This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
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
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
Hi. Sorry for joining late, but a midquel is supposed to take place some time within the original story. This movie is supposed to be a continuation of Tod and Copper’s friendship after they just met. According to The Disney Wiki, it says that the movie takes place between Amos Slade and Widow Tweed’s fight about Tod’s running after Slade’s chickens and when Tod wants to say “Goodbye” to Copper as Copper leaves to learn to hunt. (Link: https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Hound_2) Cbsteffen (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit, the word "midquel" comes up again, but this has been removed several times before by @Trivialist:. Also, the Disney fandom is not a reliable source. However, I would suggest saying "intermediate follow-up" like the original film's page calls it. That makes the most sense in actual words, plus it's consistent with with the original film's article calls it. 75.106.171.139 (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has been reverted, but I noticed that the dead link in this page is an apparent repeat of a source previously used in the same section, but with a missing "f". They should be merged to fix the problem. @Trivialist:, I'm requesting help again as this page is protected. 75.106.171.139 (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Doniago:, thank you for fixing the first film's article, but could you take a look at this film's article now please? I asked Trivialist because he/she had edited this page previously multiple times, but could you do anything else with it? This page is also protected, like the first film's, but there's a lot that could be done with the both of them, especially this one. I almost wonder if this particular page could possibly be unprotected, since it's been protected for over 13 years now. However, I'll try the requests for unprotection for that. 75.106.171.139 (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're pinging me here, as I don't believe I've ever edited the article for this film. I'm happy to consider making changes as a courtesy, but I would need specific suggestions. I don't have the bandwidth right now to do my own review or go looking for sources for an article about a film I've never seen and have no interest in. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CreecregofLife: already fixed the problem I pointed out, plus a few more fixes. So, I guess you don't have to help anymore for the moment. But as far as seeing this film is concerned, have you ever seen the original film, or not? Just wondering. I brought this up because of your interest in the first film's article, but for now everything's fine thanks to Trivialist and CreecregofLife. However, if you've ever seen the original film, how much does it interest you? I would recommend it, but I understand that not everyone is interested in underrated animated films. Sorry for that. 75.106.171.139 (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]