Talk:Hanna-Barbera

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(this discussion might go on another page, but for now it's going here)
(wow, I thought I was a H*R fan)
Line 7: Line 7:
::Okay, I'll give you Scooby-Doo. That one's clear. As for the rest, I challenge all of them as legitimate references. They should ''all'' be removed from the various articles. As for this page, even Scooby-Doo is just a reference to one cartoon, not Hanna-Barbera itself. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 04:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
::Okay, I'll give you Scooby-Doo. That one's clear. As for the rest, I challenge all of them as legitimate references. They should ''all'' be removed from the various articles. As for this page, even Scooby-Doo is just a reference to one cartoon, not Hanna-Barbera itself. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 04:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
:::I looked at all those "references" now, and while some do sound plausible (the repeating background, for example), they all sound like a stretch and aren't clear enough references. Some are outright stretches. I agree with Dot com: they should all be deleted from the respective articles except for the Scooby Doo ref. And This article should be '''deleted'''.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 04:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
:::I looked at all those "references" now, and while some do sound plausible (the repeating background, for example), they all sound like a stretch and aren't clear enough references. Some are outright stretches. I agree with Dot com: they should all be deleted from the respective articles except for the Scooby Doo ref. And This article should be '''deleted'''.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 04:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-
::::Speaking of the repeating background, we do have a tradition of explaining the ultimate origin of some things (like Jeeves), so I don't have as big a problem with that one in the [[little things]] article (although it should be reworded). For the purposes of this article, however, it's not an outright reference to Hanna-Barbera, and thus doesn't really count. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 04:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
+
::::Speaking of the repeating background, we do have a tradition of explaining the ultimate origin of some things (like Jeeves), so I don't have as big a problem with that one in the [[little animal]] article (although it should be reworded). For the purposes of this article, however, it's not an outright reference to Hanna-Barbera, and thus doesn't really count. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 04:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:15, 4 August 2007

It has been suggested that the content of the page this talk page accompanies should not be a separate article on the wiki.

  • Please discuss below whether the content of the page should have its own article. Remember to consider ways the content could be brought up to the wiki's standards before making this determination.

If it is decided that the content should not have its own article, then the following additional issues need to be addressed:

  • Whether to merge the content with another page or remove it entirely.
  • Whether to redirect the leftover page or delete it outright.
 

This, that, and a whole lot of other stuff

I realize a lot of work has been put into this page, but it seems to me that every single reference listed here is either speculation or TTATOT, and thus it would be a real stretch to say that they were specifically referencing Hanna-Barbera, intentionally or otherwise. I think every entry in the article as it stands now should be removed, and if no legitimate examples can be found, the article itself should be deleted. — It's dot com 03:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be TTATOT now, but most of the things were created by Hanna-Barbera, and it's clear on some of the facts that it is intended to be a reference, mainly Scooby-Doo and the Bands of the 70's having cartoons. I say keep --~ SlipStream 03:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone will also need to go through these articles and check the references. Loafing 03:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, if this article is deleted because of TTATOT, those Real World References will need to be deleted too.--~ SlipStream 03:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll give you Scooby-Doo. That one's clear. As for the rest, I challenge all of them as legitimate references. They should all be removed from the various articles. As for this page, even Scooby-Doo is just a reference to one cartoon, not Hanna-Barbera itself. — It's dot com 04:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I looked at all those "references" now, and while some do sound plausible (the repeating background, for example), they all sound like a stretch and aren't clear enough references. Some are outright stretches. I agree with Dot com: they should all be deleted from the respective articles except for the Scooby Doo ref. And This article should be deleted. Loafing 04:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of the repeating background, we do have a tradition of explaining the ultimate origin of some things (like Jeeves), so I don't have as big a problem with that one in the little animal article (although it should be reworded). For the purposes of this article, however, it's not an outright reference to Hanna-Barbera, and thus doesn't really count. — It's dot com 04:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://www.hrwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Hanna-Barbera"
Personal tools