Talk:Bugs Bunny/Archive 3

Infobox

In my attempt to rectify contradictions between the "Voiced By" segment of the infobox and the "voice actors" section of the article, I inserted breaks between a lot of the names so that they wouldn't look so cluttered together. Unfortunately, it looks like that really messed up the infobox, as none of the rest of the information from below the "Voiced By" segment will show. Can somebody fix this? I would, but I think I've caused enough damage already. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 05:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

LonelyMarble helped out by cleaning up the infobox some more, as well as providing general cleanup to the article over all. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Bugs' Bunny" dispute

After saying for a long time that the drawing that gave the rabbit his name from the label ascribing the character's effective possession to Ben "Bugs" Hardaway was drawn by Charlie Thorsen, the article now attributes it to Ben himself. However, I just checked the two references, and while the "bugshardawayblogspot" (note 5) does say this, it doesn't strike me as a very good source. The Britannica article (note 6), on the other hand, doesn't actually say this, but is wide open to interpretation as ascribing mere ownership of the drawing per se to Hardaway, which is consistent with other accounts that Thorsen drew it for him. It does state that the note was put on it by an otherwise unidentified "fellow employee" and that it was just a sketch, not a model sheet, and that that was done by Robert McKimson. This is in direct contradiction to many good sources that say it was a model sheet, even though some of those fail to identify Thorsen as its artist. I dispute that these constitute sufficient grounds for attributing the drawing itself to Hardaway here, given the sources that back up the other version. Other opinions?

One other thing: the presence of other reference citations within a quotation strikes me as downright weird. The idea, I suppose, is to present corroboration for the statement quoted, but it is not the quoted person's claimed source, after all, and that is what is implied. Ted Watson (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the quotation confusion. Seattlechef had broken up a continous quotation with the information he added. I fixed it, you can check the last couple of edits in the edit history. As for whether the drawing was attributed to Hardaway or Thorsen or whoever I have no opinion on that because I have no idea, I'm not an expert on this topic. I have simply been trying to be the mediator because Seattlechef has readded this information a number of times. After looking at the Encyclopedia Brittanica source it does seem to imply it was Hardaway's "casual sketch" or drawing but I understand what you are saying as well. I was simply being a mediator and I have no opinion on the matter, hopefully Seattlechef will discuss his reasons for changing this here. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I now see that it wasn't intended for all of that to be part of the quote. Clear now. Ted Watson (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said in a previous discussion, it was Charlie Thorson who drew the model sheet for Bugs Hardaway and labeled it "Bug's Bunny". How this got by me, I don't know. A brief wikibreak would probably be the best solution for me. :) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is Happy Rabbit back?

We had a long discussion awhile back (both right here and on Cinemaniac's talk page that culminated in the removal of an article titled "Happy Rabbit" and adding passages here and in his own article that Mel Blanc's claim in his later years that the early Bugs Bunny was a character of that name in his own right appeared to be his personal invention. That passage (the one here only, not the one in Mel B.) has been deleted and a new Happy Rabbit article posted. What should we do about this? Ted Watson (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Until someone messes with it again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work! I apologize for not being able to participate in this latest revision; I've been rather busy in this week, and will remain so until the coming weekend. I see that you two are doing more than a fine job without my assistance, though. :-) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Possessive of Bugs is Bugs's

Not wanting to engage in a revert war with Baseball Bugs, I note that, first of all, while I included a reference to a respected style manual ("Strunk & White", proper title The Elements of Style) in my revision comments, the only thing "Baseball Bugs" had to say was the bald, unsourced assertion "(No, it's not correct. The s followed by apostrophe, with no trailing s, is correct.)".

I retort with the following reference from the WP:MOS: Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound

I appeal to the broader public to decide that I'm right about this. ;-) --Davecampbell (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

When a word ends in s, the possessive form is s'. The extra trailing s is not proper. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sez you - but while I provide citations for my position, you provide only the bare assertion. Not good enough. --Davecampbell (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's one citation: The official title of one of the cartoons: Bugs' Bonnets. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on the subject - Apostrophe - neither vindicates nor refutes either of us. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The real solution, though, would be to replace Bugs' with Bugs Bunny's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before, does any of this really matter? I mean, neither "Bugs'" nor "Bugs's" is actually incorrect. I think either would work, just as long as it's used consistently. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the usage in English is inconsistent, the best source would be the owner of the character, which is WB. The DVDs and the cartoon titles seem to consistently exclude the trailing "s": Bugs' Bonnets, "Chuck Jones' Wabbit Season Trilogy", Gonzales' Tamales, and "Unsung Maestros: A Directors' Tribute". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, the title of a work—expecially of such a comedy short, cartoon or otherwise—is not good support of what is and isn't proper conjugation or whatever (and certainly not in the face of what Davecampbell had already cited). For example, there was a 1950s series starring comic actor Charlie Ruggles, about his (fictional) family, titled The Ruggles. Properly, it should have been The Ruggleses! Ted Watson (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Redundant wikilinks

