Talk:Pinky and the Brain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Pinky and the Brain was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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
July 2, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
July 19, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
January 13, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Anthropomorphizing cartoon characters[edit]

The article is written in a way that makes it sound as if Pinky and the Brain are real creatures that make their own decision in what cartoons to appear. The subject of the sentences should be changed to "the authors" or "the producers" instead of "Pinky and the Brain joined Elmira in a new series... (etc.)" The way it's currently written (e.g., first paragraph of the article) sounds cute but is inaccurate. Please revise. (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Brain or Brain? - confusing[edit]

I have never seen the series, and this article doesn't clear it up: Is the brainy one more commonly refered to as "The Brain" or as "Brain"? In various places the article uses "Brain" (without the article) and in most places I see "The Brain". Or should it be "the Brain" instead of "The Brain"? JeR (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


There's nothing about the movie in the article. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Pinky, Elmyra, and the Brain[edit]

I've seen complaints that Pinky, Elmyra, and the Brain was the death of the series, but my suspicion has always been that it was a case of the animators cutting loose because the show was already doomed anyway.

Does anybody know for sure what the circumstances were?

Paul A 01:21, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Not completely sure about the circumstances, but they added a line to the theme song for the elmyra version that said something along the lines of "It's what the network wants, why bother to complain?" --Measure 05:15, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Pinky's Accent[edit]

What was Pinky's accent? That info belongs in the article, if anyone knows. Meelar 22:42, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I'm pretty sure both the suggestions in the current version of the article are wrong. Speaking as an Australian, I'd always assumed it was some species of American accent. --Paul A 08:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It sounds a lot like Dick Van Dyke's poor imitation of cockney than real cockney. Article updated. --Barberio 23:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


Nimrod is defined as a hunter. Merriam Webster.

And also as "A person regarded as silly, foolish, or stupid."[1] --Paul A 02:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Apparently, nimrod in that sense comes from Bugs Bunny using towards hunter Elmer Fudd - he was being ironic but supposedly audiences took it as a generic insult.

Anyone remember the theme song?-LtNOWIS 21:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Removed this:

"They are a reference to the television show The A-Team." (pertaining to the catch phrase "try to take over the world", presumably).

If this is not a total non sequitur, could someone back it up with a reference or explanation? JRM 15:13, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

Pinky Gay?[edit]

Was pinky gay? I remeber him having a crush on an apparently male horse?--Measure 23:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

The horse was named Phar Fignewton, and I think they explicitly said that it was a female horse. Not that that makes much more sense. -DynSkeet (talk) 12:12, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
The horse appeared in several episodes. I assumed Pinky's apparent crush on this horse was borrowed from a character (called Pinky) played by Harpo Marx in Horse Feathers, where Pinky (Harpo) displays a crush on a horse. Additionally, although we assume Pinky is male, in a couple episodes he plays a mother or a wife/homemaker. It's a cartoon, don't take things so seriously. ~enjerth 22:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Pinky and the Brain videos[edit]

It might be helpful to have links at the bottom to places to get a hold of the pinky and the brain videos. User:Humanitarian 28 August 2005 16:46

I don't think Wikipedia is in the buisness of advertising. People can look for them selves. --John R. Barberio talk, contribs 17:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

other smart mice[edit]

Is Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH far too tangential to mention here?

I'd say "yes". They're all listed in Category:Fictional mice and rats already, that's probably enough. Unless we can show the book had some influence on the creators of the show (which would be interesting), it's not relevant. JRM · Talk 09:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Pinky and the Brain DVDs[edit]

Yes, finally the time has come. This is no joke! The news can be found at for those wanting the details. --Kamasutra 04:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Pinky and the Brain in films[edit]

They are in the Animaniacs film Wakko's Wish. Anyone have more info on that? 19:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Episode Add in Brain's Plans[edit]

Minor add. There was an episode where the Brain tried NOT to take over the world, but instead, a group of people hail that he should be ruler of the world. Colonel Marksman 19:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


At the end of the Larry section, the bit 'and reminders what he is a part of the episode' should be changed to 'and reminders on why he is a part of the episode'.

Also, at the beginning of the Incarnations section, it says 'Pinky and the Brain were spun off into their own half-hour series' when it should read 'Pinky and the Brain was spun off into its own half-hour series'. "Pinky and the Brain" refers to the show, which is singular.

