Talk:The Fox and the Hound

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Issues?[edit]

This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page. 

   * It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since October 2007.
   * It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since July 2008.
   * Its lead section requires expansion. Tagged since July 2008.

Can someone verify specifically what the issues are for this article? I've found some more citations, but what other areas of attention does it require? Cactusjump (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"As a result of Bluth's defection, production on The Fox and the Hound was delayed by nearly six months. Bluth animated Widow Tweed and her cow, Abigail, and his team worked on the rest of the sequence."
Found a source for the first sentence, but not the 2nd yet. Cactusjump (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo[edit]

Under "Production" "For years later the film was finished, requiring approximately 360,000 drawings,..." - That should be "Four years...", shouldn't it? PorcupineTiger (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Cactusjump (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Another one: "(...) however the newer team backed Stevens, all except one Don Bluth, who delared Disney's work stale (...)"

I guess it should read "declared". --91.15.241.89 (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Oliver.[reply]

Looks like it's been fixed by another editor. That said, the sentence was still kinda long and rambling, so I fixed that, as well. Thanks for the heads-up! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another one...in the last paragraph under "Plot" in the 4th line down it reads, "At home, Dinky and Bommer attempt to eat Squeeks the caterpillar..." The correct spelling is Boomer, not Bommer.

Better?[edit]

I removed the citation and cleanup templates, since my work on this article since April has (hopefully) made this article much better. Cheers! Cactusjump (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've readded the clean up template until the reference formats can be fixed the rest of the way. Many still badly formatted. Also did some other tweaks. Now just needs more sourcing and expansion :) In much better shape that it was when a certain brat was destroying it, that's for sure. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! I just got another book of Ollie Johnston's, so once I get some free time, I'll try to expand. Cactusjump (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Character section[edit]

AnmaFinotera, can I add to The Fox and the Hound article a Characters section? This section is usually included in articles about Motion pictures (The Lion King) and Anime (Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust). I will write it myself. OckhamTheFox (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to write something, but make sure it isn't too in-universe and is notable (not original research). BOVINEBOY2008 20:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Such a section is not appropriate in film articles in general. Just because it is seen in other low quality articles (and Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust can't get much lower in quality) does not mean it should be replicated here. See WP:MOS-FILMS for the film article guidelines. A character section is completely unnecessary and adds no value to the article. The voice cast is already listed in the plot. And, quite honestly, after all you've done, I do not trust any edits you attempt to make in this article. You clearly attempted to trick people into believing you were not helping a vandal when you were. And as you only tried to add this section because Bambifan wanted it in the first place, I'd rather you just not mess with this article at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't believe in provocations by Bambifan. OckhamTheFox (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This is an unnecessary section, but more importantly is a past contribution made by a known sockpuppet that you were receiving instruction from. Cactusjump (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I retract what I said before. A character section would not be helpful in this kind of article. BOVINEBOY2008 21:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the others. Articles about works of fiction are supposed to focus on real-world context. Adding a "Characters" section will detract from that focus. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could not disagree more. Lists of characters are appropriate spin off articles, and the very least, a characters section with redirects for each individual character is absolutely essential in an article. All major film and novel articles have them, or should have them. The characters in a work of fiction with brief identification are appropriate encyclopedic information--for really major works, which this is not, the major individual characters can have separate articles if there is criticism about them. WP:NOT PLOT is disputed, but in any case can be met by including information about who played or voiced the roles, which is true Real world information. As for other objections, the individual parts of content in an article need not individually pass WP:N--if they did, we'd have separate articles about them. IN-UNIVERSE means only an article not distinguishing the fiction from reality, as in some naive plot description. Nor is it OR, for the information if straight description can be taken from the work of fiction itself. THe MOSD does not prohibit it--to avoid being mired in an unsettled question, it simply does not talk about it. There are those who oppose them, but in my opinion, they either don't understand fiction or are trying to diminish our coverage of it. Most of the combination ones on characters that are taken to AfD pass as a keep or as a merge, though the pattern is unpredictable. DGG (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not quite correct. All major film articles do not have them nor should they have them. Television series and serial works, yes, but single volume/instance works like films and novels, or just a two part list is not appropriate. This is the standing consensus in all relevant projects, MoSs, and AfD. The voice actors are already covered in this article, and there is nothing else to add except the badly done summaries of their roles, which is already covered in the plot. Its excessively repetitive and even if added, it would be removed later because it is not appropriate and would prevent the article from ever being a quality work. Out of curiosity, did you look at his "proposed" addition, which he originally did for Bambifan? It is nothing but a repeat of the plot section with original research added in[1]. How is repeating the plot again useful to this article? He is directly copy/pasted from Bambifan's current version on Simple Wikipedia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree a list of characters is unnecessary. However, I would like to point out the recent Featured Article (and therefore clearly not a "low quality article") Alien vs. Predator included what appears to be one under the guise of a cast list. If I am interpreting the comments above correctly, it seems these somewhat extensive character descriptions - which also have a separate article at List of characters in the Alien vs. Predator series - should have been incorporated into the plot synopsis rather than the cast section. I personally feel the cast list should list only the actor and the role he plays. A well-written synopsis will explain what these roles are. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, if I'd seen it going through, I'd have opposed that FA. That character list is ridiculous for only two films and yes, that cast section is unnecessary. However, it isn't really a recent FA, having been passed over a year ago. It would not pass with that now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article was on the main page of Wikipedia just the other day, I didn't realize it passed FA so long ago. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sections I've seen end up being character analysis, which is redundant &/or original research. Unnecessary in either case. Cactusjump (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permanently protected thanks to Bambifan101[edit]

