Talk:Leave It to Beaver

message: I read that in the Philippines they call the show "Leave It To Iguana," because a beaver isn't common there. Any truth to that?
99.180.245.100 (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Leave It To Iguana

message: I know Wikipedia's not supposed to be for original research and independent fact checking, but although the story that the first episode's airing was held up because of its showing a toilet or portion thereof is properly referenced, it is not credible, and it originates long after the alleged fact and at a time when it would've made sense for interested parties to get publicity that would help DVD sales.  It doesn't really matter what the rumors said, just that they be enough to keep people talking about the show.
The production code numbers were out of order as the episodes aired, but so were many others, and it would be easy to make up stories about any of them to account for these apparent discrepancies.  Given how easy it is to find examples on network TV of toilets for many years preceding that episode -- for example, the first TV commercial for Ajax from 1947 -- let alone other bathroom fixtures, it simply strains credulity that network standards and practices would've had a problem with a toilet or its tank per se.
I'd delete the whole passage, but I don't know whether Wikipedia readers are about truth or would be just as satisfied with factoid, i.e. the fact that an allegation was made by a certain person at a certain time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.229.110 (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: The Toilet Rumor

message: The article is currently suffering from a serious bout of both past and present tenses, which makes for a poor read. Hopefully this can be corrected. - Dudesleeper /  Talk 21:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tenses 

message: Is it just me or has this article become disastrously overgrown with trivia? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Aaargh

message: Let's not bold actors' names in the "Characters and cast" sections. Bolding was done once before and removed. There are no examples in the TV shows Featured Articles (that I could find) for bolding actors' names nor is there any indication in the MOS for bolding actors' names. Discuss here! Thanks! MayfieldForever (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done in WP:MOSFILM. If you don't want bolding, then it should be removed from the character names as well. It looks odd to do it for one and not the other. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree – it looks neater to my eyes. - Dudesleeper /  Talk 09:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since I appear to be a minority of one in feeling that this is getting further and further away from a good article, I'll stop editing here. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolding of Actors' Names 

message: Beaver's given name is Theodore; "Beaver" is an obvious rhyming nickname. However, one doesn't have to have a particularly dirty mind to know what "beaver cleaver" actually means. Could the creators been that naive? I've never seen this seriously addressed.
I also remember them stating (though I have no reference) that one of the program's points was to show how adults and children misunderstand each other. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason Theodore was called 'Beaver' was revealed in the very last show.  When Theodore was brought home from the hospital as an infant, Wally was a young boy. He had problems pronouncing "Theodore."  It came out sounding like "Beaver", so over time, the nickname stuck.
Yes, according to Ward, when Wally said "Theodore" it came out "Tweedor"...and they thought "Beaver was better." 71.162.113.226 (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Beaver's name

message: article reads: The series finale, "Family Scrapbook" ... is regarded as being one of the first sitcom episodes written expressly as a series finale.[2]
I don't understand why you use such weaselly qualifications as "regarded as being" and "one of the first." What you should say is: "...is the first..." period. 
"Regarded" means most, but not all, people think so. So why do some people think it's not one of the first? 
And "one of the first"? Well, considering there were only 3 prime time finales in the entire decade of the 1960s (The Fugitive and The Prisoner being the others), yeah, Beaver is one of those, but it is also the first of those...do you know of one earlier? Howdy Doody was the first TV show of any kind with a finale, September 1960.  Why do you always have to be so unsure of things?   71.162.113.226 (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to know a lot, except that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. - Seasider53 (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  first finale 

message: Copyright was added and the page is gone, but no talk page here on the issue. I am sure the whole page is not a copyright problem. Please tell us what the problem is? What part? "Large amounts of content written by ILT socks". What part? All? Where was the text taken from ?Telecine Guy (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw the page was gone. I undid this because there is no basis for the removal of the page. You are correct the whole page is not copyright problem. If that is the case then the majority of pages on Wikipedia are in violation. Liam74656 (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

text: The editor should have cited the specific example(s) of copyright violation. Blanking out the entire article instead of the relevant part(s) also seems to be excessive. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

text: I just left a message on the talk page of the editor who blanked the article, asking them to please come to this talk page and point out the specific copyright violations(s). SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

text: The majority of the entire article's content was written in 2008 by , a sockpuppet of , the subject of a currently open CCI. WP:PDEL states the following:  – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 19:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your explanation. This presents quite a conumdrum about what we can do to fix the article. Do we look at the history edit by edit to see what's good and what's not? Or do we rewrite the entire article from scratch? Or some other possibility? For future reference, please always leave such a message on the talk page whenever you blank out such a large amount of content. Thank you. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

text: I propose at the very least we roll the page back to how it was before the first  edit. The first one I can find was by sockpuppet  on 7 December 2007‎. The article would obviously lose a TON of content, but I think anything would be better than this copyright template. Thoughts? BuckeyeSmithie (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

text: OK, I don't see any responses to my proposal 2 days ago, so I'm going to be bold and roll back the article to its last state before any  or  edits, which would be 20 October 2007. It pains me to obliterate 15 years of article improvements, but it's got to better than this big old copyright template. BuckeyeSmithie (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started work on improving the article from the 2007 version. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 16:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problem