Jump to content

Talk:The Fox and the Hound: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 185: Line 185:
<!-- Begin request -->
<!-- Begin request -->


The story of the film was written by:<br />Larry Clemmons<br />Ted Berman<br />David Michener<br />Peter Young<br />[[Burny Mattinson]]<br />Steve Hulett<br />Earl Kress<br />and Vance Gerry. Also, [[Peter Young]] points to a dab page. [[Special:Contributions/64.134.25.177|64.134.25.177]] ([[User talk:64.134.25.177|talk]]) 14:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The story of the film was written by:<br />Larry Clemmons<br />Ted Berman<br />David Michener<br />Peter Young<br />[[Burny Mattinson]]<br />Steve Hulett<br />Earl Kress<br />and Vance Gerry. Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082406/fullcredits. Also, [[Peter Young]] points to a dab page.


<!-- End request -->
<!-- End request -->

Revision as of 14:56, 20 November 2010

Issues?

This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.

   * It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since October 2007.
   * It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since July 2008.
   * Its lead section requires expansion. Tagged since July 2008.

Can someone verify specifically what the issues are for this article? I've found some more citations, but what other areas of attention does it require? Cactusjump (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"As a result of Bluth's defection, production on The Fox and the Hound was delayed by nearly six months. Bluth animated Widow Tweed and her cow, Abigail, and his team worked on the rest of the sequence."
Found a source for the first sentence, but not the 2nd yet. Cactusjump (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

Under "Production" "For years later the film was finished, requiring approximately 360,000 drawings,..." - That should be "Four years...", shouldn't it? PorcupineTiger (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Cactusjump (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Another one: "(...) however the newer team backed Stevens, all except one Don Bluth, who delared Disney's work stale (...)"

I guess it should read "declared". --91.15.241.89 (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Oliver.[reply]

Looks like it's been fixed by another editor. That said, the sentence was still kinda long and rambling, so I fixed that, as well. Thanks for the heads-up! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another one...in the last paragraph under "Plot" in the 4th line down it reads, "At home, Dinky and Bommer attempt to eat Squeeks the caterpillar..." The correct spelling is Boomer, not Bommer.

Better?

I removed the citation and cleanup templates, since my work on this article since April has (hopefully) made this article much better. Cheers! Cactusjump (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've readded the clean up template until the reference formats can be fixed the rest of the way. Many still badly formatted. Also did some other tweaks. Now just needs more sourcing and expansion :) In much better shape that it was when a certain brat was destroying it, that's for sure. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! I just got another book of Ollie Johnston's, so once I get some free time, I'll try to expand. Cactusjump (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Character section

