Talk:The Fox and the Hound

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)

"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)

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)

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

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)

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. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Character section

Collectonian, 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)

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)

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. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't believe in provocations by Bambifan. OckhamTheFox (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 (talk • contrib) 01:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

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 (talk • contrib) 15:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

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. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

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 (talk • contrib) 17:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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)