Talk:Peanuts

message: The section on The Complete Peanuts needs updating. The series is now complete, after it was extended to 26 volumes rather than the announced 25 (the 26th collects various beyond-the-newspaper-strip Peanuts works by Schulz.) I will not do it myself, as I have a strong WP:COI (I led the group gathering pieces for vol. 26.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Complete Peanuts needs updating 

message: There is currently a statement in the text that, except for the run of golf strips, no adult figures were see in the strip. That might be accurate if we said "Schulz-drawn adult figures" (I'm not coming up with exceptions off the top of my head.) However, the veteran's day strip from 1998 merges an old Bill Mauldin Willie & Joe cartoon with some Peanuts content, and if memory serves at least one other Veteran's Day strip contained photo images of people. Oh, and the Washington Crossing The Delaware image on Dec 20, 1999 (don't look for that in the Complete Peanuts, they left out the image overlay that contained the figures. Peanuts 2000 has it.) I will not make the corrections myself due to my Peanuts COI. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Willie & Joe were by Mauldin, albeit not drawn freshly for the strip; Schulz recycled an old cartoon. And I reckon Peanuts 2000 would make as good a reference as anything. --Nat Gertler (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adult figures 

message: An editor just added a link to AAUGH.com to the external links section. As the owner/operator of that site, I have on obvious conflict of interest with regard to whether the site deserves to be on the list. However, I will suggest that linking to the front page of the site is likely not the best choice, as that is (at this point) primarily a sales page (I'm planning for that to change in the near future... but sometimes my plans don't come through.) I would instead suggest that the link, if it is to remain, be targeted at http://blog.AAUGH.com, which is the news-and-reviews page (in which case the text name for the link should be The Aaugh Blog); or possibly at http://AAUGH.com/guide/ , which is the Peanuts book collecting guide. But probably the former. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, a sales page isn't appropriate for linking, and I have removed it. We don't generally link to blogs either (WP:ELNO), although the community might make an exception here. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, now you've gotten my Wikipedia editorial detail brain going. The WP:ELNO on blogs "except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" Since there's a Wikipedia page about me that has survived deletion attempts, I specifically meet the bar set at the end of that. As for being a "recognized authority" on the subject, I've written three non-self-published books about Peanuts, won an Independent Book Publishers Assn award for one of them. My work on the topic has appeared in American Heritage and other magazines. My work has been cited in academic work and recommended as reading by the Schulz Museum. So yeah, I think a case could be made. But, as noted, this is not my decision to make. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. And the goal of EL is to give a small amount of very high-quality and useful links. This is one. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection from me, as long as the blog is run by a recognized authority (which I didn't know at the time I wrote my last comment). ~Anachronist (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. And please forgive me if I sounded dismissive above. Thanks,  as always. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  AAUGH.com 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Peanuts. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130609133717/http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2928607 to http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2928607
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The infobox currently lists three parties as each partial "publishers" of Peanuts. This is a misuse of the term; what is being listed are the owners of Peanuts (well, the owners of Peanuts Worldwide LLC, which owns Peanuts), and that's different from publishers. The conflation of owner and publisher s problematic in comics, where a long history of work-for-hire in the comic book business often left the owner and publisher as one and the same, but that is certainly not inherent. DHX does not publish comics. Creative Associates... well, I think they were technically the publishers of some digital editions at some point, but generally, no, that's not what they do. "Publisher" is a term that doesn't make much sense for a syndicated comic strip. Peanuts has been published in book form by many publishers, at any one given point even for American English editions has had multiple publishers pretty much at any time since the early 1960s. It would probably be best to simply do away with this field. Additionally, I'm not certain that Creative Associates owns the smaller portion; the press release on the Sony purchase says it's "members of the family of Charles M. Schulz". (I will not delete the field myself due to a Peanuts conflict of interest.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly think the reason why they’re listed as “Publishers” is that the Infobox it uses might not have “owner” listed. Luigitehplumber (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Which makes it a good reason to leave this all out. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publisher 

message: Back in December, Peanuts made a deal with apple to make new specials for apple tv+, is there any information on this, and can someone add it here?Chiz109 (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peanuts on Apple tv+ 

message: Heya all, earlier placed the pop culture template on top of the article. I'm concerned in particular with the bottom section Peanuts#Other_licensed_appearances_and_merchandise. A while ago (few years ago I think) I actually split up this section into retail, advertising... etc (yes, it was just a big wall of text) and vaguely hoped that was enough of a push for it to self-organised, but I don't think much has improved since. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a valid to have this section, but it seems a lot of the material written for it has very low quality citations or has none at all. This makes it particularly sensitive to capricious additions that aren't notable or vandalism possibly.
A good example to imitate would be The_Adventures_of_Tintin#Adaptations_and_memorabilia, which goes into appropriate detail into each aspect of how things have been adapted, rather that dwell on pieces of popular culture.
I don't intend to concertedly work on this issue soon, but if anyone would like to make manoeuvrers to address this issue it would be appreciated.
Thank youuuuuu ^_^ Derick1259 (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the template, the key section I mentioned (licensing and merch) is much better sourced now. Really appreciate those who helped and copy-edit along the way. Of course will continue working on this article, other sections need cleanup for different reasons. Derick1259 (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: Heya all. The section Television and film productions will be split into its own article, which will be titled Peanuts animated specials.  What will replace this section is a brief summary of Peanuts animated adaptations in general. This is a bold split, but inline with recommend procedure, I have developed in two sandboxes the replacement summary and the new article. The new article will largely retain the text that was in this section, with an infobox, but nonetheless will be a stub article which I'm sure many of you are keen to develop. The summary I've produced actually has more citations than the entire section I'm splitting out XD.
Speaking of citations, I've written this summary using shortened footnotes. In the future, I will be rewriting and restructuring the entire Peanuts article to use this citation style - this is a topic with significant literature in books and journals, so it will be appropriate. It will look unusual having this hybrid footnote style for a while, and as it happens this summary I wrote uses a fair amount of online resources, but it will be worth it.
Thank you. Derick1259 (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Complete, and introduced some basic structure changes to graft on the new section (they were, ultimately, adaptations). Old writing is now over at Peanuts animated specials for everyone to poke at. Derick1259 (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split of ''Television and film productions'' into its own article 

message: There has been undoings around a release date for Snoopy in Space, due to lack of a source. This should do (while it doesn't say November 1 of what year, obviously if you're saying it now, it's this year.) I will not add it myself due to my Peanuts COI. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Nat! I appreciate the tip, however I think it's not really appropriate right now to strain for a precise release date. Honestly, I expect it's only going to be like this for a week - maybe few days more? Also, kinda uncomfortable tacking in the Apple TV+ website as a source after spending a lot of time excruciatingly selecting only reliable secondary sources when I redid this section :P Again, I appreciate your offer to help. Derick1259 (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Then Deadline can also confirm the 2019 release (that's what was deleted the most recent time, just the year), although this would seem to be the sort of unboastful data that one can use official sources for. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually pretty awesome source, can actually outright replace (Lee 2019). Gives a date and a lucid description, good job. I apologise if I'm coming off as nitpicky about the selection of sources, I just feel it's important for this particular section of the article - where things need to be concise, accurate and quickly explained. Derick1259 (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Glad to be of help! --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A source for Snoopy in Space 

message: The page number of the Bang Li'l Folks book that covers the use of a dog and of Charlie Brown is page 5. (Although I will note that Li'l Folks was not a continuity strip but unrelated gag panels, and while the name "Charlie Brown" is used four times there, it is not drawn as the same character twice... although the last one, he's buried in the sand and could, I suppose, be any of the earlier three.) As usual, I have a Peanuts COI, not making the change itself, yadda yadda. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. Very speedy of you! Helpful as always. Per your remarks, I rephrased it a little to avoid suggesting there was any one character named "Charlie Brown". I hope it is clear from the get-go too, that Lil' Folks is NOT Peanuts: hope it is clear. I was careful to call it a "panel cartoon" rather than a comic strip. Moved it from the history section because it's not really in the scope of Peanuts history. Derick1259 (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bang book page number 

message: The show featured an audience of children who were seated in the "Peanuts Gallery", and were referred to as "Peanuts". - the name of the bleachers on Howdy Doody was the "peanut gallery", no "s". --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake >_> thank goodness Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Thanks Koavf for jumping on it. JAYFAX (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , Thanks to you and thanks to Nat. Here's looking forward to lots more improvements in the 2020s. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peanuts Gallery 

message: Currently, the characters section is unstructured and has zero citations. I am in the course of rewriting this section. I am pretty inspired by the characters section of The Adventures of Tintin, a Featured Article. I am imitating the basic structure of that, though going into more detail than that does. I am sourcing a lot of stuff from the books of Inge and Michaelis. Going to do big, high-level details of Charlie Brown and Snoopy, Linus and Lucy, and Peppermint Patty and Marcie, and breeze over some of the other supporting characters. I am working on it in my sandbox: User:JAYFAX/sandbox. I guess I'm announcing this because I'm coming to realise that this is going to take forever. I don't know if there's anyway someone can help me, or have access to good sources to write about the Peanuts characters. I don't mind if you wade into my sandbox with some nice additions. Yeah. JAYFAX (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting the 'Characters' section 

message: I have rewritten in the characters sections, with vastly more sourced material than before. I haven't actually finished rewriting it, but I'm becoming fatigued from working on this exclusively in my sandbox and I don't think it's good practice to hoard away this volume of writing from sunlight.
Immediate remarks I would like to make, since it is incomplete...
* ...yes, there bits that are half baked/not fully described/are just stubs. I'm putting faith in WP:EVENTUALISM here really.
* ...there are intentionally [citation needed] tags here and there, to remind myself bits I need to source/elucidate. Indeed, other people can help out here.
* ...there is still a lot of elucidate on in the supporting characters section.
General remarks about the this section:
* The structure imitates "Characters" section of The Adventures of Tintin
* I have struck a balance between dedicating a section per core-cast character vs having one section which describe them all in solid prose, by grouping them in logical couples (Charlie Brown and Snoopy, Linus and Lucy, Peppermint Patty and Marcie). Doing it per section is a bit unweildly and denies opportunity to identify a key relationship that define the character, but a wall of prose is just unreadable and can go in a million directions.
* In addition to the aforementioned core-cast characters, the "supporting characters" section adds two more distinctions of the notability of characters.
** The first part of this discusses characters who made regular appearances through the majority of the strip, but are not notable enough in reliable sources to have had dedicated a core-cast section for them (Sally through Woodstock).
** The second part is to quickly mention characters who had a significant role but only appeared for a short period of the strip. Shermy et al in  particular been demoted to this.
I am describing this all as a guidance for anyone who would like to also develop this section. I would be happy if anyone would! Copyedit it, etc. It's a long road to GA Status. JAYFAX (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Snoopy is the pet beagle of Charlie Brown." Well, for much of the run, probably. For the first decade, no, as this letter points out. And he didn't become a beagle for a fair while, he specifically denied being a beagle early on. (That's one problem in writing about Peanuts; it had half a century to be a moving target.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh boy, I thought that was a pretty uncontroversial detail haha. But you're right, per all the evidence. You have caused me to find a nearby page in Michaelis' book to cite that briefly touches upon Snoopy's status of beaglehood. I've dropped any detail referencing his ownership: it's easier that way for now, and it isn't really a priority for a section that primarily deals with inherent character descriptions. Thanks. JAYFAX (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrote the characters section 

message: A recent edit has left the article saying that Peanuts was first animated for the unreleased documentary A Boy Named Charlie Brown in 1963. However, that is not true; they'd been animated years earlier as part of The Tennessee Ernie Ford Show. The documentary was neither the first time they were animated, nor was it the first time it was a full-length animation, as most of the documentary was not animated. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ,  Thanks as always. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peanuts introduced into animation 

message: The statement about A Boy Named Charlie Brown (1963 film) (hey, there's a wikilink to add! And hey, the sourcing I mention here should be added to that article as well) having been produced in 1963 but not sold can be source to A Charlie Brown Christmas: The Making of a Tradition by Lee Mendelson, 2000, p. 11-14. That it's been produced and for sale at the Schulz Museum can be sourced to https://shop.schulzmuseum.org/Products/ABoyNamedCharlieBrownDVD.aspx?skuid=1000401 (yeah, a sales page, not everyone's favorite source. I'm waking up and don't feel like digging further at the moment. The piece about the Jazz Impressions album based on the documentary can be sourced to this reference swiped for the article on the album:  --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ok - did you do the citations? Appreciate the notice, but this isn't really something you bring to talk since you seem to be able to manage it on your own. Ckruschke (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a conflict of interest when it comes to Peanuts and therefor avoid editing Peanuts articles directly. So yes, it is something that I bring to Talk. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

