Bugs Bunny was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 6, 2008 Peer review Reviewed October 14, 2022 Good article nominee Not listed
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 27, 2004, July 27, 2005, July 27, 2014, and July 27, 2015.
Current status: Former good article nominee

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple 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 articles This article is supported by the American cinema task force. This article has an archived peer review. Animation: American / Looney Tunes Top‑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 articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the Looney Tunes work group (assessed as Top-importance). United States: Animation 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 articles 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 Top-importance). Comics: DC Comics 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 DC Comics work group. This article has had a peer review which is now archived. 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 Animals in media (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animals in media, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Animals in mediaWikipedia:WikiProject Animals in mediaTemplate:WikiProject Animals in mediaAnimals in media articles

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Kids' WB Fun Zone#Looney Tunes – What's Up Rock?|Looney Tunes: What's Up Rock?!]] The anchor (#Looney Tunes – What's Up Rock?) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Even with sources, would it be okay to add information about Hyungkoo Lee's Animatus exhibition, as seen here, here and other related character articles? Sarujo (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed two non-free images here and here because neither one has a fair-use rationale for use in this article. Please feel free to revert if a rationale is provided for each image.--~TPW 13:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one reason why the Chicago Bulls have something to do with Bugs. Bugs has been in ads with Michael Jordan and is known as "Hare Jordan." You see "Hare Jordan and Air Jordan" as part of the Bulls. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 16:40 17 October 2010 (UTC)

First off there was no need for an image replacement of the infobox image. I claim of color discrepancy is no rationale for such an action. Second, the inclusion of the character design from is also unnecessary on the grounds, that we don't need every variation of his character design, and we have enough non-free images for this article. Sarujo (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current drawing, with the half-eaten carrot, is not as good as the other one was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a little more specific, Baseball Bugs? There are two images with a half eaten carrot. Sarujo (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one is the better image. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarujo: you were Bold, you were reverted: now discuss: why do you want to replace those two images? They represent the past & and the present versions of Bugs. Jarkeld (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, can't you read, I just posted my reason. Sarujo (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuuuuse me, but an image of a redesigned version should be included. It clearly departs from the older versions. Got any policy based objections to the inclusion of the two pictures? Jarkeld (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The non-free criteria and the copyright policy, and others I'm sure you can find.

In regards to The looney Tunes Show image, we can only have but so many non-free images on an article, and we already have four non-free images on the article. With an article of that magnitude, it defiantly pushing over the line. The only way that the image would hold any real relevance to be included is if the the character designs were the new standard, and the only way to verify that it is the new standard is with a reliable source from Warner Bros. stating that it truly is the new standard and not a show gimmick. Even when you set aside that, the image seems redundant since the design doesn't seem that far removed from the "classic" design. Sure, that image looks a little exaggerated but the "classic" Bugs is still there. If you watch the show you can see that the design is still the same old Bugs Bunny. So, there's no real reason for the inclusion of another non-free image. Free text can suffice more that a copyrighted picture.

