Talk:Our Gang

Our Gang is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 24, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 5, 2004	Peer review	Reviewed
January 19, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
March 11, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
June 1, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
December 12, 2010	Featured article review	Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

Film: American

	Film portal 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.

Comedy Mid‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comics Mid‑importance

	Comics portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Imposters

I think there should be a section regarding imposters or people who claimed they were in the comedies. There were several well noted ones including a man pretending to be Stymie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.53.169.182 (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul

I'll be doing a somewhat major overhaul of this page, to give it more structure and to give the earlier version of the gang their due.

Well, now I'm done. --b. Touch 03:49, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Interesting and thoughtful

Good article-could use a bit of a link cleanup. Quill 22:25, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Entire bit needs to be removed, IMO.

The following section needs to be removed:

In later years, a large number of adults falsely claimed to have been members of the popular group. A long list of people, including persons famous in other capacities such as Nanette Fabray [1] [2], Tony Dow's mother Muriel Montrose [3], Gloria Winters [4], and Jimmy Weldon [5] have had biographical write-ups that falsely claimed that they were Our Gang kids. Eddie Bracken's official biography was once altered to state that he appeared in Our Gang instead of The Kiddie Troupers, although he himself had no knowledge of the change. The obituaries of some of these people, such as Lucille Brown [6] and Sara Jane Roberts [7], stated falsely that they were in the series. Ms. Brown's obituary claimed that she had played Farina, who was actually played by Allen Hoskins, a male.

These websites are really not notable enough, and we most definitely don't refer to old copies of our pages... well, there was one article (can't remember which one), but it was an exception to the rule. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can revise it slightly, and use references from the Maltin-Bann book. --FuriousFreddy 14:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A long list of people, including persons famous in other capacities such as Nanette Fabray and Eddie Bracken (Maltin & Bann 241-242).

is not a sentence. (I would fix it, but I don't know what it' supposed to say.) Revolver 01:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The other half of that sentence must have gotten lost in the editing process. I fixed it it reads: A long list of people, including persons famous in other capacities such as Nanette Fabray and Eddie Bracken, have all claimed to be or have been publically stated as being former Our Gang kids (Maltin & Bann 241-242). --FuriousFreddy 02:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kid from Borneo

The copy under the poster for this title says it was not included King World's "Little Rascals" TV syndication of the shorts. Not true; I saw it many times in the 1950s along with the others. We were always running around going "Yum, yum, eat 'em up", like the "Wild Man" in the story does. This needs to be fixed; also, all titles listed need to be wikified. - J.V. Cremonum

I can confirm this, since I also recall seeing this episode on television in the 1960s. Even if the details are now fuzzy -- I would have been about 5 years old -- the "eat 'em up" line is unforgettable. Csernica 02:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I revised the caption. I read, in the Maltin/Bann book, a list of films King World deleted from the package, and Kid From Borneo is on it. I don't have an exact date for when the banning was actually done, however. Before 1964, other distributors, including Monogram Pictures, broadcast Little Rascals films. King World only started syndicating the films in 1964. --FuriousFreddy 04:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To clarify: I saw it in the late 1960s, definitely not earlier than 1966 and possibly later. To be fair, I don't recall seeing it more than once or twice, and never in the 1970s. Perhaps King World yanked it from the package only after a couple of years. Csernica 20:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Perhaps. I don't have an exact date, so, y'never know. Still a great short, though ("Uhn-UH, brutha--I don't want no wild mans nibblin' on me!") --FuriousFreddy 21:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As far as wikifying all the titles listed, I have to disagree. It would result in a plethora of redlinks unless someone were to make articles for all of them. That being said, not all of the films are notable enough for their own articles, so I think it best (in the interest of visual appeal) to leave each unlinked unless (or until) ana article is written, which is generally what has been done. --FuriousFreddy 21:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Future child actors

"...in contrast to a number of previous, contemporary, and future child actors" How can they be compared to future child actors? --Andy M. 06:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, that depends on the context; future as it relates to the time of filming (ie, the 30s) or future measured from now? I read it as referring to child actors of the 40s and onward... -- Xinit 07:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actors (or any other sorts of entertainers) of any one period can be compared to those of another...or at l;east that's what Leonard Maltin says (he spends a substantial amount of time in the Our gang book downing modern-day child actors and comparing them to the kids in this series (lemme footnote that, btw). --FuriousFreddy 14:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Commonplace Integration?

"Such a thing had never been done before in cinema, but was 'commonplace' after the success of Our Gang." Was it really that commonplace after Our Gang? When looking at old movies it seems like blacks and whites never mixed on the screen except in the most stereotyped of roles. Perhaps blacks and whites appeared on screen together, but as "equals" seems to be stretching things a bit. Also, what was the state of integration on screen prior to Our Gang. There is no question that Our Gang DID present boys, girls, whites, and blacks together in a much more even way (Almost anyone in the series might save the day), but what influence did it have? Jimaginator 12:45, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Not long after Our Gang went out of production is when you started getting films like No Way Out, Imitation of Life, and the like, which explored racism and the equality of blacks and whites. What that sentence primarily refers to, however, is the casting of white and black actors as friends in movies, something that is commonplace nowadays (i.e., after Our Gang). When I wrote that sentence, what I personally had in mind are the plethora of cartoons & kids' comic books that have integrated casts (examples" Archie, Peanuts, and Hey Arnold!, which is basically an animated Our Gang for the 1990s. --FuriousFreddy 14:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be appropriate to expand a little in the article on the influence that Our Gang had immediately following it's appearance. Jimaginator 14:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well, immediately following its inception, there was the plethora of sinmilar kiddie comedies, all of which featured a Black kid right alongside the white ones. Those, however, are already mentioned. There were also plety of similar kid-based comics with Black kids alongside the white ones a la Our Gang, but I'd need to do more research on them. But, again, when I said "after the success", I didn't mean immediately after, in reference to adult actors of different races appearing as equals. The wouldn't come along until integration hit in the 1960s. The only point being made in the sentence is that Our Gang was first, which it most definitely was. --FuriousFreddy 15:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Post-production history

This may be splitting hairs, but here goes. In film and television production the term "post-production" is used for the editing process. When we (I'm a TV editor) say a project is in "post-production" we mean it has been shot, but is in the process of editing (or music scoring etc.). So, if someone agrees and can think of a more appropriate heading, that would be nice, but maybe my use of industry-jargon is too much? Just a thought... Tony 20:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just "post-history", perhaps? --FuriousFreddy 21:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copyright

The pictures in this acticle are against the law. Maby they are free in the USA, but they are not free in all countrys of the world. That's against the rules of Wikipedia. So the pictures must be deleted. --84.129.113.228 19:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At german Wikipedia we find out, that the pictures that are uses on this article, are against the european law. As the english wikipeida is not only an US wikipedia, the pictueres must be deleted. So please leave the pictues out of the article. If you have an permission from hal roach to use pictueres, than they can be add in the article again. --Hhp4 04:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At german wikipedia the pictueres have allready been deleted, because there are maby not allowed. --Hhp4 04:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much of a point of responding to this foolishness, but I will make this plain: STOP. You will be blocked if you continue to vandalize the page. We have already taken care of the image copyright and fair use claims for this article to the extent that we need to. Thank you kindly. --FuriousFreddy 04:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the German Our Gang article and the back history, it's obvious why the images are being deleted: screenshots are tagged with GDFL tags, as if Wikipedia editors had created them. If you tag those German Wikipedia images correctly or use images from the dozen or so public domain Our Gangs, you'll solve your problem. But, right now, you (and/or whoever else) are causing more problems by vandalizing the English Wikipedia. Every image in this article has been clearly and properly tagged as per our guidelines. Therefore, you or whoever else: cease and decist vandalizing this article. --FuriousFreddy 04:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image are from public domain sources. And some pictues was the same than in this article. But they say US-PD imagages are NOT automaticly allowed in all countrys of the world. So the pictures could not be used in any wikipedia. Wikipedia ist free information for every country, not only for the USA.

And it's very intersting how free speech is used in english wikipedia. 1th the copyright information was deleted. --84.129.72.86 04:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our servers are located in the United States, As such, we are only required to follow U.S. law. That is how the internet works. You are not helping anything by continuously removing the pictures, and you will be blocked if you continue. --FuriousFreddy 04:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not an argument. The same argument, the servers is in the USA was used in german wikipedia. But they same wikipedia is information that is used in all countrys. From Wikipeida were made DVD's. And if on this DVD's are protected pictures, that could made a lot of trouble for the Wikipedia foudaition in other countrys. Only if an copyright holder says himself that a picture can be used free everywhere, (GNU licence) that it can be used in wikipeia.

The pictures are from www.archive.org. That are US-PD-movies. But they say not GNU licence.

--84.129.68.124 05:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the DVDs are made from the Wikipedia, judgement are passed at that time on whether or not to include them or not. But DVDs aren't made directly from the website files, and they aren't made from the English Wikipedia either. As far as the English Wikipedia is concerned, what I told you aboutis indeed an argument. If you have a problem with that, go discuss it with the Wikimedia Foundation, not here with me. As far as this article goes, you have two choices: (a) leave it alone, unless you have a helpful contribution to make, or (b) be blocked for vandalism if you try to keep removing pictures. This is my final reply on this subject; good night. --FuriousFreddy 05:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, calm down friends. Keep the following in mind: the servers of Wikipedia are indeed in the USA - BUT - the English Wikipedia is NO US-American Wikipedia, but an All-English one. So ALL laws of English speaking countries have to be respected, as long as it is only called "English", not only the ones of the USA. Was there a check, if the pictures are also under "PD" or "Fair Use" in, say, Canada, Australia, Ireland or Great Britain? It IS the internet-way, see, that some contents that are allowed in one country may not be allowed in another. And as the English Wikipedia is serving all English speaking countries that should be checked quite properly, not only with the text of an article but also with the accompanying media as long as there is no explicite US-English-Wikipedia. --Wittkowsky 10:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a red herring. Freddy is right and he has explained the situation clearly. Whatever happens to be your first language, if you are in any nation (whatever its major language(s)) where copyright laws lack the concept of "fair use", you are free to consider legal dangers or your conscience and decide not to use en-Wikipedia. You may of course be unhappy about this, and you can express your dissatisfaction on an appropriate discussion page. You can express it on this talk page, if you wish, though doing so is a bit pointless. What you can't do is delete the images from this article because you're unhappy with the rules here. -- Hoary 11:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

en: vs. de:

For the benefit of en: users who don't work on de:; de: doesn't allow any unfree images whatsoever. de: wants to be completely free and reusable worldwide. Any genuine confusion here may be the result of someone inappropriately applying the de: policy of worldwide reusability to en:. Wittkowsky, en: makes, um, generous use of the fair use doctrine. It is often controversial, it is often abused, but the images used here are well within the standards that en: has set. Please don't confuse de:'s goals with some kind of international copyright law; you're only going to confuse the issue. Take the time instead to try and understand Wikipedia:Fair use policy here on en:, and then consider looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use for ways to help keep actual abuses of it to a minimum. Thanks. Jkelly 17:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New 1922 (?) image

The image of the early "Our Gang" cast members that's currently up there is very blurry and low-resolution, so I thought I'd try to find a better one. I found this one, from 1922, but one of the cast members seems to be different than in the 1923 picture - there's a "Jay R. Smith" instead of a "Jack Davis". What's odd is that according to the wikipedia article, Jay Smith didn't start appearing in the shorts until 1925. So is the website wrong, or is wikipedia wrong?

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone thinks that the image could be put to some use within the article. Esn 09:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The website is wrong. Jay R. Smith joined the gang quite some time after Ernie Morrison left, and I'm pretty sure that is Andy Samuel in that picture and not Jay R. Smith. It was also probably taken sometime in late 1923, not 1922, based upon Farina's evident age in the picture. --FuriousFreddy 04:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that's not Farina in that photo. --Deelzbub —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

fun with dates

At two places in one paragraph, an overzealous bot "corrected"

1930's Title

to

1930s Title

I'm pleased to see superfluous apostrophes removed from plurals, but here the "'s" is possessive. To correct the matter and remove temptation, I changed both to

Title (1930)

which I think is better style anyway. —Tamfang 06:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Cosby

In the article it says that Bill Cosby never owned the rights to "The Little Rascals". That may have changed. I went to the FYE store in Tower City in Cleveland Ohio and the person there said they had to pull all "Little Rascals" DVD's (except for used ones) because Bill Cosby bought the rights and wants them off the market. I'd like to know if he got all of them or just the Hal Roach talkies. Johnbasalla 04:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone was pulling your leg. Bill Cosby does not own the rights to a single Our Gang comedy. --FuriousFreddy 02:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That same stupid internet myth keeps popping up and spread by Facebook and email. Of course all anyone has to do is just Google it or got to Amazon and find the various incarnations still available John Simpson54 (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post History

There is no such concept as "Post History." Will somebody who knows more about this subject than I please re-divide the History section. I suggest doing it by decades or by other extremely important division points in the History (not "Post History" of these people? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

African-American in Our Gang

Mad props to the writers of this article for mentioning the fact that the shorts do sometimes indulge in "pickaninny" and other Black stereotypes that we today would find offensive, but for also stating prominantly that many shorts portrayed Blacks and Whites as equals in a way uncomon for the time. I recently rented some Our Gang shorts on VHS...probably hadn't seen them in 30 years or more...and I was amazed at how the Black characters were equal members of the Gang and its adventures...Buckwheat getting a group hug when he won something...a White father hugging Stymie (his son's playmate). Was Roach a progressive? One could argue that he just wanted to appeal to the widest possible audience, but at that time reaching out to one group could easily have driven away another. PurpleChez (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is an old comment, but I would like to point out that throughout the history of literary and film portrayals of minorities, children (especially boys) have often been treated more "generously" than their adult counterparts. The reasons for this are not well understood, but it probably relates to the white majority seeing children as less of a threat to the social hierarchy. My point is that I do not think we can make any conclusions about Roach's motivations. Since reliable sources like Maltin make conclusions, we certainly should report them in this article but lets be sure to not read things into the serials. Wickedjacob (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The films were progressive in that the Black children weren't made the butt of jokes by the other children on account of their color. Stymie, Buckwheat & Farina were generally the poor kids- it would have been nice to see them a little higher on the social scale but they never appeared to be abused or willfully neglected. Saxophobia (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Little rascals ver2.jpg

The image File:Little rascals ver2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity needs clearing up, or Too many Dickies

"Dickie Moore, a veteran child actor, joined in the middle of 1932, and remained with the series for one year. Other members during these years included Mary Ann Jackson's brother Dickie Jackson, John "Uh-huh" Collum, and Tommy Bond. Upon Dickie's departure in mid-1933, long-term Our Gang members such as Wheezer (who had been with Our Gang since the late Pathé silents period) and Dorothy left the series as well."

Upon which Dickie's departure? Moore or Jackson? Jackson is most recently mentioned, but the paragraph starts out talking about Moore only being there a year. It should probably be changed to the full name of whichever one it was just to ward off confusion.76.226.121.12 (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. It's Dickie Moore. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raising Concerns on this article

Before I make an FAR on this article, I to talk about the problems of this on the talk page. And this article fails Featured article criteria 1c, as some sections (EX: The sound era and The Little Rascals television package) are unreferenced. If anyone is interested in fixing up the article, please let me know if you want to as I will not watchlist this page. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio? plagiarism?

Passage from OurGang online - The series, one of the best-known and most successful in cinema history, is noted for showing children behaving in a relatively natural way. While child actors are often groomed to imitate adult acting styles, steal scenes, or deliver "cute" performances, Hal Roach and original director Robert F. McGowan worked to film the unaffected, raw nuances apparent in regular kids. Our Gang also notably put boys, girls, whites, and blacks together in a group as equals, something that "broke new ground," according to film historian Leonard Maltin. Such a thing had never been done before in cinema, but was commonplace after the success of Our Gang.

Passage from lead - The series is noted for showing children behaving in a relatively natural way. While child actors are often groomed to imitate adult acting styles, steal scenes, or deliver "cute" performances, Hal Roach and original director Robert F. McGowan worked to film the unaffected, raw nuances apparent in regular children. Our Gang also notably put boys, girls, whites and blacks together in a group as equals, something that "broke new ground," according to film historian Leonard Maltin.[1] Such a thing had never been done before in cinema but was commonplace after the success of Our Gang.

Unless of course OurGang online copied wikipedia. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our Gang Online copied Wikipedia. I wrote most of that passage. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the "poor" label

I would dispute the opening description of the children as being "poor". The Hoods appeared to be quite middle class by today's standards, and were probably seen as upper middle class by Great Depression era standards. I do not recall seeing home life conditions that would suggest poverty.

The image of poverty may have been reinforced by their activities and the items they constructed for fun. Children's time was much less structured back then, and their free roaming antics can be interpreted differently today. The carts, clubhouses, and assorted items made from cast-off materials were an integral part of their charm, and an expression of innocent resourcefulness. It's possible that someone is looking at it from today's perspective where parents provide much more in pre-made material goods for their children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlsez (talk • contribs) 20:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watching the entire balance of the series beyond the Spanky-Alfalfa-Darla era would make the "poor" distinction more apt; the kids were always depicted as "less than", wavering between working class and destitute, until the streamlined one-reel shorts of the late 1930s. Nevertheless, I'll see what I can do. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the murder of Petey

Acording to Photoplay magazine of July, 1930, Pete the Pup was murdered by poison. [see http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=32066318&l=98e76fb117&id=1028006576]

Why no mention of this still-unsolved crime? Is Wikipedia in the pocket of Hollywood? 06:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Because we don't discuss the demise of any of the other actors either; there's no room. Pete's murder is described in the Pete the Pup article. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overwikifying

I cleaned up some of the overwikifying that was present in much of the first third or so of the article. This sort of thing is always subjective, but if a reader needs help with boy and girl, they really shouldn't be on the Internet.PacificBoy 01:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ogcomics.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ogcomics.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 17 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our Gang → The Little Rascals – Although the series was originally released as Our Gang, the series, and all subsequent releases and syndication of the episodes were renamed The Little Rascals. First, I recommend this move per WP:Commonname, since the most common name of this series is now The Little Rascals. I would watch this show when I was young, and always knew it as The Little Rascals. Perhaps that is bias on my part, but anyone who may have originally watched these episodes when they were still titled Our Gang, is either very old or very dead. And we all know that very old and very dead people rarely read or edit wikipedia, so I doubt we will have too many problems with that. Second, I recommend this move because there is precedent on wikipedia that when the original title of a series or film changes, the Wikipedia title reflects the new or more current name. Examples are the first three Star Wars films, more importantly, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, and the 80's TV show The Hogan Family, which changed names half way through.JOJ ^Hutton 16:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did not watch them in the 1920's; but I am accustomed to see them referred to as the Our Gang comedies. For what it is worth (there are too many false positives in both searches), an ngram suggests that "Our Gang" is more common still. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure how to judge Most Common, but we certainly cannot argue against the fact that the name was changed, even for the older films and shorts. Usually when a name changes, we use the current official name, rather than the older one, even if the old name is still used. Other examples are Sears Tower, Florida Marlins, Freedom Tower, Apple Computer, ect. ect. ect....--JOJ ^Hutton 19:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The ngram results no doubt include a number of false positives for "Our Gang"; based on a cursory review of some of the Books results, many that do refer to the comedy series include "Little Rascals" as well. Powers ^T 01:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting case. However, the Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope analogy doesn't quite work since "Star Wars" is ambiguous and "Our Gang" is not. Likewise, a plurality of the episodes of the cited TV show were produced as "The Hogan Family" whereas none of the shows was produced as "The Little Rascals". Any other more relevant cases out there? — AjaxSmack 05:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Star Wars was not ambiguous until the 2000's, and only because Wikipedia said so. No one called it A New Hope, even today. All of the Our Gang shorts were renamed The Little Rascals and rebroadcast on television for over 60 years now. There have been more screenings, and reruns of the show as The Little Rascals than as Our Gang. Hell, even the DVD says The Little rascals.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now at least. I am neither very old (or not as defined above (;-> anyway) nor very dead, and I spend a great deal of time on Wikipedia both reading and contributing. So much for the move rationale! We need to be careful about rewriting history and particularly about letting promoters of video collections rewrite it for us. The films were produced as Our Gang, and the cast members refer to them in their autobiographies as Our Gang. It seems to me we'd need to consider a lot more evidence than presented above to justify a move. Are the original title boards, all reading Our Gang of course, reproduced in the modern releases, for example? It would seem to me utter vandalism not to use them, but they may have been removed for all I know. It would IMO count badly against the move if they are faithfully reproduced as I would hope. Andrewa (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the basis of WP:TITLECHANGES. This title has been stable at Our Gang since the article was created in 2002 and apparently no harm has come to WP because of it. Appeals to WP:COMMONNAME in this case should hold no weight. I am 64 years old, far from dead, and remember watching Our Gang as a kid. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox formatting for TV series

I have reverted the recent good faith edits to the infobox not only because they contain gross inaccuracies as regards such things as the films' production companies, but because they are formatted as though the Our Gang films were episodes of a TV series. They were not. They were discreet films made for theatrical release. Each is a separate film no less than the Charlie Chan or Indiana Jones films are. They were not of uniform length (other than being generally of vaguely similar length), they were certainly not all shot, as described, in the multi-camera format of modern-day sitcoms, and they did not have "episodes" as befits the description of a TV series. There may be an infobox format for a series of individual films, but the TV series format is not it. Even without the inaccuracies, formatting a film series as though it were a TV series is misleading and confusing to anyone seeking first knowledge of the films. Monkeyzpop (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-reverted the infobox. Do not add back. If someone wants to create an "Infobox short subject series" that could cater specifically to these sorts of articles, fine, but don't abuse the templates not designed for this purpose. Thanks. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

I wasn't around for the debate on the page name (which I would have opposed), but the article makes clear that The Little Rascals only officially applies as a title to the 80 all-talking entries produced by Hal Roach from 1929 to 1938. So does the disambiguation page. The silent films are marketed under all manners of names depending on the distributor (as far as I can tell today, the consensus on these seems split between The Little Rascals and Our Gang), while the later MGM-produced entires owned by Turner are still (and always have been) Our Gangs. It would be less comprable to Star Wars/Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope than to Babes in Toyland/March of the Wooden Soldiers (and the article for Babes in Toyland is at...Babes in Toyland (1934 film). And plenty of people who are neither old nor dead refer to these films as Our Gang. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to answer the question posed above by Andrewa and a few others, the DVD covers all say The Little Rascals, but the prints of the actual films on the disc use the original titles (or recreations of such), which all say Our Gang or Hal Roach's Rascals in 'Our Gang' Comedies. They've been run that way since about 1994, when RHI did restorations of all of the Hal Roach sound films. Even during their last major showing on TV (on AMC in the early 2000s), the package said The Little Rascals, but the films still said Our Gang. And of course, Warner Bros. sells the Turner set, which says Our Gang Comedies. The name thing is tricky, but calling the article Our Gang and explaining all deviations from such seems the best sensible manner from an encyclopedic standpoint. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sniffles

I reverted IP addition of "Earl Colby as 'Sniffles'" because I couldn't find anything on the fecund Web. Was I over-hasty? —Tamfang (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further Literature: Entries in 1920s film magazines

Entries in 1920s film magazines on ″Our Gang", retrieved via Media History digital Library --92.206.6.137 (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photoplay Magazine

The Film Daily

Jackie Lynn Taylor

Jackie Lynn Taylor died. B-Machine (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom McNamara

Excuse me, did the Author of the Article forget to mention Tom McNamara, director and writer, or has he just not been relevant? Römerquelle (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Our Gang. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Kibrick and Mildred Kornman

they need to be added 2600:1702:CC7:1A20:AD57:F5C2:C440:20FD (talk) 07:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Olzie

The inventor and builder of various Our Gang Taxi's Fire Engines and contraptions. 2603:8002:B40:3774:5CFF:C776:7E93:C142 (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]