Talk:Cartoon Network/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

prime time

should\could someone put prime time back? even though it wasnt that important, it was a block on cartoon network. so it should have some mention. respond or i will put it back.The Legend of G (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

end date 4 ben 10

we all know that ben 10 will end, but who got the end date? i just want it to be accurate.The Legend of G (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Cartoon Network news site

I know of a new Cartoon Network news site and I wanted to put it on the page but I'm sure someone will come along and say I can't. It's a real .com and the news is real. I'm also aware that people tend to ignore the discussion page and I don't feel like waiting until April to respond so I'm going to be adding it on Monday. (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to review WP:EL before you add it. Unless it's published by, or officially endorsed by, Cartoon Network, chances are it'll be removed. Yngvarr (c) 17:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you absolutely certain about that? I happen to know of a bunch of external links here that are definitely not endorsed by said networks or persons. It seems that some links are ok but only if they're either reliable or popular. I understand reliability because that's important but I don't think popularity helps Wikipedia in it's goals. I took a look at "Wikipedia: External Links" and I see no reason why the link shouldn't be ok. I won't harp on this subject because I don't own the site but I'd feel pretty good to help out the webmaster since he's providing a good and reliable source of information.CN Guy (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain about it too. Those links might be on other articles but this isn't those other articles, the best this site could be is either a rumour site or merely the press releases by proxy. Add it and let people figure out if it's reliable or not. --treelo talk 16:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've decided not to, I don't want to get into a bunch of drama because someone wants the page a certain way. Wikipedia needs more moderation. See ya guys!CN Guy (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not going to try and explain that odd conflict of wording there but whatever, your choice with the link but shouldn't have let someone else decide for you though. --treelo talk 13:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move, and I think it's a bit of a no-brainer myself - this article is about the US channel only. Andrewa (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User:53180 made a request on my talk page to move this page back to Cartoon Network (which is currently a disambiguation page). I had recently moved Cartoon Network to Cartoon Network (US) on the request of another user (User:Treelo) for the reason of naming conventions. Opinions on the matter would be appreciated. ... discospinster talk 21:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggested the move because there is several different versions of Cartoon Network and whilst the North American channel is the first, it's certainly not the only one hence the disambiguation page. Also, having one national version at Cartoon Network is biased towards that specific variant, the other territories have the naming convention Cartoon Network (country/region) so the US article should follow that. The article the disambiguation page replaced was much too long and duplicated a signifigant amount from various other articles. I'd personally like to hear a better reasoning than "It's the main one" or "It should be there". --treelo talk 21:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment While the "it's the main one" argument is a nasty one - if the US version was the original (which I'm not rightly sure of), wouldn't it be the originator? Perhaps the US version should have a section listing the international versions (if related)? Of course, this is all assuming the US one was first and the others are descendants. JPG-GR (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Considering the US Cartoon Network was launched a year prior to any other international version, what's not to be rightly sure of? No comment either way about the disambig page, since my comments were made earlier and elsewhere. Yngvarr (c) 09:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Support, But keeping a subsection of CN US in the main article.  A M M A R  19:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Cartoon Network (US) article should be moved back to Cartoon Network, and the Cartoon Network around the world article should be available again for information on international variants. 53180 (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)53180.

Oppose moving. I am pretty sure the World Wide Web is actually available in more countries than just the US, English is spoken in several of those other countries, and at least two where English is the primary language (Australia and the UK) use exactly the same name and logo. It's reasonable to expect that they would expect to type in "cartoon network" and get their version. Why shouldn't we accommodate all English-speaking users equally? They don't tune in to "Cartoon Network UK" - they tune in to Cartoon Network. Isaacsf (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I'm with Isaac on this, the cartoon network is in plenty of countries, to the point where I imagine many many more watch a Cartoon Network outside the US than watch within it. The article focuses on the US network so it should retain the disambiguator. Narson (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Image copyright problem with Image:Boomerang-logo (CN).gif

The image Image:Boomerang-logo (CN).gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Do you think they have a relationship with Teletoon? Shows like Johnny Test or Total Drama Island aired on Teletoon.--AJ44 (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

