This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises 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.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animals in media, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Animals in mediaWikipedia:WikiProject Animals in mediaTemplate:WikiProject Animals in mediaAnimals in media articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy 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.
Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2018[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the Animation section there is a reference to Dave Gielow, this name is incorrect and should be me, Tad Gielow. This can be verified via IMDB. Thank you. Tadgielow (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reference itself says "Tad Gielow" so I changed it to reflect your request. Thank you for noticing the error. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In the article's voice cast section, the note regarding Hiram Flaversham's name was one of the few edits made by Brightblueskies (talk·contribs), which is a sockpuppet of the banned user Bambifan101(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). As per WP:BANREVERT, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." Also, I think we should change the credit to Flaversham, since the name should reflect the credits as per WP:FILMCAST. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what we want to avoid here is a full list of credits, since it's not WP's purpose. The first set of credits as shown in the opening lists the eight principal actors with the roles: Price, Ingham, Bettin, Pollatschek, Candido, Chesney, Brenner and Young. After that, there's the additional voice talent that includes the other roles (like the Thug Guards). Taking that into consideration and using Back to the Future (an FA) as a model, I think we can stick to the list of seven that is the principal cast as per the opening credits and also list any other person notable in the cast that we can document to third-party source (like Basil Rathbone or Laurie Main) as prose. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to get everyone's opinion on the sentence that calls The Great Mouse Detectivethe first Disney film to extensively use computer animation. The word "extensively" is being used to distinguish its CGI from the CGI in The Black Cauldron, which was released first. This phrasing seems misleading to me because neither film really used that much CGI. Mouse Detective might have used more than Cauldron, but it was still only one scene. I wouldn't call that "extensive".
Why is the threshold for "extensive CGI" in between Cauldron and Mouse Detective instead of some other movie? It seems like an arbitrary distinction. I think it's a result of Disney's publicizing the CGI in The Great Mouse Detective in their marketing. But marketing shouldn't dictate how the movie is described in the article.
This is further complicated by the overlapping production of the two films. According to Michael Peraza's blog the CGI team for The Great Mouse Detective was borrowed to make CGI for The Black Cauldron. He says So officially "Basil" was the first Disney animated feature to use computer graphics but "Cauldron" was the first to be released showing it.. But this is using "first" in a different sense than most readers would. For example, the Cauldron article still calls it the first Disney film to use CGI.
What are your thoughts? Should we add a sentence after it to mention the earlier release of Cauldron's CGI? Should we call it the second Disney film with CGI? Should we remove the "extensively" and go by production order instead of release order? Jak86 (talk)(contribs) 20:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