text: I've had a very very very hectic past few days (pandemic related) so apologies I've left you hanging. Will first say: that Mendelson source sounds great, will go ahead and put it in the article. The other two things I'm not too sure about, and actually it's not because of the quality of the sources  but rather I don't know whether there should even be a trivia section. It could have been my call to delete it when  added it, but wasn't sure if that it would be good judgement at the time, so I just added cn tags and left it to think about for another time. So I'm just refraining from touching that section for bit. Thank you Nat for that Mendelson source though. JAYFAX (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations provided 

message: I removed the patently false claim that Peanuts is "the longest story ever told by one human being." It's just a glib line with nothing backing it up. The source of the line goes on to suggest that Peanuts was "longer than any epic poem," but at 18,250 strips, it's at most only half the length of the Shahnama (an epic poem of 50,000 couplets), for example. -Ishtirak (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A picture is worth a thousand words. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

text: , It's not "obviously untrue" and for what it's worth, there are 17,897 proper strips with a lot of miscellany. It's reliably-sourced information. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

text: It was a comment made by Prof. Robert Thompson (Syracuse University, studied popular culture) https://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/14/arts/charles-m-schulz-peanuts-creator-dies-at-77.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm "longer than any epic poem, any Tolstoy novel, any Wagner opera." It really is among the longest works ever produced. I've been considering rewriting the lead a few times, but that's the one sentence I'm certain I'd KEEP because it elegantly establishes the notability of the subject. JAYFAX (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Even if we count the length of the "longest story ever told" in terms of the number of cartoons drawn by a cartoonist, I would think that by now, Peanuts has been overtaken by Doonesbury, which started in 1970 and is still running. SchnitteUK (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: But as you'll see at Doonesbury, Trudeau took off 22 months in the 1980s, and stopped doing dailies in 2013, leaving him with possibly a few more Sundays then Peanuts (I'd have to do the math, but neither strip started with a Sunday) but a lot fewer dailies (roughly, Peanuts has 49 years of them, Doonesbury 41.) Also, we get into the "single human being" aspect, as Schulz did not have an inker/finisher the way Trudeau has. (We can argue whether a colorist should count to the effort, but black-and-white Sunday Peanuts are just fine examples of Peanuts, as the Complete Peanuts demonstrates.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest story ever told by one human being 

message: - the most obvious problem with this is that not only was Violet not a core character in 1950, but, as we note later in the article, she didn't appear at all, but premiered in 1951. The other is that none of the characters listed as examples only made short appearances. Shermy was still having speaking parts at times as late as 1969, and Patty and Violet can still be seen occasionally appearing in the late 1990s. They may have been eclipsed as core characters by the Van Pelts, but we're not exactly talking the short runs of Charlotte Braun or Tapioca Pudding, so these three make poor examples of characters that only made only short appearances. (Where it my essay, I'd just add to the first sentence  "...the strip's duration, or faded out of prominence.") Please note: I have a strong Peanuts COI, and will not be making these edits myself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned it up a bit, and merged in a sentence from Frieda's entry at List of Peanuts characters. - jc37 13:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  This wording is off 

message: An IP editor recently changed the date of Woodstock's first appearance, and was reverted by  with the edit summary "Rv date fuckery".
I just wanted to note that this is not "fuckery". While there are sources that give the April 1967 date, as I've previously noted at
Talk:Woodstock_(Peanuts)#First_appearance_date_is_controversial, the earlier date is sourcable and likely correct. I am not going to be editing in the details and sources myself, both because I'm retired from article editing (and most commenting, this is just something I am multiply involved in -- although before anyone suggests it, no, I was not that IP editor), and because there is a strong conflict of interest, as the most obvious source to use is one that I wrote. I just don't like seeing someone unfairly accused. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I just see a LOT of IP editors making driveby date changes; there's even a page for the phenomenon as it relates to kids' TV articles and it's called WP:KIDSTVDATES. hard to tell what's real and what's not when these IPs give no source, no edit summary, etc. wizzito | say hello! 04:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe me, I understand; I used to spend a lot of time fighting that very phenomenon. Thanks for the attentiveness; we all get it wrong sometimes. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woodstock date 

