Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disney/Animated Film Article Cleanup

As a housekeeping matter, I have moved the discussions as found here to the discussion page. I believe that the main page should be kept for policies, procedures, agreements and implementations of same. Please revert if desired. Jvsett (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the use of the term "Classic", the reliability of sources, and which films are most fit for which lists, etc.

Answering these long and accurate observations.

The following subsections describes my position on the matter. I'm sorry for my English, feel free to ask if something isn't clear. --Elikrotupos (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took it upon myself to re-format Elikrotupos' comments to make each section its own hearing for easier review and dialogue on the specific issues. The original can be viewed here. If this was inappropriate, please revert. Jvsett (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's ok to me. I've also made the next sections sub-sections. --Elikrotupos (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Classic"

Dave Smith is the only one (and he is a reliable source for Wikipedia) who gives a clear definition of which Disney films can be considered "Classics". We agree on that. I believe that the reason why Disney doesn't use the term "Classic" for its CGI films is that, marketing-wise, naming a CGI film "classic" would be anachronistic. That's what I believe, so it doesn't count. Anyway I don't care about the terms (I would prefer "Canon", but do whatever you want), I just want to find a list of the animated feature films produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios (or its former names, but it's always the same) and put that film in a category separated from the other WDAS productions like live-action movies, live-action & animation movies, animated movies produced by a division of Walt Disney Pictures that is not WDAS. There is a number of reasons for this. The first, and the most important (and maybe the only usefull for Wikipedia) is that Disney itself made this division, in a way that became ambiguous only with the production of CGI movies (anyway, WDAS can't deny that she produced Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons and Bolt. WDAS can deny Dinosaurs, and it did... until last year, when she claimed Dinosaurs in its infamous website).

The use of the word "Classic" has always been ambiguous and contingent on the historical period and marketing necessities, that's why we can't use the Annual Reports as a source. As I've just said, Disney's obviously use the word "Classic" for promoting The Princess and the Frog and the new line of Blu-rays... those movies are fables and/or old (two perfect synonyms of "classic"). And we all know that WDAS didn't consider Dinosaurs as one of its films (because produced by a subsidiary studio, now extinct, that was part of the former WDFA, now WDAS)... until last year when their new website went online. It's obvious (and verifiable) that WDAS simply changed his mind.

I must now bring an other evidence to your attention. This evidence is not a valid source for Wikipedia because it is an original research, but it is valid for our discussion. A friend of mine, interested in this topic as we are, recently sent an e-mail to Dave Smith asking him to make clear ho to use the word "classic". Here's the mail he sent, and here's the answer by Dave Smith himself: As I mentioned earlier, “classic” depends on how you define it. Different areas of the Disney company have chosen to enumerate the Disney features in different categories. Animation Studios has a different way than the Archives. So, there is no right way and no wrong way. There are just different ways. It basically says that in his encyclopedia he doesn't speak for WDAS or any other area of TWDC. This means, for us, that the term "classics" can still be used (if we want to) to identify a list which is different from the one on Smith's book named the same way. Please consider this.

