Talk:The Lion King/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Shopping and Fucking?

• Mark Ravenhill's controversial play Shopping and Fucking refers to The Lion King, albeit not by name, in one scene in which the characters are discussing mythology.

To be honest, I'm not offended by this bit of trivia, but is it really so important as to warrant inclusion? My guess is that a lot of different things have referred to the Lion King, surely we can't (or don't want to) get them all in the article? El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 09:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I could come up with a list of TLK references as long as your arm but very few warrant mention. If we included every obscure little thing the Trivia section would be an article in itself. Blue Phoenix 21:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see why this is removed, yet references in Dr Who, The Office, Home Improvement and The Simpsons are deemed worthy of inclusion. Shopping and Fucking is not an "obscure little thing", it is a very significant piece of theatre which has had a major impact on drama as a whole, being one of the plays that began the "in-yer-face" movement. The reference is thematically important within the play. Therefore, I would argue that this is far more worthy of inclusion than one brief throwaway joke in one episode of a sitcom.HonestTom 12:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Animal Behaviour

The inter-species relationships seem to differ in different scenes. For instance in the opening scene all of the animals bow down to Simba et al and treat the lions as they would a royal family with respect and awe. However Timon's relationship with lions is much closer to real animals where he essentially gets terrified and runs as fast as he can. Timon actually points out the shift between these two realtionships when they are introduced to Nala; and notably Pumbaa is pleased to meet her when she had been trying to eat him moments earlier. Timon's comical observation was probably to show that the writers were conscious of these transitions.

Incidentally, (just so I dont have to bring about a new subject), Timon makes a mistake which is repeated in Lion King 1½ where he refers to his feelings about "carnivores". This is strange because in the Hakuna Matata scene he proves himself to be carnivorous by eating grubs and insects. He most likely meant to say "predators" which prey on other animals. In Lion King 1½ it was most likely a reference to the first film which was placed regardless of inaccuracy.

85.138.88.136 04:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Then again, let us remember that this film features animals that talk. I don't think they were going to incredible accuracy. Otherwise, why would prey bow down to their predator? Michaelritchie200 08:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Character Section

I noticed in the FA nomination that someone suggested putting the character section into summary form. I think it's a good idea. I'd be glad to do it, unless there are any objections? Kochdude388 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• While some featured movie articles, such as this have similar character sections such as the current one, I don't think it would hurt to try a different style. Go ahead. PlatformerMastah 00:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary

How long should the plot summary be? Currently, I think it's at a good length; is the notice still necessary? PlatformerMastah 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Impact on popular culture

I believe that the impact on popular culture section is getting a bit too hefty and unnecessary. My question is, should there be a separate article called The Lion King in popular culture? PlatformerMastah 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the article. Please help add to it! PlatformerMastah 05:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro

I would switch the order of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. Shouldn't the production info come before the mention of the controversy? -- Ssilvers 05:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Racism Controversy

My flatmate came back after a lecture about racism yesterday and said that her lecturer had claimed this film (The Lion King) was racist, showing the lions as white and the hyenas as black. Basically, being racist and saying black people are evil - something we certainly do not agree with. We didn't buy this theory but is it worth a mention?

Why the theory doesn't work...

• The hyenas (black) are led by a lion (white).
• In the stage show, the lions are played by black actors and the hyenas by white.
• The lecturer apparently also pointed out that Whoopi Goldberg voices one of the hyenas and therefore they have "black voices". The other two hyenas, though, are voice by white people. Goldberg wasn't even the first choice for the voice. And are we forgetting here that James Earl Jones did the voice of Mufasa?

And, finally,

• They are all animals. In Africa. Surely, if human, they would all be black?

Don't really know if any of this is worth mentioning in the article. Michaelritchie200 08:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's all original research.WikiNew 16:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, whereas:

• The article is on the movie, and does not regard the stage show, unless the article is comparing and contrasting the two.
• It's original research.
• Why would Disney make a movie about Africa if they were being racist?

Wpktsfs 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Lion King IV?

Back in about January or February of this year, there was an article about an upcomming film known as "The Lion King IV", but it was deleted why was that?, and this article also said a tralier for this film was slated to debut with Meet the Robinsons, i didn't se Meet the Robinsons, would anyone who did see it please tell me if a tralier for the Lion King IV appeared?

Please sign your comments with ~~~~. The Lion King IV was confirmed to be a hoax. It was created by someone at a forum I frequent who admitted as much. Blue Phoenix 10:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Lion King IV?

Back in about January or February of this year there was an article for a so called upcoming film The Lion King IV, can anyone tell me if this film is real or a hoax?

Lion King Wiki

I think we should remove the link for the Lion King Wiki. Although it is potentially a good external link, there really isn't much information there (there isn't even an article on Mufasa). Do you agree?Ccm043 16:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Not a reliable source or appropriate under WP:EL. Removed. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

sega genesis game anyone want a picture?

I can get a picture of the game cartridge for sure, I am unsure if I have the case itself but if I do I will include that in the pic. I do not know how to include pictures but I will figure that out. 70.49.252.14 17:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Third most successful, or fourth?

The article states this:

"It held the record for the most successful animated feature film in history until that record was broken by the computer animated Finding Nemo in 2003. Since Shrek 2 surpassed Nemo's gross in 2004, it now ranks third, still remaining the highest-grossing film using traditional animation. When adjusted for inflation, it is the fourth top-grossing animated film (below Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, One Hundred and One Dalmatians and Fantasia). It also holds the top spot in highest theater average gross in history."

Is that now fourth, after the recent release of Shrek the Third? I heard that broke Shrek 2's record. --Demonesque 06:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just guessing, but Shrek the Third probably broke the opening weekend receipts, not total receipts. While that record might also be broken after a few weeks, I doubt if has already. --Mwalimu59 18:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Jungle Emperor Leo

The following statement was recently added by User:86.140.37.36, who added a similar statement to Kimba the White Lion:

When the 1997 version of the movie Jungle Emperor Leo, the sequal to the Jungle Emperor/Kimba the White Lion series, was dubbed in America, Disney prevented the movie from being screened in cinemas.

Can anyone confirm this? If not, it should probably be removed from both articles. --Mwalimu59 18:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted the statements from both articles. If anyone wishes to dispute the removal and can cite reputable sources, feel free to discuss here and/or add them back with citations. --Mwalimu59 21:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct voice actor

Robert Guillaume ... Rafiki the Mandrill (voice) according to IMDB --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 19:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Roy Disney allegedly saying Kimba

Check http://cubsimba.lionking.org/lionking.pdf This proves that Disney referred to the protagonist as 'Simba' as early as 1993, the same year that Roy Disney allegedly called him 'Kimba' in a text transcript of an interview that could have easily been faked by some of these Kimba fanatics.

Can we dispense with Black-Helicopter theories? Lighthope 21:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Heresay used as source?

In regards to the following statement under "Controversies: Story Origin":

"Despite the resemblances between the film and the series, neither Disney nor the family of Osamu Tezuka, Kimba's creator, has filed a lawsuit. In fact, when the staff of Tezuka Productions viewed a preview of the Lion King they saw no need to file suit. "If the Disney Co. had gotten a hint from 'The Jungle Emperor,' Osamu Tezuka, a founder of our company, would have been pleased," said president Takayuki Matsutani, "And, we feel the same way, rather than making a claim."[26]"

The footnote references http://www.lionking.org/faq.html#tezuka as its source. However, a read of that website states the following:

"Following is some information brought to my attention, once again, by Matt, which sheds some light on the respective attitudes of the Tezuka and Disney Companies, as well as the storyline of JE."

It then goes on to quote the above alleged statement by Tezuka productions.

The question is, who is this "Matt" person? According to the website, he is named as Matt Robinson, yet his credentials are never listed as far as I can see. And the information is passed from "Matt" to the website writer.

My problem is we have a statement that is held out as coming from Tezuka productions, yet there is no source other than "Matt" whose credentials and reliability are unknown.

Now, I could be completely wrong. I'm just saying that I was unable to find any information on this alleged source from the website. Mayhaps I missed it.

However, based on the above, I question the appropriateness of the statement in the Wiki. Unless someone can verify "Matt Robinson" as an accurate source, I propose the deletion of the above passage from the Wiki.

Lighthope 22:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Adaptation" section

Any opinions about the necessity of this section? Besides a comic, The Lion King also has countless storybook adaptations and a novelization. Are these worth noting? Chris1219 03:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, in my opinion. I was a "Lion King" fan for a few years and would consider some of the fan works that are unlikely to pass muster as notable to be more noteworthy than the comic adaptation. --Mwalimu59 07:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

They aren't notable, but they aren't against the rules either. Plus, plenty of other sites include adaptation when available. So, why is this any different? 71.120.233.114 10:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Article name change

I noticed that the name of the article was changed from The Lion King to The Lion King (1994 film). Is this necessary? To my knowledge, there were no other films called simply The Lion King, before or after this particular one. PlatformerMastah 15:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

According to IMDB, there is no other movie called that. I have no clue why someone changed the article. It needs to be changed back. Lighthope 17:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved the page back to its original name. If anyone has a problem, please let me know. PlatformerMastah 18:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The person who made the name change, Shanegamer13, also made similar name changes to the articles for Fantasia, Mulan, and Aladdin. Should those be changed back as well? --Mwalimu59 21:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any other movies called Aladdin, but certainly there aren't any called Fantasia or Mulan. And Disney's Aladdin is well known enough that, if there are other same-name movies, they should be part of a disambiguation rather than shunting Disney's version to a harder-to-find page. 21:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the renames. The person who did it apparently thought that since several other Disney animated films had titles of that form these should as well. In actuality they only did because in those cases it was necessary to disambiguate them from other films of the same name and/or other uses of the term. --Mwalimu59 21:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

foreign voice actors list?

I recently found a site that listed the voice actors of the foreign versions of the lion king. Should a new page be created for the list of voice actors? Or is there a suitable place for the names to be added? 222.154.113.16 09:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Typo; Correct?

Would everybody be okay if I corrected this typo: "Mufasa was the first major Disney character that dies on screen. (The first major Disney character to die was Bambi's mother.)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwikiwakoo (talk • contribs) 21:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Bambi's mother did not die on screen. So the statement is indeed correct. Lighthope 02:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the first major Disney character to die was actually the Wicked Stepmother in Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. And in fact we never actually saw Mufasa splat on the ground, so he really didn't "die" on screen, either. So maybe the statement that "Mufasa was the first major Disney character that dies on screen." should be removed. Lighthope 02:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lion King/Kimba Controversey

"Despite the resemblances between the film and the series, neither Disney nor the family of Osamu Tezuka, Kimba's creator, has filed a lawsuit."

Why would Disney file a law suit? If The Lion King were plagarized off Kimba the White Lion, they would have no grounds for a law suit since Kimba was created nearly forty years before The Lion King. Only the family of Osamu Tezuka would have grounds to sue. -- Redfarmer (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

merge in

So I was "random article"-ing looking for an example of something, anyway thought I would propose a merge in from Pride Lands (The Lion King). Don't care for this topic area myself. User A1 (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

*cough* subliminal messages *cough*

What happened to the subliminal messages controversy?

Maybe someone should add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.227.152 (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Good question. It was blanked several days ago by 70.52.44.187 (talk · contribs) without explanation. I just put it back in. If anyone thinks it should stay out, please discuss it here first. That's what talk pages are for. ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 05:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The Lion Sleeps Tonight

Why isn't The Lion Sleeps Tonight listed under songs? LieAfterLie (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Because it's listed under controversies. ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 21:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The Platinum DVD release

The DVD was critizized for not having the original 1994 version but I found that verson on the DVD last night. So I don't know what to put in the article. HELP!!!!--Hornetman16 16:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not the original 1994 version. Scenery has been redone (the waterfalls in Can You Feel the Love Tonight and the clouds around Mufasa's ghost) and the crocodiles in I Just Can't Wait to Be King were re-animated. Also, as Scar watches Mufasa, Simba, Nala and Zazu leave the Elephant Graveyard, he moves his head when in the original 1994 version he remained still. Even if you watch the film without Morning Report in it it's still the edited version. Blue Phoenix 23:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, I have the original video tape. Kochdude388 22:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a set of beautiful trading cards (from the 1994 version), which in some cases brings up some of the dialogue. Often it doesn't appear in the DVD edition. In fact, the only change I noticed is that "The Morning Report" was removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yoda921 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Inspiration for the story

Obviously The Lion King takes elements from Kimba the White Lion and Hamlet, but another story that the Lion King takes ideas from is from the real story of the Mali king Sundiata Keita. Shouldn't this be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.215.227 (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you find any sources that makes this claim? Ccm043 (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Simba & Nala siblings?

Isn't Nala Simba's step sister? Mufasa seems to be only male lion (besides Scar). And even in real life only alfa-male can mate with all the females. 85.194.227.229 (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The question of Nala's paternity has been discussed at length in TLK fan communities and no firm conclusions could be drawn. The story has other deviations from real life lion behavior that render any assumptions based on it questionable when applied in this context. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the question "Who is Nala's father?" was asked by Brian Tiemann at the 10th anniversary Lion King cast and crew reunion in 2004, and the answer was Rob Minkoff (and, after some laughter, the actual answer was that the writers never gave it enough thought) --Cubbi (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I like to think that Nala's father was scar, at least in that case simba and nala would be cousins instead of brother and sister...So inappropriate (but, lets just allow our minds to wander free) excluding the sequals and pretending they never existed ( I never watch a disney sequel anyway) whose to say simaba had a cub with nala? it could be another lioness at the end of the movie and their tender moments earlier in the film were nothing more than being close friends..Or we just have to accept inbredding occurs in the wild...Maybe we could put this as a controversy?? Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically Scar never mated throughout the film series. Kovu I am certain is NOT his son. Despite their visual similarities, Scar chose Kovu to lead the outcast pride after he was gone. He never mated with Zira. I can't remember where I read this, but support being that Zira always referred to Scar in front of Kovu by his name. Not by your father, or something like that. A Prodigy ^(t•c•m) 18:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Farted

This was the missing word in 'Hakuna Matada', just in case you were wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.93.136 (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

nO DUH, BRAINIAC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.238.34 (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

terrorism

you shouldn`t consider Hamas as a terrorist organization because the main article about Hamas didn`t mention this . we should keep this article neutral . added by Peaceful90 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review bot analysis

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 70mm, use 70 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 70 mm.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• The script has spotted the following contractions: doesn't, doesn't, won't, wasn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR _t 02:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit - a couple of questions

First, in the Plot section, 2nd paragraph, what is meant by "fooling Zazu along the way"? Did Simba have to sneak past Zazu to leave the Pride Lands?

Also, I'm not sure if this has come up yet, but the Plot section is long. According to the style guidelines, 400-700 words is preferable, 900 is the absolute maximum (and that is only for plots that are unusually long and complicated). According to Google Docs' counter, even after my cuts the Plot section is more than 1150 words. I'd be happy to tackle the job of shrinking, but I definitely want to get some general consensus here first. --AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 15:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the "I just can't wait to be king" song was where Simba and Nala eluded Zazu. Zazu was supposed to babysit them however, when the song was over, Simba and Nala had already escaped his supervision. Zazu is seen and heard calling for them at the end of the song. Hope that helps.