message: Among the sources cited here is an article by my wife, Renee Tawa.  For some inexplicable reason, her name appears here as "Reta"
I am not attaching anything since the source is linked.  However, for reasons I cannot begin to explain, her name is misspelled on the LAT page as "Rene"--which is a man's name.  Her name is Renee.
Tawa, Reta (December 25, 2014). "Beloved 'Peanuts' creator Charles Schulz is mourned worldwide". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 25, 2020.
David Gordon2600:1702:31B0:D700:7198:A7A2:C0B5:1AEB (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: by someone else ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  And now how do I go about getting her name corrected from Rene to Renee? 2600:1702:31B0:D700:7198:A7A2:C0B5:1AEB (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Swapped it to "Rene." Unfortunately, as this LA Times piece credits the author as "Rene", I don't think we can correct it further than that for now. You/your wife could speak to someone at the Times and after they correct it on their end, drop a new request and we can fix it. You might also want to google search for "LA Times 'Rene Tawa'" as there appear to be a few other pieces where she is miscredited, and have them fix those too while they're at it. Cannolis (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does appear that a handful of articles have the error.  However, if you search under the proper spelling, you'll find hundreds with the correct spelling. 2600:1702:31B0:D700:7198:A7A2:C0B5:1AEB (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not doubting your claim, was just pointing out that if you were going to have the Times fix their spelling on her Peanuts article you may as well have them fix these other instances as well. Cannolis (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that here we could go by the attitude of WP:QUOTE, which says that "Trivial spelling or typographical errors that do not affect the intended meaning may be silently corrected." It would be rather wild to assume that the LAT has employed the services of both a Rene Tawa and a Renee Tawa, much less that the latter is making an effort to steal the credits of the former. (However, if you feel this is a violation of the source, a compromise might be to credit "R. Tawa", which would be Not Wrong.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving to "R. Tawa" would probably be safest, though I'm not strongly opposed to going with Renee either. Obviously the best situation would be if the LAT would correct it on their end but perhaps that is a more difficult process. Cannolis (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022 

message: I am not going to make any changes myself, because of my Peanuts WP:COI, but it seems to me that the final paragraph has snowballed into a mess of oddly-picked details that don't fit with the bigger picture sensibility that an intro should have.
Going sentence by sentence:
* Peanuts achieved considerable success with its television specials, several of which, including A Charlie Brown Christmas and It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown, won or were nominated for Emmy Awards.
First off, it should probably be "has achieved", as new Peanuts specials continue to be produced. Secondly, it seems odd to highlight Great Pumpkin here, as it did not win an Emmy, when there are other specials (such as A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving) which did. Perhaps better something to the effect of "Peanuts has achieved considerable success with its television specials. The first special, A Charlie Brown Christmas, won an Emmy, and subsequent specials have won four more Emmys, from a total of over 30 nominations. (The five-emmys-and-over-thirty-noms figure can be cited to the book Charles M. Schulz: The Art and Life of the Peanuts Creator in 100 Objects, cowritten by Benjamin L. Clark and myself, published by The Charles M. Schulz Museum and Research Center, 2022, page 140.
* The Peanuts holiday specials remain popular and had been broadcast on network television for over 50 years before moving to the Apple TV+ streaming service in 2020. 
It seems unbalanced not to mention its network home of more than three decades and the next network home of two decades but to name the corporate host of three years. Possibly "The Peanuts holiday specials remain popular, having been regularly broadcast on  commercial television networks for over 50 years before moving to streaming in 2020. 
* In addition, the specials occasionally reran on PBS and PBS Kids from 2020 to 2021, as PBS and Apple TV+ could not renew the agreement for 2022. 
This is just a picky level of detail that has no space in the introduction. We're not going into the array of other ways the specials have been used (various home video media, cable networks running less-known specials, Viewmaster reels, etc.), not to mention the dubious accuracy of saying that they "could not" renew the contract when they merely did not. This whole sentence should be given the ol' Charlotte Braun ax.
* Peanuts also had successful adaptations in theatre, with the stage musical You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown an oft-performed production.
I'm not sure how we measure "success" in theater -- it's a term that applies to You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown almost no matter how you define it, but more dubiously to Snoopy: The Musical, and definition-dependebtly to the recent A Charlie Brown Christmas stagings. 
*In 2013, TV Guide ranked the Peanuts television specials the fourth-greatest TV cartoon of all time. 
So we've bounced from the animated specials to theater and then back again?
*A computer-animated feature film based on the comic produced by Blue Sky Studios and 20th Century Fox (both now subsidiaries of Disney) was released in 2015.
Picking one of five feature films and then going into detail on the subsequent ownership history of its production companies seems odd and a matter of recentism. For those last three sentences, bop the TV Guide sentence to the top of that batch, and maybe combine the other two into "Peanuts has been successfully adapted into both motion pictures (with five animated feature films released between 1969 and 2015) and theatre (with the notable success of the musical You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown).
I've said my piece, and shall leave it to others to decide if my suggestions are worth implementing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally agree. I would go further actually and add that, for an article about a newspaper comic strip, the animations have been given far too much weight in the lead. It should probably be summarised to once sentence. I have been meaning to rewrite the lead for a while now, but I made it a matter of principle that I would rewrite the body of the article first — which I mostly did actually, if anyone remembers t(hat's why the article is half harvard citation format :P). Anyway, I suppose I'll have a jab at it. JAYFAX (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messy intro paragraph 

