This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofThe Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide toanimation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you canedit the article attached to this page, help out with theopen tasks, or contribute to thediscussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage offictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
[[List of The Lion King (franchise) characters#Kion|Kion]] The anchor (#Kion) is no longer available because it wasdeleted by a user before.
[[List of The Lion King (franchise) characters#Shenzi, Banzai and Ed|Shenzi, Banzai and Ed]] The anchor (#Shenzi, Banzai and Ed) is no longer available because it wasdeleted by a user before.
[[List of The Lion King (franchise) characters#Ahadi|Ahadi]] The anchor (#Ahadi) is no longer available because it wasdeleted by a user before.
[[List of The Lion King (franchise) characters#Uru|Uru]] The anchor (#Uru) is no longer available because it wasdeleted by a user before.
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking thepage history of the target pages, or updating the links.
Remove this template after the problem is fixed |Report an error
In regard to the whole incest thing, its worth noting: "This type of family structure is common in the animal kingdom, and was chosen to maintain realism." I remember reading a source once that explained this in detail.— Precedingunsigned comment added byCoin945 (talk •contribs) 31 July 2014 (UTC)
He's got a very definite journey and the audience goes along with him on that, which is taht h really really wants power and he's going to get it one way or another"
"they see him actively pursue power, receive it and then lsoe it again... its an amazing concept of someone who thinks power is going to make them whole and then realises 'actually i feel emptier than i ever have - what is wrong with this picture'?
it's a very relatable concept where people feel their siblings are getting all the attention and 'why arent i getting what i think i deserve" --> this line of thinking is what sees Scar kill Mufasa
I have just modified 4 external links onScar (The Lion King). Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis 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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC 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 withthis tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
The following is a closed discussion of arequested 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 amove review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Neutral / Weak oppose. I love consistency, but if you're considering this move, the most "consistent" thing to do would be to also include all the other Disney character pages with "(Disney)" in the title. However, I think this odd guideline may have started because a lot of Disney movies are based off of fairy tales, many of which (either the Disney films or the characters themselves) share the same name of their original fairy tales. In addition, there are characters like Cinderella and Snow White whose names are the titles of their respective films. Personally, I think it's fine how it is.Paintspot Infez (talk)20:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having a character named the same as the film is not a situation unique to Disney, and should not be handled in any special way related to Disney. Deferring this move just because there are known to be others that need to be moved, is not a reason to oppose. --Netoholic@04:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Paintspot: I understand your stance rather well; as I have stated below, these articles' current titles were the result of page moves by me due to the same findings about the use of the disambiguator "(Disney)". IMO, in the present state of presedence, the titles should stay where they are. I'm thinking a larger discussion needs to occur for the use of the "(Disney)" disambiguator, possibly by RfC or an RM that includesevery single title such a change effects so that a clear consensus can be established for a path forward with such disambiguators.Steel1943 (talk)15:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support perWP:CRITERIA more than anything. The consistency argument does hold some appeal, but what's more an issue is that the Lion King, from a brief look at vanilla Google, doesn't seem to particularly be heavily flagged Disney in the way that Donald Duck is. Not that anyone would think Lion King was Dreamworks, but "Lion King" says "Lion King" a lot more clearly than "Disney". It's not a critical improvement to the article title, but can only see it helping readers. Obviously (Disney) is better for film title characters, but that's already covered.In ictu oculi (talk)09:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per consistency and above comments. Disney is a production company, andLion King is the particular franchise/film which these characters are related to. The descriptor containing the film's name seems more encyclopedic than a descriptor naming the production company.Randy Kryn (talk)14:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think Scar (Disney) is fine the way it is, but Simba doesn't have anything next to his name. What are we gonna do about that? Really, in the literal since, all "simba" is is lion in Swahili.