Talk:Peanuts

The Complete Peanuts needs updating
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)

Adult figures
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)


 * I believe the Willie & Joe appearance was drawn by Maudlin himself while the rest of the panel was all Schulz.Rickremember (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I can check the 1999 strip when I have a chance. Would it be appropriate to use Peanuts 2000 as a reference? --FlyingAce (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

AAUGH.com
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Thanks. And please forgive me if I sounded dismissive above. Thanks, as always. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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)

The Complete Peanuts (again)
I requested this 2.5 years ago, to no response, but since I have such a conflict of interest in this matter, I am reluctant to edit this in myself. The part of this article on The Complete Peanuts refer to it as a 25-volume set, and refer to the publication of the 25th volume as the end of it. In actuality, The Complete Peanuts is a 26 volume set, the 26th volume was published in the fall of 2016. You can find the WorldCat entry on it here. I was part of the team gathering the outside-the-strip Peanuts material for it, so as I say, I'm too involved to be the best person to edit this... but it really should be included. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to make a COI edit request, it helps to preface your request with the template request edit. That way your request will appear in a category listing monitored by some editors. If you want someone else to make the edit for you, you need to phrase your request as "change X to Y" or something similar.
 * That said, I have no problem with you making the edit you suggest. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Hogan's Alley/Cartoonician references
References 14 and 22 are to two articles from Hogan's Alley magazine, blogged onto their website cartoonician.com. The author for both of them are listed here as Tom Heintjes... but that's the blog's software entry for the user who entered them onto the blog, Hogan's Alley head-honcho. As the introductory paragraphs to both make clear, I am the author of both of those articles. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw your correction, thanks. But the author of that piece cited isn't you, according to the byline. I see what you mean though. You conducted the interview. Where was this originally published? That's what should be cited, not that blog.
 * You reverted the change, but both versions are wrong. The author listed on that site isn't the author of the piece. The prose clearly was written by Nat Gertler. How do we cite this correctly? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The "byline" listed is generated automatically by the blog software when Tom Heintjes, editor of Hogan's Alley, posts an article on the blog, and when he posts the articles, he copies the introductions which appeared in the magazine. That does not make him the author of the body of the article he is showing. "Dale Hale and the "Peanuts" Comic Book" appeared originally in issue 8 of Hogan's Alley, published October 2000. I do not have the issue at hand with "Crossing the Color Line (in Black and White", so I cannot give you number and date. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC) And just for comparison's sake, here is Tom posting an article that he actually wrote... as you see, he credits himself similarly to the way he credits me for mine. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The "color line" article was in Hogan's Alley issue 18, from 2012. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just about to say...Blogs and interviews are not usually considered suitable sources, can you find a better source for the detail? Theroadislong (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hogan's Alley is an Eisner Award-winning journal about comics (although for some reason that fact is not yet reflected on its article.) It is reliable... and like with most publications, its blog is considered to carry the publications reliability. And while statements from the subjects of interviews are only reliable as quotes, the editorial matter than accompanies the interview has the reliability of its publication. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is one of those times when a blog cite is acceptable, per WP:NEWSBLOG.
 * I have made an attempt to cite the two articles so that the attribution is correct, attributing the article to Mr Gertler and the republication to Mr Heintjes. The citation templates we have don't fully handle a situation like this, but we can always enclose a note inside the ref tags. how does that look? ~Anachronist (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Publisher
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)
 * 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)
 * Which makes it a good reason to leave this all out. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Peanuts on Apple tv+
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)

Popular culture
Heya all, earlier placed the pop culture template on top of the article. I'm concerned in particular with the bottom section Peanuts. 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, 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)


 * 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)

Split of Television and film productions into its own article
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)


 * 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)