message: The article currently claims that "Peanuts" focuses entirely on a social circle of young children, which doesn't explain the many, many strips that are just Snoopy and Woodstock, or Spike and cacti. I suggest removing the "entirely". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @NatGertler: I agree, and have made the change accordingly. BTW, congrats on the Eisner Award! :) –FlyingAce✈hello 17:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for both! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus 

message: We need to add a list of the Peanuts video games! It would go great in the Adaptions section of the Peanuts page. 74.132.203.31 (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is a list of Peanuts video games in the article Peanuts filmography. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Games 

message: Since we make a point of "In 2016, the 31-year licensing relationship with MetLife ended", it may be worth noting that relationship resumed in 2023, albeit on a more limited basis. (just for their pet insurance.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: (doing now). Heads up that your link is malformed. Great call as always, NG. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  MetLife 

message: I've known and seen a lot of people call Peanuts just the Charlie Brown or Snoopy comic strip but I don't really have many sources proving this. Am I wrong, and even if I had sources would I be able to add this SpriteSens (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct and it should be added if you have a citation. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peanuts name sometimes called just Charlie Brown or Snoopy 

message: You added a comment that Schulz did not see his final Peanuts strip published. This is not the case, as some papers still at the time distributed the non-news sections of their Sunday paper on Saturday. Schulz was, I am told, shown a copy from one such paper before his death. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schulz lived to see final Peanuts strip 

message: This edit replaced the descriptor of Franklin-suggester Harriet Glickman as "white" with "Jewish", and with good reason, as her Jewish background was indeed a motivator for her. However, the fact that she was white (or at least not Black) is important to the dynamics of the tale... and despite what people may assume, there are indeed Black Jews in America, so saying she's Jewish does not erase that.
I was a friend of Harriet's and will not be restoring the information that she was white due to WP:COI reasons, but I ask that others consider the case above and, if they deem it proper, add "white". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As the one who made the edit, I agree with your assessment and out of respect I agree with the request and will follow through. Though the discussion of whether or not Jewish people are white is a very long one. 142.162.246.88 (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, believe me, I understand (there's a reason I tend to describe myself as a "pale Jew".) But there is enough sourcing on it to apply for the aspects of this case. Thank you for making the edit. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

text: As someone is currently trying to erase both "white" and "Jewish" from her descriptor in the article, let me note that the "white" is covered in the existing source, and "Jewish" can be sourced to this. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Care to explain why you are seeking to erase this information? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I don't think there is cause to remove that information, nor should it be. She was Jewish and she was white. As mentioned by Ms. Gertler, who knew her personally, Glickman preferred to call herself Just that. As well, stating that another outside website has her being Jewish has no bearing on Wikipedia. You can use that website as a citation for the information, but not to remove it. It is absolutely necessary to the story. 142.162.246.88 (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Gertler. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, Mr. Gertler. 142.162.246.88 (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glickman's ethnicity