![]() | Disney Project‑class | ||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
![]() | Disney Project‑class | ||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)