Talk:The Lion King

Copyright violation

I don't know where the copyright violation come from, it could well have been there for very long time as it is many many edits back since I reviewed the articles sourcing and I might well just not have noticed, WikiBlame does not seem to want to tell me anything on the source. In any case it is probably just best if the offending text is deleted and re-written in editors own words, it is unlikely the text is going to come out as being in the public domain or on an appropriate licence. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Come on, it doesn't take too much effort to find these things out... I just spent a couple minutes perusing the history and found that the copyvio came from edits by User:DrNegative and were added August 12, 2008. BuddingJournalist 19:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

To the admin looking into the case, three edits I found (there may be more around that time frame) are: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Lion_King&diff=231418342&oldid=231417478, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Lion_King&diff=231413859&oldid=231364045, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Lion_King&diff=231414867&oldid=231413859. BuddingJournalist 20:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not investigating this as an admin, I have edited this article too much previously to do that, that revision is from about 500 edits back, though thank you for finding it for me. I have looked at the evidence and it appears that similar wording to sources was used but it was not, always at least, pure cut and paste, though the wording is so similar that it probably unacceptable to keep unless it is public domain, copyleft e.t.c. I suspect that DrNegative was just relying on this source for info and just ended up effectively copying it out, though I wish for him to speak for himself. In any case I think it needs to made clear, that I am assuming that DrNegative was trying to improve the article in good faith and not trying to get Wikipeidia into legal issues or violate copyright, particularly given that he has made some very substantial improvements to this article. I will inform of this discussion. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point Camaron. I know you're not the admin looking into this (which is why I prefaced my remarks with "to the admin..."). It doesn't matter what DrNegative's intentions were (and no one is accusing him of trying to deliberately harm Wikipedia). The reason admins need to be brought in is to delete the contributions from the edit history, not to sanction editors (unless there is some long-term problematic behavior with copyvios, which doesn't seem to be case here). That's the reason why I responded to your comments above that implied that it was difficult to know where the edits came from, and that's the reason why I listed the edits that contained the copyvios. BuddingJournalist 20:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Good, I never said anyone was, just making my position clear. Deleting copyvio's from the history is not strictly required, ensuring the current version is copyright free is more important. Policy does not specifically ask for it, and according to Wikipedia:Copyright problems, The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it. Please note the reason for removal in edit summary and at the article's talk page (you may wish to use {{cclean}}). If an admin wants to selectively delete the history I do not mind, though it is quite difficult to do with current software. I would prefer DrNegative make a statement first however. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ensuring the current version is copyright free does indeed take precedence. However, there's an important reason why there's a set process for admins to delete copyrighted material from a page's history. All content on Wikipedia's pages are licensed under GFDL—even old revisions. These should be free from copyright violations as well. So while it may be improbable that anyone will take any legal action based on old revisions, it's better to be safe. I've listed other pages like this before at Wikipedia:Copyright problems without any issue; admins are smart and they have the tools to solve issues like this. It's not that much of a burden. BuddingJournalist 00:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm afraid they don't in this case. I have just realised something rather important that I forgot to mention, and after a quick test I can confirm it is an issue. When admins click delete on this article you get the following message: "This page has a large edit history, over 5,000 revisions. Deletion of such pages has been restricted to prevent accidental disruption of Wikipedia." There is hence no way for admins to delete this article, as you have to delete the entire page first and then selectively restore to remove certain revisions. Developers can override it I believe but this issue is not series enough I believe to justify their involvement. Wikipedia:Oversight is still possible but is not practical with over 500 revisions, as I believe it has to be done per revision, and plus oversighters will only use oversight to remove copyright infringement on the advice of the Wikimedia Foundation counsel apparently. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_of_Empires_(video_game)&action=history, another article that was taken to FAC where I found copyvio issues in a portion of the article. User:Moonriddengirl was able to remove the edits in question just fine... BuddingJournalist 18:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) User:BuddingJournalist asked my input on this, and I just wanted to offer my experience. Typically, the admins who handle matters at WP:CP (these days, that's largely me, but not always :D) sometimes remove, sometimes selectively delete infringement depending on various factors, including the scale of the problem, the likeliness of readdition of infringement and technical such as Camaron | Chris points out. Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins sets out some basic guidance for how to choose among these options. I haven't looked at the details here, but if Camaron | Chris is right about the history of this article (and my guess based on its title is he probably is), it will probably remain in history unless we receive a take-down. (However, I do have to note that I didn't get that message when I clicked on delete. I got the standard "You are about to delete The Lion King along with all of its history" message. And there's no way I'm going beyond that screen to test it out and be the one who shut down Wikipedia for the rest of the day!) User:BuddingJournalist, thanks for investigating where these came in. That's always crucial in making sure that contributors are properly notified of policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks Moonriddengirl! BuddingJournalist 19:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't possible, in fact I have selectively deleted articles myself for reasons other than copyvio before now, I am quite familiar with it. I said it was only not possible in articles over 5000 revisions. Age of Empires has about 1000 revisions, so it is possible there. For some reason I sometimes can delete The Lion King, sometimes I can't, here is proof for the record: can't delete, can delete. Anyway I am following the wisdom of Moonriddengirl and not trying it when I can. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange and scary! I'd hate to think that I might accidentally delete a large article and break the 'pedia someday. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware that I committed copyright infringement. I cede that point. I was simply trying to find info that related to the production of this film that would be relevant to this article and I didn't know at the time that what I did was against policy. I was simply trying to state the facts from a published source about the production of the film. I deeply apologize to all the editors that helped me with this article for I feel that I have let them down with this poor error. I feel that it is best that I do not edit this article any further in the future as a result. I apologize. DrNegative (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology DrNegative, though as I said on your talk page, there is no need to stop editing this article over this issue. The copyright issue can be solved, like most things on Wikipedia, and once that is done we should learn lessons and move on. I know it is frustrating that this article has not made it to FA yet, I have been on this project for two years and still not managed a single FA myself for a variety of reasons. But yours and other contributions have made a big difference which may not have been realised - this article is still GA. Without that this article would have probably been demoted by now due to slow article deterioration, and GA standard inflation over time. I admit I probably have not given this article as much attention as I should have done due to commitments elsewhere, I intend to help when I can in the future. Your help will be appreciated as always. Camaron | Chris (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the material, since the issue is settled and the tag was clogging up the article, the sections removed can be re-written from scratch at any time. I can still remove it from the history, but to clarify I am not going to because: A) I shouldn't be able to delete the article, it has a too longer history and deletion could lock the servers. B) Deleting 500+ revisions from the page history would remove attribution for many changes and would not be compatible with the GFDL. C) The copyvio was beyond what was acceptable, but it was far from the worst ever seen, and no copyright claim has been made as far as I know. I may re-write the section from scratch at some point, but feel free to beat me to it. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been informed by DrNegative that the info appears to have orginated from a IMAX press release which is unfortunatly no longer avaliable in their archives, though it could be in the Way Back Machine. I have not done much research on copyright and IMAX but I have also been told that would make it copyleft. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Meerkats in the Serengeti

