Talk:Disney

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Notable?

Maybe it's just because it's such a short article, but I find the notability of this gag pretty questionable. Bad Bad Guy 04:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Me too. The works of Disney are so numerous and expansive that there's bound to be some references to them in any American show. As listed on the page, the references to Disney don't seem at all related, and unless someone can come up with more references to make me think otherwise, I don't think this article should be kept. — Has Matt? (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I vote keep. Just because Disney references are popular doesn't mean we shouldn't note them; Nintendo ('80s video games in general) references are popular too. If anything, their popularity makes them more notable. Though the references listed here are quite varied, they are each still relevant not because they're direct references to each other, but to Disney works that are equally various. — ^Sam_{Fisher (Come in, Lambert.)} 11:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

While I would generally say that Disney references would be notable and deserve their own article, I'm not happy with the current one. Cinderella would for example be a movie that I would accept in a Disney references list. Golden Girls or The Nightmare Before Christmas not. Yes, I know that they're Disney by name. But not in spirit. Just because TNBC happened to be financed by Disney doesn't make it a typical Disney movie. It's a Tim Burton movie. Yes, this is a problem. In my opinion, it's meaningless to list a movie such as TNBC here, on the other hand, where do we draw the line? Can we draw the line? Loafing 12:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggest scope of page be narrowed to "classic" Disney animations and films, as well as the theme parks, and exclude Touchstone, ABC, and other loosely-associated media. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  13:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This would mean fewer references, but they're more related and wouldn't need as much explanation. EDIT: Wow, there are even fewer than I thought. A lot of the references on the page were not productions by Disney himself (I'm assuming that's where we draw the line for "classic" films). Only the appearances in licensed would stay in the Films section (though the Lion King reference actually doesn't belong, I don't think it should be separated from Cinderella because they occur at the same time), and the two Theme Park attractions would stay. It's shaping up to be a pretty short page, but are we okay with that? — ^Sam_{Fisher (Come in, Lambert.)} 16:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The need for subheadings would be lost. But we have short pages here, that's fine if they are both complete and notable. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  22:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the article with these changes. Now it makes sense and is interesting. We should keep it. Loafing 06:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I say definitely keep!! MHarrington 08:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would actually consider putting The Nightmare Before Christmas back in the list. Granted, it's not a "classic" Disney movie in the strictest sense, but Disney has embraced it pretty strongly since then. As a few examples: The 2006 3D version was released under the Disney banner, Disney included Halloween Town in their Kingdom Hearts game right alongside all of the other "classic" Disney environments, and Jack Skellington even appears as a "meetable" character at some of the Disney Theme Parks. -DAGRON 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the Nightmare Before Christmas ride at Disney land (it's only open in the fall and the winter) and Jack and Sally appearing in the 2007 Disney logo. I think the original version still bears the Touchstone name, though. Bad Bad Guy 04:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)