Talk:The Sorcerer's Apprentice

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Poetry Low‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Missing link

Somehow, a search for "The Sorceror's Apprentice" leads to Fantasia instead of this article. Anyone know how to fix this?Sfahey 15:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. One must spell "sorcerer" correctly. Never mind.Sfahey 15:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unforunately, both spellings are correct. Perhaps a disambiguation page is in order... Canonblack 12:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphor/Slang Phrase

I have heard people called a "Sorcerer's Apprentice" when describing them as a person acting either beyond their authority or beyond their abilities. For example, see the U.S. Supreme Court case Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 291 (2001). I wanted to add this, but I'm not sure how to edit wikipedia pages well enough! Anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.110.214 (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

This page should get a still from Fantasia with the brooms and Micky. 128.113.54.151 20:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, it should not.--81.99.202.66 (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primary author

Does anyone know who is the primary author of this symphonic poems page? I'm looking for a musical expert in this field of classical music. Thanks. Robgee9 15:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you press "History" above the article, you'll find a list of all edits. You'll find 39 edits by editors making only one change each, plus the following numbers of edits by the users indicated:

2   151.204.228.216
2   165.138.126.11
2   Antandrus
2   Goldfritha
2   Mllefifi
2   Radagast
3   Pieter1
3   Sbharris
4   Kchishol1970
4   Securiger (including the article creation in 2004)
4   Tony Sandel

Although there's no official "main author", in this case the original article by Securiger is not that far from the present article.--Niels Ø 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Fantasia-poster-1940.jpg

The image Image:Fantasia-poster-1940.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a major cleanup

I did a major cleanup on this piece, which is about GOETHE'S POEM as noted from the beginning and in the disambiguation. I removed everything about Dukas's piece and made that into a separate article. I also subverted all the information in this article to the Goethe poem. Softlavender (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Willi Gers07 (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey mouse

It would be great if someone could find reliable sources to the claim that Walt Disney popularized the poem in the English speaking world. Find it hard to believe that it should have been largely unknown.--81.99.202.66 (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– This page isn't WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by pageviews—that's indisputable (the Nicolas Cage film alone beats it). It seems to me the poem only has sufficient "long-term significance" for such a claim inasmuch as it inspired the others, which generally isn't enough for a primary topic. I don't think there is one here. I'm not opposed to simply redirecting the base title to the current dab instead of moving both pages, in the spirit of WP:THE, but since almost all of the topics use "The," I think it's worth including. Also, I don't know if The Sorcerer's Apprentice (Dukas), a symphonic poem (which looks more like music than literature to me) makes my proposed disambiguator bad. The disambiguators for this page and that one should be either (poem) and (symphonic poem) or (Goethe poem) and (Dukas poem) (see WP:NCBOOKS). BDD (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Ambiguity is discouraged. Despite recognition, people can recognize the Disney segment from Fantasia and the Nicholas Cage film more than the poem. --George Ho (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Good grief, of course this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That isn't determined by page views (which by the way fluctuate wildly from year to year and decade to decade). All things titled The Sorcerer's Apprentice or Sorcerer's Apprentice derive from this one, and link back to this one. Softlavender (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But originality or derivations aren't criteria of PRIMARYTOPIC. For one of the most cited examples, Boston was named for Boston, Lincolnshire, and plenty of songs (such as "...Baby One More Time" and "Blurred Lines") occupy base titles while their respective albums use disambiguators. And perhaps most relevant to this discussion, creative works that span multiple media often have dabs at the base title (e.g., Gods and Generals, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three) or have a primary topic besides the first work (e.g., Fight Club, The Godfather). --BDD (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about a small town or a title song or a recent media piece. We're talking about a supremely notable work of literature whose story is known by most everyone. Softlavender (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, exactly per Softlavender. It is impossible to question the long-term significance of a work for which all of the alternative meanings are adaptations of that work, and therefore extensions of its long-term significance. bd2412 T 02:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rename request is against WP:DABNAME: The request asks for "The" in the title which is violation. In addition, if there is a primary topic, requested name for the target dab page must contain "(disambiguation)" at the end. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BD2412, - all adaptions are derived from this which makes it primary in a literal sense, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Originality or derivations should be part of PRIMARYTOPIC. Boston notwithstanding, Talk:Boston/redirects/Archive 1 is well populated with dissent against Boston MA occupying the undisambiguated page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Story and Analysis are at odds

The plot described in the Story and Analysis sections seem to have nothing to do with each other. --Prophes0r 67.186.150.159 (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis section is off-topic

The article is about the poem by Goethe. The Analysis section describes an Aarne-Thompson-Uther entry that has the same name but is unrelated to the poem.

The poem tells the story of an overeager apprentice playing with forces he does not understand, who is then rescued and rebuked by his master. The Analysis section instead describes the motif of a duel of transformations between sorcerers, in particular between an apprentice and his master.

The section should be deleted or moved to a separate article, and if possible be replaced by an analysis of the actual poem. -Arancaytar 19:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good call; I've removed it. Analysis of the poem may possibly be available on the DE-wiki version of this article. Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]