I've mentioned before that I like to post articles on relevant anniversaries. In fact, if all goes well, I'll be doing one tomorrow. I meant to do one last week, too, but events kind of got away from me.

The idea was to post the one about The Truth about Mother Goose on August 28, the 51st anniversary of its theatrical release and the day before a local sci-fi convention where I'd been scheduled for several panels. But that time got used for unexpected preparation necessities, and after that there was no getting anything done until I'd spent Monday resting up.

So by Tuesday I was jonesing to post a new article, and I wasn't so energetic I could afford to stash the preparations I'd made for the Disney item until next year and start one from scratch, and that's why it missed its anniversary by several days.

In fact, I posted one just today that's a few days late for its anniversary. Monday was the tenth anniversary of The Wild Thornberrys, which makes it just barely eligible to be included at all (by the rules I've chosen to follow since opening). This is probably the closest I've posted to a tenth anniversary since Animaniacs, which I couldn't wait to get in.

But lately I've been thinking. A major reason for the ten-year rule is to save my article-writing energy for things that have been around for a while. When I've gotten all the superstars (any left?) and most of the stars people come to this site to find, maybe then I can think about more current stuff.

And what I'm thinking is — after 7+ years, has that time arrived?

It's pretty obvious the average Q-rating of the toons I write about has been going down. There's still stuff to write about; in fact, I don't expect to live long enough to run out. But a major criterion, these days, is simply whether or not there's something to say about this guy that would be fun saying.

I've actually gotten some complaints about that. But there's not much to be done about it. Once you've written up Charlie Brown, Batman and Scooby Doo, they're done. If the site is to continue expanding, you have to move on.

Sure, the site needs the articles on Goofus & Gallant. Barefoot Gen and even Jane Arden, for historical purposes. (To name only a few recent ones.) But Kalthar? Fu Chang? Swing Sisson?

Don't get me wrong! I'm glad to have them as part of the site, because if nothing else they give a bit exposure to some of the odd little obscuros that are out there. But if I'm to the point where those guys are good candidates for writing up, maybe it's time to lift the rule.

But another reason for the rule is to establish a little historical perspective. There are very good sites about the newest and the glitziest, but this isn't one of them. This is a site where toons are usually eligible to be talked about in the past tense, even they're still running, because they have a past.

But is ten years necessary? Maybe that could be maintained if it were lowered to five.

If it were, that'd make a whole lot of fun toons eligible for immediate inclusion. Fairly Odd Parents. Jimmy Neutron. Grim & Evil. Spongebot Squarepants (the next one I'm marking time until the tenth anniversary of — it's less than a year away!).

But there would still be time standards. Backyardigans, Little Einsteins, Phineas & Ferb and the like would have to wait. Just not as long.

You'll know what I decide almost as soon as I will, The moment I decide, I'll start work on a Spongebob article, and you'll see it go up a few hours later.

Otherwise, it'll have to wait until July of next year.

— DDM