In regards to the infobox image, this image was doing a perfectly good job in illustrating the character. Replacing a non-free image with another non-free images is redundant. A rationale regarding color is no reason for such a change. A false accusation of an image being derivative and that my actions are own just to win an argument is bad faith and game. Sarujo (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now if Warner Bros. had uploaded those images with permision for Wikipedia to use them then I would not have said a word. Sarujo (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the policy pages you refer to do not mention any restriction on the amount of fair usage images used in an article. Jarkeld (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, 3 and 8 support my rationale as it fails both of these criteria. #3 states that multiple images are not necessary if there are already one or two that are already illustrating the subject, and #8 states that images are only needed to help increase the readers understanding of the subject, in this case Bugs Bunny. In short, we already have images illustrating the character both in profile and the evolution image. So the reader has enough to go by. The image from the 2011 series is not that far removed from all the other designs. As I stated before anybody who watches the show can see that it's practically the same old Bugs Bunny, as that image doesn't reflect the actual character design that appear in the show. Plus, you have failed to provide any policies that obligates us to include an image for every instance that a character of this, or any magnitude, is drawn differently. Nor have you supplied and verification that the design is the new standard. Sarujo (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that the new image "doesn't reflect the actual character design", when it was taken directly from a studio produced image on the official website for the series, is frankly laughable. It seems clear here that there's been a consensus of editors on the page that don't have a problem with the images - and yet you continue to edit-war over it. Are you trying to get blocked again? MikeWazowski (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It truly amazing how Wazowski operates. The fact that you only now join this discussion after the two days of it creation is the true sense of comedy. Do you ever know what that quote you so graciously cherry-picked was directed to, or are just randomly picking out words just to make your "gotcha"? I know where the images come from, but that doesn't justify their existence here. Ironically you have been very quick to make accusations on my part despite the fact that I have been trying to follow the guideline put in place. In regards to an edit-war, the only reason that this can even be called a war is because you have allowed to be. I have explained that the two replacements that you tried to game off were redundant trivial uploads, and the inclusion of the 2011 series image is a fail of NFCC. But you have chose to ignore me. Only after making bold edits, have you decided to make a voice rather push for my removal. I also believe that you are confusing a vote with a consensus. Let me remind you, that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Just because two or three editors shared the same view and said keep doesn't make it a consensus. Why don't we bring admins in properly mediate this discussion? Sarujo (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I find amazing is this ability you have to justify why the rules against edit-warring don't apply to you (when you've violated 3RR once already, and were on your way to doing it again today), or your inability to even admit that you might be wrong. It appears to me that your comments show that you're not interested in discussion - you're just interested in getting your own way. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, lets ignore my rationale for why the images don't belong and focus solely on the 3RR and the bold edits. The focus of the discussion is about those images and not actions. So I'd suggest that you refrain from kettle accusations and focus on the real issue here. My focus has been all along on the images, yours should be the same. Sarujo (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hmm. this seems to be a bit of hard thing to come by and what sould be on the bugs bunney page. well to me it seems to sarujo has his ledas for the page. but the edits he makes gets undone every time. its hard to know whats best i think. i mean i undid the edit before. just keeping the page as it sould i think. but maybe this can be sorted out. however i not sure whats for the best here. what does olters think of this?. i rest it there for now. i see what comes up about this. --Iniced (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's a quick way to resolve this edit war: do not use either image in the infobox at all. Although I was reverted in the past, I still stand by my edit summary that a free image like File:Falling hare bugs.jpg should be used, and IMO any non-free image in the infobox violates rule #1. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I recall a discussion involving that image due to the fact that that despite be in public domain, it's subject, Bugs Bunny, is still a copyrighted character. So it's rationale is incorrect. I really push for Warner Bros. to upload something themselves. Sarujo (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the topic above started on the 19 June, there's been reversion after reversion. I'm protecting the article so that you can reach consensus without disrupting the article further. GedUK  12:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the user Iniced, the non-consensus version is frozen in place... by a user who can't even spell the character's name right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's awfully loaded language there, Bugs - why is that one non-consensus? So far, only you and Sarujo appear to be the only ones advocating it (although at least you've not been edit-warring over it), while myself, Karl 334, Jarkeld, Iniced, TheRealFennShysa have restored the current version - which is derived directly from a WB-produced image, I'll point out, as opposed to the unclear origin of the other. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And where have I spelt the character's name wrong? GedUK  12:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the previous discussion is tainted with pointless name calling and actions being drudge up in people faces for no reason. I move we start over and focus on the issue at hand. Now I let "everybody else" go first with their on topic reasoning here. Sarujo (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the caption of the Bob Clampett quote midway down the page, wouldn't it be better to say he was speaking 'in character' rather than 'in first person?' Legionaireb (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. It's actually Samuel Vincent who voiced Bugs in Baby Looney Tunes. I wanted to correct this outside of discussion, but the page is protected. <:(
~~LDEJRuff~~ 6:32, 28 June, 2011 (EDT)

If you can provide a source, I'll change it. GedUK  12:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to have to stop deleting the MAD reference, so if I see that if you delete it off, I will block you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.41.12.73 (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That would be a neat trick for a non-admin IP account to pull off. However, as I have noted in several edit summaries, this "appearance" keeps getting removed because it is not a legitimate Bugs Bunny appearance. Please stop adding it. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know for sure that The Looney Tunes Show is the last appearance of this character, let alone the rest of the Looney Tunes?

