Talk:Hanna-Barbera/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hanna-Barbera still exists!

Hanna-Barbera still exists as a name just like ELP Communications. H-B keeps all the trademark names and cartoons such as The Flintstones and Scooby-Doo. King Shadeed 19:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, DDR also still exists. I can still see it in my digital photoalbum ((((((( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.195.86 (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

But Hanna-Barbera DOES still exist!!! If you look at the many shows and direct-to-video films based on H-B cartoons that Warner Bros. has made in the past decade, you will find that they are all copyrighted to "Hanna-Barbera Cartoons, Inc." In fact, almost all of the recent Scooby-Doo films are not only copyrighted to H-B, but have a logo for H-B at the end. HannaBarberaFanatic (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Hanna-Barbera name is today practically only a "doing business as" name of Warner Bros. Animation. Hanna-Barbera as a corporate entity no longer exists. The Hanna-Barbera studio closed years ago and any production with the "Hanna-Barbera" name slapped on it is really a production of Warner Bros. Animation. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 23:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the H-B name was used on-screen during the AOL Time Warner era on The Powerpuff Girls and Scooby-Doo And The Cyber Chase from 2001-2002. King Shadeed 21:09, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

The STAR

• Who created/helped with the creation of the "Swirling Star"? 67.41.213.180 04:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Logos

I can only assume that Tregoweth is too young to have watched Hanna Barbera every Saturday morning as a child. Logo Fatishism??? Get a Life. As you can see from the gallery, the logo changed over time. This is a vital part of Hanna Barbera's legacy. And at the end of every episode, we were told to hang on through the commercials for more of (Cartoon's Name), and at 8, I believed them, and what was there was credits and the end logo. The Wiki obviously can't host every episode of every Hanna Barbera cartoon, but it can show the logos, with dates, to help nail down people memories of these cartoons. Don't delete information out of some insane puritanical goofiness. --Mickdansforth 22:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. There should be a list of the various logos H-B has used over the years, with pictures if possible. I think the logos are a very important part of animation history. HannaBarberaFanatic (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Very first logo?

The article claims that Hanna-Barbera's first logo came out in 1966, but doesn't the "An H-B Enterprises Cartoon" (can be seen on Pixie and Dixie and Mr. Jinks, Huckleberry Hound, and some episodes of Yogi Bear,) message count as a logo or "A Hanna-Barbera production" (not the one shown in 1966, this one was much earlier and it can be seen on Snagglepuss, Yogi Bear and a few other cartoons)? Squirepants101 22:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Benji Eli Chapa Gonzales De la cruz Falcone Macias Ochoa Diaz Garcia

i love your show (scooby doo)because i want to see more classics scooby doo scraphy and scooby dum from "scooby doo where are you"

Vandalism to Hanna-Barbera articles by IP address 89.24x.xxx.xxx

89.241.84.208 has been adding false DVD release information to many H-B articles. This edit is quite ridiculous; DVD Releases of Cattanooga Cats have not yet been announced though scheduled for 2015. First, if they haven't been announced then there would be no release dates; and second... 2015?!

This appears to be the same persistent vandal who uses a dynamic IP 89.24x.xxx.xxx, they usually just make minor, silly spelling and grammar changes like this one, or here.

I'll start reverting these. If anyone watches Hanna-Barbera articles they might look out for this editor, because their false edits aren't as obvious as some vandals. (In the interests of good faith, if, by some possibility, this anonymous editor does actually have a source for this dubious information, please provide proof here.) Pufnstuf 18:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hb-viacom79 0001.jpg

Image:Hb-viacom79 0001.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 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 23:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

similarities

It almost sounds like "Hubba Hubba Inc.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.168.148 (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Castle thunder.ogg

The image File:Castle thunder.ogg 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. --11:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hanna-Barbera Records

Some 45s with a label Hanna Barbera Records have been turning up on eBay and in resale stores. Does anyone know anything about their records and music division? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.149.38 (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My edits

