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 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.
For
legal reasons, we cannot accept
copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under
fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and
referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our
guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.
Rusty4321talkcontribs23:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Production company credit
The billing block on the
poster states "Disney presents a Pixar Studios Animation film". No mention is made of any other Disney entity other than its subsidiary Pixar Animation Studios. Specifically "Walt Disney Pictures" another subsidiary, isn't mentioned in the billing block. "Walt Disney Pictures" has been added to the infobox as a production company based on the assumption that "Disney" in the billing block means "Walt Disney Pictures" but even then a "presents" credits isn't a production credit, it is a distribution credit - they didn't make the film. Argument for including "Walt Disney Pictures" as production studio is that is how it is done on other Pixar film articles. I don't consider what other articles do as sufficient reason.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
17:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Walt Disney Pictures has been credited succinctly as "Disney" for well over a decade now in their films; it is simply how the studio has gone by name-wise since 2012. Countless of films feature studios that encompass both production and distribution duties. Your assertion that "a "presents" credits isn't a production credit, it is a distribution credit" lacks any verifiability. This is according to whom? Yourself? Your interpretation of a movie poster is
original research. ~
Jedi94 (
Want to tell me something?)
06:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The other animated film articles getting it wrong doesn't mean this one must follow them, if anything they should be changed to remove Walt Disney Pictures as a production company. If Disney were a production credit it would say that, it doesn't, it says "presents".
Walt Disney Pictures, per its article, produces live-action films, and the animated films produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios and Pixar Animation Studios are released under its banner thus the presents credit. They had nothing to do with producing the film, just releasing it. Look at the actual credits in the film for Inside Out. Copyright is held by Disney Enterprises Inc./Pixar. The actual end credits say "distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" followed by "created and produced at Pixar Animation Studios".
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
06:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You know you're a legit moron who causes the entire insanity? I don't care about your stupidity, I don't cause about you knowledge, At least nobody gives a crap about
Disney being credited and also in opening credits and logo in
Pixar and
WDAS were all featured
Walt Disney Pictures logo in it, even credited as they're involved of the film, they're all also credited as co-production with, so it's not like you're doing anything against it, I begged you and begged you to stop and you just didn't
No Walt Disney Pictures just releases the films produced by Disney's animation studios under their banner. Basically slap on the flagship Disney film logos and claim presents. That is the limit of their involvement. They are not involved in producing the films just releasing them as stated in the articles.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
20:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Geraldo Perez Then Put
Walt Disney Pictures credit, you IDIOT! it's not
Universal Pictures and
DreamWorks Animation! Of course, DreamWorks made their films and Universal released them, despite Universal didn't get their credit, but at least they marketed it and advertised it and promoted it worldwide, and do you forget about
Columbia Pictures and
Sony Pictures Animation? Yeah Columbia released Sony Animation films (execpt
The Star,
Hotel Transylvania 3, and
The Angry Birds Movie 2) but most of SPA films do have a disturbution credit "Columbia Pictures" presents on, and also it's not about your stupid Disney's Limit of their involvement, it's about what the film's studio is and their producing in the film, you always hated things the way they were, you think Disney has nothing to do with
Pixar and
WDAS! well you're wrong! if it it wasn't for Disney in their Animatied films Category, then Who The Hell produced a lot of Pixar and WDAS films? you think that Disney only releases it? no! they produced it! if I heard another word of negative thoughts, I sentence you to be Blocked!
41.141.206.116 (
talk)
15:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Pixar and WDAS are Disney studios who produce animated films. That is shown in the credits. Disney Pictures produces live-action films and releases films produced by the animation studios under its banner, that is the limit of their involvement. It isn't the animated film's production company. The three are peer studios owned by
Disney Studios.
Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures does the marketing, promotion and distribution for all of them. I think some of the confusion is conflating Disney Pictures with its owner Disney Studios.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
15:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Geraldo Perez No It is the animated film's production company, just because it is shown in the credits, doesn't mean that is the limit of their involvement, you said
Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures does the marketing, promotion and distribution for all of them, and it drives me CRAZY AND MAD! because What are you talking about? Are you a Scam? I thought I told you to bring
Walt Disney Pictures credit back on all Animated films, but you weren't listening, and here you are, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures has nothing to do with this, Walt Disney Pictures does the marketing, promotion, and producing for all of them? Stop this! and do as I Say!
41.141.206.116 (
talk)
16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
After taking a step back and reevaluating, I think it would be best to keep Walt Disney Pictures out of the production company parameter unless there are some verifiable sources (like Variety, Hollywood Reporter or AFI) that explicitly name it as a production company. This is just to uphold Wikipedia's policies for consistency. After careful consideration, I think the best alternative would be leaving a footnote in the distribution field denoting that the film is released under the Walt Disney Pictures banner, as that is still a fact. I have gone ahead and adjusted the majority of Disney Animation and Pixar film articles to this effect. I think this method should satisfy both sides of the argument! ~
Jedi94 (
Want to tell me something?)
23:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
How Long are we gonna keep the Notes as the End Scene left ambiguous and determinant that Riley did accepted by Firehawk? I'd say 90% on her proud smile at the end, She might be accepted.
Happiness is Simple (
talk)
23:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I also thought Riley was accepted. But it's not explicitly stated, so it's right to say that it's ambiguous. There's no, like, set amount of time that we're "gonna keep" it. It stays unless and until more information from within the film's universe, or from the film's creative team, becomes available, or a different consensus is built.
DavidK93 (
talk)
01:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with that. Pete Docter or any Pixar staff would definitely reveals later of Riley joining the Firehawks later. I can tell that more remain asked question if she is became part of the team by the time Pixar plan Inside Out 3.
Happiness is Simple (
talk)
16:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Explanation grammars
Seinfield429, why did you revert "Like it's predecessor" and how is it irrelevant? Both movies have similar reception, so that means I'm allowed to compare them, don't you think? Sometimes you guys don't make a lot sense at all when it comes to editing pages.
SuperSuperSonic208 (
talk)
23:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Making comparison to another film is
WP:SYNTHESIS. Also, in this case something that does not belong in the lead for this film. How this film was reviewed is reasonable to have in the lead. How another film performed is covered in its article.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
02:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Both films have similar reception no matter what, and the guideline does not say do not compare. Sometimes you and others are not making any sense when it comes to grammers. It's just that you guys don't get it. Sometimes, i get frustrated with your excuses when it comes to Wikipedia articles. Just stop with that. And you should know that i am allowed to compare reviews the first film especially if there similar.
SuperSuperSonic208 (
talk)
04:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This isn't a grammar issue, it is a content issue about what should be in the lead section of this article. Wiki is a collaborative project and works via consensus. If you add something and other editors don't think it belongs and remove it, the next step is discussion and work to consensus. What you want to add is unnecessary, talks to some other film, and is a personal observation that counts as
WP:no original research.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
04:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, how the heck doesn't belong? It should. Both reviews are similar, that's why i am allowed to compare reviews. Both Garfield movies have similar negative reviews and yet the Garfield 2 article has the "Like it's predecessor" line. How come that come that could he allowed, but not the Inside Out 2 article? It just doesn't make sense. Sometimes you just make hypocritical statements when it comes to Wikipedia's articles. And I just hate that.
SuperSuperSonic208 (
talk)
04:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It is obvious what you want in the article. Other editors, myself included, don't think it adds anything of value to add that comparison to the lead section particularly when it isn't mentioned or sourced anywhere else in the article.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
04:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Your still not giving me the actual reason how is it not value. Clearly it's considered value because both films have similar reception. But no, your just like it's not supposed the same. Clearly it is. Just stop.
SuperSuperSonic208 (
talk)
05:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, on that topic, why are you always so strict many times when it comes to Wikipedia articles? Your acting like there not supposed to be the same. Cleary they can.
