Talk:Disney animated feature film source material
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 August 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Unclear classification edit
Shouldn't Brother Bear go under folk tales?
And why are The Little Mermaid and Pinocchio considered fairy tales (even though adapted from books), but The Black Cauldron, Peter Pan, The Reluctant Dragon, and The Sword in the Stone are not? Goustien (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Rename edit
Before this goes back to AfD again (tempting), I figured it would be better to attempt to clean this up per the ideas from the AfD that it could be usable if this were done. I've done a little so far, and I think switching the list to a cleaner, sortable table with additional basic info will also be useful. I also think it should not be limited to just animated works nor to "canon" which seems more of a fan term than any legitimate label. Sourcing, of course, is a must. Another issue brought up is the name, so would also like to propose some alternatives to see which one consensus agrees would be best:
- List of Walt Disney film adaptations - shorter and refocuses to what list is focusing on, the films not the source material
- List of Walt Disney films adapted from other works - clearer than the first and likely to be less confusing
Thoughts?-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- The "canon" is an official classification, even if official sources don't use that exact term. There is a clear, well-defined sequence of Disney animated features, although I understand that recently the line has started to blur slightly, with one or two films that weren't originally included now sometimes considered part of the canon. Powers T 15:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Of the two suggestions, I prefer the latter over the former... but I also don't see an issue with the current name. It clearly defines the article scope (disney animated films) and content (source material). The scope may need to be expanded upon in the lead to indicate that the article is solely for films produced entirely by WDAS. There is no need to differentiate by "canon" or "not canon", as there is a definitive list of the WDAS films already existent (whether they are "canon" or not is a different discussion. SpikeJones (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- The current name does not clearly identify this as a list and does not clearly focus on the topic the actual list focuses on -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- What about List of Disney animated film source material? Powers T 01:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a good name, personally. It could be see as demeaning or lessening the original works by reducing them to "Disney film source material" rather than noting that this is a list of Disney films adapted from other works. Many of these works were famous before (and after) Disney's adapting it, and quite a few have been adapted by other people beyond just Disney. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- What about List of Disney animated film source material? Powers T 01:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- The current name does not clearly identify this as a list and does not clearly focus on the topic the actual list focuses on -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Of the two suggestions, I prefer the latter over the former... but I also don't see an issue with the current name. It clearly defines the article scope (disney animated films) and content (source material). The scope may need to be expanded upon in the lead to indicate that the article is solely for films produced entirely by WDAS. There is no need to differentiate by "canon" or "not canon", as there is a definitive list of the WDAS films already existent (whether they are "canon" or not is a different discussion. SpikeJones (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)