Sorting out the Disney/ namespace

I saw this namespace being brought up to the namespace questions thread, so I figured that since I created this crowner, I'd like to see this sorted once and for all. Since I saw some non-Animated-Canon works using that namespace, I'm wondering if it should remain intended just for DAC or for some works in general.

Can a mod please hook the crowner?

Hooked up and ready to go.

Given just what the definition of the Animated Canon is, I've no qualms with leaving DAC only in the Disney/ namespace. I was worried that the definition was far less inclusive.

Yeah. However, if there were to be an inclusive use of the Disney/ namespace, what would this constitute? The individual shorts with their own pages? Pixar films post-purchase? I do admit that I ran into a bit of confusion given I saw conflicting "official" stances on it.

Just curious, since it came up in the Special Efforts thread about Complete Monster - regardless of which way this vote goes, live-action films are not going in, correct? Someone suggested moving examples from The Avengers should be put under the Disney subpage for that... I think that opens the floodgates a bit much and would produce too much confusion if allowed.

The Avengers is distributed by Disney, given that Marvel has been its subsidiary for a while now, however, I don't think that means it goes in the subpage too. Even when Disney owns Marvel, it is still a Marvel production, not a Disney original.

edited 9th May '12 3:59:53 PM by EarlOfSandvich

Well, back when it was released, Kill Bill also was distributed by Disney. I'm of the mind that we don't want to just throw everything in Disney/ just because of a parent company situation (after all, Disney may one day sell off Marvel, like they did with Miramax).

As I had proposed in this topic, I do think Disney shorts should also have a separate namespace. The Disney Animated Canon generally consists of remakes of classic stories (i.e. not using Disney-created characters), while the Disney shorts all do use the cast of Disney-created characters (Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy, et al). That said, the Disney shorts probably should not use the same namespace as the one for the Disney Animated Canon.

edited 12th May '12 7:42:32 AM by movie007

"I saw some non-Animated-Canon works using that namespace"

Out of interest, which works were they? I don't think I've seen any examples.

• Darby O Gill And The Little People (not much we can do about this since it's got more than ten inbounds)
• Der Fuehrers Face (Classic Disney Short)
• The Little Mermaid II (Disney sequel, not DAC... not that it matters much since it redirects to the first film's page anyways... not a single inbound)
• Petes Dragon (this has sixty, so can't do nothing to this either except redirect)
• The Prince And The Pauper (Disney short; was shown in theatres alongside The Rescuers Down Under)

edited 14th May '12 5:47:29 AM by EarlOfSandvich

The original project was only to do the Disney Animated Canon, but it was not necessarily solely to be limited to that. The intent was to resolve namespace conflicts with the source works Disney was adapting. Since the namespace policy has changed since then it's only fair to re-evaluate the plan.

That said, I think most people will agree that Disney-owned subsidiaries releasing under a non-Disney brand name don't count, or we'd have to include a huge chunk of the wiki. Pixar would be able to squeak out with this rule, because Pixar is still in many ways its own brand.

That still leaves room for ambiguities: live-action Disney films with Disney branding, and non-canon Disney animated productions. If we included all Disney animation, than the namespace would become a works namespace like Discworld or Harry Potter. If we included all the live action we'd have to move, for example, Pirates Of The Caribbean which may be more of a disruption than we bargained for, but we might be able to minimize that by using redirects.

Alternately, the criteria for including non DAC works could be "if it's an adaptation of another work done "in the Disney style", like the live action The Swiss Family Robbinson.

...we need more than a single-prop crowner for this, yes?

edited 14th May '12 10:40:22 PM by Elle

Yeah, I think a crowner with more than two options might be necessary.

Yeah... shall we call this crowner and hold a new one in its place in regards of Disney shorts and Disney live-action films?

This looks pretty clear towards DAC-only anyways.

edited 16th May '12 4:08:42 PM by EarlOfSandvich

Calling this crowner for Disney Animated Canon only.

Blank page action crowner's hooked to sort out what else needs to be done, based on post #11.

edited 23rd May '12 4:29:05 AM by Willbyr

I'm quite sure the namespace would, aside from the DAC as usual, be appropriate for each individual short aside from the DAC. Not sure about any other though...

edited 23rd May '12 9:09:19 AM by EarlOfSandvich

I'm fine with expanding it slightly to animated shorts, and wherever having the open namespace helps to prevent conflicts.

I do think there should be another namespace for Disney/ animated shorts - and one for Looney Tunes, as well.

I added in a crowner option for Disney works that would otherwise have namespace conflicts with other works.

Agreed!

Bumping and adding one more.

edited 1st Jun '12 12:40:25 PM by EarlOfSandvich

Hoping to wrap this up within a couple days. Anybody else with thoughts?

I really don't like quadruple posting but...

I believe that all the candidates have enough time and votes for a real decision. Shall we bring closure to this?

edited 18th Jun '12 3:46:21 PM by EarlOfSandvich

Calling crowner - everything but Live-Action wins.

Just a quick question: I have moved Song Of The South a while ago to the Disney/ namespace, but it was brought to my attention since then that it is more live-action than animation. Would it fit better in the Film/ namespace?