Our presumably autistic pest in Mobile, Alabama hit this article yet again after the block lifted via an account with an insulting username. I have therefore placed it on permanent semi-protection so that legit users don't go banging their heads against the wall because of Bambifan101 and his Bottomless Sock Drawer. The little dweeb now has his own long-term abuse page, found here. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the comics[edit]

What is exactly is wrong with stating that the characters from this film appeared is a handful of comics?--Marktreut (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been blocked before for your edit warring nature. Was 2 weeks not enough time? STOP EDIT WARRING, PERIOD. And the comics are neither notable nor relevant. They are common and your are not refering to a reliable source in any way, shape, nor form, but to a copyright violation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that part of those 2 weeks was spent away from all forms of computing, NO! And it is not me who doing this edit warring, I'm trying to put in facts, whereas you appear to think that the only relevant facts are the ones you personally approve of, which, I'm sorry to say, is being rather selfish. Just out of interest, can you tell me where Inducks has been accused of not being "a reliable source" and guilty of "copyright violation"?--Marktreut (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you will continue to edit war and put in irrelevant trivial content from unreliable sources purely for your own selfish reasons rather than following Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (and no, following actual guidelines is not selfish). The comics are trivial and irrelevant as a whole, and Inducks is not a reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who says that Inducks are an unreliable source, especially when they include scans from the actual stories as back-up? I'm trying to share info with others, you are trying to deny them, so who's being selfish? "The comics are trivial and irrelevant as a whole", but they were published, it is fact. It's just a small and harmless paragraph and it is quite normal to mention the way films and/or the characters were treated "in other media".--Marktreut (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS - provide evidence that actually shows the site meets that guideline. And no, not including trivial information is not selfish, it is, again, following Wikipedia guideline and policies. If you want more freedom, go to Wikia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who says it's trivia? Have I included the sub-plot of the two birds chasing the caterpillar? No and I don't intend to either. All I'm saying is that stating that characters from one form of media (like a movie) appearing in another (like a comic) is a standard on this website. That's the consensus.--Marktreut (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not the consensus. Disney regularly does comics and the like of its films. It is marketing and related media, it is not a unique issue. As was mention way back when you first tried to add this stuff, a single sentence sourced to an actual reliable source would be an appropriate inclusion. An entire section giving undue weight to a particularly minor adaptation/version is not, nor is sourcing it to a non-reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that Inducks is an unreliable source?--Marktreut (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who are claiming it is reliable. You must prove it, not the other way around. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has scans from the comics themselves. What more do you need? We're not getting anywhere with this. How about a short sentence in the opening paragraph like: "Comic strips based on the characters were also published."--Marktreut (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make it a reliable source and images are never reliable sources - easily manipulated and you can't authenticate them, and, again, it is not a reliable source. The sentence is not an appropriate sentence for the lead and, again, needs an actual reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously saying that those images on Inducks are fake? Come on. The INDUCKS entry on wikipedia does show that many people testify to its reliability. And if we cannot put the sentence in the lead then where?--Marktreut (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the entry INDUCKS#Use as a source and in publications includes a number of references. Are you now stating that those are all false and should be removed altogether?--Marktreut (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually looking at the "sources" for those sources? "Planned to be published, but never was" nor are any of those sources adequately/properly documented and all are in foreign languages. Again, a Wikipedia article is NOT a valid source for claiming something is reliable. Again, I point you to WP:RS - prove it yourself per THAT guideline, not per the claims of a Wikipedia article that is poorly sourced and, of course, not a reliable source itself. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any more of this of this and I'll start to question the evidence of Barack Obama being of African descent! I can imagine lawyers having an easier time convincing the Supreme Court of the constitutionality of their case than convincing you of facts that are plain for all to see. And all for what? A simple little harmless sentence that does no harm to anyone and just states facts! Somehow I don't think that this is about facts or the evidence. To misquote a French philosopher, it's more a case of certain people who have reached the point of "I argue therefore I am".--Marktreut (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe what you want...why is it whenever you are asked to actually defend your stance that something is notable, note-worthy, or sourceable to reliable sources, you instead start making little sound-bitey statements about being the defender of information. Again, this is an encyclopedia, not a trivia playground. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And an encyclopaedia is about providing information, not denying it.--Marktreut (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN encyclopedia is not about providing every possible scrap of information, nor minor details. Encyclopedia's are generally summary works. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then turn it into a general summary work! Take out the "Plot", "Production", "Distribution" etc. sections and leave just the opening paragraph to describe it. That will turn it into nothing more than a stub but at least it will be the sort of article that would fit into any printed encyclopaedia. Rather dull, but if that is what you want...--Marktreut (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence on some comics that were released isn't enough to merit an entire section. However, most film articles contain a sub-section on marketing in the release section. If there's enough additional information on how the film was marketed we could create a new section and mention the comics in there. Ash Loomis (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand that good references are needed for any information, however I have the impression of a double standard that is applied here because of the personality of the editor. Many films have a subsection "in other media" which are not always referenced as per Wikipedia's principles, however the fact that those other media obviously exist seems sufficient for being mentioned in WP. For this film, many comic adaptations do exist and were published in many books and countries, so a mention of that in WP would not be problematic IMO. But I think I can find a few references that talk about comics at least in the "Red Book". I'll take look and see if it does look sufficient. Lerichard (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source is required. INDUCKS is not such a site. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