— Precedingunsigned comment added byTrillfendi (talk •contribs)15:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The precedence and consistency I have found with most "Disney"-related titles is that if a fictional character is in some way related to the Disney company and the subject's name is not the same name as the film and/or franchise which the subject is from, then the least ambiguous/preferred disambiguator for titles of such articles is "(Disney)". (SeeAriel (Disney),Ursula (Disney),Figaro (Disney),Evil Queen (Disney),Genie (Disney),Iago (Disney),Aurora (Disney),Elsa (Disney),Anna (Disney),Olaf (Disney), and several others; See subcategories ofCategory:Disney characters for more.) Unless there is consensus formed to resolveall such titles, then I oppose this move request per precedence, consistency, andWP:PRECISE.(Disclaimer: I am the editor who moved these articles to their current titles, so I would have appreciated a note about these pages, considering that I don't watchlist almost anything, but that's neither here nor there at this point.)Steel1943 (talk)15:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No naming standard supports using (Disney), but we do have standards that apply to broad classes of media (TV, film, etc) that say to use the title of the production. If you moved them, you did that without the backing of any guideline and haven't pointed us to any discussion establishing the need for these moves. Also, if you moved them to their current names, you lose the right to claim "precedence and consistency". --Netoholic@04:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A production company isn't usually the primary descriptor of a character, but the production. The Disney titles above should probably be moved back.Randy Kryn (talk)04:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...Moved back to a title with a disambiguator using their film/franchise name or a title using the disambiguator "(Disney character)"? As I stated in my long comment below, the previous titles were mixed between the two. In addition, none of the names of the articles I moved from titles that used the disambiguator "(Disney character)" had a name that matched its film/franchise name.Steel1943 (talk)05:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) ...Interesting reverse psychology. Anyways, I'm not disagreeing with your first statement at all. But, if you are trying to fish out a discussion to reference this precedence from me, that's not happening. I saw that these articles' current titles were the case formultiple other titles, so thus I assessedno controversy with these moves. And you could very well be correct that the current titles fail existing guidelines and policy-based naming conventions, but ... none of that really means diddly ifall other related articles fit a certain naming pattern before I even performed these moves. So no, I don't loseany such right becausethat's the way the others were when I matched these titles with the others. In fact, just to back up whatever discredit to my claim you seem to be attempting, out of all of the other articles I linked above (apparently I've moved at least 5 of them [but not all; I didn't moveEvil Queen (Disney) or any of the "Frozen" ones], but with the exceptions ofAriel (Disney) andUrsula (Disney), the others that I moved had a previous disambiguator of "(Disney character)" ... which invalidates any claim that these titles were all previously disambiguated with their film/franchise name. I honestly don't care where these titles go ... as long as they areall consistent, and as I said, since this isn't a discussion aboutall of the titles, this move request goesagainst current consistency and precedence. (Seriously, as much as can foresee this turning into some sort of discussion about "who started the problem", the goal here is title consistency, and if the consensus forall such titles is to disambiguated them in a different way, that would be awesome as then we wouldn't even be having this move discussion. On a related note, would you believe that some "Nintendo"-related fictional character articles previously used the disambiguator "(Nintendo)"?)Steel1943 (talk)05:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This move request does cover all topics within the proper scope - the characters within this one film. What your proposing, to try to handle all characters from all films under a particular film studio, would be like demanding action on all articles from Universal Studies to be handled at once. That kind of scope is unrealistic. Disney articles are not some special class which cannot be separated into constituent films. That you think so is perhaps a true victory of Disney's marketing department, but it doesn't hold up. Let us handle these one film at a time, as the proposer did here, and let's be consistent in using the same disambiguator for all topics under that film. --Netoholic@06:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the following: "What your proposing, to try to handle all characters from all films under a particular film studio, would be like demanding action on all articles from Universal Studies to be handled at once. That kind of scope is unrealistic. Disney articles are not some special class which cannot be separated into constituent films. That you think so is perhaps a true victory of Disney's marketing department, but it doesn't hold up."