Talk:Peanuts/Archive 1

message: Calvin and Hobbes was recently a featured article on the main page, and I was very impressed. Surely Peanuts deserves equal or better treatment! I'm already involved in another project to bring an article (Seattle) up to featured article status, so I could only help out here a little bit, I'm afraid.
--Lukobe 21:13, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am thinking about redoing the article.  You're right, there's a LOT that can be covered and we should consider making it at least as robust as the C&H article--JohnRTroy 21:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article 

message: Hello.
Has anyone an idea when the next volume of the  The Complete Peanuts: series will come out? And how many years will pass before all the volumes are published?
According to http://www.fantagraphics.com/peanuts/peanuts.html, Volume 2 comes out this October. There will be two volumes each year, covering two years each. Since Peanuts ran for about 50 years, the last volume should come out sometime in 2016? --Lukobe 05:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Complete Peanuts: 

message: Somebody should add that in the movies & TV things that you can never understand what the adults are saying. It always sounds like "Wah-wah wah wahwah." and things like that.
:In the comics, I think you never see an adult person in character, and never see them actually saying something. You just see the children responding to adults supposedly saying something to them.
::There's a very early one where you "hear" Charlie Brown being called to dinner by his mother. But since that time, I think the most extreme is that the peanuts sometimes repeat a question they are asked, before answering it. Aliter 14:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that adults never appeared in the strip; Schulz said this is why they never appeared in the TV shows.  Paul Klenk 13:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a Sunday strip where Lucy is golfing and adults DO appear as part of the crowd. And there were adults in a few cartoons/movies that were more than just the "wah-wah wah" (but I don't remember now if that was a trumpet or trombone). The posthumous Pied Piper TV special featured adults, and so did Bon Voyage Charlie Brown. --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Trombone. --JohnDBuell | Talk 17:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 1953 - the infamous "golf tornament" incident. --Wack'd About Wiki 16:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adults? 

message: As far as I know, we didn't see the birds of the early sixties speak at all. They moved their wings asif talking with their hands, and at best you'd read "gripe gripe gripe gripe". Later, young birds would sometimes go "squeek"or "phew". But in one story line in the late sixties Snoopy had a young bird as a secretary, that showed most characteristics of Woodstock. As a secretary, it spoke in punctuation. It only spoke in something like three images, though. Aliter 14:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just completed a month of reading all the archived strips at comics.com--I have a membership.  Birds spoke with hash marks and punctuation as early as 1962, if not earlier.  The birds were present a lot in the 1960's--they evolved from being penguin like and heavy beaked to the typical "Woodstock" type bird.  (JRT)
You're right, I think. I knew there were quite a bit of birds in Peanuts in the sixties, but now I did find some earlier birds speaking. The heavier build birds, I'd say were grown-ups, while the Woodstock-types are chicks. There's a 1963 story-line, I think, with a pair of hash-mark-speaking birds building a nest on the dog-house, where you can see the difference, though like all characters they've evolved. Then again: when those(?) birds are first introduced, they are in love, and the only thing said is a ♥-character (heart). Is that text of punctuation? Aliter 10:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe emanata. 81.232.72.53 18:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birds 

message: Do we need to keep the Peanuts#Peanuts characters section?  There's already a Peanuts characters category, and a much better description in Peanuts#Cast.  And despite the line about being for major characters, it lists characters like Roy (Peanuts), who is described as minor in the character's article.  The only thing it seems to add is (possibly) the chronology of first appearances, but if this is reason to keep it, I'd strongly argue that dates of first appearance should be added. --Misterwindupbird 03:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody has stepped up to defend the section, I'm removing it and replacing it with a link to :Category:Peanuts characters. --Misterwindupbird 18:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters Section 

message: Schulz surely did NOT work in Santa Rosa for fifty years, as claimed in the introduction. He was living and working in Sebastopol at the time A Charlie Brown Christmas was made (mid-1960s) and I think he moved to Santa Rosa in the late 1960s. There was also a very brief time that he lived in Colorado, the famous nursery wall, now housed at the CMS Museum, comes from his home there! --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bio information corrected both here and in the Charles M. Schulz page. --JohnDBuell | Talk 17:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santa Rosa 

message: Does anyone have any idea what this is? Or what Comerica City is? See also the contributions of User:Gerald15 . Thanks. Kappa 19:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alex Elementary School (Comerica City) 

message: Was the name of the Stupid Cat Next Door World War II, or World War III? - Aerobird 03:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All I know is that Frieda had a cat named Faron. JaredW! 11:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Faron was the "boneless cat"; the Stupid Cat Who Lives Next Door was the one who kept slashing Snoopy's doghouse. - Aerobird 15:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The memory still haunts a retired pilot, huh?... 惑乱 分からん 13:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Stupid Cat Next Door 

message: Someone had removed the "History" section, which I was going to revert when I realised why it had been changed: The article was getting too long. I moved it to History of Peanuts, leaving the basics of its history in this article. Rockhopper10r 16:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: Despite its historical significance, Peanuts is not looked positively upon most members of the younger generation (admittedly hard to document) largely as a result of the crappiness of the later strips and reruns which are all we've seen in our lives, and being force-fed numerous holiday specials over the years. I've read old Peanuts, and they're great, but what's in papers now is symbolic of the trash that modern newspaper comics have become (although not as much so as Family Circus). Is there a way to document this modern distaste for the comics in an NPOV fashion. I admit I'm biased, but I'm far from the only person who feels this way.
:I don't believe it's necessary to mention that at all. It sounds like this is your opinion--and that of many other people I'm sure--which is a valid opinion and one everyone should respect, but it does not belong in an encyclopedia article. I'm sure there are many other younger people who are very fond of "Peanuts", but that doesn't belong here either.Rockhopper10r 02:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Currency Among Young People

message: Another editor has flagged Romantic relationships in Peanuts for merger into this article. I could not agree more. The "sub-article" really doesn't add much to this and is somewhat conjecture. In fact, I don't think it adds much more than what is already in this article. Whatever scintilla of information in the other article that can be salvaged should be moved here; otherwise, the other article is ripe for an AfD nomination. Agent 86 20:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of Romantic relationships in Peanuts 

message: I got an email from Fastweb [Fastweb.com], today (They organize and find scholarships
for students, as well as weekly/monthly quizes to win cash (Which
help promote thier sponsers, who help run the site) ), and the 
email was about an "Oktoberfest" Quiz,
On this quiz, The question was: What year did Peanuts Debut?
Fastweb listed the date as Oct.2, 1950, whereas this
Wiki entry lists it as one year earlier, 1949.
From the Site:
"Peanuts appeared in seven newspapers on October 2nd, 1950. The original title for the comic strip was Lil' Folks, but the name was changed to Peanuts before its debut. Charles Schultz never liked the new name. "
Now, is it just a case of Technicality or did the Wiki Article not elaborate enough? Or did they/the Wiki not count the earlier "Lil' Folk" run as part of Peanuts?
Just a small curicosity that came up.
Shinra 00:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's 1950. I've changed it from 1949 in the article. --Lukobe 01:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peanuts Debut Date Error? 

message: The site http://www.snoopy.com/comics/peanuts/news/news_101303.html contains a paragraph that seems to be an exact replica of the third paragraph of the "Legacy, Influence, and Critical Acclaim" section of the Peanuts article. I don't know which one was written first, but I think that someone should change the wording of the paragraph anyway. In fact, I'll change it right now, but I still think that you should all be aware of it. Steveo2 11:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further investigation has revealed that Jalabi99 added the paragraph after it appeared in Snoopy.com. Just in case anybody really cares. Steveo2 19:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism? 

message: 64.131.196.248 05:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The character's name is a reference to Charlie Brown. What do you need to have explained? --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 07:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kite Man edit

message: Substituted at 15:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment