Talk:Looney Tunes/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Censored Eleven

Any chance of mentioning "The Censored Eleven" - those eleven LT cartoons that are withheld from distribution due to use of racist and sexist sterotypes

I beleive I have at least a few of them on a DVD of old WB cartoons, although WB isn't mentioned anywhere on the artwork, so maybe these have fallen into PD? There's more than a few containing "blackface" characters, and also The Ducktators about WWII which, undertandably given the time, isn't too kind to Japan, Germany or Italy. Boffy b 10:30, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

There's an already an article on the Censored Eleven - feel free to add links to it, or add to the article. --Modemac 16:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merrie Melodies v/s Looney Tunes

Re Merrie Melodies v/s Looney Tunes: For some years wasn't one series in color and the the other in b&w, or am I misremembering? -- Infrogmation 01:20 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)

This is correct. Merrie Melodies went to color in 1934, but Looney Tunes remained in black and white until 1942. --b. Touch 20:18, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recurring characters

Looking for feedback on the decision to split the character list into "Major Recurring Characters" and "Minor Recurring Characters." I think it keeps the lists neater, since the "stars" are largely in the first list. However, it is tempting to use "Popular Recurring Characters" and "Not-So-Popular Recurring Characters" as the headings, since characters like Bosko and Buddy aren't popular today, but the Tasmanian Devil and Marvin the Martian are. Problem is, "Popular" and "Not-So-Popular" (or the equivalent) require more of a value judgment than I'm willing to make. Granted, Major/Minor requires such a judgment, but it's easier to make based on the number of films a character appeared in.

Opinions? Amcaja 20:00 UTC.

I see someone has switched some characters around again. This seems to be a matter of opinion for most cases, as I would not call "Witch Hazel" a major recurring character (she appeared in only 4 cartoons), while Buddy was the sole headlining star of over 20 cartoons between 1933 and 1935. I tend to agree with User:Amcaja that this is a tough one to call since the Looney Tunes filmography spans over 4 decades. I decided I'd break the character lists up into decades per when the character was introduced with no differentiation between Major/Minor just that the characters were recurring or became notorious: 1930s, 1940s, 1950s or 1960s?

I like the idea of bolding the characters that are recognizable except that it's a judgment call again. Oh well, I'm happy with it as you have truly captured the major ones, I guess we'll have to see if someone comes along and suddenly thinks Charlie Dog or Witch Hazel or Michigan J. Frog needs to be bolded ;) ... Jeff schiller 20:44, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. Unfortunately, it was summarily deleted by an anonymous contributor who appears to not have agreed. Should we restore it, then? -- Kizor 23:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Combined article on Warner Bros cartoons?

Does anyone else think it would be worth combining the Merrie Melodies and Looney Tunes articles into a combined article on WB cartoons generally, using this Looney Tunes article as the basis? It seems that the article could stand to be expanded into a more thorough history of the cartoon studio and the characters generally.--Cinephobia 21:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An article on the studio is at Termite Terrace. That can be expanded there. As for the characters, each has its own article, but if you want to discuss their development, it would probably make sense to discuss them at Termite Terrace as well. As far as combining the articles, I'm not too sold on that. The two series were completely seperate from each other until Looney Tunes went to color in 1942. --FuriousFreddy 14:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And when Bugs converted. --Wack'd About Wiki 19:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd missed that article. However, it obviously is not currently the studio history. While it's appropriate to have that entry, I don't think it's a good place for the main studio history to sit. Firstly, it's wouldn't a terribly encyclopeadic name for the article once it was expanded to have a much wider focus than the building and its significance. Secondly, it would entrench the incorrect perception that all the WB animation emerged from that building, when only limited number of the staff were there for a limited time. I think entries should stay for the LT & MM series that address the unique features of those series, with cross references to an article that was a comprehensive studio history. While unusual, I think "Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies" would be a good title to distinguish the larger article. (I wondered about "Warner Bros animation" or "Warner Bros cartoons" but that would throw in things like Animaniacs, Tiny Toons, and The Iron Giant that seem to belong in a different place again). Thoughts? --Cinephobia 09:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Termite Terrace article should, in that case, be moved to Warner Bros. Cartoons, Inc., which was the official name of that company after Leon Schlesinger sold it. The television cartoons (Tiny Toons, et al), should be discussed in an article called Warner Bros. Television Animation.

---

Reverted back to a previous version after some vandalism, but I forgot to label it as a revert. --Gangster Octopus 23:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I changed "Tweety Bird" back to "Tweety". The character name is always Tweety. "Tweety Bird" is occasionally used as a reference to Tweety's species (which is also just nominated as canary in some shorts).--Cinephobia 23:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. --FuriousFreddy 01:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tortus v/s Hare

Eh...Bugs and Cecil were together in da first episode of Looney Tunes, right, doc? Than why are they listed to have aired in different decades? I think you've got your Looney Tunes history a little messed up, huh, doc? --Wack'd About Wiki 14:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Neither Bugs nor Cecil Turtle appeared in the first "episode" of Looney Tunes. Looney Tunes is not a TV show; it was a series of cartoons produced to be shown in movie theatres before the main feature from 1930 to 1969. The first Looney Tune was produced in 1930, Bugs first appeared in 1938, and Cecil first appeared in 1941. IF your information about Tortoise vs. Hare being the "first epidoes" of Looney Tunes derices from this link: [1], you should be informed that the TV.com listing is not in chronological order by the films' actual release. Tortoise Beats Hare is approximately the 330th Warner Bros. short, nowhere near the first. --FuriousFreddy 02:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

and the animators had a sense of humor...

Just a note of interest; a close friend of mine was studying graphic design in the late '80s, and somehow ended up working on the colorization of the B&W Warner Brothers cartoons. He told me that, even in the "non-controversial" shorts, the animators snuck a lot of offenses past all of us, inserting a single cel that showed something the censors (& parents) wouldn't have liked. The example he gave was of a cel he found in which Elmer Fudd suddenly had a huge erect penis sticking out of his fly.

I know Disney used to do that from time to time (Remember The Rescuers recall from a few years back), but I didn't know they were doing the same sick stuff at Termite Terrace. 205.244.107.166 23:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And you still don't. That comment was added on 11/24/05 by a short-lived redlink user. I'm guessing he just felt like saying it. Wahkeenah 00:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The unsigned comment above made me wonder, though. I was just listening to John Kricfalusi during his audio commentary for the Bob Clampett masterpiece The Great Piggy Bank Robbery and noticed something. During the scene by Rod Scribner where Daffy Duck realizes his piggy bank has been stolen and then runs to the phone calling Duck Twacy (himself), John K. said something along the lines of: "Watch Daffy's beak here, especially. I'm not gonna say what it is, but you better watch it with the blinds down." What was that comment supposed to be about? The flamboyant and energetic animation by Rod Scribner of Daffy's beak always changing shape? Was it just an impulsive comment submerged in John K's humour? Or was it something else suggestive? -- JS,164.58.96.126 20:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

30s

We should group the 30s characters by whether they co-stared with Porky, Bosko, or Buddy.

No Chuck Jones, Mel Blanc, etc?

Shouldn't the animators and voice actors appear in this article (as well as in the Merrie Melodies article)? Am I missing something? 138.88.239.35 16:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes you did. Look at the umbrella article about the Warner cartoon studio, Termite Terrace. Steelbeard1 17:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ownership Section Incorrect

"WB was able to retain the rights to "Lady Play Your Mandolin" and the black-and-white Looney Tunes, even though they all fell into the public domain (WB holds the original film elements)--a majority of these public domain shorts has been released on many low-budget independent home video labels"

Can someone cite this? I don't think this is correct - only a relatively small portion of the Looney Tunes filmography is in the public domain, not "all". Jeff schiller 18:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Official site...

Should we remove it from the External Links section? It hasn't been working for a while, at least since yesterday when I first tried it. Abby724 04:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the greatest Loony Toon shows ever! --69.67.230.241 05:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Michigan J. Frog Multiple appearances

I recommend that MJF be footnoted as having only one appearance in Loony Toons (One Froggy Evening). I know he had that follow up cartoon in the '90s (not to mention the whole WB mascot thing), but so did a lot of the others regarded as one-timers on the list (I know I've seen Pete Puma make appearences). Agreed? --Happylobster 15:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Dubbed versions

The article doesn't seem to be clear enough about the dubbed versions. For example, it states, "These 'dubbed versions', which continue to be shown on cable and broadcast television to this day, are not representative of the original theatrical release versions of the 'Looney Tunes' and 'Merrie Melodies' shorts," but there is not enough information to understand what exactly makes these non-representative. I also don't think it's clear enough about what exactly is meant by "dubbed". - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I hate those dubbed versions. I wish they hadn't made those in the first place. I wish the cartoons went back to their original titles.

