Talk:Huckleberry Hound

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Animation: American / Hanna-Barbera Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Hanna-Barbera work group (assessed as High-importance).

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters 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.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Mafia Accent[edit]

What, exactly, is a Mafia Accent

This is, at best, sloppy and confusing, and at worst somewhat racist. Better wording is needed. EvanJPW (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

The first image above has been in the article for awhile. An editor is wanting to replace it with the second image. (Both images are copyrighted.) I don't think this is a good idea for the following reasons.

First, the original image is pretty crummy. The replacement is much better, good enough so that I could see someone using it commercially or at any rate replacing a commercial use (making party invitation cards or whatever for instance). This violates the stricture for non free content "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material." See WP:NFCC. This is a policy with legal ramifications so we take it pretty seriously. The original image could be used commercialy (any image could) but it's of much poorer quality so this is considerably less likely.

(If there was useful discussion which engaged with the image, that might be different. If there was text along the lines of "As the twentieth century progressed, popular depictions of dogs began to change, blah blah yadda yadda, as demonstrated in this illustration..." or something. But there isn't.)

Second, the old image works perfectly well to illustrate the subject and help the reader see that she's on the right page. So if it's not broken why are we fixing it, considering that this introduces new problems.

Third, it's common practice here to use title screens, and only title screens, to illustrate articles about TV shows and movies. Because it is a logo so to speak and logos get a special exemption, I think. I believe there is a special box to check when you upload logos and title screens, different from just general representations of the character, as we see in the second image.

So let's not do this and I've reverted this again. If the editor wants to make a counter-argument, here's the place to do it. Herostratus (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 November 9#File:Huckleberry Hound.png and WP:NFCC#10c for why the title card image has been reverted. -- Whpq (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]