Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cartoon Network/Archive 4

Font questions
I wonder what are the fonts used in Cartoon Network related things. --JSH-alive (talk)(cntrbtns)(mail me) 08:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) CARTOON NETWORK logo itself
 * 2) Toonami logo from 2004
 * 3) The font usualy used in Codename: Kids Next Door
 * 4) Foster's Home
 * 5) Home For part in the logo
 * 6) Imaginary Friends part in the logo
 * 7) The font usualy used in the episode titlecards
 * Alright, no idea why you'd need it but anyways...


 * 1) Cartoon Network use Eagle Bold for their logo
 * 2) No idea, I haven't seen it but I'm reckoning it being the same as was used on the UK channel so that's custom
 * 3) What's annoying is that I know what it is but can't remember the name right now, get back to you on it
 * 4) Custom on all counts, not certain what they're based on.


 * Zero help I'm aware but better than "no idea" for everything. -- treelo talk 14:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Go to http://www.toonamiarsenal.com/download/newtoonami.php for Toonamilogo from 2004.--JSH-alive (talk)(cntrbtns)(mail me) 06:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's custom too. -- treelo talk 03:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Attention Everyone!
It appears that many of the vandals and peopel who kept adding garbage to the cartoon network pages in the past were all sock puppets. I have put together information regarding the sock puppets, and a list of sock puppets. Take a look here. Perhaps when we see crap like that in the future we could get them banned instead of arguing with them. Although of course not ALL people adding garbage to the pages are vandals, just keep an eye out for editing patterns. DietLimeCola (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's why I know of them, the whole Fred Fredburger issue from before (their FFB article was deleted due to me). Nice work there, good that you gave a heads-up to others about this one. -- treelo talk 00:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Transformers: Animated
Anyone willing to take the lead on Transformers: Animated? I've had it on my watchlist for about a month, and apparently it was launched on December 26. It just looks really (really!) bad, and I wouldn't even know where to begin. I personally don't watch it (the last Transformers I watched was the original series; I lost interest after the the animation style changes) Yng  varr  16:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't, I won't be able to verify claims like I have with Chowder as it's just not my type of thing and I do have to make some effort to get a hold of Chowder eps anyway, not putting out for what I've seen of T:A. I suppose it'll just fall into the hands of those who can maintain it fully like Ben 10 and others have if nobody else steps up. -- treelo talk 18:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Around the messy article titled Cartoon Network around the world
The list of regional versions of Cartoon Network, looks messy, and now I even feel unneccessary. I felt that article could converted into disambiguation page. What do you think?--JSH-alive (talk)(cntrbtns)(mail me) 06:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Go for it, gave up on the sprawling idiocy that seems to permeate each of those articles a long time ago. -- treelo talk 13:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's my idea.

