Talk:The Complete Peanuts

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

Comics: Strips Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Comic strips work group. Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Charlie Brown#Baseball team|Charlie Brown's baseball team]] The anchor (#Baseball team) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

I cited all of my sources for the information in this article, but I'm not sure that I did it the Wikipedia way. Could I have some help with this? Thanks. Steveo2 11:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate to include a link to the annotations for this series that are being compiled on Wikibooks? (The annotations originally were started on Wikipedia, but were moved to Wikibooks because they were classified as 'new research' rather than existing citations). The link is http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Annotations_of_The_Complete_Peanuts .--Mkeenan 13:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are the cover art characters known for the rest of the series? I have not seen this cited anywhere including fantagraphics site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.117.77 (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fantagraphics editor Kim Thompson listed them in a post to The Comics Journal message board. I recall him listing the 1993-94 cover as Snoopy, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.21.106 (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the 75/76 one was wrong, in the back of the 73/74 one it is Frieda with the naturally curly hair, it also seems to be her on the 73/74 spine. I'd suggest that makes the 79/80 one wrong for a start Frieda wasn't seen between the end 75 and 85 Theladfromtheeast (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 1993-1994 volume was a cut'n'paste error on my part (I'm the author of the [1] source listed), propagated here. I am not certain that it is Snoopy, but am certain it's not CB; could someone delete that. (I'd do it myself, but I'm dealing with certain WP:COI.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now verified that that cover should be Snoopy, not Charlie Brown. I've also updated the release dates for their shifted schedule (they moved everything up a month.) But again, due to COI concerns, I'd prefer not to edit this page myself, so could someone please update here? --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book I own from 1967-68 the May 3rd 1967 comic strip is omitted and replaced with a duplicate cartoon from May 1. Anyone know why this happened and should we note it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.88.24 (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed that too, and I sent an email to the webmaster at snoopy.com. I'm not sure that info needs to be added to this article, though. Anthony Rupert (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The first printing of the 1969-1970 volume makes note of the duplicated cartoon and prints the correct strip for May 3, 1967. FHSerkland (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Isn't this really a whole bunch of trivia? Not only that, but unsourced "information" is given about what will be covered in books that will be released years from now. Anthony Rupert (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I just removed all the unsourced trivia. Anthony Rupert (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"some 2,000 of the 17,897 Peanuts strips had never been compiled into any previous collection, most of which were from 1953-1954." Ummmm.... even if none of the strips from those two years had ever been previously collected (which is not the case), that would've been just 730 strips, which is not most of 2000. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about "particularly from 1953-1954"? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I cannot quickly pull up my copy of the book with Derrick Bang's list, but I'm not sure even that statement is accurate. Yes, there were a lot unreprinted from both of those years, but if memory serves there was a year in the 1960s that was, by Bang's count, less reprinted than either of those years; the 1953-1954 book may have had the most previously-unreprinted-in-American-books strips, but the volume after that was more than half made up of such unseen material. I'm not sure that we really need to be pointing to the years in question. (Let me note that I'm avoiding making edits myself, as I have a perceived Peanuts WP:COI that is causing me to tread lightly on Peanuts articles.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that conflicts of interest are not a big problem when the COI is declared and the edits are not contentious. In this case, I can't see the edit being contentious, especially if you are (a) correcting an empirically, factually incorrect statement, and (b) you have a citation to back it up. It sounds like you have both. I'd encourage you to go ahead. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 09:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one else rose to do it, I've gone ahead. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 1954, primarily, and 1952, secondly, had the biggest extended chunks of daily strips not previously reprinted. 1952 had a period of four months of no dailies reprinted, between the periods covered by the books Peanuts and More Peanuts, respectively. (The last week of strips to be covered by Peanuts was the week that Lucy first appeared, although neither of her appearances that week were included in the book.) The gap basically encompassed the period when Lucy had the full circles around her eyes; it also included the first appearance of Violet's pony tail (as opposed to her original pigtails), as well as Snoopy's first verbalized thoughts. In addition, the first 5½ months of Sunday strips, in 1952, were omitted from reprint. Then, in 1954, dailies from mid-February clear through to the end of the year, 10½ months, were not reprinted -- the gap between More Peanuts, beforehand, and, collectively, Good Ol' Charlie Brown and Snoopy afterward. This included the introduction of Pig-Pen, and most of the appearances of Charlotte Braun. (As a footnote to Charlotte Braun, she was formally "cast out" with her non-inclusion in the display of characters at the beginning of Good Grief, More Peanuts! in 1956.)

Conversely, every daily strip of the year 1961 was reprinted, with the sole exception of the Christmas Day strip. On the other hand, 1965 was covered pretty sparsely in You Need Help, Charlie Brown, being that that book served up just a 248-strip sampling covering 11½ months of that year, plus seven months of 1964, from about 480 strips available, or just over half of them -- but without any "extended gaps" as in 1952 and '54. This was "alleviated" to a small degree in Peanuts Classics a few years later. But by any account, 1965 still had a lot more dailies reprinted than 1954 had had; and Sundays certainly did not invert that trend.2601:545:8202:4EA5:0:0:0:1A08 (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now that I have Bang's list in front of me (50 Years of Happiness, page 45, published 1999), I see that the memory I had above was in error, that '52 and '54 were indeed the most-unreprinted years, and that while there was a mostly-unreprinted year, it was 1990. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the table, removing the recently added strange and varied dates (what is "order" and "street" date?), but noticed that at least Amazon and Barnes & Noble show different release dates for the volumes, and I'm not sure why, and which date is correct. Is there a better way to check? Jmj713 (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently reads "There is however, a new series called Peanuts Every Sunday that is scheduled to begin in November 2013, that will feature the Sunday strips in full color. These books, just like the Complete Peanuts series, are scheduled to be released one every six months, in ten volumes covering half a decade each.:

First off, the tense needs to be updated; the first volume was indeed released. Second, I'm not sure that that release schedule was announced, and even if it was, it does not appear to being adhered to. Fantagraphics solicitations for books released all the way to at least June are already in the system, and I'm not seeing any signs of the second volume. (If twice-a-year was the planned schedule, this could be a case of the delays at Fantagraphics due to the death of Kim Thompson.)

I'd do the edit myself, but I'm being perhaps overscrupulous in avoiding WP:COI concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Fistaszki zebrane 1950-1952
2. Fistaszki zebrane 1953-1954
3. Fistaszki Zebrane 1955-1956
4. Fistaszki zebrane 1957-1958
5. Fistaszki zebrane 1959-1960
6. Fistaszki zebrane 1961-1962
7. Fistaszki zebrane 1963-1964
8. Fistaszki zebrane 1965-1966
9. Fistaszki zebrane 1967-1968
10. Fistaszki zebrane 1969-1970
11. Fistaszki zebrane 1971-1972
12. Fistaszki zebrane 1973-1974

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

As can be seen on page 19 of the latest Fantagraphics catalogue, the Complete Peanuts is not ending with the 25th volume, as this article (understandably) reports. I cannot add this information myself, as I'm working as a curator on the additional volume and thus have a hearty conflict of interest. (I will note to be cautious using the contents description there, as the content is not actually finalized yet.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that volume has now been solicited and the listing can be seen on Amazon. Could someone without a COI please update the article to reflect this? --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I missed that someone had corrected the lead. The chart of volumes could still use updating. Also, the intro on volume 25 is Barack Obama, on 26 in Jean Schulz. Both can be verified by their initial listings. I'd also suggest that the descriptor of 26 in the opening switch from describing the book as containing mostly interviews and sketches to strips, stories, gag cartoons, and other Schulz Peanuts material that appeared outside the daily newspaper series. (I'm honestly unsure whether the planned interviews will be included.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times has a new article covering Complete Peanuts 25 and, to a lesser extent, 26. It includes information on sales figures and on history which may be of use to this article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just deleted the listing of Barack Obama as the intro writer for Complete Peanuts 25, claiming that it was not believable and casting shade upon the source.

Here's the New York Times saying the same thing.

Believable enough?

I won't be adding it myself, due to my COIs, but someone should review the last couple edits. ---Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at all controversial here. Amazon agrees.[2] - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Last source was a blog (the site itself says "The AAUGH Blog", if you visit it.) 68.100.116.118 (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for future note on use of the AAUGH Blog (my blog - although to be clear, I was not the one who placed that citation in the article), as WP:SPS says, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." While I don't use the word "expert" about myself, I will point out that my writing on Peanuts has been published in book form by three publishers and has appeared in places such as American Heritage magazine. While that would still disqualify this particular use since it has a statement about a living person, it might've been worth taking the time to Google the words Obama "Complete Peanuts" before declaring the matter "Too shocking to be believed". --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This topic sprung from the question of who will be on the spine of Volume 25. An IP changed it from Rerun to Truffles. Not realizing that there is a character named "Truffles", I reverted it as unsourced.

More to the point: Book details. Title? Obviously. Release date? Sure (although many titles get by with a month and year or simply a year). Number of page? Hmm. Usually, this would probably vary from one edition to another, but likely will be stable here. Sure. Author of introduction? Not critical, but sure. Subject of cover art? Well...[3] Subject of the artwork on the spine? Really?

Stepping back to the original question: I was easily able to find a reliable source for Obama's introduction (see above). I was not able to find the subject of the spine artwork anywhere. Yeah, it's probably in blogs, sourced to fanservice press releases. This really seems trivial. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, under the Peanuts Every Sunday listing, there's the unsourced sentence Both the complete series and the Sunday collections are being published in hardback and paperback form, with different covers and supplemental artwork. While the Complete Peanuts is definitely being published in paperback form, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no solicitation or announcement of paperbacks for the Sunday collections being discussed here, and I have reason to believe that such paperbacks are not in Fantagraphics current plans. There is possible confusion to be had here because Titan Books did publish a paperback book recently called Peanuts Every Sunday, but that was a reprint of an older Holt, Rinehart, & Winston volume of the same name and not a paperback edition of one of the Fantagraphics books. I have a strong conflict of interest on the subject of the article, having been one of those gathering materials for CP volume 26 (and having been paid for doing so), so I will not edit this myself, but I ask that other editors involved in this page review the statement and its lack of sources, and if so, remove the "Both" and "and the Sunday collections" from the sentence, and then probably place it somewhere besides right after the Peanuts Every Sunday chart. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just updated the Italian edition to note that its up to volume 25 (and 26 has been solicited.)

Checking other foreign publishers:

• In the UK, volume 17 is out
• In Germany volume 21 is out, with volumes announced through 23
• France is up to volume 17
• In Poland, volume 15.
• In Spain, volume 18 is out (and 19 announced.)
• In Brazil, volume 8

I have a conflict of interest and will not be updating these myself. Someone else could and should. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler: Excellent. Thanks for all you do. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that... although I now realize that I misfollowed a link on the UK edition, and they've actually complete the run, all the way through the 26th and final volume. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler:  Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the Dargaud edition changed title somewhere along the way. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler:  Done. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor recently added this to Category:Comic book collection books , for which I do not think it qualifies. While there are some comic book pages in volume 26, they make up a small portion of even that volume, much less the project as a whole. I will not delete the category myself, as I have a strong COI here (I'm the guy who actually scanned and prepped those comic book pages for volume 26), but I urge other editors to consider whether that category is appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler:  Done ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 26 is variously described as "a bonus book with sketches, interviews, and other extra material." "which includes hundreds of miscellaneous sketches, designs, short stories, and covers drawn by Schulz." Neither of these capture the contents.... in large part because it ignores the many strips (and in part because there are no interviews in it., and the sort of individual pieces of art it includes would generally not be described as "sketches".) It's probably better described as "a collection of Schulz strips, cartoons, stories, and illustrations that appeared outside of the daily newspaper strip." I will not be making this change myself, as I have a strong conflict of interest (I lead the team hunting down the content.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NatGertler,  Done Your helpfulness and integrity are always appreciated. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the new section about a lost panel: I'm not sure why the focus on this one strip, as it was not the only one missing the original title card in the first printings of the Complete Peanuts. At least some panels were later found and used in later printings; I cannot say with any sureness whether this one was fixed or not.

If memory serves (and we're talking a few years back now), this particular strip was one that I helped them find source on, pulling the strip not from a newspaper publication, but from the comic book Tip Top issue 206. That is why the strip had most of the first tier. (There were a couple standard formats for shortening Sunday Peanuts, neither of which involved removing just the title panel. All of the archived examples of this strip that I can quickly find just removed the whole first tier.)

I'm not making any alterations due to me COI (although I would note that the header should be Title case, not Sentence Case... and I'll leave someone else to consider whether a reddit post by u/IHad360K_KarmaDammit is a sufficiently reliable source.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently listed is the Japanese edition, which has volumes 1-25 released as physical books an all 26 released as e-books. Here's a link to a partial set as reference. I will not be adding this myself due to COI and being a little too hectic to track down proper publisher name and non-sales source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]