Talk:Duck Dodgers in the 24½th Century

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Animation: American / Looney Tunes Mid‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Looney Tunes work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed merge[edit]

This article needs to be merged with the general Duck Dodgers article as the entirety of it is duplicated.

Please sign your posts on talk pages, user 67.169.63.116. Yes, something should be done, and a merge is one possibility. Andrewa 19:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the merge proposal. As a Hugo award winner and a frequent mention in lists of the funniest cartoons of all time, this particular cartoon should have its own article. Andrewa 03:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support the merge proposal. The information is redundant and there is not enough unique material to justify a seperate page. This viewpoint is supported by the fact that said material is not there and the article is mostly just a duplicate. 67.169.63.116 17:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is growing. That's what stubs are for. Andrewa 20:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Love[edit]

Any chance there will be a separate Harry Love page for the animator of this cartoon and disambiguation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.188.146 (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot copied from[edit]

I've removed the notice that stated that the plot details were copied from the Duck Dodgers article, it's not necessary in terms of the GFDL and I think this note is sufficient.

The plot section also needs a refactor IMO, which I'll do as I find time. Andrewa 06:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DuckDodgersTitleCard.jpg[edit]

Image:DuckDodgersTitleCard.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 15:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo award winner?[edit]

I'm lost. I can't find internal supporting evidence that the cartoon won a Hugo. The article to which both this article and the category in the footer point back to states it was a nominee not a winner. Specifically, I'm looking at the intro to the document which states, "Winning titles are listed first, with other nominees listed below," and the section which shows "DDit24.5C" below the winner for 2004. Could someone please point out what I'm missing? (If I'm correct than also the category for Hugo Award Winners needs fixing). --Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go you one better: From their official site]. It leaves this short as nominated but losing to George Pal's War of the Worlds. So I'd say that statement is in error. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the category. If anyone knows of a category for nominees please add it. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot trim[edit]

Just a quick note: I massively trimmed the plot section, as I believed it was way too detailed. This cartoon is actually very straightforward, plot-wise - aside from the beginning and the bit about plotting the course, the initial meeting between Dodgers and the cartoon's conclusion, most of the cartoon is about the sight gags and back-and-forth between the two main characters. In a way, it's similar to a Wile E. Coyote / Road Runner cartoon, though because there are many more of those, it makes more sense to go into detail about the Coyote's traps since each cartoon shows different ones.

If people disagree about this level of detail, I won't be offended if someone decides to revert my edit. I may not be aware of the general rules surrounding cartoon plots. Thanks for your patience. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title music contains a reference to another old song[edit]

The article mentions that Carl Stalling composed original music for this cartoon, with the notable exception of a reference to Raymond Scott's "Powerhouse" (which was referenced in a lot of WB cartoons). However, there's another reference in the title music, but I don't actually know what it is. Does anyone else? (And unfortunately, I doubt there's much third-party source material about that musical reference.) Here's a link to a video that contains the original composition (the "monkey bathing a cat" film): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkviIYKjPyw — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I found one version of it - another Raymond Scott composition titled "Egyptian Barn Dance": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MYymw9WE7c&list=PLrE3AiD44C2RtuptdLVRajQ69SUvOVWC4&index=12 — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]