--141.153.217.125 (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weʻre using last as "most recent" Dmartin969 (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please stop deleting off the final prototype appearance of Bugs Bunny?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

--184.41.32.181 (talk) 5:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I added Honey Bunny as other significant character because she was introduced in 1966 as Bugs Bunny's girlfriend and basically her role was similar to today's Lola Bunny. The only difference is that Honey Bunny didn't appear in animation (though apparently some cartoons with her were planned in late 1960's; I'm not counting TV commercials), however, she was present along with Bugs Bunny in merchandise, live shows and comic stories. 31.61.110.205 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The gender identity section, while interesting, seems to put undue weight on one aspect of Bugs' character, and only cites one source. Trivialist (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With this in mind, I've been seeing a lot of discussion about Bugs Bunny's gender, which seems up for debate by a lot of pretty credible sources. Should we have the gender clearly stated as "Male" in the summary, or at least cite a decisive source there? LaesaMajestas (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in what episode?

A great episode involving a large, fat, Russian babushka rabbit (with a large bow) who was after Bugs (Geev to me beeg keese!) -- Anyone know where?

-- Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.170.10 (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RIP Bugs thou wilt be missed :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugs Bunny's Dismemberment (talk • contribs) 01:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the large, fat, Russian babushka rabbit (with a large bow) who was after Bugs was from Rabbit Romeo--13jospin (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bugs Bunny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://archives.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/TV/07/30/cartoon.characters/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bugs Bunny. 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/20090603034915/http://archives.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/TV/07/30/cartoon.characters.list/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/TV/07/30/cartoon.characters.list/index.html
• Added ((dead link)) tag to http://www.toonopedia.com/articles/bugs.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two official appearances, Quest for Camelot Sing-A-Longs and Looney Tunes Sing-A-Longsunder Billy West, and an unregistered IP, one who has been harassing me for several weeks using multiple IPs, took them off. Dpm12 (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dpm12:You could report the problem.LakeKayak (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the story was that Mel Blanc didn't like the taste of carrots, not that he was allergic to them. Could somebody clear this up for me? I'm a little confused.LakeKayak (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is true. He was not allergic to carrots, that was an urban legend.

-- Dpm12 (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2016 (PST)

@Dpm12: I beg your pardon, sir/ma'am. I misunderstand you. Are you saying it is true that he didn't like the taste of carrots, or that he wasn't allergic to carrots?LakeKayak (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LakeKayak: Yes. He was not allergic to carrots

-- Dpm12 (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2017 (PST)

Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bugs Bunny. 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/20081216141745/http://www.cartoonbrew.com/classic/rare-1938-looney-tunes-book-found to http://www.cartoonbrew.com/classic/rare-1938-looney-tunes-book-found
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101202172431/http://looney.goldenagecartoons.com/tv/ to http://looney.goldenagecartoons.com/tv/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki date for the creation of Bugs Bunny is blatantly false. Warner Brothers is clear with their designation of the character's first appearance being in the "short" entitled "Porky's Hare Hunt"! And as you can see in the drawings within the article, Bugs Bunny was a character who evolved over the years, indeed, well into the late 1940s! Fandom wants or "needs" to believe Bugs was created by Tex Avery in the short, "A Wild Hare", merely because in that film, the words "What's Up Doc" were first uttered while earlier versions of the character were "other rabbits". This is plainly false as we see in the Warner published magazine which celebrated Bugs' 50th Birthday, ^[1] where they cited that earlier 1937 appearance. The word "definitive" is by its nature, based on "opinion" and wiki is supposed to be dedicated to factual information. Was the 1940 appearance "definitive"? Obviously not because the sound of his voice was consistent with his earlier appearances. Also, he still has no on camera identity. And where is the Brooklyn Accent? Nowhere to be heard. One final note, Bugs lives in a well furnished rabbit hole, but this character has none. So, I guess he wasn't "definitive", was he? I'm being silly but I just want to point out that "definitive" has no place in a format which stresses accuracy, instead of opinion.MARK VENTURE (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Bugs' Brooklyn accent is all over the Cartoon, A Wild Hare. But yes, its an evolutionary process that began in 1938, and ended in the late 40s.--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bugs Bunny. 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 ((dead link)) tag to http://bp2.blogger.com/_vGn2cXqGA1M/Rx1OWZmS27I/AAAAAAAAAGI/xzzJxxCZZRk/s1600-h/Ross+interview+pg+17.JPG/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921055714/http://blog.bcdb.com/cartoon-day-herr-meets-hare-5572/ to http://blog.bcdb.com/cartoon-day-herr-meets-hare-5572/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An unregistered IP (198.41.51.44, to be specific), keeps making unreferenced reversions, and I am really sick of having to constantly revert them. Dpm12 (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An unregistered IP has been continuously reverting an edit involving Jeff Bergman's years as the character for months now, and I'm getting really sick of having to revert his/her edits all the time. I need help! Dpm12 (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Jan231.gif