Requested move 29 September 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Peanuts → Peanuts (comic strip) – WP:ASTONISH DAB from Peanut, Peanuts (1996 film), Peanuts (2006 film), Peanuts (TV series), Peanuts (Strength game), Peanuts (The Police song) and Peanuts (game). Even though readers are used to seeing things at the plural the nut gets more views [|Peanut|Peanuts|Peanuts_(TV_series)|Peanuts_(1996_film)|Peanuts_(Strength_game)|Peanuts_(The_Police_song)|Peanuts_(game)]. The nut gets 46,959 views but the comic strip has only 20,969 meaning the nut has over 2.2x the views. The other uses of "Peanuts" get 2,250 views meaning the comic strip gets less than 10x the views of the others. The Peanuts Movie also gets 8,684 views but probably isn't a major contender for "Peanuts" The nut is likely primary by PT#2 (although both are level 4 vital articles) and the comic strip is not clearly primary by PT#1 and per WP:NOPRIMARY a DAB page makes sense rather than a redirect to Peanut per User:Andrewa/Incoming links. Cars is a primary redirect to Car even though the film gets similar views so arguably by both long-term significance and pageviews "Peanuts" could be a R from plural to Peanut but at minimum there's no primary topic. The comic strip appears to get its name from the nut and the nut does frequently come in the plural. "Peanuts" appears 126 times in the article Peanut so its clearly common to refer to the nut in the plural form. A Google search returns mainly results for the nut, as does a Google Images search and Google Books. A site:wikipedia.org Peanuts returns the Peanut article first then the Peanuts article. Either "Peanuts" should redirect to Peanut (disambiguation) (like Freaks) or become a separate DAB page like Hearts. In the category namespace where the NC is to use plurals the nut is at Category:Peanuts and the comic strip is at Category:Peanuts (comic strip). On Commons, Commons:Category:Peanuts is also about the nut and the conic strip is at Commons:Category:Peanuts (comic strip).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose I would like to retract my earlier contribution. Upon reflection, and reviewing other comments, I think it would be inappropriate to move the page. Per WP:PLURALPT, and actually, I think it would be ironically confusing to qualify it as '(comic strip)' it could lead to people questioning whether it is anything but a comic strip. Derick1259 (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC) Support with one caveat. My first reaction was geeze, isn't '(comic strip)' a bit indignant of a qualifier but then I remember that actually not even Schulz himself liked the word alone 'Peanuts'. The caveat I'd like to add is that the article itself should have a section, firstmost in the body of the article, called 'Name' which discusses the name of the comic strip. Move out that one sentence in the history section and expand it with verifiable information about why it's named Peanuts anyway. Derick1259 (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose' per WP:PLURALPT. There's a hatnote for people interested in the actual nut.  All of the movies and so on are descendants of the comic strip, so aren't relevant here and/or count for this article.  Saying that "the comic strip gets its name from the nut" is probably technically true, but not useful; the two topics are distinct and the comic strip has nothing to do with the nut, just as people aren't going to confuse Jean Calvin and Calvin of Calvin & Hobbes (despite the naming origin).  The relevant thing brought up by the nomination is that it is indeed common to refer to the nut in the plural, so it's not crazy to think that some readers really might look up the nut via the plural.  However - are enough of the views of Peanut coming from the Peanuts hatnote?  That seems unlikely.  For the Cars analogy, while Cars was certainly a significant and successful film, Peanuts is surely a tier of notability higher than Cars, being possibly the most successful newspaper comic strip of all time, with decades of marketing and associated products based off of it.  (Also, if this is moved anyway, I'd say creating a disambiguation page at Peanuts would be preferable to a redirect that is not what the readers of the comic strip are looking for.)  SnowFire (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes but unlike Cars this isn't a proposal to make the nut primary but just that there isn't one, indeed WP:PLURALPT probably suggest that this shouldn't redirect to Peanut but in order for something to be primary it usually should be clear and all of my searches show that if anything the nut is primary. When I search for site:wikipedia.org Cars the 1st result is Cars (film).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 11:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The legume is appropriately hatnoted, which is in line with WP:ASTONISH. Peanuts (TV series) is really more sort of a child article of this one, as this covers not just the strip but the property as a whole... and I suspect that people who go to that page are often not really looking for that particular series, but for Peanuts TV projects in general, which this article will lead them to. And once one views it as such, it's the Peanuts property that gets an overwhelming amount of the Peanuts (as opposed to Peanut) viewings. NOTES:: 1) I have a COI, having worked on a number of official Peanuts licensed projects, and and likely to do so again in the future; 2) given that, I should make clear that I am not working at the behest of Peanuts Worldwide, Creative Associates, or anyone but me in this post, and I have never been under the employ of anyone who owns or has owned the Peanuts property. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support :: to me, Peanuts are peanuts are a sort of edible nut-type plant seed. There are hundreds or more of cartoon characters. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PLURALPT and SnowFire. Dohn joe (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The nuts are still being produced, and likely will be for as far into the future as we can imagine. The comic strip, while beloved by those of a certain age, has ceased to have new comics produced with the death of its creator, and is inevitably declining in cultural relevance. bd2412  T 04:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Gotta say, I'm kind of... offended by this? I'm not sure what you mean by 'those of a certain age'; I know folk in their young teens who read the strip, and it's no less deeply important to them as a fan in their 50s. The point is that I don't want this move request to actively diminish its perceived 'cultural relevance', let alone at the neglect of its place in this history of cartooning and humour. I was initially perceptive to supporting this move request for the reasons given by Crouch, Swale, definitely wouldn't have been for this supposed reason. Derick1259 (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You may know teenagers who still read the comic strip, but it has inevitably declined from being the cultural tent-pole it once was. bd2412  T 02:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Peanut is the legume, Peanuts is the comic strip. This isn't difficult.