Website 404

http://www.bcdb.com/cartoons/Warner_Bros_/Looney_Tunes/index.html returns 404 to me. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 22:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Letterboxing?

Watching the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies cartoons on TV over the years, it always seemed the edges were cropped off a bit to fit the screen. Is that real or am I imagining it? If it's real, do the new DVD releases fix this with letterboxing, etc? --RevWaldo 21:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• They seem to be in about a 4:3 ratio, which I would think would be normal. I don't think these cartoons were made for Cinerama. Wahkeenah 00:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• If one looks closely, he can see that the image near the edges of some films has been cropped off. This may be due to the fact that the image of many Looney Tunes films has rounded corners, but I'm no professional and don't know the exact reason. For example, in the dubbed version of Wakiki Wabbit, when Bugs speaks in some kind of weird language, even though the image is made smaller so you can read the translation, part of the letters is cropped off. As for the ratio, it's standard 4:3 ratio - it's just that the image is a little too magnified.--Mégara (Мегъра) - D. Mavrov 15:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you're onto it. They might have sliced the edges to make them look better on the DVD. I was capturing a few frames from Bugs Bunny: Superstar and realized that some of them indeed had rounded corners. Why that would be, I don't know, but it suggests that the 4:3 aspect ratio was standard. Speaking of Wackiki Wabbit, any idea what they are getting at with that bogus wording "ofa enu maua te ofe popaa"? I read that as a heavily accented way of saying "often your Ma tees off Papa", which makes no sense in this context, but it might have meant something to the scriptwriters, or maybe it was yet another now-obscure radio catchphrase. Wahkeenah 17:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no idea about what Bugs says in that film. Many films from the 20s and the 30s have rounded corners, though. I saw this on a Charlie Chaplin film. --Mégara (Мегъра) - D. Mavrov 18:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Self-reference

"More about the controversial process of re-tracing and colorizing classic black and white animations in South Korea can be found at the Wikipedia Popeye page." I don't know how to reword this. Saying, "...can be found at Popeye" would sound awkward and confuse some people as to whether the article or cartoon should be referred. A see also template would not explain why the article should be seen. --Gray Porpoise 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The relevant information should probably be moved to colorization (or whatever other appropariate generic title) and this page (and Popeye) can link to that. — Amcaja 22:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Trivia Section AKA "Coins"

I don't agree with this piece of trivia being in this section. Even though the Canadian coins sound similar, their names have nothing else to do with Looney Tunes. I don't think sounding the same is enough of a connection to put into this trivia section.

Adamantius 13:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Adamantius Jan. 19th 2007

• It's a play on words: The loon (bird) vs. "looney" meaning "crazy" (a 'coined' adjective form of "lunatic" or "lunacy"). What, you don't think the Canadians were calling the loon-adorned dollar coin "crazy"? Wahkeenah 14:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Looney Tunes, though. The real play on words is the toonie- (Preceeding unsigned comment was added by Johnh123 on 02:29, 4 February 2007)

I deleted it yesterday and it was added again. I agree the real play on words is the toonie. It really has nothing to do with Looney Tunes though. A more relevant trivia is the 1st line of the theme song for Tiny Toons Adventures ("We're tiny, we're toony, we're all a little looney.") Besides, a "loony" has always been a lunatic [2], and has been in use since at least the 1860s, before Looney Tunes. The cartoons are wacky. That's the looney part. It has nothing to do with the Canadian coin at all. The coins were called loonies because of the loon on the back and because the switch from paper dollars was seen as crazy. The toonie is an extention of it - a Two-dollar loonie -- 12.116.162.162 17:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who deleted the trivia bit (I wasn't signed in at the time). I'd like to discuss to reach a consensus. -- Jwinters | Talk 21:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It has nothing to do with Looney Tunes. It is already in the loon article which is a better place for it. Steelbeard1 21:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

An edit war is developing with the irrelevant Canadian coin trivia. PLEASE STOP THAT!! Steelbeard1 15:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

