Copy and paste moves are difficult for this reason). Basically, with COVID, schedules CAN change so lets just wait until pretty much we're sure there's no last minute hiccups here. --Masem (t) 00:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea It seams to be a revival the Wanner Brothers and Wanner Sister know that they be gone for over 22 years they reffece it in both the tiller[1] and the clip [2] Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea I support a split, but only when the new show has begun and the first episode has aired. Historyday01 (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that a few reviews of the new series have also come along, which support the idea of a split ([1], [2]). We also know the episode schedule (they all dump on Nov 20) and lack of episode titles. So yes, at this point a split is actually reasonable. --Masem (t) 17:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Hulu and several other sources are already treating it as a separate series, so I would give this decision a go. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As we now have several episode details, I've gone and made the split. Trying to put the episodes on the same page as the original series doesn't work, because this is definitely not a "Season 6" situation, it is a wholly new show, so this is driving the need to split. --Masem (t) 00:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNCDu4nmt8M
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh_vASjvYQE

Article rename?

[edit]

Should we rename the article Animaniacs (1993 series) to reflect that there is a 2020 series of Animaniacs?

CoolSwitch4212 (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I was thinking since some people might get confused. I was about to change it but I wanted to see if anyone else was good with the change for me I Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleMAHER1 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moves are requested at WP:RM. Note that the sole existence of other similarly named topics is not a guarantee that the move will succeed (e.g. The Powerpuff Girls). (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A article about the songs

[edit]

The Animaniacs Song's are new to me, I only now know about Yakko's World 15% , So please if you have the information, please add a article about The Animaniacs Song's. 49.144.43.169 (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crediting for Storyboard

[edit]

Storyboard artist 1996 Llyn Hunter, Storyboard artist 1997 Llyn Hunter: worked on several cartoons including "Cutie and the Beast" 1996 and "Pinky and the Brain Christmas" both Emmy award winners. This information is coming directly from me Llyn Hunter. 2600:1702:4C58:B020:3143:4850:4A6D:86C7 (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Animaniacs&oldid=1249633956"