Somebody just changed the founding year in the infobox from 1944 to 1939. The only thing about Hanna-Barbera founded in 1939 was the personal collaboration between Bill and Joe, not the company that is the subject of this article. Hence, I change it. However, note that the text says "1957" and for decades I have heard that they started their company when MGM's closure of its animation unit put the two men out of work. Nowhere had I ever encountered a mention that live-action feature film director George Sidney was involved, either. Clearly, the year in the article has been altered from 1944 to 1957 without changing the surrounding text. Note, too, that the earliest source cite is well down the page in the "Television cartoons" sub-section so I have very little reason to believe these statements. However, all I'm going to do about this is change the year in the infobox to match the one in the text, and add a "cites needed" tag.

I am also removing "Tom and Jerry" from the list of TV series that the company produced, as they never made a program by that specific title. Indeed, that was a TV repackaging of old theatrical shorts assembled by MGM itself, a completely separate and unrelated entity in those days. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted 1944 again, and in the process found another instance in the infobox, in a list of owners of the company. Let me make this clear: "1944" should not be restored without a supporting reference citation. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find any concrete sources for any sort of 1944 foundation for Hanna-Barbera (and even their credit to producing the I Love Lucy titles is animation insider heresay as far as I've found so far), so I revamped the first section of the article with spurces from concrete publications. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Somebody (anonymous IP 68.211.170.140, for whatever that's worth) has reinstated the 1944 founding date, and cites the Michael Barrier book as source, which already had seven statements cited to it, making it easy to just add this one to it. This is the same book wherein it is claimed that Chuck Jones was fired from the Warner Bros. animation shop shortly before it was closed down anyway, effectively calling Jones (who invariably stated that he had been laid off with everyone else) a liar, so it doesn't have that much credibility with me already. However, if Barrier does in fact say this, then the earlier year must stand. Can anyone—since so many statements here and in other articles about the old Hollywood cartoons also cite this book—verify it's presence or absence? --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, now another IP, 208.61.122.86, has removed the Barrier-cite for 1944, as well as the statement of Columbia/Screen Gems' involvement. Cam we get some sort of consensus and lock it in? --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have the Barrier book on my shelf at home. It says July 7, 1957 in plain English. I also have Hanna's and Barbera's respective autobiographies, which also give 1957. Hanna's book discusses the details of Sidney going to Columbia with the deal, the twetny percent ownership by Columbia/Screen Gems, and the placing of a few Columbia men on the H-B board. Barbera's book focused more on the details of making the first few H-B cartoons.

As for the story about Jones being fired before WB closed, it's irrelevant to this page of course, but Barrier's book wasn't the only source of info for this story. It isn't unfathomable that Jones might have liked to cover up the fact that he was fired in 1962 rather than laid off with the rest in 1963, but that is indeed what happened. Barrier's book, if nothing else, is pretty solidly verifiable as far as dates and corporate dealings, contracts, etc. are concerned. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If Jones was fired in 1962, why is the last WB short with his name on it dated to June 1964 (with two others, director credit-less, from his unit even later than that)? And wouldn't the fact that the supposed reason for the alleged firing, Gay Purr-ee, was directed by one of Jones' own animators, Abe Levitow (who was even the credited director on a 1959 Pepe Le Pew cartoon, Really Scent as well as of several of the Jones-produced Tom & Jerry shorts later), send up warning flags? Sorry, but no, I still don't buy it. In fact, it makes me if not you wonder if Jones, who pioneered stylized animation designs—a hallmark of UPA, the production company behind Gay...,—back in many of his 1940s Warner shorts, wasn't out-and-out moonlighting there for an extended period. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

First, understand that there was a significant backlog in Warners' release schedule. The studio closed in 1953 without a single break in the release schedule. The original WB cartoon studio closed in the spring on 1963; the last WB cartoon (Señorella and the Glass Huarache) was released over a year later. The very last Looney Tunes short attributed to Jones was War and Pieces. He was fired while The Iceman Ducketh was in production (the cartoons were often released out of production order), and Phil Monroe from his unit completed it.

The release dates don't give any clue as to exactly when anyone at the studio left; Friz Freleng quit in November 1962, shortly after Jones did in July (and before the studio closed), yet there are several 1964 WB-produced shorts. Freleng of course returned to the studio as soon as it closed to rent the facilities as co-owner of DePatie-Freleng.

Second, Abe Levitow quit Warner Bros. in 1961 to work at UPA, where he did Dick Tracy TV cartoons before working on Gay Purr-ee. Levitow was probably re-hired by Jones at MGM after UPA closed in 1964.

Third, Jones did indeed moonlight for UPA in their early days (when they were still known as Industrial Film & Poster Service). He directed their 1944 pro-Roosevelt short Hell-Bent for Election. Not to be presumptuous, but it is possible that either Jones' contract wasn't exclusive at the time, or Leon Schlesinger had different rules for what Jones could and couldn't do as far as moonlighting in 1944 than Warner Bros. itself had for Jones in 1961.

But I'm saying all of this to say that Jones being fired for working on Gay Purr-ee isn't rumor or gossip: it's a fact. Barrier even gives the exact date Jones signed his termination papers: July 20, 1962. (the papers are housed at the USC Warner Bros. archive, according to Barrier) --FuriousFreddy (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's an article from Barrier's website with a 1971 interview he did with Jones, which directly addresses the discrepancy between what Jones said in the interview and what actually happened in the foreward: http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Funnyworld/Jones/interview_chuck_jones.htm --FuriousFreddy (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people say that the division was founded in 1944 and I think they are right! The company was formed to make television commercials. StevenMario (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And you believe this based on.... what? We have clear citations from multiple reliable sources that place the company's creation at 1957 - what proof can you offer that con contradict them? TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also point out that StevenMario refers to H-B as "the division." A "division" of what? MGM, so that this is a completely unrelated enterprise, other than the participation of Bill and Joe (and maybe George)? This may also explain the repeated claim that they were involved in the animated opening title sequence for I Love Lucy. According to that show's Wiki-article (unsourced on this point), the cartoon openings seen on TV Land reruns are the originals with the channel's logo superimposed over that of the original sponsor. Could a division of MGM, set up in 1944 and involving talent from the cartoon shorts shop, be responsible for that material among other things, leading to this confusion? Or is StevenMario vocabularily challenged? --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Hanna and Barbera actually did supervise the animation of the I Love Lucy titles and interstitials. Barbera mentions them moonlighting to do this in his autobiography and in an on-camera interview he did with Leonard Maltin (which is used for the cite). And as far as I know, no separate division of MGM's animation department was started in 1944. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

O.K. Nothing relevant at all set up in '44, H&B did do the ILL animations but on a moonlighting basis. I think we're clear on all of that. Thanks. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

List of series in intro

In the intro of this article there is the following: "Over the next three decades, the studio produced many successful cartoon shows, including...." This is followed by a list of several HB series. However, it is being dickered with constantly. I think we need to reach a consensus about it and just what it should be. My feeling, and I am just throwing the subject open to discussion here, is that it should be only a handful of representative yet genuinely hit series scattered over that period, listed in chronological order. Anybody else? --Tbrittreid (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

When I first wrote the list, that's the order I put them in: chronological. As it stands now, I'd remove Quick Draw and Top Cat (or maybe just Top Cat), but keep the rest in chronological order: The Huckleberry Hound Show, The Flintstones, The Yogi Bear Show, The Jetsons, Jonny Quest, Space Ghost, Wacky Races, Scooby-Doo, Where Are You!, and The Smurfs. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, personally, I don't think "Quick Draw" or "Top Cat" should be removed, as they both have their loyal followings. However, I do support the idea of putting these shows in chronological order. HannaBarberaFanatic (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

