Talk:List of Peanuts characters

Merge/redirect

I am going to undo the redirect of this article. My reasons for doing so is as follows:

1. The merge tag was only on the article for three days before the tagger (COMPFUNK2) went ahead with the redirect. The tag is typically left on for longer so that people have the opportunity to, you know, actually comment on the proposal.
2. COMPFUNK2 failed to initiate a discussion on Talk:Peanuts, but rather simply linked to that talk page from the template. Had a discussion been started, it would have been much more likely that people would become aware of the proposed redirect, since Peanuts is watched by many more people than List of Peanuts characters.
3. There is ample precedent for these sorts of lists: List of Harry Potter characters, List of Star Wars characters, List of Star Trek characters, List of Middle-earth characters, List of X-Men members, etc.

I'm not necessarily saying that this article shouldn't be redirected, I just want to see a discussion take place. faithless (^speak) 01:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but please check the history. I put the {{mergeto}} tag on this page and the {{mergefrom}} tag on the main Peanuts page at least three days ago and no one responded to either, which is why I then went ahead and merged it with the main Peanuts article. And as far as the other examples you listed, well, at least those lists are sourced (well, the first two, anyway). This list doesn't have any sources. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 06:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but what? What do page histories have to do with anything? Anyway, as I said you didn't initiate a discussion on the matter (as is common practice) and, again, merge proposals typically last for more than three days so that editors actually have a chance to comment on them if they so wish. For example, this recent discussion lasted for a month. You seem to have adopted a very antagonistic tone here. Forgive me if I've misread you, but I see no reason why this discussion should turn hostile. faithless (^speak) 12:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You have completely misread me, because I love Peanuts with a passion; what I don't like is unsourced listcruft. And as far as what histories have to do with anything, whenever you use the {{mergeto}} or {{mergefrom}} tags, the end of each says discuss, which then leads you to the article's talk page. If you look at those respective talk page histories, you'll notice that not only did no one oppose the merge, but no one made any comments about the article at all. And so what if it was only three days? I see no Wikipedia guideline that states how long to wait for a response before merging an article. Changes should reflect consensus, true, but as I said before, there was no response from anyone. So to complain after the fact and then accuse me of being hostile is unfair. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how merge proposals typically work. Rather than just slap tags on articles, the tagger is expected to start a discussion on one of the talk pages, then link specifically to the discussion from the templates. As the person who placed the tags, it was your responsibility to initiate a discussion on the talk page. This you did not do. There was no response from anyone because not only did you not begin a discussion, but the tags were only up for three days! This is a very short period of time; while there is no hard-and-fast rule that I know of (there have been discussions on the template talk page regarding what the appropriate time limit should be), it is invariably more than just a few days. Three days is simply not enough time to allow a discussion to take place. As I said, a recent merge proposal for a much higher-profile article than this one lasted for a month! While I'm not suggesting that this needs to last that long, we should give it more than a few days. Not everyone logs onto Wikipedia every day. And speaking as someone who does, I rely on my watchlist to keep me abreast of any merge proposals. Usually, these are easy to spot, as they're typically accompanied by something like Talk:List of Peanuts characters (Merge proposal - new section). Since no discussion was initiated, this obviously didn't happen here. So with no "new section" notice, I would keep an eye out for edit summaries. With 1500 articles on my watchlist, I tend to WP:AGF when it comes to the edits of established users; as your edit summaries didn't appear unusual, I didn't bother combing through your edits. I'm on Wikipedia every day, and I probably keep as close an eye on Peanuts-related articles as anyone, so if I didn't notice a merge proposal, I doubt many others did. faithless (^speak) 22:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You noticed my edit summaries yet you missed where it said Merge unless someone can find some sources? If you think this article is worth saving, why don't you add some sources? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

When you make one edit immediately after another, people aren't going to notice your first edit summary (unless they happen to look at their watchlist as soon as you make the first edit). Again, you seem to be getting quite upset, and I have absolutely no reason why. Please, relax. No one is attacking you here. I simply want to allow time for people to comment, if they wish to do so. Surely you don't object to that? faithless (^speak) 00:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting upset. I am, however, a little annoyed that your reasoning for un-merging the article is because of things I allegedly failed to do, when in fact I did do those things. But you know what? Let's just keep a cool head and see if someone cares enough to start sourcing this list. :) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• There's no room to merge it back to Peanuts. It's that simple. Sometimes you just have to WP:IAR. That said, Peanuts is in our maintenance queue at WP:COMICS and we're hoping to get it to GA status, and looking at what there is to summarise and how the article will turn out, there isn't the room for the list to be merged in. There's quite a few Comics Journal articles to use as sources for this particular article, but it is a question of time at the moment. We're currently working on Fantastic Four, Jack Kirby, Alex Raymond, Spider-Man, which just passed GA, and Silver Age of Comic Books, which is under review. I think after that we have Spider-Man: One More Day, and then you can see the list of what next at [1]. So if you're prepared to allow a little time, we're hoping to have this at GA in a couple of months at the outside. We'll have a look at how best to present the ancillary information then. Cheers, Hiding T 09:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Agree to keep the page separate, as it serves a purpose. However, recommend expanding it, as it's quite incomplete. I also recommend a change in the listing, based more on chronology. By popularity is a debatable order, and I personally believe greater importance should be given to certain characters summarily dismissed here as "early characters" (notably Patty, Shermy, and Violet) as these were extremely important characters in the development and popularization of the strip.--ADWNSW (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep lists of characters and an article on minor characters doesn't seem unreasonable given the amount of content and is one of the suggested ways of dealing with the information - if it needs sourcing then I'd be surprised that there isn't any, so perhaps effort would be best directed in that direction. (Emperor (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Little Red-Haired Girl unseen

There has to be at least a caveat on the claim that the Little Red-Haired Girl was unseen in the strip. She is seen in silhouette on May 25, 1998. I have a strong Peanuts COI (see my user page), so I will not make the change myself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This article needs to expanded

It's missing many character - 555 95472, Thibault, Charlotte Braun, etc. This is possibly the most important comic strip ever, and the list should be as exhaustive as possible. Carlo (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The current (as of 31 March 2022) story arc on GoComics, for example, features a minor female character, Truffles. PSUnderwood (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

3 and 4

The article currently lists the full first names of 3 and 4 as 333 and 444. While this is an understandable assumption (as 5 is canonically 555), it is nowhere to be found in the source, nor is any source indicated. Barring someone providing an appropriate source, I recommend we pare it back to "3 and 4 95472". (I will not make this chance myself as I have Peanuts WP:COIs. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Franklin's gender

It seems rather odd the Franklin's entry, alone among the characters in the main chart, is without any indication of gender. While it is tough to find a strip that specifically mentions his gender, it's not hard to find Schulz talking about him as a him ("Later on, when Franklin was introduced into the strip, the little black kid—I could have put him in long before that, but for other reasons, I didn't.") While I understand that some might be cautious about the use of the term "boy" with regard to Black male folk due to history, someone can certainly put a "he" or "him" into one of the sentences. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)