Talk:Tiny Toon Adventures: How I Spent My Vacation

Simpsons

How does this reference The Simpsons? Check the IMDB Will there be a DVD release

information of alternate edit of film

Should the article mention that a broadcast premier featured a radically edited version of this film? Reviewing my archives, I taped the primetime premier of "how I spent my vactation" that had most musical numbers and the buster and babs subplot removed; I think to fit in a one hour time slot.--Kencaesi (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What would be your reference? Youself? That wouldn't fly - plus, the information about the actual original broadcast airing (as four separate episodes) is already in the article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The current article reads "The film later aired on Fox Kids on September 5, 1993, as four Tiny Toon Adventures episodes, episodes 97 through 100." September 5, 1993 was a Sunday. The film aired then on Fox as a stand-alone special in a one-hour slot (with commercials) in prime time. The movie was heavily-edited to fit. I saw this special when it aired. Here's a link to the Fredericksburg (Virginia) Free Lance-Star for that date. It's difficult to navigate but go to page 61 of 78 (page 6 of the newspaper) and you'll find a review at the bottom of the page, noting the editing. Then on page 62 of 78 (page 9 of the newspaper), near the top of the page, there's the special listed on channels 5, 35, and 45. This Tiny Toons wiki claims that Fox first aired it as four syndicated episodes in February of 1993. Just1thing (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

parodies

i find it pretty unlikely that a 1992 film is referencing a 2006 and a 2009 movie. I removed the statements.

Rating

I've got two sources, one saying the film was unrated and one saying it was rated G. Does anyone who has a copy of the movie know if the box has a rating on it? Gak Blimby (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tiny Toon Adventures: How I Spent My Vacation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Plot, "Meanwhile, Fifi Le Fume has her eye on movie star Johnny Pew and manages to track him down at the hotel at which he's staying" ---> "Meanwhile, Fifi Le Fume has her eye on movie star Johnny Pew and manages to track him down at the hotel at which he is staying", per here. Same section, "Fowlmouth will not shut up through the film", I'm not sure if "shut up" is encyclopedic. Maybe "Fowlmouth does not stay quiet through the film", just a suggestion.

   Done Gak Blimby (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

   Check.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the Production section, Television Cartoon Shows: an Illustrated Encyclopedia needs to be italicized, not be in quotation marks, since it's a book. In the Themes section, why are "Superman" and "The Little Mermaid" in quotation marks? Is the Little Mermaid, Ariel, who was parodied in the movie? Or the entire characters of The Little Mermaid? If so, this needs to be cleared. Same section, Deliverance should be italicized, since it's a movie. In the Release section, there's no need for quotation marks around Fox Kids. In the Reception section, italicize TV Guide, a magazine. Same section, "Billboard charts" ---> "Billboard charts".

   Done Gak Blimby (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

   Check.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Does Ref. 13 have publisher info.? Entertainment Weekly needs to be italicized in Ref. 20.

   Done Gak Blimby (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

   Check.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help! Gak Blimby (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. Thank you to Gak Blimby for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination to FA status

I am considering nominating this article to Featured Article candidacy. If anyone has any concerns about the quality of the article, please write it down here so I or others may address it. If there are no concerns raised, I will nominate the article.

Gak Blimby (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating the article Gak Blimby (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tiny Toon Adventures: How I Spent My Vacation. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100303200745/http://www.movieretriever.com/movies/1083557/Tiny-Toon-Adventures:-How-I-Spent-My-Vacation to http://www.movieretriever.com/movies/1083557/Tiny-Toon-Adventures:-How-I-Spent-My-Vacation

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)