And below are the examples for Cartoon Network as a block of TV channel (not whole 24-Hour channel) and timeshared channel. What do you think?--JSH-alive (talk)(cntrbtns)(mail me) 10:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is for the disambig page, right? If we're going to do a disambig page, kill the current CN worldwide article, move the current US article to Cartoon Network (US) or similar and make the CN article the disambig page seeing as even though CN is an American network it airs in several countries in some form and it's too US-centric to have the main article as the one for the US network. The table though, bit heavy on info for something so simple. Bullet-pointed list of wikilinks should do as it does for other disambig pages. -- treelo talk 22:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, my plan is: 1. Move the Cartoon Network around the world to Cartoon Network (disambiguation). 2. The main Cartoon Network stays in that name, not moving to Cartoon Network (US) or similar.--JSH-alive (talk)(cntrbtns)(mail me) 00:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It could work but I still believe the main article for an international network shouldn't be about the US version of it. I'll get a third opinion on this and hopefully get the disambig page going. -- treelo talk 13:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Have to agree that the proposed table seems to be a little bit of overkill. Scanning it is hard on my eyes. There is a style guide for DAB pages, it would be worth pouring over to see what accepted practice is. One of the things I noticed is that some of these don't have actual articles (like Asia and India), and it appears you really don't want too much text in a DAB, so you might need to make a stub, or something otherwise. Yngvarr (c) 14:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems you did get the disambig page up, small problems with syntax in general but easily fixed. Problem for me still is the main article still being the US version when it really shouldn't and I won't go into it again but it's still a huge issue to me and I can't see why it was moved from Cartoon Network (US) anyway. Got any views on why it shouldn't move beyond "it stays", JSH-alive? -- treelo talk 09:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And it seems like this has roused the ire of at least one IP. See the last couple of threads at Talk:Cartoon Network (disambiguation). But I wanted to bring up something else that I think should be addressed, and that is the consistency of the names. Half the non-US articles have the disambig properly named as Cartoon Network (Country), but the others are Cartoon Network Country. I tried to move Cartoon Network Europe to Cartoon Network (Europe), but as you can see, that second one is a redirect back to the disambig page. Very confusing. I considered sending that last redirect to MFD, so that the redirects can be assigned more consistently.
 * My head hurts. Yngvarr (c) 13:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that person better be careful because there's no way that lengthy article can come back seeing as what the person wants exists already. CSD the existing redirs under G6 and move them that way, no point having inconsistency which reminds me of something I'll bring up later. Also, why isn't anyone willing to discuss the US centric problem I have with the main article? If every other country gets the whole Cartoon Network (Country/Region) thing then shouldn't the US do so for consistency and non-bias? -- treelo talk 13:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Instead of MFD, I figured to just adjust the targets for the redirs, so it should be more consistent now. I'm sitting on the fence about the US article. Since it's the original channel, rather than a simultaneous launch of a world-wide network, previous situations seem to point the unqualified name at the original. A bad example would be Rome, which is the city in Italy, but has a DAB up top for other cities named Rome. But for me, silence means consent, so if you think it's a good thing, feel free! Yngvarr (c) 13:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I do feel it's a good thing but as you've seen, people only bother to make a stink about it when they notice it's moved off to someplace else. Content won't have changed, merely the title but in this case I can see why Cartoon Network in this case is like the disambig for Rome though, there's many and whilst the one in Italy may have existed first it's still got a disambig page because of several others which are signifigant to the countries in which they are.. I really don't to move it if it causes a headache for me and constant attempts to have it moved though so I will and if a lot of stink is made then I'll move it right on back. -- treelo talk 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Well, it's someone else's problem now. What is irritating me is I don't see the people who are doing the moves involved in this discussion. Yngvarr (c) 19:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah! Wait... I'm that someone else! What's your angle, mister? -- treelo talk 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are User:DMacks? That's the (seemingly an admin) who did the move, apparently based on this thread, but I don't recognize anyone's name on the relevant thread. As I said above, I don't mind either way, but if you look at the history, it started to get a little heated (move, undo, move, undo)... Yngvarr (c) 19:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I caused that confusion and I do know of the editor which noticed it had gone but now all is settled and people shouldn't be getting all confused over little. Seems the admin who did the delete and move knew of this issue before and seems happy at the fact a consensus was reached on content finally. Remember, it's not content change but a name change (and I told you so JSH-alive.) treelo  talk 20:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Cartoon Network now moved to Cartoon Network (US)... Hah, that's not what I want. I wish the CN US article stays on Cartoon Network because it is the original channel. Anyway, if you need to describe CN outside US (not as a disambiguation page as of now but with some more explanation.), maybe you should discuss here first. And I think CN outside US should describe briefly on the CN US article, rather than on a separate article tediously. -- JSH-alive (talk)(cntrbtns)(mail me) 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What you want and what's correct are two different things, it may very well be the main article but see beyond your own nose and realise many "original" articles happen to be disambiguation pages because they're not the only one out there. You came up with the idea for a disambig page, you got it but yet you're still unhappy and whining about old versions of the article! No description should be had on the US article anymore than any other article should represent the US one in some way, that's what the disambig page does. Make it clear what you want without resorting to old diff links as examples because if you continue to flip-flop on your on suggestions and their implementation because they don't fit your ideal vision then I won't be taking any of your suggestions and possibly removing them. Now, you might be going "Aw shit, Treelo's gone powermad again" but I'm saying that few of your ideas have worked out JSH-alive. The single one that has so far is the disambig page idea which worked only because you weren't involved and few of your ideas were used. Why I wouldn't pay attention to your ideas if you kept pushing this agenda of yours is because you'd end up being more of a disruption than a help so couldn't allow your ideas any honest consideration because they wouldn't work. I know, we aren't any form of bureaucracy but really. treelo  talk 15:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. You win.--JSH-alive (talk)(cntrbtns)(mail me) 03:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's winning involved? News to me. -- treelo talk 15:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you jocking? Well, I mean I accept your opinion.--JSH-alive (talk)(cntrbtns)(mail me) 06:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Consistency? Pah!
Whilst doing the rounds with AWB, I've noticed a great deal of inconsistency when it comes to character list titles. Epsiode lists are stright forwards with their "List of episodes" standard but when it comes to characters you get "List of characters " with the preposition being usually "in" or "from" and sometimes "on". Can we get a bit of a consensus going in terms of what damn preposition we use? I think that "in" is the best seeing as the show contains the characters within, but I'd like to see a small straw poll of those who read this as to which do you think is best. I know I'm kidding myself trying to get a unanimous verdict from two people but worth a shot eitherway. -- treelo talk 19:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Harumph, I was going to say, Why not keep it similar to the episode list: List of (showname) characters, but for some reason, that feels clumsy when I actually look at it. Yngvarr (c) 19:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hence why I feel "List of characters in " works better. Feel that this is a good idea for renaming? It's more time consuming than anything to do this though, that's my only real concern. Do you want in on this renaming issue seeing as you noticed it too? I'd usually hire this one out to lackeys but we have none so we'll have to. treelo  talk 19:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * List of characters in... is fine. It's been a while since I used AWB (updates stopped working on me), but I think that it may be easy to semi-automate the moves. Since you mentioned it, I'll let you have the honors :-) Yngvarr (c) 20:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I counted three with the wrong word in them, want to deal with whatever others there are in the darker recesses of Wiki? treelo  talk 21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Will do, I'll see what, if any, I can find. Yngvarr (c) 22:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Category:List-Class Cartoon Network pages, everything looks to be fairly consistent. There are a few that poke me in the eye, old favorites like List of allies and other characters in Codename: Kids Next Door, but other than that, it looks good. Yngvarr (c) 10:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, we really should do this again sometime. treelo  talk 12:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Priority Ratings for Forgotten Articles
Boy, has this talk page been quiet for sometime eh? Anyway, while looking at some videos on other places and visiting some CN fansites. I came across the forgotten Cartoon Network Big Pick segment and Longhair and Doubledome. I've added their articles to the WP scope. Now, what do you all think the priority rating for them would be? Driveus (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikilinks really would have helped in this situation. As for the articles in question, the one for Longhair and Doubledome is particularly insignificant and shouldn't really even exist given it's about two shorts which never got picked up for a series. The Big Pick is only a Start quality article but given the swampy mess surrounding the weird fringe articles about CN US' programming slots, why isn't this one linked like the rest? -- treelo talk 09:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