All sorts of things have "loyal followings". We're going for concise summerization and relevance here. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Freddie. Why include one series over another other than personal preference, which has no encyclopedic bearing on what should be here? Rapier (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The list has importance for linking certain series, that readers may know about, to Hanna-Barbera, which such readers may not know about. I think we should only include series that are very well-known today among average readers, who may not know about Hanna-Barbera, but would easily recognize certain series. The Flintstones and Scooby-Doo are probably good to start with. I had known of the existence of these two series long before I learned of the existence of Hanna-Barbera. The Jetsons may also be good to include as well. On the other hand, a while back, I did not know about Huckleberry Hound or Yogi Bear, until I saw them airing on the Boomerang TV channel. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hyphen vs En Dash

This article, for some strange reason, makes use of the en dash instead of the more proper and correct hyphen, in the article's title, and instances of H-B throughout. I'm posting this here, will wait a week for people to throw their proper temper tantrums in opposition to claim that "it's right because it's what's already there," and then I'll go through and correct it about a week from now. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 20:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Wikipedia Manual of Style, etc., are quite clear that the endash is proper usage for this. Remember, we are talking about a "published" encyclopedia page, not an academic paper or personal correspondence. I wish the endash wasn't right, as it disables Wikipedia navigation popups (at least in the Internet Explorer browser), which is a very useful and helpful tool. If you can back up your "more proper and correct hyphen" claim with specific and reputable outside style guides, I for one will be damned happy. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I reckon they came up with that guideline arbitrarily too. Love the irony in that. I'll do my research and see if I can help set things straight. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 20:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? This is a hyphenated name, which naturally contains a hyphen (both officially and in common usage).

Where in the Manual of Style is it indicated "that the endash is proper usage for this"? Quoth Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes, "an en dash is not used for a hyphenated name (Lennard-Jones potential, named after John Lennard-Jones)." —David Levy 06:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

To quote what the MOS says right before what you quoted: "To stand for and between independent elements (diode–transistor logic, Michelson–Morley experiment)." However, the offical name of the company (from what I've seen in logos, copyright notices, etc.) uses a hyphen instead of an en dash. In my opinion, what's the point of whining over the length of a tiny little dash, when the length difference between the dash and hyphen is fairly insignificant, just because the MOS says to use one, and the company name officially uses the other? :-) Who cares how long that tiny little line between the words "Hanna" and "Barbera" is? Probably not that many. Don't you think we should use what is used officially? I do. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 23:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I don't believe that the quoted text is applicable.

"Diode–transistor logic" and "Michelson–Morley experiment" are constructed terms comprising two "independent elements" directly related to the articles' subjects. Conversely, we aren't combining the independent elements of "Hanna" and "Barbera" to describe a concept involving them; we're documenting a single entity with the proper name "Hanna-Barbera."

That Hanna and Barbera themselves devised the company's name by combining their respective surnames is irrelevant, as it isn't something that we are doing now. It makes no more sense to alter their selected orthography than it does to restyle ConocoPhillips as "Conoco–Phillips."

As explained at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), we modify official trademarks to reflect common usage, but "Hanna-Barbera" is both the official form and the overwhelmingly prevalent one. —David Levy 00:03/00:11/00:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree a hyphen is correct here. Jonathunder (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is useful

I think some of these links are useful. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Dwanyewest (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Also these links to [9][10][11][12][13] Dwanyewest (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yackey Doodle, the duck and his friend Killer (?)

Wasn't there a character that was created by Hannah-Barbera by the name of Yackey (or Yacky, or Yackie) Doodle whose voice was similar to Donald Duck's voice and he had a sidekick by the name of Killer (?), that was a Bulldog that always called him his "Little Buddy?" I noticed that this character was not named as one of the characters that was created by Hannah-Barbera (74.232.126.54 (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

Yakky Doodle is a character who appeared in his own segment on The Yogi Bear Show, which is mentioned in the lead. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This link"http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/stories/121906dnentbarbervmains" was at the beginning of a sentence and made no sense in the context. I have moved the link to here for safekeeping and restarted the sentence in question. Thanks.Jihadcola (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hanna-Barbera/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article has 18 citations and it needs more. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 09:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Last edited at 07:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 14:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Use of computers

I'm curious about this sentence from the Joseph Barbera article in Ephraim Katz's Encyclopedia of Film:

"In 1957, Hanna and Barbera left MGM and set up their own production company, Hanna-Barbera, a virtual factory turning out television cartoons at an astonishing rate through a computerized numbering system."

Does anyone know any details about exactly when and how the company began using such a system? The sentence implies that it was unusual at the time. Richard K. Carson 07:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

@Richard K. Carson, HB was always pretty "forward thinking". I was a System Engineer there in the 1990's and part of the specialized animation technology group called the "Production Technology Group" or PTG. We were separate from the regular Turner IT staff called "WITS" which stood for "Worldwide Information Technology Service".

When I was there I heard stories about "guys in white lab coats" who operated big (think room size with air conditioning) IBM computers to aid with the production of the animation. Essentially they tracked just about every frame so that it could be used and re-used over and over again saving them the production costs associated with creating a new frame or segment of film. There might be more out there in books, but not that I've personally run across. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice name you got there 75.129.125.47 (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

1944 start date issue

Hi folks, I just read through this discussion (now archived) and for what its worth I hope my efforts are not partially to blame for the use of "1944". I'm the owner (and founder) of the Hanna Barbera employee alumni group on LinkedIn.com. The official title of the group is "Hanna Barbera Studios Alumni (1944 - 2006)". I used 1944 because that was the year that was "tossed around the water cooler" when I worked at the studio. But this doesn't amount to anything more than WP:OR and gossip. Quite honestly I was just trying to give the group as broad a range as possible in order for people to join. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you're okay. Thanks! --FuriousFreddy (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

One more show for lead paragraph.

I know we're trying to tame the long list of HB shows in the lead, but I realized while reading the Joseph Barbera article that one important one is missing: Super Friends. It ran for 13 years, making it HB's second-longest running series next to Scooby-Doo. Just wanted transparency and a consensus before adding. Thanks. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

"[…]prayerfully, never sold their souls."

I first question the use of the word "prayerfully" anywhere by anyone. It doesn't seem to work here regardless. But isn't this whole notion completely subjective? What's the citation for their never having sold their souls? That's quite an assertion. I recommend the removal of the entire phrase.

Mbshick (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mbshick: It sure looks like it doesn't belong. I can't see who added it, but I've removed it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

HOW DARE YOU! Anyway, the yogi bear show is kinda good👍👍👍 also, as a toddler, I watched Scooby doo, where are you? And I must’ve saw Loopy de loop. And Jellystone! Is good, you should watch it. 75.129.125.47 (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Renaming

On 2017-05-31, this article was renamed from Hanna-Barbera (with hyphen) to Hanna–Barbera (with endash). As far as I can see this was done without any prior discussion. It had been stable at the old name for years. My inclination is to reinstate the old title. There's guidance at WP:ENDASH:

Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities.

• Guinea-Bissau; Bissau is the capital, and this distinguishes the country from neighboring Guinea
• Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but Minneapolis–Saint Paul, a union of two cities
• John Lennard-Jones, an individual named after two families

Any objections? Colonies Chris (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Per the page you cited: WP:DASH. This isn't a compound name of a single person like a woman who hyphenates her name when she gets married. This is a conjunction of two separate entities. "Use an en dash for the names of two or more entities in an attributive compound.: the Seifert–van Kampen theorem; the Alpher–Bethe–Gamow theory, the Seeliger–Donker-Voet scheme (developed by Seeliger and Donker-Voet), Comet Hale–Bopp or just Hale–Bopp (discovered by Hale and Bopp)" (for those who can't tell, those latter examples all use ndashes). This isn't a person who was renamed but a company whose name is a conjunction of two distinct names. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The closest example to this case is Wilkes-Barre. It's a single entity, but it's named after two people. Hanna-Barbera has the same form. It's not a conjunction of separate entities, it's a single entity named after two people. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: How is it not like the ones listed above? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The guideline says the use of endash applies to "attributive compounds"; all the examples you quoted are exactly that. But H-B is not - there is no noun for which the conjoined names are an attribute. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

