Talk:Aurora (Sleeping Beauty)

Aurora (Sleeping Beauty) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 26, 2016. (Reviewed version).

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Film: American GA‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Disney GA‑class High‑importance

	Disney portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Fictional characters GA‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Animation GA‑class Mid‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Feminism GA‑class Low‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Women GA‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Differences between fairytale and film

I removed this section because 1) it is completely uncited, 2) if it were cited, it should go in to the film article, and 3) it is a list of miscellaneous information. Cactusjump (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Princess aurora should be Ukrainian or Russian al.Le its origins are obvious as the story originates from the French perrault but the classic work was written by Russian composer Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, and the setting is undoubtedly a landscape of Eastern Europe

Inconsistent Creator Credits

On this article under the photo of Aurora, the Brothers Grimm are given credit for creating this character. If one looks at the articles, though, for both Sleeping Beauty and the 1959 film by Disney, Charles Perrault is credited. Perrault's narrative is outlined in the first article and is used as a reference point for the other variants. It even states that the Brothers Grimm almost did not include the story in their collection (they did so in consideration of the existence of Brynhild). Perrault is acknowledged as the original fairy tale writer in the credits for the film by Disney, including a statement that Disney used Perrault and Tchaikovsky's symphony to create the film. The only possible reason that the Brothers Grimm are considered to be the creators is in the first article where it states the Brothers Grimm story was called Briar Rose. Perrault, though, used the name Aurora for the daughter of Sleeping Beauty. Disney chose to use both names for the character in the film. If there are other articles in Wikipedia that credit Charles Perrault's involvement in this character, then he needs at least to be added as a creator on this article in addition to the Brothers Grimm if not made the only creator. Fiery Autumn (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella and Aurora photos

Now that Cinderella is being shown in her original dress colors here on Wikipedia I think Aurora should be shown in the colors she was advertised in. On her page at Disney wikia, she is wearing a blue dress. That was the color of the dress she had for most of her original film and it's even the color of her dress in the Kingdom Hearts series. She was also originally advertised wearing blue. Look at these VHS tapes. [1] [2] Plus, there are these theatrical release posters. [3] [4] She also used to wear it in Disney parks. Heck at the El Capitan Theatre in 2008, she is even advertised wearing blue in the marquee. [5] If we are instead going to base it on the colors, they are being advertised in now, then Cinderella's dress should not be silvery white if Aurora's is pink. Sb1990 (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I visited Aurora's photo page and I noticed the drama that was going on. I saw the drama that was happening and you have very good points. A few months ago, Disney's official fan club, D23, even did a poll and they voted that the dress should actually be blue.^[1] So, I do believe that we should show her in her blue dress. Irishlady85 (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Are You Team Pink or Team Blue?

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aurora (Disney character)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 22:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start to review this tonight, and try and post tomorrow. I'm the one who reviewed Belle (2012), reviewed Rapunzel (2013), and reviewed Mulan (2014). (I'm amazed these were so long ago.) -- Zanimum (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure to be collaborating with you again, and I look forward to your comments :-)--Changedforbetter (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, I've been working on cleaning up references, and replacing some references with less derivative sources. For now, here are some comments for the "Miscellaneous" section:

Miscellaneous

All of these seem to be video games. As such, the name seems a little errant. I'd suggest either renaming the section, or adding info about other uses of the character.
You talk about theme parks in other articles, what about Sleeping Beauty Castle? (The character is only referenced in Le Château de la Belle au Bois Dormant, whereas she's in the dioramas at California and Paris.)
What about Whisker Haven and the Palace Pets app and the character Dreamy?
Kilala Princess shouldn't be talked about at any length, but it might deserve a sentence.
Is there any way to add references for the video games?

More later. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a 1997 interview with The Globe and Mail, Costa is listed as being paid $250 a week, not $100 a day. I can't find any reliable sources backing up the $100 claim. Can you find where TheRichest would have sourced this to? (I've added the same G&M article for another citation.) -- Zanimum (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ZanimumConcerns addressed. Edited and sourced video games paragraph in "Miscellaneous", as well as expanded section to include some of Aurora's popular sightings at the Disney Parks.--Changedforbetter (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Simply replaced TheRichest reference with the more reliable one you provided :-)--Changedforbetter (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review abandoned