AnmaFinotera, can I add to The Fox and the Hound article a Characters section? This section is usually included in articles about Motion pictures (The Lion King) and Anime (Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust). I will write it myself. OckhamTheFox (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to write something, but make sure it isn't too in-universe and is notable (not original research). BOVINEBOY2008 20:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Such a section is not appropriate in film articles in general. Just because it is seen in other low quality articles (and Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust can't get much lower in quality) does not mean it should be replicated here. See WP:MOS-FILMS for the film article guidelines. A character section is completely unnecessary and adds no value to the article. The voice cast is already listed in the plot. And, quite honestly, after all you've done, I do not trust any edits you attempt to make in this article. You clearly attempted to trick people into believing you were not helping a vandal when you were. And as you only tried to add this section because Bambifan wanted it in the first place, I'd rather you just not mess with this article at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't believe in provocations by Bambifan. OckhamTheFox (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This is an unnecessary section, but more importantly is a past contribution made by a known sockpuppet that you were receiving instruction from. Cactusjump (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I retract what I said before. A character section would not be helpful in this kind of article. BOVINEBOY2008 21:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the others. Articles about works of fiction are supposed to focus on real-world context. Adding a "Characters" section will detract from that focus. —Erik (talkcontrib) 01:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could not disagree more. Lists of characters are appropriate spin off articles, and the very least, a characters section with redirects for each individual character is absolutely essential in an article. All major film and novel articles have them, or should have them. The characters in a work of fiction with brief identification are appropriate encyclopedic information--for really major works, which this is not, the major individual characters can have separate articles if there is criticism about them. WP:NOT PLOT is disputed, but in any case can be met by including information about who played or voiced the roles, which is true Real world information. As for other objections, the individual parts of content in an article need not individually pass WP:N--if they did, we'd have separate articles about them. IN-UNIVERSE means only an article not distinguishing the fiction from reality, as in some naive plot description. Nor is it OR, for the information if straight description can be taken from the work of fiction itself. THe MOSD does not prohibit it--to avoid being mired in an unsettled question, it simply does not talk about it. There are those who oppose them, but in my opinion, they either don't understand fiction or are trying to diminish our coverage of it. Most of the combination ones on characters that are taken to AfD pass as a keep or as a merge, though the pattern is unpredictable. DGG (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not quite correct. All major film articles do not have them nor should they have them. Television series and serial works, yes, but single volume/instance works like films and novels, or just a two part list is not appropriate. This is the standing consensus in all relevant projects, MoSs, and AfD. The voice actors are already covered in this article, and there is nothing else to add except the badly done summaries of their roles, which is already covered in the plot. Its excessively repetitive and even if added, it would be removed later because it is not appropriate and would prevent the article from ever being a quality work. Out of curiosity, did you look at his "proposed" addition, which he originally did for Bambifan? It is nothing but a repeat of the plot section with original research added in[1]. How is repeating the plot again useful to this article? He is directly copy/pasted from Bambifan's current version on Simple Wikipedia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree a list of characters is unnecessary. However, I would like to point out the recent Featured Article (and therefore clearly not a "low quality article") Alien vs. Predator included what appears to be one under the guise of a cast list. If I am interpreting the comments above correctly, it seems these somewhat extensive character descriptions - which also have a separate article at List of characters in the Alien vs. Predator series - should have been incorporated into the plot synopsis rather than the cast section. I personally feel the cast list should list only the actor and the role he plays. A well-written synopsis will explain what these roles are. LiteraryMaven (talkcontrib) 15:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, if I'd seen it going through, I'd have opposed that FA. That character list is ridiculous for only two films and yes, that cast section is unnecessary. However, it isn't really a recent FA, having been passed over a year ago. It would not pass with that now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article was on the main page of Wikipedia just the other day, I didn't realize it passed FA so long ago. LiteraryMaven (talkcontrib) 17:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sections I've seen end up being character analysis, which is redundant &/or original research. Unnecessary in either case. Cactusjump (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permanently protected thanks to Bambifan101

Our presumably autistic pest in Mobile, Alabama hit this article yet again after the block lifted via an account with an insulting username. I have therefore placed it on permanent semi-protection so that legit users don't go banging their heads against the wall because of Bambifan101 and his Bottomless Sock Drawer. The little dweeb now has his own long-term abuse page, found here. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the comics

What is exactly is wrong with stating that the characters from this film appeared is a handful of comics?--Marktreut (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been blocked before for your edit warring nature. Was 2 weeks not enough time? STOP EDIT WARRING, PERIOD. And the comics are neither notable nor relevant. They are common and your are not refering to a reliable source in any way, shape, nor form, but to a copyright violation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that part of those 2 weeks was spent away from all forms of computing, NO! And it is not me who doing this edit warring, I'm trying to put in facts, whereas you appear to think that the only relevant facts are the ones you personally approve of, which, I'm sorry to say, is being rather selfish. Just out of interest, can you tell me where Inducks has been accused of not being "a reliable source" and guilty of "copyright violation"?--Marktreut (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you will continue to edit war and put in irrelevant trivial content from unreliable sources purely for your own selfish reasons rather than following Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (and no, following actual guidelines is not selfish). The comics are trivial and irrelevant as a whole, and Inducks is not a reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who says that Inducks are an unreliable source, especially when they include scans from the actual stories as back-up? I'm trying to share info with others, you are trying to deny them, so who's being selfish? "The comics are trivial and irrelevant as a whole", but they were published, it is fact. It's just a small and harmless paragraph and it is quite normal to mention the way films and/or the characters were treated "in other media".--Marktreut (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS - provide evidence that actually shows the site meets that guideline. And no, not including trivial information is not selfish, it is, again, following Wikipedia guideline and policies. If you want more freedom, go to Wikia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who says it's trivia? Have I included the sub-plot of the two birds chasing the caterpillar? No and I don't intend to either. All I'm saying is that stating that characters from one form of media (like a movie) appearing in another (like a comic) is a standard on this website. That's the consensus.--Marktreut (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not the consensus. Disney regularly does comics and the like of its films. It is marketing and related media, it is not a unique issue. As was mention way back when you first tried to add this stuff, a single sentence sourced to an actual reliable source would be an appropriate inclusion. An entire section giving undue weight to a particularly minor adaptation/version is not, nor is sourcing it to a non-reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that Inducks is an unreliable source?--Marktreut (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who are claiming it is reliable. You must prove it, not the other way around. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has scans from the comics themselves. What more do you need? We're not getting anywhere with this. How about a short sentence in the opening paragraph like: "Comic strips based on the characters were also published."--Marktreut (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make it a reliable source and images are never reliable sources - easily manipulated and you can't authenticate them, and, again, it is not a reliable source. The sentence is not an appropriate sentence for the lead and, again, needs an actual reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously saying that those images on Inducks are fake? Come on. The INDUCKS entry on wikipedia does show that many people testify to its reliability. And if we cannot put the sentence in the lead then where?--Marktreut (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the entry INDUCKS#Use as a source and in publications includes a number of references. Are you now stating that those are all false and should be removed altogether?--Marktreut (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually looking at the "sources" for those sources? "Planned to be published, but never was" nor are any of those sources adequately/properly documented and all are in foreign languages. Again, a Wikipedia article is NOT a valid source for claiming something is reliable. Again, I point you to WP:RS - prove it yourself per THAT guideline, not per the claims of a Wikipedia article that is poorly sourced and, of course, not a reliable source itself. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any more of this of this and I'll start to question the evidence of Barack Obama being of African descent! I can imagine lawyers having an easier time convincing the Supreme Court of the constitutionality of their case than convincing you of facts that are plain for all to see. And all for what? A simple little harmless sentence that does no harm to anyone and just states facts! Somehow I don't think that this is about facts or the evidence. To misquote a French philosopher, it's more a case of certain people who have reached the point of "I argue therefore I am".--Marktreut (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe what you want...why is it whenever you are asked to actually defend your stance that something is notable, note-worthy, or sourceable to reliable sources, you instead start making little sound-bitey statements about being the defender of information. Again, this is an encyclopedia, not a trivia playground. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And an encyclopaedia is about providing information, not denying it.--Marktreut (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN encyclopedia is not about providing every possible scrap of information, nor minor details. Encyclopedia's are generally summary works. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then turn it into a general summary work! Take out the "Plot", "Production", "Distribution" etc. sections and leave just the opening paragraph to describe it. That will turn it into nothing more than a stub but at least it will be the sort of article that would fit into any printed encyclopaedia. Rather dull, but if that is what you want...--Marktreut (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence on some comics that were released isn't enough to merit an entire section. However, most film articles contain a sub-section on marketing in the release section. If there's enough additional information on how the film was marketed we could create a new section and mention the comics in there. Ash Loomis (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand that good references are needed for any information, however I have the impression of a double standard that is applied here because of the personality of the editor. Many films have a subsection "in other media" which are not always referenced as per Wikipedia's principles, however the fact that those other media obviously exist seems sufficient for being mentioned in WP. For this film, many comic adaptations do exist and were published in many books and countries, so a mention of that in WP would not be problematic IMO. But I think I can find a few references that talk about comics at least in the "Red Book". I'll take look and see if it does look sufficient. Lerichard (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source is required. INDUCKS is not such a site. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

typo in the "Reception" section

"tough he priases the voice work" it should be "though he praises the voice work"