I was reading this interesting article (which for me, means copy-editing it as well :), and I notice that there's quite a bit of redundant wikilinking herein. Now, WP:MOS says we only link the first instance of a term, but I've got a simple head code (any schoolboy could catch it, Flotsam!) and don't feel like doing it. Maybe somebody who cares about this article might want to go through and remove all the linked terms like Chuck Jones, which seems to be linked on every single appearance (even as simply Jones). Or maybe nobody will do this. I doubt I'll ever notice. :D Nice article, btw, wtg folx. Thanks! Eaglizard (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, User:Baseball Bugs reverted my copy-edits for something to do with vandalism? Or was it more a sense of ownership? I don't care. Most editors seem to find my CE's an improvement, but I'll just leave your article alone, if you like. C'est la vie. Eaglizard (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you made changes and ignored the vandalisms from the IP address immediately before. Feel free to add back your appropriate changes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My fried, reverting someone's useful edits is not the proper way to deal with vandalism; it just increases the vandal's damage circumference. Telling me I'm free to fix your mistake isn't very helpful, either. Feel free to appropriately deal with the vandalism and improve the article by reincorporating my copy-editing. Or don't. I won't do it; not out of spite, but simply because I just don't feel like it. Eaglizard (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make any mistake, you did. In general, you need to exercise due diligence, i.e. to check for recent vandalism in an article before adding new stuff, especially when the previous edit was made by an IP or a red-link user. If you care about your new stuff, you can add it back. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, BB, you're wrong. It's not my responsibility to 'exercise due diligence' -- at least, not of the sort you describe. You just made that up, friend. In fact, WP Policy specifically says you bear the burden of not removing valid edits made in the interregnum, whilst removing vandalism. In general, it's your responsibility to (pro)actively avoid reverting good edits (and I assume you don't argue that mine were good, since you haven't argued such). Anyways. Notice how your approach has utterly failed to improve the article one whit? No, I bet you haven't noticed. Well, it's not like I didn't try. It is like I don't care, tho. Enjoy your article, m8. Eaglizard (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Where you say you don't care, I do believe that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

June Bugs

Will it be shown this year? When and why did they stop showing it? Wikifan4 (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Cartoon Network stopped showing Looney Tunes-related programming in early 2004 — which also caught me by suprise, I must admit. I think, until 2005, Duck Dodgers was being shown regularly, but then it was moved to CN's sister channel Boomerang — so now there's just Baby Looney Tunes. I wouldn't even suggest you take a look at Boomerang, either, since almost all of its LT programming has all but vanished, too. But Duck Dodgers still appears on that channel, though, the last time I watched it. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 00:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about, the last time I saw the "June Bugs" marathon was in 2002, if I recall correctly. Bummer. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 00:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps you should check out Boomerang, since its Wikipedia page claims that "June Bugs" has ocassionally been featured on that channel. I would myself, but it's not a mainstream channel, and I can never seem to catch it when it is momentarily available on my TV. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 00:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Cinemaniac, an off topic comment but, the reason Wikipedia links full dates like January 1, 2008 is that if you go to "my preferences -> Date and time" you can set the way linked dates show so that it could show "1 January 2008" or "2008-01-01", etc., instead of the default way in the article. I just mention this because this is the only reason dates are linked, which is why linking singular years like you did in your replies above (which won't format for preferences) is discouraged unless context specifically warrants it. If you already knew this I apologize but I just wanted to let you know why certain dates are linked and others are not. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't know that beforehand; thanks for telling me, LM. : )

And thanks for your work on this article! d:) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 00:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Project Mammals?

Is the inclusion of this article in Project Mammals a joke/vandalism? 206.53.197.12 (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's probably just an idiot bot program, like the one that included Wrigley Field in WP:FOOD. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Joke, vandalism, or idot 'bot. I removed the tag. SlowJog (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to intro

Will someone who is capable of reverting several edits at once please revert the intro? There have been several ill-advised (to put it mildly) edits there (except for Eeekster's removal of a period) that really need to be reverted, but I'd have to undo them one at a time. Please somebody! --Ted Watson (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on what I can see, it looks like that problem's already been handled effectively. Sorry I couldn't help out here, but it's been taken care of, Ted. ;-) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 01:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, i just took a second look and I guess that saying, "...is an animated hare...." shortly followed by "...series of animated films....' was redundant. Sorry. --Ted Watson (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"The word "bunny" is of no help in answering this question, as it is a synonym for both young hares and young rabbits."

I'm assuming that's American usage (and I've no problems with that for a US character) as I've never heard "bunny" used to mean a hare in British English. The things you learn from Wikipedia! 86.132.138.248 (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think "bunny" is from a Scottish word. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)