[quote name=\'William A. Padron\' post=\'218744\' date=\'Jun 22 2009, 11:43 AM\']Supposedly, and as I understood from it, the question as written was based upon was posted on the official Warner Bros. website of those cartoon stars of having each their own "official biography" as stars.[/quote]
Wait, hold on.
So this question (list topic, pending unfinished business, whatever the hell you want to call it), qualified the source of its answer PRECISELY and DEFINITIVELY, and people are crying about it being unfair and that the contestants were screwed? Is that the case? (Can someone confirm what Padron is suggesting about the question having been sourced? You'll forgive me if I don't take it as gospel on his say-so.)
Because *if that is the case*, sorry, no. Because at that point the question is no longer "how many WB characters can you name" and all about guessing whether the one you're thinking of is "major" enough to have made the list.
Now, if only that show's research staff (and even Warners) had done some real background work on this topic, they should have looked at least into The Unofficial Looney Tunes & Merrie Melodies Page (highly recommended) as an other source.
You know why it's an unofficial page? Because it's not the OFFICIAL one. I suppose you want 'em using Wikipedia, too?
You want to knock WB for not deeming Sam and Foghorn important enough for top billing (and I see that you have, parenthetically), fine, and I wholly agree with you there. If you want to knock the writers for not saying "hey, this is kinda a lame source, it's clearly missing some obvious reasonable answers, maybe we shouldn't use this question unless we can use a better, more complete official source", I'd even get behind that. But if the question was indeed sourced when asked as Padron suggested it was, it was fair. Maybe not GOOD, but fair.
But you do NOT turn a fanboy page into an official resource.