CGameProgrammer 18:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of larry, uh, he wasn't brown. He was white like the others, and clearly a mouse. he just had brown hair

Video links[edit]

I don't know if this is considered OK to link to, but YouTube has some short clips from the show, including the great "... and Larry" introduction sequence. Can stuff like that be added to External Links?

CGameProgrammer 18:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


I just briefly looked over the article, and it stated that in a historical show, Brain and Pinky traveled back in time to become Prime Minister instead of Goerge (sic) W. Bush... It seems to me to be an obvious case of vandalism, but I am unfamiliar with the show. Could someone with necessary knowledge locate the actual person? Crisco 1492 19:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

External link warning[edit]

In order for us to catch spam, we need to keep the external links section as small as possible. To do that, please create a References section and move the links that had been used as references there. Official sites and sites that had not been used in order to build the article belong to the external links section. If possible, use inline citations to allow us to know where each reference was used in the article. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 12:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In the credits[edit]

Like a lot of WB shows, this one had something secret to look for in the credits, and I think it was a vocabulary word.. Shouldn't there be some mention of it?

--Agreed...I just watched a few episodes and came here expecting some mention of it, but to no avail Progoth 07:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


This article seems of relatively high quality. Does anyone else think that it should be featured?--Jickyincognito 08:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps we need a new picture with more contrast? Freezing the mainstream

Splitting the page?[edit]

Does anyone else think it would be better to have two Pinky and the Brain articles- one for the characters and one for the show? At the very least, I think the one article we've got should definetly give more information about the show- I was recently rewatching it on DVD, and there's a lot to be said, looking back it was very groundbreaking. We could easily get an article going discussing the show's use of non-sequiturs, spectacular lack of continuity, absurdist humour, unusually dark tone, and the Brain's staggering verbosity, odd especially for a kid's show. I mean, in the few episodes I watched, the show was suddenly (and without explanation) set in 1950s Japan, or 19th Century Paris. The pair often approach and interact with humans regularly, with not so much to disguise them as a coat and hat (in fact when pressed, the Brain will actually admit they are lab mice, and nobody seems to realize he is serious). In one episode, Brain is even legally found to not be a mouse in Court. Anyway, you see my point- the show needs discussion independant of the characters' page. Anybody agree?Krawnik 07:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading Level[edit]

Content quality is OK, but writing level is considerably above the level of even an Economist reader, for a topic that on the level of a child, or maybe a high school grad adult. Bring down a couple notches folks, this isn't jungian psychology here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merceris (talkcontribs) 22:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC).


  • Which episode had the quotes go like this:
Brain: Pinky, set faces on concerning the universe.
Pinky: Righty-O, Brain.

Not True[edit]

According to the article:

The Brain bears a resemblance to Orson Welles, particularly in his vocal characteristics (voiced by Maurice LaMarche).

This is not true. An accurate statement would be, "The Brain (voice by Maurice LaMarche) sounds like Maurice LaMarche doing Orson Welles." Or better still, "Maurice LaMarche does the same voice for The Brain and Orson Welles even though it sounds nothing like Welles."


Hi, just wanted to make sure that anyone who sites something should do so properly and in an orderly manner. So, when citing a source, use these citation template guidelines (remember, not every single thing has to be filled out; write as much as you know). If you need to see an example, just look at the syntax of any featured article. Thanks,
Gak Blimby 01:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to add references for specific episodes and using the citation formation; I'll go back to fix the URL-based ones as well. --Masem 04:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Getting page to GA status...[edit]

I've done a lot of work over this last weekend (in conjunction with watching the 3rd DVD volume, which helps) to fill in episode references and much more to get this page close to a review towards being a Good Article (much like the Animaniacs article). There's a couple episodes that without watching I'm blanking on (eg which one is where Pinky gets the world leaders behind him and then Brain blows it), and the "Direction", "Writing", and "Popularity" sections could use some help. --Masem 16:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