typo in the "Reception" section[edit]

"tough he priases the voice work" it should be "though he praises the voice work"

Tuccle22 (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move these pages at this time. GTBacchus(talk) 16:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


As the novel is the primary work, came before the film, and is notable, I feel this article should be moved to the film disambig (yes, this was the way it was several years ago and I myself erroneously moved it here). If the move is approved, I propose a three fold process:

  1. The Fox and the Hound is moved to The Fox and the Hound (film)
  2. Links to the The Fox and the Hound for the film appropriately corrected to the new link
  3. The Fox and the Hound (novel) is moved to The Fox and the Hound, with a hat note added (if desired) for the film that was based on it.

Thoughts?-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose I believe the film is the primary topic even though the novel came first and is the basis. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 13:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The novel is not the primary topic. Both the novel and its author derive their fame from their credit for the film, but even so many who know the film would not even be aware that the novel exists. Andrewa (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to partially disagree with part of that reason. The novel was notable before the film was made and, in fact, has not received much, if any, fame from the film (note that it is out of print and has been for a long time). Few people even know the film is based on the novel unless they study the credits, or read Wikipedia as many sources about the film rarely mention its basis or only do so in passing. When sources do talk about both, its usually to mention that they have little in common. Conversely, if by your argument many people have been aware of the novel because of the film, that would make it equally as notable and therefore neither is the "primary topic" per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This hasn't come up with some of the other Disney films based on novels as most of the novels have slightly different titles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you agree that the novel isn't the primary topic, then shouldn't this particular move request should be withdrawn? Andrewa (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say I agree with that. I don't think either is the primary topic, so no. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 11:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But if there isn't a primary topic, as you claim, then it can't be the book, can it? Andrewa (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It can't be the film either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 11:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But the current move proposal is based on the claim that the primary meaning is the film, and doesn't make sense if it isn't, regardless of the status of the book. Andrewa (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The current proposal can easily be changed to just move this to the film disambig and make a disambig page for the topic. There are other potentially notable uses of "Fox and the Hound" that would make it a viable option. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understood that last proposal, it was garbled. However we cannot make decisions based on potentially notable uses. We would need to see these articles first and decide that they are notable. PatGallacher (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm skeptical that this hypothetical new or changed proposal will be any improvement n the current one, but until and unless a specific new or changed proposal is put forward it's hard to say and unimportant. The important point is that even the proposer seems to have ceased to defend the current proposal. This is weak but adequate consensus IMO. Andrewa (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am afraid the logic behind this proposal is completely flawed. If the film is now the primary topic, it is irrelevant that the novel preceded it and provided the source. We recently had a very similar discussion about the primary meaning of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. PatGallacher (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that a number of fairly well-known films are based on obscure novels which are not now widely read, so this is irrelevant to deciding which is the primary topic. PatGallacher (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See a recent move discussion for To Catch a Thief, where it was decided that the film is the primary meaning, not the novel it was based on. If the novel is out of print and has been for some time this casts serious doubt on whether it is the primary meaning. AnmaFinotera is shifting his ground, is he claiming that there is no primary meaning, and if so why? PatGallacher (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Public domain[edit]