CN co-productions navbox proposal
As discussed at Template talk:Cartoon Network Original Series, co-prods need someplace to go as they are frequently mistaken as original series which they aren't, not to CNS at least. Anyway, here's a quick and dirty mockup of what it could look like.

Needs more information I know but it's nearly ready to go, just need to write up the usual stipulations for inclusion and we're ready to go add it to the necessary articles. Why it's here though is that it's within the project's area of interest and whilst we won't assess these articles, we will try and provide a basic level of maintenance on them.

Right enough banter, what would you feel would be good for the stipulations for inclusion? Obviously being a coproduction to the point of getting the CN logo within the creditroll should be there but what else? Does it expand to the WB produced shows? treelo talk 20:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No real input or argument here because you've done all the legwork :P. Just anything that is not produced by Cartoon Network Studios, but is exclusive to Cartoon Network. Looking at some samples of what is in the existing Cartoon Network Original Series, I see, for instance, Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi.
 * I do have an issue, not related to this template or anything, but will hold my voice until after this template goes live and starts to get tweaked. Yngvarr (c) 00:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, just I can't remember quite a few of the co-prods as well as the couple of others that aren't specific to the US or Europe hence why I needed input, just minor crap I couldn't be bothered doing myself! Only real sticking point for me is the naming convention as Cartoon Network series co-productions seems pretty long so be safe in the knowledge that you can suggest an alternate name and that you can tweak it a bit if I'm wrong in the sandboxed version. Just takes some of the load and not make it a one girl project!  treelo  talk 09:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just added a couple of shows, but I'm not 100% sure about Samurai Jack. Another one I wonder about is Out of Jimmy's Head. As much as I'd prefer to just forget about that show, it appears to have some unique production: co-prod by CNS and another prod house. I'm guessing that CNS does the animated segments. I'll continue to scrounge around. Yngvarr (c) 10:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You do that, sounds good. I'm very certain about Samurai Jack being a CNS production as before that it was a HB production so nothing outside was involved, just the year point happens to be around the time of the studio changeover hence the confusion. Be assured though, it's all in-house so not one for addition. Clone Wars I'm very ambiguous about as CNS did do every inch of animation in the series but was licensed from Lucasfilm so is in neither camp to some degree. Out of Jimmy's Head I would put as a co-production technically as CNS does do the animation in the show whereas the live action is done by another prod house but it falls into the same category as Ed, Edd n Eddy and KND, actual co-productions but CN is running the show otherwise.


