Talk:The Cat in the Hat

Film Section

Just to mention that I find it funny that this article is viciously hostile to the film adaptation but no one is editing it for NPOV. Nor does it need to be, I think: since there is a nearly perfect consensus that it's an abomination, it's actually proper NPOV to trash it! That really says something about this film. --Shibboleth 05:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments, Shibboleth. From a personal point of view I'm glad you agree that the movie is an abomination. But for me the real force of your remarks is that Wikipedia editors who abominate the film should be extra vigilant that the discussion respects NPOV--and if you see fit to call the article "viciously hostile," then surely we're in trouble on the NPOV front, despite your disclaimer.

Along these lines, I think there's one item (from me originally) where the article may be going overboard. In truth, the film almost made the production costs from the American receipts, and once the foreign receipts and income from the video are factored in, it seems possible that the studio will end up with a profit.

I'd like to check into this a bit and possibly alter the text. Texting is cool, so when you drive, you might find it fun to text random numbers you don't know. If they ask your name, please do mention it, but tell them to forget it. Right in the middle of their sentences, yell, "Cheers!" and hang up... Oh, i forgot we were texting.

The reason the description seemed hostile to me is that it describes the film as being reviled by critics and ordinary viewers alike, with no mention of anyone at all who liked it. Although this isn't quite the same as going out and saying "This film is awful", it's impossible not to come out with that impression. Although I don't particularly object to this :), it's true that Wikipedia is not generally in the business of making aesthetic judgements.

Examining further, I think the POV lies in this sentence: The film appears to have been more popular with fans who had enjoyed Mike Myers's previous work. The words "appears" and "more" make it sound like Mike Myers fans only liked it somewhat more than others, but still generally disliked it. However, examining the Yahoo reviews, I see that some Mike Myers fans in fact wholeheartedly liked it (see [1],[2],[3]). See also [4], a very positive review from a fan of the South Park movie. Finally, some children liked the movie ([5]) --- although in the case of children it seems outweighed by reports of their crying or being bored --- and a common theme among adults who liked the movie said it should be taken as a children's film.

I've modified the paragraph to make it clearer that some people unabashedly liked it. I can't help with the box office data, though, but I've written that it's "likely" to make a profit. --Shibboleth 20:58, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're right, Shibboleth, we have to report the truth no matter how unpleasant.  :=) Opus33 22:22, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The second half of this section has serious problems with citing its sources. Example:

Web data suggest that the most harshly negative opinions were held by individuals who knew Seuss's book and felt that the film was a desecration.

If there is "web data" it should be fairly easy to find and link to. Unfortunately, the article doesn't state who compiled the data, making it difficult to track down. This paragraph cites good reviews by Joel Siegel and Jeffrey Lyons. Since these are respected film critics, it should be fairly simple to cite the publications, or link to the websites, where these reviews are located. The last sentence of this paragraph contains a weasel term:

Fans say it should be watched with a lighthearted attitude and without expecting it to be the same as the books.

This should be clarified and cited as to which fans say this.

The last paragraph states something Mike Myers said in an interview, but does not cite the publication. There is no way to know whether or not this is original research.

These problems are what is contributing to the NPOV problems with the section. However, there does seem to be a general consensus in the critical community and the general public that the film is abyssmal. If this section is appropriately cited, it would clear up the NPOV issue. --malber 18:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Misc.

I've removed a pseudo-intellectual parody review from this talk page that had no bearing on the article content. If you like this sort of thing, it's available here, among other locations. 82.92.119.11 20:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removing Suess from the page which is clearly meant to be read aloud and actualizing Suess with cinema or some other visual media doesn't work. You can't get as big or certainly not bigger than what the printed story feeds the imagination and that is where the movie went wrong. And Suess's characters are parodies of real people. Realising them shows a lack of understanding of what Suess was doing.

In concerns on whether everything is relevant to this page, mostly yes since this work was published some time ago. There weren't any distractions aside from the small pieces of information regarding it's adaptations that some have their own page.Omega789 (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Dewey revolt?

The article writes Dr. Seuss also regrets the association of his book and the 'look say' reading method adopted during the Dewey revolt in the 1920's. I don't know what the Dewey revolt is, but it sounds interesting. However, the lined article refers to a Thomas Dewey who was a New York City prosecutor in the 1930s, and later a politician. I suspect the link is wrong. Can anyone who knows what this means correct it? Notinasnaid 07:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The correct reference is Dewey, John Dewey rather than Thomas Dewey.

Thank you for the correct reference, but in all my Wikipedia reading on John Dewey, I don't see any mention of phonics. Nor do I see any mention of John Dewey under "Phonics." Does anybody have a reference? The trend of downplaying phonics in the '20s (or whenever it happened) followed by its revival in the'50s, would certainly be worthy of a Wikipedia article. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Subarticle for TV adaptation?

User:Pig de Wig moved the TV section into a subarticle without discussing it here. It doesn't seems necessary to me, since the article was only 8k long before the move. I reverted, but would be happy to hear if there is a good reason for the move. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It did seem nicely symmetrical with the film. If the movie gets its own entry, why doesn't the TV adaptation? What criteria are used to decide? If the decision is made NOT to accept this subarticle, there is a big mess unless The Cat in the Hat (television special) is deleted soon, as there is the potential for well meaning editors to edit either one. Notinasnaid 15:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Notinasnaid and User:Pig de Wig seem to agree and I don't have a strong opinion either way, so the move stands. I'll make sure that the changes are merged. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The third book

The first line of this article says that the Cat in the Hat is featured in three books, but as far as I can tell the entry only mentions two. (Although I could be being blind!) Is there a third book, in which case can someone edit to add it, or is the first line wrong? Tasiel 14:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Hello, i usually just use wikipedia but i saw the following so i logged in and removed it:

Alternate Endings

Dr. Seuss is transfered to Sootopolis City, where a bunch of cats push Dr. Seuss down a cliff. Then he lands inside water where a Gyarados is almost about to eat him whole until Pookeyman captures it. Then Dr. Seuss is free for a while ... then he appears in the night, touching peoples faces. Then he touches that kid who said Sonic Riders was for kids races and that kid gets freaked out and calls the bolice! "THIS IS BOLICE!!!" the bolice said and the police sent Dr. Seuss to jail until he came back to say "I will touch your face! And when the moonlight leaves and the dawn settles, you will know you've been visited!" to people. Then one night, when he was trying to go to Blue Kirby's house, Magna Centipede came saying "MAGNA BREAKOUT CENTIPEDE!!!" and scared him away. Dr. Seuss tried to call for help but then Sonja, Jess, and Eagle sent out their armies towards Dr. Seuss. THEY SENT BOMBERS, NEOTANKS, AND ROCKET LAUNCHERS AT DR. SEUSS!!! Dr. Seuss was shot some but then chased more by them and Magna Centipede. Then a few Natus came. Since he wasn't near, but was still a pain, Natu still wanted to kill people. Natu told Dr. Seuss to go to the Safari Zone up in Hoenn and gave him a bike and told him how to use it. Dr. Seuss went to Safari Zone still while being chased by Magna Centipede, Eagle, Sonja, and Jess. Then Dr. Seuss ended up in Safari Zone. When Dr. Seuss went to Safari Zone and then the Axbot appeared singing a lame Lumberjack song which the Missile launcher instantly destroyed. Then Xatu appeared yelling out "I R SNIPE UR HEAD OFF!!!" and Dr. Seuss was severely injured afterwards. Black Mage tried to appear but Magna Centipede told him no and to tell him to try it later. Magna Centipede then grabbed Dr. Seuss and told him to go to the nearest T Copter and "to go to Heaven" or be killed once and for all. Dr. Seuss decided to go to the T Copter when the T Copter bought Dr. Seuss to Sly Cooper section, where there were strangely lots of Porygons everywhere. Then Sly Cooper said "LAME ANIMAL CHARACTER!!! YOU DIE!!!" and then Sly Cooper ran over Dr. Seuss with his Porygon!!! CAT IN THE HAT PWNED!!! COOL CHARACTERS WIN!!!

I'm reasonably cerain rocket launchers and pokemon have exactly nothing to do with Dr. Seuss and the Cat in the Hat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CheshiresMasquerade (talk • contribs) 03:32, 5 September 2006.

I think it is a solid candidate for WP:BJAODN! Thank you for moving it to the talk page. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Parodies"?

Regarding the article subsection on "The Cat NOT in the Hat": wouldn't that be satire, not parody? Parody is fair use in the US, satire not so much. WindAndConfusion 06:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Look Say Reading Programs?

There is no documentation or source to support "Dr. Seuss books were created to supplement the 'look say' reading programs taught in schools." Once the books were published, they might support the 'look say' method, however I'm fairly certain this was not a primary motivation during the creative pre-publication process. Picturebooks 17:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why Johnny Can't Read

The article gives credit to John Hersey's Life Magazine article for the inspiration of The Cat in the Hat, but I believe there was another powerful influence from Rudolf Flesch's book Why Johnny Can't Read. From the history I remember, It was Flesch who first created the list of easy-to-read words from which Theodore Geisel wrote his book. Geisel got the list not from Flesch directly, but from Random House publisher Bennett Cerf, who hired Geisel to write a book using those words. Does anybody have a reference for any of this? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I read it in the New Yorker, but I don't have a reference. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ref

"He sent me a list of about three hundred words and told me to make a book out of them. At first I thought it was impossible and ridiculous, and I was about to get out of the whole thing; then decided to look at the list one more time and to use the first two words that rhymed as the title of the book—cat and hat were the ones my eyes lighted on. I worked on the book for nine months—throwing it across the room and letting it hang for a while—but I finally got it done."

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/12/23/021223crat_atlarge?printable=true --Gwern (contribs) 18:41 18 April 2009 (GMT)

Editprotected

{{Editsemiprotected}} Can someone please remove the "References in Popular Media" section? It's TOTOLLY irreavent. Also, to the iws, please add fr:Le Chat chapeauté (livre) and no:The Cat in the Hat. 74.230.35.77 (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Done Tagged instead of removed. Thanks.—C45207 | Talk 23:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone add this?

{{editsemiprotected}} There is a reference in the media for Dr. Suess in one of the episodes of my Life as a Teenage Robot were Jenny gets a dream chip and sees most of the characters as Dr. Suess drawn characters.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.177.58 (talk • contribs)

Not done: Do you have a source to support this claim? Would adding this claim improve the article? Others (see above) think that the "In popular culture" section should be removed altogether. —C45207 | Talk 14:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

One three syllable word?

Not sure how there could only be one three syllable word--another--when the cat is also described as balancing an umbrella. That should make at least two, unless the umbrella is described in some other way. Don't have the book in front of me but perhaps someone would like to check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.34.199.77 (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the book in front of me, at the moment, either. However, if I remember correctly ... the balancing of an umbrella (among other items) was an illustration in the book. Perhaps, the visual was enough ... and the text did not actually incorporate the term "umbrella"? Just a guess, at the moment, from my best recollections of the book. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC))

I have the book in front of me and can confirm that the umbrella appears only in the illustrations. Yaniv256 (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Article split?

To my eyes, this article is in desperate need of being split into two articles, one about The Cat in the Hat, the 1957 book, and one about the Cat in the Hat, the character who first appeared in that book and has since featured in a sequel, a movie, a TV show, etc. How does everyone feel about this? And how do we go about making the move? Bobnorwal (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Could the Cat in the Hat also be a metaphor for America? This is briefly mentioned in "Dr. Seuss Goes to War", a collection of Dr. Seuss's World War II political cartoons because of the Cat's "Uncle Sam"-like hat. It can be argued that America is always making messes and then trying to clean them up.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Cat in the Hat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 22:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This looks quite meaty! I'm looking forward to reviewing this. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Reception

• This section is rather dependent on reviews reprinted in modern books, namely Nel (2007) and Fensch (2001). As such, it's tough to know whether these reviews were immediately after release, a few months, a few years. The immediacy of praise is at least a minor factor. Does either book cite the actual sources in its footnotes? I'd love to see references to the actual issues of New York Times Book Review and Library Journal, each footnote with a note that the review was reprinted in whichever publication.

As you can imagine, I have no way of getting ahold of the actual reviews, as they were all published in periodicals over half a century ago. According to Nel (2007), they were all published in 1957. Well... one in 1958. Here's how he formatted one of them:

• Goodwin, Polly. "Hurray for Dr. Seuss!" Chicago Sunday Tribune, 12 May 1957.

Would you mind showing me how you would like me to cite it? Then I could replicate your style for all the others. Bobnorwal (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It's now #27. Tell me what you think; it's not critical, but I've seen it in other reviewed articles, and in the long run it's valuable for anyone who might want to dig further. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I just made the changes. I definitely think you have a point. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Publication history

• "translated into ... Braille." translation suggests a lanugage, whereas Braille is just a representation of other languages.

What would you suggest as an alternative? Persnoally, I think the word "translate" has a broad enough meaning to work here. See definition 3a here, which reads in part "To change from one form, function, or state to another". What do you think I should do? Bobnorwal (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Reading more into Braille, it seems that character-for-character convertion into Braille is called translation, whereas I think human done is variably transcription or translation. Most Braille isn't translated character-by-character. I had thought perhaps "translated into English Braille" would be appropriate, but there's barely any use of that phrase online, so I guess we'll stick as is. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Adaptations

• Perhaps Wubbulous World is also worth mentioning, as the Cat is the lead character?

I could definitely do that. Truth is, the Cat has had quite a career up and beyond this little book. Where information about that career really belongs is in its own article, probably named The Cat in the Hat (character). I haven't gotten around to creating it yet (I might never) but at the same time I don't want to clog this article up with that stuff too much.Bobnorwal (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

More to come. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. :) Bobnorwal (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Passing the Lead, "Background". I find it amazing that Geisel's personal papers aren't in an archives anywhere, so people would actually be able to count the word list themselves, and sort out which of his stories was correct. Or even that Houghton Mifflin doesn't maintain the list in their corporate archives.

Plot

• Gosh, I feel sorry for Sally's brother, I don't know if I had ever realized he had no name.

Do you want me to reword it? Or are you just making a musing comment? (I swear I do have a sense of humor—just not when it comes to GAs :) Bobnorwal (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Images

• Image licenses check out fine.
• Not related to the passing or failing of the article, but I do have Chris Cerf's email address, I might ask for a better picture of his father. The selection on Commons is lacking.

That's a good idea! Bobnorwal (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Curious, why have you chosen not to use Dr. Seuss' bio infobox photo, of him with this Cat?

No reason really. Just forgot. I'll add it. But to what section? Hmmm... Bobnorwal (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

More later. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Analysis Woah, Michael Frith! I'm a Muppet fan, and Michael was big in the Jim Henson Company, but I never knew about him working as Dr. Seuss' editor. Anyway, passing section, there's nothing to contest here.

And I just learned about Christopher Cerf's role in Between the Lions from you/his article. So we both learned something today. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Legacy

• "the most important academic controversy of the cold war." That's a relatively arbitrary start and end for a period of educational history. When I first read it, I thought Donald Pease was suggesting the two sides in the educational debate were in their own cold war. I wonder if "the most important academic controversy" during the Cold War.

I've rewritten it slightly. Hopefully it's to your liking. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• When was the 110th Congress? I'm guessing this was 110 years after 1776, but as a non-American, it's a meaningless number for me. It would be good to have a year in the sentence.

year (and wikilink) added. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Creation

• I get that he got the idea for the story in the elevator, but was it the look of the stooped woman that inspired the Cat itself, or is this just a description of who was in the elevator when he got the story idea? It's a great, descriptive quote, and if she was just a bystander and didn't inspire the Cat directly, I'm still in favour of keeping it in. It's just the two sentences aren't connected.

The source I referenced for that part does not elaborate at all. But I did find another source about it. In [this article http://www.npr.org/2007/03/01/7651308/fifty-years-of-the-cat-in-the-hat] (which is already referenced on this wiki article), there's a little audio clip from Anita Silvey that explains the connection more clearly. It's labelled "How the Cat Got His Smile" on the NPR and can be found in the left column of the article I linked to, a little bit below the picture of the Cat balancing himself on the ball. Trouble is, how the heck do I cite that? Bobnorwal (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

{{cite episode}} works for both radio and TV, so that's probably your best bet. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, so Helen's recovery freed her to do other things? Is that what the last sentence means? Helen's own article doesn't mention the illness at all, let alone the illness in relation to the job.

The source isn't terribly clear. But from what I know about the Geisels' marriage, what he probably means is that there was a riff forming between them. Her illness drove him to her bedside because he felt guilty, etc., but as she recovered he grew more distant again. Helen ultimately committed suicide—probably because of a combination of her illnesses and his unfaithfulness. He married Audrey Stone Dimond about a year after Helen's death. Trouble is, Pease doesn't exactly say that, so I didn't want to put words in his mouth. What do you think I should do? Bobnorwal (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. It seems like the article would be going down too much of a rabbit hole into a messy, tabloid-like biography. While this all is certainly relevant to his bio page on WP and hers, it doesn't bare enough relevance on Cat. In retrospect, what you have already works, it's clear enough for this purpose.

Just a tiny bit more to come. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so I've replied above re: citing NPR, and not needing to write further about Helen, as you've demonstrated that the situation is much to deep to discuss briefly in an article about the book, so "as is" is best.

As to Sally's brother not having a name, I was indeed just musing about it. All throughout the article, there's been plenty moments where I've paused to appreciate what you've scoped out and included.

I'm going to give you a pre-emptive pass, in anticipation of that one last reference; it's a strong article on the book! -- Zanimum (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Zanimum. As you probably know, when someone compliments your work on Wikipedia it just kinda makes your day. So often it feels like you're toiling in obscurity. I mean, is anyone really going to read that article about asexual fresh water mollusk? But that's... I've already what I need to say, but just to summarize: Thanks. :)

Have a good one. Bobnorwal (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Style

The book has 223 "beginngers'" words, less than half of them only occurring once or twice. It is written in anapestic tetrameter,Source: p. 218 of Dr. Seuss The Cat Behind the Hat, by Caroline M. Smith; Andrews McMeel : Kansas City, MO; ISBN: 978-1-4494-3260-7.Kdammers (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Trivia

The Cat is not a real entity so the alleged run for president is an advertising stunt that does not belong in the article as presented. MarnetteD|Talk 16:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The use of the "character" has been licensed for things such as the theme park ride, which of course is brand extension/marketing/advertising since it isn't in book form. The run for president (not "alleged" as it is well documented and sanctioned by Seuss Enterprises) is part of the extension of the character into other non-book areas--like theme parks--as stated in the Seuss Enterprise release. This is a concerted effort by the estate--Seuss Enterprises being under the control of Geisel's widow--to move the character beyond the printed word. Nor was it advertising, per se: the company wanted to encourage an awareness of getting out the vote as stated in their release. In terms of it being "encyclopedia," whether you think it is a stunt or not, this is a part of the character's history that Geisel estate endorsed and promoted--which makes including it the definition of encyclopedic. Leaving it out means leaving out part of the character's history, as promoted by the estate. So please let us know, given the inclusion of non-book tie-ins, why does it not merit inclusion? Ipanemo (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe the campaign should be included, which is why I added it. A google search of Cat in the Hat turns up many references to the event (and its purpose), and the fact that the character got enough notice for it to show up nationally in the news is worth including in a "comprehensive" description of the character and its legacy. A theme park ride is included, a Russian knock-off, comparisons to George W. Bush, so why is an officially sanctioned "Cat in the Hat: I'd Vote For That" campaign not worthy? These are factual and deserve to be included as relevant. 71.105.6.139 (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The Cat did not run for president as it cannot qualify to run - thus it is alleged as presented. This was a marketing stunt by SE. It is also worth noting that this article is about the book not the character. Perhaps a separate article about the character would have a place for this. MarnetteD|Talk 21:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I should add that if anyone wants to start a WP:RFC that would be fine. MarnetteD|Talk 21:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

If this article is solely about the book, then there is no place for several other "character" references, such as the theme park and the character knock-offs, all distinctly "non book." If those are removed, then possibly your argument makes sense. As it is, the entry currently contains, and has contained, a number of things that are about the character and not the book. Not to mention the various animated brand extensions that are not about the book. Call the candidacy a marketing stunt if you will--even though it is one that is tied directly to the character--but that's no different than putting the character's image on a ride. If you're going to excise non-book related items, please excise them all, not just the one you don't seem to like. Ipanemo (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

They can and probably should be moved (note moved I didn't say excised) to a separate article about the character. MarnetteD|Talk 22:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Fine on this end. If they are to be "moved," and not just removed, let us know where that will be. Ipanemo (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest The Cat in the Hat (character) and then that new article could linked on this page and added to The Cat in the Hat (disambiguation). Now there might be other possibilities so if you don't like this suggestion you could ask at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. MarnetteD|Talk 22:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay I just found that that is a redirect. I think there is enough of a consensus here to over ride that redirect. If there is any problem with that than a discussion could occur there or here. MarnetteD|Talk 22:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Having a separate entry for the "character" gets my vote. Ipanemo (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

And overriding a redirect is not something I've done, so I will leave that to someone like you who has more history doing that kind of Wiki structural management. I will be happy to help populate it after that. Ipanemo (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Well shoot Ipanemo I just found this Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 1#The Cat in the Hat (character). Since it is barely a year old I don't think we should over turn it. We could start another WP:RFD but I doubt that the consensus would change. Feel free to add the mention back into this article but please reword it so that it doesn't read as though the cat is a real person. Thanks for your efforts in discussing this. MarnetteD|Talk 02:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is (essentially) advertising/a press stunt. That's hardly the issue. I'd be hard pressed to imagine an article for Coca-cola without discussion of its advertising over the years.

My question would be WP:WEIGHT and the in-universe approach. The park ride is one sentence, for an attraction at a major theme park open for years. This was a press release and one-time minor event.

"...the Cat in the Hat announced his candidacy...positioning himself..." No, a fictional character did not do any of these things. He does not exist in physical form and has no agency. There was no campaign, just an announcement.

How about, "On July 26, 2016, Random House and Dr. Seuss Enterprises announced that the Cat in the Hat was running for president." - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

That looks good SummerPhDv2.0. We might wait until Ipanemo comments in case they have other ideas. MarnetteD|Talk 03:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I guess we were partially reinventing that wheel. I think that the line v2.0 proposes does the job admirably. Thanks for a civil resolution to the discussion. Ipanemo (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Added line as per SummerPhd recommendation.Ipanemo (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Good work Ipanemo. MarnetteD|Talk 18:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Grazi e arrivederci. Ipanemo (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

CGI film release date

The Warner Animation Group article stated that the CGI film has the release date is 2024. MaxietheFoxWiki (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC) Simple English Wikipedia has the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.199.161 (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

2A02:C7C:FA20:8500:8EAC:1C71:66B3:EF58 (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria due to sourcing problems in the "Adaptaions" section. Many statements are uncited, and there are some unreliable sources used. Is anyone willing to address this concern, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)