As has unfortunately been the case with several recent reviews by Zanimum, this review has been left untouched for too long—basically abandoned—even though Zanimum was warned on his or her talk page at the outset that this practice was not acceptable and would not be allowed to continue. Changedforbetter has requested that another reviewer be found, so the nomination has been returned to the GAN pool to find a different reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aurora (Disney character)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 11:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing this for review, shortly. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this article was reviewed once before, but it didn't go anywhere due to lack of involvement on the reviewers part. I intend to see this through, and, in fact, I think this is a pretty great article. My only major issue with it is the references; all web references should be archived, so that they can be used whether the source exists or not. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it looks like that has been addressed, so I'm going to go ahead and promote this now. Well done. Passed - adamstom97 (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha well this has been just about the easiest GA I've ever taken part in. Thanks!--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the Main Image

For the record, I prefer seeing Aurora in her dress being pink rather than blue.Esagurton (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 April 2021

It has been proposed in this section that Aurora (Sleeping Beauty) be renamed and moved to Sleeping Beauty (Disney character).

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Aurora (Disney) → Sleeping Beauty (Disney character) – This is the name most people know the character by. Because "Sleeping Beauty (Disney) can equally mean the film; it's not a strong enough dis-ambiguator. Georgia guy (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC) Georgia guy (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There are plenty of sources that use the name Aurora in the name. Interstellarity (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also support moving the title to Aurora (Sleeping Beauty). Interstellarity (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Princess Aurora is the credited name of the character in the film, not Sleeping Beauty. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose moving the title to usurp the redirect Aurora (Sleeping Beauty). The current title is fine as is. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Slepping Beauty is the name of the film, not about a Disney princess, which is named Princess Aurora. There is a case where the title of the film is different from the characters, for example The Little Mermaid, which is the title of the film, not a disney princess name, or Frozen, which also not a Disney princess either but Anna and Elsa are a princess. 36.77.95.2 (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you could get a Wikipedia user name; please note that in the case of TLM Ariel is the name everyone knows as the name of the character; no one knows her as a nameless little mermaid. Georgia guy (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Got any evidence that 'sleeping beauty' is her WP:COMMONNAME?—blindlynx (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Aurora (Sleeping Beauty). Changing the disambiguator to the movie title would help improve WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and would be WP:CONSISTENT with similar article titles of main characters whose name differs from their movie title, such as Ariel (The Little Mermaid), Belle (Beauty and the Beast), Rapunzel (Tangled) and Merida (Brave). Rreagan007 (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support this proposal, good catch—blindlynx (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this proposal to usurp an existing redirect on a different topic. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The character is not once referred to as "Sleeping Beauty" in the context of her film and, especially nowadays, is almost exclusively called "Aurora". "Sleeping Beauty" is almost like a nickname for the character, similar to referring to Ariel as "The Little Mermaid".--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per argument above because in most films, the character name is not same as the film's name. If the article needs to be moved, i would Support moved to Aurora (Sleeping Beauty) per Rreagan007, for example Anna (Frozen) and Elsa (Frozen), when either has named as just "Frozen". 182.1.54.181 (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above but support move to Aurora (Sleeping Beauty). Pamzeis (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but support Aurora (Sleeping Beauty).Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Aurora (Sleeping Beauty). The Rreagan007's proposal is an compromise between those who support and oppose the Georgia guy's title proposal. All arguments above is accepted for me. 116.206.35.19 (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose changing to Aurora (Sleeping Beauty). Sleeping Beauty is the name of the classic fairy tale, not just Disney's version of it. Aurora is a character in some variations of that fairy tale. It is a character in the similarly named The Sleeping Beauty ballet by Tchaikovsky. Redirect at that location already points to information about that character, which is not just a Disney character, in the Sleeping Beauty article. It should remain that way. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment we should stick with discussing the original move proposal. I object to discussing alternatives. They should have a separate move proposal if that is desired, no interleaved in something else. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is common and encouraged to propose and discuss alternative titles in the same move request. Per WP:REQUESTED MOVES: "Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page. Instead, consider contributing to the open discussion if you would like to propose another alternative." Rreagan007 (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to the issue, I object to discussions here about overwriting and usurping an existing redirect on a different topic than this one without involvement of editors of that other topic. That existing redirect points to a section of Sleeping Beauty an article about the fairy tale, not to this article and not to Sleeping Beauty (1959 film) the topic this character belongs to. I'd have much less of a problem if the alternatives were to a new unused location or about replacing an existing redirect that points to this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldo Perez, all of this discussions are reach consensus against the original move, but some users offered an alternative move to the current name, which i see is not problem unless it proof elsewhere. If you still disagree about the rule in requested move, you can discuss it in the Requested move talk page. In that page, any users can express his/her opinion about the current RM rules like you itself. 182.1.9.31 (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Are You Team Pink or Team Blue?

[1]