 * Given all this confusion, I think we really do need to draw up some criteria which can tackle the ambiguity some productions have. treelo  talk 10:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, still need action on this you know. treelo  talk 20:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(undented)Um, yea. Got distracted. I'm still trying to ponder all the implications. I'll reveal my ignorance: Gosh it's confusing. Maybe I'm in over my head :P Yngvarr (c) 23:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything produced by HB for Cartoon Network (prior to the WB merger) is a Cartoon Network original production.
 * Anything that is produced by a employee of Cartoon Network for Cartoon Network Studios is a Cartoon Network original production. That would be something like Chowder, which is outsourced to a third-party prod house. Most producers, Murray and Greenblatt for some of the later examples, appear to be actually contracted employees, but they still maintain a presence. I the guy who writes the TAG blog posting about visiting the studios, mentioning that the Lazlo studios were getting empty, and Fosters was still going, so I assume there's an actual building involved.
 * Anything produced by contract for Cartoon Network, but for which Cartoon Network still retains full rights, is an original production. EE&E, maybe.
 * Anything licensed from any third-party holder would be called a co-production. Transformers, HiHiPuffy, possibly some others.
 * And sadly you're my only other goto guy otherwise I'm left to do this unilaterally. Anyway, most of that is directly true, here's what I know:
 * H-B up until the merger was responsible for all productions for CN so that is true.
 * CNS does have its own production offices, generally anything coming out of it is a CN original. Chowder, is produced in-house at CNS, only the stop motion segments are outsourced.
 * Cartoon Network has in the past had third parties like Curious Pictures, a.k.a studios and most recently Brookwell McNamara help co-produce but are wholly owned properties of Cartoon Network.
 * Third party licenses will be co-productions even when done in-house.


 * In all, here's how I see it and should hopefully cover anything as even though it's complex I don't want something as simple as original/co-prod splits to be the same.
 * Production years 1992-2003 are usually classified as Cartoon Cartoons.
 * Samurai Jack, the only show I know which is contentious as to if it was a Cartoon Cartoon or not, is a CNS original as it was never dealt with HB which is what separates a CC from CNS original.
 * Some shows which aren't done by CNS remain originals, the specifics are that EEnE, KND, Sheep in the Big City, Transformers: Animated and Out of Jimmy's Head are the only ones which are originals. When in doubt, if most of the writing or animation duties are done at Cartoon Network it's a original production.
 * Co-prods are a little more difficult to exact. Generally, we'll judge each on a case by case basis but right now we accept George of the Jungle and Storm Hawks as co-productions instead of originals as CN may have some credits but only at the executive production level which does not indicate much input from CN.
 * Anything which isn't produced in North America will not be an original production as most are co-prods in Europe and the major production house is in North America otherwise.


 * It's no clearer but I have a near definite idea in my head over what goes where now and will transfer some of the elements to the documentation for our original series template. I haven't decided on a name for the co-prod template but will still take suggestions. treelo  talk 12:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I edited the sandbox version. For the name, I'd just go with Cartoon Network co-productions. See what I did there? I'd say copy-paste that into template space; even if it does not go live right away, we can tweak up the documentation. And being in template space, maybe it'll generate some more discussion, other than a cabal of two :P Where's JSH-alive, wasn't he (?) part of the instigation of this in the first place? Yngvarr (c) 21:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you did. Alright then, I'll just go and create the template from the sandbox version and write up the documentation. As for JSH-alive, give them a poke at their talkpage if they want in on this. treelo  talk 21:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove dups between the two templates and slap in on the Cartoon Network (US) page, and see what happens! Yngvarr (c) 00:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

New look, same great taste
As some of you may have noticed, the main project page recently went under a major reconstruction. We (Treelo and myself) are trying to spruce things up, get more activity and more involvement, and it was considered that rebuilding the project page into something more, well, project-like, would be useful.