"or just Hale–Bopp (discovered by Hale and Bopp)". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

But that's just a shortened form of the attributive compound "Comet Hale–Bopp". Hanna-Barbera is the full name. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: Okay, but this is "Hanna–Barbera Productions, Inc." How is that not the same thing? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Because the title of the comet article is Comet Hale–Bopp, so the endash is retained when referring to it in a shortened form. With HB, the situation is reversed. The title is not Hanna–Barbera Productions, Inc, it's just the commonly used short form Hanna-Barbera. In any case the situation is rather similar to Thừa Thiên-Huế Province, which is a single province in Vietnam originally compounded from Thừa Thiên Province and Huế Province, but we refer it now using a hyphen because it has an established separate identity from its components - as does HB. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support – I'm no English major, but from the explanations I've seen on Wikipedia and elsewhere, the hyphen is generally preferred when a single entity is involved. Hanna and Barbera are two entities, yes, but their company is one entity. If I was describing something other than a company name, I'd side with the en dash argument. Two related examples I can think of are Bristol-Myers Squibb and Kimberly-Clark. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support – Per reasons given above. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Moved -- Alex^TW 09:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2018

Can someone please add Warner Bros. Animation and Warner Animation Group back as successors in the company infobox? Hanna-Barbera was absorbed into Warner Bros. Animation, not Cartoon Network Studios, and currently H-B operates as an in-name-only division of WBA, which owns most of its physical assets and makes new productions derived from its library, so that's what makes WBA (and Warner Animation Group in terms of theatrical movies) successors to H-B in the first place. Cartoon Network Studios was only created as a spin-off of H-B. 186.149.155.123 (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Partially implemented. I added Warner Bros. Animation into the infobox as a successor entity per your comment about Hanna-Barbera being absorbed into Warner Bros. Animation upon its dissolution. I didn't add Warner Animation Group as it does not appear to have any relation to Hanna-Barbera as an entity; let me know if you have a source that says otherwise. Thank you for your contributions. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You didn't notice that WAG is making movies based on Scooby-Doo and The Jetsons, did you? 88.66.240.173 (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it's a successor entity. Find a source that says "WAG is a successor to Hanna Barbera". Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Spintendo  13:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• HBIwao&Me.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hanna-Barbera Cinematic Universe

@Jerrylewis528: thank you for your work on improving this page. I wanted to explain some changes I made to the "2001-present" section of this article:

1. First, I reorganized the paragraphs so that each separate theme is a paragraph – so one paragraph on Warner's work using Hanna-Barbera properties, one paragraph on films in development, and one paragraph on comics. It didn't make sense to have final paragraph discuss films and comics when the previous paragraph already discussed the SCOOB film, so I put all the information on films in one place.
2. Second, I removed a reference to the Hanna-Barbera cinematic universe including films on The Flintstones, Wacky Races, and The Jetsons. None of the articles cited actually say that the films being developed on these properties will be part of the cinematic universe; they only say that the films are in development. (By the way, thanks for removing the sentence fragment that I left during my edits yesterday.)

Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Removed "International expansion and educational projects" section

I removed the section entitled "International expansion and educational projects" because it was completely unsourced. If sources can be found, this material can probably be reintegrated into the article but probably shouldn't be restored in the same place as it was illy fitted under the "1969-1979" heading as the majority of what the section discusses is post-1979.

International expansion and educational projects

In Australia, Hanna-Barbera Pty. Ltd. was formed in 1972 as an Australian unit of the American studio. In 1974, 50% of the studio was acquired by the Hamlyn Group, which in 1978 was acquired by James Hardie Industries. In 1983, both Taft and James Hardie Industries reorganized the division as Taft-Hardie Group Pty. Ltd. The company established a division in Los Angeles known as Southern Star Productions, headed by Buzz Potamkin in 1984. New cartoons produced by this unit, would be animated by the Australian Hanna-Barbera studio in Sydney and carried the name Southern Star/Hanna-Barbera Australia.