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  13:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually it's extremely difficult because peanuts with a small p is also the legume and not an elderly US comic strip. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed as IIO noted at the Bookends discussion since DIFFCAPS doesn't work for the 1st letter we have to give serious consideration for plurals. There are indeed cases like Total war (generic concept) and Total War (DAB) and Duck sauce (generic concept) and Duck Sauce (band) which ironically I have supported per the guideline but this doesn't work for the 1st letter and even if it did there would be a higher expectation to capitalize the 1st letter than subsequent words.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support The comic strip derives its name from the aforementioned food item, not the other way around. The plant has priority in nomenclature and this takes nothing away from the comic strip. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Only in a very trivial way.  Per the article, a syndication editor just made up "Peanuts" as a title in 1950 because Peanut was slang for a kid in the 1930s-50s (and practically never seen today), and I guess the analogy was that peanuts are small, and kids are small, so call them peanuts?  It's a very, very, very distant relation to the legume.  SnowFire (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * All the more reason for the distinction to be made clear. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose: For the same reason as SnowFire. I think it is MUCH more likely that people coming on Wiki would search for Peanut rather than the plural and be confused when they came on this page. Again, the page hits of the secondary Peanuts movie/television show pages actually add to the total hits of this parent page not detract. Throwing in the movie Cars as a similar point is essentially a red herring. There is NO comparison between the two other than the two subjects were both movies and they share a title with a more common everyday article. Ckruschke (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * How is there no comparison? The movie was a 2006 one which is hardly that recent anyway.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 11:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - when people say WP:ASTONISH, basically it can be translated as but I don't know about it. WP:PLURALPT was written for a case like this. Red   Slash  03:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But everyone knows about the nut which is actually what I think NWCFM is dealing with the fact that those interested in the comic strip will think of it when "Peanuts" is mentioned but those who aren't interested in it won't so actually I think NWCFM supports this move. Similar to the fact that Americans think of the city in Alabama when "Birmingham" is mentioned and the Scots think of the Perth and Kinross city. When I think of Wells I think of the city in Somerset but clearly in a global setting if anything Well is primary. Similarly for Barking, Lewis and Settle. Based on NWCFM and WP:WORLDVIEW I think this is a system bias towards the comic strip.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 11:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Invocation of WP:WORLDVIEW seems to suggest that interest in Peanuts-as-in-Snoopy is strongly localized, which is simply not the case. There are reasons why you see things like McDonalds using Peanuts materials for their Happy Meals all over. The recent Peanuts animated series is a European production meant for worldwide distribution, in Asia they have licensed Peanuts stores, theme parks, and eateries. The strip has run in over 70 countries. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the comic strip isn't known only the the US (and Peanuts (TV series) is also Italian/French) so I take that comment back a bit but the other point of WORLDVIEW (and NWCFTM) is about topics that are only of an interest to certain people, if you asked an American who wasn't interested in comic strips what "Peanuts" means there's a reasonable chance that they would still think of the nut. See this comment of mine on moving a topic that I am interested in (although the main reason was because the new name is better anyway) where I was pointing out that its an extremely astonishing page to end up on for anyone not in Scotland or interested in islands.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 13:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I doubt that many Americans, even those not particularly into comics, would be astonished by finding the strip here, given the ongoing popularity of the Peanuts property in forms such as the annual high-rated airing of A Charlie Brown Christmas, any more than they are astonished when they search for friends and are not landing on a page about chums. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised this is even that controversial considering the numerous other examples where a plural redirects to its singular despite another topic having similar page views or even more. Compare Bone (34,418) and Bones (TV series) (Bones redirects to the singular) (60,198), Cat (137,200) Cats (musical) (82,086) (Cats redirects to the singular), Parachute (12,569) and Parachutes (Coldplay album) (3,614 and 5,968 from the Parachutes (album) redirect) (Parachutes redirects to the singular) and in particular Bookend (1,331) and Bookends (album) (5,422) of which bookend is a relatively obscure topic and the Bookend article is little more than a stub. Per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY things such a page views Google searches and importance on a global scale are used to determine primary topics and all of those tests show that if anything the primary topic is Peanut. I'd in particular note "A topic may have principal relevance for a specific group of people (for example, as the name of a local place, or software), but not be the primary meaning among a general audience. An attorney may read the word "hearing" and immediately think of a courtroom, but the auditory sense is still the primary topic".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 11:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As someone who is a big fan of using pageviews for "simple" primary topic cases, you're placing too much emphasis on such a simple comparison. Sorry, you can't write an algorithm to determine the primary topic based on pageviews, all of those cases and this one are distinct.  Pageviews is part of the equation, but so is the likelihood of looking up a singular version of a topic by the plural version, long-term notability of the articles, and so on.  You're basically saying "why don't basketball teams just play the tallest people they can find, look at these examples of successful tall players."  Height is part of it, sure, but not everything.  SnowFire (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have used a number of methods and I find the points that the nut gets around double views, comes up 1st of Google (including a WP specific search, see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 48 if the comic strip got several times the views of the nut and was most people's understanding of "Peanuts" then there might be a case for this but when the generalized topic is more popular and better known I don't think there's a case despite the comic strip having long-term significance to. The quote from PLURALPT is a good argument against redirecting to the nut but not for having this as primary.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support reader unfriendly and consistent with Parachutes, Bones, Bookends, Cats etc as Crouch says. We used to make like difficult, we stopped. Move. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)for
 * Support per nom: even setting aside the various other entities named "Peanuts", the nuts are often referred to in the plural, so Peanut is enough of a contender by itself to dislodge the comic strip from the primary title. – Uanfala (talk) 10:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Peanut is at its best title (no one would propose moving it to "peanuts") and Peanuts is at its best title (no one would expect it to be titled "Peanut"). So there is no conflict between the two titles. There's a hatnote in place for the relatively few people who might wind up on the wrong page, so there's no problem with the current setup. Station1 (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Peanut is there because of WP:PLURAL specifying articles usually get titled in the singular even if they are commonly pluralized. "Peanuts" indeed is the best title for this article but there are other title conflicts with this one such as the TV series (which would be at "Peanuts" if there wasn't ambiguity) even though the TV series as noted might actually count in favour of treating the comic strip as primary. I actually agree that being at the best title can be factored in in borderline cases but this isn't one since there are facts to support the nut being primary in addition to this being moot anyway due to the other media called "Peanuts". WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT anyway says "The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term. This may happen when the topic is primary for more than one term, when the article covers a wider topical scope, or when it is titled differently according to the naming conventions. When this is the case, the term should redirect to the article (or a section of it). The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary.". Compare Arran/Isle of Arran and Skye/Isle of Skye. In the case of Arran, Arran (Caucasus) used to occupy that title but it was moved because of the Scottish island but indeed although its been disputed in the past both islands are probably (marginally) at their best titles but that doesn't prevent them from being considered in terms of primacy for the names without "Isle of" given some sources like the Scottish islands book do not use "Isle of" for either of these. With Arran the Caucasian region gets 616 views while the Scottish island gets 6,383 so if anything an argument could be made that Arran should be moved back to Arran (disambiguation) to allow "Arran" to redirect to "Isle of Arran" per WP:RPURPOSE but given the other uses and the fact that the island is commonly called by the longer name its probably best to keep it as a DAB. However Skye does redirect to Isle of Skye and indeed "Peanuts" could arguably redirect to "Peanut".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * While there is no title conflict between Peanut and Peanuts (because they are not identical), it is true that there is a title conflict between Peanuts and Peanuts (TV series), Peanuts (2006 film), and Peanuts (1996 film). But among those four, Peanuts is the overwhelming primary topic|Peanuts_(TV_series)|Peanuts_(2006_film)|Peanuts_(1996_film), so oppose for that reason as well. Station1 (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But primary topics aren't just on title conflicts but also on primacy conflicts, the 2nd part also must be satisfied to and I don't see sufficient evidence of that. Consider for example there is no title or primacy conflict for "Isle of Arran" between Arran (Caucasus) and Isle of Arran because the region isn't called "Isle of Arran" but there is for plain "Arran" because the island is sometimes called "Arran". We know that there is primacy conflict for the plural because of the fact that the nut comes up 1st on Google, the word appears in the plural form many times in the article and its common to refer to nouns in the plural form. In addition as noted where the NC use plurals as in categories the nut is primary, see Category:Peanuts/Category:Peanuts (comic strip).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In most cases where we have two largely unrelated but popular topics, one with an "s" on the end and one without, we should keep each article at its best title because that's where most people will expect to find each topic, with a hatnote for the minority. That's the logic behind WP:PLURALPT. If, hypothetically, Peanuts was a barely notable, obscure comic strip attracting only 5 or 6 viewers per day, then this proposal would deserve support because the vast majority of users searching for or linking to "peanuts" would expect the legume article. But that's not the case in this instance. Station1 (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support many people don't even call this "Peanuts" anyways, they call it "Charlie Brown" and haven't a clue it's actually "Peanuts" -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Considering opinions are split (and slightly in favor of oppose), this discussion should be closed. Considering the opposing viewpoints thus far, I doubt that it will sway hard to "Support" if it is left up. Ckruschke (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * It should not be closed until its been open at least a week and arguably if there's no consensus for it to be primary it should be moved although this is still being discussed. Anyway as you say opinions are split which probably means it will need relisting.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, same flawed arguments being supported by the same people, over and over again. © Tb hotch ™ (en-3). 02:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:PLURALPT says no way, José.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PLURALPT. The hatnote is an easy solution for those who may choose to search for the plural hoping to find the nut.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Interestingly if we applied the same logic for Danbury we would move Danbury, Essex to the base name because it gets over 10 times the views of Danbury, Saskatchewan (of which is a 1 sentence sub stub) which is the only other article that according to the NC could be at "Danbury".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Bang book page number
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)
 * 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)

Peanuts Gallery
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)
 * My mistake >_> thank goodness Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Thanks Koavf for jumping on it. JAYFAX (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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)

Rewriting the 'Characters' section
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)

Rewrote the characters section
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)
 * "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)
 * 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)

Peanuts introduced into animation
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)
 * , ✅ Thanks as always. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Citations provided
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)
 * 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)Ckruschke
 * 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)
 * 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 (though there is indeed something that could be said about using a sales page which you conceded yourself, and I get bad vibes about Bang's pages which I'll explain some other time) 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)

Longest story ever told by one human being
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)
 * A picture is worth a thousand words. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

This wording is off
 - 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)


 * 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)

Woodstock date
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), 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)
 * 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  &#124;  say hello!  04:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022
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) 2600:1702:31B0:D700:7198:A7A2:C0B5:1AEB (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ by someone else ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Messy intro paragraph
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: 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. 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. 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. 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. So we've bounced from the animated specials to theater and then back again? 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).
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * Peanuts also had successful adaptations in theatre, with the stage musical You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown an oft-performed production.
 * In 2013, TV Guide ranked the Peanuts television specials the fourth-greatest TV cartoon of all time.
 * 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.

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)


 * 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)

Focus
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)


 * @NatGertler: I agree, and have made the change accordingly. BTW, congrats on the Eisner Award! :) –FlyingAce✈hello 17:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Video Games
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)


 * There already is a list of Peanuts video games in the article Peanuts filmography. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

MetLife
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)


 * ✅ (doing now). Heads up that your link is malformed. Great call as always, NG. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Peanuts name sometimes called just Charlie Brown or Snoopy
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)


 * You are correct and it should be added if you have a citation. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Savings bond
The article currently includes One strip on May 20, 1962, even had an icon that stated "Defend Freedom, Buy US Savings Bonds.", and yes, it's true that that strip had that logo in it (and that strip is the only source given for the statement.) Thing is, this may not be due for inclusion, and if it is, we need to remove the "even" that makes it sound like it's unusual. Including small savings bond ads in comic strips was quite normal during World War II, and even in 1962, there were a number of strips taking part in that campaign. For example, here's a Strictly Business cartoon, here's Rick O'Shay, Judge Parker, Dixie Dugan. Barring the discovery of some knowing, reliable third-party source indicating that this plug is worth of mention, it's probably best to delete that sentence. I will not be doing so because of WP:COI -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I removed "even" and reworded it a bit. This sentence can remain for now, but it still needs a WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT source, and it would probably be best to mention that other strips did similarly (along with a R, S, I source for that). If you have any such sources to hand, I'd be happy to look through them and modify the paragraph accordingly if they're up to snuff.
 * Otherwise, I'll add it to the list of things to look into more deeply as I gradually improve the article's citations. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I suspect that even if we found a source that said that Peanuts took part in such campaigns among other strips, it woudl not rise to the level that would call for inclusion. So much has been written about Peanuts specifically that things it was just part of a group of aren't something we should have space for. (And lest anyone assume that this was something that started with Schulz, as I said, it goes back at least to WWII -- example.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Schulz lived to see final Peanuts strip
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)

Glickman's ethnicity
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Care to explain why you are seeking to erase this information? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Mr. Gertler. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, Mr. Gertler. 142.162.246.88 (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)