The project was copied and modified from another project, which had an existing infrastructure. Most of that infrastructure was modified for our own purposes, and some may not be used by us at all. There's a lot of stuff here, so peruse it at your leisure, and bring up any discussion at the main project talk page.

So now it needs to be said that we would like to get more involvement from the people who have already placed their names on the members list, and try to find energetic editors who would like to join the project. Yngvarr (c) 11:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'M SORRY!
Okay, okay. I'm sorry for my last "explosion" and for the "misinformation" that I put. Can I rejoin this project now? Please? --Particleman24 (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know if you understand why you were in conflict to begin with? If you don't understand the reason why, it's inevitable that you're going to be in conflict again. Yngvarr (c) 11:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You know the Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes "May I Have This Ed" and "Look Before You Ed"? Well, there's this ongoing argument about wether these episodes were in the 5th season or the 6th season.  I thought they were in the 6th season.  If you want to learn more, then ask Treelo or Elaich. --Particleman24 (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Only need to read the talkpage to get upto speed on that sad series of events and makes me sad to even like EEnE given the people it has as fans. However it's not just those incidents alone as it didn't simply stop even after being told you were wrong or to wait, oh no! There's also the fact you couldn't handle not being able to have a vanity article on your non-notable project, YouTube Poop, which you tried to recreate at least 5 times with differing capitalisation which caused you to "leave" in the first place. Look, if you can show me decent reform in general non-jerkiness and being able to cope with disagreements in opinion then you can get your name back on the list but I wouldn't let you on it right now simply based on your past and that it's fairly unlikely you've changed any bit less than a month on from this immature little tizzy you threw. This isn't as simple as project member vetting, this is a general civility and co-operation issue and I just don't think you should just come back and ask forgiveness after doing a big ol' vanishing act and figuring all would be forgotten. treelo  talk 23:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * I understand what the issue was, I wanted to know if you understood the why behind it. I'm not still sure if you're clear on that.
 * We all need to keep policies in mind. That pretty much covers everything. I'm not necessarily interested in the 5th or 6th season, or the YouTube poop. For your argument that the episodes were in the 6th season, the only real evidence you had was artwork change on the title card . That constitutes original research, since you're making an inference without actual facts.
 * Using fan forums for sources is not considered a reliable source, because anyone can say anything without concrete evidence to back it up.
 * Your arguments over the YouTube Poop thing also shows that you need to look at notability, to understand why it was considered non-notable.
 * When you were challenged about these, you ended up in a edit war which had you repeatedly adding the contest material.
 * When you are challenged on anything, if you add material which is reverted, you need to start discussing that kind of stuff, either on the article talk page, or on the users talk page. If neither of you can come to agreement, then both need to stop.
 * Policies and guidelines are a difficult thing to get a grip on, and they're often changing from under your feet. Nobody is expected to understand every single policy or guideline, but they are expected to be able to discuss, that is what is called consensus. Also take a look at the WP:BRD, as the last word is discuss.
 * In the end, you kinda sorta "took your ball and went home", as the saying goes. You've lost credibility, and now you need to build that back again. Yngvarr (c) 23:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Santo
There was a animated series called "Santo" that was announced at the "CN Upfront 2007". For a while, I thought it was 'dead', but apparently production was delayed due to changes in management at Cartoon Network. I would have re-created the page for the series, but then I realized that "Santo" was just a working title for the series. So should I re-create the page for the show now or wait until an official name is announced? --UBracter (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That depends on how much there is to write. I say don't bother if the upfront is all there is. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  22:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Making Cartoon Network not a disambiguation page
Hi there Cartoon Network folks,