I have noticed that there is alot of information in the 'Brains plans' section, and some of it too specific for a section on a general topic. Instead of deleting the information or keeping it there, I suggest we move the article's contents into the article List of Pinky and the Brain episodes and place each plan in its respective episode. In the Pinky and the Brain article, there should be very basic facts under 'Brain's plans', similarities in all or most of the plans. This way, both articles can live up to higher Wikipedia standards and the plans section can still exist. Furthermore, it'll prevent the article from being accused of having a 'trivia' section.
Gak Blimby 23:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the plans list is somewhat heavy for the article, but by episode list standards, that much text for each episode is too much to have in the episode list description. And Brain's part of the article already sort of has the general summary of each plan, but that info can be culled into the section below. --Masem 00:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, so how about we add move the more specific parts of 'Brains plans', but not every single detail, and move what's left of the general info to the 'Premise' section? Seems like it'll make things more organized. [See the featured The Simpsons (season 8) for a good representation]. --Gak Blimby 00:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Yea, that's fine - I've seen other FA episode lists shorter, but if that's allowable, then no reason to not keep those details there. --Masem 00:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. --Gak Blimby 02:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review... Part Two[edit]

Right now, I'm gonna reorganize the 'History' section. It looks a little messy.
Gak Blimby 02:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think we're almost there to get a GA review. The only thing I see missing right now is that there's a paragraph in both Brain and Pinky's section that is truthful but lacking references (all to episodes, so it's not like things have to be searched down) --Masem 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor Note On The Brain[edit]

In the article, it is mentioned that The Brain's voice and mannerisms are similar to those of Orson Welles. Am I the only one who thinks that it's appropriate (considering the style of the Wikipedia seen in other pages) to note that the person who voiced The Brain also did the voice of Orson Welles in Ed Wood? Zirka 14:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Maurice LaMarche's page already notes that he's done several Orsen Welles characters in not only Ed Wood but other cartoons (Note that it appears that because . I'm not sure how including that fact here would necessarily help this article, but as long as Maurice's page is wikilinked it, people can find that out. (Unless, of course, there is some article that states that Maurice was chosen to voice the Brain based on his Ed Wood performance or a similar connection, which then can be added, but I am unaware if such an article even exists.) --Masem 15:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dropped in for GA review[edit]

If you can't tell from the header, I've put the article up for GA review. The only section I think is really weak is the popularity one, and that's basically because trying to find news reports of such ratings and the like from pre-2000 on the web is very tough. If anyone has anything (like old TV guide articles or somesuch) please help fill that section out a bit. --Masem 16:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

GA considerations[edit]

Good enough to warrant GA class. If you were to take this to FA, however, they might want more of it to be sourced. Also, you might find it better to slim the article down by moving the Character section to a new article, with only brief descriptions on the main page. David Fuchs (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Article coverage[edit]

Can you insert a message something like this into this article?

"This article deals with the duo but also the television series."

--JSH-alive 15:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point -- I'm trying to see if there's a template or standard approach for this. (Do note that the lead does mention the show, but not exactly as you are suggesting.) --Masem 15:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Presently put up as a dablink generic template. Going to check with WP:TV project to see if they have other suggestions. --Masem 15:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Snowball's and Romy's names[edit]

"It has been speculated that Snowball is a direct allusion to George Orwell's character in Animal Farm. This speculation is supported by Brain's juxtaposition to Napoleon Bonaparte, whose namesake is Snowball's rival in the novel." I find it interesting that the book characters Snowball and Napoleon are inspired by Trotsky and Stalin respectively, but it's the Brain who's called Trotsky in Brain's Day Off. (But perhaps Stalin is with him in Megalomaniacs Anonymous?) Also, the hamster Snowball seems to be be a more negative character than the Brain.

"Effectively the offspring of both mice, Brain calls him "Roman Numeral One" (implying that more clones were to follow), which Pinky shorts to "Romy" (pronounced ROH-mee). (Later in the episode, Brain occasionally refers to him simply as Roman.)" I think that before Romy runs away, Brain always calls him Roman Numeral One, and in the rest of the episode, he always calls him Roman. Maybe it reflects a change in his relationship to his clone? But I've only seen Brinky, I haven't read the comics (Romy appears in at least one), and I don't know if he returns in later episodes or in Pinky, Elmyra & the Brain.

--Kletta 12:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Another allusion[edit]

another allusion i know of was in the new batman adventures episode "torch song"

Batman:(to batgirl) So, what are you doing tonight?

Batgirl: Same thing we do every night Pinky!

Batman: What?

Batgirl: Never mind...

