Talk:Belle's Magical World

Untitled

Removed Plot section which was copied straight from the dvd which is why it sounds like an advert. -- Whpq 01:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

okey

dokey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.167.201 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 24 August 2006

Adding stub to main

I believe we should add a {{disney-stub}} marker on the main topic, as it was given the assesment ranking of film stub.

The Beast

How come the Prince is still in beast form? 68.164.88.227 03:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BATBBMW.jpg

Image:BATBBMW.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Move

The image clearly says Beauty and the Beast: Belle's Magical World similar to the full title of the previous release, Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit to be made

In the paragraph talking about the part "A perfect world", the word 'drought' is used when speaking of how the others in the room were cold. This is the wrong word to have here, as a drought is a lack of rain, not a cold breeze. I believe the word they were looking for was draught or perhaps draft. Thus, instead of this:

During the meal, while Belle explains a story she has been reading to the Beast, the Beast gets sweaty and demands that the windows be opened, despite there being a drought and the other servants getting cold.

The sentence should read either During the meal, while Belle explains a story she has been reading to the Beast, the Beast gets sweaty and demands that the windows be opened, despite there being a draught and the other servants getting cold.

or

During the meal, while Belle explains a story she has been reading to the Beast, the Beast gets sweaty and demands that the windows be opened, despite there being a draft and the other servants getting cold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.124.143 (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The word intended was apparently "draft". The term "other servants" is out of place in a sentence about the Beast. He is not a servant. Dimadick (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested 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 a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a rough consensus that, because there is no clear common name between the two proposed titles, we should use the more concise one. Jenks24 (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Beauty and the Beast: Belle's Magical World → Belle's Magical World – The film's title is Belle's Magical World, was appeared in the opening scene of the film and the dvd cover itself. 115.133.88.42 (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. SkyWarrior 20:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Disney's website calls it by the current Wikipedia title: link. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Belle's Magical World, as the original title who appears in the start of the film and the brand name Beauty and the Beast was used as the special edition DVD. Support the change. 115.133.111.68 (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per NinjaRobatPirate. Current name is the common name. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Relisting comment. Initially I closed this as not moved, but was asked to reopen and relist because admittedly this was not my wisest close. Maybe consensus will become clearer after another week. SkyWarrior 20:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The sole support vote is by the nominator, who is voting in his own proposal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
    • That's what I thought too, but apparently others didn't see that (and the user who asked me to reopen said that there are "some relevant issues not yet raised", which I honestly don't know about that). I could just reclose it, but I don't think that would be wise (even less wise than the closure). SkyWarrior 20:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's a big deal to leave it open. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. There is no other topic that is or even might be named Belle's Magical World, so the proposed title is more concise without introducing any ambiguity. The suggestion above that the existing title is more common is dubious, and the appeals to the official name even more so, see discussion below. Andrewa (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Some sources call it by the shorter title, and some call it by the longer title. Examples: [1] from DVD Talk, [2] from The Independent (though it calls it an even longer title), [3] from Common Sense Media, and [4] from ComingSoon.net. Netflix and Amazon both call it by the longer title. TV Guide, however, calls it by the shorter title: [5]. Enough sites call it by the longer title that the status quo seems fine to me. Merely being concise doesn't seem like a good reason to change an article title to me. Many film GAs, such as Terminator 2: Judgment Day and Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace, use decidedly verbose titles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    • So you think we should make an exception to wp:concise? Why ? See below. Andrewa (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONCISE. On balance I really don't think it matters too much since both titles are in common usage. When several titles share common usage I prefer to use the official one, but it appears the film has been registered under both titles with the United States Copyright Office (registration numbers PA0000660253 and PA0001207598 respectively). So it appears both titles are official and share common usage, and neither are ambiguous. So rather than flip a coin WP:CONCISE indicates that Wikipedia has a preference for the shorter title, and there is precedence for this with Dr. Strangelove. Betty Logan (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support as I think the conciseness argument is valid, especially since as Betty indicates above, both titles are registered. For what it's worth, the longer title seems to have twice as many results in Google Books as the shorter title does (I excluded the longer title when searching for the shorter one), but this is not too drastic of a difference for me. Similar conciseness can be found at The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, which technically are prefixed with Star Wars. There is not going to be a blanket approach to use here. For some films, a so-called subtitle will be prominent enough to stand on its own. That's the case with the aforementioned Star Wars sequels. In the case of Terminator 3, I am not seeing Rise of the Machines stand on its own. Literally nothing comes up for "Rise of the Machines" and "Terminator" when excluding "Terminator 3" and the longer title. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• support per Erik.Homunq (࿓) 14:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