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Jan231.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence appears under World War III section:

Bugs was used to advertise World War II because they were low on troops so they found out the most athletic adults watched Bugs Bunny so they used that to attract them into the war so they could fight."

A few points:

• Wars are not advertised—they are promoted with propaganda
• When the word so is overused in this run-on sentence, it sounds like a line spoken by Ralph Wiggum in The Simpsons "King Size Homer" episode:

"I heard your dad went into a restaurant and ate all the food in the restaurant and they had to close the restaurant."

In other words, like an eight-year-old child. I doubt that was the intention.

• This sentence sounds preposterous on its face. Despite the citation, it's highly dubious.

Vandalism or not, it needs to be revised or removed (which I am more than willing to do after getting feedback from other WP contributors).Kinkyturnip (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I want to make this article better Raphael 4.0 (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DannyS712 (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Bunny should be merged here; all the known real world information about Honey comes from a fan's website, which is unreliable and, even worse, no longer functional. There are very few reliable sources even discussing the character. 76.126.49.152 (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

thank you so much for your time 71.73.79.3 (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2019 (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.Crboyer (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is officially canon that Bugs Bunny is a former struggling rapist as Warner Bros. Entertainment made a copyright claim on a YouTube parody video entitled “Wabbit Season” by YouTube user “MeatCanyon”.

To whom it may concern, If you will not allow me to add this true information then I ask that you do it yourself. 78.19.6.247 (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have given multiples sources twice to bring you up to date on the matter 78.19.6.247 (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/fn3khp/warner_bros_claims_an_animators_short_parody_of/

https://reclaimthenet.org/meatcanyon-bugs-bunny-wabbit-season-copyright-claim/

https://forum.novelupdates.com/threads/bugs-bunny-being-a-rapist-is-now-canon.101806/

https://9gag.com/gag/aZ7ADP6/to-think-warner-brothers-wanted-to-make-bugs-bunny-a-struggling-rapist-canon233credit-meatcanyon

https://imgflip.com/i/3ujwjp

There ya go again 15:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)78.19.6.247 (talk)

Warner Bros. protecting their intellectual property from a parody does not make it canon. The page is protected for the next year, and at least one user has been blocked because of this. Drop it. Meters (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s a parody then they had no legal right to claim it, because it would be fair use. So them claiming the video as their intellectual property, is them stating that the events of the video are cannon. The Star Wars argument does not hold up because non-cannon Star Wars material is 1. not owned by Disney, and 2. Not a parody. Wabbit Season however is now owned by Warner bros, and as stated previously if it was just a parody then they would have no legal right to claim it. -Blueberryking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.50.28.227 (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Warner getting YouTube to take it down doesn't mean that they have made a claim of ownership of the video, just that Warner told YouTube to take it down. Also, a video made by someone else with Bugs Bunny isn't automatically a "parody." Trivialist (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although, because the video was LEGALLY claimed, it means that they are claiming it as their own. So it is canon.