I've come over from Disambiguation pages with links, where we work to fix links in articles that go to disambiguation pages, and make them link to the proper article instead. We get reports of the disambiguation pages with the most links, and it turns out that Cartoon Network, as a disambiguation page, has over 1500 links to it! Looking at the page itself, I see that it links to all the different international variants of Cartoon Network (which I didn't actually know were all different, so I've already learned something, which is cool). Not even having to look at the 1500+ links to the disambiguation page, I can guess that most of those links can't really be properly chosen to instead link to one of the international versions of Cartoon Network, but rather just refer to the organization of Cartoon Network as a whole. With that, do you think there is any way to turn Cartoon Network into something other than a disambiguation page, even if it is just a general overview of it, with links to all the different international varieties.? It would really aid in people following links to Cartoon Network finding the information they need. Thanks for considering/discussing, -- Nataly a 05:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Been thinking on this issue recently, how almost every link to Cartoon Network goes to the disambig page and how it doesn't really work. Came up with three ideas for what to do with or for some 1500+ links.


 * Recreate the much hated Cartoon Network around the world article, not exactly the best choice but it does immediately handle the problem here. Thing is, the move from changing the main Cartoon Network article (currently Cartoon Network (United States)) to a disambig was to remove country bias and do away with what was essentially a large, lumbering idiot of an article trying and failing to represent everywhere and put it down into a simple disambig so everyone had their own article to edit. Could always rewrite but I never want to see an article like that again, overview you can get away with but not just a list of articles right after it, just looks kltuzy and like a linkfarm.
 * Make all links at first point to Cartoon Network (United States) as 99 or even 100 times out of 100, it'll be the right one as almost everything comes from the US variant, any which shouldn't can be weeded out and edited by hand. Could get a bot to do these links as they're likely to come up often though it's fairly likely to mothball the disambig unintentionally.
 * Move Cartoon Network (United States) back to Cartoon Network so little legwork is involved and everyone gets to be happy. Not likely to happen, consensus already agreed against that so it's just something to ask about again to see if consensus has changed or if new faces want to decide this time.


 * This one is interesting and is making me consider whether or not a fairly generic rundown of what CN is with a navbox template at the bottom of each variant could be the way to go with this over a disambig seeing as it's not the best. More opinions are good. treelo  radda  12:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I definitely see the reasons for removing country bias from the article, and not having Cartoon Network redirect to Cartoon Network (United States) (which sort of throws out Option No. 3). Option No. 2 is what I'm mostly hoping to avoid - if we can find a reasonable way to not have to change all of the links, that will make less work both for now and for the future.  Option No. 1 in general sounds like a more reasonable idea, but not actually in practice, perhaps.  Your final un-numbered suggesting - "a fairly generic rundown of what CN is with a navbox template at the bottom of each variant could be the way to go" seems like quite a good idea, actually, if it would be possible to make such an article.  That way, all the links to Cartoon Network would go to a general page, with no country bias, but also with some information, and not just a disambiguation page. -- Nataly a  18:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just writing it up and making sure that we don't get a long list of links or every article gets a mention. It has to be short and operate as part article, part disambiguation page. Might as well get to work on the navbox but as long as the main article doesn't become a monstrous cover-all article as we had before then it should work. treelo  radda  20:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that this seems feasable. I'm imagining the actual creation of this page is something that you and others of this Wikiproject would be much better at, but is there anything I can do to help it get moving? -- Nataly a  19:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not much, like you say we should be able to cover it but I have got a start on it here and you're welcome to edit it as you see fit. treelo  radda  20:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool - it looks like it will be a good overview of the organization, and an informative stopping point for all the links to "Cartoon Network". Let me know when you think it's ready to go up, and I'll be sure that all the disambiguation ends get tied up properly.  Thanks for working on this! -- Nataly a  20:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) So, some ideas. We might want to give a chrono list of on-air dates, if we have them. Maybe something like. Obviously the dates were just pulled out of my head, since I'm just winging it here.
 * Oct 14, 1066 - Cartoon Network launches in the United States
 * June 6, 1944 - The European version launches, blah blah blah
 * Oct 15, 1962 - The Australian version launches, and talk and talk and talk

Once the basic timeline of Cartoon Network is given, spinoffs can be listed: Boomerang, Adult Swim, and those kind of things.

There should be no programming lists involved in any of the articles, that includes the country specific articles. That's something that's been sticking in my craw for some time now, and I just get agitated when I think about it.

Just some off-the-bottom-of-my-noggin ideas. Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, I never knew Cartoon Network had been around since the Middle Ages ;) . That timeline of programming is a good idea - another good comprehensive piece of information. -- Nataly a  00:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)