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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Arab world 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.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article was created or improved during
Wiki Loves Pride,
2022.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
I was wondering the same thing. Frankly, this whole section was confusing to me because I don't spend any time trying to understand the entertainment industry's politics but it's written like a lot of things are supposed to be understood. When I got to the line you just pointed out I thought, "OK, 'Uncle', I'm not smart enough to understand any of this."
Thisisfutile (
talk)
18:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)reply
synopsis
October 22nd 2018 by a wiki newb — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
122.149.230.174 (
talk) 02:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The intro states
"The film follows Aladdin, an Arabian street urchin, who finds a magic lamp containing a genie. In order to hide the lamp from the Grand vizier, he disguises himself as a wealthy prince, and tries to impress the Sultan and his daughter."
however his return to Agrabah has nothing to do with hiding from Jafar, only impressing the princess. The Grand Vizier should be mentioned in the finding of the lamp, not what Aladdin does with it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
122.149.230.174 (
talk)
02:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)reply
I have just modified 3 external links on
Aladdin (1992 MGM/Universal Pictures.CO.UK film). 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.
I have
Line Cinema_film)&diff=884196539&oldid=884171032 restored the "citation needed" tag to the point about Agrabah being near the River Jordan. We never see any river in the film. The only evidence I've seen presented is the Peddler's comment that he has "the finest merchandise this side of" the river. This is not saying the city is near the river; it's an expression like "
greatest thing since sliced bread", a way of talking up the subject by emphasizing how many things it's better than. Indeed, if anything, the Peddler's comment implies that Agrabah is far from the river, since that would provide a wider region of
merchandise for comparison.
I'm tagging the statement rather than removing it again, in case there's some other justification for having it there. If not, though, it should be removed.
Lagrange61303:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I think you're overcomplicating things a bit here. I've never heard of an expression like that before. The dialogue in the film should be cited as it is. Also, various reliable sources and media outlets use this --
[1][2][3][4][5].
Musicfan122 (
talk)
04:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
For "an expression like that" see the Wiktionary link above. The dialogue in the film does not support the claim in the article, as explained. I suspect those sources found this erroneous "fact" on Wikipedia and
propagated it. There are positive reasons aplenty to doubt this idea: the location was supposed to be Baghdad, nowhere near the Jordan River, but the name was swapped with a pseudoanagram after the Gulf War. Also, the topography is all wrong. And, not for nothing, it adds nothing to the article. But whatever, this is beneath edit warring.
Lagrange61306:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Hello, Wikipedians, there is a slight problem about the release date on the article. The info box and one of the main sections of the article had the release date as "November 11", but it is most likely the limited release for the film. I would like the official "November 25" release date to actually be
sourced reliably (besides the
Box Office Mojo source), and another one for that "November 11" date to specifify the two locations the film had a limited release date (
IMDb has the limited release to specifify that it held in both
Los Angeles and
New York City, but it is an unreliable source). These are the tasks that needed to be settled and finished. Thank you, and thanks for reading - Truly yours,
Aubreeprincess (
talk)
16:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:FILMRELEASE we only need to list the first date it was released anywhere at all and the first release date in the country of origin. Those are both the limited release as shown in the infobox sourced by "The Numbers" reference
[6] and
BOM.
Aladdin (1992 Disney film) § Release gives a fairly complete and sufficiently sourced description of what happened, when, and why. It matches what you stated above. We don't need to list the wide release date in the infobox, the initial release date is all that is needed there.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
17:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Requested move 27 September 2023
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Strong oppose as textbook violation of
WP:PFILM. The film project has a special project-specific guideline (as permitted by
WP:PRECISION) which prohibits the use of partial disambiguation for film articles. There are no exceptions no matter how high-profile a film is.
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
23:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The dis-ambiguation suffix "1992 film" implies it needs dis-ambiguation from a film titled Aladdin that was released in a different year.
Georgia guy (
talk)
11:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose per
WP:PFILM, which says to disambiguate secondary-topic films from each other. As it mentions, "Policy at
WP:PRECISION permits such Wikipedia project-specific naming criteria" such as for UK Parliament constituencies and U.S. state and territory highways. For films, if they have disambiguation terms, they should be disambiguated from one other. WP:IAR is not an excuse to do whatever one wants, and this move is not a step toward "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". It's literally an extra word for clarity and disambiguation. The point of the project-specific naming criteria is to sidestep fussing about edge cases about which secondary-topic film "deserves" less disambiguation. Readers are not harmed by this reasonable balance of disambiguation terms, which they are rarely going to type anyway. The effort toward culling disambiguation terms, like here, is unnecessary.
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)14:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose: It does not seem like a major burden to include "Disney" in the disambiguator to make it clear which film is the topic of the article. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
16:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose per
WP:PDABPRIMARY and
WP:PRIMARYFILM. Full disambiguation works very well for the film project, where clashes between disambiguated titles are fairly common. WP:PRIMARYFILM is one of our better guidelines if you ask me: it offers consistency, is simple to apply, and diffuses disputes. If the nominator is proposing an exemption to the guideline it would be helpful to know why one is needed.
Betty Logan (
talk)
05:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)reply
When it came to the 1992 Aladdin films, I noticed that the Disney film had, again, a ~76:1 pageview ratio with the Golden Films film, more than twice the ratio that the Willow films had. Thus, I considered the Disney film to be the
WP:PRIMARYPDAB in this case.
As I
wrote in June, the Willow move should be overturned. But now that BarrelProof has revealed there are other film articles that blatantly contravene PFILM, all of those should be corrected as well (and why isn't Willow on that list?). If you would like to contest the guideline, you should do so at
WT:NCFILM, not here. PFILM has been consistently upheld in RM discussions, even those pertaining to the highest-profile films that are the clear primary topics, including at
Talk:Titanic (1997 film) and
Talk:Parasite (2019 film).