When I removed it yesterday, I wrote in the edit summary to take it to the talk section to discuss the changes, since it seemed Wahkeenah and I weren't seeing eye to eye on the relevance. I've explained my reasoning above (I'm 12.116.162.162 above; I wasn't signed in). -- Jwinters | Talk 17:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message in Treg's talk page. As he is an administrator, I'm hoping he can end the edit war. Steelbeard1 17:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It said "coincidentally". I am mystified as to why you're so obsesses with this. Wahkeenah 19:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are obsessed with it. I merely came across this article randomly and removed the irrelevant information. You keep adding it, even though it has nothing to do with the article. Also, if it's such a coincidence that it needs to be included, then cite a source stating it's relevance to the article. -- Jwinters | Talk 19:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Not only is the information irrelavant, it's also misleading. A person coming to this page and going to the "coins" section might think there are Looney Tunes coins, or that Looney Tunes characters are on Canadian coins. Also, from Wikipedia:Relevance - "At times just because information is true and citable does not necessarily mean it meets the threshold for notability within a given article." -- Jwinters | Talk 19:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So why is it spelled "toonie" instead of "twonie"? Who gave it the name "toonie"? Find me a source for who named it, and you might convince me. Wahkeenah 00:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you telling me Canadians have never hear of the Looney Tunes? They aren't that culturally deprived, are they? Then there's the early Bugs Bunny song, "I'm so goofy, loonie-toonie, tetched in the head..." Wahkeenah 00:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that Daffy Duck sang that song. Also, if the toonie article can be trusted, it is sometimes spelled twonie. —tregoweth (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it the other way, if I go to this article and find no information about it, I'm free to form my own conclusion that there's a connection, as anyone might. It would be better to state it overtly, that it's a coincidence. Your obsession with suppressing this item leaves an information gap. Wahkeenah 02:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually "Happy Rabbit", Bugs' predecessor, sang the version I'm thinking of, in Hare-um Scare-um. Bugsy sang a variation in Easter Yeggs. It's also possible Daffy sang it, but I don't know where or when. Meanwhile, I would like to point out that a different editor, named "Wile E" something-or-other, entered that item, on January 16th. I left him a note asking him to weigh in, since I refuse to believe that there is no etymological connection until someone can tell me who, specifically came up with the name "toonie". Wahkeenah 02:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the original poster of that tidbit, who appears to have a special interest in coins, whether this is any more than a funny coincidence. Maybe he knows something I and/or y'all don't. Wahkeenah 03:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If you hunt for a specific origin for the word "toonie", you will be sorely disappointed. No one person came up with that word; it is slang which spread virally and extremely quickly. As a Canadian, I viewed this process firsthand. The term "toonie" was coined (no pun intended) as a minor variation on the term "loonie", which is why it is not commonly spelled "twonie". This mention of Canadian coinage should be removed from this article, because it is utterly irrelevant. I do greatly admire the Looney Tunes, or else I wouldn't have been reading this article, but I'm honestly offended to see loonies and toonies mentioned here. Their inclusion in this article implies that a significant piece of Canadian culture can be credited to an American cartoon. Even with the the word "coincidentally", the article retains this sense. Creaphis 06:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• You win, eh? Wahkeenah 02:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

DVD releases?

Why is there no mention of DVD releases? Jbluez27 22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Look in the "Ownership" section of the article which mention the Looney Tunes Golden Collection box sets. Steelbeard1 22:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Total Count?

Does anyone know the total number of cartoons made? --ToastyKen 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Censored 11 and the GC DVDs

I can remember watching a bonus feature on the Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 3 called "Fine Tooning: Restoring the Warner Bros. Cartoons" in which, I think, Jerry Beck stated--- "That is the goal.... To eventually bring all of the cartoons restored and on DVD, from the beginning to the end." Is he actually implying that the restoration team will remaster the infamous Censored Eleven shorts to DVD? If that is so, that will be a BIG step for Warner Bros., since they banned these "politically incorrect" cartoons from the public in 1967, and have actually STUCK TO IT! The only cartoons that I know are available in the public domain are the ones that I have actually seen: Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs, All this and Rabbit Stew, and Jungle Jitters. That remark makes me wonder. Does ANYBODY know if they intend to release the Censored Eleven to DVD? --- JS, 164.58.96.126 20:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comic books

Shouldn't there be some mention of the comic books, especially since once DC got the rights to the Warner characters they named their primary title in the line Looney Tunes? Ted Watson 19:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

