Talk:Scooby-Doo (character)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Reinsertion of the Great Dane picture[edit]

I reinserted the image of the Great Dane. The picture gives an opportunity to compare the visual attributes of the cartoon character to a real Great Dane. If you object to the image, please change it instead of removing it. --Bensin 23:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I agree with the previous editor who removed the picture, as it's out of place here. The Great Dane article is linked to in the first section, so if readers are interested in comparisons they can see plenty of photographs there. Generally images should be directly related to the subject of an article, such as screenshots, promo pictures, etc. Having a photograph of a Great Dane in this article would be like having an image of a lion in The Lion King article, or a white-tailed deer in Bambi, and so on. Masaruemoto 02:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough! But I do think that even images that are indirectly related to the subject can earn a place, even if mostly to improve the layout and make the article more reader-friendly. Images can sometimes aid a reader to remember what they've read. --Bensin 21:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No images?[edit]

Why so? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 12:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scooby-Doo eats live sandwich.JPG[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Scooby-Doo eats live sandwich.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Full name[edit]

Isn't his full name me Scoobert Dooby "Dooby" Doo— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.88.244 (talk)

We would need to demonstrate that name was more than a single-episode bit or a nickname. A fictional character's correct name is the name they are known by in the work. To say the character must have a different, "full" name is in-universe, as if this were a real person who couldn't possibly have been given the legal name Scooby-Doo. Since this is a work of fiction, we would need to know what the significance of the "full" name was, i.e. something a writer made up for a single episode, something the producers always considered his real name but seldom used, something routinely identified in the show as his "full name", something used for the short-running Professer Scoobert Doo's Gradooate School of Mystery. Just stating another name is the character's proper/real/full name is unencyclopedic. / edg 02:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Some Scooby-doo PC games came with trivia. One of them said that his real name is Scoobert and that Scooby-doo was a nickname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.114.255 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

In the episode Homeward Hound, we are informed that his pedigree name is "The Honorable Scooby-Doobus of Shagsman's Fields". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.229.3 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Creators[edit]

HI, I think Bill Hanna and Joe Barbera should be given credit along side Iwao for creating Scooby-Doo. After all Iwao may have designed Scooby but Bill and Joe produced the show. Wolfdog406 (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of article[edit]

HI, i deleted this because this is not productive.

Jeffrey P. Dennis, author of the journal article "The Same Thing We Do Every Night: Signifying Same-Sex Desire in Television Cartoons," said that several commentators argued that Scooby and Shaggy are a homosexual couple, citing Saturday Morning Fever authors Kevin and Timothy Burke. Dennis argues that while Scooby and Shaggy hunt for ghosts together, they are not a homosexual couple since they do not engage in activities as a couple, share living spaces, or express any romantic feelings towards one another. Dennis said that their habits of jumping into one another's arms when threatened would usually be a sign of cowardice rather than affection.[1] Martin Goodman of Animation World Magazine responded, stating that "Any serious reading of this section in Saturday Morning Fever (pp. 105-111) quickly reveals that the Burkes were, in a most un-academic fashion, goofing" and "As for any specific statements on the sexual orientations of Scooby and Shaggy, the Burkes plainly dismiss the issue: “Sometimes a cartoon character is just a cartoon character” (p. 106)."[2] scrappy doo- scoobys nephew

Wolfdog406 (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


Scoobra Doo?[edit]

I never heard or seen Scoobra Doo. In what episode(s) does she appear in and how is it that she is in love with Scrappy when they are suppose to be siblings? Wolfdog406 (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, i did some research and there is NO Scoobra Doo. So I'm going to delete that. Wolfdog406 (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality[edit]

Is there any point in the "Sexuality" section? It is about the personal opinions or speculations of people with no particular claim to relevance or importance. There is no sexuality in the cartoons themselves, and specualtions by outsiders is of marginal relevance if any. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this falls under original research and POV at least. Judgeking (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I've started a section about this one reference on the Reliable Sources noticeboard at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Cartoon_Sexuality, any interested parties may want to participate. Judgeking (talk) 21:42, 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) 00:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The consensus at RS noticeboard is that A. the source is an RS and B. the RS noticeboard is not the place for determining whether something is of undue weight.
Undue weight is an editorial concern, and that is resolved on an article by article basis on the talk page(s).
In this case, there's hardly anything scholarly so far presented about Scooby Doo. Fictional character articles are supposed to contain "creation and conception" (from primary sources) and "reception/analysis" (from secondary sources) - So far, Dennis had the only secondary source content.
What this article needs is for more info from secondary sources to be posted here
WhisperToMe (talk) 18:16, 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) 18:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not this person "cannot be objective" is unknowable, and is only your opinion. You do not get to decide on your own what does or does not get incorporated into the article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Neither to you and Whisper, that's kind of my point. Judgeking (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Neither of us is claiming to be a decider - but a consensus, one way or the other, would. However, your contention that the source was unreliable has been shot down quite effectively. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Cartoon_Sexuality WhisperToMe (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Also WP:FRINGE says "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field."
Dennis said in his essay that Scooby and Shaggy are not gay. If the mainstream viewpoint is that Scooby and Shaggy are not gay, then Dennis's conclusion is not a fringe theory.
WhisperToMe (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Which would make a sexuality discussion even more UNDUE. Johnuniq (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternate name origin?[edit]

Although the article states that the name Scooby-Doo was inspired by the 1966 Sinatra song "Strangers in the Night," a reference to the actual phrase "scooby-doo" can be found in this 1961 Sports Illustrated article on hot-rodding: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1072476/1/index.htm 141.248.3.1 (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What about scoubidou ? 82.16.58.234 (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The lyric in "Strangers in the Night" is "doo be doo be doo," while the 1968 hit "Everyday People" by Sly and the Family Stone has the lyric "and so on and so on and scooby dooby doo on.." I haven't found a good source for the Sinatra theory, or any source for the Sly Stone theory .Bradan amhrais (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

love interests[edit]

This sections needs reworking, or maybe should be removed altogether, with parts being integrated to the rest of the article, because most of the "love interests" are really minor characters, and scooby noticing them, and approaching them, doesn't mean they are a love interest! Love interest means they were interested in each other romantically, or had a relationship. Most of the ones mentioned do not apply.Caringtype1 (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I've been editting this section down repeatedly over the years. Feel free to be bold and make the changes you think should be made. Ckruschke (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke