Talk:Disney Princess/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Argumentative/NPOV

Meg is probably the one that should be in the Disney Princess line more than Mulan. Doesn't this blatantly violate NPOV?Jupiterzguy 23:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't know who wrote that...deleted Thanks! Small5th 03:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgotten Princesses

The "princess argument" section keeps being shortened or completely cut out. I will add it back in a few moments. But, if it's deleted again, I won't make any more fuss. However, I know a lot of people who wonder about the "forgotten princesses". It seems what justifies being in the section is in question. To me, what warrants mention in the section is any female character in a Disney production that could in some way be considered a princess. Be it by being born from at least one monarchal figure (king, chief, emperor, etc.), or by fallng in love with the son of a monarchal figure (prince). This definition, opens up the possibility to include sequel princesses, animal princesses, and sisters of more central princesses. It is incredibly likely that Ariel's sisters will never be included in the "character list" of the "Disney Princess" franchise. None the less, they are princesses. Mentioning them is interesting trivia, and provides wholeness to the overall article. It answers questions asked by people who go to Wikipedia to find an explanation for why certain characters are included, while others are ignored and forgotten. As to the claim of "lack of evidence" for this section. I agree that "controversy" is too strong a word. I do NOT agree poor word choice should condemn the section to deletion. Also, if you search "forgotten princesses" on DeviantArt, you'll see that there's certainly people who find the current "character list" arguable. Sorry for my long post. I edited it down as much as I could.DarshaAssant 08:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for maintaining this section! I agree it has merit to be added to this article. For myself, I have shortened this section a few times because people would add irrelevant information or diverge from the topic at hand...although I never was opposed having the section itself. I actually thought the last revision of this section was good enough. However, thanks for maintaining it and keep it up! Small5th 03:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nala and Princess Kidagakash were not princesses at the end of their movies. Nala was never a princess she was a queen , and Kida was the queen at the end of the movie. And Maid Marian was a princess? I haven't seen the movie in a long time but I don't remember her being a princess.

I get it!

The forgotten princess weren't the main characters in their movies! (excluding the direct-to-video princesses) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.206.193 (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

constant reverts

Ehrm...perhaps you guys should discuss the constant reverting and unreverting =P Small5th 01:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Great Idea!DarshaAssant 08:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Odette

Odette, from The Swan Princess has the qualifications of being a Disney Princess, doesn't she? Why won't Disney add her to the list, I wonder?71.247.92.87 03:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

partially because the Swan Princess isn't Disney =P Small5th 07:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Swan Princess" was produced by Nest Family Productions and Richard Rich (known also for the animated "King and I"). However, if I remember correctly, it has aired on the Disney Channel over the years. That's probably what made you think Odette was a Disney Princess.DarshaAssant 06:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

forgotten princesses

PUT THEM BACK! Just be like these are disney princesses not included, it is unknown why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.206.193 (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks Small5th and others for showing support for the "forgotten princess" section. I see it as relevant information as well as just all around interesting. I don't understand why people are deleting the section without explaining why. The only time it was fairly deleted was for poor word choice (implying there was an actual "controversy" over the character list) and also for being disorganised. Well, that problem was fixed. The wording worked and it made no wrongful implications. I really want to hear why people don't see the "forgotten princess" section as interesting trivia. Why isn't it Wikipedia worthy? Also, before deleting a whole section altogether, wouldn't it be best to try to adjust it to something more agreeable?DarshaAssant 06:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)oro

Forgotten Princess Compromise

I thought that rather than having edit wars, we could have a discussion in the talk page (as is its purpose). So here's an idea for the Forgotten Princess section. Just say what you think needs to be changed or post your own version. I think polite, intelligent replys are nice and solid critiques are great. My criticisms of the section are (and I doubt I'll find someone who disagrees with me) that the section is a bit too long and could use some trimming. I think the core information is necessary, and it answers questions asked within this very talk page. I did not make any links to the films as I thought it would make it easier to edit. That should probably be the last step. Also, I think it's best to copy from my post and change it in your own so that everyone can see the different versions. So, good luck.

Many princesses shown in Disney media are not used as characters in the “Disney Princess” franchise. There are many possible reasons for the exclusion of these princesses. These reasons include:

• Featuring in a film that performed poorly. Examples are Eilonwy (The Black Cauldron), and Kidagakash (Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Atlantis: Milo’s Return).

• Playing a minor role in a feature film. Examples are Prince Bambi’s bride, Faline (Bambi and Bambi II), Princess Tiger Lily (Peter Pan), and Ariel’s six older sisters, Aquata, Andrina, Arista, Attina, Adella, and Alana (The Little Mermaid).

• Playing a role in a sequel to another Disney film. Examples are Melody (The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea), Kiara (The Lion King II: Simba’s Pride), and also Princesses Mei, Su, and Ting Ting (Mulan II).

• Being not exclusively owned by Disney. Princessess Atta and Dot (A Bug’s Life) are clearly stated as a princesses, but their film was created by Pixar studios and released through Disney. The same applies to Princess Mira Nova (Buzz Lightyear of Star Command). “Buzz Lightyear of Star Command” is based off of characters from a Pixar creation (Toy Story) that was released by Disney.

• Having unclear status as a princess. Nala (The Lion King, The Lion King II: Simba’s Pride, The Lion King 1 ½) while betrothed to Prince Simba, she does not marry him until he is king. This makes her never a princess, but eventually a queen. Maid Marion (Robin Hood) is stated to be King Richard and Prince John’s niece. As a princess is a daughter of a king, her status as a princess is arguable. Megara (Hercules) status as a princess is also ambiguous. Hercules is the son of the chief god, Zeus. This relationship could constitute him as the prince of the gods. Megara falls in love with Hercules, which possibly makes her a princess.DarshaAssant 07:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you should add that Animal Princesses are excluded in the line...hence Nala, Faline and Maid Marian. (that is a more plausible reason) Quite understandably is because Disney is marketing this line to little girls, and I doubt little girls would like to dress up as a lion or a fox when wanting to be a princess!!! Small5th 22:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning for not including "Being an animal princess" as one of the reasons was that Nala was, in fact, included in the character list for some time. Also, Maid Marian's questionable (in my own opinion, nonexistent) status as a princess seemed to take rank. Faline, like Tiger Lily, had very little screentime, leading to me to place her in the "Playing a minor role in a feature film" category. I do agree that animal princesses are not included, but I think that other reasons are more important, maybe. What do you guys think?DarshaAssant 01:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Peggy Orenstein

I read the Peggy Orstein's article (which btw someone needs to edit that section of the "controversy"...it doesn't sound encyclopedic at all) and it explains why these eight were chosen and not the other "princesses." Perhaps this should be worked in? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/magazine/24princess.t.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=8e5a1ac1332a802c&ex=1324616400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Small5th 03:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay! I was looking for a complete copy of the article. The NYT site will only let you see it fully if you pay money. I was just about to edit and ask someone with access to the article to expand the section and make it more encyclopedic. I can read the article and see what we could do for the section. DarshaAssant 05:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just finished reading the article and I'm unsure it really it warrants it owns section. I think alot of the information could really strengthen the overall article, but Orenstein's personal story seems possibly not notable. She provides enough background for the franchise that it could constitute a much- needed "History" section. It's great reference material, but I don't know if it really can stand on it own. Also made this discussion its own talk category.DarshaAssant 06:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC) DarshaAssant 20:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC) I agree...it seems more opinion than anything...though HOW the line came about is very interesting. Will you be willing to add the history section DarshaAssant and make the appropriate changes to the "Controversy" area? Thanks if you can! Small5th 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Orenstein is a professional journalist who also happens to be the mother of a young girl. In that New York Times article she gave a balanced, professional overview of the marketing phenomenon of the "Disney Princess" products. In giving this overview she also used her personal experiences as a parent to give a human twist to the story and make it more readable for all. This is a common technique used by seasoned journalists to make more approchable what could otherwise have been a dry write-up of a marketing economics and socialogical and psychological issues. --AlainV 03:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with most of what you said, AlainV. However, those "marketing economics and socialogical and psychological issues" span over more than just the Disney Princesses. It seemed that she used the franchise as a way to, as you said, hold her reader's attention. She used it as a way to tie all her points together. Do you think it warrants its own section? Also I wrote up a "History" section. Tell me what you think guys.DarshaAssant 05:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No matter what, the section cannot stay in its current state. It doesn't sound encyclopedic and doesn't present enough of the ideas presented in Orenstein's article. I'm up for the attempt, but it'll have to wait until tomorrow.DarshaAssant 05:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Great job DarshaAssant! I added citations. Also AlainV, thanks for showing this article, but however in the article I fail to see how whole "feminist groups" agree with Orenstein on this controversy. In fact, the impression I get is that this is more an opinion than anything. Which is fine; we have freedom of speech after all. But this article did provide much needed facts about the history of the line. I deleted the section because it sounded unencylclopedic. Perhaps if there is more sources of this we can add more information. However, for now I believe it does not merit Wikipedia standards. Thank you for your interest though. Small5th 23:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Small5th, good job on the citation, but I'm not entirely sure it's legal. The NYT site was charging money to see the article, and placing a link to here makes it free to see. I don't really know anything about that sort of situation.DarshaAssant 00:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove critical material from the article since without it (or other forms of information critical of the Disney Princess marketing campaing) this Wikipedia article is nothing more than an extended ad for the Disney Princess line. Ads and other promotional items are forbidden in Wikipedia and they are removed, deleted in a regular fashion. The article by Peggy Orenstein was not an "opinion" text but a state-of-the-art piece of objective reporting which gave a factual account of the topic this article covers and included elements of criticism which are otherwise lacking from this Wikipedia article. Since Wikipedia articles must absolutely not be based on original research they have to be based on summaries of serious books and newspaper and magazine articles such as the one Orenstein wrote. There is no copyright violation involved in making a summary of the information presented in the Orenstein article. The New York Times is considered a reliable source in such matters. --AlainV 03:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

AlainV, you completely misunderstand my comment. It was already decided that Orenstein article deserved mention. I said I would write a proper section. The criticism of the section that you continue to put back in is that it does not accurately present ideas of the article. There is no "controversy among parents" about the Disney Princess franchise. At least, such controversy is not detailed in the article. Orenstein used general psychological studies about the media's impact on young girls. In her article, she uses these studies and ideas to debate her opinions of the Disney Princesses. As you said, her personal experiences are merely a way to make the article more approachable to readers. Also, please note the reasons the section was continually deleted. "Unencyclopedic" was mentioned more than once. Before simply reposting the section with no changes, try to address the issues surrounding the articles deletion.

Now, the point of my comment was not at all about the inclusion of information from the article. I know that is not a violation of any sort. What I was questioning was the link to see the entire article for free. This provides people a way to bypass the fee placed by NYT. I worry that it is a violation as it possibly keeps NYT from money that they would have received had the link not been posted. But, as I said, I don't know for sure.DarshaAssant 06:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What title would you give to that section instead of "controversy among parents"? --AlainV 08:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Intriguing! If you google the article, however, you can view it, but if you cite it it doesn't show! Well, I guess we can find another link for it, but it does need to be cited, for otherwise peopel will wonder where is the basis of our history? And thanks for rewriting the certain section; it definitely needs to be rewrote, and not deleted, as some users seem to insist. Small5th 16:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That is interesting. If the article can viewed independent from the official site, then, perhaps, there is no legality issue. Also, I'm working on the "Peggy Orenstein" section right now (in answer to AlainV's question, I think that's what the section should be titled.) However, it's taking a bit as I'm currently involved in other things as well.DarshaAssant 20:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long, but here's the Peggy Orenstein section.DarshaAssant 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Club Libby Lu" mention is irrelevant to the article and should be removed immediately because it can be considered as a commercial and giving the last section a title like "Peggy Orenstein" is incorrect. The section is not a section on Peggy Orenstein. It is a section about the controversy surrounding the values put forth by the Disney Princess marketing offensive and an article by Peggy Orenstein is the reliable source for this encyclopedic content. --AlainV 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand your concerns about this page sounding like a commercial. Are you referencing a Wikpedia policy? This page does not advertise anything in as much as any other Wikipedia article advertises its subject matter. Nowhere on this page does it encourage readers to buy Disney Princess merchandise. I’m actually inclined to agree that the Club Libby Lu paragraph is unnecessary. At the time of writing, it seemed relevant; but it is not a commercial for Libby Lu. As to the section’s title, I think “Criticism” is better. It allows a place for future information of this nature. Also, as I’ve said before, there is no controversy detailed in the Orenstein article. From what you said in your comment, it seems that you think there is controversy, but are unable to find sources to support that idea. Remember that the research decides what is written on Wikipedia, not the other way around. If you find something that shows a controversy to exist than share it, don’t construe other information to insinuate that idea.--DarshaAssant 03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Anyone agree we should have more images in this article? I have a picture with all the princesses standing together, but I think it was fan made and not disney issued, so i'm not sure if it's eligible. Anyone have another one? Or do you think it's okay? Small5th 07:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures sound good, but I think something that more clearly showed the princesses would be better. Is there a way to take pictures off the official website? Maybe we could take those pictures and place them next to each princess's name. Fan art definitely doesn't belong.DarshaAssant 21:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Majority of the pictures on the Disney Princes page are of the Disney "royal" couples, so perhaps they could be used on this page as well? To keep the two pages somewhat consistant (also, the Disney Princes page has short bios of each of the characters, so maybe similar short bios for the girls could be added to this page too? If anything, it would just make the page look more organized and informative.) Irish♣Pearl 16:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"Disney Princes" and "Disney Princess" should be separate articles. "Disney Princess" is an official Disney franchise. The article doesn't solely cover the characters of the franchise, but information on the franchise itself. "Disney Princes" is a list of characters from Disney films. It was compiled through logic as opposed to official information.--DarshaAssant 06:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone tells me how the heck to get pictures into these articles (I've been trying to for so long), then I can contribute pictures that I think will work. 67.169.98.91 00:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts' Princessess of Hearts

I'm sure others have wondered what I am about to ask. And there may be topics of it elsewhere but for some reason I can't see those discussions so I'll ask here. The princesses of hearts in kingdom hearts is as follows: Kairi (Kingdom Hearts), Jasmine (From Aladin), Aurora (Sleeping Beauty), Cinderella, Snow White, and Belle (Beauty and the Beast) and Alice(in wonderland).

The last one, Alice, is questionable for technically Alice is not a princess. She is a mere child from a family of upper class. So I ask why is she a princess of heart? I do hope someone out there satisfies my question. And forgive me if this is annoying or I have disobeyed a ruled in this here site for I am new to this.

That is a good question. Although Alice is not an official Disney Princess...that is how the game's plot works. If you play the game (it is a very good game!) people would expect the last princess to be Ariel, but as it turns out Ariel is a character in the world and not one of the Princess of Heart. They chose the princesses of hearts probably for the sake of recognizable Disney heroines...or the fact it would be hard for Ariel since she has a tail haha...but the fact is that Alice is a princess of heart and not Ariel. But good question though! Small5th 20:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Alice is never a princess, but she does become a queen at the end of Through the Looking Glass. Maybe somebody at Disney heard about that and mistakenly thought that she must have been a princess at some point. Ariadne55 (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like the title "Princess of Heart" means anything more than a girl whose heart is unnaturally pure (and, in fact, one of seven specific girls as I don't think they are attempting to argue that Ariel or Wendy are "impure" despite being in the game and not being a PoH). In addition to Alice, it would take quite a twisting of canon for Belle to be a princess during the time of her abduction, as she was born a commoner and Prince Adam wouldn't continue to be The Beast if they had achieved True Love, much less marriage. And, while her backstory remains untold, it is unclear how Kairi would be formally recognized as a princess. She surely isn't the daughter of Ansem the Wise, and neither she nor anyone one know her pedigree from any previous worlds she may have inhabited. I'm not suggesting that this section be removed from the article, but a list of every character who has had the title of "Princess" in any Disney-produced story is quite unrelated to Andy Mooney's specific merchandising franchise. MatthewDaly (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

PEZ

It might be worth mentioning that PEZ released a line of Disney Princesses dispensers. Cinderella, Jasmine, and Belle came out in 2005, Aurora and Ariel came out in 2006, and Snow White is coming out this year. Pocahontas and Mulan are not included, which is why this should be included. It is an example of the main six used in merchandising while the other two are still in the mythology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snoborder93 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Merchandising Changes

The "Merchandising Changes" section is unsourced, and implies that there has been some conscious change made by Disney. It is written in a confusing manner, by which I mean grammatical errors, and it switches from point to point, product to product, and back again. Also, there is so much franchise product out there that it's hardly fair that the PEZ dispensers get such a large mention. If sources can be found about the direction Disney is taking the franchise then this section sounds like a great idea.--DarshaAssant 03:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the "Merchandising Changes" be deleted for many reasons. The section has remained unsourced, and contains original research. "The most logical reason for the exclusion of [Ariel and Jasmine] is that neither of them wear dresses as their main outfits... and it would be difficult to manufacture them" is speculation. The section is awkward and I'm not sure of its point or purpose. It seems to be a marketing history, which is a GREAT idea, but its not that right now. If a marketing history section were to be added it would need to be more indepth, and researched. Of course, the deletion of a section is something that needs to be discussed, so I won't be deleting the section till I have some feedback.--DarshaAssant 00:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No opposition Small5th 01:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As no one seemed to oppose this section's deletion, I deleted it. I have the content of the section saved on my computer, should people decide it needs a comeback. --DarshaAssant 01:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Franchise

Hi, I just looked up the article for some information, and I thought that it lacks any mention of what the franchise consists of. The Disney Princess line includes clothes, dolls, magazines, music albums, none of which are mentioned here. Annie D 02:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Annie D, for your fresh set of eyes, and for voicing any inadequencies with the article. We'll keep working to improve it.--DarshaAssant 03:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Tinkerbell and Princess Kida

Why aren't Tinker Bell and Princess Kida on here, are they not a Disney Princess?--Sugarcubez 20:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the article, it is explained Tinker Bell was once considered a Disney Princess but Disney decided to create a new line for her called the Disney Fairies, and thus she is not included in the lineup. We are currently working on a way to talk about Kida, in that she and Eilowny are excluded due to unpopularity. According to the website this is the only official eight, with maddy as the only official one to be next. Small5th 06:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Anastacia revisions

I agree with Nemesis on this...the Anastacia section has no business here considering she is not even Disney. And I don't think we should include Giselle in when there's no concrete proof she will be included in the lineup. Please discuss all revisions here. Small5th 05:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Giselle is listed on the official Disney Princess website^[1] as being a Princess. Confusing I know and since yet not even Tiana is listed there yet. But I agree Anastasia probably should not be mentioned but Tinker bell and Princess Kida should--Sugarcubez 05:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

To Sugarcubez: Look around the website. Do you see Giselle anywhere? No, you don't. She is NOT an official Disney Princess. There is a doll of her under the Disney princess name, as there is for Esmeralda, Meg, and a few others. That does NOT make her or them official Disney Princesses. And Anastasia has nothing to do with Disney. Tinkerbell is already mentioned, which you would know had you actually READ THE PAGE, and Kida has NOTHING to do with the Disney Princess line and isn't featured in any Disney Princess products whatsoever, so she doesn't belong here either.

This article is about the Disney Princess franchise, not every princess in the Disney legacy. So if you would please, TRY READING THE ARTICLE, DOING RESEARCH ON YOUR CLAIMS, CITING YOUR SOURCES, AND QUIT VANDALIZING IT AND SAYING I AM! You're the one doing the vandalism, not me. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your personal blog. Thank you.-- Nemeses9 01:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Nemeses9, please calm down. Giselle I must have gotten mixed with Aura being that they look the same. She should be removed until proof can be claimed. Keep in mind it is not me that added her or the Anastasia claims.

As well as both Tinker bell and Princess Kida have been considered as Disney Princesses, although since Tinker bell is considered more a fairy and Kida lack of marketing as stated earlier on this talk page, they both are not official but both should be stated in the article.

And removing information is considered vandalism, so I do not know where you get that I was vandalizing the page. I have read the article and I know Tinker bell is mentioned. But it is not like Disney has many Princesses in their legacy, the ones characters not included in the franchise should be noted like Tinker bell is--Sugarcubez 06:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict, to Nemeses9: /* Disney Princesses */ No reason to remove Princess Tiana. And we need to discuss on the talk page on mentioning Princess Kidaa.--Sugarcubez 06:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Again, do your research. If we're going to mention Kida, then why not Elionwy (The Black Cauldron) Tiger Lily (Peter Pan) Faline (Bambi) and so on? Because they have nothing to do with the franchise, and whether the characters are princesses or not is completely irrelevant, hence the "princess mythology" rule that is already discusses, which is why Mulan is one of the official princesses. So taking that in mind, why don't we mention ALL Disney female leads? They all USED to be mentioned a long time ago and were removed for that very reason. And again, I'm not vandalizing the article, you are. Did you even bother reading the vandalism page when you linked to it? Removing information is only vandalism if it's a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the article. The same thing with adding information. You're adding information that is long past discussed and decided that it doesn't belong, so YOU'RE vandalizing it, not me. Please try actually reading Wikipedia's term descriptions before you throw them around in the future. Thank you. - Nemeses9 18:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please remeber that you do not own this article, that is tited Disney Princess, not Disney Princess franchise. And the characters you named (Elionwy, Tiger Lily, Faline) for one none of those are Princess, which Princess Kida is, and she was even considered being part of the official Disney Princess, but due to lack of marketing she was not, so therefore she should be mentioned. And you keep saying vandalizing, please point this out? What information am I adding, I am pretty sure it is User:Raybert and User:Ixfd64 that added this.--Sugarcubez 03:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, PRINCESS Eilonwy, PRINCESS Faline, and PRINCESS Tiger Lily are all princesses. And again, Mulan is NOT a princess, just a female lead, so why not include ALL the female leads and the other princesses if we're going to include Kida? And I never claimed to own the article, you did by treating it like your own personal blog. Finally, again, read the article and do the research, because if you had you'd know what the article was pertaining to and you'd know that the three characters I mentioned ARE princesses. And finally, don't act like you've got some power over me and spam my discussion page with warnings anymore. I'm tempted to report you for that. And I'm not arguing with you anymore about this. Nemeses9 03:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Putting Princess in front of their name does not constiute them as a Princess. And Princess Kida was already going to be added to this article anyway, so I do not know why are you trying to argue this and blame this on me, again I did not add Anastacia OR Giselle, and both should be removed, which they were. The only thing is that you removed Princess Tiana, and tried to link it to something not there.

And you are tempted to report me for what?--Sugarcubez 03:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay...everyone calm down. I understand that everyone is very passionate about their beliefs on the Princess lineup, but there is no reason for anger on this topic. We can all agree we're here to improve the article so that it is star-rated.

Okay first off, Sugarcubez, this article is entitled "Disney Princess," but the unfortunately a lot of the research and basis of this article is on the Disney Princess Lineup. I know you did not add Giselle to this article, but for the people who keep reverting and adding her, please understand she is not included because she has NOT been officially announced by the Walt Disney Company that she WILL be included in the lineup. The same goes with Rapunzel. Until the Disney Princess website on disney.com includes them, there is no concrete proof to include them. And unfortunately we cannot go by the basis of websites such as amazon.com or other things, for that is not concrete proof, nor can we include things just because the Disney Store does, for Disney Store is not even a part of The Walt Disney Company. However, Tiana WILL be included, for she WAS announced to be included in the lineup at several press conferences as well as The View.

Secondly, Nemeses, I thank you always for your tireless effort in this article, for you certainly do an amazing job, HOWEVER eventually we do eventually have to include a section for Kida, Tiger Lily, and all the others. They will NOT be included in the character lineup section (again because there is no verfiable proof) but we can perhaps create another section. I believe DarshaAssist was looking into that. However, Sugarcubez IS RIGHT, there has to be a section created on why princesses such as Kida and Eilowny were excluded, but Mulan was included in the lineup.

Again, I ask everyone to please talk civilly with each other. Also please remember not to constantly revert and unrevert things, for then it might result all of us being banned. Also, everyone be careful when using the word vandalism, and make sure you explain your changes under the "edit summary section." Thanks for all of your passion again. Small5th 04:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I believe I have been very cival and calm, so don't know why you are telling me to stay calm. But other than that I agree. But also find it rude you acknowledge Nemeses9 contributions to the article, but not mine.--Sugarcubez 01:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is "DarshaAssist". It is true- for quite a while, I was one of the stronger proponents of including mention of all of the Disney princesses. As evidenced above (Forgotten Princess Compromise) I composed a whole section detailing the possible reasons for each princess' exclusion. However, that's just it- they were possible reasons for the princess' exclusion. Words like "possible", and "likely" are weasel words, that allowed us to sneak Original Research onto Wikipedia. We can all agree Original Research doesn't belong on Wikipedia. And besides, we have a sourced reason for why certain princesses are excluded. Please see the current "History" section of Disney Princess. Now, one could argue that merely a list of the other princesses would suffice. However, this article is about the Disney franchise, "Disney Princess". Any other Disney princesses (note the lack of a capitol P) are a completely separate matter. Also, any mention of Anastasia is purely vandalism. A simple search reveals it to be a Fox production. Also, if there is confusion as to why some non-line-up princess' names are mentioned in this article, please note that some princesses are "Guest Disney princesses". They are not full-time members of the line-up, but are used in certain franchise merchandise. The line-up is defined based on the characters listed on the official site, as well as one respectable source which states that Tiana will eventually join the franchise.--DarshaAssant 04:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Princess Tiana

Princess Tiana was removed here^[2] (diff) in revision 145387228 made by 139.168.83.2 (Talk) at 06:23 on July 18, 2007, due to vandalism, but was not added back how come?--Sugarcubez 18:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for readding! I didn't even notice she was gone. Small5th 02:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Official princesses

Throughout the article the eight princesses are referred to as the "eight official princesses". This is very poor word choice. By saying that those eight are official, we imply that princesses like Tiger Lily are not official. It is true they are not apart of the Disney Princess franchise line-up, but Disney does officially own them. The eight characters should be described as "the eight characters of the line", "the franchise princesses", or something along those lines. I'd change the pictures myself, but I don't know how to do that.--DarshaAssant 22:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever fixed the pictures!--DarshaAssant 02:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Princess Maddy/Tiana

I have edited out this statement, "Princess Maddy (please read your own citation!)" First of all, all discussion should take place in the talk page, so the remark to specific editors was misplaced. Secondly, it is true, the original source says "Princess Maddy". However, later sources state that Maddy's name was changed to Tiana, therefore, Maddy and Tiana are one and the same; Tiana being the most current name. Tiana is the correct way to refer to the protagonist of The Princess and the Frog.--DarshaAssant 02:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Disney Princess Appearances

I added a new section to clean up the article; the top was getting to crowded. Feel free to edit or put your opinion. It got tiring to do, and I didn't include everything, so feel free to add on! Small5th 01:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Smart Idea!--DarshaAssant 21:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Moolawn1.jpg

Image:Moolawn1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cinderelladisney.jpg

Image:Cinderelladisney.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PrincessAuroraSleeps.jpg

Image:PrincessAuroraSleeps.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of Princesses

So it would seem half of our princesses lost their pictures. Any volunteers in creating new ones for them that are Fair Use? Small5th 17:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Belle gold dress.jpg

Image:Belle gold dress.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)