This was reopened at my request.

It's claimed above that the Current name is the common name, although no evidence is given for this. It's hard to see what this evidence could be, as it is physically impossible for the current name to be any more common than the proposed name. The current name is just a longer version of the proposed name. In other words, anyone using the longer name is also using the shorter name ipso facto. Or in terms of the wording of our naming criteria, anyone recognising the longer name will also recognise the shorter name.

It is also claimed above that Disney's website calls it by the current Wikipedia title. This is true but completely irrelevant, see wp:official names for an essay that rephrases the policy more simply, and feel free to check the essay against the policy.

So, viewing the arguments through the lens of policy, I'd have to conclude that there was no valid opposition at the time that this was originally closed. But relist was IMO the best option, as the original rationale seems to also fall foul of the policy on official names, and I attempted to do so but there was an edit conflict. Thanks everyone for your patience. Andrewa (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

From above: Merely being concise doesn't seem like a good reason to change an article title to me. Well, wp:concise is part of the article title policy page, the nutshell of which reads This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent. Why is this an exception to that?

Neither of the articles you cite as (other) exceptions are particularly good parallels to this one...

• Terminator 2: Judgment Day... Neither Terminator 2 nor Judgement Day seem viable titles. The first does redirect there, but there's an obvious ambiguity with Shocking Dark. The second is out of the question IMO.
• Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace... A classic case where the rules don't really cover an unusual and in some ways unique set of circumstances. Sometimes referred to as Star Wars: Episode I and sometimes as The Phantom Menace, while the topic of this article is never just called Beauty and the Beast, for obvious reasons.

But thanks for the examples. Andrewa (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no ambiguity with Shocking Dark. If there were, Terminator 2 would be a disambiguation page; the hatnote is sufficient. Like I said, there are many examples of film articles with long titles, most of which redirect permutations of their tile back to the full title: Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives, A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge, etc. Each of these articles redirects the both the part before and after the colon to the main article. If the policy says not to do this, the policy needs to be changed to reflect current consensus. Obviously, we don't truncate film titles just to make them shorter. If Disney says the official name is the full title, reliable sources call it by the full title, and we have a long history of using full titles in related articles, maybe the full title should be used. There's certainly no cause to go changing the title just to make it shorter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree that there is unsufficient ambiguity to make Terminator 2 a DAB, but I think there is enough to make the longer title more recognisable than the shorter, and there's no similar consideration here, so it's not the best example. That's all.

But more important, I think you are badly misinterpreting the current policy. We do truncate film titles just to make them shorter... and all other titles too, if the shorter name is recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent, as it is here. It's a general principle... wp:precise starts off Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. (my emphasis) That is the current policy. Why do you want this to be an exception to it?

I'll have a look at the other examples if you can have a go at answering that question. But if they also violate the current policy, then we need to either make provision for this at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), or change them too. Andrewa (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I've linked this discussion at WikiProject Film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Good move. Andrewa (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

These are all poor examples for exactly the reason you give... Each of these articles redirects the both the part before and after the colon to the main article. (Well, it's not the main article as Wikipedia uses the term, but we know what you mean.) That's not the case here. Beauty and the Beast is a completely different topic and article, related but only loosely. Andrewa (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.