I'm surprised nobody has questioned how Timon got to Kenya/Tanzania in the first place. Meerkats aren't from anywhere near the Serengeti. Maybe a nice family dropped his clan off there. Peter Greenwell (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that nobody questioned that hyenas and lions could speak English to each other! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 13:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, it has never been said that this takes place in the Serengeti. 24.5.254.152 (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, remember from Lion King 1 1/2. Timon is from somewhere else. He set out on his own and that brought him to the Serengeti —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.255.36 (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's supposed to be intentionally ambiguous where in Africa it takes place. The opening "Circle of Life" sequence includes shots of both Mount Kilimanjaro and Victoria Falls, which I believe are over a thousand miles apart. --mwalimu59 (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

SFX speculation

The line "The film's animators, however, have stated that the letters spell "SFX" (a common abbreviation of "special effects"), and was intended as an innocent "signature" created by the effects animation team" under Subliminal Messaging should be removed, because the animators have stated no such thing. The linked article merely states that "the animators reportedly stated..." which as we all know isn't a proper source and thus should not be included in the article. A quick search reveals no direct quotes from any animator on the subject, and thus the "reported" excuse appears to be nothing more than an invention of Disney apologists. --OfficerBlue (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Nazi reference?

As I was watching The Lion King segment "Be Prepared" on YouTube, I spotted something that might be worth editing under the Controversy title on this page. As we get further into the song, a hyena army marches supposedly in a fashion similar to that of a WWII Nazi rally. Adding to the effect, Scar stands on a high platform, watching over his minions, as if he were Adolf Hitler. The Moral? The scene might be offensive to people who are related to anyone who survived/was killed in the holocaust. Bad_Grim (talk)

It depends ... if you can find a published analysis or news article discussing that, it'd be worth adding. It may well exist, as I recall some people mentioning it way back then. I think, ultimately, most people viewed it as satirical, more than controversial. However, if you can find something to support it, by all means add it. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The subject was mentioned in the audio commentary--GroovySandwich 03:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Running time

In some sites running time of this movie is 89 minutes, not 90.For example links [1],[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitek778 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Lion King/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Lead has too many sourced statements that appear to introduce new facts; lead should primarily summarize the article per WP:LEAD. Plot is too long (952 words/400-600 it should be) and uses inappropriate tone and OR-ish language in several places. A plot summary should be a summary of the film, not someone's interpretation of it. It also has too many song titles randomly dropped in that are unnecessary as the songs are already covered in another section. Character section has excessive bolding, is unsourced, and not an appropriate section. Voice actors best merged into the plot if there is no reliable, third-party information on their casting or creation available. Timon and Pumbaa are individual characters and should be listed as such. The release section has a table that should be prose, and the inflation adjust needs to be removed. This has been consistently rejected for addition in film articles. The article as a whole needs a thorough copy edit. The awards section is poorly formatted and needs to be redone, preferably in prose, or in an awards table. The Home Video section has inconsistent header sizes. The infobox is not filled in correctly - the release date should be the first theatrical release only, its missing the country, and starring should be only the major characters not all. Would highly recommend applying WP:MOSFILM which would fix many of the sectional issues and many of the references need format fixes and are missing basic details available from the sources such as authors, publishers, etc.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article contains multiple unsourced statements throughout the entire article. Plot does not need sourcing, nor does the character list as its just a list of names and brief roles; except for Sarafina which claims her name is given in the credits but does it say Sarafina or does it also note "Nala's mother"; if not, a reliable source is needed for that. Several of the unsourced statements appear to be interpretative or otherwise OR such as combining different numbers from BOM to draw a conclusion. Among the references used, several are not reliable sources: LionKing.org (fansite), IMDB (user edited), TV.com (user edited episode summaries), ltimateDisney.com (fansite), kimbawlion.com (fansite), eeggs.com (user edited), bcdb.com (user edited), eyesonff.com (fansite), and whatsitsgalore.com (personal site) #10 is a dead link. What makes ReelViews and The OscarGuy, and worldvillage.com reliable sources?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   For a film of this caliber and popularity, the main critical reception is far too short; there is no way that is all the reception information available for this film, or even half of it. The plot is too long (as noted above), and there is too much focus on criticism (as noted below), the sequels, and the home video releases are excessively detailed and should be a single section without all the fan details.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The production summary has some non-neutral language, making claims about the notability of parts of the film. Controversies is a non-neutral label and section. Being written the way it is and split the way it is, it gives undue weight to latter three events. The Kimba event does not need a "main" link as "Kimba the White Lion#The Lion King controversy" is not a standalone article.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The Simpson's image is unnecessary and violates WP:NONFREE. File:Lionkg2.jpg needs a better FUR. File:Kimbasimba.JPG is very low quality and would be better replaced with two individual images from the films, in a proper format, using the side by side image box.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article fails almost all of the Good Article criteria, as noted above. This GAR is on hold for the next seven days to allow time for interested editors to try to bring the article back to good article standards. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I think it is unlikely that this will be back up to good article status in seven days, particularly given the amount of things which need to be fixed to keep GA. I would recommend delisting it for now and then it can be re-affirmed as GA at some point in the future. I will give a full response to these concerns shortly. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have given the article a bit of work this morning, it has far from addressed all the issues in the article, but I will keep working on it, particularly since activity here is rather low at the moment.

The plot has been a problem for a long time and was the primary target of what appeared to be BambiFan attacks for a while making improvements more difficult. I have cut down the plot to just over 700 words, I am sure there are more cuts that can be made. I have also removed some WP:OR language present, but there are probably still bits in there which need to be re-worded, so I will come back to it. I have also removed the randomly dropped in song titles. I would agree with merging the character list in with the plot, the link to the main article is already covered by the navbox. I am leaving the bolding as it is for now until discussion at WT:FILMS has concluded.

I will review the references later, I was told IMBD was tolerated in film articles but I am sure replacements can be found. I will need to do some research for the other references, they are probably unreliable and hence replacements will need to be found, as most but not all fansites are unreliable.

The reception does not need to be exhaustive for GA, but I agree it should be expanded. The home video section was rather awkward and I have replaced it with a section for each release, though I agree these should probably be merged into some kind of DVD and VCR release section. I don't like the Awards section at present either, I would prefer to convert it to prose as it is technically easier and would flow better than a table.