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
16:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The "to be fixed" list is just a dump of what was detected by a recent automatic search. The listed cases haven't been studied closely. The search found about 50 films, in fact; those have not been thoroughly checked. I just moved
Vertigo (film) from that section into the
WP:PDABLIST (41:1 pageview ratio relative to three other films combined, no prior discussion of the title evident). —
BarrelProof (
talk)
16:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I reject the entire notion of a primary parenthetical disambiguator that some here seem to be advocating for. The parenthetical disambiguators are, by definition, meant to be unambiguous. When there are 2 films with the same title that were released in the same year, neither of them should use (year film) as the disambiguator.
Rreagan007 (
talk)
07:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hidden comment in plot summary
While I agree with most of the recent changes by
Milladrive (
talk·contribs), the hidden comment regarding the plot summary length was removed as unnecessary, as indicated
here. I've restored the comment for now. As I don't want to get involved in a potential
edit war, I'm opening up a discussion here.
No war, and I too like most of the adjustments you've made.
I do understand your point about the note being helpful with the more popular films, so that someone with perhaps a lot of enthusiasm will not expand it too much. And I don't necessarily disagree.
My only question, however, is where the line between popular enough and not popular enough is drawn? I think consistency is important. It's why I tend to opt to remove or omit it from films with a moderate number of words that falls well within the 400-700 limits.
milladrive (
talk)
22:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Just to elaborate, I tend to think that the directive for potential editors is unnecessary when there's little risk of editors to exceed the 400-700 guidelines. It's why I have eliminated the note in articles that have little chance of exceeding those limits.
Furthermore, when the number of words is borderline (close to either 400 or 700), I think that the invisible notation to potential editors is important. I often add notation warnings to plots with more than 700 words (a very common issue). If the word count is 675 or 425, I often add the notation. But when the number of words is nowhere close, I believe the directive to be unnecessary, hence its removal.
The more I think about it, the less I think that film popularity should play a part in the weight of placing a plot-length notation. I continue to opine that when a plot has 550 words, a 400-700 directive is unnecessary.
milladrive (
talk)
01:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Since you called me out by name here after pulling a power play, and have deleted my post on your page — thus minimizing the attention to your own behavior — I was hoping there'd be some sort of response to my assertions.
I think the 400-700-word editor notation is pointless when a plot has 500-600 words, when editors are least likely to expand or shrink the plot beyond the Wikipedian guidelines. You seem to think otherwise.
Sorry for the late reply; I've been a bit busy with other things.
According to the relevant guidelines at
WP:FILMPLOT, "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as with non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.)"
Are there many examples of someone adding 150 words to an already-substantial summary? Do many plots with 550 words get expanded by the enthusiastic to more than 700?
As I've said, I understand your reasoning, and again, I don't necessarily disagree with wanting to dissuade expansion beyond the guidelines. It's why I add the invisible guideline to plots with a borderline amount of words (like 675). I also agree that the more popular films should have more info.
But there remains no definitive line defining which films warrant the directive and which do not. Who's to say which films are popular enough for editors to be concerned with over-expansion? And how can that directive be consistent? When the note is based more on word count than on popularity, consistency is more easily maintained.
I remain of the opinion that a plot with a moderate amount of words needs no warning to editors. If an overly eager editor goes overboard, I think it can be dealt with on an individual basis.
milladrive (
talk)
16:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Here are my thoughts on the matter. Aladdin (1992) is a popular film, and popular films tend to have some eager fans writing down excessively long plot summaries. Like plot summaries that you would find on a Fandom page. Thus, I believe that we can Keep the invisible comment. It takes up less bytes than the overly detailed plot. Yoshiman6464♫🥚02:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Again, I ask how that policy can have any consistency. Where is the line drawn, and who's drawing it?
Is a film like Popeye popular enough to warrant it? Its plot has 539 words, yet the invisible note was recently added. Is that plot really at risk of over-expansion? Not at all. The warning in that plot is thoroughly pointless and a waste of a couple of bytes.
milladrive (
talk)
16:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It is not seen by the readers and works as a reminder to editors to keep the plot description concise with guideline. Also as a reminder to reviewers to watch out for bloating of the plot usually done by well-intentioned editors who want to make it look like a retelling of the story instead of a bare summary. It costs nothing to keep the hidden instructional note and does help even with summaries well within the guidelines.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
18:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Usually it gets added after a problem edit as a reminder. Sometimes on new articles before the plot section gets fully fleshed out, also as a reminder during expansion. Kind of an editor judgement call if some editor sees a need. Harmless to keep in an article but I, personally, don't add them to articles until I fix a problem edit and see a need.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
19:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think there's any point in having a policy regarding when the note should be added. As other editors have noted (sorry), adding the note does no harm, and I'm with Geraldo in that I normally add the note when I have to chip away at a summary that's exceeded the guideline (I've never personally seen a film plot summary in danger of being too short), especially if it was particularly long or if it's a summary that's been a perennial problem.
TL;DR no harm is caused by adding it, but harm may be caused by removing it, so add it if you feel inclined, but don't remove it without compelling reason?
DonIago (
talk)
19:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Got it. The explanations by you and Geraldo sound reasonable. I wasn't looking for policy as much as criteria. As a regular editor, I like to know the rules as much as possible (and I agree that this doesn't need a firm policy).
I will continue to add the invisible note to plots with the potential of going overboard, but I will no longer remove the notation from films to which it's been added.