Why the heck are they showing it on Jetix[edit]

Jetix is full of a bunch of crappy shows. Toon Disney airs classics. If they are going to show it on Toon Disney then don't do it on Jetix. I could understand if they are airing Batman and Superman because they are action. They may be classics but they're action. The Pinky and the Brain has no action in it, It was basically a comedy and that's it. Why do they have to show all of this on Jetix. It's just expanding the stupid block. I want my classics back!!!!!!!!!!!! --Mr. Comedian 23:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, but then again I'm just happy that it's actually back on TV. Maybe it will be there long enough for them to find a new spot. WAVY 10 Fan 14:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You got a point there. And heck, I'm so happy it's back on TV too! I missed this show so badly. I don't like much new shows. I mostly go for the sitcoms of the 80's and the cartoons of the 90's. The two programing blocks I miss the most are ABC's TGIF and One Saturday Morning. --Mr. Comedian 20:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I myself don't understand at all why this show, along with three of the DCAU shows, would be on what is clearly a Disney channel. Aren't Disney and Warner Bros. supposed to be, oh I dunno, bitter enemies? -- (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

'Genius' section needs revision[edit]

The "One is a genius, the other's insane" section is much too long and overwhelmingly argumentative. Claims such as

"Other elements suggesting Pinky's mental superiority can be noticed throughout all episodes."

needs a bit of revision. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Soulja Boy / YTV[edit]

YTV stopped airing it since a month ago or so. Also, should we mention in this article about Soulja Boy's Album '', the intro has a reference to Pinky and the brain (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Pinky and the Brain Computer Games[edit]

Have altered the page to include the Game Boy advance game that wasnt previously listed and revised the startof that section of the page, But I think there is another pc game around... from earlier.. will need to find a source before editing again though Patdfb (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Time Travel, Cancellation and syndication[edit]

The section titled "Cancellation and syndication" states: On February 16, 2009, Pinky and the Brain was taken off on Toon Disney's Jetix block so it will no longer aired.

Today's date is September 6, 2008. (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Freud not a Psychologist, The Brain = The Mekon?[edit]

"Brain finds himself under the influence of hypnosis by a psychologist he had planned to manipulate for one of his schemes (none other than Sigmund Freud)"

Freud was not a Psychologist, he was a Psychiatrist, he had a medical degree.

Another thing that is a bit out of left field. Does anyone other than myself find a striking similarity between The Brain and The Mekon? The Mekon was the nemesis to Dan Dare (a 1950's British comic book character). The Mekon made use of the definite article and was also intent on taking over the earth. He had an enlarged forehead and an atrophied body. I'm no expert but I think someone, who has more interest than myself, might want to check into this.

Reg904 (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Main theme[edit]

I just listened to the theme from Attack of the Killer Tomatoes and noticed the P&B theme has some similarity. NBK1122 (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Does a reliable source say this? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrey P. Dennis[edit]

I am not sure why an editor removed the content. The content comes from an academic journal article that I found on EBSCOHost, an academic database accessible from libraries. Also people have commented on the particular article. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much that it's necessary bad or unsourced material, but what seems to be an article written that answers a question that never was asked. If there was more about how some in the media saw P&tB living together as implications on sexual orientations or the like, and that that paper was written in response to that, there may be more to go on. What would be a good idea is to review that paper and see if it has sources that question the relationship between P&tB and to site those and then site Dennis' paper in response, and then the animation response to that. Alone, it feels odd. (Also, this is a response/reception and definitely should be down in that section , not where the characters are discussed). --MASEM (t) 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with moving the content to the Reception section.
I have the original source document, so I'll see what episodes and other content that the author cites in regards to his analysis of Pinky and the Brain.
WhisperToMe (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
From glancing at the source list, one mentions one of the characters in its title: Stanley, T.L. "Putting 'Pinky' in His Prime Time." Mediaweek 6.22 (1998): 26.
I'll see if I can access this source, and I'll see if I can access any other sources that discuss the sexuality of Pinky and the Brain characters.
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Yea, if you can just add a bit of background as to why the topic was addressed, then it's probably good. Right now, it seems like one of the Ig Nobel-type papers that wonder why anyone would have spent scholarly time on it. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW the paper addressed many different cartoons and discussed homosexual identities in American cartoons. Pinky and the Brain was one of the series that the author looked at. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I found the article referred to by Dennis here:
In it: "'It would be impossible to do that with only two characters,' Ancier said. 'That's why we're adding what we call the family and romantic elements.' Looks like rodent love."
This might be the context. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I originally removed the section because it was in the wrong place. That topic didn't belong where it was. I also really didn't think it was relevant enough to even be in the article in the first place. I still don't. Psychological discussions of cartoon characters seems kind of dumb to me. But I won't remove it this time because it's at least in an appropriate section. Fred8615 (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

