Jump to content

Talk:List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 109: Line 109:
== Box Office Grosses section number format ==
== Box Office Grosses section number format ==


It looks like the worldwide gross numbers for Frozen, Frozen II and Zootopia numbers are formatted incorrectly. They say "$1,431.0 Billion," "$1,290.0 Billion," and "$1,023.8 Billion" respectively. I think those numbers should be "$1,431.0 MILLION," etc. or "$1.431 Billion," etc. instead. Looking at their individual pages it doesn't look like any of those films made $1 trillion+ which is what the table currently says.
It looks like the worldwide gross numbers for Frozen, Frozen II and Zootopia numbers are formatted incorrectly. They say "$1,431.0 Billion," "$1,290.0 Billion," and "$1,023.8 Billion" respectively. I think those numbers should be "$1,431.0 MILLION," etc. or "$1.431 Billion," etc. instead. Looking at their individual pages it doesn't look like any of those films made $1 trillion+ which is what the table currently indicates.

Revision as of 20:21, 4 February 2020

Mistake to the list of classics.

Hello, I don't wish to edit the list, mainly because I'm a technophobe but also because it's clear someone has spent a great deal of time compiling the list and I don't feel I should be the one to edit it. However, there is a mistake on the list. 'Dinosaur', listed as number 39, is not a Disney 'Classic' and 'The Wild', Classic number 46, is missing from the list. Here's hoping that someone who knows how to do techy stuff can adjust the list as necessaryNorbert Pig (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wild was produced by CORE animation. Georgia guy (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas Dinosaur was not a Disney Classic back when it was released, but it was induced into the revised list in later years (due to digital animation being now accepted as part of the classics). Kumagoro-42 14:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Too much vandalism

This page, for some odd reason, is prone to vandalism even though it's not controversial. May need a temporary semi-protection. Meltingwood meow 23:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, the Disney company itself attracts controversy all over the Internet. No surprise that it attracts vandals here. Dimadick (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list should not be made with Template:Episode list.

I don't think it's appropriate for this list to be made with Template:Episode list. That is for lists of television series episodes only. I just thought it should be divided into eras, but since that's debatable, I'll let it be. --TVBuff90 (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Breaks the Internet and Frozen 2

User:Oddbodz removed these films, saying that Imdb, which they claim to be a reliable source, says these 2 films don't belong in the canon. But I thought Imdb wasn't a reliable source. I put a message on their talk page about half an hour ago, but I got no response. Any corrections to how I'm describing Oddbodz's edit?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revert it. The list is created and controlled by a single IMDb user, who last edited it nine months ago. Unreliable and outdated. Reach Out to the Truth 00:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See the response on my talk page. Its not that I am claiming IMDB to be reliable as that there are no reliable sources anywhere which suggest that the sequals are part of the classics cannon and the only source out there (as unreliable as it may be) does not include them. They never have been in the past (Lion King 2, Pocahontas 2, 102 Dalmations etc) and with no reliable sources suggesting this trend has been broken, they should not be added. Also, see the edit note at the top of the page which states "please note that many films that you might think belong in this list, do not, for various reasons. These include: [...] All sequels (except The Rescuers Down Under, Fantasia 2000, and Winnie the Pooh, which were produced by WDAS and included in the canon) were produced by DisneyToon Studios. All except for the three WDAS-produced sequels, Return to Neverland and The Jungle Book 2 were released direct-to-video. DisneyToon productions are listed in a separate section below." These films should not therefore be in the article. I will restore my edit unless a reliable source that shows they are part of the cannon can be found or consensus (which required more than 2 users) can be reached stating they should be in the article. Oddbodz - (Talk) (Contribs) 18:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The note that says "All sequels (except The Rescuers Down Under, Fantasia 2000, and Winnie the Pooh, which were produced by WDAS and included in the canon) were produced by DisneyToon Studios" has a list (see the above phrase in parentheses) that can be extended as more films come out. Please note this. The note can be extended to include those 2 films, right?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The outdated note does not override the actual inclusion criteria of the article. The Wreck-It Ralph 2 source confirms it is a Walt Disney Animation Studios film, therefore it belongs. The Frozen 2 source doesn't mention that fact, so we should get a better source. It is a WDAS film though, and therefore also belongs. Reach Out to the Truth 02:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And here is a source that confirms that Frozen 2 is also a WDAS' production. Since both sequels are now confirmed to be WDAS films, there shouldn't be doubts anymore about them being part of the "canon".--Carniolus (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fox films sometimes mistakenly believed to be by Disney

How common has it been historically for people to think by mistake that films that were produced by Fox to belong in this list?? (This question does not violate NOTAFORUM because Disney is going to buy Fox, meaning that Fox films produced after the acquisition will be Disney. My question is whether such films still won't belong on this list.) Georgia guy (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they are specifically released through Walt Disney Animation, they should not be on this list, just as Pixar Animation films are not on this list. Being owned by Disney doesn't make the film a Walt Disney Anmation Studios film. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The date formatting in the list should be modified

The date formatting should be changed, especially for the list of related productions because the current one makes sorting by release date sort it by alphabetically by month which isn't useful at all. I'd recommend using ISO 8601 for the entire list or at least have the year first for better sorting of the list.

(Jesajash (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh Rotten Tomatoes

The rating of Rotten Tomatoes for Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh has gone up from 92% to 100%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.39.147 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Empire

Is there any proof that this film is not the same as any of the 3 upcoming films listed in the table as 59-61?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goofy Movie

Should A Goofy Movie be added on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.86.71.225 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a Toon, not a Classic. DuckTales is also a Toon, as is The Tigger Movie. Georgia guy (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Revival era

Dose anyone want to help make Disney Revival era page for the current era of animated Disney films. Fanoflionking 22:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver and Company

Oliver and Company is being moved to #2 for some reason. I reverted the page but keep an eye out. There are many versions of the film, but the Disney version is very obviously 1980s. Not 1930s. Defunctzombie (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography (released and upcoming)

Those two lists appear to be broken. Does anyone know how to fix them. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming film(s)

In the "Filmography" section, the "Upcoming" link does not work. It is a link to an "Upcoming films" section, but the section is actually named "Upcoming film". I assume "film" should be renamed to "films". Philippe97 (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I fixed it myself. Did not realize I needed to be logged in to edit. Philippe97 (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office Grosses section number format

It looks like the worldwide gross numbers for Frozen, Frozen II and Zootopia numbers are formatted incorrectly. They say "$1,431.0 Billion," "$1,290.0 Billion," and "$1,023.8 Billion" respectively. I think those numbers should be "$1,431.0 MILLION," etc. or "$1.431 Billion," etc. instead. Looking at their individual pages it doesn't look like any of those films made $1 trillion+ which is what the table currently indicates.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Walt_Disney_Animation_Studios_films&oldid=939171401"