From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nominee Peanuts was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 27, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
June 21, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
June 10, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Which character was the one with a rain cloud over his head?[edit]

Anyone remember? I tried googling the answer with no luck.
Native94080 (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Li'l Abner comic strip character Joe Btfsplk. (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


When I was looking at the August 5, 1973 comic strip, in plain sight, written on the side of Snoopy's doghouse is "Happy Birthday Amy". (The last appearance being on August 5, 1998.) What's up with this? Newwikiprofile001 (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Those were Schulz's birthday greetings to one of his daughters. (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Schulz did those "secret" Happy Birthday Amy! messages several times during her birthday (August 5). And yes, The Complete Peanuts does include those messages in the strips. I think the BIG question is why Schulz only did that for Amy and not his other children? (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


"He first used the name Charlie Brown for a character there, although he applied the name in four gags to three different boys and one buried in sand. "

What does that even mean? Three different boys *and* one buried in sand. Was the boy buried in the sand the same as one of the others, or was he too different, in which case it should read, He first used the name Charlie Brown for a character there, although he applied the name in four gags to four different boys, one of which was buried in sand." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem being that we cannot visually compare the one buried in the sand to the other three, because, well, buried in the sand. "Three different visible boys and", perhaps? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The History section for the comic should be seperated by decade.[edit]

I think the history section (as it deals with the comic) could be a fantastic part of the article but it's a bit on the sloppy side in terms of how it's organized. Can we do separate sub-sections for each decade? That is how the 60th Anniversary coffee table book is done and for each decade, we could include which characters debuted and the major storylines that occurred as well as how Peanuts evolved over the decades. (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Other licensed appearances and merchandise - Comments Requested[edit]

The subject section seems to have turned into a grab bag for every television appearance/reference or product in the US and abroad. Besides the fact the it welcomes insertion by everyone who thinks they see a Peanuts reference in a television show, which would cause this list to grow further out of control, lists of this type are frowned upon by Wikipedia. I'm therefore seeking input on what should be done. Options that leap to mind include a major thinning of the herd or a deletion of the whole section. Suggestions/comment? Thanks - Ckruschke (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Besides the Monopoly game, there were a number of earlier board games, starting with "Peanuts: The Game of Charlie Brown and His Pals" in 1959. Goustien (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


can you guys move this to "Peanuts (comic strip)" or something

then we can make a proper dab — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The dab page is located at Peanut (disambiguation). - jc37 19:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Add Playpen[edit]

There is no section for Playpen. Add Playpen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't you mean Pigpen, who is in the article? (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Article should be about real *Peanuts*, not a comic strip![edit]

Real peanuts are very important worldwide compaired to comic strip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 15:29, 26 November 2012‎ (UTC)

The article you refer to is located at Peanut. - jc37 19:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Top Importance?[edit]

There's a discussion on which comic-related articles should be listed as "Top Importance" on the importance scale, and I feel this article should not be included. If any user disagrees or wishes to contribute, please do so there. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Adult characters[edit]

Although adults are not seen or heard (except perhaps in a few early strips, as mentioned in the article), the kids have conversations with grown-ups, mainly teachers at school. In the TV cartoons, the teacher's voice is represented as "wa-wa-wa, waa-waa-wa-wuh" (or something vaguely along those lines); in the strips, the teacher's words are never shown, but can be inferred from the responses to them. (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

What is you suggested edit to the page? Ckruschke (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
The limited portrayal of adults in the strip is already mentioned in the article. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Anniversary book[edit]

The book The Peanuts Collection (ISBN 031608610X) was also promoted as a 60th anniversary volume. As the author of that book I'm not going to add it to the Anniversary Books section of the article myself, due to clear WP:COI, but I leave it for other editors to consider. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Snoopy As A Peanuts Starring Character[edit]

It's absolutely absurd to state that Snoopy was a minor Peanuts character before the 1970s! Do read the Complete Peanuts and watch the 1960s animations. Synopsis of late 1950s Complete Peanuts volume, with Snoopy on cover and synopsis, here -

I have corrected the unsourced edit.