In 1987, Hanna-Barbera Poland was established to produce cartoon shows and VHS videocassettes for Polish-speaking audiences. It operated under that name until 1993. In Italy, Hanna-Barbera's cartoons had become very popular. The studio launched a major thrust into the European market with the introduction of The Hanna-Barbera Hour, which was supported by an integrated European marketing program. For earthquake preparedness, Barbera and the studio teamed with Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich for a new project called the Shakey Quakey Schoolhouse Van, headlined by Yogi Bear.

Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Cahuena studio discussion

@Jerrylewis528: I just wanted to let you know why I partially reverted this edit: it seemed to me that it would make sense to put the information regarding the Cahuenga studio in one place, mostly because it might be confusing to mention the studio's possible demolition before the discussion about Hanna-Barbera moving out of the studio. Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I also put together information about the deaths of key studio employees together in one location because it didn't flow well having the information in different paragraphs, though I understand your reasoning for keeping the information in chronological order. If you disagree, I request that you please reply here instead of edit warring. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Aoi I now gave that user a level 3 warning as a result of another edit he made. --IanDBeacon (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jerrylewis528: I noticed you changed the item back again. Can you please just leave a note here and let us know why you prefer discussing the items in the order you keep editing it to? Aoi (青い) (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Sound effects citations

There are many, many discussions of the Hanna-Barbera's extensive sound library in sound forums and blogs. However, the only source I could locate that would be up to Wiki standards was an exhibition at the Norman Rockwell Museum. I replaced the more detailed text with a simple descriptor and source-- better to acknowledge their library than have the whole section deleted. Perhaps someone will find a more extensive link at some point when older media is archived online (or a link I couldn't find is uncovered by someone). Technutt (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

New page

there is a new page now in Draft:Hanna-barbera cinematic universe if anyone want to comeover and help devpolmt Fanoflionking 14:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Status in Question

I don't mean to be a burden in anyway shape or form but I am now questioning the status of this company because in the credits of the latest Scooby Doo movies, I saw "Warner Bros. and Hanna Barbera Presents", giving the clue of them somehow still existing, despite being absorbed as a subsidiary group within the studio. If there's any further information on classifying their status now, please inform me. Thank you and have a great day...

"Hanna-Barbera's Cartoon Corral" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hanna-Barbera's Cartoon Corral. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 15#Hanna-Barbera's Cartoon Corral until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Headquarters

I reverted this edit because Hanna-Barbera was based out of Sherman Oaks for only four years of its multi-decade existence. Its main studio from the early 1960s to the late 1990s, according to the article, was in Hollywood. Either way, both areas are neighborhoods within LA, so I think the LA description fits better. Please let me know if you disagree. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Two contradicting sentences in and after the first paragraph.

"Hanna-Barbera was merged with Warner Bros. Animation, an animation studio owned by Time Warner, in 1996.

After Hanna died on March 22, 2001, Hanna-Barbera was absorbed into Warner Bros. Animation."

These two sentences are adjacent to each other and are contradicting, with other dates on the page showing that Hanna-Barbera was defunct in 2001.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roboticvenusian (talk • contribs) 16:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I removed the first sentence and restored a note stating that Turner merged with Time Warner in 1996. This should remove the contradiction. Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Date of absorption and quality of sources

@MegaSmike46: The information you are adding in this diff is from what appears to be a user-generated wiki. That is not a reliable source per WP:UGC (and honestly, looking at the website, that's just the tip of the iceberg as far as issues with that source goes). In addition, the statement you are adding in doesn't even mesh with what the website says. Either way, please stop re-adding it in unless you have a better source that meets WP:RS. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I'll have to find stronger sources. One fact for sure is that Hanna-Barbera was merged into Warner Bros. Animation before Hanna's death. MegaSmike46 (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)