Talk:List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films

Mistake to the list of classics.
Hello, I don't wish to edit the list, mainly because I'm a technophobe but also because it's clear someone has spent a great deal of time compiling the list and I don't feel I should be the one to edit it. However, there is a mistake on the list. 'Dinosaur', listed as number 39, is not a Disney 'Classic' and 'The Wild', Classic number 46, is missing from the list. Here's hoping that someone who knows how to do techy stuff can adjust the list as necessaryNorbert Pig (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Wild was produced by CORE animation. Georgia guy (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Whereas Dinosaur was not a Disney Classic back when it was released, but it was induced into the revised list in later years (due to digital animation being now accepted as part of the classics). Kumagoro-42 14:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, guys! Given that Winnie the Pooh applies to the franchise in general rather than one book, can someone add to the two Winnie the Pooh films the book The House at Pooh Corner? It's just some of the events in those films, particularly the scenes where Pooh meets Tigger, Rabbit tries to unbounce him, and he and Roo get stuck up a tree all take place in the book The House at Pooh Corner, and not in the book Winnie the Pooh. Thanks! (talk) 15:45, 06 June 2021, (GMT).

Too much vandalism
This page, for some odd reason, is prone to vandalism even though it's not controversial. May need a temporary semi-protection. Meltingwood meow 23:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Last I checked, the Disney company itself attracts controversy all over the Internet. No surprise that it attracts vandals here. Dimadick (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The list should not be made with Template:Episode list.
I don't think it's appropriate for this list to be made with Template:Episode list. That is for lists of television series episodes only. I just thought it should be divided into eras, but since that's debatable, I'll let it be. --TVBuff90 (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films. 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/20070224175329/http://disney.go.com/vault/archives/movies/ladytramp/ladytramp.html to http://disney.go.com/vault/archives/movies/ladytramp/ladytramp.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) 18:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ralph Breaks the Internet and Frozen 2
User:Oddbodz removed these films, saying that Imdb, which they claim to be a reliable source, says these 2 films don't belong in the canon. But I thought Imdb wasn't a reliable source. I put a message on their talk page about half an hour ago, but I got no response. Any corrections to how I'm describing Oddbodz's edit?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Revert it. The list is created and controlled by a single IMDb user, who last edited it nine months ago. Unreliable and outdated. Reach Out to the Truth 00:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See the response on my talk page. Its not that I am claiming IMDB to be reliable as that there are no reliable sources anywhere which suggest that the sequals are part of the classics cannon and the only source out there (as unreliable as it may be) does not include them. They never have been in the past (Lion King 2, Pocahontas 2, 102 Dalmations etc) and with no reliable sources suggesting this trend has been broken, they should not be added. Also, see the edit note at the top of the page which states "please note that many films that you might think belong in this list, do not, for various reasons. These include: [...] All sequels (except The Rescuers Down Under, Fantasia 2000, and Winnie the Pooh, which were produced by WDAS and included in the canon) were produced by DisneyToon Studios. All except for the three WDAS-produced sequels, Return to Neverland and The Jungle Book 2 were released direct-to-video. DisneyToon productions are listed in a separate section below." These films should not therefore be in the article. I will restore my edit unless a reliable source that shows they are part of the cannon can be found or consensus (which required more than 2 users) can be reached stating they should be in the article.  Oddbodz   - (  Talk  ) (  Contribs  ) 18:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The note that says "All sequels (except The Rescuers Down Under, Fantasia 2000, and Winnie the Pooh, which were produced by WDAS and included in the canon) were produced by DisneyToon Studios" has a list (see the above phrase in parentheses) that can be extended as more films come out. Please note this. The note can be extended to include those 2 films, right?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The outdated note does not override the actual inclusion criteria of the article. The Wreck-It Ralph 2 source confirms it is a Walt Disney Animation Studios film, therefore it belongs. The Frozen 2 source doesn't mention that fact, so we should get a better source. It is a WDAS film though, and therefore also belongs. Reach Out to the Truth 02:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And here is a source that confirms that Frozen 2 is also a WDAS' production. Since both sequels are now confirmed to be WDAS films, there shouldn't be doubts anymore about them being part of the "canon".--Carniolus (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films. 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/20160113052026/http://pro.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/brother-bear-2003 to http://pro.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/brother-bear-2003
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151210222846/http://pro.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/winnie-the-pooh-2011 to http://pro.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/winnie-the-pooh-2011

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) 01:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Fox films sometimes mistakenly believed to be by Disney
How common has it been historically for people to think by mistake that films that were produced by Fox to belong in this list?? (This question does not violate NOTAFORUM because Disney is going to buy Fox, meaning that Fox films produced after the acquisition will be Disney. My question is whether such films still won't belong on this list.) Georgia guy (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless they are specifically released through Walt Disney Animation, they should not be on this list, just as Pixar Animation films are not on this list. Being owned by Disney doesn't make the film a Walt Disney Anmation Studios film. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 20:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The date formatting in the list should be modified
The date formatting should be changed, especially for the list of related productions because the current one makes sorting by release date sort it by alphabetically by month which isn't useful at all. I'd recommend using ISO 8601 for the entire list or at least have the year first for better sorting of the list.

(Jesajash (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC))

Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh Rotten Tomatoes
The rating of Rotten Tomatoes for Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh has gone up from 92% to 100%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.39.147 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Dragon Empire
Is there any proof that this film is not the same as any of the 3 upcoming films listed in the table as 59-61?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Goofy Movie
Should A Goofy Movie be added on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.86.71.225 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's a Toon, not a Classic. DuckTales is also a Toon, as is The Tigger Movie. Georgia guy (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Disney Revival era
Dose anyone want to help make Disney Revival era page for the current era of animated Disney films. Fanoflionking 22:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Oliver and Company
Oliver and Company is being moved to #2 for some reason. I reverted the page but keep an eye out. There are many versions of the film, but the Disney version is very obviously 1980s. Not 1930s. Defunctzombie (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Filmography (released and upcoming)
Those two lists appear to be broken. Does anyone know how to fix them. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Upcoming film(s)
In the "Filmography" section, the "Upcoming" link does not work. It is a link to an "Upcoming films" section, but the section is actually named "Upcoming film". I assume "film" should be renamed to "films". Philippe97 (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I fixed it myself. Did not realize I needed to be logged in to edit. Philippe97 (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Box Office Grosses section number format
It looks like the worldwide gross numbers for Frozen, Frozen II and Zootopia numbers are formatted incorrectly. They say "$1,431.0 Billion," "$1,290.0 Billion," and "$1,023.8 Billion" respectively. I think those numbers should be "$1,431.0 MILLION," etc. or "$1.431 Billion," etc. instead. Looking at their individual pages it doesn't look like any of those films made $1 trillion+ which is what the table currently indicates.
 * I've adjusted the number format to match the format of the "Box office" field of the infoboxes used in Frozen (2013 film), Zootopia and Frozen II. Thank you for bringing this issue up. Elsa is wonderful (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Missing animated film.
I have no idea how to edit this list myself so could someone please add the woefully left out animated Disney film The Black Cauldron? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.27.53.150 (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Nevermind this, I see it now...I swear it wasn't there before! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.27.53.150 (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Story supervisor
Some of the "story writers" credited here were actually "story supervisors", which is not the same thing as "story writer". Brian K. Tyler (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The Wild
Why isn't this film on the list? it IS Disney. --67.85.187.125 (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It was technically made by a studio called CORE. Georgia guy (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Including Eras in the List?
Has there ever been any discussion before about noting the studio eras in the list of released films? I actually went ahead and sandboxed what the table could look like with color-coded era groupings, which you can see in the collapsable below. Still kind of rough as you can see and needs a legend, but you can get the idea. What do people think? I think it would help present the animated canon in a more wholistic way and would allow an easier understanding of the studio's history. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Encanto (Disney film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"Encanto (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Encanto (upcoming film). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Starzoner (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2021
69.114.221.74 (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#8213; Qwerfjkl  (please use&#32; on reply) 21:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Movie #61
This URL reveals a little bit (specifically the movie's protagonist is named Ethan) about movie #61 in this series:

https://thedisinsider.com/2021/07/05/details-released-for-next-walt-disney-animation-studios-film/

Perhaps Wikipedia's article can call this film "Untitled film about Ethan" in its list. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider publishing this film's article until we find more info about the film itself. Red4Smash (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

So the name of film #61 is Searcher Clade, but I still wouldn't publish the article until we get more info (example, director, voice actors, etc.) Red4Smash (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

"Related productions" section
Hi, I've been wondering how films are chosen to be included in the "Related productions" section. Obviously, all the films from "The Reluctant Dragon" to "Pete's Dragon" were worked on by the studio that's now known as Walt Disney Animation Studios but, as far as I can tell, WDAS didn't work on the films from "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" to "James and the Giant Peach"; rather, the larger Disney company worked on them and distributed them? Since this page is a list of films made by WDAS, should these collaborations be included on this page, rather than on the Disney Productions/Studio page with other DisneyToon, Pixar etc films? I'm happy to be corrected if I'm mistaken. WatermelonRings (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2021
Please add Pete’s Dragon, Brave, and Onward 2601:602:CD80:9BA0:5933:DF2C:35B5:9FC3 (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: None of those are produced by Walt Disney animation studios. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2022
Atlantis is number 40 and is down here as number 41. Source - I own this dvd 82.31.100.117 (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. List is numbered by release date. Are you suggesting one of the movies listed above it should be removed? Cannolis (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022
Raya and the Last Dragon is based on the is based on traditional Southeast Asian cultures, particularly the Nāga from Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism
 * 92.236.253.249 (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Hey, IP! Could you provide reliable sources (presuming they don't already exist in Raya and the Last Dragon) that support this and provide explicitly what text you would like added, where? Cheers! — Sirdog (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

In the main Raya page it sates the following The film is set in a fantasy land called Kumandra, inspired by the Southeast Asian cultures of Brunei, Singapore, Laos, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. To do background research, the filmmakers and production team traveled to Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Laos. The filmmakers formed the Southeast Asia Story Trust, a collective of cultural consultants for the film which included Dr. Steve Arounsack, an associate professor of Lao Anthropology at California State University, Stanislaus. Thai artist Fawn Veerasunthorn served as the head of story for the film. Click links to see the references. 92.236.253.249 (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Already done PianoDan (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

IMDB scores are not allowed
The Reception table in this article is an awful eyesore, (see Overcolored) and the unnecessary colors should be removed. But a more immediate and easier to solve problem is that it includes user votes from IMDB which are not allowed (they are not properly sourced either). WP:USERGENERATED content such as audience scores from Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB are not allowed, there are fundamentally not WP:Reliable sources.

The entire column of IMDB user votes should be removed ASAP. -- 109.78.192.128 (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * – I have removed the IMDb column, I can't believe that has been on here for so long. Dunno about the color thing, though. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing the IMDB votes so quickly. I can't believe that has been on here for so long. I can easily believe it, policies are created but there isn't the infrastructure to patrol and enforce most of it, and editors seem to get very annoyed with the rare cases when bots actually get permission to do maintenance work and they have to put up with more notifications. Also editors add all kinds of things in WP:GOODFAITH just because they can, even if it they probably shouldn't, (with hindsight I can admit I too have added things that did not really improve the articles) which brings me back to the colors... -- 109.79.177.125 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Awful colors
Overcolored The Reception table uses an excessive amount of unnecessary unhelpful and frankly. Ultimately they say nothing useful, and are even misleading. This is the kind of excessively formatting that I thought Wikipedia editors had learned to stop doing years ago (this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, this is not MySpace or Geocities). I previously removed the excessive colors from List_of_Pixar_films, and it involved Talk:List_of_Pixar_films/Archive_1 in 2019 but editors have recently added these excessive colors back to these kinds of film list articles without any discussion and in most cases without even an edit summary to say anything about it, they seem to have just assumed these garish colors are an improvement. MOS:COLOR and MOS:ACCESSIBILITY (and good web design in general) mean you cannot and should not be using color to saying anything that isn't already being said as text.

What is the point of these colors? What are they actually saying. Repeating some of what I said in the past discussion: "Even if a colored Reception table was a good idea in general and lots of other film articles were doing it that way, (it isn't and they aren't) in this article it is a particularly bad idea because the colors are all too similar. There's only one significant outlier and that's Cars 2. Wikipedia says it is better to use WP:PROSE to explain things, and if anyone thinks there is a pattern or an outlier that is worth highlighting they should be able to do so more effectively in a few sentences." Again in this article the colors are too similar and rather than Cars 2 being the outlier Brother Bear, and Chicken Little are the only two outliers. The reception table in this article can be broadly summarized as saying (theatrically released) Disney films get generally good reviews. If that was actually information worth emphasising then the Table section needs prose and it could be included as a either a brief textual intro or as a footnote.

The colors do not add anything useful for readers and even if they did say something of value that would need to be said again as text anyway for clarity and accessibility.

Even if this was a good idea there simply isn't enough contrast in the grading scale to make it anywhere close to useful. Frankly these colors are misleading when applied to Rotten Tomatoes, which categorises reviews into only three bands, and broadly categorizes anything less than 60% is negative: It is closer to the banding used by Metacritic scores but my point is that whatever you might think these colors might trying to do they are not doing a good job of it. Encyclopedia list articles can be inherently dull, but we still shouldn't put unnecessary decorations all over them for no good reason. The colors serve no useful purpose, disimprove readability, and it would be better to remove them entirely from these kinds of Reception tables.

I don't want to be all negative so I would like to commend the editors who did all the hard work of making sure the Reception table was fully and properly referenced. (Several other articles took the time to copy the garish colors but failed to also copy that important core principle of verficiation.) -- 109.79.177.125 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Question: Does the semi protection on this article have any expiration date? I cannot see one. I ask because I would do the necessary edits to remove the excessive formatting myself if the article wasn't locked. -- 109.79.177.125 (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the long rant. It looks like another editor has already removed the colors. And to answer your question, this page is semi-protected indefinitely. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Dunno about the color thing, though. InfiniteNexus was unsure so I explained at length. I may have been a bit frustrated at seeing old mistakes repeated, and ranted a little, but I do hope people understand why adding all those color is not the best idea, and not helpful to readers.
 * Thanks to User:Indagate for the cleanup. -- 109.79.72.233 (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't take my rant comment seriously, I was only joking. 😅 Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Poe's law. You can never be sure with sarcasm on the internet, so I just take it at face value, and try to convince people that the existing guidelines do in fact say what I think they say. Also you weren't wrong, I was ranting a bit. -- 109.79.79.137 (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

the next animated disney film that will be released in 2023 and will be directed by Carlos López Estrada will be called "the familliars"
the next animated disney film that will be released in 2023 and will be directed by Carlos López Estrada will be called "the familliars" and it will be about the characters from the books series that called "the familliars" i read it from imdb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.137.66.68 (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For anyone who wants to respond to this post, please include your experience with whether the Imdb uses sources that aren't reliable for determining what upcoming movies there are. Georgia guy (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11304740/?ref_=ttls_li_tt

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11304740/?ref_=ttls_li_tt it is a new disney movie that will be directed by Carlos López Estrada and will be called "the familiars" and will be released in 2023
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11304740/?ref_=ttls_li_tt it is a new disney movie that will be directed by Carlos López Estrada and will be called "the familiars" and will be released in 2023 there is a link to this movie https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11304740/?ref_=ttls_li_tt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.137.66.68 (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see my post in the section just above this one for anyone who sees this section. Georgia guy (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * i don't know maybe imdb lie but this is what i read on imdb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.137.74.253 (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read the explanation at WP:IMDB. IMDB is not a reliable source. Please use other sources instead (such as a newspaper, press release, or in this case reliable movie industry sites like Variety.com).
 * I would also generally recommend against trying to add things that have not happened yet to an encyclopedia. -- 109.79.72.233 (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2022
Similar to the page found at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pixar_films, I would like to add a section indicating untitled films that are in development. This article from the Hollywood Reporter indicates that films from Marc Smith, Josie Trinidad, and Suzi Yoonessi have either been greenlit or are in development. Cmhhelgeson (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Which article? You didn't link to any. Right now there is the section with upcoming films. If you want something added, put it here on talk page how you want it(refs included) and then someone can add it to that section. WikiVirusC (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Meet the Robinsons 2: First Date
Disney will be release Meet the Robinsons 2: First Date in 2023/2024 as 63th Animated movie & Sequel to 2007 Movie.145.255.9.29 (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC) Reliable source please?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Strange World article
We have cast and crew info about WDAS's next movie, Strange World, plus a trailer that was released both online and in theaters. I believe that an article for the film should be coming soon. Red4Smash (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2023
I don't see the point of the decades listed when there are already release dates near it KCRULES16! (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. Recently added by . Thanks, Indagate (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2023
In the section for the film Wish remove/replace the reference X " with Y "" i.e. nothing, please remove the reference.

More than one reference was provided and there was no need to use a WP:FANSITE like TheDisinsider.com as a reference. 109.79.167.143 (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅, recommend you create an account to avoid this. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making the fix, it is unfortunate that it was necessary at all. It is disappointing that editors frequently use low quality WP:FANSITEs as references, and even more disappointing that experienced editors who should know better fail to revert those edits. That is the bigger problem. Ideally the system would help less experienced editors to do the right thing and warn them _before_ they try to add links to rumor sites and limited their use to cases such as interviews where no other better source is likely to exist.
 * If editors need to lock articles (and not allow even flagged edits) then the edit request process works well and I have no problem using it on the few occasions where it is needed, and do not seek to avoid it all. -- 109.79.175.194 (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2023
Add numbers beside the movies. It's an official canon KCRULES16! (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The numbering is missing
Why was the numbering column in the list of films removed? It was very helpful to see how many films there were without having to count them one by one. I see no reason why this purely positive feature had to be removed. Phantom02 (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey, removed on this article 18 September 2022 by BMA-Nation2020. They don't provide encyclopaedic value as the films are not a continuous series. Indagate (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Indigate, What do you mean that they aren't a continuous series?? Georgia guy (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The stories aren't connected, the ending of one film doesn't lead into the next Indagate (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If they were, they would get titles like "Snow White", "Snow White II", "Snow White III", etc. (Note that this statement is valid regardless of what I put in Snow White's position.) Georgia guy (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2023
1930s/1940s · 1950s · 1960s · 1970s · 1980s · 1990s · 2000s · 2010s · 2020s · Upcoming

2000s doesn't work, because there is no film with id="ep38", please fix 71.214.129.79 (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good catch, thanks. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2023
Mary Poppins animation 1964 2600:1702:3190:7290:C9CE:82DE:FF7F:CA92 (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Where the heck is "Brave"?
Brave came out before Wreck it Ralph and Tangled. Its missing 208.175.143.100 (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Brave is Pixar, so its not part of Disney Animated Canon. LancedSoul (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Concur with LancedSoul. Also, we have a separate article for List of Disney theatrical animated feature films.  Disney Animation and Pixar are two separate studios whose films are released under the overarching Disney brand.

I was in the original Animation Building yesterday for my second tour of the Walt Disney Studios; I went back because the company restored Walt's office after my 2014 visit and I have always wanted to see it. (It was amazing to realize both his formal and working offices are quite small.) There is a list of "Disney Animated Features" mounted on the wall in that building which matches this list (but lists 62 features because it includes the one coming out this year, Wish).


 * --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Song of the South
Hello,

Shouldn't Song of the South be included on this list? It was animated by Walt Disney Productions. It does included live-action portions, but so do Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros, which are included. Please someone correct me if I'm mistaken! 70.166.197.98 (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Song of the South was produced by Walt Disney Pictures, not Walt Disney Animation Studios. These are two different branches of Walt Disney Studios — I know, the similar names can be confusing, there's also the unrelated Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The film is listed under, alongside Mary Poppins (which also has animated sequences). InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Film numbers
I think Wikipedia needs an essay on why this list has no numbers for the films. Who was the first Wikipedian to decide this?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not uncommon for film series lists to not have numbers. But you are more than welcome to add them if you believe they would be helpful. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Official studio number used to be the first column up until this edit by User:BMA-Nation2020 on September 18, 2022. There was no edit summary for the edits, but purpose appeared to be to make the film name the row header instead of the film number. I am surprised the edit wasn't reverted, so I assume most editors were OK with the change at the time. Putting the number back would restore the article to the way it originally was. There should be a column source using something official from Disney as a reference to support the numbering to ensure that nothing is missed and the table is complete. The edit notice says there is a mismatch between the UK numbering and the US numbering and to use the US numbering so the US number is long-term expected in this article and was removed without discussion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, it was BMA? They were indeffed the other day for CIR issues and disruptive editing. If no one disagrees, you can revert their edit. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Reason given by User:Indagate for removing the numbering is in the above section as these films are not part of a contiguous series so numbers were considered inappropriate. It wasn't further challenged at that point and I see no further discussion. This may be worth more discussion based on general acceptance of removing the numbers. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Worldwide box office table adjustment.
When one adjusts the table to see the films tabled by box office, the billion dollar grossing films are place at the bottom. An adjustment to the table is needed or to mark 1 billion as 1,000 million.Halbared (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2023
The black cauldron’s rotten tomatoes percentage is incorrect. Should read as 57% 2603:8000:501:D0BD:B01C:3DE0:9EEF:87F0 (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅  Delta  space 42 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2024
I request that part of the order of films be changed. Fantasia 2000 should come before Dinosaur. This is how the Walt Disney Company orders their films and should be reflected in this article. Even your references order them this way. 98.118.52.242 (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Movies are listed in this article ordered by release date. Jiltedsquirrel (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)