Tuccle22 (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move these pages at this time. GTBacchus(talk) 16:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]



As the novel is the primary work, came before the film, and is notable, I feel this article should be moved to the film disambig (yes, this was the way it was several years ago and I myself erroneously moved it here). If the move is approved, I propose a three fold process:

  1. The Fox and the Hound is moved to The Fox and the Hound (film)
  2. Links to the The Fox and the Hound for the film appropriately corrected to the new link
  3. The Fox and the Hound (novel) is moved to The Fox and the Hound, with a hat note added (if desired) for the film that was based on it.

Thoughts?-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to partially disagree with part of that reason. The novel was notable before the film was made and, in fact, has not received much, if any, fame from the film (note that it is out of print and has been for a long time). Few people even know the film is based on the novel unless they study the credits, or read Wikipedia as many sources about the film rarely mention its basis or only do so in passing. When sources do talk about both, its usually to mention that they have little in common. Conversely, if by your argument many people have been aware of the novel because of the film, that would make it equally as notable and therefore neither is the "primary topic" per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This hasn't come up with some of the other Disney films based on novels as most of the novels have slightly different titles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree that the novel isn't the primary topic, then shouldn't this particular move request should be withdrawn? Andrewa (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I agree with that. I don't think either is the primary topic, so no. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 11:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But if there isn't a primary topic, as you claim, then it can't be the book, can it? Andrewa (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be the film either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 11:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the current move proposal is based on the claim that the primary meaning is the film, and doesn't make sense if it isn't, regardless of the status of the book. Andrewa (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current proposal can easily be changed to just move this to the film disambig and make a disambig page for the topic. There are other potentially notable uses of "Fox and the Hound" that would make it a viable option. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understood that last proposal, it was garbled. However we cannot make decisions based on potentially notable uses. We would need to see these articles first and decide that they are notable. PatGallacher (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical that this hypothetical new or changed proposal will be any improvement n the current one, but until and unless a specific new or changed proposal is put forward it's hard to say and unimportant. The important point is that even the proposer seems to have ceased to defend the current proposal. This is weak but adequate consensus IMO. Andrewa (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am afraid the logic behind this proposal is completely flawed. If the film is now the primary topic, it is irrelevant that the novel preceded it and provided the source. We recently had a very similar discussion about the primary meaning of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. PatGallacher (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that a number of fairly well-known films are based on obscure novels which are not now widely read, so this is irrelevant to deciding which is the primary topic. PatGallacher (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See a recent move discussion for To Catch a Thief, where it was decided that the film is the primary meaning, not the novel it was based on. If the novel is out of print and has been for some time this casts serious doubt on whether it is the primary meaning. AnmaFinotera is shifting his ground, is he claiming that there is no primary meaning, and if so why? PatGallacher (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Public domain

Per my understanding, the first 23 Disney animated feature films will become public domain films in the 2032-2072 range. Extrapolation suggests that this film should be in the public domain in 2076, but the "95-year rule" is only for works copyrighted before 1978. How do you calculate this film's public domain year?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the Wikipedia article, we don't research the film's status, determine the applicable legislation and calculate the date. That's original research and/or synthesis. If an independent reliable source says when it will be in the public domain, we report that and [[W{:CITE|cite]] the source. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Edit request from 64.134.25.177, 20 November 2010

The story of the film was written by:
Larry Clemmons
Ted Berman
David Michener
Peter Young
Burny Mattinson
Steve Hulett
Earl Kress
and Vance Gerry. Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082406/fullcredits. Also, Peter Young points to a dab page.

64.134.25.177 (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]