Template talk:Warner Bros. animation and comics

Animation: American / Looney Tunes / Warner Bros.

	Animation portal This template 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
	This template is supported by the American animation work group.
	This template is supported by the Looney Tunes work group.
	This template is supported by the Warner Bros. Animation work group.

Comics: DC Comics

	Comics portal This template 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
	This template is supported by DC Comics work group.

Film: Filmmaking

	Film portal This template 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
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

Trimmed

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

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

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?

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]

Gossamer (Looney Tunes) primary ?

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?

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?

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?

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

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]