According to this page the Journal of Popular Film and Television is peer reviewed. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I came here because the discussion ongoing elsewhere, and Masem's comment inspired me to check this out. I don't know enough about the show to place the sexuality issues in context, so I don't want to weigh in on the overall relevance. But I will say that based on the section length, it looks like it's receiving a lot of weight in the article. The humor section looks to be about a third longer, and the premise section seems about the same length. Do we think that this one thesis on the characters' sexuality is that important to our article? I don't want to cut it down on my own because I'm so unfamiliar with the topic that I don't feel qualified. Croctotheface (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've started a section about this one reference on the Reliable Sources noticeboard at, any interested parties may want to participate. Judgeking (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Discussion continued below. As stated below, the RS noticeboard isn't the place to decide whether something is "undue weight" as that is an editorial concern specific to each article. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Issues of sexuality[edit]

I removed this section. It's pointless, and has no real basis for inclusion and is based entirely on one reference which contains little but speculation. Not every kid's tv show has to contain coded references to sex (drugs being another common one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Additional: if you want to add it back, please justify why you think the issue of sexuality is at all relevant here - preferably in a way that wouldn't be generally applicable to absolutely any article at all if the person had sufficient free time to waste on speculation and digging up worthless papers from academics with nothing better to do than generate guff worthy of the Ig Nobel Prize.

