Talk:Mary Poppins (film)

Statement needs some work ...

"The film received 13 Academy Award nominations (it shares this record with Gone with the Wind, From Here to Eternity, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Forrest Gump, Shakespeare in Love, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Chicago, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; only All About Eve and Titanic have received more nominations, 14 each) and won 5 awards."

The film can't "share a record" of 13, when said record appears to be 14, as the latter part of the sentence says. If you really want to include all those titles, perhaps ...

"The film received 13 Academy Award nominations (equalling the nomination totals of Gone with the Wind, From Here to Eternity, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Forrest Gump, Shakespeare in Love, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Chicago, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Only All About Eve and Titanic have received more nominations, with 14 each. Mary Poppins won in five of the categories."

WHPratt (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I was 8 years old when I saw Mary Poppins when it was released for the first time. And I remember the parrot on the umbrella handle talking in the beginning of the film with Mary while in the clouds. This occurred before the nanny songs by Mr. Banks and later the children are sung. Then when he rips up the kids advertisement, the papers do float up the chimney and form into a single piece of paper in Mary's hands. I have boughten every copy of the different releases of the film on VHS and DVD, but none of them have the talk with Mary and the parrot in the beginning, even that those cite they are complete. Only at the very end of the film, does the parrot talk for 1-2 sentences. Are the opening sequences lost? Just wondering.65.74.29.130 (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Soundtrack article

I am thinking about splitting off the soundtrack as its own article, but looking for opinions first. There is a lot of material (much of which is unsourced content about unused songs), that I would hate to just remove. At the same time, there is so much that it is overwhelming the main article in my opinion. Does it meet the criteria for its own article? Thoughts? BollyJeff | talk 00:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@MarnetteD:?? BollyJeff | talk 01:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey B. I think you have a point and you should proceed as you think fit. You can always work on it in user space - I'm sure you know that so apologies for stating the obvious - until you get it where you like it. I know specific talk pages are not watched as avidly as they used to be so you can always post a thread at the filmproject pointing to a specific thread like this one to get more input. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mary Poppins (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208011732/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearchInput.jsp to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearchInput.jsp
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6XjARCjVO?url=http://www.wga.org/wga-awards/previous-nominees-winners2.aspx to http://www.wga.org/wga-awards/previous-nominees-winners2.aspx

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

A move request related to this subject (2018)

A requested move related to this topic has been requested at Talk:Mary Poppins (musical). -- 67.70.34.69 (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2019

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus for making Mary Poppins (film) primary topic. Result pending for disambiguation: we need clarification from some supporters of the film below. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Move Mary Poppins to Mary Poppins (book series) and disambiguate per the consensus that there is no primary topic. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

---

• Mary Poppins (film) → Mary Poppins
• Mary Poppins → Mary Poppins (book series)

– I'd like to think the film is more notable than the book series. It has triple the number of views.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." I definitely think the film is the primary topic over the books series. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - a secondary item, that is, an item that is based on something else, should never be considered as a primary. That said, I have no issue with a Mary Poppins leading to a disambiguation page. --Gonnym (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Can you cite a Wikipedia policy that supports this assertion? Rreagan007 (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• If the "primary" in "primary topic" was intended to be interpreted literally as "earliest", you would have a point, Gonnym, but it's not. Like Rreagan007 points out, there is no policy basis for this oppose. --В²C ☎ 22:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Taking into consideration the relative renown of each entity, every WP:LOCALCONSENSUS may arrive at a different result. The discussion at Talk:Gone with the Wind (novel)#Requested move 14 September 2016 decided that the book should not be primary over the film, with the base name flowing to the dab page, while the discussion at Talk:Mrs. Miniver#Requested move 22 May 2017 concluded that the film is, in fact, primary over the book. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• These moves would mess up many well-established links between pages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Links can easily be changed. If the articles are moved, I will personally go through and fix all of the internal links myself. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose first partly because nom has failed to address or even mention the second criteria, neutral to weak support on second the character is better known than the 1964 film, as demonstrated by the new film. However no objection to moving Mary Poppins (disambiguation) to the baseline. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose first, bit of a jump to go straight to a primary swap - However I agree that the books are not primary topic and would support second and moving Mary Poppins (disambiguation) → Mary Poppins per above. Lazz_R 19:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose moving Mary Poppins (disambiguation) → Mary Poppins Unlike some other topics all of these Mary Poppins go back to the same thing and having a disambiguation as the main result ill serves our readers for something that gets tens of thousands of hits a month. Neutral on moving film to Poppins because the hat notes could serve our readers well and could be revised accordingly if the film were flipped with the book series. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The 1964 Best Picture nominee is on par with the book it is based upon for historical significance, and wins hands down on likelihood to be sought per nom; clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --В²C ☎ 22:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support Talk:Gone with the Wind (novel)#Requested move 14 September 2016 formula of no primary topic, thus oppose Mary Poppins (film) → Mary Poppins, support Mary Poppins → Mary Poppins (book series) and support Mary Poppins (disambiguation) → Mary Poppins. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral 1st; support 2nd move of Mary Poppins → Mary Poppins (book series). Per above, move dab page (Mary Poppins (disambiguation)) to basename of "Mary Poppins". Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose the current primary acts nicely as a WP:BROADCONCEPT, presenting better than a standard DAB page. -- Netoholic @ 07:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that intro to Mary Poppins (book series) is a nice de facto WP:DABCONCEPT, and works better than a standard DAB page. —  AjaxSmack  00:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Netoholic and AjaxSmack. I question whether we even need a disambiguation page to list a collection of subtopics within the same franchise. The current primary topic lede mentions virtually all of the notable topics on the disambiguation page. bd2412 T 15:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose 1st, no comment on 2nd per In ictu oculi given the problems with external links to the page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Clarification

@Unreal7, Rreagan007, and Born2cycle: Would you 1) prefer a disambiguation page at "Mary Poppins", as a weaker version of your favored position; or 2) prefer the book series to remain primary at "Mary Poppins" as a WP:DABCONCEPT? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think a disambig page like the Gone with the Wind example would be a reasonable alternative. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Genuinely confused?

It is bizarre to me that a movie as iconic as this not only has incomplete information in the plot summary (Including missing mentioning the most important song from the film "Chim Chim Cher-ee" where it appears, as well as "Sister Suffragette", "Pavement Artist", "Stay Awake", and "A Perfect Nanny") and also is fiercely defended whenever anyone tries to correct this. It seems logical to want to have all the songs in their proper place. Either we have all the songs in the plot summary or none, otherwise it just makes no logical sense to only have a few and exclude all the rest. Other live action musical films like "The Music Man" and "Hello Dolly" have ALL their songs in their proper places in their articles. Furthermore the songs that are there already all should be linked to their pages (for all have pages except "Pavement Artist"). Even when I tried to do that it got reverted. What is going on? EEBuchanan (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The song titles get in the way of the prose and make the reading ever-so clunky. Why can't they be inserted elsewhere? And I would not compare the quality of this with the "quality" of Music Man. That article is awful. Cassianto^Talk 09:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Well if that's the case why are there any at all? That's what I was saying - if they are going to be there they should all be there. Otherwise none of them should be there. There were some there beforehand, you see. I only added the 5 that were missing. EEBuchanan (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Then I would take them all out. Can't we have a new section that lists all the songs and have a brief synopsis of each, who sung them and in what scene? That is far better than cluttering up the plot. Cassianto^Talk 11:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The plot is already a bit longer than it should be according to WP:FILMPLOT. There is a link in the Music section to a separate soundtrack article which has all of the songs. This section could be expanded a bit, but I would not include all of the songs there either. Bollyjeff | talk 00:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The plot section is not for extended, detailed descriptions of the plot. Rather, the plot section must be a brief description covering major points. The guideline at WP:FILMPLOT caps the section at 700 words. I use the online tool https://wordcounter.net/ to help me with plot length – there are other online word count tools as well. The FILMPLOT guideline is why I have reverted several of EEBuchanan's recent plot expansions. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not against listing songs in the plot. There's long history of songs listed in that manner, predating Wikipedia. But the song titles are counted as part of the plot size, so the descriptive text would have to be reduced in order to fit the songs. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Disney "had yet to produce any major live-action work"?

"In addition, Disney was then known primarily as a producer of cartoons and had yet to produce any major live-action work." Uh, what about Disney's big-budget and Oscar-winning 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in 1954??? The poor guy couldn't get Hollywood to respect him in the 1950's and 1960's, and still today on Wikipedia apparently. 24.96.118.204 (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

In context, this meant in the 1930's, when Disney first tried for the rights. Not the 1960's, when Disney finally got them. $chnauzer 06:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)