Please allow the canon information to be added Meehall23Therpe (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Meters (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was told that even though said video was legally claimed by Warner Bros. themselves, the video is not canon. And yet there are numerous works of the Star Wars lore that are officially not canon and yet receive spotlight. Another example is how the videogames "Shadow of Mordor" and "Shadow of War" are not canon in the Lord of The Rings lore and yet receive spotlight. I do not see the logic in this. --Meehall23Therpe (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and my previous response. The company was protecting their intellectual property from an offensive parody. That's it. And now please read WP:IDHT and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Meters (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And not only is the page protected for a year because of this, the talk page was even protected for a while because of this. Take the hint. Meters (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wabbit Season met every criteria to be categorized under the parody section of Fair Use. If the story told in the video was deemed property of Warner Brothers, then it has officially become part of the lore of Bugs Bunny. Just because you don't like the outcome of Warners greedy claims, doesnt mean this can just disappear. Over 6,000,000+ people have watched that video and it has a like to dislike rating of 99.32% to 0.67%. With that statistical fact. It is reasonable to believe that 6,000,000< agree with that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A471:714F:7533:3276:4175:E542 (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Bros. has made a legal claim under the provisions of Federal Copyright Law that this is not "under the parody section of Fair Use." Your claim here is unsupported and refuted by the original source. This is not the place to improperly imply Wabbit Season is cannon, but it is a fact that either Bugs Bunny is a rapist (in WB owned content), or Warner Bros. filed an illegal DMCA claim and is damaging an innocent independent creator. I am sure the facts are more than acceptably established to add this impartial documentation to the directly related character's Wiki page. 75.80.34.183 (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if nothing else, it would be hilarious and could potentially embarrass Warner Bros,which is the least they deserve after unfairly claiming something they had no legal right to own. BOBTHETOMATO42069 (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newsflash! The fact is Bugs Bunny is a *rabbit* and NOT a hare, also because the word “Bunny” means “rabbit”! His last name is Bunny and the word “bunny” is another term for rabbit and is also the word for baby rabbit next to “kit”!! Furthermore, I already gave the References with his species, explaining it in his ((Infobox character)) and you DARED to add ((List of fictional hares and rabbits|rabbit or hair)) back to it!!! I gave out both Reference _and_ the explanation that he just has hare characteristics and you changed it!!!! Then, how do you explain that Lola Bunny is a rabbit and not a hare!!!! It doesn’t say THAT on Lola’s page WHATSOEVER!! What about THAT?

AND they only use the word hare in the titles of their episodes to have play on words! And that is ONLY!

72.68.2.144 (talk) 08:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you might be overstressing about this—he's a stylized version of a rabbit who talks and walks on two legs. There's no need to get exact with his taxonomy. Trivialist (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that this Wikipedia article for Bugs bunny excludes one particular depiction of Bugs Bunny from early 2020. Bugs Bunny was depicted in an animated YouTube video, but unlike other videos on YouTube that depict Bugs Bunny (For example, parodies), this video is owned by Warner Bros studio, and is the intellectual property of Warner Bros.

While Bugs Bunny’s depiction within this video vastly contrasts to his previously perceived reputation, Warner Bros’ ownership of this video canonises the events depicted in this video, despite the video being animated by someone who is not employed by Warner Bros. This has caused much controversy, as many were displeased with Warner Bros’ decision to canonically represent Bugs Bunny’s iconic character in such an immodest manner.

This video was written and animated by an external animator named Hunter August Hancock, famously known on social media as Meatcanyon, at the beginning of 2020. While Hancock wrote and animated this video that depicts Bugs Bunny’s character, he is not affiliated with Warner Bros, it has been publicly established that he does not own the video.

The video depicts a number of characters from the Looney Tunes franchise, including Bugs Bunny, and his adversary, Elmer J. Fudd. In this video, Bugs Bunny approaches the iconic rabbit hunter character, in a sexually domineering manner. This results in a chain of events which reveals Bugs Bunny to be a struggling rapist. The video has been removed from YouTube due to the video’s violations of YouTube’s community standards, but has been reuploaded by a number of other YouTube users.

More information can be found on YouTube, by searching Meatcanyon’s YouTube channel, or by searching the name of the video, “Wabbit Season” Shakespeare Mcdude (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Bros. taking down something for infringing on their copyright does not "canonize" it. Take your shitposting elsewhere. Trivialist (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Bros did not have the authority to take ownership of a parody. Parodies use copyrighted works for purposes that fair use was designed to protect, which is outlined in Section 107 of the Copyright Act. The fact that they did means that they claimed ownership of the character in question, and confirmed that the depicted character was, in fact, the real bugs bunny character, and associated the character with the events that had taken place in the video, making the events of the video canon to Bugs Bunny’s character. Shakespeare Mcdude (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shakespeare Mcdude: First: Warner Bros. getting YouTube to take down a video doesn't mean Warner Bros. "owns" the video; it means that YouTube thought keeping it up would be more trouble than it was worth. Fair use or not, WB can request anything be taken down, and YouTube can take down anything it wants.

Second: By your logic, I could make a video showing Winnie the Pooh as a murderer, and Disney getting it taken down from whatever site would make it "canon." Canon is whatever the author/owner decides it is. Trivialist (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the character in Meatcanyons video is the real, authentic bugs bunny character, then it would be canon. If it wasn’t the authentic character, then it isn’t canon.

If Warner Bros had the video taken down when It didn’t include the authentic character, then that’s a fraudulent claim of copyright ownership, which Warner Bros could theoretically be sued for on the basis of theft of intellectual property.

As I said before, Warner Bros did not have the authority to take ownership of a parody. Shakespeare Mcdude (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not reading my previous comment. My fault for trying to convince someone whose only Wikipedia edits are to this discussion. Trivialist (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did read your comment, and I considered everything you said. I simply argued that if this video doesn’t contain the authentic character, then Warner Bros does not have any right to make such a claim against it, nor should YouTube take any action against it based on copyright infringement.

I’m not trying to be a disruptive editor, and my lack of history in suggesting such edits should not denounce the merit of my argument. I’d assume Wikipedia would be glad to see new people making edits (so long as their edits are based on fact and reason, which I believe my argument is) Shakespeare Mcdude (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not conjecture. Trivialist (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s a reliable source that defends my argument. If you disagree, then you may want to change this Wikipedia page too. I recommend specifically reading the “parodies” section of this Wikipedia page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use Shakespeare Mcdude (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this would probably qualify as a fair use parody if WB was to sue someone about it. But YouTube taking it down because Warner requests it doesn't mean that the video is a copyright infringement, or that Warner now owns it. It's just means that YouTube would rather take down a video instead of dealing with legal threats from Warner. Trivialist (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which means Warner bros owns it Kanto7 (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the opposite of what I said, so no. Trivialist (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the manner in which Warner claimed the video, it is canon. Of they had claimed copyright infringement, then your argument would be correct, but they didnt claim infringement. They claimed stolen Intellectual Property, and they won the claim. By law, what they did makes Wabbit Season canon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.13.10.163 (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go away, troll. Trivialist (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the slander to Mr. Bunny's character has been cleared up, why is the Wiki page still up and uncorrected? I donate to Wiki all the time. Is this the kind of "canon" I'm buying? 71.117.139.158 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take it off protection NOW! )) 72.68.2.5 (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you edit my "Species" section?! 😡 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.2.5 (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

on the 22nd of march warner brothers fought for legal ownership of "wabbit season" thereby putting into canon that bugs bunny is a struggling rapist. this is a necessity to be included in the article as this is the largest plot development in the history of said character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunnarious (talk • contribs) 11:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no. Trivialist (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright claiming something is them literally saying legally that the thing in question isn't derivative enough to fall under fair use. In other words, they literally think it's too similar to Bugs Bunny to be able to tell it's a parody. 2600:6C42:6700:2432:C53F:75C:A80C:2188 (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't like the fact they legally said meatcanyon made a depiction of Bugs Bunny that is too accurate to be parody, maybe they should've thought through their actions more. 2600:6C42:6700:2432:C53F:75C:A80C:2188 (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes 87.97.56.58 (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm adding the latest appearances of Bugs Bunny (New Looney Tunes Cartoons) HBO MAX EpicCentral (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2021 (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. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Change the time Mel Blanc's time as Bugs Bunny to 1938 - 1989, 1995 because Happy Rabbit is just Bugs with a different name. The latter is that archival recordings for Bugs, as well as the Tasmanian Devil were used in a 1995 KFC commercial 67.252.82.71 (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Not done. Why do you think that archival recordings should be listed? Can you point to a WP:SECONDARY source that lists them? Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can we edit bugs bunny please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:BFC0:101:FF68:884A:D383:2F59:F34F (talk • contribs)

 Not done. No, you cannot edit the article unless you register a username and make enough edits to be a confirmed user. I would especially reject an edit request coming from you, since you have been disrupting Wikipedia for a long time using West Virginia IPs in the range Special:Contributions/2604:BFC0:101:0:0:0:0:0/36. You have to stop adding unreferenced and false stuff to articles, for instance adding Tom Kenny to the upcoming Jellystone! project,[1] and you should establish trust with the Wikipedia community by making a solid number of constructive edits. Binksternet (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the “wabbit season” canon: Warner Bros. legally claimed a parody skit “wabbit season” and had YouTube remove it. If it’s a parody it is protected under fair use, but they said they had a legal claim to the parody, meaning that bugs bunny is in fact a struggling serial rapist. Here’s a link to the original poster’s video talking about how they legally claimed the video on copyright grounds: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=enRM2TifKls&feature=youtu.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by BugsBunnyCanon (talk • contribs) 07:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating another user account isn't going to change things. Read the previous threads about this. This is why the page is protected. Meters (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Change gender: male to gender: nonconforming 172.58.155.130 (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got proof?Crboyer (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is they any chance if some could fix Jeff Bergman’s years dates of the years he voiced Bugs Bunny? Because it actually would be better if it was changed to as “(1990–present)” instead of “ (1990–1993, 1997–1998, 2003–2004, 2007, 2011–present)”. Because it’s basically too many number of years to keep track and it would be a lot more better if it just be changed to “(1990–present)”, that way it would be a lot better to show views that he’s still the current voice of the character. 50.198.125.49 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit semi-protected)) template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For a school project I was doing on bugs bunny, I ended up talking about the cultural impact he had and specifically referencing his changing of the word nimrod from an allusion to an adjective. This is something that has been covered in a variety of articles and is already on the wikipedia page. That is not what I am claiming.

I am claiming that Bugs Bunny never called Elmer Fudd, or any other character, a nimrod. I watched a fair number of the early cartoon with Bugs in them, and none of the had the famed line, or the word nimrod. By no means was this a representative or complete sample, but even the most sited cartoon I found for having it (The Wild Hare) did not have the line. During my search though, I found a forum thread (linked below) about the topic, which cites a Daffy Duck cartoon (What Makes Daffy Duck) as the only time Elmer Fudd was called this. Having watched that short, I can at the very least confirm that the line presented in the thread is from the cited cartoon.

Given this, I think it is worth revisiting whether or not Bugs Bunny actually said the titular line, regardless of whether he is credited as the cause of the shift or not.

https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/81453/in-which-cartoon-if-any-did-bugs-bunny-use-the-term-nimrod

P.S. I apologize if this is formatted incorrectly or something like that. This is my first post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thyn Bandwagon (talk • contribs) 01:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I've decided to be bold and edit the page to reflect this. It would be nice if we had a more definitive source, but none of the sources we were using (nor any source I could find on the internet) ever gave any better support for their claim about Bugs being the origin, either. I'm glad we've corrected this misconception. Thanks Thyn. --Dingolover6969 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I've done a bit of work since my first post trying to transcribe the possible cartoons where line could have come from (ie any cartoon with Bugs and a Human or Porky) starting with the first, but I've only got a few. This was to try and supply some source on the topic, even though it would be original research. I will continue to chip away at it, and am glad to see that an edit has been made and a primary source cited. --Thyn Bandwagon (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add in the copyright claim warner bros made on meatcanyon for his 2 minute skit it is located on youtube and is offically cannon that Bugs bunny is a struggling serial rapist due too the copyright claim 2600:8803:2500:15:A506:B9FE:481B:9D6F (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. This has been discussed ENDLESSLY.Crboyer (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

70.121.99.47 (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs gender be changed to genderfluid, it was confirmed by the creator

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Sirdog (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cholot45 (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can bugs bunny's image on his article be edited due his ears accidentally being coloured white when there supposed to be pink, just a nitpick

 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. There are many images, all of them explaining the period or work they're from. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change bugs bunny's ear colour from white to pink as that's its official colour as in things like space jam,space jam:a new legacy,looney tunes back in action,the looney tunes show new looney tunes, looney tunes cartoons,baby looney tunes,and the original looney tunes/merrie melodies cartoons from 1930 to 1969.Cholot45 Cholot45 (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Infobox: (about Burson's part) Do not add 1991-2003, as he was not doing the voice anymore Joe Alaskey and Billy West were. Change the section Mel Blanc to the following: Opening Sentence: "Mel Blanc voiced the character for 51 years, from Bug's debut as Happy Rabbit in the 1938 short Porky's Hare Hunt all the way until Blanc's death in 1989." Picture caption: "Mel Blanc was the original voice of Bugs Bunny, voicing him for 51 years" 67.255.12.186 (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After having an argument with with IP editor 98.179.157.217, I've just been wondering, should Jeff Bergman's credited role of Bugs Bunny be changed from 1990–1993, 1997–1998, 2002–2004, 2007, 2011–present to simply 1990–present? Brian K. Tyler (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oi eu so u Pernalonga — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:84F8:1031:1900:79E2:8B32:1DDF:810F (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer: Orson12345 (talk · contribs) 16:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have read through the article, checked all the images used, and looked through the sources. I found two issues that need to be resolved.

