Talk:Hanna-Barbera

From Homestar Runner Wiki

This, that, and a whole lot of other stuff

I realize a lot of work has been put into this page, but it seems to me that every single reference listed here is either speculation or TTATOT, and thus it would be a real stretch to say that they were specifically referencing Hanna-Barbera, intentionally or otherwise. I think every entry in the article as it stands now should be removed, and if no legitimate examples can be found, the article itself should be deleted. — It's dot com 03:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be TTATOT now, but most of the things were created by Hanna-Barbera, and it's clear on some of the facts that it is intended to be a reference, mainly Scooby-Doo and the Bands of the 70's having cartoons. I say keep --~ SlipStream 03:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone will also need to go through these articles and check the references. Loafing 03:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, if this article is deleted because of TTATOT, those Real World References will need to be deleted too.--~ SlipStream 03:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give you Scooby-Doo. That one's clear. As for the rest, I challenge all of them as legitimate references. They should all be removed from the various articles. As for this page, even Scooby-Doo is just a reference to one cartoon, not Hanna-Barbera itself. — It's dot com 04:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at all those "references" now, and while some do sound plausible (the repeating background, for example), they all sound like a stretch and aren't clear enough references. Some are outright stretches. I agree with Dot com: they should all be deleted from the respective articles except for the Scooby Doo ref. And This article should be deleted. Loafing 04:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the repeating background, we do have a tradition of explaining the ultimate origin of some things (like Jeeves), so I don't have as big a problem with that one in the little animal article (although it should be reworded). For the purposes of this article, however, it's not an outright reference to Hanna-Barbera, and thus doesn't really count. — It's dot com 04:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Move all legitimate and unspeculative references to appropriate toon article RWR sections and delete. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  15:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say everything except the highschool reference to Scooby Doo can be considered TTATOT (go links!). Bluebry 16:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The Scooby Doo (et al.) ref in the high school is pretty solid, as is the Roman Holidays ref. The later was confirmed in the commentary for the email. However, that's only two (if we're being generous). Unless someone can come up with another ref, I'm changing my vote to delete. wbwolf (t | ed) 02:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if the Scooby-Doo reference is pretty certain, it is not enough for an entire page so I say delete the whole page and add the Scooby-Doo bit to a different page like a TV references page or something. --Acam30 18:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's in the highschool Fun Facts section... Bluebry 19:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then shouldn't we just delete the whole page without merging anything? --Acam30 23:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, this looks like a valid page. keep — Defender1031*Talk 23:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the refs, the ones for high school, theme park, and Teen Girl Squad Issue 8 are already part of their respective pages. The others are TTOTAT, but that's still three references, which is the minimum required for a page. Besides, aren't there references to Huckleberry Hound elsewhere? weak keep wbwolf (t | ed) 16:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

we don't need a merge, just deletion. Slipknot6477 15:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wbwolf: I think those two items need to be discussed. I mean, I'm pretty sure there's already two or three other possible references to the shark suggested by users and annonies alike. Which would most likely mean it's TTATOT, unless there was a STRONG connection. And the Puck doesn't seem like any sort of reference. I mean, you expect a tire mascot to NOT look like a hockey puck? It's not a reference. Bluebry 20:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've gone to the liberty of erasing what was clearly unnecessary, such as the loop technique and a sound effect.--^Super!Santana^Duper! 20:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that I look at the essentials, it looks good. Keep --^Super!Santana^Duper! 20:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You make the connection. I think they're pretty similar.--^Super!Santana^Duper! 21:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I only see one similarity, i don't think there similar.--Kanjiro talk 21:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are similar. But it's obviously a coincidence. How can you make a Tire mascot WITHOUT it looking like this? The center circle of the Tire is caused by the fact that tires have a big gaping hole in the middle. The mouth wouldn't be able to fit on the outer rim (plus, it would look stupid and very odd. And strange. And abnormal. Thank God for thesauruses.) And don't forget that Pete has small legs and Homestar has very long legs (even though he could've fit into the costume in small legs). And also, TBC were pretty much BORN along with Peter Puck, and most likely don't remember him. They're from Georgia, in the southern US. As a southerner (yee-haw), we're not very crazy about hockey (although I like it, myself) and I don't think that a 3 and 6 year old would be huge fans. Bluebry 21:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--Kanjiro talk 21:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's a coincidence. Homestar-Winner (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I do want to point out that the Brothers Chaps are not originally from Georgia but Indiana, which does happen to be hockey territory. Moreover, it is plausible that they could've seen the CBC broadcasts where they saw Peter Puck. Does this change anything? Not really. As you state, it could all be coincidence. Personally, I don't see how useful a page on H-B references would be, especially since it's not a strong thread as, say, Nintendo. That's why I used "weak keep," since it seems to meet the minimum requirements (perhaps), but I'm not opposed to having the page go away.wbwolf (t | ed) 02:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, since this page has been pared down to two legitimate references (from the same toon, even), I think it's clear that it should be deleted. Trey56 02:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's become too small now, and only has one reference (I count it as one toon, one reference). Bluebry 02:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete already. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  07:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Reconsider?

With the inclusion of Captain Caveman costume in the latest Halloween cartoon, should we reopen discussion on whether there is enough for a Hanna-Barbera article? Since the article was deleted, we have since added Disney and Nickelodeon articles, largely based on their inclusion in Halloween toons. I think we might have the enough solid refs now. 05:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it's back, so let's discuss away. Those supporting its inclusion really will need to make a case (otherwise I think we have to default to the old consensus, which is delete). So, commence discussion. Heimstern Läufer 02:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the last incarnation of the page, several more references have alighted. I think discussion is wise at this point. I think, finally, enough references have been made to consider this page's worth. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  02:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This article contains four legitimate references to Hanna-Barbera, that's good enough for it to deserve an article. All that's left is an intro and maybe relevant See Also links. If we're allowed articles on Disney and Nickelodeon, why not the classic Hanna-Barbera toons? Keep. – The Chort 20:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a good example of how a deleted article can make a comeback. It think it should be kept. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 20:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)