Talk:Aladdin (1992 Disney film)

Picasso
"sending him a Pablo Picasso painting... the painting was a self-portrait of the artist as Vincent van Gogh"

How can a painting by Picasso be a self portrait of Vincent van Gogh?71.13.26.7 (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I was wondering the same thing. Frankly, this whole section was confusing to me because I don't spend any time trying to understand the entertainment industry's politics but it's written like a lot of things are supposed to be understood.  When I got to the line you just pointed out I thought, "OK, 'Uncle', I'm not smart enough to understand any of this." Thisisfutile (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

synopsis
October 22nd 2018 by a wiki newb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.230.174 (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC) The intro states "The film follows Aladdin, an Arabian street urchin, who finds a magic lamp containing a genie. In order to hide the lamp from the Grand vizier, he disguises himself as a wealthy prince, and tries to impress the Sultan and his daughter." however his return to Agrabah has nothing to do with hiding from Jafar, only impressing the princess. The Grand Vizier should be mentioned in the finding of the lamp, not what Aladdin does with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.230.174 (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

genre
This film is a comedy. Why not add it? --97.113.114.127 (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Evan Kalani Opedal

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aladdin (1992 MGM/Universal Pictures.CO.UK film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090602043724/http://www.scottweinger.net/article13.html to http://www.scottweinger.net/article13.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416063832/http://www.scottweinger.net/article15.html to http://www.scottweinger.net/article15.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090519070127/http://disneymusic.disney.go.com/albums/disneymania3.html to http://disneymusic.disney.go.com/albums/disneymania3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"River Jordan" line
I have Line Cinema_film)&diff=884196539&oldid=884171032 restored the "citation needed" tag to the point about Agrabah being near the River Jordan. We never see any river in the film. The only evidence I've seen presented is the Peddler's comment that he has "the finest merchandise this side of" the river. This is not saying the city is near the river; it's an expression like "greatest thing since sliced bread", a way of talking up the subject by emphasizing how many things it's better than. Indeed, if anything, the Peddler's comment implies that Agrabah is far from the river, since that would provide a wider region of merchandise for comparison.

I'm tagging the statement rather than removing it again, in case there's some other justification for having it there. If not, though, it should be removed. Lagrange613 03:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're overcomplicating things a bit here. I've never heard of an expression like that before. The dialogue in the film should be cited as it is. Also, various reliable sources and media outlets use this -- . Musicfan122 (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * For "an expression like that" see the Wiktionary link above. The dialogue in the film does not support the claim in the article, as explained. I suspect those sources found this erroneous "fact" on Wikipedia and propagated it. There are positive reasons aplenty to doubt this idea: the location was supposed to be Baghdad, nowhere near the Jordan River, but the name was swapped with a pseudoanagram after the Gulf War. Also, the topography is all wrong. And, not for nothing, it adds nothing to the article. But whatever, this is beneath edit warring. Lagrange613 06:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The phrase was Picture.CO.UK_film)&diff=863962158&oldid=863949859 added by in October 2018. By looking at the article's history, it seems that it wasn't there before that, and all the sources date prior to the addition, thus I doubt that it was propagated. Musicfan122 (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2019
Change "Arabic folktale same name" to "Arabic folktale of the same name". 51.77.109.132 (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done aboideautalk 12:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Aladdin 1992 poster.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2021
2001:5B0:4FC1:5428:D8E1:C625:714:7253 (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Move-protection-shackle.svg Not done: page move requests should be made at Requested moves.  TG HL ↗  🍁 03:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

"last film based on folklore"
The article has the sentence "Aladdin was also the last film by Disney to be entirely based on a fairytale or folklore until the release of Tangled (based on Rapunzel) in 2010, 17 years later." This doesn't seem right though - Mulan (Hua Mulan) and Hercules (Heracles) are definitely based on folklore, and Chicken Little is based on a fairy tale (Henny Penny). Smurrayinchester 13:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Release Dates
Hello, Wikipedians, there is a slight problem about the release date on the article. The info box and one of the main sections of the article had the release date as "November 11", but it is most likely the limited release for the film. I would like the official "November 25" release date to actually be sourced reliably (besides the Box Office Mojo source), and another one for that "November 11" date to specifify the two locations the film had a limited release date (IMDb has the limited release to specifify that it held in both Los Angeles and New York City, but it is an unreliable source). These are the tasks that needed to be settled and finished. Thank you, and thanks for reading - Truly yours, Aubreeprincess (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FILMRELEASE we only need to list the first date it was released anywhere at all and the first release date in the country of origin. Those are both the limited release as shown in the infobox sourced by "The Numbers" reference and BOM.  gives a fairly complete and sufficiently sourced description of what happened, when, and why. It matches what you stated above. We don't need to list the wide release date in the infobox, the initial release date is all that is needed there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 27 September 2023

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Aladdin (1992 Disney film) → Aladdin (1992 film) – Clear WP:PRIMARYPDAB from Aladdin (1992 Golden Films film) (a ~76:1 pageview ratio with the Golden Films film). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Yes, per PRIMARYDAB which applies to partial dabs too. --В²C ☎ 05:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose as textbook violation of WP:PFILM. The film project has a special project-specific guideline (as permitted by WP:PRECISION) which prohibits the use of partial disambiguation for film articles. There are no exceptions no matter how high-profile a film is. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, WP:IAR (policy) trumps poorly-conceived guidelines like WP:PFILM, and allows for exceptions like this. —-В²C ☎ 11:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * IAR is not a free pass for you to wave every time you Don't like a guideline or think it is "poorly-conceived [sic]". InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The dis-ambiguation suffix "1992 film" implies it needs dis-ambiguation from a film titled Aladdin that was released in a different year. Georgia guy (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's literally what disambiguation does. Articles already exist for Aladdin (1958 film) and Aladdin (2019 film), so year disambiguation is at this point still necessary. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ...but it doesn't dis-ambiguate it from the Golden Films film; which is also a 1992 movie. Georgia guy (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Right. That’s the inherent nature of the primary topic of Aladdin (1992 film), like any primary topic. —В²C ☎ 17:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PFILM, which says to disambiguate secondary-topic films from each other. As it mentions, "Policy at WP:PRECISION permits such Wikipedia project-specific naming criteria" such as for UK Parliament constituencies and U.S. state and territory highways. For films, if they have disambiguation terms, they should be disambiguated from one other. WP:IAR is not an excuse to do whatever one wants, and this move is not a step toward "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". It's literally an extra word for clarity and disambiguation. The point of the project-specific naming criteria is to sidestep fussing about edge cases about which secondary-topic film "deserves" less disambiguation. Readers are not harmed by this reasonable balance of disambiguation terms, which they are rarely going to type anyway. The effort toward culling disambiguation terms, like here, is unnecessary. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It does not seem like a major burden to include "Disney" in the disambiguator to make it clear which film is the topic of the article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose with not much to add but @BarrelProof is right that the addition of Disney is not too cumbersome for the title. Killuminator (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose per WP:PDABPRIMARY and WP:PRIMARYFILM. Full disambiguation works very well for the film project, where clashes between disambiguated titles are fairly common. WP:PRIMARYFILM is one of our better guidelines if you ask me: it offers consistency, is simple to apply, and diffuses disputes. If the nominator is proposing an exemption to the guideline it would be helpful to know why one is needed. Betty Logan (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I noticed that listed on the WP:PDABLIST is Willow (film) which failed a RM to Willow (1988 film) on December 11, 2022 (see that discussion). It's noted in the list that the 1988 film had a 28:1 pageview ratio with Willow (2019 film).
 * When it came to the 1992 Aladdin films, I noticed that the Disney film had, again, a ~76:1 pageview ratio with the Golden Films film, more than twice the ratio that the Willow films had. Thus, I considered the Disney film to be the WP:PRIMARYPDAB in this case.
 * Also, I'd like to ask why such guideline exists only for films and not other forms of media such as music, literature or television. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:PDABLIST is just a collected list of what exists; it is not a guideline about what should exist. The fact that only one discussed case is listed there that is contrary to WP:PRIMARYFILM may be a general indication of the tendency to consistently follow the rule rather than than a justification for exceptions. There are also various films listed in the recently added WP:PDAB. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As I wrote in June, the Willow move should be overturned. But now that BarrelProof has revealed there are other film articles that blatantly contravene PFILM, all of those should be corrected as well (and why isn't Willow on that list?). If you would like to contest the guideline, you should do so at WT:NCFILM, not here. PFILM has been consistently upheld in RM discussions, even those pertaining to the highest-profile films that are the clear primary topics, including at Talk:Titanic (1997 film) and Talk:Parasite (2019 film). InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The "to be fixed" list is just a dump of what was detected by a recent automatic search. The listed cases haven't been studied closely. The search found about 50 films, in fact; those have not been thoroughly checked. I just moved Vertigo (film) from that section into the WP:PDABLIST (41:1 pageview ratio relative to three other films combined, no prior discussion of the title evident). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a larger discussion at WT:FILM or WT:NCFILM may be necessary to fix all of these. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Two of the three "non-primary" detected Vertigo films weren't even listed on the Vertigo (disambiguation) page until I put them there just minutes ago, and there was no hatnote about the ambiguity on the Vertigo (film) page. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I reject the entire notion of a primary parenthetical disambiguator that some here seem to be advocating for. The parenthetical disambiguators are, by definition, meant to be unambiguous. When there are 2 films with the same title that were released in the same year, neither of them should use (year film) as the disambiguator. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hidden comment in plot summary
While I agree with most of the recent changes by, the hidden comment regarding the plot summary length was removed as unnecessary, as indicated here. I've restored the comment for now. As I don't want to get involved in a potential edit war, I'm opening up a discussion here.

On quite a few other film GAs and FAs (such as Back to the Future, Conan the Barbarian (1982 film), Avengers: Endgame, The Avengers (2012 film), The Empire Strikes Back, etc.), the hidden comment regarding the plot summaries can be useful for other editors to check before making edits. Also, the How to streamline a plot summary essay might be helpful in removing unnecessary words in the plot summaries.

If there are any other thoughts about this, please post your thoughts here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * No war, and I too like most of the adjustments you've made.
 * I do understand your point about the note being helpful with the more popular films, so that someone with perhaps a lot of enthusiasm will not expand it too much. And I don't necessarily disagree.
 * My only question, however, is where the line between popular enough and not popular enough is drawn? I think consistency is important. It's why I tend to opt to remove or omit it from films with a moderate number of words that falls well within the 400-700 limits. milladrive (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to elaborate, I tend to think that the directive for potential editors is unnecessary when there's little risk of editors to exceed the 400-700 guidelines. It's why I have eliminated the note in articles that have little chance of exceeding those limits.
 * Furthermore, when the number of words is borderline (close to either 400 or 700), I think that the invisible notation to potential editors is important. I often add notation warnings to plots with more than 700 words (a very common issue). If the word count is 675 or 425, I often add the notation. But when the number of words is nowhere close, I believe the directive to be unnecessary, hence its removal.
 * The more I think about it, the less I think that film popularity should play a part in the weight of placing a plot-length notation. I continue to opine that when a plot has 550 words, a 400-700 directive is unnecessary. milladrive (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Since you called me out by name here after pulling a power play, and have deleted my post on your page — thus minimizing the attention to your own behavior — I was hoping there'd be some sort of response to my assertions.
 * I think the 400-700-word editor notation is pointless when a plot has 500-600 words, when editors are least likely to expand or shrink the plot beyond the Wikipedian guidelines. You seem to think otherwise.
 * Thoughts? milladrive (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply; I've been a bit busy with other things.
 * According to the relevant guidelines at WP:FILMPLOT, "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as with non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.)"
 * However, some editors ignore the hidden comment and expand the plot to above 700 words. I've also asked WT:FILM for their thoughts on the matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Are there many examples of someone adding 150 words to an already-substantial summary? Do many plots with 550 words get expanded by the enthusiastic to more than 700?
 * As I've said, I understand your reasoning, and again, I don't necessarily disagree with wanting to dissuade expansion beyond the guidelines. It's why I add the invisible guideline to plots with a borderline amount of words (like 675). I also agree that the more popular films should have more info.
 * But there remains no definitive line defining which films warrant the directive and which do not. Who's to say which films are popular enough for editors to be concerned with over-expansion? And how can that directive be consistent? When the note is based more on word count than on popularity, consistency is more easily maintained.
 * I remain of the opinion that a plot with a moderate amount of words needs no warning to editors. If an overly eager editor goes overboard, I think it can be dealt with on an individual basis. milladrive (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are my thoughts on the matter. Aladdin (1992) is a popular film, and popular films tend to have some eager fans writing down excessively long plot summaries. Like plot summaries that you would find on a Fandom page. Thus, I believe that we can Keep the invisible comment. It takes up less bytes than the overly detailed plot.  Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 02:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I ask how that policy can have any consistency. Where is the line drawn, and who's drawing it?
 * Is a film like Popeye popular enough to warrant it? Its plot has 539 words, yet the invisible note was recently added. Is that plot really at risk of over-expansion? Not at all. The warning in that plot is thoroughly pointless and a waste of a couple of bytes. milladrive (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not seen by the readers and works as a reminder to editors to keep the plot description concise with guideline. Also as a reminder to reviewers to watch out for bloating of the plot usually done by well-intentioned editors who want to make it look like a retelling of the story instead of a bare summary. It costs nothing to keep the hidden instructional note and does help even with summaries well within the guidelines. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. So, which film plots should have it? All of them? milladrive (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Usually it gets added after a problem edit as a reminder. Sometimes on new articles before the plot section gets fully fleshed out, also as a reminder during expansion. Kind of an editor judgement call if some editor sees a need. Harmless to keep in an article but I, personally, don't add them to articles until I fix a problem edit and see a need. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any point in having a policy regarding when the note should be added. As other editors have noted (sorry), adding the note does no harm, and I'm with Geraldo in that I normally add the note when I have to chip away at a summary that's exceeded the guideline (I've never personally seen a film plot summary in danger of being too short), especially if it was particularly long or if it's a summary that's been a perennial problem.
 * TL;DR no harm is caused by adding it, but harm may be caused by removing it, so add it if you feel inclined, but don't remove it without compelling reason? DonIago (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it. The explanations by you and Geraldo sound reasonable. I wasn't looking for policy as much as criteria. As a regular editor, I like to know the rules as much as possible (and I agree that this doesn't need a firm policy).
 * I will continue to add the invisible note to plots with the potential of going overboard, but I will no longer remove the notation from films to which it's been added.
 * Thank you to everyone for the input. milladrive (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Glad we could help! DonIago (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. So, which film plots should have it? All of them? milladrive (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Usually it gets added after a problem edit as a reminder. Sometimes on new articles before the plot section gets fully fleshed out, also as a reminder during expansion. Kind of an editor judgement call if some editor sees a need. Harmless to keep in an article but I, personally, don't add them to articles until I fix a problem edit and see a need. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any point in having a policy regarding when the note should be added. As other editors have noted (sorry), adding the note does no harm, and I'm with Geraldo in that I normally add the note when I have to chip away at a summary that's exceeded the guideline (I've never personally seen a film plot summary in danger of being too short), especially if it was particularly long or if it's a summary that's been a perennial problem.
 * TL;DR no harm is caused by adding it, but harm may be caused by removing it, so add it if you feel inclined, but don't remove it without compelling reason? DonIago (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it. The explanations by you and Geraldo sound reasonable. I wasn't looking for policy as much as criteria. As a regular editor, I like to know the rules as much as possible (and I agree that this doesn't need a firm policy).
 * I will continue to add the invisible note to plots with the potential of going overboard, but I will no longer remove the notation from films to which it's been added.
 * Thank you to everyone for the input. milladrive (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Glad we could help! DonIago (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you to everyone for the input. milladrive (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Glad we could help! DonIago (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)