--Elikrotupos (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "classic" was mostly likely a marketing term used by Disney. Frankly, it still is. Recent press releases refer to Rapunzel as a classic (or in that similar venacular). Disney's A to Z only mentions it in passing, and it does not appear on list (Classic / Computer). That being said, the term Classic is still defined by verified source. As to Walt Disney Animated Classics page, that definition should be used, until Disney explicitly changes it. (Please see discussion below with regards to keeping this page). As to how different portions on how the Company uses a term, that creates problems; however, I refer back to Disney’s website regarding the Archives. As to other pages (the main list, and the template), there are good arguments to make to combine all the WDAS films into one list, as dicussed below. Jvsett (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help to rewrite the Walt Disney Animated Classics page to reflect a marketing focus, similar to the Disney Villains or Disney Princess pages are? If it is solely a marketing term/franchise, then that would alleviate most of the issue as it would have a definitive listing that has no doubt as to what belongs on it, and allow us to focus back on the main "List of" page. SpikeJones (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While common sense does support that conclusion, I am not sure if there is verifiable sources to support the concept of that Classics is "just marketing." Even the Walt Disney Classics Collection (the collectible figurines) include many things that are not WDAS "Classics" (Such as shorts, theme park characters, live Pirate characters, Nightmare characters, etc. As far as I can tell, though, there is only one WDAS CGI film that is part of that collection (Chicken Little).) Listing of Figurines So I am not sure how to do that without violating NPOV / OR. Jvsett (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret "Walt Disney Classics Collection" as merely a named franchise, not tied to "Classics" films just because they both have "Classics" in the name. Seperation of church and state, if you will. (It's not the name "classics" that is the franchise, but specifically the movies for this discussion. Not the merch you mention.) SpikeJones (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct. The WDCC and the "Classics" are two separate entities. I was using WDCC as an example of the problems trying to re-define the Classics list as just franchise / marketing. Jvsett (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If no one wants to delete the page, I agree with SpikeJones on this "marketing focusing". The "Classics" are and have always been marketing matters as much as Villains and Princess. The verifiable source for this is every single communication in the history given by Disney's marketing about Disney's productions called "classics". --Elikrotupos (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Jvsett (00:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)): A unique list gives less information then two lists. If we create a list for the liveaction&animation films, separated from the 100% Animation (or with some liveaction insert), we give more informations, verified, and we are consistent with what the official WDAS website says. Following this argument we could also separate CGI from 2D, and we could make dozens of other categorizations. So why we don't just relie on the official websites list, that had taken a decision for us (who are not allowed to take a decision, because of WP:CITE)? I insist that both WDAS website and Smith are reliable and verifiable sources for Wikipedia, but undoubtly the website is more directly connected with the subject of our matters, which is Walt Disney Animation Studios. --Elikrotupos (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but see this official list relased by Disney Tangled: Count Up to 50th Animated Motion Picture --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of sources

This website is a reliable source, not more promotional in nature than Dave Smith's book and the Annual Report for the investors. The terms of use of the website are the standard policy form for Disney websites. When this policy says: "The WDAS Site may contain the opinions and views of other users. Given the interactive nature of the WDAS Site, we cannot endorse, guarantee, or be responsible for the accuracy, efficacy, or veracity of any content generated by our users." it refers to an "interactive nature" the site has not, and no users other than the webmaster of that site can express any kind of opinions or views on that site, unless someone hacked it. So the website is a verifiable source, coming directly from Walt Disney Animation Studios (more directly than Dave Smith). I wonder what source can be more reliable and verifiable for Wikipedia than an official website.

--Elikrotupos (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already discussed the problem of relaying solely on the WDAS as a completely reliable source. The list never claims be anything other than a list of WDAS films; not a complete list, not an official list, not a reliable list. There are a number of films which WDAS worked on that are not on the list. The argument that the list has some type of official / reliable stand would be similar to using The Walt Disney Archive's website as official / reliable source for the Disney films. See Here. The list of Disney Films contains a selection of both live action / animation (including "classics" and non-"classics", Pixar, etc.). A number of known "classics" are not on the list: Fantasia 2000, Home on the Range, Melody Time, and The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. It also excludes Bolt, Meet the Robinsons, and Chicken Little (but it does include Dinosaur…) The Archive’s list never claims to be anything official (even though it undoubtedly comes from an official website); it is simply a list of (important) movies. No where does it claim to be complete list. The only source I have seen to claims to be a complete Disney guide would be Disney A to Z; which Smith updates regularly. There are other, non-Disney sources that attempt to be all encompasing in their field which are relevant to this dicussion, inlcuding John Grant’s Encyclopedia of Walt Disney Animated Characters and Bill Cotter’s The Wonderful World of Disney Television History: A Complete History. Jvsett (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't want to search an official list, because there's no official list, Disney never stated a coherent list with a name and the numeration. We have official, reliable and verifiable sources to help *us* make some useful list: the website and Smith.

We can use Dave Smith as a source for Walt Disney Animated Classics (but I think that this page is misleading and should be only an explanation section merged elsewhere). The official website is a sufficient source for the first section of List of Disney theatrical animated features as it is know (the "Not included" subsection should contain explanation on why some feature films WDAS worked on are not on the main list, and in which list they are. The explanation must be reliable and verifiable, of course). As for the template {{Disney theatrical animated features}} the first section should link to the first section of List of Disney theatrical animated features, and perhaps the other sections must mantain the correspondence with main page's sections. --Elikrotupos (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which films in which lists

We can make a list with the films appearing on the WDAS website and 11 more feature films we are sure are produced by WDAS. We can make a list made with the "classics" selected by Dave Smith. We can make a list made only with the film on the WDAS website. We can make a list of ALL AND ONLY the animated features ever distributed by Disney. These are different, verifiable, useful lists. We must choose one. The one I'm interested working on for Wikipedia is the one on the WDAS website, and I'm interested in demonstrating that that one is the list we can call "Canon", for the reasons stated in the previous discussions. I said that was my belief, but then I gave the reliable reasons supporting it.

When you, Jvsett, make the exemple of the categorization of Shakespeare's works, you basically say we must relie to the "historically recognized" categories. In our case, the only historically recognized categorization is the one featured on the WDAS website. So why not to use it? Yes, there are those 11 films, but I've already given a solid explanation to their exclution from this verifiable source (the WDAS website). --Elikrotupos (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the most useful list for readers is a complete list of films that WDAS (and its previous forms) worked on directly. Ideally it would be inclusive of all feature films, shorts etc. but that would be inappropriate as adding anything but feature films would make the list ridiculously long.

This has been worked out on the Pixar list pages by splitting the two (shorts)(films). If Pixar is notable enough to have its own seperate listing, then surely so should Walt Disney Animation Studios??

Following that pattern, DisneyToon Studios (and its predecessors) should also have their own self contained list of productions.

What this means for the films that Disney has only distributed, or has been outsourced, or produced by other divisions of Disney I don't know. For some, such as Studio Ghibli its a more complex situation than others, and may be inappropriate to have a Disney specific listing seperate from the compiled list as it is now.

Hope to have made sense? SWatsi (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added the existing WP list of disney shorts links to the top of this page. Perhaps your question on splitting to those is already happened? SpikeJones (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a general principle, I believe we should either do the following with regards to WDAS films:

Split the WDAS between Classics and Non-Classics (a further split could be made between WDAS non-Classics full animated and non-fully animated); or
Combine all WDAS films into one list (regardless status / amount of live action)

There are good arguments on doing it either way. Once we decided the split, I believe that in either situation, the lists will be well defined without continued debate over Classics / canon.The remaining of the lists will probably fall into line. Jvsett (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say that I haven't read all the discussions about this topic, Canon vs. Non-canon vs. Classic etc. All I can say is that when visiting [List of Disney Theatrical Animated Features] I came across a discrepancy compared to the actual original DVD's that I own. I was putting together a list of my movies (I collect the "Classic" Disney movies and some of the other releases from Pixar etc) and noticed that although the movie Dinosaur is on the Wikipedia list numbered "39" the Swedish release of "The Emperor's New Groove" shows a "39" printed on the back of the DVD cover (I could scan it and upload if I only knew how... this is my first post on Wikipedia). Many (not all) of the movies I own have numbered DVD-covers and the discrepancies between my collection and the Wikipedia list would have ended with "The Wild", being distributed by Buena Vista in Sweden as the 46:th Disney Classic (source: CDon.se The Wild) but seeing as the last movie in the series that I own is "Home on the Range" with a DVD-cover marked nr: 44, I can't scan it and prove it. If I for instance would like to add to my collection from the previously mentioned Swedish retailer I would go to CDon.se Disney Animated Classics and start spending more money than I have. Here you can see Dinosaur mentioned along with non-numbered (Onumrerade) releases such as Pete's Dragon (Peter och Draken Elliot) and Mary Poppins. In other words, if I want to check what movies I'm missing in my collection I'm not interested if Dave Smith, WDAS or even Roy Disney himself claims that certain movies are or aren't classics in its truest, canon sense. I would like to be able to go to Wikipedia to check what movies I'm missing and instead I have to go to CDon.se or other reatailers. It could be that this list needs to differ from country to country depending on how they were released, but in Sweden the DVD-covers are all marked as "Walt Disney Klassiker" (Walt Disney Classics) if part of the Classic series and a lot of them are numbered (DVD-covers of American releases seem to be released marked "Walt Disney Pictures Presents" as can be seen here: IMDB Dinosaur cover and here IMDB The Wild cover). I don't see a reason for Disney Studios or Buena Vista to change or revise this list since it would mess up the collections of many a DVD owner as far as new releases or re-releases go. If possible I would like the list on Wikipedia to be changed to reflect "reality" and if necessary marked as being true (only?) for the Swedish (Scandinavian?) market. This means removing "Dinosaur" as the 39th classic (re-arranging the following movies to get the correct number) from the list and adding "The Wild" as the 46:th classic. Athinsz (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a primary source of information; all of its information comes from outside, verifiable sources. While we encourage you to use WP as a resource for your DVD buying, then you will need to consider that the information in WP comes from Dave Smith, WDAS, or possibly Roy himself. Disney doesn't care about "messing up the collection of many a DVD owner", and are free to renumber and repackage their products any way they see fit. WDAS considers Dinosaur to be #39, and The Wild was not developed by Disney, only distributed. Hope this helps. SpikeJones (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point but you forget that the sales, DVD covers and all other distribution is handled by Buena Vista, a Disney distribution channel and company and therefor something that should be considered a reliable source in creating this list of classics. WP needs to decide who is "more" right, WDAS or Buena Vista or just make two or more lists. Athinsz (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing material (which would include sales, DVD covers, and other distribution) always takes a backseat to the content originators as a WP source. For example, who would you rather believe with regards to the history of Toy Story? The back of the DVD package, or an interview with John L himself? SpikeJones (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you answered my question what WP considers "more" accurate :) I'm still wondering if it wouldn't be good to add a link to the information (that doesn't necessarily have to be on the main page) to the alternative "Classics list" where I would have been able to find the information I was originally looking for. Maybe below the WP list as "Buena Vista's alternate Classics List". Maybe just adding a note that says that "Dinosaurs" is not part of it and that "The Wild" is and that every movie after "The Wild" are numbered the same way. I have a hard time believing that there's such a thing as "too much information" in an encyclopedia :P Athinsz (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The numerical order of the films and variations thereof are not encyclopedic in and of themselves. If you would like to create your own webpage and host it somewhere where you can discuss the variations, feel free. Don't be surprised if your edits, while made in good faith since you have discussed your opinion first, are reverted if done here. SpikeJones (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add to that. It seems as though the "classics" lists and the numbered lists are different across the different international regions. I've seen all sorts classed as "classics" or numbered which are not produced by Disney Animation Studios, some not even by Disney at all - just distributed (i;ve seen Valiant numbered, Mary Poppins also Jungle Book 2). I believe the list should, and does cover the films of the actual studio (as they have claimed themselves) and that should be that. If there is a Walt Disney Animated Classics article you are welcome to discuss the differences between the studios list and the promotional lists. SWatsi (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spike I thought the whole idea of me discussing this in the "discussion forum" was the point of NOT changing anything that would just be changed back again or sabotaging other people's work. I'm not here to impose my idea of what's right onto WP, I'm expressing an opinion and haven't changed anything on the list. As for the page the way it looks now it's evident that it's a WDAS list and not a list of "Disney Classics" (although the word classics is used later in the description and I still think it's important to add there that different countries with different distribution channels have other definitions of those Classics). The text "Please do not move these films from one portion of this list to another. In particular, do not add other films to Walt Disney animation Studio films portion of the list UNLESS Disney has announced a new Walt Disney Feature Animation production. What is and what isn't in the official canon is already fixed." should be completely removed since it's directed at the WP editors and not the WP users (sometimes the same but not always). Also the sentence "Any film that you thought were Disney Animated films but are not." since it stupifies both editor and user. The sentence "All except for these and Return to Neverland and The Jungle Book 2 were released direct-to-video." is easily misunderstood and could mean that all movies in the WDAS list were released direct-to-video except the sequels. I would I think that about sums it up :) Athinsz (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the future releases of WDAS, and Tinker Bell

Source: http://corporate.disney.go.com/news/corporate/2008/2008_0408_animation_roll_out.html The source announce which films are in production. That is verifiable. The Crystal Ball policy has no power here. Those films are in production, now. We can't create a page that states that those film will be released, but we can say that they are in production. And we can reliably say that between those 14 announced films only Bolt, The Princess and the Frog, Rapunzel and The King of the Elves are in production by the Walt Disney Animation Studios.

And now we also have two other movies which may need our attention: the new Winnie the Pooh movie and "The Snow Queen". If we want to discuss them let's make another section and I'll give you the sources I have.

Tinker Bell is a direct-to-video release, as it was announced and as it has been actually released (except Argentina, but let's consider the North America, where Disney is based). Well, I can also say that it was shown in a theater in Los Angeles, "El Capitan" (the then Disney-owned theater), for a week or two, but only there. I don't know if this is the reason why Dave Smith doesn't consider it a DTV release or whatever. Anyway as far as we know and can verify Tinker Bell is no different from other DTV releases by Disney, so there's no reason not to consider it a DTV. --Elikrotupos (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to Tinker Bell, there appears to be no question that it was shown for two week period at the El Capitian. It is included in Smith's book as a feature length theatrical release film (if only at one theater). I believe this source satisfies its inclusion on the DisneyToon listing (as it now stands).

As for the New Winnie-the-Pooh film, there is clear, verifiable sources showing that Disney is producing a new animated Pooh film. The question is which Disney branch is producing it: WDAS or DisneyToon? At the time being, I don't believe there is consensus from the sources or a totally reliable source on the matter. I would the Pooh film be included in the current "Other" category and move accordingly once verifiable sources have their say.

As for the Snow Queen – I believe that is an old abounded concept from the 1990s? I would have to review my sources my carefully, but I don’t believe that projects going forward or has been mentioned in a long time.

Jvsett (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the Smith's book, I can only view the monthly update released online. If you own it, could you tell exactly that he consider a "theatrical release" every movie released for at least X weeks in at least one North American theater? Even this theater is "El Capitan", owned by Disney, where Disney privately shows a number of things that are not "theatrical releases" anywhere? That is a criterium clearly "chosen", subjective, even if the verifiable Dave Smith choosed it. What can't be denied (because it is more than a source, is the self-nature of the thing) is that Tink is a direct-to-video release produced by DisneyToon. Tinker Bell and Bambi II should not be listed in the same cathegory, unless this category is "Produced by DisneyToon". The categories we are talking about are "DTV" (where Tinker Bell shoud be, but strangely Smith doesn't consider it) and "Theatrical releases produced by studios other than WDAS" (Bambi II).

As for Pooh, this official press release says that the new Pooh movie has been presented by Walt Disney Animation Studios as a theatrical release. "WDAS" and "theatrical", that should be enough for considering it "canonical"/"classic"/you got it. Well the press release doesn't say that it is a full-length feature film, but it is a theatrical release that generates a merchandising strategy... it can't be a short film. The email provided to us by NealP it's an informal confirmation, but the source we need is the press release.

As for "The Snow Queen", Alan Menken has said yesterday he is working on two Disney cartoons: Rapunzel and Snow Queen. Menken said this to an (important) italian newspaper, speaking about the italian version of the Beauty and the Beast musical, opening next season in Italy. I don't want to guarantee for italian journalists here :P, but anyway it's a valid source (La Stampa, June 5, 2009):

[ITALIAN]

Q: Nel suo futuro ancora Disney?

A: Ancora. Sto preparando le colonne sonore di due cartoon, Rapunzel e Snow Queen, e di un film musicale live tratto da La bella e la bestia.

[ENGLISH, translated by me]

Q: Are you still working for Disney, in the near future?

A: Yes, I still am. I'm preparing the musical scores of two cartoons, Rapunzel and Snow Queen, and a musical live action movie based on Beauty and the Beast.

It was a surprise to me, and I hope it's WDAS (well, I'm sure, but don't have verifiable sources supporting this :)). --Elikrotupos (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What to call these films

This is OR so you won't be able to use it here, but, out of interest - I e-mailed Disney to see what they now call these films. They've been called the classics, the masterpieces, the full-length animated feature films. So what do they call them today? Here's my email to Disney spokeswoman Heidi Trotta: ___

I have another question. This was debate that resulted after the announcement of this film: what does The Walt Disney Company/Walt Disney Animation Studios officially call their line of films that I listed before?:

http://www.disneyanimation.com/aboutus/history.html

It used to be the 'canon'. Now fans call it the 'Disney Animated Classics'. DVD's list the movies as "Disney's (number) full-length animated feature".

What do you suggest the films to be collectively called?

Thanks,

Neal P.

___

Her response:

___

Neal...we call them Walt Disney animated feature films...therefore we would say the Winnie the Pooh joins the line up of feature films from Walt Disney Animation Studios. Again, thanks for checking.

NealP (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)NealP[reply]

Neal - yes, all that info sent to you is completely unusable in WP. SpikeJones (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

facepalm* which is EXACTLY what I said. It was merely posted as a point of interest, not submitted as 'evidence'. Can't you ever just comment on it out of interest. You're Mr. all work and no play. No, Wikipedia is not a game, but it can be a place for more thought-provoking conversation not all this dictatorial crap. I'm sure when writers of a real encyclopedia are writing their tome, they explore all facets of an issue - and enjoy it. They don't just cast off ideas left and right. I understand your crusade for the integrity of this site, but, you can at least enjoy it a little bit more. If you do enjoy it, you certainly don't show it. I find fun in trying to solve issues. You seem to find the need to act as a foreman.

This original research policy is self-defeating. I understand not accepting blog posts or forum posts - anyone can hide behind an alias. However, even when someone can prove they e-mailed an executive at a company, or a studio, or a news bureau - and others can prove it by cross-examining the source, it still doesn't 'count' as evidence to write an article. Because of that, there will continue to be these debates forevermore and we will never reach the Wikipedia Jimmy Wales has envisioned where various articles will become complete and concrete and can be officially locked. We will never find out what truly counts as canon, we will never find out what Disney even calls this 'canon'. No journalist is going to randomly write an article on it. No one at Disney is going to randomly issue a press release on it. These are issues to us, not them. And so, because of a policy that refuses to accept the verified/verifiable word from officials at the source of an issue, we will just continue this debate for years and years over the current worthless information we have and this article will never be complete or done right or to anyone's satisfaction. That's largely why Wikipedia has a negative stigma attached to it. When a journalist writes an article, they claim they interview someone - but we can't prove it. Sure, he/she gets paid by a news corporation, we have to trust them, right? That's a fallacy. No information on the internet is TRULY verified or verifiable. So, trusting news outlets is hypocrisy when this site cannot trust its own hard-working members over outside sources.

Case in point: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30699302/

This is a wonderful, self-fulfilling event. A student posts a piece of information here, on Wikipedia. At that time, someone, like you, could have cried foul "give me your sources, this OR! I'm taking it down until you can prove this!". All he would have had to do was give you links to the various newspapers who used his fake information. Because these news outlets were 'unbiased' 'outside' sources, you would have accepted them. Only, they used his information, so his fake information became real information according to the OR policy.

And that's why this OR policy is enormously flawed. You can baw all you want but I stand by that belief and will leave all of you to sit here and bicker over whether Dave Smith is right or the Walt Disney Animation Studios' website. You will never reach a conclusion. Have fun wasting all your precious time. The OR rule only works part of the time, the rest of the time, it only hurts Wikipedia's chances at becoming a real, trusted encyclopedia. 216.180.216.207 (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)NealP[reply]

Neal, this demonstrate that Wikipedia risks "short circuit" in finding sources, but it doesn't demonstrate that WP should use ORs. There are reasons to believe in the work of journalists, who are professionals and subjected to specific laws and rules. Yes, even they can be wrong, but the information system give us some guarantees. Speaking of you, you're not a professional, you may even have made up those emails. How can we trust you, a common, anonymous wikipedia editor? Anyway I consider your email a valid reason (to me) for believing that Pooh will be made by WDAS (or at least an informal confirmation of what is affirmed but not specified on the official press release) --Elikrotupos (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neal, you seem very angry for no reason. Please familiarize yourself with WP's policies of what is allowed to be written (WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT. WP:OR are five good places to start). I would love to point you to any amount of personally provided information that I and other WP editors have that can't be used in WP, just as you proudly posted what you claim to be an email response from Ms Trotta.

Please note that while I said "you claim", that is because of the old adage "on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog". It very well can be a true email, or it could be something hacked together. Nobody can tell for sure using any external research methods - therefore we must assume, because it is self-provided by a WP editor, to be fabricated. The same holds true for using JHM as a WP source. Jim's information is entertaining outside of WP, but can't be used as a WP source as Jim doesn't provide his sources of information (and his sources are often unverifiable deep inside the Disney company anyway. We won't mention the few times Jim has been mistaken in a post he has made that he had to backtrack on later.

A small example: I saw a movie preview the other night for an unnamed film that won't be released for another x months. I could go directly to that film's page and write out the entire plot section, because "I saw the film, and it is so." But the film can dramatically change between now and the time the film is generally released... and more importantly, the plot I write out can't be verified by anyway until general release occurs. So I will wait until the film is released before updating the film's plot section with what I know and can verify matches with the final print.

We're all familiar with the news article you posted. It is unfortunate other WP editors weren't diligent in their efforts to make sure info is accurate. But it happens. And pop-culture related articles are more prone to fanboy fanaticism edits than more serious portions of WP, with untold "trivia" sections or other useless, non-encyclopedic pieces of info being added and removed continually, making articles such as the Disney-related ones require a much finer eye to ensure quality.

Regarding your request to comment on an item out of interest as opposed to whether it is suitable for a WP article - WP talk pages are not a web discussion forum. They are solely to be used to discuss how to improve the articles per WP:TALK, and info posted on the talk pages is also subject to the same WP:OR, WP:V requirements as the article space.

As to your suggestion that we're not having fun in making sure that the information presented in WP is as verifiably correct as possible - you just haven't been paying attention. We're having a blast, thank you very much.

In any case, to stop beating a dead horse and get back on topic -- who is producing Pooh: WDAS or DisneyToon or someone else? The full press release comes from Disney Consumer Products and focuses on the marketing plans for expanding the Pooh franchise. They mention "DCP and Walt Disney Animation Studios", which could be enough to indicate who is doing the work... but there are still unanswered questions as no other info has been provided beyond it being a "2-D hand-animated film". Disney has outsourced hand-animation recently, so even if it is *released* by WDAS, is this the same situation? SpikeJones (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any full-length feature film completely animated released by WDAS in which the animation was not provided by WDAS artists and supervision. There's no reason to believe that a full-length animated feature film distributed/promoted by WDAS is not *produced* by WDAS. Anyway WDAS is an animation studios, it doesn't release anything, the distribution is by Walt Disney Pictures or Walt Disney Motion Pictures Studios Group or whatever. As far as we know from the information included in the press release Pooh is "canonical" like the The Princess and the Frog, Rapunzel and King of the Elves.--Elikrotupos (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not angry. You really don't get it, do you? No use wasting more time trying to help you understand. Oh well, I wasn't hoping for much anyways. Have fun never getting this to come to a head and sitting here debating until you finally realize how futile it all was. 216.180.216.207 (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)NealP[reply]

What films should not be on the animation lists

As to the animated film lists, I purpose these lists be limited to films with animation (be it sequences or characters) that are piece of the narrative and / or an aspect of the over arching film (e.g., Victory Through Air Power) For the purposes of these lists, I would say we should not include animation that are simply title sequences (e.g., The Living Desert, Honey, I Shrunk the Kids or simply special effects (e.g., [[the laser shots in The Black Hole. ) I believe we will need further discussion regarding certain films, such Tron or Pirates; that being said, I believe this a general principle that should be followed.

In addition, I believe we should limit are discussions to feature films (general over 70 minutes), but grandfathering in Saludos Amigos and Dumbo. One film which will need to be discussed further may be Academy Award Review of Walt Disney Cartoons.

Moreover, the lists should reflect films had an initial release in theaters (specifically in North America), not simply re-releases. (I understand that Tinker Bell and Bambi II may need to be revisit).

Are these general, over-arching definitions acceptable?
Jvsett (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering CGI characters as "animation" is a big deal and a long-discussed topic. I don't want to discuss it here know and I think we don't need to discuss it, because we can easily consider Tron and Pirates and all the other live action films as "live action films". Yes, we don't have a formal definition, but we don't need it. Seriously I don't think we need to be that formal. Wikipedia requires verifiable sources but also common sense (or, if you don't want to use common sense, consider that WP is not a burocracy, or the Reasonability Rule).

I don't want to discuss about the definition of "feature film" because I believe that it's a subjective thought that one can presume and analyse from the structure and the language used in every single motion picture, more than from its length. Definitions of the minimum lenght of feature films are conventional, and such are considered in the movie industry.

As for Tinker Bell, yes, it could be a good definition. Any way I believe that the main reason why Tink can't be considered a theatrical release is that El Capitan is Disney-owned, and can't be a valuable sign of a theatrical release of a film produced and distributed by Disney itself. Maybe if the film was released in whatever other random north-american theater it could be considered a theatrical released. --Elikrotupos (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

While discussing this topic we should ask the semi-protection for the pages involved in the cleanup, because of the frequent rollbacks. --Elikrotupos (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article guidelines

Does anyone have any suggestions for article guidelines? Should we attempt to mimic those of WikiProject Films, or develop something unique? The reason I'm asking is because someone removed the "artist" info from Sleeping Beauty, and I recall someone commenting on a similar removal on another article that "WP is not IMDB", which may be a valid point. What does everyone think on this? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP is not IMDB, and should not reflect every single person who touched a film or is listed in the credits. MOS:FILM should apply here. SpikeJones (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the cruft that was removed, can't say I blame them for doing so. Perhaps a bit more aggressive than it needed to be, but it really was bad as it was. SpikeJones (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

canon, no canon.

As we are no longer using "canon" here, we need to coordinate Category:Disney animated features canon to ensure that the information presented there is the same as here. Who's got the time/inclination to do so? SpikeJones (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I can to help out ... any advice before I jump in? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be as simple as renaming the category and adjusting some text...but I haven't even looked at the content there yet.SpikeJones (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What term should we use: Walt Disney Animated Classics, Walt Disney Pictures animated features? Right now, the category appears to include only the 48-odd "classics" pictures, so this might be a good category to just have the classics releases, then another category for all of the releases (as shown on Template:Disney theatrical animated features could cover all of them. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, as we really don't want to over-categorize if we don't have to. SpikeJones (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's all the potential categories that I can think of that would apply: Disney animated films (covers everything); Walt Disney Animated Classics (the current 48 releases and the 3 upcoming); Pixar Animation Studios films (just the Pixar releases); DisneyToon Studios releases; Disney-distributed animated features (covers Studio Ghibli and films like "The Wild," "Valiant," "Roadside Romeo," etc.). I concur that there is such a thing as too many categories, but as diverse as Disney's animated catalog is, we may need that many. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about if it were done as subcategories of a "Disney animated films" parent (I believe that one already exists)? That way, by default all films would qualify to exist in the same overall grouping, similar to the template or the List of Disney Animated Films page is laid out? SpikeJones (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That grouping seems most appropriate. Group all films that are only distributed \ only partly funded by Disney.

But wasn't there a discussion before about the use of the word "Classic" in relation to Disney films?? I think we started to remove that word from lists of the approx. 50 Disney movies from Walt Disney Productions\Feature Animation\Animation Studios?? SWatsi (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and a discussion on the word "Canon". Both of which is why we're talking about this today. SpikeJones (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes so you can't substitute the word canon for classic as was (effectively, probably inadvertantly) suggested above. Just reminding people for consistancy. The groups are fine, makes more sense tbh. Someone should make a start on this. SWatsi (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to start, once we settle on the heirarchy ... how about "Walt Disney Animation Studios releases" for the classics? Everything else makes sense (having Disney animated films as the parent, etc.) to me. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lists cleanup

So, it's now over a year later. Of the lists noted on the project page, the following lists have been merged into other lists:

I've been populating Category:Disney-related lists. Here are the main feature film lists from that category:

List of Disney feature films (the main films list)
List of Disney theatrical animated features (the main animated films list)
List of Pixar films (the main Pixar films list)
List of Disney Channel Original Movies
List of educational films produced by Walt Disney Studios
List of Disney home entertainment (formerly List of Disney direct-to-video films)
List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases (formerly List of Walt Disney video releases)
List of Disney made for TV movies (created December 2009, mostly orphan)
Disney DVD in the United Kingdom (orphan)
List of movies broadcast by Disney XD
1940s in Disney (shorts and films, orphan)

As you can see there are still a lot of Disney film lists. Should we merge/delete more lists? I've started off by proposing deleting the 1940s in Disney list. --Mepolypse (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An update: "1940s in Disney" has been deleted. Another list has appeared: List of unmade and unreleased Disney animated shorts and feature films, and it is very incomplete. --Mepolypse (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]