I agree the plot could be trimmed, anything not important to the main story arch could go. DrNegative (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

To add to what Dr Negative said, at the end of the song "I can't wait to be king" Zazu gets trapped under a rhinoceros (and tries to call for the rhinoceros to get off and for Nala and Simba) but Nala and Simba had already got away. Zazu later catches up with the pair after they have entered the elephant graveyard; it is not shown how Zazu managed to get away from the rhinoceros. The plot section does not need to mention all of this, but could be a little clearer. I agree that this section should certainly be cut down, 9 paragraphs is quite long for the plot and one section and there are certainly some things which can go. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you, that makes it much clearer. Camaron, please, if anything in the Plot section strikes you particularly as unnecessary, take it out. Every little bit helps. --AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 14:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. There is nothing absolutely obvious that needs to go, but areas can be trimmed. I have reduced the plot section to about 860 words and six paragraphs - further cuts are possible. I have done this by removing unnecessary scene details and description. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The plot section looks much better now, great job guys. DrNegative (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I notice some major updates going on here. I'll wait a couple of days before I continue with the copyedit. No point in a lot of wasted efforts. The article is really looking better all the time. --AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 18:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Credits

Do we really need that many credits on this page? Is this IMDB or what? Is there any kind of Wikipedia policy on this? Hondo77 (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I a have looked through random selections at Category:FA-Class film articles and not one of them has a list of all the artistes like that, and I think long lists without context do not add very much to the article. The main artists/cast are already mentioned in the info box and other sections so that should not be necessary. The most relevant guideline I have found on the issue is at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people which suggests that in such lists in articles, as an exception to WP:NNC, people included must be notable, which I am doubt everyone in the current list is. Camaron | Chris (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Images

Just as a note, I have cleaned up some image pages relating to this article and added fair use rationales for all uses as required by WP:NFC. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hamas?

Didn't HAMAS hijack characters from this film after the controversy that led to the "martyrdom" of Farfur (HAMAS' earlier Mickey Mouse knockoff)? WAVY 10 20:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes they did. source. It's also mentioned here in the Hamas article. Should it be in this article? ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 15:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a section, using that source. ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 16:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this section needs to be rephrased. The lion in the animation looks nothing remotely like any of the characters from the Lion King--the Reuters article is using it, at least in my opinion, for the sake a good story. If anything, the lion looks more like one of the characters from Pride of Baghdad. Sticking an "allegedly" in there would be more accurate. The piece can be viewed here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=MyL14OvsmYw&feature=related 172.195.103.36 (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I did that and added a ref from the Tomorrow's Pioneers article that I thought was a bit better. Any good? ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 06:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god they're using music from Lords of the Realm 2 in it as well xD hilarious Berry2K (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone recently removed this section from the Controversies section and put it under its own heading. Should it go back? ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 01:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No one opposed so I moved it back under controversies. ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 02:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing looks exactly like the male lions from The Lion King. I don't really think its that noteworthy, though, as it was removed in a just a few days. But it was certainly a lion king ripoff. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit?

I'm not sure what the status is on this article. I was asked to do a copyedit, but then it was immediately put up for FA review. Do the primary editors here still want the copyedit? --AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 17:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a copyedit would now be in order - The large majority of the information in the article is written but questions have been raised about the quality of the prose. Go ahead with a copyedit as you please. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, in my opinion the article has plenty of information now in each section. The prose is its major weakness. I personally will not add anything else other than references and citations if needed. DrNegative (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, glad to see the article shaping up so nicely. --AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 01:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Circle of Life & Jungle vs. Desert

In the plot section, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, mention is made of the Circle of Life. It was initial-capped, without quotation marks, as I just gave it here. It seems to me that either the phrase is being used as a common English phrase, in which case it should be given in lower case, or it's being used as a reference to the film's song, in which case it needs quotation marks. I just edited it and added quotation marks, but if you think that isn't correct go ahead and take them out. Just make sure to put it in lower case if you do.

Also ... In the lead section, Simba's location of exile is referred to as a "far-off jungle", yet in the plot section, not only is the word "jungle" never used, but it specifically says that Simba awakens in a "desert" (pretty much the opposite of a jungle). That's a little confusing. Can we remove the mention of the desert, and/or include the word "jungle" somewhere in the plot section about Simba's exile?

Oh, and I hope nobody minds that I added a phrase to the end of the plot section: "as the "Circle of Life" continues". I normally don't do that, but it seemed appropriate, particularly since I believe I read here that the song is reprised at the end. --AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 14:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I had capitalized "Circle of Life" because it was Circle of Life. I was kind of uneasy about doing that so either way works for me. As for as the "Circle of Life" continues, my problem with it is that anything that lengthens the plot summary is suspect to me. Hondo77 (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to give an ending to the Plot section, particularly something that ended the way the movie did. I'll see if I can cut 6 words out somewhere else. (As a matter of fact, I think I may already have done so. I'll check.) --AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 21:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Grab-bag of small copyedit issues

A few things I've come across...

• Home video, p. 1: The last sentence has multiple footnotes, 2 of which are not, as is preferred in the MoS, just after punctuation of some kind. I think this way is preferable to tacking them all to the end, but be prepared to move them for an FA reviewer.
  • p. 4: I removed the mention of Amazon. The info is still in the reference, but I thought a direct mention in the article sounds very much like an advertisement.
• Story origin, p. 1: The first sentence says this is Disney's first animated feature that's an original story. Shouldn't this have a reference?
  • p. 1: The quote in the last sentence should go. It's been reduced to 2 words on either side of an ellipsis and it still isn't a grammatical sentence. We could easily just make the point ourselves, with the reference to show they actually said it.
• Popular culture, p. 2: What does the Nemean Lion have to do with this film? This should either be explained or deleted. And the Gargoyled material: Is this a TV show? (I italicized it.) Is "Gargoyle Hudson" the correct name? Why is "Television" capitalized?
• Sequels, p. 3: "Several" characters? How about "Many"?
• Video games, p. 3: same as above (several vs. many)

I should get done a final proofing tomorrow. --AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 20:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have removed the quote from the Story origin section and changed the two occurrences of "several". I've given the article a last, quick proofread and can't find anything (other than what's been mentioned above). Whenever you decide to take the article to another FA nomination, I'll be glad to stand by for any changes that are in my area (fixing sentence structure they object to, and so on). --AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 20:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work. Hondo77 (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks again. DrNegative (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well, the article is looking better all the time. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Boy that committed suicide?

I remember a story from back when the "Lion King" was brand new, of a kid that killed himself so that he would come back as Simba. If I recall correctly, he jumped out of a window. I remember reading it online and in the newspapers. But googling after it all I find is this mention on the KMC Forums. http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f74/t321958.html

True? Hoax? Urban legend? Why is there no mention of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.146.156.80 (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are necessary. A forum is not verifiable and cannot be used. Useight (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that. I am asking why is there NO INFORMATION about the incident at all. Reliable or not.
No "There was a rumor blah-blah that was proven false" or "There was a rumor" or even "There was...".

Was it really just completely forgotten, or was it systematically erased?
Urban legend or real - someone once claimed that a kid killed himself because of this cartoon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.146.147.70 (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

UPS! Sorry.
Apparently not THAT hard to find.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19960411/ai_n14049131

Boy hanged himself `to become a Lion King' Independent, The (London), Apr 11, 1996

A schoolboy fascinated with the Disney film The Lion King was found hanged with a note saying he wanted the video to be buried with him.

Imtiaz Ahmed, 14, hanged himself from a tree with a clothes line in a park near his home in Shelton, Stoke-on-Trent, an inquest was told yesterday. Police found a signed handwritten note in his pocket which was read out by the North Staffordshire coroner, Edwin Wain, at Newcastle-under-Lyme.

It said: "I'm going to die because I want to be a Lion King. Mum and Dad, please put The Lion King film in my grave with me please. I killed myself because I wanted to become a Lion King. Goodbye, Mum and Dad, brothers and sisters, goodbye forever." The court heard how police also recovered a pocket personal organiser from the boy's body, which was found on 12 November. Entries included: "I what {sic} to die, Allah. Let me die, Allah, please." Recording an open verdict, the coroner said the case had caused him "a great deal of personal heartache and trouble as to what to make of it". He said he had watched the 84-minute video four times. He said: "I ask myself `was that his wish?' or `was his wish to actually bring about a metamorphosis, a physical change or rebirth, so that he was still Imtiaz Ahmed and the Lion King?'." He added: "The film treats death very delicately and not with harsh reality. I take the view that a watching child could take the view that Simba's father did not really die. I have no doubt from the evidence that Imtiaz was totally obsessed by The Lion King and I think he fantasised secretly about it." The court had been told by Imtiaz's father, Manzoor Ahmed, that his son, the fourth eldest of six children, was a happy child who had many friends. He said afterwards: "I don't accept this open verdict. Imtiaz would never do anything like that. If he had a problem he would tell me."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.146.147.70 (talk • contribs) 04:05, September 1, 2008

Semi-Protect request

The article, notably the plot, just got "butchered" by a huge amount of edits from un-registered users. I would like to request that an admin semi-protect this article and that the edits be reverted to the previous edits as far as the plot is concerned. Many editors and myself went through an exstensive re-write and copy-edit during the previous peer and FAC review and it has all been undone. Im getting edit conflicts when I try to undo some of them. Could someone take a look at it and help me. Thanks. DrNegative (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Dunno about the semi-protect but I went ahead and reverted to the last good version of the plot section (and by all means feel free to check that I took it back to the correct version). It appears that someone wrote their own rather amateurish version of the plot from scratch and did a wholesale replacement of the much more refined version that you and others had helped develop. The main culprit appears to be User:71.60.46.21, whom it appears has also made recent edits to other Lion King-related articles (some of which had been top until I reverted them moments ago. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. DrNegative (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to request semi-protection I would recommend going to WP:RFPP and making a request there. I am an admin myself but I cannot protect the page as I am not using my admin account at present and I would rather leave it to an independent admin to decide. I will try and keep a better eye on the page for inappropriate edits as it has got bad recently. Camaron2 | Chris (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

One user with a variable IP address from the same ISP keeps reverting multiple users by replacing the FA candidate made plot section with what appears to be a personally written version. I have given the user a 3RR warning and encouraged him/her to discuss the proposed changes here. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just done two reverts in the space of a few minutes. Given that the user in question seems to have a constantly changing IP address it's quite possible the 3RR warnings aren't even being seen. I believe at this point, requesting a semi-protect is justified. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The page has now been protected, which seems fair enough at present. If the user does have good intentions hopefully s/he will come and discuss the proposed changes here. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys, just for the record, I'm a true believer of free-editing by all users. I do hate the "catch-22" of having to block everyone by stopping the culprit(s). I just wish editors would talk here first about changes of that magnitude. DrNegative (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer-review

This article is well on its way to another FAC nomination. Is there any objection to another Peer Review before attempting it again? DrNegative (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation and verifiability maintenance templates?

This article is tagged as being in Category:Citation and verifiability maintenance templates.

1. I cannot figure out why
2. I cannot seem to remove this category listing from the page.

Is there a reason why this article itself is considered a template? If this is a mistake, is there a reason why I can't see that category in the edit window, and how would one go about fixing this? Thanks. -Sketchmoose (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A couple of the recent edits to the "Impact on popular culture" section have {{fact}} tags on them - that's probably where the category is coming from. Both appear to be the sort of cultural references that have been discouraged lately in Wikipedia and probably should be reworked into the prose above it, if not removed altogether. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Should they be removed? Also, the Hamas reference in "Controversies" doesnt feel note-worthy as well. Does anyone else have an opinion as to whether or not it should stay? DrNegative (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well the sources for the Hamas stuff seem to be meet WP:RS, so I have no problem in keeping it. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. DrKiernan (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

North Korean animation?

This looks like it's probably worth integrating in to the article in some fashion. - RiotGearEpsilon http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/IC14Dg03.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.244.6.168 (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the Finnish Wikipedia article about The Lion King, but not in Estonian, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian (bokmål), German and Dutch Wikis. I think it really needs verification. Harjasusi (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I don't know where the copyright violation come from, it could well have been there for very long time as it is many many edits back since I reviewed the articles sourcing and I might well just not have noticed, WikiBlame does not seem to want to tell me anything on the source. In any case it is probably just best if the offending text is deleted and re-written in editors own words, it is unlikely the text is going to come out as being in the public domain or on an appropriate licence. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Come on, it doesn't take too much effort to find these things out... I just spent a couple minutes perusing the history and found that the copyvio came from edits by User:DrNegative and were added August 12, 2008. BuddingJournalist 19:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

To the admin looking into the case, three edits I found (there may be more around that time frame) are: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Lion_King&diff=231418342&oldid=231417478, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Lion_King&diff=231413859&oldid=231364045, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Lion_King&diff=231414867&oldid=231413859. BuddingJournalist 20:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not investigating this as an admin, I have edited this article too much previously to do that, that revision is from about 500 edits back, though thank you for finding it for me. I have looked at the evidence and it appears that similar wording to sources was used but it was not, always at least, pure cut and paste, though the wording is so similar that it probably unacceptable to keep unless it is public domain, copyleft e.t.c. I suspect that DrNegative was just relying on this source for info and just ended up effectively copying it out, though I wish for him to speak for himself. In any case I think it needs to made clear, that I am assuming that DrNegative was trying to improve the article in good faith and not trying to get Wikipeidia into legal issues or violate copyright, particularly given that he has made some very substantial improvements to this article. I will inform of this discussion. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point Camaron. I know you're not the admin looking into this (which is why I prefaced my remarks with "to the admin..."). It doesn't matter what DrNegative's intentions were (and no one is accusing him of trying to deliberately harm Wikipedia). The reason admins need to be brought in is to delete the contributions from the edit history, not to sanction editors (unless there is some long-term problematic behavior with copyvios, which doesn't seem to be case here). That's the reason why I responded to your comments above that implied that it was difficult to know where the edits came from, and that's the reason why I listed the edits that contained the copyvios. BuddingJournalist 20:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Good, I never said anyone was, just making my position clear. Deleting copyvio's from the history is not strictly required, ensuring the current version is copyright free is more important. Policy does not specifically ask for it, and according to Wikipedia:Copyright problems, The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it. Please note the reason for removal in edit summary and at the article's talk page (you may wish to use {{cclean}}). If an admin wants to selectively delete the history I do not mind, though it is quite difficult to do with current software. I would prefer DrNegative make a statement first however. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ensuring the current version is copyright free does indeed take precedence. However, there's an important reason why there's a set process for admins to delete copyrighted material from a page's history. All content on Wikipedia's pages are licensed under GFDL—even old revisions. These should be free from copyright violations as well. So while it may be improbable that anyone will take any legal action based on old revisions, it's better to be safe. I've listed other pages like this before at Wikipedia:Copyright problems without any issue; admins are smart and they have the tools to solve issues like this. It's not that much of a burden. BuddingJournalist 00:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm afraid they don't in this case. I have just realised something rather important that I forgot to mention, and after a quick test I can confirm it is an issue. When admins click delete on this article you get the following message: "This page has a large edit history, over 5,000 revisions. Deletion of such pages has been restricted to prevent accidental disruption of Wikipedia." There is hence no way for admins to delete this article, as you have to delete the entire page first and then selectively restore to remove certain revisions. Developers can override it I believe but this issue is not series enough I believe to justify their involvement. Wikipedia:Oversight is still possible but is not practical with over 500 revisions, as I believe it has to be done per revision, and plus oversighters will only use oversight to remove copyright infringement on the advice of the Wikimedia Foundation counsel apparently. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_of_Empires_(video_game)&action=history, another article that was taken to FAC where I found copyvio issues in a portion of the article. User:Moonriddengirl was able to remove the edits in question just fine... BuddingJournalist 18:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) User:BuddingJournalist asked my input on this, and I just wanted to offer my experience. Typically, the admins who handle matters at WP:CP (these days, that's largely me, but not always :D) sometimes remove, sometimes selectively delete infringement depending on various factors, including the scale of the problem, the likeliness of readdition of infringement and technical such as Camaron | Chris points out. Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins sets out some basic guidance for how to choose among these options. I haven't looked at the details here, but if Camaron | Chris is right about the history of this article (and my guess based on its title is he probably is), it will probably remain in history unless we receive a take-down. (However, I do have to note that I didn't get that message when I clicked on delete. I got the standard "You are about to delete The Lion King along with all of its history" message. And there's no way I'm going beyond that screen to test it out and be the one who shut down Wikipedia for the rest of the day!) User:BuddingJournalist, thanks for investigating where these came in. That's always crucial in making sure that contributors are properly notified of policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks Moonriddengirl! BuddingJournalist 19:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't possible, in fact I have selectively deleted articles myself for reasons other than copyvio before now, I am quite familiar with it. I said it was only not possible in articles over 5000 revisions. Age of Empires has about 1000 revisions, so it is possible there. For some reason I sometimes can delete The Lion King, sometimes I can't, here is proof for the record: can't delete, can delete. Anyway I am following the wisdom of Moonriddengirl and not trying it when I can. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange and scary! I'd hate to think that I might accidentally delete a large article and break the 'pedia someday. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware that I committed copyright infringement. I cede that point. I was simply trying to find info that related to the production of this film that would be relevant to this article and I didn't know at the time that what I did was against policy. I was simply trying to state the facts from a published source about the production of the film. I deeply apologize to all the editors that helped me with this article for I feel that I have let them down with this poor error. I feel that it is best that I do not edit this article any further in the future as a result. I apologize. DrNegative (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology DrNegative, though as I said on your talk page, there is no need to stop editing this article over this issue. The copyright issue can be solved, like most things on Wikipedia, and once that is done we should learn lessons and move on. I know it is frustrating that this article has not made it to FA yet, I have been on this project for two years and still not managed a single FA myself for a variety of reasons. But yours and other contributions have made a big difference which may not have been realised - this article is still GA. Without that this article would have probably been demoted by now due to slow article deterioration, and GA standard inflation over time. I admit I probably have not given this article as much attention as I should have done due to commitments elsewhere, I intend to help when I can in the future. Your help will be appreciated as always. Camaron | Chris (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the material, since the issue is settled and the tag was clogging up the article, the sections removed can be re-written from scratch at any time. I can still remove it from the history, but to clarify I am not going to because: A) I shouldn't be able to delete the article, it has a too longer history and deletion could lock the servers. B) Deleting 500+ revisions from the page history would remove attribution for many changes and would not be compatible with the GFDL. C) The copyvio was beyond what was acceptable, but it was far from the worst ever seen, and no copyright claim has been made as far as I know. I may re-write the section from scratch at some point, but feel free to beat me to it. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been informed by DrNegative that the info appears to have orginated from a IMAX press release which is unfortunatly no longer avaliable in their archives, though it could be in the Way Back Machine. I have not done much research on copyright and IMAX but I have also been told that would make it copyleft. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Meerkats in the Serengeti

I'm surprised nobody has questioned how Timon got to Kenya/Tanzania in the first place. Meerkats aren't from anywhere near the Serengeti. Maybe a nice family dropped his clan off there. Peter Greenwell (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that nobody questioned that hyenas and lions could speak English to each other! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 13:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, it has never been said that this takes place in the Serengeti. 24.5.254.152 (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, remember from Lion King 1 1/2. Timon is from somewhere else. He set out on his own and that brought him to the Serengeti —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.255.36 (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's supposed to be intentionally ambiguous where in Africa it takes place. The opening "Circle of Life" sequence includes shots of both Mount Kilimanjaro and Victoria Falls, which I believe are over a thousand miles apart. --mwalimu59 (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

One "real" mistake in the opening is the leaf-cutter ants (Atta spp.) - leaf-cutter ants are unique to the Americas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.118.201.10 (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the presence of bamboo shoots during the song "the lion sleeps tonight" 96.229.20.17 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

SFX speculation

The line "The film's animators, however, have stated that the letters spell "SFX" (a common abbreviation of "special effects"), and was intended as an innocent "signature" created by the effects animation team" under Subliminal Messaging should be removed, because the animators have stated no such thing. The linked article merely states that "the animators reportedly stated..." which as we all know isn't a proper source and thus should not be included in the article. A quick search reveals no direct quotes from any animator on the subject, and thus the "reported" excuse appears to be nothing more than an invention of Disney apologists. --OfficerBlue (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Do cartoons even have a special effects team?!? isnt the whole idea of the cartoon in itself special effects!?! I have heard this too, and had it been a live action movie, where special effects are actually used might have made a compelling argument, but, in a cartoon it sounds more like Disney trying to get out of law suits. If the head of the SFX team came forward and put his face on camera and said so it might be acceptable, but this is nothing more than rumor, even by the people you heard it from! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.185.18.207 (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, cartoons have special effects teams, and animation studios have SFX departments. In the credits of the Lion King, they are listed as "Effects Animators": DORSE LANPHER, TED C.KIERSCEY, ED COFFEY, CHRISTINE BLUM, MAURO MARESSA, TOM HUSH, ALLEN BLYTH, JOEY MILDENBERGER, EUSEBIO TORRES, STEVE MOORE, MARLON WEST, GARRETT WREN, CHRIS JENKINS, DAVE BOSSERT. --Cubbi (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nazi reference?

As I was watching The Lion King segment "Be Prepared" on YouTube, I spotted something that might be worth editing under the Controversy title on this page. As we get further into the song, a hyena army marches supposedly in a fashion similar to that of a WWII Nazi rally. Adding to the effect, Scar stands on a high platform, watching over his minions, as if he were Adolf Hitler. The Moral? The scene might be offensive to people who are related to anyone who survived/was killed in the holocaust. Bad_Grim (talk)

It depends ... if you can find a published analysis or news article discussing that, it'd be worth adding. It may well exist, as I recall some people mentioning it way back then. I think, ultimately, most people viewed it as satirical, more than controversial. However, if you can find something to support it, by all means add it. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The subject was mentioned in the audio commentary--GroovySandwich 03:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Though not 100% related to this article, there are much better examples about how people react to those things. The Three Stooges and Monty Python - both in groups directly, horribly affected by the nazis (jewish people and english people respectively) - have been doing this for many years. The Three Stooges started before the war was even over, Python in the 60s. Considering The popularity of both, I think its pretty fair to say "Its not a big deal."

It is parody, after all. Plus its more a ripoff of hamlet than anything else. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Running time

In some sites running time of this movie is 89 minutes, not 90.For example links [1],[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitek778 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Lion King/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Lead has too many sourced statements that appear to introduce new facts; lead should primarily summarize the article per WP:LEAD. Plot is too long (952 words/400-600 it should be) and uses inappropriate tone and OR-ish language in several places. A plot summary should be a summary of the film, not someone's interpretation of it. It also has too many song titles randomly dropped in that are unnecessary as the songs are already covered in another section. Character section has excessive bolding, is unsourced, and not an appropriate section. Voice actors best merged into the plot if there is no reliable, third-party information on their casting or creation available. Timon and Pumbaa are individual characters and should be listed as such. The release section has a table that should be prose, and the inflation adjust needs to be removed. This has been consistently rejected for addition in film articles. The article as a whole needs a thorough copy edit. The awards section is poorly formatted and needs to be redone, preferably in prose, or in an awards table. The Home Video section has inconsistent header sizes. The infobox is not filled in correctly - the release date should be the first theatrical release only, its missing the country, and starring should be only the major characters not all. Would highly recommend applying WP:MOSFILM which would fix many of the sectional issues and many of the references need format fixes and are missing basic details available from the sources such as authors, publishers, etc.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article contains multiple unsourced statements throughout the entire article. Plot does not need sourcing, nor does the character list as its just a list of names and brief roles; except for Sarafina which claims her name is given in the credits but does it say Sarafina or does it also note "Nala's mother"; if not, a reliable source is needed for that. Several of the unsourced statements appear to be interpretative or otherwise OR such as combining different numbers from BOM to draw a conclusion. Among the references used, several are not reliable sources: LionKing.org (fansite), IMDB (user edited), TV.com (user edited episode summaries), ltimateDisney.com (fansite), kimbawlion.com (fansite), eeggs.com (user edited), bcdb.com (user edited), eyesonff.com (fansite), and whatsitsgalore.com (personal site) #10 is a dead link. What makes ReelViews and The OscarGuy, and worldvillage.com reliable sources?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   For a film of this caliber and popularity, the main critical reception is far too short; there is no way that is all the reception information available for this film, or even half of it. The plot is too long (as noted above), and there is too much focus on criticism (as noted below), the sequels, and the home video releases are excessively detailed and should be a single section without all the fan details.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The production summary has some non-neutral language, making claims about the notability of parts of the film. Controversies is a non-neutral label and section. Being written the way it is and split the way it is, it gives undue weight to latter three events. The Kimba event does not need a "main" link as "Kimba the White Lion#The Lion King controversy" is not a standalone article.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The Simpson's image is unnecessary and violates WP:NONFREE. File:Lionkg2.jpg needs a better FUR. File:Kimbasimba.JPG is very low quality and would be better replaced with two individual images from the films, in a proper format, using the side by side image box.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article fails almost all of the Good Article criteria, as noted above. This GAR is on hold for the next seven days to allow time for interested editors to try to bring the article back to good article standards. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I think it is unlikely that this will be back up to good article status in seven days, particularly given the amount of things which need to be fixed to keep GA. I would recommend delisting it for now and then it can be re-affirmed as GA at some point in the future. I will give a full response to these concerns shortly. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have given the article a bit of work this morning, it has far from addressed all the issues in the article, but I will keep working on it, particularly since activity here is rather low at the moment.

The plot has been a problem for a long time and was the primary target of what appeared to be BambiFan attacks for a while making improvements more difficult. I have cut down the plot to just over 700 words, I am sure there are more cuts that can be made. I have also removed some WP:OR language present, but there are probably still bits in there which need to be re-worded, so I will come back to it. I have also removed the randomly dropped in song titles. I would agree with merging the character list in with the plot, the link to the main article is already covered by the navbox. I am leaving the bolding as it is for now until discussion at WT:FILMS has concluded.

I will review the references later, I was told IMBD was tolerated in film articles but I am sure replacements can be found. I will need to do some research for the other references, they are probably unreliable and hence replacements will need to be found, as most but not all fansites are unreliable.

The reception does not need to be exhaustive for GA, but I agree it should be expanded. The home video section was rather awkward and I have replaced it with a section for each release, though I agree these should probably be merged into some kind of DVD and VCR release section. I don't like the Awards section at present either, I would prefer to convert it to prose as it is technically easier and would flow better than a table.

I agree with getting rid of the controversy section, it is inherently a WP:NPOV violation at present and does not fit well with the rest of the article. Possible restructuring of the article could be to merge this into release; or perhaps even creating a reception section separate from release and putting the controversy stuff merged in there. There are also some essays surrounding the film currently not mentioned at all, which was criticised at FAC, these should probably mentioned somewhere as well, though that is a less important area of the topic and is probably not needed for GA.

The inappropriateness of The Simpson's image I found debatable, though I have removed it just to be on the safe side. I would oppose any more cuts on fair use images as this article has gone from eight to three and all those remaining serve a purpose. I have re-written in detail the fair use rationale for File:Lionkg2.jpg. It would be very difficult for me to improve File:Kimbasimba.JPG as I don't have any episode of Kimba the White Lion, and I don't unfortunately have The Lion King on DVD either at present. There is an alternative image at File:Earlypresentationreelwhitelionking.jpg that can perhaps be used instead, though it would need an improved fair use rationale. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure who told you that, but IMDB is not tolerated as a source as it is not a reliable source (it is only acceptable as an EL). Per the notes above, the article has seen some improvements since the GAR was started, but it does still need a fair bit of work to bring it back to GA status. As such, and per the general lack of activity and Camaron's accurate assessment above that it needs more than just a week worth of work, I have delisted this article from Good Article status. It is in better shape than many film articles, particularly the Disney ones, and I hope someone will take these notes and continue working to bring this article back to Good article status. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I will continue working on it, don't worry. I think I will be nice and not reveal who told me IMDB was tolerated as a source. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries :) To clarify, IMDB is often used to get credit lists for convenience (i.e. copy/paste rather than opening the DVD, and typing furiously), however it is not a citable reliable source. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Nala merger

A merge tag was added into Nala's article but no discussion has been started so I create a topic to avoid people merging it without reaching consensus. I oppose this merger as the character has appearances in several media outside The Lion King and is one of the more identifiable characters of the franchise. --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, discussion was started at Talk:Nala (The Lion King)#Merge/Redirect to The Lion King the same day the tag was placed. Would appreciate if your comment could be moved there to keep it centralized. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Character list

Moved from Talk:The Lion King/GA1

I believe the Characters list has been adequately integrated into the plot summary. I have been bold and removed it. Feel free to reinstate if you feel otherwise. Somanytictoc (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the removal of the character list. The list of characters contained very useful and extensive information on a series that is extremely popular for discussion and controversy. The specific nature of each individual character down to the tiny details of the timeline and family tree of each pride is so often brought up and disputed among Lion King fans that to remove the character list is absolutely ridiculous and the Lion King series of articles are now sorely lacking in information that is deemed very important by the fanbase. Not only that, but there are a lot of characters in the series, all of which have a good amount of notable information surrounding them. Why in the world would anyone think that removing it would be in any possible way beneficial to this series of articles? Do your research on the fanbase before removing something you don't feel is "important" enough, please. Reinstating this is a must. -- Disgruntled representative of the Lion King fanbase. (131.91.206.60 (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC))

I have moved this discussion here as the GA review is now over with the article delisted, and not many people are likely to be watching that subpage, so they may not notice new comments there. I think there is some confusion here though. Somanytictoc refers to the character list in this article, [3] which did just replicate the content of the plot section. List of The Lion King characters is a separate page which was re-directed by AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs). I have not commented on this issue up until now, and I don't really have a strong opinion on it at this time. Perhaps AfD should be considered given that this is clearly controversial and this is not just a pure merge into this article, particularly given that the list refers to more than one film.. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You can "strongly" disagree all you desire, however the list was redirected here per consensus as seen on the list talk list and per discussions in the Film project and per Wikipedia guidelines. The list did nothing but repeat the plot of the films with a bunch of fancruft tossed in. By your own statements, the list was purely a mini-fansite which is not appropriate for Wikipedia at all. A merge of the sections was not required as character sections are not appropriate in film articles, and all of the film articles already have the plot (which is all the list had anyway). Fans have more than enough fansites, Wikipedia isn't here for them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I support the remove, the cast section was starting to look like a children's story book narrative. DrNegative (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the remove. Instead of just trashing it, you could have done something to actually improve it. There. Pastel kitten (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no improving it. It was an inappropriate list and consensus agreed with its removal. If you seek fancruft, please visit a Lion King fansite. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, are you referring to the List of The Lion King characters or the former section in this article? Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I come with this proposal to merge the following characters into a reinstalled List of The Lion King characters:

• Mufasa
• Rafiki
• Scar (The Lion King)
• Shenzi, Banzai and Ed
• Nala (The Lion King)
• Zazu

This is for several reasons. First of all, none of these characters have managed to prove notability outside the The Lion King franchise and related Disney media (Kingdom Hearts, Disney parks, House of Mouse). This means that none of them have recieved deep coverage by reliable secondary sources as they have not been discussed individually and separatedly from The Lion King (i.e. the hyenas' criticism is just a little part of a wider review on several Disney films). Also, none of these characters have made appearances in popular culture except for Mufasa's in The Simpsons, but that is just a brief cameo that is already mentioned as a spoof of the film and the Kimba/Lion King controversy.

This merger will mean the recreation of the List of The Lion King characters. At the time of the merger, the list only contained characters from sequels and Sarabi, so it was reasonable to redirect a bunch of really minor characters into the film's article. However, the proposed characters above appear in more media than the first film, with Timon and Pumbaa even having their own series (that still does not mean notability, as notability is not inherited). The fact that the result of the discussion to merge the list of characters resulted in "Merge" at that time is not valid since Wikipedia:Consensus can change, even more considering that the list will have a completely different content from that of the revision in which it was merged, with more content than just plot repetition such as the commentary on the hyenas, the appearance of Mufasa in The Simpsons, and Jeremy Irons' nomination for Best Villain in the MTV Movie Awards. This merger includes Zazu, whose article was redirected without any discussion, and Nala, since she appears in more than just the first film and out of the three people that voted for the merger, two advocated for "Merge: Maybe create a new article with all lion king's character." --LoЯd ۞pεth 23:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I support merging them to the appropriate film articles and/or the single franchise article, but strongly oppose recreating the List of. They are unnotable, but a character list is neither necessary nor appropriate. Reception information is appropriate in the individual film articles, and neither Zazu nor Nala are that relevant to the franchise outside of the first film (and even then, Zalu is really a minor character). As a side note, why do people keep treating Timon and Pumbaa as a single entity even giving them a single article? They are separate characters. Mufasa's appearance in the Simpsons is trivia and would not be appropriate in any rticle. Best Villain awards goes in the appropriate film article, not a list. And sorry, but yes the result of the discussion to merge IS still valid. Consensus "can" change, but as of this moment, it has not. Your restarting the discussion does not somehow invalidate the previous discussion unless and until consensus actually does change. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion and the subsequent consensus to merge the list is fully valid and, as I said, I even think it was reasonable since at the time of the merger, it only contained sequel characters and Sarabi. What is not valid is to evoke the result of that consensus for, as the Wikipedia:Consensus can change page says, "rejecting other forms of proposal or action". That is why my proposal includes a discussion to recreate that list, if a new consensus is to recreate the list to merge the proposed characters into it, then it must be respected. I do not know why you are still against this particular list of characters since lists are recommended by Wikipedia:Notability as follows: "For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..." (keeping in mind that characters like Scar, Timon, Mufasa or Pumbaa, while not Notable outside the franchise, are not minor characters). Lists of characters can be very useful and you fully know that, since you have brought at least one of them to FA and work actively in some others. Perhaps this is a matter of Wikipedia:I just don't like it? --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between a well-sourced character list for a 9 volume manga series and 40+ episode anime series, and one for a small franchise of three films. Please don't pull the "I don't like it" crap, because I enjoy the series very much, thanks, and usually people throwing that around are out of valid arguments. Film articles are not television series nor are they anime/manga series. The Lion King is a trio of films, not a huge series, and a List of is unnecessary. Further, lists of minor characters are constantly deleted in AfD, so if someone snuck that line into WP:N it should be removed as clearly that is not consensus. Yes, we all know you have repeatedly rejected not having a character list (which I could argue is a case of WP:ILIKEIT, but unlike you I'm attempting to assume good faith). It was also noted that a franchise article was the better compromise, which I thought you had also agreed with, yet now you are once again raising this argument yet again. How many more times are we going to keep having this discussion this year? Until you get consensus for your preference? And honestly, I do not understand the diacotomy here. You are arguing for merge these to a list, while arguing for other similar articles to be merged to the film articles? Why is this film so much more special that its characters should have a separate list? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If by "other similar articles" you refer to Clayton, the difference here is that Clayton has appeared only in Disney's Tarzan. Since there is no list of Tarzan characters (and it is ridiculous to have one since Tarzan characters except Clayton appear in much more media), the best option was to merge it into the film article. The Lion King characters appeared, as you said, in three films, and I shall add a TV series, a musical, and other Disney media, enough appearances to include them in a list of characters rather than in the first film's article. The franchise article you have been referring to since three months ago is inexistent, and I think it is better to get all of these non-notable but important characters together than having lots of separated articles, but also than having information on these subjects spread here and there. I know that your edits are in good faith, but the way you have been rejecting this particular list seemed weird to me, but in the end your opinion is as it is and nothing I say will change it, so I respect that. --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The franchise article was in development, which could easily be picked up by anyone just no one has bothered. And I was referring to your remarks on the Bambi characters, but also Tarzan would be a fine example. I reject almost any film character list unless its justifiable, and even three films is not enough to justify it to me. That's what franchise articles are for. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to make clear two things: first, The Lion King is more than 3 films, it includes a TV series of 85 episodes, a Broadway musical, video games, and the characters have appearances in other Disney media. And second, the case of Thumper is similar to Clayton: while Bambi and Faline originated in the book, Thumper belongs solely to the film and related merchandise. --LoЯd ۞pεth 01:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Flower is film only - Thumper is a renamed version of Friend Hare, but I do see your point :P That said, I still believe a franchise article is more appropriate. Why make a split list when there is no main article yet? If the franchise article, when properly done and all, is still too large, THEN look at splitting out a character list if needed (which I doubt will be). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a franchise article is the way to go here, and the The Lion King does really need one. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As I once told AnmaFinotera, my main concern is the lack of the franchise article. I think that we should all start working on it, no matter the result of this discussion (keep, merge into list, merge into frachise). If the result is to merge into the franchise, I think it would be reasonable not to perform any more mergers until we have the franchise article. I propose User:Lord Opeth/The Lion King (franchise) (I was thinking about naming it "(film series)", but since we cannot forget about the TV series, the musical, video games and park attractions, I prefered "(franchise)") to start working there before creating a stubbish article. I was looking at other film series and franchises from Disney to model at but all of them need major clean up. I think that the best is to model after featured articles like Kingdom Hearts or Final Fantasy: despite being video game franchises, the general structure is what we can use as reference (titles, common elements, characters, development, setting, etc.) Thoughts? --LoЯd ۞pεth 19:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Erik started a very rough draft back when it was first discussed at User:Erik/The Lion King (franchise). I agree it is a franchise rather than a series. What would your thoughts on moving this article to The Lion King (film) and putting the franchise article here? We can also look at Superman (film series) to some degree. I'd suggestion general sections would be titles (with sections for each main title and a summary for the non-notable stuff), characters, development, and reception. I think the series is too simple to have setting and common elements. It would only be a few sentences. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What about continuing discussion about the franchise article at User talk:Erik/The Lion King (franchise)?? --LoЯd ۞pεth 20:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Just in case there is any confusion, the draft is now at User:Lord Opeth/The Lion King (franchise). Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hamlet??

I totally fail to see how the Lion King has anything remotely to do with Hamlet. I don't think the references support the repeated mention of this very thin assertion. Simba doesn't really have any of Hamlet's self-reflective qualities, and the whole uncle killing father thing is about the closest it gets. If the authors of The Lion King had once seen Hamlet and liked it, that does not make the film anything like an adaptation - and even if it is "inspired by" Hamlet, I very much doubt it's worth the repeated assertions. What worries me is that people might think watching the Lion King is like seeing, or reading a Hamlet production. What do we think? Wikidea 14:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the inspiration should be mentioned somewhere, though I am not sure that it is appropriate for the lead. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I remember in high school English class being taught that The Lion King was one of many remakes of Hamlet - basically Hamlet with lions. There was no mention that this was one possible interpretation, simply that it was a remake. Also, I just found this deleted scene where Scar says "Goodnight sweet prince" to Simba: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y14TwUGQ3xEz I think that's pretty funny. :D 74.14.121.121 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC).

I agree that the Lion King's basis on Hamlet seems to be "conventional wisdom" rather than fact. If there is no evidence that Disney intended it, it should be omitted altogether. The current reference given never mentions Hamlet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z.t.hudson (talk • contribs) 08:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the phrase "biblical tales" should be rephrased to "biblical stories" to avoid being a loaded term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.68.197 (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

What is it about 'tales' that you feel is loaded? ~ Kimelea (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There are many people who don't consider them to be tales. The term 'tales' has the connotation that it is a made up story, changed along the way, exaggerated (the 4 inch trout that became a 15 foot whale), or whatever the case may be (at least to me, but I think that is a common interpretation). The term 'story' does not necessarily imply whether the events in question are true or not (again, at least to me)...perhaps there is a more viable alternative.

I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor, but in one talk page, I once saw someone make a metaphor. Wikipedia should have the same objectivity as an Encyclopedia such as Britannica. Personally, I'd never expect Britannica to call a biblical account a tale.

Obviously the objective of this article is not to discuss whether or not the biblical accounts are true or not. I just think a word with less of a connotation is more appropriate. It is a small change, but one I think worth making.

In my understanding, 'tale' simply means 'story', with no implication of being false. 'Tall tales' and 'making up stories' would both imply lying to me. This definition gives several entries for 'tale', the first of which is 'a recital of events'; the entry that mentions imaginary events indicates that the word is interchangeable with 'story' for that definition! But if you feel strongly, go ahead and change it - I'm not going to revert you :)

By the way, thank you for indenting your reply, it helps! Please also sign your posts on talk pages like this one with four tildes ~~~~ or click the squiggly signature button on the toolbar to insert the tildes automatically. This tells everyone who is talking and makes clear when you posted. Thanks! ~ Kimelea (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversies

the hyena one paralleling black people and scar paralleling a liberal politician shouldnt be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.2.47 (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the rather large quote which was over dominating the article and potentially raised copyright concerns in the hyena section. That entire section needs a look at. The bit about the hyena portrayal being racist appears to be well sourced but to offline sources so it is difficult to verify that content. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks for addressing my complaint somewhat. removing the large quote that dominated the article takes away a lot of the damnation but i think it's ridiculous to have any of it.

anyone can see some obscure subtext which often says something more about the person than the film. there is a professor who thinks Casablanca has a gay subtext, but i would hope that wouldnt get into the article (i should check 0_0). hyenas are scavengers and natural enemies of lions, while also having that laughing trait. the scavengers aspects explains why scar buys them off with meat, the villain portion is due to them hating lions, and looking foolish has to do with their natural laugh. instead the author argues that scar is creating a welfare state, and hyenas are lazy black people who want food stamps ??? was this really a controversy or one writer trying to make his mark. if it is the latter, should any subtext that can be source to some dude with a computer, get into Wikipedia ?

it is also curious that not only was there a liberal writer who had issues with subtext, but there is also a conservative that had issues with another part of the film (dust part). this reminds me of avatar where liberals say the movie is racist and conservatives say its anti-American, but at least the arguments make sense. anyone can play the subtext game where they "see" things no one else "sees" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.2.47 (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Mufasa was played by James Earl Jones, a black man. so the guys assertion is also wrong, that all the noble lions were white and all the hyenas were colored people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.2.47 (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Include the following paragraph under the Controversies heading.

It has also been pointed out that, as Mufasa was the only male engaging in sexual intercourse with the lionesses, Simba and Nala would actually be half-siblings (as both were born into the tribe), and therefore, at the end of the film, when their child is brought into the light, implies that they conceived via incest. Disney has never disclosed a position on this, and may not have realized this.

Liim905 (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No can do, sorry. Pointed out by who? You're gonna need a reliable source for this. This almost sounds like original research to me. Put another way ... if this is your own personal analysis of the story and how the characters interact with each other, Wikipedia wouldn't allow it because another user could easily come up with another plausible explanation. Instead, if a third-party published source made such a statement, such as a movie review or similar critical analysis of the film, then it could be considered. At the same time, there are a number of potential inaccuracies in animal/plant life to suggest that this isn't meant to be a realistic depiction of Africa. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Zelytic, 17 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Alice in Wonderland has bumped it down from position 28 in the List of highest-grossing films. This should be updated to 29.

Zelytic (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Darkwind (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The link itself points to Wikipedia's list of highest grossing films which lists The Lion King as position 29. --Zelytic (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 22 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the second paragraph of the Plot section: "Scar uses the opportunity to state that both Mufasa & Scar were killed" does not make sense.

Also, 2nd paragraph under "plot": Scar arrives and tricks Simba into thinking it was he was responsible for Mufasa's death. It should read "Scar arrives and tricks Simba into thinking it was he who was responsible for Mufasa's death." Please add "who". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidsasis (talk • contribs) 04:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Hamas propaganda"

It has no relation to TLK. Leo (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Diamond Edition release date...

The Lion King: Diamond Edition will be released in October of 2011, according to UltimateDisney.com. It was switched with Bambi so that Bambi would be released during the spring of 2011. Koolz03 (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ruben A. Aquino

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruben_A._Aquino - the animator of the Adult Simba is listed as 'this page doesn't exist', but there is a wiki page about Ruben A. Aquino. Worstbull (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Link fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. --mwalimu59 (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

North Korea?

The Finnish wiki version says that much of the animation was done in North Korea and includes this link:

http://www.taloussanomat.fi/kauppa/2007/10/21/piirroselokuvat-tehdaankin-pohjois-koreassa/200726153/12

Is there any truth in this?!?! – Harjasusi (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Korea

Maybe the article should mention work was done in Korea? http://www.speroforum.com/a/7154/North-Korea-exports-cartoons-to-America-and-Europe -- Horkana (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: Portrayal of hyenas

Idiots from hyena researches centers can think anything they want. But it's only their private opinion and must be removed. There're thousands stories where lions are negative characters but lion researchers don't protest against them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.173.18.179 (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Zulu

What is the isiZulu name of "The Lion King"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.77.77.33 (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Badonkadonk. Seriously, though, just find an English to Zulu translator online, because I don't see what your line of questioning has to do with the article at hand. 68.96.215.51 (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Chackomerin, 1 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In impacts on popular culture, it should be mentioned that in the episode 'Christmas Invasion' of the revived British television Doctor Who Series, the following quote from the tenth Doctor mentions lyrics from the Lion King. 'Look at these people, these human beings, consider their potential. From the day they arrive on this planet and blinking, step into the sun, there is more to see than can ever be seen, more to do... no, hold on... sorry, that's the Lion King... but the point still stands!'

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0562994/quotes Chackomerin (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Declined, that's not really hugely relevant to this article, and anyway IMDB isn't a reliable source. Nyttend (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Plot

When Simba confronts Scar on Pride Rock, the synopsis calls Simba a traitor. Perhaps quote marks would be appropriate as not to mislead? The same when Scar "accidentally" informs young Simba about the Elephant Graveyard. There should really be quote marks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.241.57 (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. --McDoobAU93 02:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

3D Blu-ray

Blu-ray.com has stated that the film is being remastered for 3D for 3D blu-ray. http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=5075 --174.91.201.10 (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, the source linked here states it's a "knowledgeable source" that's saying this. Sorry, gonna need something more than a republished rumor. --McDoobAU93 02:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)