  • And I added it back.
  • "Additional: if you want to add it back, please justify why you think the issue of sexuality is at all relevant here" - Any analysis of Pinky and the Brain in academic sources is relevant. Any. Wikipedia's job is to tell the facts. That includes analysis from academic sources. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." - In other words, generally academic and peer-reviewed publications have supremacy over other kinds.
  • "preferably in a way that wouldn't be generally applicable to absolutely any article at all if the person had sufficient free time to waste on speculation and digging up worthless papers from academics with nothing better to do than generate guff worthy of the Ig Nobel Prize." - That phrase is Wikipedia:Original research. It is not our job to question whether academic research is frivolous. If content appears in a peer-reviewed academic journal, it is fair game for inclusion on Wikipedia. If other reliable sources say "Oh, this is frivolous" then you can add reliably-sourced commentary after that. As in Academic X says WXY, commentator B says that WXY is "frivolous bunk." As a matter of fact, I found an essay that was mostly critical of the Jeffrey P. Dennis essay; the response praises the section on Pinky and the Brain. So others think Dennis's essay is worthy of a response.
  • One could say "this aspect is covered by reliable sources, but it is not important enough to cover in the main article" if the article has a large body of work and needs countless sub-sections to cover various aspects of the main subject (think Barack Obama). Currently Pinky and the Brain hasn't gotten to this point.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
No "facts" here, only opinions of one man; this is heavily POV, undue weight and unreliable source. WhisperToMe, if you want to discuss homosexuality in cartoons so bad, why not create an article on it? You seem obsessed with it. Judgeking (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I've started a section about this one reference on the Reliable Sources noticeboard at, any interested parties may want to participate. Judgeking (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The consensus seems to be that this section places undue weight on a subject that is a non-issue in the cartoon itself Judgeking (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The RS noticeboard entry (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Cartoon_Sexuality) cannot be used to gauge this. The RS noticeboard is designed for gauging whether a source is reliable, not whether undue weight is placed. Deciding whether something is undue or not is an editorial matter specific to each article, and that must be done on talk pages and/or on project pages. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Now you said "No "facts" here, only opinions of one man" - Reporting on the opinions of an academic is a "fact." It is a "fact" to say Bob Academic So and So says "blah blah." Stating "blah blah" directly would be a POV violation. Stating that so-and-so believes "blah blah" is okay.
Now the idea of whether it is undue weight depends on how significant that aspect is in relation to the corpus of reliable sources about that given subject. Unlike works like, say, The Simpsons, I personally do not see a large amount of academic works discussing Pinky and the Brain. In my viewpoint any academic viewpoint or dispute is fair game. If this had a lot of academic works already about it, and one had to pick and choose what is more significant, then I would weigh "well, is this a significant issue or not?"
And we have a reason to say "the Pinky and the Brain comments are important" - The Animation World Network response to Dennis's article includes commentary about the Pinky and the Brain stuff. A way to judge whether a viewpoint is worth discussing on Wikipedia is to consider what the response was. Dennis had a response from the Animation World Network article.
WhisperToMe (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the issue of potential homosexuality should not be readded. It places undue weight on a topic that I believe is a non-issue for most people. Also, the paper the section references contains the opinion of only one man, who, as a gay man himself who writes almost exclusively about gay issues, cannot be objective. Judgeking (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The above reply was cross-posted to many articles, without consideration to the article's contents and the particular proposed Dennis revisions. Considering the decision at the RS noticeboard here, a Wikipedian cannot make a blanket statements that a particular source is undue for all articles. It must be determined on an article by article basis. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
My reply is the same in each article, because the section was almost the same in each article. They all basically go "Dennis thinks this character may be gay. Martin Goodman of Animation World Magazine responded 'That's interesting'". Ridiculous we're even having this debate. (fyi, this current statement is also a blanket statement, as is yours above) Judgeking (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
1."because the section was almost the same in each article" - That is not correct. And plus that response fails to consider that the articles themselves differ a lot. Undue weight is a consideration of the proposed revision and the existing article.
2."They all basically go "Dennis thinks this character may be gay." - The Scooby Doo and Daria stuff don't say that at all. And with other characters there are explanations and qualifications added. The lengths of the latter do differ, with the original Pinky and the Brain revision taking far more space than the Heffer revision, for instance. The amount of space devoted to a subject or an idea within an article is a consideration for whether something is of undue weight.
3."Martin Goodman of Animation World Magazine responded 'That's interesting'"" - To two (Spongebob and Pinky) - He challenged the analysis of some other characters. And even "that's interesting" adds weight to warranting inclusion of the Dennis stuff.
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in the series does it discuss sexuality, even tangentially, so why bring it up now? it seems to be going to places and analyzing thoughts that the creators never had. if you're trying to find it, you can ALWAYS find homosexuality in anything, even if it isnt there, which seems to be what is being done. note that the only scholarly research cited in the article said, in essence; "nope." So why is this a discussion topic? I'm not sure it's relevant, but im leaving it as is. Thats my two cents worth, anyway. Jewhealer (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Cartoon_Sexuality WhisperToMe (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The section is completely pointless. It falls under WP:Synth, WP:OR and is entirely based on one source of some guy making assumptions. This has about as much academic validity as an essay about how Scooby and Shaggy are stoners. It adds nothing of value to the article, and only works to confuse readers. It also takes up half the "Background" (synopsis) section. If I were a reader unfamiliar with the show I might believe that sexuality is featured prominently within the show. Let's also not forget the fact that both Pinky and the Brain show interest in members of the OPPOSITE sex in certain episodes. Another thing - The parts mentioning the show's retool in Primetime on WB and Maurice LaMarche's comments are tacked onto the section in a sorry attempt to justify the theory, even though they are taken completely out of context. yonnie (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ditto here brother! Its a colossal mess of fancruft and wishful thinking... Ckruschke (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke


nice article on a totally useless subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's NARF, not norf![edit]

The word appears printed in several episode names, e.g., "Just Say Narf." The Wikipedia article spells it both ways in different contexts, but only "narf" is correct. Briankharvey (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Website[edit] WhisperToMe (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

article to incorporate[edit]

AV Club interview with Maurice --MASEM (t) 23:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Pinkys intelligance[edit]

It is stated that Pinky wasn't smart, but that's not accurate. Every once in a while it was shown that Pinky was brilliant. In one episode Brain allowed him to be in charge for a night. They would of succeded had Brain not sabotaged it at the last minute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


There's evidently a school in Nigeria named Pinky and the Brain School. Worthy of mention? WTF? (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

So Are The Gerbils?![edit]

So they are Gerbils or hamsters. This is not clear in the article and confused me when I was in College Bill Golden (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Theme song?[edit]

Why isn't the theme song included in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Because it doesn't need to be? Its been my experience that the text of theme songs are posted on Wiki TV show pages that are either lacking in overall content or are loosely editted and allowed to collect "trivia". My 2 cents. Ckruschke (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke