Talk:Yogi Bear and the Magical Flight of the Spruce Goose

Animation: American / Hanna-Barbera Low‑importance

	Animation portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Hanna-Barbera work group (assessed as Low-importance).

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.

Untitled

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

not — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZooPro (talk • contribs) 02:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Plot Overkill

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

No need for me to see this movie now - I can work it out from the Plot section!

Surely this could be trimmed down by someone who HAS seen it. The entire plot section is far too long. Ozzieboy (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Added long plot template to encourage someone to clean it up. I would do it if I had seen the movie. Ozzieboy (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article is a disaster

Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The plot summary is far too long, and is filled with tense swapping and unfitting rhetoric. I could understand these misgivings if this was not a well known film, but it is recognizable enough that I feel a better article could be written, particularly the plot section. 2600:4041:4B7:9C00:4C5:C42B:3484:90D2 (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic