This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American 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 This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Television Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Animation: American / Looney Tunes / Warner Bros. High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Looney Tunes work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Warner Bros. Animation work group (assessed as Top-importance). More information: /  This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. This article lacks sufficient references and adequate inline citations. Once the references are added, please remove the |unref= parameter from this template. This article has marked as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Companies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments California: Los Angeles Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force. United States: Animation / Cinema / Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Animation - American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Material from Warner Bros. Animation was split to List of Warner Bros. Animation productions on 17 August 2018 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.

Please stop re-adding animated titles that Warner Bros. distributed. Warner Bros. Animation isn't involved in distribution; they're just a division of Warner Bros. —tregoweth (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Just re-re-removed this same tired list. -FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we make a Template for this like others? You can view my page here to see what I mean. I asked because I don't know how to make a Template.--Mato Rei 03:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Dreamworks stuff doing in the infobox? – Ilse@ 13:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not to be merged with Warner Bros. Cartoons, for reasons already explaine and discussed at that article. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone decided to drop a long and unreferenced "Library" section into the bottom of the article. If that person, or someone else, can reference and cite Warners' ownership of all of these assets, it can go back in. Otherwise, here it sits. Note that this is a cleaned up version I attempted to fix up, before I myself started questioning a few of the items on here.

Warner Bros. Animation also manages the animation holdings of Warner Bros. Entertainment. Aside from works produced by Warner Bros. Animation since 1980 and any animated films distributed by Warner Bros., the division also manages the rights to the following works:

• The Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies cartoons and all related works
• The following animated TV series:
  • Productions based upon DC Comics characters produced before 1990 by other studios (The Batman/Superman Hour, Superman, Super Friends, etc.)
  • The Dukes and Police Academy, animated television spin-offs of Warner film and television properties
  • U.S. rights to the anime Marine Boy
• Non-Japanese rights to the first three Pokémon films, as well as the non-Japanese rights to Yu-Gi-Oh! The Movie: Pyramid of Light
• The 1941-1943 Paramount Superman theatrical cartoons (the cartoons themselves are public domain, but Warner owns the masters)
• The 1974-89 Rankin/Bass library, inherited from Lorimar-Telepictures
• The feature film Watership Down
• The New Line Television animated series The Mask: The Animated Series and Dumb and Dumber
• The animated holdings of Turner Broadcasting System, which itself includes:
  • Captain Planet and the Planeteers and The New Adventures of Captain Planet
  • The feature film Tom and Jerry: The Movie
  • Most of the pre-1996 Hanna-Barbera Production library
  • Most of the pre-1991 Ruby-Spears library
  • Turner Entertainment's library of pre-1986 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer animated productions
    • All MGM animated short subjects and TV specials produced between 1934 and 1970
    • The US rights to the anime film Magic Boy
    • The feature The Phantom Tollbooth
    • Two Tom and Jerry TV series (The Tom and Jerry Show and The Tom and Jerry Comedy Show)
    • Two animated series based on Gilligan's Island (The New Adventures of Gilligan and Gilligan's Planet)
    • The 1933-1957 Paramount Popeye theatrical cartoons

Warner Home Video also has DVD rights to programs produced by Cartoon Network and Adult Swim, as well as the Peanuts TV specials and series.

Here's an updated version with more information:

Warner Bros. Animation also manages the vast animation holdings of Warner Bros. Entertainment, which include various aforementioned acquisitions.

Warner retains ownership of all the animated works they themselves produced and/or distributed, including:

• The Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies cartoons
  • Including those reacquired from Seven Arts and Turner Entertainment Co.
  • Various TV specials, TV series, and movies based on these characters
• Various animated TV shows from the 1960s onwards
  • The pre-1992 DC Comics animation series, originally produced by various other studios (such as Filmation, Hanna-Barbera, and Ruby-Spears)
  • The animated spin-offs of The Dukes of Hazzard (The Dukes) and the Police Academy movies (Police Academy), animated by Hanna-Barbera and Ruby-Spears, respectively
  • All WB in-house animated TV shows from 1990 onward
• Several non-Looney Tunes animated features from 1962 onwards animated by other companies but distributed by Warner Bros.
• Non-Japanese rights to the first three Pokémon films and Mewtwo Returns, as well as the non-Japanese rights to Yu-Gi-Oh! The Movie: Pyramid of Light

In addition, Warner has also acquired several other animated works through various mergers and acquisitions

• The 1940s Superman theatrical cartoons, originally by Paramount Pictures, Fleischer Studios, and Famous Studios (the cartoons themselves are public domain, but WB owns the masters)
• Marine Boy
• The 1974-89 Rankin/Bass library, inherited from Lorimar-Telepictures
• Watership Down
  • Acquired properties from Turner Entertainment Co.
    • The pre-May 1986 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer animated library, including
      • All their short subject cartoons (1934–1967)
      • The US rights to Magic Boy
      • The Phantom Tollbooth
      • Three television specials from 1966–1970
      • Two Tom and Jerry TV series animated by Hanna-Barbera in 1975 and Filmation in 1980
    • Two animated series (The New Adventures of Gilligan and Gilligan's Planet) based on Gilligan's Island
    • The Popeye theatrical cartoon series from 1933–57, also originally by Paramount, Fleischer, and Famous Studios
    • The Abbott and Costello Cartoon Show (produced by Hanna-Barbera for RKO General)
    • Captain Planet and the Planeteers (produced by DiC Entertainment) and The New Adventures of Captain Planet (produced by Hanna-Barbera)
    • Most of the non-Cartoon Network backlog of Hanna-Barbera Productions, including most TV series, specials, and feature films produced by the company
    • Most of the pre-1991 Ruby-Spears library
    • Tom and Jerry: The Movie
    • The international rights to The Pagemaster (20th Century Fox owns the domestic rights)
  • The New Line Television animated series The Mask: The Animated Series (produced by Film Roman) and Dumb and Dumber (produced by Hanna-Barbera), These became WB ownership in 2008 when WB absorbed New Line Cinema

WB also has VHS/DVD rights to programs produced by Cartoon Network and Adult Swim.

WB also has DVD rights to The Charlie Brown and Snoopy Show, This is America, Charlie Brown, and the Peanuts TV specials.

Some of these programs can be seen on the Kids' WB website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.34.84 (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word "libraries" is misspelled in the header for this section.

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should films and TV shows that have simply been announced still be listed? These productions may never come off and if they do it could take a few years to make after that announcement. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They probably shouldn't be listed until there's some evidence that they're actually going to be produced. Trivialist (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also some house keeping on the current items. One thing is on the Wacky Races item. The only source listed on it is a toonzone thread. The only real evidence so far is a logo and an Upfront saying it's a reboot that is expected to air in 2016. Nothing has really mentioned if it's a ongoing series or a special/movie. Wacky Races would be "rebooted" in either. And also I checked the source and the one on the Jetsons article assumes it's 2016, although other wrestling news sites instead said 2017. And while there's no real source able information to it without a date from the studio, I'd say the pattern speculates more towards 2017. If you want to keep it because that's what the sourced article says I agree, but at the same time that source doesn't have any definitive information on a date. So maybe a TBA would be better. I also can't find the original post about the script from February/March 2015 but is second-hand referenced in this report from another wrestling site. Which someone can judge if found, since I can stand behind seeing said article making the current source incorrect that it was broken first on the Animation Guild page. ^[1]

I'll leave any actual editing to more experienced hands, as to whether they'd prefer to leave things as is until they are officially here with dates or not.24.35.37.226 (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are the release dates for the films after scoob real? Jstar367 (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Tom and Jerry: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, which appears to be completely imaginary, keep getting added to the article? Trivialist (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC) Obviously this has since been proven to be an actual thing. Trivialist (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's already been an animated adaptation of Roald Dahl's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with the addition of Tom and Jerry; a direct-to-video feature film called Tom and Jerry: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (2017), based on the 1971 live action/special effects musical film that was originally distributed by Paramount Pictures and currently by Warner Bros. Pictures. Today, there are only 14 feature-length movies from the Tom and Jerry franchise, beginning with Tom and Jerry: The Movie (1992, 1993). Previously, a new theatrical film starring the cat and mouse duo is announced in April of 2015, but since October of 2018 (25 years after Tom and Jerry: The Movie receives a home video release), it's currently in development to become a live action/animated hybrid film.

Um, thanks, but that's not connected to my original question. Trivialist (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Warner Bros. Animation. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cinematical.com/2008/03/09/warner-bros-grabs-bone/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509082641/http://www.boneville.com/2008/03/13/bone-to-warner-bros/ to http://www.boneville.com/2008/03/13/bone-to-warner-bros/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160822015428/http://comicsalliance.com/adam-west-burt-ward-julie-newmar-animated-batman-movie/ to http://comicsalliance.com/adam-west-burt-ward-julie-newmar-animated-batman-movie/

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) 20:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, "Warner Animation Group" redirects to this page, and the page itself says that "Warner Bros. Animation" labels itself as "Warner Animation Group" for theatrically released films; there is enough evidence showing that WBA and WAG are two separate entities. For starters, "Warner Bros. Animation" is listed as part of Warner Bros. Television Group via the Warner Bros. careers website, mainly deals in television series and direct-to-home/streaming films, and is headed by Sam Register as President. During December 2017, Deadline reported that Allison Abbate and Chris Leahy were named executives at Warner Animation Group and both answer to the President and CCO of Warner Bros. Pictures (Toby Emmerich), and the President of Production and Development at Warner Bros. Pictures (Courtenay Valenti), showing that WAG is its own studio under Warner's film division and not their television division. Lastly, WAG's logo appears on the marketing material for all of their post-The Lego Movie productions (see, the posters for Storks, Smallfoot, The Lego Ninjago Movie on their respective pages). Teen Titans Go! to the Movies, an upcoming theatrical animated feature from WB, features WBA's logo on the poster because it is being produced at the television division, making the Wikipedia article's claim that all theatrical animated features from WB are labeled WAG's inaccurate. Taking this information into account and giving that WAG is becoming a major animation film studio with five released films under their belt and a number of others under development, I feel it deserves its own separate page. --J.Severe (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. A lot of the sarticle seems to be assembled from guesses based on watching film and TV credits. Trivialist (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove all the Warner Animation Group projects from this page now? Because it is now known that WAG is part of Warner Bros. Pictures while Warner Bros. Animation is a part of Warner Bros. Television. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duperon-Droz (talk • contribs)

Is it, though? Trivialist (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is Teen Titans Go! To the Movies a Warner Animation Group film? The trailer for the film does not feature the WAG logo, and the source that lists the movie does not specifically say Warner Animation Group. 50.50.122.181 (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this edit, which inserted a claim that Hanna Barbera is a division of Warner Bros. Animation. As Hanna Barbera dissolved in 2001, it cannot be a division of Warner Bros. Animation. Please do not add this in unless you find a source that states otherwise. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can you please change this part back from:

"Warner Bros. Animation is the animation division of Warner Bros."

To:

"Warner Bros. Animation is the animation division of Warner Bros., a subsidiary of WarnerMedia."

The other paragraph says "Since 1990, Warner Bros. Animation has primarily focused upon the production of television and feature animation of other properties, notably including those related to WarnerMedia's DC Comics publications since 1992", but it's not even linked. 186.115.82.208 (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not (yet) formally answering this edit request, but do want to note here that I reworded the second paragraph to remove mentions of WarnerMedia since D.C. and Hanna-Barbera are both controlled by Warner Bros. For now, I leave it up to other editors to assess whether it's appropriate to mention WarnerMedia in the opening line of the article. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabete de Lima Silva (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant why WBA wasn't involved with this show.

Warner Bros. Animation was never involved with this show in the first place, because it was done by other companies in the U.S., Canada and France. But WBE still owns the trademark and copyrights for the original series, so Shen Gong Wus got renamed and Dojo got yellow. Also, a chunk of the crew of the original series also returned, so...

It's weird, even for me. I hope I wasn't incomprehensible with this explanation.

(Sidenote: Here's a tip: watch the credits. Pause to read the info.) Andrei Bondoc (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please apply the changes in this diff: [1] 5.104.90.107 (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done NiciVampireHeart 16:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why Xiaolin Chronicles is not involved with Warner Bros. Animation?

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The first animated film that Warner Bros. released in the 1990s decade is The Nutcracker Prince in 1990, not Rover Dangerfield. It came out a year before the latter and it also under-performed due to lack of promotion and received negative reviews. Can anyone please mention that on this article? Filmlover4654 (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change this sentence from:

"In 1991, Warner Bros. distributed its first animated film, ''[[Rover Dangerfield]]''. Its title character is a dog whose look and mannerisms are inspired by his voice actor [[Rodney Dangerfield]]. The film received mixed reviews and under-performed at the box office due to lack of promotion.{{Citation needed|date=April 2016}} Three years later, Warner distributed [[Don Bluth]]'s ''[[Thumbelina (1994 film)|Thumbelina]]'', which also received mixed reviews from critics and under-performed at the box office."

To:

"During the rise of the animation renaissance in the early 1990s, Warner Bros. distributed its first animated films: ''[[The Nutcracker Prince]]''<ref name="latimes 1997">https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-06-01-ca-64365-story.html</ref><ref>https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-09-30-ca-2092-story.html</ref> in 1990, which is a Canadian-produced feature film based on [[E. T. A. Hoffmann]]'s classic holiday tale ''[[The Nutcracker and the Mouse King]]''; and ''[[Rover Dangerfield]]''<ref>https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-08-19-ca-3048-story.html</ref> in 1991, whose title character is a dog whose look and mannerisms are inspired by his voice actor [[Rodney Dangerfield]]. Both films received negative and mixed reviews respectively and under-performed at the box office due to lack of promotion.<ref name="latimes 1997"/><ref>https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-11-21-ca-4466-story.html</ref><ref>https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-09-22-ca-3857-story.html</ref> Three years later after the release of ''Rover Dangerfield'', Warner distributed [[Don Bluth]]'s ''[[Thumbelina (1994 film)|Thumbelina]]'', which also received mixed reviews from critics and under-performed at the box office.<ref name="latimes 1997"/>"

Filmlover4654 (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reliable source as well: <ref>{{cite video|people=Schreck, Kevin (Director)|title=''[[Persistence of Vision (film)|Persistence of Vision]]''|medium=film documentary (and DVD bonus features)|location=USA/UK|year=2012}}</ref> Filmlover4654 (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: Citing DVD extras for articles is problematic since it presents verifiability issues. Is there a printed source that you can cite? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-06-01-ca-64365-story.html

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-09-30-ca-2092-story.html

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-08-19-ca-3048-story.html

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-11-21-ca-4466-story.html

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-09-22-ca-3857-story.html

Filmlover4654 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you guys changing this sentence yet? These are the sources I provided. Filmlover4654 (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added the reference links in the sentence. Filmlover4654 (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Filmlover4654:, please have some patience. There is no-one who's job it is to answer edit requests. I have been trying to verify your offered references and all of them I've looked at so far have failed verification. When I get a chance, I will try to find the others and see what can be used. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: I need to verify that these three sources mention The Nutcracker Prince, and these other two sources mention Rover Dangerfield. You need to put either "Nutcracker" or "Rover" in the "find" bar to see the mentions. Filmlover4654 (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: These references I added don't have "failed verification" as I said before, they're actually accurate so this is true. I've been waiting and yet none of this is being changed. Filmlover4654 (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Filmlover4654:, stop pinging me. I have no responsibility or duty to make your change for you on your self-determined timeline. The more you express frustration at this the less I'm motivated to help you. I edit Wikipedia as a hobby and when it is no longer enjoyable I stop. Congratulations, you've tripped across that line for me with this article. Maybe someone else will take up your demands. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I'm not self-determined or demanding things. People kept thinking that Rover Dangerfield was the studio's first 90s animated feature release when it's actually not. They released another animated movie a year before that. Filmlover4654 (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NotTheFakeJTP: Can't you guys please hurry up and change this sentence already? Filmlover4654 (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Filmlover4654: No. I echo what Eggishorn said: I have no responsibility or duty to make your change for you on your self-determined timeline. Ask someone who is active in editing this page or wait your turn. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filmlover4654, please don't leave your edit request open when you have already made the edit yourself. Meters (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Warner Animation Group which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody really think this is acceptable grammar? This is why wikipedia has gone down the pan. I can't even correct it because the page is locked until 2027 for some stupid reason. 86.155.235.244 (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

NoName1390 (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Put this new logo : File:Warner Bros. Animation 2023 Logo.png

 Not done: no reason given as to why we should replace a vector logo with a raster one. M.Bitton (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

January 1989

Warner Bros. Feature Animation Start date and age 120.22.181.107 (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 15:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hanna-Barbera page on this website says that the company got shut down before William Hanna's death as shown in the references. Evope (talk) 07:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]