Talk:Mr. Men

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

Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles Children's literature High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature 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.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks you can do: edit history watch purge Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles. Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}} Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project. Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject . References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs. Create a requested article on literature Stubs: Improve a stub-class article edit BBC Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

I'm not sure if they recently reorganised the titles into new series, but the Egmont website has some titles listed under different series than shown here. Ex. _Mr. Men: The Christmas Tree_ is here under "Specials" but Egmont has them listed under the "Celebrations" series and _Mr Nosey and The Giant_ is here under "Celebrations" but on Egmont under "Magic".

The formatting of the way the books are listed is really hard to follow, a lot of the older books we have aren't even listed in series when they were published and some of the versions on Amazon don't even mention the correct series. Would there be a better way to do this?

For instance, the Dr. Seuss Bibliography page has titles listed chronologically with year, publisher and notes. Perhaps we could include the series as a separate column and list the publication dates it was in said series in parenthesis or something?

I just imagine with them ramping up publications again this will get even more confusing going along in this format. Does it need a separate page even? Geekery (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best solution would be to list the main series of books and then create a separate page to list all the books because there has been so many and this page is untidy --82.25.113.167 (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is the new Doctor Who-based series of books (the first set came out a couple of months ago, a second set comes out in August 2017 and a Christmas special was just announced for October release) are considered part of the Mr. Men franchise. Should they be listed too? I added a reference under Adam's section. 68.146.233.86 (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mr. Men. 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/20110623191422/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-10527143-mr-men-join-chorion-in-16328m-deal.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-10527143-mr-men-join-chorion-in-16328m-deal.do
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205210053/http://www.tonyhymas.com/biog.htm to http://www.tonyhymas.com/biog.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110316085705/http://www.ilovemrmen.co.uk/ to http://www.ilovemrmen.co.uk/

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.

• 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) 10:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge Mr. Men & Little Miss (film) into Mr. Men. There has been no mention of the film in the press since 2015, no release date has been announced, and the film has not even been given a title. The sources cited on the film page are extremely repetitive of each other, and they don't say much more than "this film is in development." Right now, the film article is made up of only seven sentences; this could easily be merged into the relevant section at the Mr. Men article (specifically Mr. Men#Film). In short, I don't see any value in keeping a standalone article for a film right now; the material could also be split out if and when more information is made available. Note that a couple of attempts were made to merge this page previously; these were reverted, so I'm setting out this discussion in order to try to find a consensus whether the stand-alone article should exist or not. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn – article has been moved to draft namespace. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HappyINC: As I told you previously, my issue with this edit here isn't whether Fox was acquired by Disney. Of course Fox was acquired by Disney. The issue is that there is zero evidence that there is even a movie for Disney to distribute. There has been zero things mentioned about this movie since 2015. The film may be in production; or it may not be. But we shouldn't assume that there is a movie for Disney to distribute when there has been nothing about the film; not a release date, not a director, not even a synopsis. Aoi (青い) (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoi: Yeah, But just because I need to source that Fox is still in production of the film, DOESN’T MEAN Walt Disney shouldn’t be added for distribution. And of course, everybody is too caught up about the Disney-Fox acquisition. Thanks, HappyINC (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Mr Good lives in Badland. Why is it called that when it’s not badlands? Surely the people of Badland would never admit they were bad, so wouldn’t they call it something glorious? 14.202.191.4 (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]