Per my understanding, the first 23 Disney animated feature films will become public domain films in the 2032-2072 range. Extrapolation suggests that this film should be in the public domain in 2076, but the "95-year rule" is only for works copyrighted before 1978. How do you calculate this film's public domain year?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the Wikipedia article, we don't research the film's status, determine the applicable legislation and calculate the date. That's original research and/or synthesis. If an independent reliable source says when it will be in the public domain, we report that and [[W{:CITE|cite]] the source. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Pending changes[edit]

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Edit request from 64.134.25.177, 20 November 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}}

The story of the film was written by:
Larry Clemmons
Ted Berman
David Michener
Peter Young
Burny Mattinson
Steve Hulett
Earl Kress
and Vance Gerry. Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082406/fullcredits. Also, Peter Young points to a dab page.

64.134.25.177 (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. IMDb is not a reliable source.   — Jeff G.  ツ 15:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

In "Plot", it says, "She names him Tod (Keith Mitchell), "tod" being an old Scots word for fox." This is incorrect; in the film, she names him Tod because he's "such a little todler". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.159.114 (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The problem is that neither your statement nor the one that was in the article are verified by a reliable source. If she actually says one or the other in the movie, then we should add that one in. If either statement is just a supposition of people watching it, then that's original research, and doesn't belong in the article. I've gone ahead and removed the statement from the article, until such time as there is clarification. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}} Hi, the plot is currently too long anyway, can someone please put back this edit as of 21 September 2010? 68.17.110.122 (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs some discussion/consensus, because it is a matter of opinion. Please, other editors, give thoughts below...  Chzz  ►  02:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support on the grounds that the earlier summary is shorter, appears to be better written in places, and at a glance doesn't appear to be missing any notable info. Doniago (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: shorter and better written. Now can someone trim the plot on The Black Cauldron (film), please? 64.134.147.164 (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Credit list is absurd[edit]

The current credit list in this article is absurdly long, listing seemingly everyone who had any connection with the film, including dozens of "uncredited" alleged animators. This is pointless trivia. Current Good Article The Iron Giant uses a much briefer format that I feel we should use here. I am suggesting we remove the "Animation by", "Layouts by" and "Backgrounds by" sections entirely. Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to avoid terms like "absurd" but I do agree that there's no reason to list persons involved to that degree of depth, and I don't see how "uncredited" individuals can be included unless there's sourcing to establish their involvement as well. In any case, no argument here. Doniago (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super RTL?[edit]

What does Super RTL being owned by Walt Disney Productions have to do with The Fox and the Hound? 108.208.168.221 (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's got JACK to do with it. Recommend deleting it. 98.90.4.147 (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is semi-protected because of repeated vandalism involving numerous sockpuppets. Interestingly enough, the IP requesting this change and the IP agreeing are both from Mobile, Alabama. What a remarkable coincidence. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can we still remove it though? 98.90.5.225 (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "we" in this. You, despite using numerous IPs are one person and cannot edit this article (and several others). You have been blocked from editing the article for a reason. I am not interested in being your device to work around that. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 11 September 2012[edit]

Under "Design and animation", change this part: " With 17% of the animators now gone, production on he Fox and the Hound was delayed." The movie is not called "he Fox and the Hound, it's "The Fox and the Hound". 69.85.235.3 (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Klilidiplomus+Talk 15:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under "Home media", take out the "be" in A DVD only edition was also be available on the same day. 98.90.179.188 (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DoneThank you so much for reporting this. It occurred accidentally, while changing the tense. Thanks again···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 20:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copper: named after the element of the same name or the character from the book?[edit]

The article says Copper is named after the element of the same name, but this is not only not sourced, but probably incorrect. If anything, wasn't the Copper in the film named after the Copper from the 1967 novel by Daniel P. Mannix? Also, in this edit, the categories that were previously in the correct order got unordered, and one was removed. Can this be fixed? 69.85.217.198 (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the unsourced info. Can't review the cats right now, but hopefully another editor can take a look at that. Thanks for pointing this out! DonIago (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Animated fantasy film?[edit]

I don't think this should have Category:Animated fantasy films on it, it's not a fantasy film, it's a buddy movie. Could this be corrected? The last two categories also need to be alphabetized. 130.160.207.22 (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2014[edit]

I need to add a "credits" section for this page. May I?

74.104.151.204 (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chief's accident[edit]

It says "However, Chief catches Tod trying to escape on a railroad track and chases him, but is struck by an oncoming train and fatally wounded.", implying that chief died. This is wrong. Chief and Tod were on a railroad bridge when the train comes. Tod ducks under the train, and Chief jumps in the stream below, braking his leg. He is neither struck by the train nor fatally wounded.

201.82.25.188 (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT? DonIago (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made changes to the plot based on this edit request. The page has been protected from anonymous editing, so IPs can't edit. Chief didn't actually jump in the stream, he was pushed into the stream by the train because he was too frightened to move, despite Slade's urging for him to jump. The "fatally wounded" part was referring to his broken leg, but I clarified based on this request. Here's the current read of that paragraph:

"In the ensuing chase Copper catches Tod. Against better judgement, Copper decides to let Tod go and diverts Slade. Tod tries to escape on a railroad track, but is caught and pursued by Chief as a train suddenly passes by. Tod ducks under the train, but Chief is struck by the train and falls into the stream below, braking his leg. Angered by this, Copper and Slade blame Tod for the accident and vow vengeance."

I hope that satisfies you well enough. Kkjj (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2015[edit]

change braking to breaking 2601:982:8001:3700:D471:C9EB:F89D:9BEE (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. JOJ Hutton 12:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Digger[edit]

When Tod tried to apologize to him, what made him think he was making up excuses. --75.172.110.80 (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Evan Kalani Opedal[reply]

Hi there, Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion about the subject. Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2016[edit]

In the plot section, change conversion to conversation. SlubJomones (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Fox and the Hound. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this 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 by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reception[edit]

I think we should add that fans from the original story and critics were disappointed with story changes. --Evope (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Evan Kalani Opedal[reply]

Do you have a reliable source for that? DonIago (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Disney_Dark_Age — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evope (talk • contribs) 04:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2017[edit]

Add to the Soundtrack section that the film's orchestral score by Buddy Baker was never released on any music media. Pmastrippolito (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 02:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Fox and the Hound. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this 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 by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cast section -- Edit request on 28 February 2018[edit]

For the "Cast" section, I would like to propose that the actors for Tod and Copper be listed and displayed like this for simplification purposes:

This is just a simple proposal. If needed, please take a moment to review. --Draco9904 (talk), 4:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The name Tod[edit]