( (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC))

An editor has continued to insert this bizarre, unsourced, and false claim. He wasn't launched as a minor character - in October 1950, the first month of the strip, he appears in 12 of the 26 strips (unnamed, as of yet, but very apparent.) He wasn't big yet in the 1960s??? The first month of the 1960s, he appears in 14 of the 31 strips. I'm not going to make the edit myself (I have a strong WP:COI; among other things, I'm writing an upcoming licensed book about Snoopy) but it should be reverted by someone without such a WP:COI. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
To say nothing of the fact that Rinehart & Company's own main line of reprint books issued one titled simply Snoopy in 1958, and by the very next year Saalfield had issued a Peanuts coloring book "featuring Snoopy". (And I don't have direct evidence, but the 1959 coloring book may have been an expansion of a first edition published ca. 1955. The book represents a bunch of strips from the 1954-55 period for the first so many pages, and then suddenly "jumps" to 1958-59 after that.) So by the mid- to late-1950s Snoopy was being "officially" regarded as the strip's second-most-important character. 2601:545:8202:4EA5:0:0:0:1A08 (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Snoopy In The 1960s[edit]

I cannot agree that Snoopy was a "minor" character until the 1970s. The lunar module was nicknamed after him in 1969 , and the "Complete Peanuts" reveals that Snoopy was anything but minor before the decade's end. Any examination of Snoopy's appearances in the Complete Peanuts will show that the 1960s was the era when he moved from minor to major character (indeed this process had begun in the 1950s), as do the 1960s TV animations.

( (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC))

( (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC))

Opinion and not fact based?[edit]

Hi, reading this I felt that the introduction has a couple sentences that could be restated. From the article introduction: "...however, at least on its 1960s peak, it surpasses most comic strips in that it is sharp, intellectual, emotionally real, and can be read on several levels of enjoyment". This came across like reading one critics' review of Peanuts. In particular, I felt that it did not follow the NPOV- "statement of opinions as fact." Also, does this comparison apply as the 60's Peanuts vs 60's comic strips? Or 60's peanuts vs comic strips of all time? If these are to be kept I think they should be attributed to an actual review or statement and sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furiousferret (talkcontribs) 21:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Numbers in the new specials section[edit]

In this edit, an IP user added a block of text that appears to have been copied from a wiki page, as it has a lot of bracketed numbers that were presumably references. These numbers still show up in Peanuts#2000.E2.80.93present:_New_specials If anyone can track down the source of this material and get the actual wiki code, so that we have the actual references themselves, that might be a good idea. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Uncited material in need of citations[edit]

I am moving the following uncited material here from the article until citations can be found for it, per WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:PSTS. Note that secondary sources are especially necessary for material that is analytical or evaluative. Nightscream (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The 1960s is known as the "golden age" for the comic strip. During this period some of the most well known themes and characters appeared, including: Peppermint Patty, Snoopy as the "World War One Flying Ace", Frieda and her "naturally curly hair", and Franklin. Peanuts is remarkable for its deft social commentary, especially compared with other strips appearing in the 1950s and early 1960s. Schulz did not explicitly address racial and gender equality issues so much as he assumed them to be self-evident in the first place. Peppermint Patty's athletic skill and self-confidence is simply taken for granted, for example.

Schulz would throw satirical barbs at any number of topics when he chose. Over the years he tackled everything from the Vietnam War to school dress codes to the "new math". One strip on May 20, 1962 even had an icon that stated "Defend Freedom, Buy US Savings Bonds." In 1963 he added a little boy named "5" to the cast, whose sisters were named "3" and "4," and whose father had changed their family name to their ZIP Code, giving in to the way numbers were taking over people's identities. In 1958, a strip in which Snoopy tossed Linus into the air and boasted that he was the first dog ever to launch a human, parodied the hype associated with Sputnik 2's launch of "Laika" the dog into space earlier that year. Another sequence lampooned Little Leagues and "organized" play, when all the neighborhood kids join snowman-building leagues and criticize Charlie Brown when he insists on building his own snowmen without leagues or coaches.[citation needed]

Peanuts did not shy away from cartoon violence. The most obvious example might be Charlie Brown's annual, futile effort to kick the football while Lucy holds it. At the last moment, she would pull the ball away just as he was kicking. The off-balance Charlie Brown would sail into the air and land on his back with a loud thud. There was also the ever-present (and often executed) threat by Lucy to "slug" someone, especially her brother Linus. Though violence would happen from time to time, only once or twice was a boy ever depicted hitting a girl (Charlie Brown, who accidentally hit Lucy; when Lucy complained about it, Charlie Brown went down to her psychiatric booth where she returned the slug much harder) August 8, 1965.[citation needed]

Schulz misspelling[edit]

At the moment, the 1960s=1970s section has Schulz's name misspelled as "Schultz" twice. I've got a Peanuts COI; could someone else fix this? --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Fixed 'em. Trivialist (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • For future reference, even with COI, you can fix minor errors like that. howcheng {chat} 09:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"gag cartoon"[edit]

An editor has added in the infobox and in the categories the claim that Peanuts is a "gag cartoon". Since as that link will show, a gag cartoon is a single-panel cartoon, generally with text below rather than word balloons, the description does not match Peanuts. Could someone remove those additions? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Never mind; the original editor has now addressed this. (Thanks!) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Peanuts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The Complete Peanuts[edit]

The section on the book series The Complete Peanuts is now outdated. It is known what will fill out the 25th volume; most notably, it will contain the Li'l Folks cartoons that Schulz did before Peanuts. Additionally, it is no longer a 25 book set as the latest Fanatgraphics catalogue (see page 19) announces that there will be a 26th volume. While the decriptor there was done before the contents were locked down (actually, they still aren't fully locked down), I can say that it will include Peanuts comic book stories, among other Peanuts material by Schulz that appeared outside of the newspaper strip. I'm a curator of this volume, and as such have a WP:COI and will not insert it into the article myself, but I encouraged others to verify the source above and add/correct the section appropriately. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Volume 26 has now been solicited and is listed on Amazon, making it easy for anyone to verify. Could someone without a COI please update this section? --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

New Peanuts TV Special[edit]

I'm going to place this here and on the Peanuts Filmography also. But there's no talk about the new Peanuts special anywhere that I can find. It's debuting on Boomerang on Monday May 9th. I'm trying to find info as I type but it almost seems like it's a secret. Anyone else have info? TSO Beethoven (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not a special, it's a series of shorts that were produced in France for the international market. Coverage here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Random list in the 'Books' section[edit]

This seemingly random list of books has been tacked onto the end of the 'books' section for ages now, and nobody really has questioned it:

  • Chip Kidd, ed. (2001) Peanuts: The Art of Charles M. Schulz. New York: Pantheon Books. ISBN 0-375-42097-5 (hardcover), ISBN 0-375-71463-4 (paperback).
  • Derrick Bang with Victor Lee. (2002 reprinting) 50 Years of Happiness: A Tribute to Charles M. Schulz. Santa Rosa, California: Charles M. Schulz Museum and Research Center. ISBN 0-9685574-0-6
  • Derrick Bang, ed. (2003) Lil' Beginnings. Santa Rosa, California: Charles M. Schulz Museum. The complete run of Li'l Folks (1947–1950) ISBN 0-9745709-1-5
  • Charles M. Schulz (1975) Peanuts Jubilee: My Life and Art with Charlie Brown and Others. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-25132-6 (paperback).
  • Charles M. Schulz (2004) Who's on First, Charlie Brown?. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-46412-5.
  • Robert L. Short (1965) The Gospel According to Peanuts. Westminster John Knox Press: ISBN 0-664-22222-6.
  • Simona Bassano di Tufillo (2010) Piccola storia dei Peanuts (Donzelli editore, Roma). ISBN 978-88-6036-477-7[53]

Should this section be removed? There's no real explanation what that list is doing there. Otherwise, can this list at least be characterised, perhaps placed in a different section? Derick1259 (talk) 08:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like someone went and gathered a bunch of books about the Peanuts/Schulz. Since they have nothing to do with the section and they seem to be a random gathering of esoteric titles, they should clearly be deleted. Ckruschke (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke
Will be removing this list then. Derick1259 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

'Other licensed appearances section' section[edit]

I've did a bit of organisation to this section so it's not totally a seeming mess of trivia. Still work to be done. I've cut out a few parts, even though most I think is worthwhile mentioning in the article but not in this section, perhaps these can be mentioned elsewhere if appropriate?:

In the 1960s, Robert L. Short interpreted certain themes and conversations in Peanuts as being consistent with parts of Christian theology, and used them as illustrations during his lectures about the gospel, and as source material for several books, as he explained in his bestselling paperback book, The Gospel According to Peanuts.

In 1980, Charles Schulz was introduced to artist Tom Everhart during a collaborative art project.

A lot work still needed for this article to reach a decent quality, which is a shame because I think Peanuts is important. Derick1259 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

last Peanuts specials that include Vince Guaraldi performances[edit]

The article currently says: "David Benoit redid Vince Guaraldi's musical scores 1992 until 2006."

What exactly do these (unsourced) words mean -- particularly "redid"? It sounds like DB created new scores based on old VG scores, and these new scores were newly performed, maybe by DB? Or, did DB merely re-perform old VG scores? And, was all this mixed with snippets of actual old recordings of VG, or did the new soundtracks not include any samples at all of VG playing? What are the last Peanuts specials that include VG performances? - (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Where in the text do you see this written? In the Sound Recordings section, it clearly states that David Benoit did music for two videos. I can't comment until I know the context that you are looking at. Ckruschke (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke

The Complete Peanuts needs updating[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

An editor just added a link to 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, which is the news-and-reviews page (in which case the text name for the link should be The Aaugh Blog); or possibly at , 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)TCM 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)
@Anachronist: Thanks. And please forgive me if I sounded dismissive above. Thanks, @NatGertler: as always. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 23:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)