The first was located in the “Development” section. The paragraph, “The rabbit comes back in Prest-O Change-O (1939), directed by Chuck Jones, where he is the pet rabbit of unseen character Sham-Fu the Magician. Two dogs, fleeing the local dogcatcher, enter his^[whose?] absent master's house. The rabbit harasses them but is ultimately bested by the bigger of the two dogs. This version of the rabbit was cool, graceful, and controlled. He retained the guttural laugh but was otherwise silent.”^[1]

Contained a ^[whose?], which I agreed with, the wording was a bit confusing, but it was an easy fix of wording, so I just fixed it myself. Of course, if you think it could be worded better, by all means, change it to what you think sounds better.

The second is located in the “ Personality and catchphrases” section. It contains a lack of citations banner, in which I agree with. The first paragraph of this section, “Bugs Bunny is characterized as being clever and capable of outsmarting almost anyone who antagonizes him, including Elmer Fudd, Yosemite Sam, Tasmanian Devil, Marvin the Martian, Wile E. Coyote, Gossamer, Witch Hazel, Rocky and Mugsy, The Crusher, Beaky Buzzard, Willoughby, Count Bloodcount, Daffy Duck and a host of others. The only one to consistently beat Bugs is Cecil Turtle, who defeats Bugs in three consecutive shorts based on the premise of the Aesop fable The Tortoise and the Hare. In a rare villain turn, Bugs turns to a life of crime in 1949's Rebel Rabbit, taking on the entire United States government by vandalizing monuments in an effort to prove he is worth more than the two-cent bounty on his head; while he succeeds in raising the bounty to $1,000,000, the full force of the military ends up capturing Bugs and sending him to Alcatraz.” Contains no sources supporting this information, the second paragraph also needs more citations of sources.

Those were the only issues that I found that need to be fixed in order for this article to be approved as a good article. The wording in the article is consistent and understandable, and contains a very broad scope of information. I believe it lacks images, but that’s a personal preference, it’s not required at all. Once those two issues are fixed I believe this article is ready to be approved. Have a nice day! --Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 16:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got the rest. Thanks. Sportsfangnome (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfangnome: I’m going to put the review on hold, That’ll give you or anyone else a week to make the changes. Have a nice day and good luck! :) Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 20:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His other aliases Bun-bun and Rabbit were removed. Can they be re-added? 75.82.160.163 (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to Collider, Bugs has a new movie in the works. What should we do with this? Leader Vladimir (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A parody video under the title "Wabbit Season" by Youtuber, Meatcanyon, was legally claimed as copyright of Warner Bros. this canonically makes Bugs Bunny a struggling rapist, who has at least sexually assaulted Elmer Fudd and possibly other loony toons characters. OddyNuffTheSnowLeopard (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but a character which has had several previous appearances cannot logically have "an official debut" 2 years later! This kind of thing only happens whenever some people have a "belief" in defiance of facts they have a hard time accepting. In animation or other professions which involve the evolution of a character,there are bound to be changes in design or personality. Besides Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd, Porky Pig and Woody Woodpecker all looked differently in their first appearances than from what we think of whenever the character's name is mentioned. Getting back to Bugs Bunny in particular, even after "A Wild Hare", directors and animators continued to tweak the design. It makes more sense to say Avery's short contains Bugs' "defining moment": when he first used the phrase "What's up, Doc?". MARK VENTURE (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ranging from Bugs' copyright claims from Warner Brothers having a problem with 'Wabbit Season' to all the image templates of Bugs in a suit with the text "I wish you a very" [further context here], it seems like something worth addressing here on this talk page. If anyone wishes to elaborate as to why it's [in]appropriate or not, please let me know; every bit of feedback is greatly appreciated. Internet Informant (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]