Talk:Aladdin (1992 Disney film)

	This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's Animated

Animation: American / Films High‑importance

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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as High-importance). This article has been selected for use on the Animation portal.

Disney High‑importance

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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arab world Mid‑importance

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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Animation / Cinema Low‑importance

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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Animation - American animation work group. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

	Wiki Loves Pride
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: Spanish magazine article/interview about the 3D animation process

On 27 September 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Aladdin (1992 film). The result of the discussion was not moved.

Archives

Archive 1

"sending him a Pablo Picasso painting... the painting was a self-portrait of the artist as Vincent van Gogh"

How can a painting by Picasso be a self portrait of Vincent van Gogh?71.13.26.7 (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

This film is a comedy. Why not add it? --97.113.114.127 (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Evan Kalani Opedal[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090602043724/http://www.scottweinger.net/article13.html to http://www.scottweinger.net/article13.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416063832/http://www.scottweinger.net/article15.html to http://www.scottweinger.net/article15.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090519070127/http://disneymusic.disney.go.com/albums/disneymania3.html to http://disneymusic.disney.go.com/albums/disneymania3.html

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.

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Lagrange613 03:38, 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. Lagrange613 06:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase was Picture.CO.UK_film)&diff=863962158&oldid=863949859 added by LebaneseBebe in October 2018. By looking at the article's history, it seems that it wasn't there before that, and all the sources date prior to the addition, thus I doubt that it was propagated. Musicfan122 (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Aladdin (1992 New Line Cinema film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Arabic folktale same name" to "Arabic folktale of the same name". 51.77.109.132 (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done aboideau^talk 12:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Aladdin 1992 poster.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Aladdin (1992 MGM/New Line Cinema film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2001:5B0:4FC1:5428:D8E1:C625:714:7253 (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. TGHL ↗ 🍁 03:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has the sentence "Aladdin was also the last film by Disney to be entirely based on a fairytale or folklore until the release of Tangled (based on Rapunzel) in 2010, 17 years later." This doesn't seem right though - Mulan (Hua Mulan) and Hercules (Heracles) are definitely based on folklore, and Chicken Little is based on a fairy tale (Henny Penny). Smurrayinchester 13:02, 1 September 2021 (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

]

While I agree with most of the recent changes by

On quite a few other film GAs and FAs (such as Back to the Future, Conan the Barbarian (1982 film), Avengers: Endgame, The Avengers (2012 film), The Empire Strikes Back, etc.), the hidden comment regarding the plot summaries can be useful for other editors to check before making edits. Also, the Wikipedia:How to streamline a plot summary essay might be helpful in removing unnecessary words in the plot summaries.

If there are any other thoughts about this, please post your thoughts here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Thoughts? milladrive (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.)"

However, some editors ignore the hidden comment and expand the plot to above 700 words. I've also asked

WT:FILM for their thoughts on the matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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]

Fair enough. So, which film plots should have it? All of them? milladrive (talk) 18:34, 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.

Thank you to everyone for the input. milladrive (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we could help! DonIago (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]