... I made it clear in my previous comment that is not what I am proposing, and I am trying to discuss a precedence that can apply toall Disney-related character articles so that there is no more deviation in whatever standard is used in their disambiguators (the choice between the current situation, "(Disney character)", or their film/franchise name.)Since I believe that comment is an almost blatant misconstruing of my words/purpose just to keep an argument ongoing for the sake of keeping it going, I think my participation in this discussion chain has concluded.Steel1943 (talk)13:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strike out part of my statement. My apologies; it turns out that is exactly what I am trying to do, but I strongly disagree that it is unrealistic, and needs to be done. In this move request's present form, to use a bit of a medical analogy, this move request is akin to placing a bandage on an open would, but the bandage itself is infected and actually causes the patient to get sicker. The better option is a cure-all medicine or procedure (moving all related articles at once) so that the sickness/ailment doesn't come back ... like this move request seems to dounless it involves all such related articles ... since that's how a situation gets cured as effectively, and honestly as quickly, as possible.Steel1943 (talk)16:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To continue the analogy, this move request is more like a triage. We're assessing the situation, proposing a course of treatment, and then going into a limited trial. After this we can make rounds, moving the articles with the confidence that we're on the right path. If I can be honest, this RM is more diligence than when you made the moves you did. You were bold, that's fine, nothing wrong with that, but that you are now insisting on a major RFC to correct away from something you did boldly is hypocritical. This RM will be used to demonstrate consensus, so please don't oppose just on procedural grounds, vote based on whether the proposed titles are a better overall direction. --Netoholic@18:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you mean, and I appreciate your way of breaking this down. Either way, the point I'm trying to make about my actions is that I'm not the one who started this what I even consider "odd" use of the disambiguator "(Disney)" in such a fashion; I'm just the one who made it consistent. Also, I've been compiling a list of articles I can find ending with "(Disney)" in their titles so that I or in the event I have to start the very discussion I referenced. Either way, I still stick to my "oppose" stance since I don't see this move request leading to the intended solution, though it seems that we both are trying to reach the same goal; to reference the "trial" analogy, I don't think that "another" trial will work since the moves I performed that are referenced in this discussion I performed a considerable while ago (middle-ish of 2017), and thus could probably be considered "trials" in their own regard ... and as shown with this discussion's existence, those trials failed.Steel1943 (talk)18:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't consistency already decided by not putting other studio's characters under the titled studio name? Characters, and I haven't read any MOS or guidelines on their use related to studio titles, seem to be listed under the film or tv show that they are portrayed in and not their production company. So the discussion hasn't changed my ivote. But I don't think that the full across-the-board Wikipedia Disney character title descriptor can be decided at this RM because, although it can contribute to future discussions, it seems beyond its limited scope.Randy Kryn (talk)14:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to this specific situation, consistency to me looked like the pattern I established since I saw it as the most common one. But just to make this as clear as possible, I do support change to the status quo, but as long as it doesn't again turn into the mess of inconsistent disambiguators that I dealt with (which is the reason I oppose this move; it doesn't deal with everything in existence or sets a widely-advertised consensus-formed precedence/guideline) ... which apparently had the unintended side effect of this discussion happening. Long story short, I really do think a RM is needed which includes most, if not all, Disney-character articles to make a determination on a disambiguator precedence all such titles; from what I'm seeing in the discussion thus far, it looks like the proposed disambiguator should be the film/franchise name (as it is in this discussion)? But, what then if the film/franchise isn't theprimary topic?Steel1943 (talk)15:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in amove review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Of the three main sections, Development looks okay, but the fancruft seems to have gradually built up in Appearances and Reception has extremely dense and lengthy quotations packed into massive block paragraphs. I also see three maintenance templates.— An anonymous username,not my real name22:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Boneless Pizza! Yes, I did receive the notification, thank you. Sadly I've watched as slowly the article fell into disrepair due to fancruft and edit warning. I couldprobably make some edits to the problem areas that would salvage it to a certain degree, but I'm not 100% committed to taking on this project.Changedforbetter (talk)17:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite dissapointing. I'm not sure about this,but I think I can lend you a hand by expanding the reception if you're committed to resolve GAR issues. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔)19:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
Not done: please providereliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 💜 melecie talk -10:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
