Talk:The Rescuers/Archive 1

Upcoming articles
I've added a valuable piece of trivia about Penny, please don't remove it or alter the Trivia section just yet. I'm working on another character article similar to that of Madame Medusa, I want to make one for Miss Bianca and one for Penny, after that, Rufus and Bernard will make interesting articles because there's so much background on them. All trivia related to Penny will be able to be used in the newer article later, but leave it here for now. All information for Madame Medusa can go on the newer article for her. --Lyzoth 02:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Any information regarding Mr. Snoops: is now welcome in his section under Madame Medusa's page. Since his article information is still little, I figured it'd be better to have him in Medusa's page, at least for now.  The same will go to Brutus and Nero later on.  Someone who is good at giving pages their ratings, I'd appreciate it if they'd like to go and look at Madame Medusa's rather complete page (except for the Brutus and Nero section) and give it a rating.--Lyzoth 19:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Information of Penny, also now welcomed at her page here: Penny. I'm thinking about adding Rufus and Morningside Orphanage as sections of this page.  What do you think? --Lyzoth 19:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Penny
Who plays Penny's voice? (I recently look at it... don't ask. Michelle Stacy?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Marksman (talk • contribs) 22:30, April 17, 2006

Controversial Characters
Is it just me or does Snoops seem like a stereotypical jew? He has the hair, facial features, and voice of a jew. This would explain why he didn't want to use Penny for the mission. He obviously had some sort of complex financial plan that showed they could still be profitable by hiring a little person. Is there a reason why the only Jewish character in the movie is a second- rate villain. I'm personally suprised this aspect of the film has not caused much of a public stir.

Also, one of my favorite characters, Luke, is depicted as an alcoholic. For comedic purposes he is shown breathing fire after having a swig of whatever tonic he was holding. However alcoholism is nothing to take lightly, especially in a children's movie. The film seems to show the viewer that alcohol solves problems instead of creating them. Twice alcohol helps the characters. It serves as a fuel source for Medusa's boat and an energy drink for Evinnrude. I know alcohol can be harmful but the young children watching this film do not. I seriously hope Disney edits this scene in future editions of the movie.

--Nightengale989 20:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I seriously hope Disney isn't stupid enough to do any alternations to a 30 year old children's classic the way they did to Fantasia or Make Mine Music. Honestly, people should stop over-analyzing and getting offended over little things in films, books or whatever, children will not pay attention to that. And just because Luke got drunk once, doesn't mean he is an alcoholic, same thing with Uncle Waldo in The Aristocats. About Mr. Snoops, so what if he was modeled after a jew? I seriously doubt Disney was trying to offend anyone and I don't get why people so often thing stereotyping is a bad thing, it doesn't have to be, estereotypes are a part of culture, it's like saying that the French love bread, nothing wrong with that even if it isn't true for every Frenchman, a bad stereotype would be "all Middle-Easterns are terrorists", now that's something to be offended about. 67.174.4.138 21:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
There's an awful lot of trivia on this page compared to the other Disney movies of the era...could we get some sources? Many of these claims are not well-known facts, and I suggest we remove some if no sources are provided/can be found.--Marysunshine 03:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've deleted some of the less-notable and relevant claims. --Marysunshine 04:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A lot of new sections have been added as well as separate character pages that helped home some of this scattered Trivia. 67.174.4.138 18:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else see the amazing resemblense between miss bianca and duchess of the aristocats? although i didn t originally watch them in english it somehow doesn t seem odd they have the same voice..also they both quite remind me of marion of robin hood..FC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.207.91.62 (talk • contribs) 11:12, November 2, 2006

Semiprotection?
Should this page be semi-protected? I mean, it's constantly a victim of vandalism and it's getting to be very irrating. T.W. 17:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The rate of vandalism on this page is very typical of what we get. There isn't anything extreme that requires protection of any sort. Harryboyles 07:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

GA comment
The images need fair use rationales and the theories about the topless woman need to to be cited. Look to passed GA/FAs for examples of fair use rationales for movie posters and screenshots. --Nehrams2020 03:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well, I'll work on this today in the evening. Thanks! T.W. 11:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 17, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Overall, the article is well-written. However, the lead section does not adequately summarize the article.  For example, it should briefly mention how the movie did at the box office, and maybe briefly touch on the controversy.  The punctuation needs to be fixed in the following passage: "and rescue Penny, . Evinrude" also here: "concealing it in Penny, 's teddy bear." This sentence is confusing "The locals run in a body to the riverboat." and so is this: "soon after part on Orville," (maybe say on the back of Orville?).  Also add spoiler-end to the end of the synopsis section.  The cast and characters section should be merged since there is so much overlap in the information.  The Trivia section is a HUGE problem, and the number one failure issue.  Trivia sections are severely frowned upon in GA and FA articles.  Additionally, much of the "trivia" is unreferenced or pointless (for example, "Penny's teddy bear bears a superficial resemblance to Winnie the Pooh.")  All of the trivia should be merged into the article or deleted. The trivia section should be done away with. Since some of the trivia shares a theme (comparisons with other Disney films) you might consider renaming the section along those lines.  But most of it should still be integrated in the article or deleted. The Directing animators section should be under a "Cast and crew" section, with a subsection for cast, and a subsection for crew.  The Significance section should be converted to prose.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: For an article of this length it is a little light on references, but I that is sometimes typical of movies, since much of the article is a recap of the movie. But I would try to reference a little more, paying special attention to dates, figures and very specific details.  Also, remove the reference "The Little Mermaid trivia. The Internet Movie Database" since the IMDB trivia sections are not reliable (user contributed and unverified).  I don't think this is particularly noteworthy "and when she saw the completed picture in the cinema, she cried for her lost grandfather."  The controversy section is not well refernced enough either, and the tone is occasionally scandoulous (like the sentence "However, like many had predicted, few people accepted the exchange, since the first issue had automatically become a collector's item."  Also, reports about the 2007 masterpiece release needs to be referenced.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: The Animals Features section should be integrated into the cast listing and then eliminated. It is an example of listcruft. The article is lacking a Background or Production section.  According to WP:FILM it should include: "a history of the film's background and development, such as how many studios, actors, directors and writers were involved with the project at one point or another. Continuing onto the production of the film, facts such as filming dates, budget figures, any noteworthy tidbits (such as delays, re-shoots etc.) should be transformed into prose. Comments from the cast and crew are also welcomed."


 * Innovations and Abandoned concepts should probably be merged and included in this new section. This section should follow the Synopsis section.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Overall good here. No clear bias promoting the film. But the "songs" section has some issues.  The description of the songs contain too much added plot description, and occasionally sounds like opinion statements have crept in (for example ""Tomorrow is Another Day" is a cheerful song" or ""Someone's Waiting for You" is the touching lullaby ").  The song descriptions should mostly stick to who sang the song and how the song was made.  Secondly, most articles have a "Soundtrack" section.  But if music is in the movie that isn't on the soundtrack, or vice versa, you might want to have a music section with some combination of the two.  For an excellent example, see The Lion King.
 * 5. Article stability? Great here. No edit wars, and most changes seem to be improvements by dedicated editors.
 * 6. Images?: Great!

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks! I didn't think the plot over-view had so many things that needed work, since that was one of the parts I didn't write myself, I didn't pay much attention to it and assumed it was well done.  I'll work on references, though most have proved unbelievable hard to find, but I'll keep trying.  The songs section will live with minor changes, so I'll take care of those as well and everything else that needs improvement.  Thanks again! T.W. 18:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, true, the trivia section has already been discussed and I've also had to "shrink" it in the past, so doing so again should be no problem. I'll recycle the most important claims and I'll get rid of the rest.  About the teddy and Winnie the Pooh similarities, well, this film has many connections to other films, so I had been planning on a new section to list out all of these.  I'll work on improving the main plot overview so that its easier to understand and flows smooth when read.  I'll add all of these things to the to-do list here so others can help out if they'll like to, though I believe I can manage.  T.W. 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

 * There is some discussion below (on this talk page) about Brutus and Nero being alligators and not crocodiles. Perhaps they should also be identified as such in the "Plot" section of the main article.
 * Reduce length of "Synopsis" section per WP:MOSFILM
 * Done, changed name to 'Plot' per WP:MOSFILM specifications. Cactusjump (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge "Cast" and "Characters" section; trim cast members who have minor roles
 * Trimmed cast list and descriptions. Cactusjump (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Convert "Songs" section into "Musical score" section; trim extraneous mentions of when songs appear in the film and focus more on their real-world context
 * Done, suggest that individual song pages be merged in to this section. Cactusjump (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Supervising animators" section may be too indiscriminate; perhaps combine with the "Cast"/"Characters" section (table format?)
 * "Significance" section should be converted into prose
 * Done. Cactusjump (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Abandoned concepts" section should be worked into a "Production" section, currently nonexistent
 * Section now exists, carries previously titled 'Significance' facts as well as part of the intro. Cactusjump (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Merchandising" and "Promotional tie-ins" sections should be cited and woven together in a "Marketing" section
 * Changed name to 'Marketing', researching sources (if any exist). Cactusjump (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions on improving the article. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Trivia" section should be integrated with the rest of the article
 * "Walt Disney Classics Collection" section should be merged with "Marketing"
 * "See also" section should be discouraged; characters with singular appearances should not have their own articles


 * One other suggestion -- move "Innovations" section to "Significance" Cactusjump (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved 'Innovations' to the 'Significance' section, since no one seemed to object. Cactusjump (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Songs
I have put a "Unreferenced section" template on the section "Songs", primarily due to the claims that inanimate objects are singing the songs. When I watched the movie last night, I didn't feel as though during the song "The Journey" that the bottle was singing, but that it was part of the narrative, such as in Tarzan and the opening song of The Lion King. I also feel that the references to Shelby Flint "singing offscreen" is incorrect, for this same reason, as she is not a character in the film. I'll leave this up for a while, and if no one objects will correct these references. Any objections are welcome. Thanks. Cactusjump (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With no objections, went ahead and edited this section, changing it to Musical Score per above task list. Removed all analysis of song's meanings, as they are disputable.  Cactusjump (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The song "The Journey" is not the actual bottle singing, but it is sung from its perspective. For this reason Shelby Flint's sometimes been credited as the voice of "The Bottle." T.W. (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can find a reliable source that supports this, feel free to add. Cactusjump (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Update
Glad to see the changes made to the article! I'm glad my suggestions did not go to waste. Feel free to continue editing the article since judging from page revision statistics, there is no real primary contributor here. If there is interest in feedback, here are a few more suggestions: -Move the screenshot in the "Plot" section to elsewhere in the article per WP:FILMNFI; the screenshot would exist better among real-world context than in-universe detail.
 * Done. Cactusjump (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

-Bolding in "Characters" and "Musical score" are not needed; the formatting is best used when there are multi-lined items that make it hard for the reader to spot the actor and role amidst the bulleted items.
 * Done. Cactusjump (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

-"Production" may be better to move up above "Musical score", since it is more core to the film.
 * Done. Cactusjump (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

-The entire "Marketing" section feels indiscriminate. I hate to remove it all without further research, but I think that we should find out where this information came from so it is verifiable by readers who visit the page. Even if all details are verifiable, it may be better to re-write the section as prose, summarizing most items into general categories and mentioning select examples.
 * I believe it should be deleted entirely. I haven't been able to find any sources to back up this section, and I've never seen such a lengthy list like this in other articles. Cactusjump (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed previous info, moved "Classic Collection" info under this heading. Cactusjump (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

-Dates should be de-linked per MOS:DATE throughout the article.
 * Done. Cactusjump (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

-The "Controversy" section should be more thoroughly cited; I think this could be done easily with a little research since controversies are favorite topics of media.
 * Found another source, updated, cleaned up. If find more sources, will add. Cactusjump (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

-Suggest removing "Film Credits" in its entirety. We tend to avoid indiscriminate cast and crew information, since such lists are not quite encyclopedic and can be found at databases like IMDb. Important people can be identified in the infobox, the cast section, or in another part of the article body where they played a major role (such as designing a particular scene).
 * I also agree this should be removed. It seems superfluous. Cactusjump (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Cactusjump (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If help is needed to find additional resources about this film, I will be happy to look. I have watchlisted this page, so feel free to respond to my suggestions! — Erik (talk • contrib) 18:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * — Erik (talk • contrib) 18:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I've tagged some 'orphan' pages that exist surrounding this film, specifically with the individual characters (some which seem ok, others are just outright character analysis). There are also three song stubs that I believe should be deleted.  I think ideally all the information should be kept in this one article.  If you can assist in keeping an eye on these, fixing, possibly deleting, that'd be helpful.  Thanks, Erik!  I'll get to work on the other items. Cactusjump (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merging all duplicate info in the character articles to this article. BEING BOLD!! Cactusjump (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice job! What else do you want to do with the article? I think major structural concerns are addressed. I can help with some copy-editing for the article body. — Erik (talk • contrib) 16:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds great! I'm still considering bringing the Madame Medusa page over here.  I think the Bernard/Bianca's might have to stay put because they can apply to the sequel, too.  I'd love to get this to be nominated for Feature status, so anything that you can suggest, let me know! Cactusjump (talk)


 * At present, we do not have guidelines for film character articles (though it is on the coordinators' agenda). For a film character article to really work, it needs to be more than a plot summary of what the character did across various films.  That kind of information can be conveyed in each film article.  How critics perceive the character across multiple films could be a major aspect of an article, though the strongest aspect would be themes.  I think that this is usually reserved for major characters like horror film icons.
 * I looked at my university databases for coverage about this film, and I did not find anything extensive, unfortunately. It may be a tough challenge to make this article a Featured Article, to give you fair warning.  It may be best off as a Good Article.  (Unless you know enough about Disney books to determine if they have coverage about this film.)  I think that the best way I can help right now in terms of resources is looking through newspaper databases, but I am not sure about other types of publications at this point. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 17:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I moved the Medusa page, and I think the Bianca/Bernard articles could easily be integrated in to here.  I'll check my Disney resources (books) and try to find any insightful information that hasn't been presented here. Cactusjump (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of images
Since the merging of the film's character articles to the film article, there were images left over from these merged articles. The images were added to this film article, but they do not have sufficient rationale for inclusion per WP:NFC and WP:FILMNFI. The articles already has two images that have acceptable rationales; we cannot dump extra images and force them to belong. It is like trying to push a square peg through a round hole. The best practice is to develop articles to their ideal status, and if anything in the body could be significantly illustrated by visual aids, non-free images can be added. This is not the case here, and we do not include images just for the sake of showing what a character looks like. — Erik (talk • contrib) 01:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverting edits
Just clarifying some edits I had to revert:


 * Plot: The plot summary as it was written before was fine. The length was fine, the grammar was fine, the details were limited for length...everything fine.  There's no need to fix something that's not broken.


 * Brutus and Nero are Alligators: I'm tired of going back and fixing all The Rescuers and related articles reverting changes that Medusa's pets are crocodiles.  They are alligators.  It's been proven in animation books by Bob Thomas, Leonard Maltin, and Frank and Ollie that they are alligators.  Their snouts and tails show they are alligators.  Please, people.  Stop changing the articles to say that they are crocs, when they're not!

Thank you. Cactusjump (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Now who done it?
Wow, I just want to scream seeing what's become of all of the The Rescuers related articles these past few weeks. I mean, "Mr. Perkinson"?! What the hell is all this BS-crap? Not to mention poorly chosen images, ridiculously incorrect information regarding voice actors... the dismissal of tons and tons of valuable information... Eek. T.W. (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edits made that included changing all mentions of Snoops to Perkinson and some other irrelevant edits. But as far as the other articles (mostly of the characters), they've all been merged in to this article because the information was just duplicated in the other articles or was all unverified information.  Although some of those articles were written exceptionally, they contained mostly character analysis and speculation, not encyclopedic information.  I have done everything I can to maintain the integrity of "The Rescuers" and keep everything that is verified. Cactusjump (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Soundtrack
Taran Wanderer wrote: "Where did all the information regarding the songs go? Surely not in their respective articles as they've been killed off only to struggle at life here."
 * As you can see in the above discussion, there were no citations for the assertions made for the songs. It was a lot of speculative analysis about their interpretation -- interpretation that could be argued.  We've been trying to removed the analysis and keep to encyclopedic information only.  Thanks. Cactusjump (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. For example, in the recent change you made that I edited: it is interpretation to say that the shining star "offers hope" for Penny. This can be argued, as it can be said that perhaps she is making a wish on the star, or maybe she is simply looking out the window.  Perhaps it is the two mice who offer Penny hope.  This is the kind of language that must be avoided.  Cactusjump (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not an interpretation. Penny is offered hope by the shining star because previously in the film she had been told about such star by Rufus the cat.  So it is a given in the film.  Penny is not even aware of Bernard and Miss Bianca's presence, which clearly makes the previous version invalid. T.W. (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That is your interpretation. The fact that it is up for debate at all demonstrates that it is not encyclopedic, but your analysis of the events.


 * In reference to your comments in your last edit "If needed, many of the story-book versions can be used as proof, if the film's clear evidence is not enough. The whole scene is degraded if we use such indifferent language." I don't wish to edit war with you, but the article is not about the story-book but the actual film.  Nowhere in the film does it state or show that the songs are interpreted in that way.  This is an encyclopedia, not a place for personal analysis or an essay on the film.  Your interpretation of the songs were written beautifully, but they were your interpretation, plain and simple. The section is not "degraded" in any way by staying true to the facts.  Cactusjump (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Bernard the Brave (Margery Sharp)
Before someone decided to resurrect the article on the character of Bernard under the name "Bernard the Brave," this title corresponded to an article regarding Margery Sharp's novel. Whatever happened to it? Surely we're not going to have the book articles be merged into this one as well? Too much valuable information is being lost this way. The last thing we need is two-sentence mentions of the novels as well. T.W. (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bernard as a character should be integrated in this article as well as Margery Sharp's book article (if one exists). I'm sure Disney's interpretation varies from the book in some way.  There's no need for individual articles, as the only thing different from what is present in this article and the character article was his superstitions.  Repetitive articles are just unnecessary. Cactusjump (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why in the world should Margery Sharp's novel's articles be integrated into this one? They're completely different works that don't even share plot-lines.  You're getting too ridiculously carried away with all this merging, and I for one don't really approve of it.  Next thing you know you'll be merging all of the "Snow White" adaptations into Disney's film article.  T.W. (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a misunderstanding. The Bernard character article was merged in to this article -- it was called Bernard (The Rescuers).  I did not touch an article named "Bernard the Brave" in regards to Margery Sharp.  Someone using a user name Bernard the Brave revived the article of Bernard (The Rescuers) when it was already merged in to this article.


 * Secondly, as you see from the discussions above, a task list was put together in May 2008 by the Wiki Films project to clean up this article. I collaborated with Erik from the team to help fix this article.  It has been many months of work and research.  I don't appreciate you saying that I'm "ridiculously carried away" when there has been careful consideration in every change and fix made to this article.  Each character article that was merged in to this one carried little to no new information, just speculative character analysis.  This is not a personal affront to you or your work on the articles, but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or analysis of the film or its characters.  Cactusjump (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to be sure, I checked, and the Bernard the Brave article is still intact. Cactusjump (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The comment was regarding the suggestion of merging possible articles on Margery Sharp's children's novels into the film's article; next thing you know J. K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" novels' articles will be getting merged into their corresponding films' articles as well. The character articles were mostly description's of the character's appearance, personality and mostly actions, not psychological analysis.  There's a major difference.  Those articles also featured more information regarding voice actors, animators, creators and inspirations in greater detail than here.  Not to mention their helpful individual images.  T.W. (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I also see no mention of the numerous covers that were done to some of the songs in this film, such as Lea Salonga's cover of Shelby Flint's "Someone's Waiting For You." No mention either of which artists participated in each of the individual songs (Bob Newhart, Bernard Fox...).  Whatever happened to "Faith is a Bluebird" and "The U.S. Air Force"?  Those form part of the soundtrack. T.W. (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Like I said above, as far as I know there was no merge of any articles that related to Margery Sharp's novel characters merged into this article. The character articles that were merged were all in reference to THIS film and repeated almost verbatim what was in THIS article.  Cited facts that were present in the character's articles were moved in here.  I personally did not delete the images present in those articles, so I can't give you an answer to that except to -- once again -- direct you to the discussion from another editor above about images.


 * As far as the songs go, "Faith is a Bluebird" is a poem that was spoken by Rufus the cat, not a song, and "The U.S. Air Force" music was incidental. Please refer to the task list above where it was requested to "trim extraneous mentions of when songs appear in the film and focus more on their real-world context."


 * You are welcome to contribute a section on covers made of the songs from this film if you find them relevant to this article and they are accurately cited. Please just read the above task list and discussion before making changes. Cactusjump (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Inspirations
Early in the film's production, the Disney animators were initially considering reusing Cruella de Vil from 101 Dalmatians as the villainess. However due to concerns that reusing Cruella would make The Rescuers seem like a sequel to an otherwise unrelated film, Madame Medusa was created in her place. In addition to inheriting some characteristics from Cruella, Medusa may have passed some of her original traits onto Ursula in The Little Mermaid, including a similar snaky hairdo, and facial features, and the tendency to keep a pair of ferocious green, yellow-eyed pets (Brutus and Nero for Medusa, the wolf eels, Flotsam and Jetsam for Ursula).

I am actually surprised that neither of these claims are in some way mentioned in the article, for both have been proven true and valid numerous times (particularly the first claim), and I know there are references to support both. Some of the claims in the first paragraph are a bit too much, and Ursula's official profile on the Disney website briefly mentions her similarities with Madame Medusa. T.W. (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * They have no citations as you have them in the above paragraph. If you can cite reliable sources, add it to the article. Cactusjump (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just added a tag for this. "Both have been proven true and valid numerous times" is not sufficient - you have to show your references here. "I know there are references to support both" - Fine; include them according to Wikipedia guidelines. Adding "facts" to Wikipedia means doing the work of adding your references, too, not just saying that you know they're facts and everyone needs to just trust you. I've added quite a few tags throughout this article; it seems someone's been doing a lot of this kind of thing lately. PacificBoy  07:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I frankly don't care any more for post-2005 Wikipedia, so count me out. The marketing section was removed twice because...? T.W. (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The claim " The motive to steal a diamond originated in Margery Sharp's 1959 novel, Miss Bianca." is false. The Diamond Duchess kept the orphan, Patience, around for servitude and a target for cruelty; there was no element of diamond theft in the entire book. 4 November 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.79.139.146 (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Evinrude name
http://www.outboardmotoroilblog.com/evinrude-oil/371-a-brief-history-of-evinrude/ - Here's something, though perhaps not 100% convincing. It's harder than I thought to find online references for this. Library books should have more convincing information. T.W. (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately a blog is not a reliable source. I'm guessing they might have gotten the information themselves from this very article.  I actually looked for a resource yesterday in my 20 Disney animation books, as well as the internet, to no avail.  It's a good assumption, but we may just have to leave it with a citation needed tag for a while. Cactusjump (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, now I remember where the piece of information originated from. It was part of the "Fun facts from the archives" pop-up window on the DVD's official website, which Disney removed when the Disney DVD website was completely updated.  Hopefully some library volume will have retained that information. T.W. (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I went to see if Disney still has a Rescuers page, and it looks like this is it. I don't see any info on Evinrude there, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist!  I'll keep looking through my books and the internet to see what I can find.  We'll get this article to FA status someday! Cactusjump (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the new updated profile (which by the way displays screenshots from the sequel instead of the original film), This was the previous version, which included a link to a "Fun facts from the archives" pop-window, which had the information on Evinrude among other facts. T.W. (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So close! Cactusjump (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick and heartfelt "thank you"
Thanks to everyone who has helped to maintain this article in the face of a very persistent, single-minded and determined vandal, User:Bambifan101 and his Bottomless Sock Drawer. I have therefore semi-protected the page against new and unregistered users. Hopefully, you won't have to deal with this nut where this article is concerned until June 1, 2010. If the semi-protection is causing problems with legitimate users, please let me know and I'll take care of it. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! And a reminder that if anyone is new or unregistered and wants to make changes, they can discuss it here. I'm on almost every day, so I can always discuss a change with someone.  Cactusjump (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Future BD release?
I am of the opinion that there is a problem with the added suggestion that a Blu-ray release of the film is due in March 2013, and do not believe the statement belongs in this article without more sources to back it up. The offending statement is below:


 * Sources indicate that the film has been, along with a small number of other Disney films, added to Walt Disney Home Entertainment's prestigious "Platinum Collection" line and will be released as such on DVD and Blu-ray on March 12, 2013.

The cited source is a Spanish DVD info website instead of a self-published blog; that much I grant out without any problem. However, when the source is translated into English, it's merely a description of the plot of the film. The header of the article does suggest that the film will become part of the Platinum Edition line, which the editor added to the article. However, there are two problems with that statement ...

First, there is no indication in the cited article which region will receive this release: is it Spain or North America? The other provided dates in the article are for the North American releases, so a reasonable reader would make the assumption that this subsequent release is also for North America, a statement not backed up by the cited source. Second, Disney has shifted its promotional language to "Diamond Edition" in North America, apparently retiring "Platinum Edition" at the same time. So that would again seem to point toward this release (i.e., "Platinum Edition" Blu-ray) not being intended for North America; this is not to say that North America won't get a BD release of this film, but it could conceivably be earlier than the mentioned date and with no "insert precious substance Edition" labeling.

Speaking of the date: the cited source only mentions a month and a year, while the poster has added an actual calendar date. Again, this is speculation not backed up by the source data. To compound matters, the Spanish site indicates that the March 2013 date is "por confirmar." This translates as "to be confirmed" ... in other words, it's somebody's speculation, not fact. Official press releases on the site are labeled as "anuncio oficial"—"official announcement". The cited source article is labeled "avance"—literally "advance," or probably in this usage "preview" or "teaser."

To summarize, I think the cited source, while legitimate, does not make the statements that are attributed to it, or suggested by it, in the article.

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I frankly don't care, do as you please. I don't bother with Collectonian-infected articles too much. T.W. (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Collectonian-infected"? Sounds rather like a personal attack on another editor to me. What marks an article as being "infected"? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You can see it as a personal attack, or me just basically saying that I will not waste my time on an article where an authority-hungry person is going to get involved and demand to have the final word on everything. That's the reason I stopped editing and finding information and sources for this article in which I was formerly very active.  Collectonian was helpful enough at first in helping me improve the Celia (TV series) article, but then her behavior turned into that of a tyrant, monitoring my every move and constantly harassing me.  After that she started screwing around with practically every article I was involved in.  Not liking to be treated as if she had actual authority to me, I stopped involving myself in these articles and left her to fix the 'tags' she had decorated tens of articles with.

Either way, this is all very irrelevant. The bottom line is that you can do what you see fit, and I won't argue any further about it. T.W. (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Prederi, 13 August 2010
Please delete the image "Rescuers Topless Woman.jpg" because it is not a proper content for this page in case when children see it.

Prederi (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Wikipedia is not censored. Besides, the image is too small to see clearly even when viewed at full resolution; a child reading the page would hardly notice it. sonia  ♫  13:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)