SuperSuperSonic208 (
talk)
05:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hello, I don't mind adding more reviews to the section. But can you select or determine what you wish to extract from them or the way you want to group them (mixed: BBC and LAT and positive: the rest; or: theme; focus; approach?). If it's to add reviews with the idea of adding all existing reviews, I am not sure it's necessary nor recommended; the film has received plenty of reviews all over the world, and even in English only, there are reviews from South African, Irish, Australian or NZ media, and so on, so it won't be possible to add them all. If other users want to add all of those you listed and kindly linked, I am really not opposed, though, and feel free. Thanks. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)22:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Mushy Yank: I was just saying that about the reviews to further complete the section, as it seems a bit weak in my opinion. Take for example the articles The Super Mario Bros. Movie, Barbie and Oppenheimer and you will see that their "Reception" sections are much more complete and have the sources to mention as a reference. And regarding how I want to integrate it into the article, I suggest that you review the sources and see what information you can include to make the article much more complex. What do you think?
2801:1CA:E:1411:35BD:515F:D133:85CB (
talk)
18:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Mushy Yank: Thank you for your pornelas but I would like to see you delve deeper into the references to see if there is a positive or negative review. You can also add a little more from sources such as
IGN,
EW,
Forbes,
Total Film to complement the No More section a little, I'm just asking you for that and I won't bother you again.
2801:1CA:E:1411:D004:A56A:6C66:229A (
talk)
20:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Done but not the Forbes article, that cites sources already quoted in the article. And EW in Production section, not reception. I don't know what Pornelas are, nor what you refer to as the No More section but I did my best. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)23:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: FYI, I reverted a revision which included a duplicate source + a source citing this Wikipedia article.
ภץאคгöร17:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Whoever entered the plot of the film into Wikipedia needs to fix it. Why does the last sentence mention characters from the Transformers franchise and Riley being eaten by a monster?
Zircon 72 (
talk) 06:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Fixed (vandalism). Thanks.-
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)08:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Is this a sports film?
The plot centers around an ice hockey camp according to the Plot section, but the lead sentence solely describes IO2 as a coming-of-age film. Both
2024 in film and
List of highest-grossing sports films currently call Inside Out 2 a sports movie, but I personally haven't found a
RS that describes it like this. So do we consider Inside Out 2 to be one?
Hello, I came here to ask if I could write an article about the character of anxiety. Since he is an important character in the movie and a lot of media has talked about him, it would be good to create his own article for the character. what do you say
2801:1CA:E:1411:62C:D6C:9D57:C071 (
talk)
19:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Are both the same thing? Tricky. The character is a depiction of the emotion. So, can you start
Anxiety (Inside Out 2)? Maybe. I am not completely sure.
Replying to 152.200.176.43: No, I don't want to create the article and will not. 2801:1CA:E:1411:62C:D6C:9D57:C071 said they were considering doing so. Not I.-
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)23:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's already mentioned. Just read the intro.-
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)07:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC): Clarification: mentioned as 2nd highest-grossing (above Frozen but not Lion King 2019 considered an animated film (see note d; that could be clearer in the intro though).reply
Thhis information wasn't in the box office section. I checked the history, this information was added after my comment, not before.
Wffmiysa (
talk)
09:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You're welcome.... You added your request today (25 July) at 1:04 AM (GMT), the information was there on and off (either 3d/2nd or top) yesterday (24 July). I call this before, not after..... -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)15:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Resolved
Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
What is the point of the last paragraph talking about the post-credits scene where the Deep Dark Secret reveals Riley's secret to joy? It doesn't tell a part of the main story and was merely put in for laughs. I say we should take it out.
2603:6010:8B00:44FF:C167:1105:A40F:366F (
talk)
21:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article describes a film about a teenager going to hockey camp. That is only true in the US. Elsewhere the movie is about football / soccer. I suggest it should be amended to conform to the experience of most people in the world, and reference how the movie has a hockey theme in the US version.
Here's one of a million references one could cite.