I agree with getting rid of the controversy section, it is inherently a WP:NPOV violation at present and does not fit well with the rest of the article. Possible restructuring of the article could be to merge this into release; or perhaps even creating a reception section separate from release and putting the controversy stuff merged in there. There are also some essays surrounding the film currently not mentioned at all, which was criticised at FAC, these should probably mentioned somewhere as well, though that is a less important area of the topic and is probably not needed for GA.

The inappropriateness of The Simpson's image I found debatable, though I have removed it just to be on the safe side. I would oppose any more cuts on fair use images as this article has gone from eight to three and all those remaining serve a purpose. I have re-written in detail the fair use rationale for File:Lionkg2.jpg. It would be very difficult for me to improve File:Kimbasimba.JPG as I don't have any episode of Kimba the White Lion, and I don't unfortunately have The Lion King on DVD either at present. There is an alternative image at File:Earlypresentationreelwhitelionking.jpg that can perhaps be used instead, though it would need an improved fair use rationale. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure who told you that, but IMDB is not tolerated as a source as it is not a reliable source (it is only acceptable as an EL). Per the notes above, the article has seen some improvements since the GAR was started, but it does still need a fair bit of work to bring it back to GA status. As such, and per the general lack of activity and Camaron's accurate assessment above that it needs more than just a week worth of work, I have delisted this article from Good Article status. It is in better shape than many film articles, particularly the Disney ones, and I hope someone will take these notes and continue working to bring this article back to Good article status. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I will continue working on it, don't worry. I think I will be nice and not reveal who told me IMDB was tolerated as a source. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries :) To clarify, IMDB is often used to get credit lists for convenience (i.e. copy/paste rather than opening the DVD, and typing furiously), however it is not a citable reliable source. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Nala merger

A merge tag was added into Nala's article but no discussion has been started so I create a topic to avoid people merging it without reaching consensus. I oppose this merger as the character has appearances in several media outside The Lion King and is one of the more identifiable characters of the franchise. --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, discussion was started at Talk:Nala (The Lion King)#Merge/Redirect to The Lion King the same day the tag was placed. Would appreciate if your comment could be moved there to keep it centralized. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Character list

Moved from Talk:The Lion King/GA1

I believe the Characters list has been adequately integrated into the plot summary. I have been bold and removed it. Feel free to reinstate if you feel otherwise. Somanytictoc (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the removal of the character list. The list of characters contained very useful and extensive information on a series that is extremely popular for discussion and controversy. The specific nature of each individual character down to the tiny details of the timeline and family tree of each pride is so often brought up and disputed among Lion King fans that to remove the character list is absolutely ridiculous and the Lion King series of articles are now sorely lacking in information that is deemed very important by the fanbase. Not only that, but there are a lot of characters in the series, all of which have a good amount of notable information surrounding them. Why in the world would anyone think that removing it would be in any possible way beneficial to this series of articles? Do your research on the fanbase before removing something you don't feel is "important" enough, please. Reinstating this is a must. -- Disgruntled representative of the Lion King fanbase. (131.91.206.60 (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC))

I have moved this discussion here as the GA review is now over with the article delisted, and not many people are likely to be watching that subpage, so they may not notice new comments there. I think there is some confusion here though. Somanytictoc refers to the character list in this article, [3] which did just replicate the content of the plot section. List of The Lion King characters is a separate page which was re-directed by Collectonian (talk · contribs). I have not commented on this issue up until now, and I don't really have a strong opinion on it at this time. Perhaps AfD should be considered given that this is clearly controversial and this is not just a pure merge into this article, particularly given that the list refers to more than one film.. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You can "strongly" disagree all you desire, however the list was redirected here per consensus as seen on the list talk list and per discussions in the Film project and per Wikipedia guidelines. The list did nothing but repeat the plot of the films with a bunch of fancruft tossed in. By your own statements, the list was purely a mini-fansite which is not appropriate for Wikipedia at all. A merge of the sections was not required as character sections are not appropriate in film articles, and all of the film articles already have the plot (which is all the list had anyway). Fans have more than enough fansites, Wikipedia isn't here for them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I support the remove, the cast section was starting to look like a children's story book narrative. DrNegative (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh my GOD you fucking idiots! How could you fucking delete it like that! This is even worse then when you fucking delete all the Pokemon articles... I am so incredibly pissed off with you fucks right now it's unreal. Pastel kitten (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)