On TV

Where can I still see this show on TV? Kimera Kat 18:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the Looney Tunes series was not necessarily a show; rather it was a series of animated shorts released theatrically from the 1930s to the 1960s. However, since the late 1950s the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies were in constant television syndication by way of such TV programs as The Bugs Bunny Show until 2000, when they were taken off ABC and Nickelodean and transferred to Cartoon Network. In early 2004, Cartoon Network discontinued showing the vast Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies programs on their network. Now the only channel where you can see the Warner cartoon characters is the nostalgic channel Boomerang, a spinoff of Cartoon Network. Also, on some occasions, you can catch the 1970s- and -80s Looney Tunes features, like The Looney Looney Looney Bugs Bunny Movie, on the HBO Family channels. --- JS, 156.110.47.73 19:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

After taking look at the Boomerang (TV channel article, I just realized that the Looney Tunes programming has basically vanished. Now, only Loonatics Unleashed and Baby Looney Tunes are still on the network, and they are only loosely based on the Looney Tunes characters. But, User:Kimera Kat, if you are seriously interested in watching the Looney Tunes, I would recommend you buy the Looney Tunes Golden Collection DVD box sets; each volume contains 60 restored shorts and hours of bonus features. The newest Golden Collection will come out October 30th--it is Volume 5. --- JS, 156.110.47.73 19:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait, can't I watch this on Youtube? Kimera Kat 20:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You know what, you're right! I completely forgot about the availability of these cartoons on the Internet. Yes, quite a few Looney Tunes are featured on YouTube, and MySpace.com, and the entire Internet itself, for that matter. Most of these cartoons are public domain, but here are some quick recommendations:

What's Opera, Doc?

Hare Ribbin'

Fresh Hare

Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs (Note: You may not have seen this cartoon before, because, as the title implies, the cartoon utilizes some dark iconography, black face, and "stereotyping"; thus this cartoon and ten others have been banned from television broadcast for the last forty years. See Censored Eleven.)

All this and Rabbit Stew (Same as above).

I hope you enjoy 'em! --- User:Cinemaniac 04:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User:WAVY 10 has informed me of two things:

1) The Bugs Bunny Show was, in fact, available on the Boomerang channel earlier this year, but disappeared by June.

2) TCM's Cartoon Alley often showcases classic Warner cartoons; however, though it usually appears every Saturday morning at 11:30 am, it hasn't been seen in that time slot for almost two months---having been temporarily replaced by a slew of Warren William's The Lone Wolf movies---and may (despite popular demand) not return for a 4th season. --- Cinemaniac 18:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

More detail needed

"New shorts have been produced and released sporadically for theaters since then, usually as promotional tie-ins with various family movies produced by Warner Bros. This lasted until 2004."

What happened in 2004? Was there a specific decision to stop making such shorts, or what? It needs to be explicitly stated (with references). 86.149.131.137 (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Production of new cartoons was discontinued because Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003) flopped at the box office. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a source/reference is needed on this:

The Colorization section states: "Looney Tunes were pulled from the airwaves in 2007." If this is true, it needs a reference, and it should be in the regular timeline section of the article. The whole article needs more references, but this particular point seems unlikely. Antmusic (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. I used to watch Looney Tunes on television. And in early 2007, when I went to that channel, I realized that Looney Tunes were pulled of air. Agtax 23:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Looney Tunes were pulled off Cartoon Network in early 2004, and were then moved to its Boomerang sister channel. Almost immediately, however, the Looney Tunes programming became sparse, until eventually the Looney Tunes all but vanished from the network. D'oh! Why, but WHY?! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Big expansion should be done

There's so much in the history and art of Looney Tunes that I think a collaborative project might be in order down the road, and certainly some additions in terms of who and what is influenced by the WB cartoons. Anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.27.3 (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Who was chuck Jones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.61.180 (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Censorship of music"

Can someone explain why censorship of music needs to be linked to in this article, as per an edit like this? First of all, there's no need for 30 words to be linked, that is definitely not standard per WP:MOS. But, more importantly, this is not censorship. This is a re-dubbed version per the article; this is majorly different than censorship. Can a valid reason be offered for keeping this link in? either way (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Cartoon Network

According to the timeline Looney Tunes is not shown on Cartoon Network or Boomerang but I see them quite frequently in Australia and watch Duck Dodgers almost every day on Boomerang. Could we get a rewrite that says that it's only in the US that it's not being shown? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.125.58 (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Television Broadcast History

Is this section necessary? 77.181.46.205 (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference needed for racial and ethnic caricatures, particularly Jewish

I think two of the sentences regarding negative Jewish stereotypes need a reference. First, the sentence that says "the Looney Tunes shorts were edited, removing scenes of ... racial and ethnic caricatures (particularly stereotypical portrayals of blacks, Mexicans, Jews, American Indians, Asians, and Germans as Nazis)" needs a reference. Later, there is a sentence that reads " because of the racial stereotypes of black people, Jews (especially in the earlier cartoons, despite the fact that the Warner brothers were Jewish)". I've searched the Internet, and I can find no evidence of any cartoons that were anti-semitic or have stereotyped Jewish characters. I think the references to Jewish stereotypes in Looney Tune cartoons should be removed unless there are examples of, and references to, specific cartoons and their depictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrencenathan (talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed reference to Jewish stereotypes as there is no reference available to prove this claim Lawrencenathan (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Major cleanup of networks aired section.

I had to cleanup a few things on the article's section:

• Removed the returning July 4, 2011 on Boomerang, as I found no evidence on this return.
• Removed Fox, and The WB as networks aired, as under this article, I didn't see any history of those two networks airing it. (I was surprised on The WB!!!)

The Man Who Needs No Introduction! (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, The WB had the Bugs 'N Daffy Show, my bad! The Man Who Needs No Introduction! (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Opening card

Wasn't the opening card at the very top of the article page also used in the early 1950s? Because I'm seeing a cartoon from 1951 and the card is the same, except for a red WB logo that looks like the on from Kids WB. 161.130.178.7 (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Run on sentence

The following sentence is ridiculously long. I'd edit it if I knew what it was supposed to be saying...

"There has been some success in returning these cartoons to the public; in 1999 all Speedy Gonzales cartoons were banned because of their alleged stereotyping of Mexicans, but because the level of stereotyping was minor compared to the World War II era cartoons as well as the protests of many Hispanics who said they were not offended and fondly remembered Speedy Gonzales cartoons from their youth, these shorts were made available for broadcast again in 2002."

—— Parsa (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I gave it a whack. —Tamfang (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Movie rumors

The citation for rumors of a future film following "Looney Tunes: Back in Action" leads only to the "Trivia" page on IMDb. Even if this were considered credible, nothing about future films is even mentioned in this section. 24.115.255.182 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You have a point, so I have removed the vague info. yonnie (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Split proposal

I see the Looney Tunes theatrical cartoons as a much different beast than the individual television series/films it spawned. The current Looney Tunes article is complicated and poorly constructed (section 2, Stereotypes, doesn't even apply to any Looney Tunes properties after 1969). I suggest we split the articles between the theatrical cartoons and the franchise, like Popeye and ‪Popeye the Sailor (animated cartoons)‬. That way it would be easier to discuss the creation of the theatrical cartoons in detail in its own article, as well as delve into the legacy of those individual cartoons…because as we all know, Space Jam and What's Opera, Doc? are two very separate productions. In the case that the two are split, I suggest combining the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies articles into one (under the title Looney Tunes, as that name is most well-known), because they were virtually indistinguishable past 1943. -- Thardin12 (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree the article still needs much work, but I don't think they need to be split up into separate articles. The Popeye article is about one specific character, just like the Bugs Bunny article. Also, merely mentioning the films and TV spinoffs is not inappropriate because they are directly based off the shorts, and each film and show has their own article, too. This article should be for the shorts AND the franchise in general, because the shorts are the main part of the franchise that every other piece of media is branched off from. There is also already categories for Category:Looney Tunes films, etc. Creating an article for them might be delving into Wikipedia:Fancruft territory. yonnie (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Redirects

Is there a reason why Porky and Teabiscuit redirects here instead of an article, if it has been created that is. Otherwise it should be a redlink or something. Deltasim (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Broadcast history section

Wow, that section is a mess. First, it's entirely unsourced. Second, it takes up way too much article space for what is at heart trivial information. Given the age and worldwide popularity of Looney Tunes this section could be stretched out forever. Also, it contradicts the guidelines set forth at MOS:TV in the Broadcast section. Basically, it needs to be sourced, it should only include English-language broadcasts (some exceptions are possible), and should be in prose form. I propose scrapping the entire section and if reliable sources can be found detailing the first time Looney Tunes appeared in other English-language broadcasts then that information could be included. Obviously this is a very bold edit which is why I'm hoping for other responses and to build a consensus before trashing such a large (bloated) section. SQGibbon (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have considered removing the section various times. I think it would make the article more cohesive. yonnie (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

One question...

What was the Looney Tune nobody liked? --123.2.142.50 (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Yes I know. we don't post forum questions on talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.142.50 (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)