They do but only through CN not having a presence in Canada so it's really more a situation where Teletoon makes content, is provided content by CN and in return offers shows for purchase or co-production. treelo radda 08:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Are we going to put this back in the article? --Particleman24 (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't know, if we're talking about the most recent back in April then I felt it introduced unnecessary POV pushing against CN with no objective viewpoint. Further back to November and prior, maybe but viewers are generally harshly critical with zero logical grounding if something changes to their distaste even if it's a logical business change but opinion is discounted over fact anyway. Looking at it, unless someone can get some good verifiable critiques of CN then they're free to add a new criticism section but the past iterations of it have been baseless, poor and generally magnets for bashing and conjecture. treelo talk 02:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I am starting to understand the need for a criticism section given some of Cartoon Network's action and that I am noticing that their non-original programing (with a few exceptions) is no longer being aired in reruns and the removal of Toonami from weekdays is a cause of stress. But I'll also agree that wording has to be in a neutral stance. - (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
As usual, find this area of neutral critiques about CN's current programming choices and you'll have something to base a criticism section on. However, if all it comes down to again is fanboi mewling about how their favourite shows don't air, how their anime slots are being disrespected again or just how they're not doing things how they used to then forget it. Yeah, it is criticism but it's also fanboi criticism, the least reliable and most polarised of any you can find. treelo talk 09:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but still. Criticism is criticism. Also, it's spelled "fanboy", not "fanboi". --Particleman24 (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
fanboi FTW. Criticism is not criticisms, especially when it comes from fan forums which are populated by, well, fans. In other words, fan forums are going to be naturally skewed one way or another. And you know where the word fan comes from? Fanatic. Fan forums are not the most balanced places to find valid arguments. And let's just face it, for every single "criticism" that appears on a fansite, how many silent non-critics will never see those fan sites to be able to voice their own opinion? They're just not a valid source, and I point to WP:RS and Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, if you really need to hammer that home. Yngvarr (c) 01:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, don't want to spell it out anymore than Yngvarr has already but really, if we do decide that a criticism section is required then where do you source it? Can you get it from somewhere reliable? Can you maintain a neutral POV with these sources? Remember, when people say "criticism", it does not mean that it's only to show a negative viewpoint but to also show the positive one as well and you'd better be able to show both areas of opinion rather than the very negative that you'll find from their most vocal of fans who are predisposed to being very binary in how they feel about this channel. Onus probandi's on you, buddy. Find something good, make a writeup in a sandbox in your userspace and then come back to us. treelo talk 11:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The critisism shouldn't be put back because it isn't relavant. Yes people complain about the quality (Myself included), but Wikipedia isn't a place to state your opinion. Unless you can provide a relavant internet site (not YouTube Myspace or fansites) it shouldn't be mentioned. Toonami (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we're done here. treelo radda 18:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

West Coast in 2008?

I'm not so certain about this as I was getting the TOONP Pacific feed in late 2006 at least. (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Change it if it's wrong but there might be nothing to prove it wasn't official and may have been a timeshifted channel provided by your cable company. treelo radda 11:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

New logo?

I was wondering if I should go through the effort to replace the logo in the infobox with the new white one (I have a SVG copy). Pacific Coast Highway {talkcontribs} 00:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually hadn't noticed until just now, and just looked at to verify; is it permanent, or just for particular things? Either way, no nevermind to me. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, it's clearly not intended to replace the logo completely and isn't really worth uploading for any other purposes either. treelo radda 01:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

More logo hijinks

Bringing it here before a slow motion revert war begins, should the older logo image be replaced with a SVG image? The SVG is fine if not slightly off in some way I can't place (first guess was that the black letters are too thick leaving no room for the counters) but is it required for a predominantly retired logo? Would like to know why a SVG would be better, I know why they'd be better in general for images which could be rendered in vectors but I'm still not sure where to stand regarding non-free logos which won't be rendered on any article large enough to even get a marginal benefit from the use of a SVG over a bitmap format. So, what's the pulse of this article's editors then? treelo radda 03:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the only serious benefit SVG provides is that it is open source. Images won't be encumbered by any licensing issues, the kind of stuff that GIFs were subjected to a few years ago. But, guess what, it's a non-free logo, so does it really matter if a non-free logo is displayed in an open-source format? So I say nay to SVG. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC) While playing the video, the screen bug will appear in the corner. It is normal. When you click on the logo in the upper right hand corner, it is normal. Apparently, they still use the logo so there is no need to replace it. Toonami (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Action Flicks

This week CN is not showing actions flicks but some of their own programs instead. Now why this does not warrant any need to change the details now it should however be observed for a while to see if there is any need to change this page around when it becomes much clearer that Action Flicks have been removed from CN. - (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


Do we have a list of ratings for CN? Seems like viewership has gone done the past few years but I'd need some proof. Nite Owl II 01:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends, does it help the article to have these viewing figures reported here and is it to bolster someone's assumption of apparent declination? We'd only be getting "proof" from elsewhere so it really could be done by yourself if you find it necessary to have here. treelo radda 07:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Spring Break 09

