Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disney/Archive 4

A massive discussion on franchise navboxes (and navboxes as a whole)
The navbox community here has been dealing with constant issues of drive-by reverting and borderline edit warring for a while now. I feel like we need to come to a consensus on a few things to create a standardized MOS for franchise navboxes.


 * Do we allow related video games and crossover appearances on the navboxes of the participant franchises?
 * If so, how involved does elements from the franchise has to be in order to be listed?
 * Should we exclude certain works from this process, like Disney Magic Kingdoms and House of Mouse due to their near omnipresence of works represented?
 * How does this work with franchises like Kingdom Hearts or Descendants specifically?


 * Do we allow other navboxes to be linked inside another navbox, for instance linking the navbox of a source material inside a Disney franchise navbox?


 * Do we put the year a work is created next to the work, ie. The Little Mermaid (1989) or Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure (2027-2020)?
 * Do we do this for all works or only in cases where disambiguation is needed?


 * Do we allow primary creatives for television shows and film franchises onto the navbox, possibly going against WP:PERFNAV?

I may make this a proper RFC if we do not come to a consensus again. Hopefully we can reach a standardized conclusion. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I think I know what you mean
 * I say as long as it is related to Disney then it goes in the template we do not need to link to original story as most of the films are based on public domain stories I personally would keep it as it is
 * As for the year for I think we should mention year whenever possibleFan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * In the case of crossovers I suppose it will depend on the importance. For example, in the case of House of Mouse, it is not the same to create a link to the series in the "Tarzan" template (which includes a section focused on Disney's franchise), where the character Tantor from the Disney film is the only character that appears in the series and only in two episodes for a few seconds, and in that case it would not be appropriate to include the link, that add it in the "Aladdin" template, since characters like Jafar and Iago have more important participation as recurring characters, and in that case the franchise does have an important participation during the series, there being a reason to include the link in the navigation template (although in the "Related Articles" section, since it is not part of the main productions of the franchise). After all, the objective of Navboxes is navigation between articles related to a topic. Regarding the dates, I think they are an aid for orientation. If not, if it is seen that it is sufficient to add the productions in chronological order, then it should be used only to differentiate productions with the same title, as is the case of "The Little Mermaid" (1989) and "The Little Mermaid" (2023). - BrookTheHumming (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I would not include cameo or minor appearances (for example HOM or KH) as they do not do much if they had a major role to play an included it (for example Disney Infinity 2.0 would be included in Inside Out as you get to play as the characters but Disney Infinity will not be included in Winnie The Pooh as they only appear as town people Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Any minor appearences or roles in big crossover media should be excluded, Kingdom Hearts and relared articles do not need 200 navboxes, its the opposite of helpful navigation.★Trekker (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For this reason, I have given examples that there are some crossovers that may include characters and content from a franchise that may have minor appearances, but other characters and content from a franchise have notable appearances. As Fanoflionking has also said, in video games a minor appearance of an image of a character is not the same as seeing characters from a franchise as playable characters, being a relevant appearance of franchise content. Also to help with navigation, in the Kingdom Hearts content, for example, the Navboxes focused on the franchise have been included into one part, and then the Navboxes of "related topics" are separated in a collapsed section, also serving as something informative for people to see "Oh, so this franchise is included... I'm going to take a look at the related articles to find more information about it." As I already said, Navboxes have the objective of helping in navigation between articles related to a topic so that people can find the maximum information about it; encyclopedias are for that, so that people can find as much information as possible for what they want or need. BrookTheHumming (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed - this is not a useful navigational aid. -- wooden superman  15:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My thoughts:
 * Do we allow related video games and crossover appearances on the navboxes of the participant franchises? – If they are significant, meaningful appearances, then yes. Per WP:NAVBOX, the subject of the template (i.e. franchise) must be explicitly mentioned on the article, and also WP:BIDI.
 * Do we allow other navboxes to be linked inside another navbox, for instance linking the navbox of a source material inside a Disney franchise navbox? – Sorry, I'm not sure what this would look like. Do you have an example?
 * Do we put the year a work is created next to the work, ie. The Little Mermaid (1989) or Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure (2027-2020)? – I'm a longtime supporter of putting release years in navboxes, disambiguation or not, for the same reason we always put years in prose. However, we should require people to do this (or not do this) — MOS:VAR, WP:CREEP, etc. There is no harm in either way.
 * Do we allow primary creatives for television shows and film franchises onto the navbox, possibly going against WP:PERFNAV? – You said it yourself, this is textbook violation of WP:PERFNAV. Absolutely not.
 * InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , For instance, linking Template:Rapunzel to Template:Tangled. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Navboxes are for linking between articles, we should not link away to template space from article space. -- wooden superman  07:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, is there any reason why not, beside the fairly arbitrary separation between templates and articles or "it is how it always has been done". We should not just blindly follow policy, but ask why it is there. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SELFREF; WP:EGG. The casual viewer looking at an article in a navbox from article space shouldn't be taken "behind the curtain" into the inner workings of template space. -- wooden  superman  15:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But it is not taking them behind the curtain, navboxes are user facing by design. It is not like we are linking an infobox or maintenance template here. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, they are only user facing when they are seen on articles. Per WP:NAVBOX, they are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles.  We shouldn't be using a navbox to take readers outside of their function, i.e. navigating away from a related article.  If the topic is relevant outside of the navbox, it should be properly linked in the article anyway. -- wooden  superman  15:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That being said, if you're already in template space, I don't think it would be too much of an issue for something like this to aid other editors. We just shouldn't link away to template space from articles. If you need to do that then something else is wrong with the interlinking structure. -- wooden  superman  15:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If by "link" you mean putting a wikilink to Template:Tangled on Template:Rapunzel, no. The links on a navbox can only be articles or categories. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And lists. 😉★Trekker (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And lists. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Frozen FAC
Guys the highly important article Frozen (2013 film) of ours is up for FAC. Dont you guys want to review it? Wingwatchers (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on Jeffrey Katzenberg
Hello! I'm inviting editors here to participate in a discussion on the Jeffrey Katzenberg article. I recently took over facilitating discussions and posting edit requests on behalf of WndrCo and am working to get an NPOV tag addressed that the previous WndrCo rep was told would need consensus before any changes could be made. The content in question is related to Katzenberg's role in the Disney Renaissance, which is why I'm posting here. If anyone is interested, I'd love some additional thoughts on the topic. The discussion can be found here. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Help_desk
Discussion on WP:s use of the Disney-word Cecaelia. For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for a Template:Disney's The Jungle Book navbox
I wish to create a separate navbox for Disney's The Jungle Book, this would be split out from Template:The Jungle Book and would result in Template:TaleSpin being merged into it. I have created the sample template here:

I want to know your thoughts on it. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes however I would not include DT17 as that only cameos (I only on series 2), also do you play as any TJB characters in the following games Disney Magic Kingdoms and ''Disney Mirrorverse' (I have not played those games) Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * DT17 is included due to its multiple crossovers with TaleSpin, specifically season 3's "The Lost Cargo of Kit Cloudkicker!" and the multiple episodes featuring Don Karnage. According to the franchise article, Jungle Book characters are playable in both games. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead and do

I also think we need to look at merged the following
 * Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers/Template:Chip 'n' Dale in animation
 * template:Goof Troop/template:Goofy in animation/Template:Max Goof in animation/Template:Goofy games

Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as an unnecessary fork of a navbox that isn't too large. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposal regarding season article naming
There is a proposal to change the naming conventions of TV season articles from the current practice of  to   or. As such a change would affect a substantial number of articles, you are invited to participate in the discussion at . Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: Please see . Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:History (American TV network)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:History (American TV network) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Disney+ Website.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Disney+ Website.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Changing the infobox images on Muppet character articles
I am requesting to change the infobox images on Muppet character articles, such as Miss Piggy and Kermit the Frog, to images such as and  specifically. I started a discussion, as the replacement images are not the typical images used for articles. I personally think that the current images have too many weird cropping issues and all have white backgrounds, which I find visually unappealing for an infobox. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who uploaded both images. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Disney (disambiguation)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Disney (disambiguation) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed split of Criticism of the Walt Disney Company page
Hello everyone! I would like your input on a discussion at Talk:Criticism of the Walt Disney Company about whether to split off content from five sub-sections about Walt Disney Animation Studios to the Criticism of Walt Disney Animation Studios, in order to ensure that the page complies with WP:SIZESPLIT. Consensus in this discussion is important to determine whether such a this split is warranted or not. Thanks and I hope to see your comments. Historyday01 (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Santa Clause (franchise)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Santa Clause (franchise) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on The Lion King II
Hello. There's an ongoing discussion regarding the recent changes to the plot and lead sections of The Lion King II: Simba's Pride, which can be found at Talk:The Lion King II: Simba's Pride. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace
Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Leadership of the Walt Disney Company for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Leadership of the Walt Disney Company is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Leadership of the Walt Disney Company until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Disney Studio 1
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Disney Studio 1 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Monsters, Inc.
There's a discussion regarding the Monsters, Inc. article that may be of interest to to members of this project. The discussion can be found at Talk:Monsters, Inc.. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

"Walt Disney Productions" target title tussle settler
Pinged both &  for this discussion due the recent page history of this title, which is a former name to at least 6 Disney divisions and subsidiaries (including this one). To this day, the actual target for this title is still debatable regardless of WP:STATUSQUO per the former user's assertions and it's ironic how it isn't treated like Buena Vista (brand). For me, I suggest we DAB this title! But first, I want to see your take(s) on this! Intrisit (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is inappropriate use of RfC (Requests for Comment). You should file a RfD (Redirects for Discussion). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If I used RfD for this, it would be closed as keep without fuss as if it's nothing worthy. There are avenues to settle disputes with titles, whether article one or redirects, but this title needs more than just RfD, considering its page history from which I arrived at using RfC first. This wasn't meant as a final-target request as I assume you want the meaning to why I arrived here. As stated, this is for input from the community (you and I included) on whether or not to DAB the title. True RfC isn't appropriate for this, but it's what I could find or get to involve the community, which I'll argue very well is unsurprised about this, here but I want to help settle this for good! Unless you help find one avenue for this... Intrisit (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you asked at, say, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disney for example? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's moved over here now! But I doubt/I'm skeptical this will get a response from anyone other than you! Intrisit (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * See why I wanted to use RfC – not RfD – for this?! If I used RfD, you wouldn't reply that I take my discussion here. Intrisit (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging you all as I just stumbled upon this discussion, though I believe a DAB page is in order given I have found multiple instances of where this name has been used in the past and/or could still be used to refer to some parts of the company. Those being as a former name of Walt Disney Pictures, Walt Disney Animation Studios, and the Walt Disney Company, and a similarly named faction, Disney Theatrical Productions. I wanted to hear your thoughts before making any changes. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This was exactly why I instigated the RfC which gave the response you see upwards of this text, with 's status quo assertions. As the Walt Disney Company article here says in short, "Walt Disney Productions" was the unified faction until 1986 when it split into the 7 factions we know now, including 2 you just mentioned; WDPics and WDAS/Disney Animation. Walt Disney Pictures came in 1983, but absorbed its WDP bit into it. I'm skeptical beyond what you want to do with the WDP title it'll be that simple reorganizing the multiple coverages of Disney reorganizations since then till date here. Intrisit (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason why I wanted the redirects as such is due to Geraldo Perez enforcing WP:NOTBROKEN on articles. Since the redirect was originally the big bad corporation, I had to change the redirect to the film company so that the articles stick with a consistent balance. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging to wade into BaldiBasicsFan's statement. Also, to help re-tool the WP:OL and WP:SOB in animated series and animated film articles he's been imposing on since late 2023. Intrisit (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It needs to be a disambiguation page if there are multiple valid destinations based on name at time of use being different entities and the current target doesn't cover this. That solves the WP:NOTBROKEN issues as pipes to bypass disambiguation pages are a valid reason to use pipes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So, what do you say – we DAB this title? Or more comments are due? Because I ain't gonna do this for a revert to happen this time! Intrisit (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I support creating a DAB. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * & I haven't heard from your sides on this! Intrisit (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to add beyond what I stated above. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I fear when I BOLDly DAB the title, you may revert it/them, whether piped or not, hence why I pinged you! Intrisit (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like a DAB is the appropriate action for that location. DAB pages should never be directly linked in articles and it is required that a pipe to the proper page be in the link to fix that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at A Christmas Carol (2009 film)
I've opened up a discussion regarding the plot summary for A Christmas Carol (2009 film) over at Talk:A Christmas Carol (2009 film). Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)