Template talk:Disney theatrical animated features/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Thief and the Cobbler dispute

The Theif and the Cobbler dispute should be put to an end. We should reach a consensus on where the film belongs. For more information on this and discussion, please click here. Chris1219 08:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What does other mean?

I've wondered what the section labelled 'other' actually means.. Other animated films released by Walt Disney, or other films MADE by the Walt Disney Company - but not a part of other sections? What are the qualifications for being added for this list? thanks SWatsi (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Guessing - they were not part of the official hand-drawn animated canon, were produced by others and released under the Disney Animation banner. SpikeJones (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Dinosaur

Regarding Dinosaur... on the list on Walt Disney Animation Studios new official website (http://www.disneyanimation.com/aboutus/history.html), they consider Dinosaur to be part of the same canon as Snow White etc... Fitting in nicely between Fantasia 2000 and The Emperor's New Groove. Might this be reason enough to reconsider the lists? Personally I see no harm in re-evaluating the lists here... SWatsi (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why they would put Dinosaur on the site is beyond me, because it is NOT part of the official canon. Gabrielkat (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What sources do you have that say that it is NOT part of the canon, if an official Disney source says that it is? SpikeJones (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well yes. That is the latest source. Is it not a list published on the companies official website? SWatsi (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaur is not part of the Disney Theatrical Animated Features

{{editsemiprotected}}

I'm here to say is Dinosaur is not part of the official canon of Disney Theatrical Animated Features. The movie belongs in the other section with Nightmare Before Christmas.

Here's the correct order:

39-The Emporer's New Groove

40-Atlantis: The Lost Empire

41-Lilo & Stitch

42-Treasure

43-Brother Bear

44-Home On the Range

45-Chicken Little

46-Meet the Robinsons

47-Bolt

48-The Princess & the Frog

49-Rapunzel

50-King of the Elves

So I suggest if you edit this terrible mistake.

Thank you. TsWade2 (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

 Question: Could you clarify how you know this is the case, and where this information is coming from? ~ mazca ^t|c 17:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, to assure you that I know Dinosaur is a Disney movie even though it's not my favorite. But, I think what disneyanimation.com say about Dinosaur being part of the Disney Animation canon is not correct. Dinosaur belongs in the other section. The fact is, that years ago they announce that Home On the Range was their last traditional animated movie and then Chicken Little is the first animated movie with CGI. And like I said Dinosaur does not belong in the animated feature canon. The person who owns the Disney Animation website made a mistake and must be corrected. Thank you.

Nightmare does not belong on this page at all, in my opinion, as it was released by Touchstone (yes, I know that this is addressed as such in some section or other on the page which is why I don't feel Nightmare is a good example for this discussion). Here are the questions that need to be answered:

• Is the list on disneyanimation.com merely a list of titles produced by WDFA?
• Is the list on that site an official canon list?

• What makes a movie, "canon"?

Answering these questions will help point this page in the direction it needs to go in. This page currently is "Disney Theatrical Animated Features". Using the page title alone as criteria, then Dinosaur DOES belong here. SpikeJones (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh lord. I love this debate, but is there any chance we could hold it in one place? Because its been debated before, and now we have it going on over on the Dinosaur talk page, here and on the Disney Animation page - and probably going on in other places as well. It's going to get difficult to keep up with if there are bits and pieces everywhere. Personally (I'm sure its obvious), but I'm inclined to agree with the last comment above, but I would also say that I think this template and the Disney animated films list is a mess to start with. There doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to the pages. SWatsi (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the topic starter. Dinosaur should be in the "other" section. 68.220.184.76 (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I also argee that it should be changed, and I argee that Nightmare shouldn't be on the list at all either. Also, Valiant is at Valiant (2005 film), not Valiant (film).

68.220.187.74 (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The template needs unprotection, and there is a template in Wuu, at wuu:模板:迪士尼動畫表, that needs to be added. Does Bambi II still have a bullit by it? Because it should, it needs to indecate that it was theatrical in SOME countries, but not all of them. 72.255.48.147 (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have moved Dinosaur from offical cannon to is notconsider offical classic cannon by the Disney corporation. Regardless of others views on "proper" cannon, the corporation does not recognizes its a classic, but rather a computer animated feature. In addition, CChicklen Little, Mee the Robinsons and Bolt should also be moved. Please see Disney A to Z: The Offical Encyclopedia, Third Edition, by Dave Smith, page 33.Jvsett (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me make this clear for you: "canon" means films that have been produced by Walt Disney Animated Studios. Dinosaur was produced by WDAS, as was Chicken Little, Meet The Robinsons, and Bolt. You don't have to like it, but all four of those movies are part of the official canon. -User:SergeantLuke

Added New Section

In connection to my above comment, I have added a new section for Walt Disney Animated Features - Computer Animated. This is pursaunt to the Dave Smith book cited above, along with the supplement, which can be found here at page 55.Jvsett (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

While we will take your book reference under consideration, do keep in mind that Disney Animation makes no separation between computer-animated vs traditional in their listing of Disney films. Along those lines, even Dave Smith can offer incorrect information in the A-Z book. Using his current online supplement as an example, his entry for Cars Toons says that only three shorts have been produced, but we all know that the Tokyo Drift short is number 4. I would not be surprised if your edits, made in good faith as they were, will be reverted back to the way it was before. SpikeJones (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering Dave Smith is the chief archivist for Disney (since 1970), and considering the source is Offical enclycopedia, I would say his word is verifiable and verified. As for separation, Smith states the follow:

Animated Features, classic The major Disney full-length animated features produced by Walt Disney Feature Animation has been deemed Disney Classics. This list does not include direct-to-video features, theatrical features made by Disney Television Animation, stop-moiton feature (such as Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas) or computer animated feature (such as Toy Story).

(Smith, p. 33, bold added) This basic defination has remained unchanged, but refined somewhat, since 1996 version of the book (see pg. 25 of the first version of same). As for criticism regarding Tokyo Mater, he states that CARS Toons are "a series of TV interstitials ...." (Supplement, pg. 6). Smith goes on to desricbe Tokyo Mater as theatrically short release with Bolt in 3d. (See page 47 of supplement). According to the Pixar Wiki found here, this is correct.Jvsett (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussing your highlighted point above regading "Animated Features, classic", there is no argument about the status of NbXmas (as that was originally released by Touchstone anyway) or the DtV or TV-developed items. The computer-animated item is where we are seeing conflicting information presented from official Disney sources. The question is whether we take Mr Smith at his word (and therefore, making the A-Z book the singular defacto standard of reference for all the Disney-related WP pages), or whether we use the listing provided directly by the Disney Animation division itself. However, looking specifically at page 33 in the 3rd edition of the A-Z book, Dave Smith *does* include Dinosaur, Toy Story, and Song of the South in the "Animated Features" definition. He just happens to separate them out into three different categories within that entry. This page did not separate out those films based on the animation style, but rather on who the producer of the films was (Pixar, for example, having their own section). SpikeJones (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Dave Smith has five different enteries in the encyclopedia for animated features. If you look at the headings of Pages 32 through 34, you will see that each section is its own entry. Each entry is Animated features, _________. The five entires Classics (as described); Computer (begining with Toy Story, including Dinosaur, Chicken Little, etc.); live-action features with animated characters or segments (beging with The Reluctant Dragon and going through Enchanted in the Supplement) ; other (Disney Toon Studios (Ducktales: The Movie through Tinkerbell Movie); and stop motion. As for the producer of Pixar films, my guess it is irrelevant from Disney corporate standpoint on who produced them, as they are owned by Disney. But that is just a guess. Jvsett (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll revisit the pages to see how they were laid out, but I'm sure we will agree that they all have the same "animated features" heading, which supports the original formatting of the page before you made your edits. SpikeJones (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no debate that Disney has produced many different types of animated features. As stated in Feature Animation entry found on page 243 (see also Supplement, page 66), Feature Animation (aka Walt Disney Animation Studios) "creates the Disney animated feature films, and is headquartered at the Disney Studio in Burbank." But, I am not quite sure why you believe that all these five entries in the encyclopedia are one entry. The format used in the book makes it clear there are five distinct entries; while they all begin with the term "Animated Feature," Dave Smith (and therefore, the Disney Archives and corporation) considers each a unique list. Each entry defines their use. This is similar to the entries on page 32 regarding Animal Kingdom, Disney and Animal Kingdom Lodge; both begin with the term "Animal Kingdom" yet both deal with the different subjects. Further, the heading of Page 32 states that the first full entry of that page is Angus MacBadger; the header of Page 33 states the last entry of that page is Animated features, other; the header of page 34 states the first full entry is Animated features, stop-motion. Up through Fantasia 2000, the Classic list and Walt Disney Animated Feature's list are the same and were "numbered" the same. (It should be noted that the Walt Disney Animated Studios website does not number any of the films, but lists them by years). Unless you have a list stating otherwise, Disney does not consider Dinosaur, Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons or Bolt Classics (i.e., the one films that are "numbered"). However, it does consider The Frog and the Princess a Classic. These are all Disney animated features, but not Walt Disney Animated Classics, a distinction which should be made.Jvsett (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not have time to review your response at this time (I will, but wanted to get this point out there first): the biggest issue I have is that lack of consistency between List of Disney theatrical animated features and Walt Disney Animated Classics, which used to redirect to the main list page. Unless there is a specific reason for the latter to exist separate from the former, may I suggest that the redirect be put back in place? Especially as the latter (a) contains paragraphs from the former but not the detail that is referenced, and (b) the external links posted on the latter actually support my side of the discussion of the Disney Animation site being the official source of material. SpikeJones (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The question is that Dave Smith isn't a "Disney Man", This is the OFFICIAL list from the Official Site. Dinosaur is #39 and Bolt is #48. This is for other wiki like Classici Disney for esample. This is my opinion, but I think also that Jvsett can't remove Dinosaur and CL and MTR and Bolt only because he (or Dave Smints) wants that. --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point - Dave Smith is not just any person - he has published the Official Encyclpedia of Disney. He is the Company's archivist. The list from Disney Animation is neither offical or complete. By the logic imposed, Disney Animation had nothing to do with The Reluctant Dragon - however, this is not clearly the case (as it the film deals specifically with Disney Studios and Disney Animation). Furthermore, it is clear that the list does not add numbering. Traditionally, the numbering has been reserved for Classic films. As for the a Classics list, that seems to be differnt discussion. 23:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvsett (talk • contribs)

I have read through the discussion and am confused by it -- how do we know the list from the Disney Animation website is not official? I am well aware of Dave Smith and his position at the company -- archivist. No company, no individual, however, does things without making mistakes. I have not seen the books to which you've been refering, but I will not bash the information you've given and say that it is not accurate. I just want to be sure on the matter. --Cartoon Boy (talk) 5:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted this again. To begin with, the concept of film canon is highly subjective. This has discussed; please see here Currently, Disney Corporation recognizes at least five different types of animated films (Classic, Computer, etc.). The argument has been made that this is just "one man's" view, or my personal view; however, based on the book, the book satisfies sources requirement. It is a third party book, fact check and publish by a reputable publisher. The Introduction of the third edition shows the efforts to fact check and cross check before publishing. As to the "official" list, while its not debatable that the list is from a subsidiary of the Disney Corporation, there is no author to this list. Unless I am misreading the sources requirement, it would make it less reliable then the Smith book. Furthermore, it does not contain numbers, just years when films were released. It appears to have at least one mistake in it (regarding the proper capitalization of Bolt. The claim that it provides that definitive list of all Disney Animated Features is questionable; all it lists are the ones that are "mostly" animated. Again, please see The Reluctant Dragon as an example. In splitting the categories as I have done (mirroring Smith to the degree, expect for breaking out Pixar films), (ie., Classics, Computer, Pixar, DisneyToon, Other ect), this takes care of the perceived conflicts between the lists. It also removes the issue with loaded term of canon. Jvsett (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To separate the movies of Disney's official canon for its form of been credit realized can be considered to be a discrimination on the part of Wikipedia. The movies of the official canon should not do this class of distinctions.--Blitz Lutte (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The question is: for many and many years the "status quo" was the right (This is the OFFICIAL list from the Official Site), than just one adept of the guru Dave Smith (Jvsett, I suppose -cit-) show us the right way to follow. This is the law, we poor humans can't do anything. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, "No company, no individual, does things without making mistakes." - even Dave Smith; you're basically saying that since he is the archivist, his version is correct. That is wrong on so many levels. -- Cartoon Boy (talk) 8:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

By your own logical there is no reason to believe that "offical list" is accurate either. Going back the Source issue, Dave Smith illustrates his work on the Official (note the word) Encyclopedia. See page iv of the Introduction. The problem with the "Official" list, is it ignores the reality that there were many animated (or partial animated) were made by Disney animation that are not inlcuded the "official" list. In fact is, until Treasure Island, Disney only produce animated / partially animated feature length films. They were all produced under the umbrella of "Walt Disney Productions," which would eventually become and be split out to be WDFA (to be brief about it). Many years ago, it was decided that the official "classics" would be the ones that were mostly animated. Disney, through its archivist, has "codified" this Classic list as already discussed. Dinosaur (and other computer animated films) are not considered Classics at this point. Disney may revise that policy, but until then, these films are not "classics." To allege "discrimination" against computer animated film, and therefore other non-Classics, the rebuttal would be "What about Reluctant Dragon, Song of the South, So Dear to My Heart, etc. To argue over the "quality" of the list is subjective. To argue over the term "canon", again is subjective. There is a frame work best for the different catagories would be the one adopted by Disney itself. Jvsett (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please explain your rationalization that this encyclopedia MUST confirm to Mr Smith's breakout of the films into those 5 catagories as opposed to the way it was before? Keep in mind that simply mirroring Mr Smith's breakout is, in essence, having Mr Smith dictate the format that Wikipedia must use to present that material. As I indicated in a previous posting, your suggestion implies that Mr Smith's A-Z book should be the sole defacto source for all Disney-related pages, and any other official Disney source should be completely ignored. SpikeJones (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, please do not put words into my mouth. Furthermore, please explain why you feel the "official list" should trump the lists in Disney A to Z? I am not arguing, nor do I believe I have argued, that Disney A to Z is the sole resource. However, it is a verified resource. To ignore it is not proper. The "original" template list was already spilt between the following original five categories: "Official Canon"; "Live Action Films with Animation"; "DisneyToon Features"; "Pixar Animation Studios" and "Other." There seems to be no real rhyme or reason to this other than often cited "official list". By calling the “official list” “canon” inadvertently or deliberately makes a judgment call (as does calling the Disney Animation list the “official list.”) Please cite a verified source where this would be proper

The current categories are: "Walt Disney Animated Classics"; "Live Action Films with Animation"; "DisneyToon Features"; "Pixar Animation Studios"; "Walt Disney Animated Films Computer Animation" and "Other." My reasons (and your own) already indicate why the term "canon" appears to be unacceptability subjective. The term never even appears on the "official list;" nor does the term “official” by the way. For years, the term Disney used for its animated features was "Classics" not "canon". I have provided ample evidence from verified sources that this term is still used. In fact, a verified resource shows that this term has been revived by Disney with the release of The Princess and the Frog. See Supplement to Disney A to Z, page 55. To include Dinosaur, et al in the "Classics" ignores this source. To continue to use the term "canon" implies authority that appears not to be justified. In the current version of this template, there appears to be no value added to the different types of films. By splitting out and using the majority off into the Disney A to Z categories, as found in Disney A to Z, there is no longer judgment call on the term "canon" nor ignore either source.

Finally, please note, I have not argued to re-organize the list to merge Dinosaur with the Pixar films. In fact, I have already made comments about this. Jvsett (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The lists on both the template and the main page are becoming ever more confusing. For the purposes of these pages wouldn't it be more helpful to have a list of all films produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios (and earlier studios), and seperate lists for other studios. The way it is getting laid out implies that the computer animated films are not produced in-house at Disney, or by a seperate division, which is true for Valient and The Wild but not for Dinosaur, Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons or Bolt. The same issues apply with the "Live-Action films with Disney Animation" as the animation in Enchanted and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? was not produced in house. SWatsi (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A.) There is a difference between "Classic" and "non-Classic" Walt Disney animated features. Again, this is a distinction that Disney recognizes. Dinosaurs, et al. are not consider "classics" at this time; but are considered Disney animated features. Based on the intent of the template / article, we should be as precise as possible. B) The heading clearly indicates that Computer animated feature are "Walt Disney Animated Features." C) Since the first incarnation of this template here, these various types of films have been separated. The only logic for the separation seems to following the concept of "canon" as the "official list". How else can you explain excluded films like Reluctant Dragon, Song of the South, etc. and including films like Saludos Amigos and Melody Time. (All four films contain live action and animation.). By adopting the Classics model (which ironically was referenced in this incarnation), you no longer have this issue. By continuing to revert without citing to sources to justify same, these reverts seems to violate the sources requirement.Jvsett (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is quite absurd. You have consistently reverted back to the Dave Smith model - for lack of a better term - and stuck to this belief that what he says in the book is accuarte. I'm sure it is, but you've told us to find another source that justifys the old version. Where on earth are we supposed to look? I've checked the Archives on http://www.disney.go.com , and they list every film (animated and live-action). Furthermore, just because Saludos Amigos, Melody Time, The Reluctant Dragon and Song of the South contain live-action, that doesn't mean that the first two articles should be taken out of the "Walt Disney Classics" thread, and places elsewhere - "Live-action films with animation". That is the vibe I am getting from you; that we should all suck up and believe that the Dave Smith version is correct because it is "official". It's merely a book title. I'm with SpikeJones in that you seem to be implying that Smith's book is the de facto reference for this template and these pages. That is simply not true, and I think you yourself know it. I am reverting back to the old version - please don't revert again. -- Cartoon Boy (talk) 3:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Another problem with classics vs non-classics - I have copies of Meet the Robinsons and Chicken Little available which specifically say on the box "Disney's 47th Animated Classic" (meet the robinsons in this case). To me, that says it is a classic? SWatsi (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