Yesterday I was watching a new block on Cartoon Network titled "Spring Break 09." But as of 7:00 am this morning, I cannot find it on the network so I am presuming that it is an afternoon block. But I think it is notable enough to mention under the blocks. If I can dig up information on it, then I will mention it here and consult with an administrator about adding it to the list. Toonami (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC) The information is here in the video. Toonami (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Not convinced, they do one every year and I'm not even sure half of what is currently part of the list is notable. treelo radda 13:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Move to Cartoon Network

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. Aervanath (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Cartoon Network (United States)Cartoon NetworkCartoon Network is an improper excuse for a disambiguation page. I think, since this is the primary channel, we should move this page to that title, move the disambiguation somewhere within the article (or move it to Cartoon Network (disambiguation)). Anyone agree? ViperSnake151  Talk  17:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose A proposed move was made last year (available here) and it was felt that a disambiguation page works better given this Cartoon Network is not the Cartoon Network even if it is the originator for all other variants. treelo radda 18:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reasons as the last time this was brought up. Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Support. Classic case of primary topic. Even the wording on the current dab page acknowledges which topic has primary usage. Also, all non U.S. ones use the same logo and are owned by either Turner or Time Warner, and are obviously derivatives of the original. To put the U.S. one on equal footing with all the others in namespace is misleading, to say the least. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The reasoning for putting it on an equal footing with the others is because whilst others might be derived from the US version it will not be the one some are looking for the majority of the time. Also, it'd show systemic bias favouring the US version if it's made the main article once more when it's far from the primary article. The issue is the lack of a non-biased version covering all variants. treelo radda 22:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, more than one "Cartoon Network". Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose In Britain, for example, the British channel is more notable. YeshuaDavidTalk • 17:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly the primary meaning, the international versions are just using the name as brand recognition and are based on the US original. TJ Spyke 21:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
It's hardly the primary meaning if you're from anywhere but the United States, most of what is in this article is of no relevance unless you are specifically looking for information relating to this version as it is now just one of many even if it was the first. treelo radda 22:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. However, it might make sense to turn Cartoon Network into an article about the global Cartoon Network network. — 3247 (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The original isn't all the most notable, see the example of The Apprentice, for example. I think 3247's idea has merit. YeshuaDavidTalk • 20:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I was also the one who suggested moving CN US to Cartoon Network. But I turned my thought to "Not to move", while Cartoon Network could move to Cartoon Network (disambiguation) by creating an article about Cartoon Network as a brand of television channel, describing brand's history across the world, CN's original production, and CN's related brands. So I created a test article here, which is left undone since months ago. -- JSH-alive talkcontmail 13:57, 11 June 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ready for a semi-prot?

Given the amount of vandalistic/misinformation based edits of, well, the last year or so does anyone (or just you, kind and dear reader) feel a short term semi-prot would be a good thing? I figure it's somewhat under control but if the predominant edits to an article are reverts then there is something of a problem. Didn't get the blitz of "CN SUCKS" and other crap like it which is good but the other stuff just seems to get in the way of keeping the article near readable. So, lock it down or not? treelo radda 17:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a semi-prot. The material that's being added lately is mind-numbing. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
If you want to submit the request then I'd appreciate it, doubt I could say anything different than what I did for The Powerpuff Girls: "Ongoing anon vandalism, fairly popular with kids with time to burn". treelo radda 20:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


Why is there no mention of Toonami in the blocks? Theres obviously too much to talk about with Toonami and it should remain its own article, however, there at least should mention of it. ~Knighthammer(talk) 14 September 2009

There is, just not in its own little section like a few others. It has one now though but it's not really saying anything that wasn't there before. And sign in when you decide to psuedo sign, nothing which gets me more curious than someone editing as themselves whilst logged out. treelo radda 08:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Cartoon Network logo is no longer in black and white because they change the logo color to white since July, 2008 but it's still the same logo though, but in white. Ricky3374 (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, you said that. What you haven't said is why this fairly huge change should be implemented when the new logo has been dismissed as not a permanent feature. Here's what you're against, the logo which is on this and several other articles has been for some time and is still the corporate logo, a stylistic alternate doesn't count as a wholesale change to that logo. What you need to show in order to change consensus is how this logo you have is the new defacto logo for CN US. Just for fun, I went over to because if it's truly the new logo they'd use it there, right? Nope, still using the regular logo, no sign of the white logo anywhere. So again, prove that it is the new logo and you won't be reverted but right now you shouldn't because consensus and verifiable sourcing suggests otherwise. If you do decide to re-add the logo it can be taken as willful vandalism. treelo radda 17:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
If you point your mouse to the Cartoon Network logo, the colors change to white. Try doing doing that go to and try pointing your mouse to the Cartoon Network logo. It should change to white. Ricky3374 (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
But still just a stylistic alternate, for all intents and purposes the initial state of the logo applies a great deal more than what happens upon a rollover. Yes, the white logo is in use however to state that it's the actual replacement for the existing logo as you are is absurd as it'd have to change each season as and when they get a brand refresh which usually includes a new variant on the logo. If you have any reliable source like a press release rather than vague assumptions and guesswork then I'll accept it but for now I'm not convinced it even has a place in the article in any form. treelo radda 18:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

We aren't a TV Guide

A lot of things on the article makes it seem as if we were a TV Guide. Remember, please do not add specific times of when a block airs (instead, put night, morning, afternoon, etc.). This is a problem on the article that needs to be fixed. --Hadger 06:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Whilst an educational course in WP:NOT would be good there are two problems. One, people who add the times generally won't read the talkpage to take note of this and two, people who add the times think it's helpful, that's all the reasoning they require. Just gotta keep removing the times as they come as there's nothing else short of a hidden note that'll stop it, it's never the same person so you can't warn them and may as well warn everyone instead through the means of <!--. treelo radda 10:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay! I will add a hidden comment to all the sections that tell about the cartoon network blocks. If you think it only belongs it the main section for it, then you can remove all the other hidden comments about time. --Hadger 01:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
On second thought, I just added the comment to the main section about blocks (and I only put it once). If you would like, you can add them to all the sections that contain information about a block. --Hadger 01:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Once will do, it's a policy so once at the top should be enough and I don't think adding page bulk through comments is a good idea. treelo radda 01:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Programming block Logos.

(copied from my talkpage - treelo radda 12:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

Why did you remove the programming logos? The [Adult Swin] logo is there for a long time, but thumbnails of other blocks shouldn't be added? I think all blocks should have logo images, and if you removed those images because of missing description, I fixed them before I added them. Speeda psx (talk · contribs) 11:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The description wasn't the issue, it was because they didn't add much to the article in terms of understanding it better and we're not a fansite. To address your concern regarding block logos, [adult swim] is a much more signifigant block than any other and it does have its own article whereas the others don't and if you give all of them a logo the article will become cluttered fast and unreadable. Also, there's the issue of non-free images and that's eight in total as it stands now, the Adult Swim logo is free use so don't point to it as the excuse for more images when it hasn't been required in the past and still isn't now. Don't want a nasty sprawl of garbage like the Nickeldoen articles have. treelo radda 12:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I just wanted to know what was the reason and I agree now. Speeda psx (talk · contribs) 12:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
That's fine, it's nothing personal so you know. treelo radda 14:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

CN HD missing?

Is Cartoon Network being distributed in high definition anywhere now (2010-01-02)? A Cartoon Network high definition channel (771) became available from Cox Cable in Southern California mid 2009 and then in late 2009 the HDTV channel suddenly switched to the same SDTV feed as the SDTV channel (71) where it remains to this day. The High Definition feed had a few technical problems, to be expected from a new service, but usually came through OK. The HDTV programs were originally shown 3 hours earlier than the SDTV channel but since the switch to the SDTV feed are now simultaneous, although the Cox on-air channel guide still displays the three hour shift. I cannot find anything more about the future plans for CN HD programming or if this present situation will continue indefinitely. There is nothing about this on the CN or the Adult Swim websites. Does anyone have a source of inside information? Aldebaran66 (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Doubtful but I do know that it's airing somewhere in HD, just seemingly not through Cox. This one is better answered by Cox themselves as CN does air in HD and should be doing so there too. BAA! radda 03:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
My local Cox provider claims they are distributing what they receive from CN. From the blogs it appears that cable services other than Cox are similarly affected. I see reports that some satellite and other providers are presently converting the low def CN SDTV feed into a stretched HD or other simulated HD formats and distributing this on their HDTV channels. Can anyone report that they themselves have seen a native HDTV show (such as The Clone Wars) in actual HDTV (1080i, not low-def, up-converted) on CN recently? If so, where and when? Aldebaran66 (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't give you any information to be fair, I don't live in the US so can't say whether or not there are any true HD feeds coming from CN and also this really has little to do with content, doesn't it? We can't and generally don't answer questions which don't relate to the content of the article seeing as it's a open question as to who is getting it in HD and if anyone knows if it should. I do know this though, what little content that does come out of CNHD (limited to Clone Wars, Batman and The Secret Saturdays amongst one or two AS shows) is 720p only, not full 1080i. BAA! radda 11:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I take issue with your statement that this subject is not relevant to the main article. The "Cartoon Network HD" section of the article attempts to identify to whom and to where HD service is provided in the U.S. And this section has a banner requesting expansion. If the Cartoon Network or a major service provider in the U.S. has changed or discontinued CN HD service, this is relevant information. I have added what little more I have discovered about this issue to this section of the article. Aldebaran66 (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It was the way you asked the question, it didn't seem specifically content related but if you're looking to expand the section then please do. Remember to get some sourcing also, no good us just going around on assumptions. BAA! radda 23:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Graphics and Logos section

It would be good to separate the things about logos and graphics into a new section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't even have the things about logos and graphics in the article at all. baa! radda 17:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I think that except the change of logo in 2004, the other things of graphics aren`t too important in the article, another example of unecesary things is the "Get Animated" thing. (talk) 6:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Something Strange

In a section of Cartoon Networks Wikipedia page, it reads "Since its launch, the channel has always been broadcasting 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The network's first theme was the Checkerboard theme with bumpers involving the Cartoon Network's first logo, cartoon characters, and the show's logo. The Checkerboard theme lasted until Cartoon Network received its makeover on July 7, 1997."' The Checkerboard theme ended on July 17, not July 7.

16:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Ugh, most of this article is unsourced with regards to dates and pretty much anything else really. You're right, it wasn't the 7th as further down it states the 17th but either date without a source is just guesswork so both are gone. baa! radda 23:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Scooby-Doo on CN

In this article, I was struck by the sentence, "most of the classic programming no longer airs, with the exception of Tom and Jerry, Sccoby-Doo, Where Are You?, and A Pup Named Scooby-Doo." I know Tom and Jerry is still on, but I haven't seen the other two on CN in quite a while. Moreover, if you go to, they are not listed in the "shows" list. Thus, I think the Scooby-Doo shows should be removed from that sentence. HannaBarberaFanatic (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I see, you are more than welcome to remove these examples if you wish. baa! radda 23:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Har Har Tharsdays Cancel?

On a promo on Cartoon Network, it says that new episodes of its comedy series will begin to air on Mondays starting April 5. Since this will more than likely become the new night for a comedy block, will Cartoon Network be cancelling Har Har Tharsdays finally? Bgnkid (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Until the first Thursday in April, we can't put that it's canceled, because it's not exactly confirmed yet. --Hadger 02:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is a "Nood?"

Under "Refurbishing," it says:

"A Nood paints on a parental advisory warning for Adult Swim. There is also a sign-on bumper consisting of a Nood painting the Cartoon Network background on. Then, two others bring in the Cartoon Network logo."

I Googled the word, yet find no definition. We should either include the definition, or change the word to something everyone understands. (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, an explanation is given in the next section but that's of no use to the person wondering what a Nood is and not being able to find it. Much of the paragraph it's in is actually pretty pointless and offers nothing really of interest to any reader casual or otherwise so it's gone. baa! radda 08:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
It is the mascot of Cartoon Network. (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Move page

I think this page should be moved to Cartoon Network. The channel originated in the U.S., so shouldn't this article be moved? (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, even though it is true that the channel originated in the U.S., we should still keep it the way it is. Making a page called "Cartoon Network (disambiguation)" to list all the Cartoon Network channels wouldn't fit, because usually, disambiguation pages list different topics of things with the same name, and a Cartoon Network disambiguation would list things on the same topic. Also, since there are so many Cartoon Network channels in different countries, we should have each Cartoon Network channel have it's country in parenthesis (which are these: () ). Besides, articles aren't named by which country they originated in (unless it's an English-originated thing with a Spanish name in a different country). --Hadger 00:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, excuse me, but I believe the logo has changed on Cartoon Network, and yet you snots don't have it changed on the Cartoon Network page. This better get fixed or I'm tellin' the big man.- Bonkers (talk)

That's already been taken care of.--ETLamborghini (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Who in the hell is the bus driver?

In your article about 2000s changes, it says when Jim Samples resigned, he had been network president for thirteen years. Wasn't he only president for five years? (from 2002 through 2007?) I believe Mike Lazzo was the president for the preceding eight years, preceded by Betty Cohen for the first two years —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryantheincredible (talkcontribs) 02:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)