While I don't have a copy of Chicken Little, I find your comment regarding Meet the Robinson very interesting. My version of Meet the Robinsons, sold at Walmart, does not have those words on the front or back. The front, which can be seen at Amazon.com here shows the Robinson family, other random characters and the logo "Walt Disney Pictures Presents Meet the Robinsons." Below this is a quote from Leah Rozen of People calling the movie "a Dazzling Vision of the Future." The back, which can be seen here never calls it a classic. The closest is a quote from John Anderson of Newsday calling it "a masterpiece." In addition, the term classic is not used on the front the Blue-ray as seen here, nor used on the poster here on Wikipedia. Nor is the poster here, here, here, here, here, etc. I would be interested in seeing your version.

As stated, I don't have a copy of Chicken Little. However, quick review of the Chicken Little Posters / DVDs / Blue-Ray also does not seem to have the term "Classic" anywhere on them. For non-exhaustive sample of the posters, please see here, here, here, and here. For the front of the DVD, please see here; for the back, please see here. For the front of the Blue-ray, please see here. Again, I would be interesting to seeing your version of the front / back of the cover of the DVD / Blue-ray.Jvsett (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly I cannot find anything online to back that point up, so what do you want me to do. Scan the cover in? I assume the difference in covers is a regional difference, but nether-the-less comes from a high profile division within TWDC. SWatsi (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

To begin with - please stop making personal attacks and putting words in my mouth. I have never Disney A to Z is the only proper source. However, it is a verified source. Therefore it satisfies the Wikipedia requirements. You (Cartoon Boy) and SpikeJones continue to contend that Dave Smith is inaccurate. Frankly, an argument that Dave Smith is not accurate is a straw man argument. Aside from the “official” list for your stance, you have not provided one reliable source on these perceived inaccuracies. In fact, when one goes to the main Disney Vault page [1], right in the corner is Dave Smith, where you can “download monthly updates to Dave Smith’s encyclopedic ‘Disney A to Z’”. It appears to bear repeating that Dave Smith is the Chief Archivist for Disney. The biography from Disney’s own website states the following:

The ultimate authority on all things Disney, Dave Smith founded the Walt Disney Archives in 1970 and, four decades later, continues to serve as Chief Archivist. In 1996, he assembled an unprecedented amount of Disney lore, facts, and figures into an unparalleled reference work, "Disney A to Z: The Official Encyclopedia." He updated this magnum opus for a new edition in 1998 and then again in 2006. An up-to-date supplement to the latest edition is available by clicking the button on the left. Dave has appeared on numerous television shows as a Disney expert, answers reader questions in a regular column for “Disney Insider,” and has attended every Disneyana Convention to date, as a resource person and occasional guest speaker. [2]

Finally, remember that Wikipedia’s “objective is to increase its reliability as a source of information. Readers are encouraged to compare articles to what they already know and improve their accuracy.” FAQ re Accuracy So please stop reverting edits without verified sources. Jvsett (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Jvsett the situation now seems like you are versus the rest of world. Answer me to a very simple question. We don't talk about Dave Smith, do you think that this is an official Disney site: Disneyanimation? Ok, tell me what is this list? Why thay takes only this 48 movies and only 4 in CGI (Dinosaur, Chicken Little, MTR and Bolt) and not the others? I think that this is more than a simple indication that this is the official list of the Walt Disney Animated Films (read Disney Classics) and not that of Mr. Smith (like Spike Jones loves to call him). Tnx for your answer. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Inquiry of Kasper2006

To begin, I have not argued that the list found here is not from a Disney resource. Unless someone has hacked the Disney website (highly improbably), it is clearly a list from a Disney website, that being the Walt Disney Animation Studios.

That being said, the were a number of perceived fallacies made on the original template, and the related pages (including Walt Disney Animated Classics and List of Disney theatrical animated features) by relaying on this list, which appears to have lead to a number of misunderstanding and inaccuracies.

This list in question is entitled “Walt Disney Animated Films”. The issues that must be resolved regarding this list are the following: 1) That the list is an all inclusive list of all films Walt Disney Animation Studios (or its predecessor) (hereafter collectively WDAS) has worked on; 2) That list purports to be a list of Walt Disney Animated Classics; 3) That this list contains some sort of “canon” and / or authority. I will deal with each of these issues in turn. But it bears repeating that the plain language of this list is that the films on this list are “Walt Disney Animated Films.”

1) Is “Walt Disney Animated Films” an all inclusive list of all films Walt Disney Animation Studios (and its predecessors) have worked on?

To claim that this list is fully encompassing of all feature length films WDAS has worked on would be misleading. This list contains only full length, mostly animated features. (One should note that this list contains the following films that have some sort of live action sequences / elements: Fantasia; Three Caballeros; Fun and Fancy Free; Melody Time; Fantasia 2000; and Dinosaur.)

However, without explanation, this list does not include the following films:

• The Reluctant Dragon (1941)
• Victory Through Air Power (1943)
• Song of the South (1946)
• So Dear to My Heart (1948)

It is undeniable that WDAS worked on these feature length films, and that these films contained significant animation. Without going into complete history of Walt Disney Studios, it was not until the late 1940s Walt Disney worked on full length live action films without animation ( Treasure Island). The reasons these films are not on the list is subject to debate, but there does not appear to be any verifiable sources to support same. However, at the time these films were made, they would have fallen under the umbrella of WDAS.

Furthermore, without explanation, the list does not contain the following films:

• Mary Poppins (film)(1964)
• Bedknobs and Broomsticks (1971)
• Pete's Dragon (1977)

Each of these films were produced solely by Walt Disney Productions, an umbrella corporation for WDAS. Each of theses films were worked on by noteable employees who would be currently classified under WDAS: Mary Poppins (Ward Kimball, Frank Thomas, Ollie Johnson); Bednobs and Broomsticks (Ward Kimball, Eric Larson); Pete's Dragon (Don Bluth, Ken Anderson). Again, it is debatable why these films are not on the list.

Moreover, the list does not contain the following films:

• Tron (1982)
• Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)
• Enchanted(2007)

• • Tron. It is undeniable that Tron was produced by Walt Disney Productions. It was co-produced by Lisberger/Kushner (which, by the way, is the only film produced by this company at this point.) It has been debated that this film does not contain animation in the traditional sense, but simply visual effects. This seems to ignore extensive Rotoscoping animation done to make all the Programs' characters unique coloring. In addition, a least one notable WDAS animator did work on this project (Tim Burton). [3] Furthermore, this argument excludes CGI characters Bit and the MCP . However, there are plausible arguments to exclude this film from this list.

• • Roger Rabbit. The production history of this film is complicated; however, IMDB states that it was produced by WDAS (unofficially), Touchstone and Amblin [4]. It was released by Touchstone in the US. The animation was directed by Richard Williams who expressed such disdain for Disney culture, he refused to work with it and moved the animation operation to England. Since the release though, its pretty undeniable that the characters are fully integrated into the Disney company (see the three shorts, the numerous merchandise and pins [5], and of course Disneyland’s Toontown.) All this being said, there is good arguments why this film should not be on this list.

• • Enchanted. While it is undeniable that the film was released by Walt Disney Pictures, the animation was not done in-house, but out-sourced. Therefore, it should not be on this list.

In addition, I would like to point out that the “Walt Disney Animated Films” list contains the following entry: The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977). What’s remarkable about this film is that it contains no actually new animation, but is made up of previously released shorts. (Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree (1966), Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day (1968) and Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too! (1974)). Yet the list does not contain the following film Academy Award Review of Walt Disney Cartoons, a completion of previous animated shorts made by WDAS and released in theaters in 1937. This inconsistency may be troubling; however, to be fair, I have yet to see any official list that contains this film as an official Disney feature length film.

So what we have are up to 11 films that could have been included in the “Walt Disney Animated Films” list. Someone made a conscious decision not include these films. If this list is all the feature length films worked on by WDAS, then as to first seven films excluded, it would take logical acrobatics on why those films would not be included on a list of films WDAS has worked on. As to the remaining four, two have good arguments why they are not included on the list; one should not be on the list; and the last has never been recognized by the corporation as a feature length film.

But without an explanation on why films were excluded, we can only speculate as to the reasons behind that decision.

So to answer the first question “Is the “Walt Disney Animated Films” list an all inclusive list of all films Walt Disney Animation Studios (and its predecessors) have worked on?” – the answer is no. It is a selection of films worked on by WDAS.

2) Does the “Walt Disney Animated Films” purport to be the list of “Walt Disney Animated Classics” ?

There is no evidence presented that the WDAS list is a list of “Walt Disney Animated Classics.” The list simply states it’s a list of films by WDAS. There is substantial evidence presented what Disney currently considers its Classics. Again, please review Disney A to Z, first edition (1996), page 24; Disney A to Z, third edition (2006), pages 33-34; May 2009 Supplement to Disney A to Z [6], page 55.

There is no doubt that there are a number of crossovers between the Classic List and the “Walt Disney Animated Films” list. However, there is no evidence by either source that the lists should comport / conform to each other.

Why Disney has made a “Classics” list, and the wisdom behind it, is up to debate. Why certain films are on the Classic list, and others not, is again debatable. We are not privy to the reasoning of these two lists; however the two separate lists do exists and must be dealt with individually.

I do know from unverifiable personal knowledge the term “Disney Classic” has been around since at least the 1970s. I would guess that is been around since the 1950s.

I also know, starting in 1990, Disney decided that all animated features were not equal and declared that DuckTales: The Movie was not a “Classic”; it was distribute as a “Movietoon,” which would eventually morph into “DisneyToons Studios”.

However, returning to the basic question - “Does the “Walt Disney Animated Films” purport to be the list of “Walt Disney Animated Classics” ?” – the answer is no. It is simply a list of films (and clearly not a complete list) that WDAS has worked on.

3.) Does the “Walt Disney Animated Films” list contains some sort of “canon” and / or authority?

This is the real driving question in this whole matter. And, again, the answer is no.

The list never claims any type of canon or authority. It simply states it’s a list of WDAS films. I have already gone through the issues regarding missing films.

This brings to the forefront the underling issues with this template, and the related pages. The term canon has been thrown around time and time again. The original template from May 14, 2009 was the following:

This template clearly indicates that Walt Disney Animated Classics is Canon, and the basis of this canon is the “Walt Disney Animated Films” list. The problem is that this list never describes itself as canon, official, complete or Classics. This list includes a number of films that specifically excluded as "Walt Disney Animated Classics" by the other verified sources.

In truth, the term “canon” is highly subjective. This has already been discussed here in December 2008. It cannot be reasonably argued that films take place in the same fictional universe. There is no consensus regarding the merits of these films. As an example, please see mirrored Walt Disney Animated Classics list from May 14, 2009 here.

However, what does exist, and is an accurate, reliable and verifiable designation is “Walt Disney Animated Classics”. This designation has been used since the 1970s, if not earlier. As stated, the “Walt Disney Animated Films” does not, on its face, state it is a list of Classics. A reliable source that designates films as Walt Disney Animated Classic is Disney A to Z.

In addition, all we know about this list is it appears on Disney website (which appears to be last updated in 2008). The Terms of Use of the site clearly state the information may not be accurate, as the site may be interactive [7]. There is no named author of the “Walt Disney Animated Films” list. While we can only make guesses, educated or not, as to why some films were included and other not, as there is no definitive discussion on the issue. The list does not include The Princess and the Frog, or other forthcoming projects. It does not contain numbering.

4.) What to do now.

The frame work for the original template, including the concept of Disney Classics as canon, has been around since May 2006. [8] This concurrent page, List of Disney theatrical animated features, has be around since November 2003. Walt Disney Animated Classics has been around since July 2008. All have gone through significant changes, growths, additions and subtractions.

There appears to be a philosophy as to the template (along with the other pages) to keep with the status quo, and that the “Walt Disney Animated Films” list is the authority. There have been numerous comments regarding that people like the original template as it was because it was “easier”, “made more sense”, that the cited sources for the newer template are not accurate, that Wikipedia should not conform to a perceived experts perceived opinion for the new template, that it is absurd to use the cited sources as such for the basis of the new template, etc.

The questions that have not been answered to those who make the above, general arguments, is to what degree does “Walt Disney Animated Films” list comport with the reliable sources requirement of Wikipedia.

In addition, these same proponents have failed to provide any reliable sources, or Wikipedia policy, on why Disney A to Z should not be followed in this instance. It definitely should be followed with Walt Disney Animated Classics page as that is an Intra-Company designation for its films. Following that logic, the same criteria should be used in the other lists. In defense of the original template, simply making strawman arguments, insulting people, and pointing to the “Walt Disney Animated Films” is not enough, when another reliable, verifiable source provides accurate information.

We can continue to revert each other. However, this is futile, and will most likely get this page nominated to Lame edit wars. If reverts continue, then I would suggest we request the next appropriate intervention.

Finally, I apologize that I but this response above the [Sutio Ghibli] discussion. However, to keep things flowing, I felt it was best to do it this way. Jvsett (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok Jv, first sorry for my "macheronic english" but the important thing is understanding. Still you think that this "offcial" list is something of terrible and damn wrong. Why you talk about 1, 2, 3 winnie the pooh or roger rabbit or relectant dragon or tron or mary poppins all the world knows (and not from 2 o 3 years) that the 44 classics that you, dave smith, the soul of walt disney knows as the disney classics and is impossible to belive that open the range (The Princess and the Frog will be the last of titans) will'be the last "disney classic" because you (and dave smith) think that classic = traditional animation. the world looks the futere, looks the CGI and is absolutly normal to insert dinosaur, CL, MT an Bolt as classics in your (and dave smith) universally accecpted list of 44. don't accept the CGI is like you want to go to work by carriage and not by car. listen to me, Walt Disney Animated Films is the list of classics: yours 44 + 4 CGI and everybody lived happily ever after. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Kasper2006 – I have not stated that the “Walt Disney Animated Films” list is “terrible and damn wrong.” I believe I have shown that the list is not a complete list of all films that WDAS has worked on over the last 70+ years, but a subset of its work on feature length films. This list does not claim otherwise. The list does not claim to be a list of “Walt Disney Animated Classics”. There is a verified, reliable source (Disney A to Z) which provides a definition of and for the Classics category. While one may disagree with the reasoning behind the definition, this list is approved by Disney, through its own recognized expert, as official. I refer you to Dave Smith’s biography, which can be found here. Dave Smith can make mistakes. He corrects the mistakes as they are pointed out in supplements. However, this classification system and definition of Classic is at least 13 years old. Regardless of the merits of DuckTales The Movie, A Goofy Movie, Dinosaur, Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, and Bolt, they are not classified as Classics. Regardless of their merits, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear and Home on the Range are classified as Classics. Regardless of how The Princess and the Frog turns out, it is currently numbered 45 of the Classics here at page 55. To continue to argue about what the future will bring (be it CGI or hand drawn animation and that impact on Disney) violates the Wikipedia policy regarding crystal balling. The definition of Classics may be updated at some point in future; however, until that time, we are left with the sources. Jvsett (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Studio Ghibli

Might it put a section of the films from Studio Ghibli that are distributed theatrically by Disney?

No, the template should not be for films that Disney merely distributed. It should only be for films that Disney produced. The template is entitled "*Disney* theatrical animated features", not "Disney *distributed* animated features" SpikeJones (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, by the defination of the main list "This is a list of theatrical animated feature films produced and/or released by Walt Disney Productions/The Walt Disney Company," this temeplate should include these films. Jvsett (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Disney has the distribution rights of Studio Ghibli's movies worldwide. In addition, always Disney appears in the credits of the movies released in the cinema. Disney has a " special deal " with Studio Ghibli because of that. I think that Studio Ghibli films can have an own section Studio Ghibli's movies distributed in cinemas as Disney.--Blitz Lutte (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a worldwide distribution deal. Although I think Disney do the english language dubs, which are released in english speaking countries worldwide, though not by Disney in cases. Strictly speaking they probably should be added similar to Valiant, Brave Little Toaster et al based on the current description. Whether it is right to include all movies distributed or only those explicitly produced by Disney is another question. SWatsi (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and sorry my original reason for pointing out the worldwide thing was that I feel this should be noted somewhere on the list pages as (i think last i looked) it is with Bambi 2 (non theatrical in US) and Valiant (released without Disney out of US). Ta. SWatsi (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Here I put a link (http://www.cinemadara.com/images/PonyoEnElAcantilado.jpg) of the poster of Hayao Miyazaki's last movie " Ponyo on the cliff by the sea " in Spain. In the credit titles there appears Walt Disney Studios Home Entertaiment as one of the producers. In other movies like "Spirited Away" or "The Cat Returns" Disney or, rather, Buena Vista appears as one of the producers. I believe that Studio Ghibli films that have been distributed theatrically by Disney deserve to have an own section.--Blitz Lutte (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Before another edit war erupts...

While the current version of this template removes the issue of canon to a degree, it still artificially removes at least the four Studio films that contained animation / live action during the earliest incarnation of the Studios (1940s) (when there was no seperate animation / feature film departments), along with the three films that were made with WDAS impute from the 1960s-70s. (Tron is a separate issue to be discussed at a later point). If we are going to include the other films Live Action / Animated films (e.g., Fantasia, Melody Time, etc) as discussed above, what is the rational / sources not to include these seven films (Dragon, Mary Poppins, etc.) under the first header. Furthermore, the current header may be misleading as the seven films in question were not Walt Disney Studios, but Walt Disney Productions. I dont believe WDAS became its own "studio" until after 1970s. In addition, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is still recognized as Touchstone, not official film from the studios. Moreover, this current template seems less accurate then calling the first section “Classics” as the first section still has a mingling of both Classics and non-Classics in it. This current incarnation does not seem to conform with the stated goal regarding accuracy as found here: Wikipedia’s “objective is to increase its reliability as a source of information. Readers are encouraged to compare articles to what they already know and improve their accuracy and detail.” Finally, it doesn’t really resolve the issue, but only punts it until it is likely rear up again in Walt Disney Animated Classics and / or List of Disney theatrical animated features. Jvsett (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all this debate should not be about the "words" like "classic" or "canon", because they are subjective concepts. We should debate the reason of making a list of Disney animated features, and what films must be included in order to have a usefull tool of analysis of Disney movies. The only thing Dave Smith has the authority to do is give the official meaning of the word "classic". That is not necessarly our List (and this answers the questions 2 and 3 of your points). I believe the List we need is the one with the 48 titles (49 with The Princess and the Frog). It's easy to find a reason to not consider for our List the 11 movies you cited in your question number 1: they're all live-action movies with animated inserts (except Tron, which is full live-action, and the CGI is a virtual environment we can consider as VFX, not Animation). This is not the case of Fantasia and a couple of other "classics", which are animated movies with live-action inserts. You may say that also Victory Through Air Power seems an animated movie with live-action inserts, but that's a matter of points of view (because the percentage of animation doesn't count. What counts is the role of the film in the Disney filmography). The undenyiable reason to exclude it, is that it's not fiction, instead of the rest of the "classics". Documentary is different from Fiction, as a kind of moviemaking, so it's not so preposterous considering it a reason to exclude Victory from our needed List (and that's the reason why Disney itself has never considered it). Then the reason to include Dinosaurs (most of all), Chicken Little, Meet the Robinson and Bolt and the next Rapunzel and King of the Elves is the official website.

Is mine a list with some sort of utility? It is. And it has the addictional value to be consistent with how Disney has always categorized (more or less... the only controversy was Dinosaurs) its movies. That's what we can call "Canon". Then, for completion, there are parallel lists containing what is excluded from our List. This solution seems to me referenced, consistent, usefull and complete (instead of other solutions). What can Wikipedia ask more? --Elikrotupos (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the Conversation

I have purposefully stepped away from the conversation and will throw my 2 cents back in. If the conversation outcome has already been decided, feel free to let me know that this post was completely unnecessary and we'll delete it from the record as such.

Here's the situation as I see it:

• Jvsett took it upon himself (assuming "himself" for ease of typing; apologies if incorrect) to be bold and make a dramatic change to various Disney animated features lists that are located all over WP without discussing those bold plans first on a talk page.
• I made note of Jvsett's good faith effort to clean things up initially, but suggested that some of the following edits may be reverted, saying "While you may feel very strongly in your own personal convictions over whether a particular film should be on these lists, you are now treading on topics that have already been covered and previously settled through consensus and liable to be reverted much more quickly than some of the other organizational edits you have made." This was interpreted by Jvsett as a personal attack, and may have put Jvsett more on a defensive stance than needed to be. Note that no reverts were associated with this talk page comment.
• Whenever WP editors tried to revert Jvsett's edits back to the previous version (and initiate discussion) Jvsett would revert back to his edited version and then say "read the talk page".
• Jvsett is basing his edits on using Mr Smith's A-Z Encyclopedia as his sole (it appears) reference.
• Other WP editors have been using a variety of official sources, including the Disney Animation website itself.
• NOBODY is questioning the use (or lack of use) of the term "canon", although Jvsett appears to think that there are some insisting on continuing to use that term. WP editors have had this discussion in the past, and when the Disney Animation website came online, that was really the nail in the "canon" coffin and the term really is no longer being used anywhere. Why Jvsett believes it is confuses me.
• NOBODY is questioning Mr Smith being a Disney authority. What is being questioned is using Mr Smith and/or the A-Z books as the singular authority, especially when there is conflicting information being presented by official Disney sources. When Jvsett was asked why he wouldn't consider other sources, no answer was supplied beyond "those sources are bad, Mr Smith is The Disney Authority" (exaggeration in paraphrase mine, not intended to represent Jvsett's actual words or tone).
• Using a press release from Disney as a reference, there is confusion over how to number/classify films produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios. BOLT should be on whatever listing is being used to display WDAS films, along with PRINCESS AND THE FROG, RAPUNZEL, KING OF THE ELVES, etc.
• Tink are DisneyToon productions, and according to the same press release, are NOT going to be released theatrically (yes, I know the Argentina thing - just go with me here) but are intended to be DTV. Note the difference in how the theatrical films are listed in the press release vs the DTV films.

In any case, while I disagree with the edits that Jvsett made and would prefer them to be mostly reverted back, I continue to believe that Jvsett is trying in good faith to improve what he feels is an inaccuate protrayal of Disney animation information...just as the WP editors who have invested an equal amount of time in making it appear as it did before all these edits were made this week. There is a happy medium somewhere; we need to consider the intent of the various film listings and make the BEST singular listing possible. The one that is least confusing to the casual observer. Joe Public does not differentiate between Walt Disney Animated Classics and other releases - they just know that it is the (47th, 51st, 102nd) Disney animated feature to be released. If we're having difficulty keeping a list in order, why is it Joe Public has figured out a way to keep it straight in their head? SpikeJones (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact Joe Public doesn't have a straight order in his head. He can only remember how the Disney marketing numbered the home-video releases of its movies during '80s and '90s. But these numbers are in contrast with the recent list published on the DisneyAnimation website (because this list [that is not numbered] adds Dinosaurs in-between and continues the CGI movies, while the last officialy numbered movie was Home on the Range). That's why we need to find a List, numbered or not, of the animated feature films produced by WDAS. And there are reason to believe that the actual list is the one published on the DisneyAnimation website. --Elikrotupos (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

At the moment seems like a "back to the past" and Mr. Jvsett (good faith or not) lost his battle. Tell me if the commumity decision will be that, so I revert the Jevsett rollbacks to the page Walt Disney Animated Classics. Tnx ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Elikrotupos and SpikeJones

First I will address Elikrotupos’s comments. For ease of reading, I have block quoted and bolded the comments:

First of all this debate should not be about the "words" like "classic" or "canon", because they are subjective concepts.

While I agree “cannon” is subjective, the term “Classic” is not subjective. There is a definitive list and definition of what Disney considers “Classic.” This is pursuant to the Reliable Sources doctrine, which states the following:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is.

The book in question is authored by an expert in the field, with over 35 years of experience. This expert spent over 380 hours of research time on the book. This expert was assisted by 5 research assistants directly (see page. iv of Disney A to Z, third edition).

That is not necessarly our List … I believe the List we need is the one with the 48 titles (49 with The Princess and the Frog).

While this may not have been the purpose of this template, at the beginning of this discussion and up through the most recent comments regarding same, it is clearly the impression that this template is the “Official Disney Canon”, nearly synonymous with the concept of “Walt Disney Animated Classics.” Please see this list:

In case you believe I have altered this list (other than adding the word historic), please see here (Template:List of Disney theatrical animated features (23:23, 13 May 2009). This list clearly indicated that the 50 films were Disney’s “Official Canon”. When you clicked on the “Official Canon” link, it took you to this page: Walt Disney Animated Classics (00:38, 14 May 2009) . At that time, this page’s only source was this “Official list from the Walt Disney Animated Films”

Directly, or indirectly, the original list and template were clearly stating that the canonical Disney animated films were the Walt Disney Animated Classics, and that was the list found on the WDAS website.

I believe the List we need is the one with the 48 titles (49 with The Princess and the Frog).

Why this may be your belief, Wikipedia is not based on personal belief or preferences. Wikipages should be based on verifiable sources. “If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.” ( Verifiability). Your evidence for this list is the WDAS’s website. This list appears to be questionable source:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are … promotional in nature. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves…. (edited to remove no-relevant portions.) ( Questionable Sources)

There are serious questions about the purpose of the list and its fact checking. The list in question is promotional in nature. The August 1, 2008 Terms of Use contain the following Disclosure: “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. “ [9] To rely solely on this, while actively ignoring other sources, seems to be inconsistent with Wiki policy.

It's easy to find a reason to not consider for our List the 11 movies you cited in your question number 1:….

I will address these issues at a later point, once these issues are resolved.

Is mine a list with some sort of utility? It is.

I agree, the original list had some utility. However, I believe the point Wikipedia (as already stated above) is not just some utility, but as much verifiable utility as possible. What would be more useful? A template that contains single list of all Shakespeare plays in alphabetical order; or a template that split out the Shakespearean plays into the three historically recognized categories. I would bet most people, including “Joe Public”, would agree that the template should be split out between the three historic categories; and fact, that is the way the Template:Shakespeare is laid out.

And it has the addictional value to be consistent with how Disney has always categorized (more or less... the only controversy was Dinosaurs) its movies. That's what we can call "Canon".

Again, the “Walt Disney Animated Films” list is not a complete list of films that WDAS has worked on. The list is not consistent with the definition used for Disney Classic by the verified source. Again, the term “Canon” is used to justify the list. This is incorrect.

As to SpikeJones’s comments. Again I have bolded / block quoted his comments:

Jvsett took it upon himself (assuming "himself" for ease of typing; apologies if incorrect) to be bold and make a dramatic change to various Disney animated features lists that are located all over WP without discussing those bold plans first on a talk page.

You are right. I took it upon myself to correct what were inaccuracies in the Walt Disney Animated Classics page and what I perceived was misleading in the template.

I made note of Jvsett's good faith effort to clean things up initially, but suggested that some of the following edits may be reverted, saying "While you may feel very strongly in your own personal convictions over whether a particular film should be on these lists, you are now treading on topics that have already been covered and previously settled through consensus and liable to be reverted much more quickly than some of the other organizational edits you have made." This was interpreted by Jvsett as a personal attack, and may have put Jvsett more on a defensive stance than needed to be. Note that no reverts were associated with this talk page comment.

I believe your statement was a personal attack, as discussed at the other page. Since then, I believe there have been other personal attacks throughout this discussions. On this page, it includes the following:

• “but I think also that Jvsett can't remove Dinosaur and CL and MTR and Bolt only because he (or Dave Smints) wants that [sic]”
• “you're [Jvsett] basically saying that since [Smith] is the archivist, his version is correct. That is wrong on so many levels.”
• “This is quite absurd.” (Relating to my reverts and my supporting sources)
• “Jvsett the situation now seems like you are versus the rest of world.”
• “Still you think that this "offcial" list is something of terrible and damn wrong. … don't accept the CGI is like you want to go to work by carriage and not by car.”

I have also been accused of violating WP:Civility. I do not believe that I have done that. If I am incorrect, I apologize. If any of these comments were not meant as a personal attack, but misinterpreted by me, then again I apologize.

Whenever WP editors tried to revert Jvsett's edits back to the previous version (and initiate discussion) Jvsett would revert back to his edited version and then say "read the talk page".

This is partially true. My initial edits were done with verified sources. Reverts appeared to be done without same. This seems to be in conflict with this Wikipedia Policy:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references. Alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable if they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions, but inline citations are considered 'best practice' under this rationale. For more details, please consult Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to cite sources. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books. (emphasis in original; internal footnotes removed) Burden of Evidence

I have attempted at ever point in my edits and discussions to cite from reliable source on this issues. It appears that others simply have not cited there sources or stated that they cannot find sources to support there position. This is inconsistent with Wiki policy.

Jvsett is basing his edits on using Mr Smith's A-Z Encyclopedia as his sole (it appears) reference.

For the discussions regarding Classics / canon and this template, I have used Disney A to Z as my primary source pursuant Wikipedia policy. I have also used Internet Movie Database to confirm certain aspects of production companies and animators. However, other official Disney sources exist to support Disney A to Z’s Classics definition, which may be primary documents, not secondary documents. Wikipedia’s policy is to use secondary sources as much as possible. These potential primary documents include Disney Corporation’s own Annual Reports:

• The last annual report to number any of the animated features is from 1996, which stated “The highlight of the year, from the Animation Division, is the June 20 release of Hercules, Disney's 35th full-length animated film.” [10]. This comports with both the Classics list and the WDAS’s list.
• The 1997, 1998 and 1999 Annual Reports do not include any numbering and / or the term “Classic.” In fact, the 1997 states “Mulan is the first film produced primarily at Feature Animation’s Florida studio.”
• The 2000 Annual Report clearly distinguishes between Atlantis and Dinosaur: Atlantis “is Disney's first-ever animated action film,” while “Dinosaur employed a groundbreaking combination of live-action backgrounds and computer-animated dinosaurs, mesmerizing audiences with its visually stunning portrayal of a herd of dinosaurs fighting for survival.” [11] The annual report seems to ignore that Dinosaur is essential an action film.
• The 2004 Annual Report states “In 2005, the animation team at Disney is set to debut its first all computer-generated feature with the release of Chicken Little.” [12] This completely ignores Dinosaur’s computer animation.
• The 2005 Annual Report continue to ignore Dinosaur with the statement “In November 2005, Walt Disney Feature Animation (WDFA) marked a major milestone in its fabled history with the highly successful release of Chicken Little, the Studio's first fully computer-animated motion picture.” [13] Arguments can be easily made to rectify the apparent conflicting statement – chiefly that Dinosaur was only partially animated and not completely animated.
• In the 2008 Annual Report, Disney describes The Princess and the Frog as the following;

“Also on the 2009 release schedule is Disney’s newest animated fairy tale, The Princess and the Frog. John Musker and Ron Clements, the directors of The Little Mermaid and Aladdin, join creative forces with Oscar®-winning songwriter Randy Newman to serve up a classic-style Disney tale set in New Orleans. Complete with romance, adventure, frogs and a singing alligator, this fantastic new film showcases the art of Disney animation at its best with the return of hand-drawn animation.” (bold to emphasis) By the choice of words, Disney is clearly distinguish Princess as “classic-style Disney tale.” This seems to be confirmed by these statements regarding Sleeping Beauty: “The Disney animated classic Sleeping Beauty became the first Platinum title to be released in the Blu-ray Disc format;” [14] “In 2008, DCP introduced an array of Sleeping Beauty merchandise at retailers to complement the Platinum Edition DVD release of the classic 1959 film.”[15]

Combined these Annual Reports with the Disney A to Z definitions, it is clear that Disney considers The Princess and the Frog a Classic, like Sleeping Beauty; Disney does not consider its computer animated films Classics at this point. This may change in the future.

Other WP editors have been using a variety of official sources, including the Disney Animation website itself.

This statement does not appear to be accurate. Until you cited this press release “a press release from Disney as a reference” the other night, no other verified source for the discussion regarding Classics / canon / WDAS’s list was used other than the WDAS’s list. The only other source cited was the back of SWatsi’s copy of Meet the Robinsons. That copy does not seem to comport with any other version of Meet the Robinsons. If I am incorrect, please show me where others have cited verified sources.

NOBODY is questioning the use (or lack of use) of the term "canon", although Jvsett appears to think that there are some insisting on continuing to use that term. WP editors have had this discussion in the past, and when the Disney Animation website came online, that was really the nail in the "canon" coffin and the term really is no longer being used anywhere. Why Jvsett believes it is confuses me.

This is also incorrect. Please review discussion above. The term was clearly used on the following pages before my edits: here (Template:List of Disney theatrical animated features (23:23, 13 May 2009), List of Disney theatrical animated features (17:48, 22 May 2009), and Walt Disney Animated Classics (00:38, 14 May 2009). As of May 14, 2009, canon was described as “The following is a list of the fifty feature films that are part of the Walt Disney Animation Studios canon, also known as the Walt Disney Animated Classics.” This was not correct. As of May 30, 2009, at least one user was again stating that the WDAS’s list is official canon. So clearly, the use of canon is still alive and kicking, causing issues.

NOBODY is questioning Mr Smith being a Disney authority. What is being questioned is using Mr Smith and/or the A-Z books as the singular authority, especially when there is conflicting information being presented by official Disney sources. When Jvsett was asked why he wouldn't consider other sources, no answer was supplied beyond "those sources are bad, Mr Smith is The Disney Authority" (exaggeration in paraphrase mine, not intended to represent Jvsett's actual words or tone).

I disagree with your assertion. There a repeated comments throughout this discussion that can be summed up in the following statement by Cartoon Boy “As I said before, "No company, no individual, does things without making mistakes." - even Dave Smith; you're basically saying that since he is the archivist, his version is correct. That is wrong on so many levels.” Many comments make clear that Dave Smith should not be considered accurate source on this issue. Other than citing to WDAS “Walt Disney Animated Films” list and the now the April 2008 press release, no one has provided any other verifiable source to support the original list.

There are many situations that Dave Smith or Disney A to Z would not be a reliable source. Due to the nature of Disney A to Z, entries are brief and do not convey much more than passing references. For more in depth knowledge of a subject, a different source should be used. Smith would not be reliable when the articles deal with criticism of Disney. A brief review of Disney A to Z fails to mention any of the Disney strikes (either animators strikes or at Disneyland), fails to mention the controversy around Fantasia , fails to mention the editing of Melody Time or Make Mine Music, fails to mention the controversy surrounding Song of the South, etc. Under Who Framed Roger Rabbit , Smith writes regarding Richard Williams “Richard Williams headed the large staff of animators at a new studio set up in London, with some additional animation done in Burbank.” (Disney A to Z, Third Edition, pg. 735) While literally true, not 100 % accurate per Williams himself. Smith includes the Pixar films under the Animated Features, Computer. We can speculate on why he did this, however that is not appropriate for Wikipedia or this discussion.

This dialogue has centered around the definition of WDAS animated films (is there a distinction between Classics / non-Classics films ), which should have been a relatively non-contentious issue. For some reason it has become contentious issue.

Using a press release from Disney as a reference, there is confusion over how to number/classify films produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios. BOLT should be on whatever listing is being used to display WDAS films, along with PRINCESS AND THE FROG, RAPUNZEL, KING OF THE ELVES, etc.

That assertion appears to be a personal opinion, not supported by either this document or any other document other than the WDAS’s “Walt Disney Animated Films”. To begin with, this document is a press release from April 2008, which combines the upcoming releases of 16 animated features from Disney. Two of the films are re-releases; four are described as direct to video releases. The press release describes films released from three different areas of Disney Studios (although all are treated as one by the title of the release: “The Walt Disney Studios Rolls Out Slate Of 10 New Animated Motion Pictures Through 2012”).: WDAS, Pixar and Disney Toon Studios. Nothing in the press release discusses the numbering of any of films. Only a detailed reading of the press release shows that there are four new films are being release by WDAS: Bolt, The Princess and the Frog (“A musical set in the greatest city of them all, New Orleans, "The Princess and the Frog" marks Disney's return to the timeless art form of traditional animation.”), Rapunzel (“In this new telling of the classic fairy tale, "Rapunzel,") and King of the Elves (“Legendary storyteller Phillip K. Dick's short story (his only experiment in the fantasy genre) becomes the basis for this fantastic and imaginative tale…”) While the press release supports the inclusion of The Princess and the Frog and Rapunzel as Classics, other more recent sources do not.

Furthermore, while the press release was probably accurate in April 2008, it discusses future events. Wikipedia policy regarding crystal balling is to avoid it as much as possible. Remember, future events can change, including name, dates, ideas and releases. Where is Beastly Kingdom, Disney's America and Westcot; what ever happened to the Disney Decade? As to movies, prior Disney announcements described up-coming movies entitled Kingdom of the Sun, A Day with Wilbur Robinson, and American Dog. These movies all went through metamorphoses (some more than others) to become The Emperor’s New Groove, Meet the Robinsons, and Bolt. A press release should be used cautiously as source as it is again may be consider unreliable.

Tink are DisneyToon productions, and according to the same press release, are NOT going to be released theatrically (yes, I know the Argentina thing - just go with me here) but are intended to be DTV. Note the difference in how the theatrical films are listed in the press release vs the DTV films.

This discussion is better suited at the other discussion. However, I would refer up above – information in press releases may change over time as we get closer to the event. In addition, I refer you to here in regards to Batman: Mask of the Phantasm .

In any case, while I disagree with the edits that Jvsett made and would prefer them to be mostly reverted back, …[W[e need to consider the intent of the various film listings and make the BEST singular listing possible. The one that is least confusing to the casual observer. Joe Public does not differentiate between Walt Disney Animated Classics and other releases - they just know that it is the (47th, 51st, 102nd) Disney animated feature to be released. If we're having difficulty keeping a list in order, why is it Joe Public has figured out a way to keep it straight in their head?

And this most is the most important point. Your preferences, nor more than mine, are relevant. What is relevant is the purpose of Wikipedia: to provide information that is verifiable and accurate. It is so Joe Public can rely on what he reads on Wikipedia as being accurate – or at least accurate as possible.

It is verifiable that Disney explicitly separates its WDAS movies between Classics and non-Classics. No one has cited any sources that suggest that Disney does not explicitly do this. We have both a definition and a list of the Disney Classics.

Continued reliance on the original template continues to draw debate. Comments on why certain WDAS animation / live are / are not on the current template under WDAS do not appear to be supported by reliable sources, but personal opinion on why certain films were exclude by the WDAS’s “Disney Animated Features” list and others are included. Without those verifiable sources, these statements are personal opinions, and therefore inappropriate. What is not personal opinion is how Disney separates its WDAS’s films (between Classics and non-Classics); and that is verified.

As to Elikrotupos's additional comments, and Kasper2006's comments, I believe the above statements cover same.

We should avoid sacrificing accuracy and complete information on the alter of convenience and what was the status quo. Until there are verifiable sources to support a template that combinds the WDAS's Classic and non-Classics films into one list, the template should reflect distinctions between the different types of WDAS’s films. If any reason exists that this should not be the case, please provide same with your source.

Jvsett (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

---

I'm glad that while you and I disagree on the overall content direction, we do agree (as you stated towards the end of your above entry) that there is some need for proper overall cleanup. Let's try to work together to clean things up in parts.

• You seem intent on keeping the film numbering. Obviously, there is debate as to what film qualifies as #xx vs #yy in terms of WDAS releases (Dinosaur being the primary one). Would dropping the numbering entirely serve any purpose?
• Would making the list based NOT on the term "Classics" but rather by who produced the film ("WDAS") make sense for the main list, espesically considering that the other producers (Pixar, Studio Ghibli, DisneyToon) are broken out to their own sections? To mix-and-match the main one doesn't make sense when looked at in that way. SpikeJones (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What to call these films?

Conversation moved to WP:WikiProject Disney/Animated Film Article Cleanup.

Discussion Regarding Disney Film List Clean-Up

For discussions regarding the over-arching clean-up of the various Disney animated film lists, please see this WikiProjects page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Disney/Animated Film Article Cleanup. Please add any discussion regarding same there for the time being. Thank you. Jvsett (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Disney theatrical animated features" box rewrite

Hey, i think you're the right guy to talk to about this

I suggest that the "Disney theatrical animated features" footer box should be organised much the same as the box used for "X Factor (UK)" or *Big Brother (UK)":

• Organsised by decade i.e. 1960-1969, 1970 - 1979
• Films yet to be released are in italics, including the release year
• I realise this is now a very long list, but for being such a comprehensive piece of data spawning 9 decades, it is to be expected
• The layout is much easier on the yeys and much more professional looking, and easy to search through
• Minimal editing from this is now needed, to remove errounious  · 's and creating spaces where additional  · 's are

I beleive the footer box shoud look similar to this:

Not a fan. Seems overly complicated to include the dates in two places. Others may have different opinions. SpikeJones (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, but limited to the first section, and using shorter labels, like "30s", "40s", etc... --Elikrotupos (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for feedback. I did not expect this to be a finished product. more a work in progress with tweeking definately needed., i did it at 3am anyway :P i just copied any information already present to the new layout, and also considered Elikrotupos' idea, but realised for the second box it was needed, and then though, i may ass well keep going. for the other boxes, the time period could be longer. Just an idea :) however compared to the current layout it i don't belive it is more complicated than that :) KevGrif (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Another idea :)

why not simply have it sorted by date?

KevGrif (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL, absolutely not. The classification and diversification of Disney's productions is fundamental. --Elikrotupos (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes if anything can be agreed upon by editors here it's that the lists must be divided.. What goes in what section is another question entirely.

Either of the last two formats you've tried wouldn't be a bad idea if the list only contained productions by one studio, such as just WDAS, or just Pixar etc. SWatsi (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What you need to do is provide specific issues that you are trying to resolve by modifying the template. Perhaps, after you have done so and reviewed comments on those issues, the rewrite requirements will become a bit more obvious. SpikeJones (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to expand on the idea that SWatsi mentioned ... I think there should be a separate Walt Disney Animated Classics template, a DisneyToon Studios template, a Pixar template (which actually already exists, so a new one isn't warranted), etc. Each of these templates should, in turn, link to the other studios' articles ... i.e., the WDAC template would have links to the articles for Pixar, DisneyToon, etc., but not list their respective films in the template.

To me, the current template is a bit too unwieldy, but I agree that Disney's diverse animation catalog needs to be reinforced. Hence, having each template connect to the other studios. What does the community think?

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I've thought that for a while, but it will be difficult. Not only for people to agree on any actions, but there are various films that don't really have a proper category. Hense the catch-all groupings such as "live-action films with animation" and simply 'other' nether actually mean an awful lot. SWatsi (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the other categories actually work, but they should have their own templates. If it were me, I'd have templates for: Walt Disney Animated Classics; DisneyToon Studios theatrical releases; Walt Disney Pictures live-action films with animation; Pixar Animation Studios releases (again, Pixar already has a good template); and, Animated features distributed by the Walt Disney Company. The last line on each of these should link to the other parent articles (ergo, the other templates). --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the template should be split for minor studios, they don't deserve such highlight. We're talking about few films, and anyway they're most known under the label "Disney". One template is enough and provide enough informations.--Elikrotupos (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Prep & Landing

There is a new project listed at Walt Disney Animation Studios' official site - http://www.disneyanimation.com/projects/prep/ Should we add this in? I don't believe a press release has been given out yet, so perhaps we should wait until then. Thoughts? - Cartoon Boy (talk) 9:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Make a page for Prep & Landing, and add what you know including approprite citations. The problem is you don't know if it is a feature or a short at this time, so you won't know where to link it TO. SpikeJones (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's being advertised as a Christmas special for the ABC in the US. It's listed on the List of Disney shorts as with other featurettes. Could do with solid references though to prove the info given at Comic-Con. SWatsi (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's an ABC Xmas special, then it certainly is not a "theatrical animated feature". SpikeJones (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, this should be continued on the shorts page. SWatsi (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

ImageMovers Digital

I think A Christmas Carol should be moved out of the 'other' section and an 'ImageMovers Digital' section should be created, since they are owned by Disney and will be releasing a number of animated/mo-cap features under the Disney label in the future, such as Mars Needs Moms! and Yellow Submarine. --Krevans (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Snow Queen?

Hey why have I been hearing news about The Snow Queen becoming a new Disney musical? There are like a dozen sites that have referenced that Disney has confirmed it and it is coming out in 2012. Not saying it's official but can someone please find out more about this? Colt Smith 6892 (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe Peter del Vecho and Don Hahn confirmed Disney is working on The Snow Queen, but they were sketchy about the release.[16][17] It is either 2012 or 2013, probably 2013 to be on the safe side. ChaosquodOrdo (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Addition of The Snow Queen (2013)

Hello, I was wondering if it will be possible to add The Snow Queen to the Disney theatrical animated features list. As I have referenced above the movie has been confirmed by producers, Peter del Vecho and Don Hahn, and composer, Alan Menken. I was hoping it would be added since King of the Elves is on the list as well, thank you for your consideration. ChaosquodOrdo (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

To answer your questions, both here and in the previous subheading ... the sources provided for The Snow Queen have appeared in self-published blogs, and the one potentially-reasonable source even said it got its information "through the grapevine." Neither of these are considered reliable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. King of the Elves, however, was mentioned in a Disney press release that was carried in Variety and other trade publications. So, at this time, The Snow Queen doesn't belong in the template. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. I agree that right now the news that The Snow Queen will be made is "through the grapevine" information. So I guess it's safe to say if it's announced on the official Walt Disney Animation Studio's website then it will be added, correct? ChaosquodOrdo (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be one potential source, yes. Others would be the aforementioned press release carried by a newspaper or trade publication. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, a news article from the LA Times has confirmed that Disney was in fact working on an animated adaptation of The Snow Queen. But the same article states the film has been shelved as well.[18] Oh, such a shame it is. Yet, another source (the TAG Blog not reliable) states John Lasseter may work on the project again in the near-future. ChaosquodOrdo (talk) 06:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"Other" section

I think we can get rid of that section. They have little to do with Disney's animated classics. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Films with Talking Animals

Why is this section in this template? Half of Disney's movies have talking animals in them. Jashack (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.197.90.0, 1 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

98.197.90.0 (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.Spitfire19 (Talk) 16:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Could somebody please change the link to Aladdin? Right now it links to Aladdin (Disney film) when it should link to Aladdin (1992 Disney film). It's not a huge deal, but the way it is now, it links to a redirect. Thanks. 207.32.33.19 (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Reboot Ralph, King of the Elves, and Mort!

Here to discuss the possible future of these features being added to the canon. Not saying they should be as two are still in development. (King of the Elves, Mort) Just here to discuss about them. 66.19.119.69 (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Who Framed Roger Rabbit

I think the film "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" should be included.--ToonsFan (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I moderately agree. During a clean-up, Roger Rabbit was taken out for a reason (not sure why though). The section labeled Walt Disney Pictures films with animation should be renamed to something along the lines of Disney live-action films with traditional animation, because not all Walt Disney Animation Studios animated films have been released under the Disney banner, such as the case of Roger Rabbit. This is according to the text in the lead paragraph of List of Disney theatrical animated features. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Added Eras

I've added the different eras that animation historians tend to use when describing the canon - I feel it's made the navbox a lot cleaner and easier to parse. If anyone objects to this or has suggestions for changes, please add them here. Werothegreat (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2014

The addition of a Pixar Animation Studios film list, if wouldn't be too much hassle, please. 77.97.110.60 (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: One already exists, and since they are separate studios there doesn't appear to be any desire to combine them. --McDoobAU93 01:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2015

This template's initial visibility currently defaults to autocollapse, meaning that if there is another collapsible item on the page (a navbox, sidebar, or table with the collapsible attribute), it is hidden apart from its title bar; if not, it is fully visible.

To change this template's initial visibility, the |state= parameter may be used:

• {{Disney theatrical animated features|state=collapsed}} will show the template collapsed, i.e. hidden apart from its title bar.
• {{Disney theatrical animated features|state=expanded}} will show the template expanded, i.e. fully visible.

τ Theatrical animated features Disney theatrical animated features/Archive 1

2.102.191.147 (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2015

This template's initial visibility currently defaults to autocollapse, meaning that if there is another collapsible item on the page (a navbox, sidebar, or table with the collapsible attribute), it is hidden apart from its title bar; if not, it is fully visible.

To change this template's initial visibility, the |state= parameter may be used:

• {{Disney theatrical animated features|state=collapsed}} will show the template collapsed, i.e. hidden apart from its title bar.
• {{Disney theatrical animated features|state=expanded}} will show the template expanded, i.e. fully visible.

τ Theatrical animated features Disney theatrical animated features/Archive 1

2.102.191.147 (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Strange magic

Strange magic was made by lucasfilm and distributed by touchstone pictures. It is a disney film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funman87 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2016

Once Upon a Time (TV series) 76.88.107.122 (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Edit request is not substantial or clear. Also, that is a TV series that does not belong in this template.  — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 04:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Should this be deleted?

If it really is against Wikipedia to sort films by studio, (example: Universal Pictures Science Fiction) then why does this template exist? There seems to be a serious inconsistency here. Maybe it's sour grapes, because the template I created was deleted, but the only reason given for deleting UPSF was because it was not a practice to to sort out films by studio. What gives? Inkwell765 (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)