"Tweed names him Tod, because he reminds her of a toddler." Is that stated in the book/film? "Tod" is an old word meaning "fox", nothing to do with toddlers. Equinox ◑ 01:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this seems suspect. I'd say it should be either tagged or removed. DonIago (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doniago:, actually this was, in fact, stated in the first 10 minutes of the movie. After Tweed finds the fox, she gives him a bottle, followed by her saying "Oh my. You're such a little toddler!" Then she decides to call him Tod. While it is not important for the plot summary, it was still stated in the film. However, the novel never seemed to mention this, in fact its plot is almost an entirely different story from this movie. Most likely, the Tod in the novel was named after the old word in Scots meaning fox, but I haven't found a source to prove that fact yet. However, I think that the writing in the plot section of this article (about the film) could use a little more work. For example, in the following sentence: "After an argument, Amos threatens to kill Tod if he trespasses on his farm again." It should clarify which "he" is trespassing and which "his" for the farm. In this case, it's if Tod trespasses on Amos Slade's farm again. Finally, the film never states that the bear was a grizzly bear. Grizzly bears are brown, but the bear in the movie is black. 75.106.171.139 (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, you're responding to a concern raised over three years ago. :) As far as other changes to the plot, I say be WP:BOLD as long as you bear WP:FILMPLOT in mind. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with that is, this page is currently protected from editing. I edited it last year, but that was before it was re-protected. If you think the revision I had last year is better than the current one, I would recommend restoring it. As suggested before, I recommend clarifying the "he" and the "his" in the sentence mentioned. Also, at the bottom of the page, I thought that WP:SURNAME would have answered the last section's question. However, was I wrong? It still doesn't seem encyclopedic enough. Also, as I mentioned in that section, I'm not understanding why "midquel" is still mentioned in The Fox and the Hound 2 even though it was reverted before. However, I guess I should request a revert in that article's talk page instead. 75.106.171.139 (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Fox and the Hound 2 was finally fixed by @Trivialist: per my request on its talk page. However, that article is still highly underdeveloped, much more so than this one which is also underdeveloped. Also, @Doniago:, as I suggested, that one sentence I mentioned needs clarification. I would do it, but this page is protected. If you think the last revision I had was better, I would recommend restoring it. Finally, I noticed that, on The Fox and the Hound 2, the dead link is an apparent repeat of a source used previously in the same section, but is missing an "f". Once again, I would have to request an edit on that page to fix this. 75.106.171.139 (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I've cleaned up the two points you raised in your earlier post; I wasn't aware that the page is currently protected. Regarding the SURNAME question, discussion about that appears to be ongoing and you should respond in that section if you disagree with the note that SURNAME doesn't apply to fictional works. Lastly, "midquel" was taken out yesterday by another editor, so that concern appears to be addressed. Please raise concerns about the sequel film on the Talk page for that film's article. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Doniago:, if you didn't know that this page has been protected, when was the last time you saw changes to it before I asked? The last edit I saw from you was in December, did you stop watching the page since then? Also, have you not actually seen this movie? I would recommend it, but if you don't have the time or interest, I guess you don't have to. But I would recommend it personally. The concerns about the follow-up film have been fixed for now, it's just I think that these movies deserve better when the novel's page is a featured article. But the other problem with that besides the pages being protected is that I don't see anyone here who is particularly interested in improving these articles and they aren't making much progress. I guess because they're low priority but I wish that more people were interested in these movies. I really enjoy them, but I don't know who else is interested in improving their pages. If you aren't, do you know who is or could be? 75.106.171.139 (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know the page was protected because I don't keep a mental list of all protected pages in my head and I hadn't checked the status before you brought up the point. :) Unfortunately it appears the page was protected for pretty good reason as per the posting on this page. I've seen the film multiple times, though not for at least a couple of decades now. Glad to hear your other concerns have been addressed. As to broader improvements, I think it's going to be on you to start a new thread suggesting such improvements...or to create an account so that you can edit the article yourself. Another option would be to suggest that the page be unprotected at WP:RFPP, but I don't know how much pushback you might get against that. As far as finding other interested editors, your best bet would likely be to review the article's page history to see who else has edited it recently. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the users I saw in the page history, only @PrinceArchelaus: seems to be the kind of editor who could perform the kind of work on this article I really wish to see performed. Work like adding more sources and information, etc. One of the problems is the lack of ideas I have for this page, even without protection. I don't have too many ideas ATM, even though I really, really want to as I really like this film. However, one change I saw that did not seem productive was changing "child actor" to "young actor". I'm not sure what that was about. I had also requested removing protection from the follow-up film and novel's articles a few weeks ago, but was denied per the same reason as the posting on this page. In fact, I saw the last named sock of the banned user edited this page a few months ago. What I saw was an edit war about the voice of the bear in this movie. From what I heard, it was only stock sound effects and not real vocal effects. I will say, however, that the stock sound effects seem to have come from Fun and Fancy Free from Lumpjaw. It seems like they were previously reused for Brutus and Nero in The Rescuers and Shere Khan from The Jungle Book. I don't know if you've ever seen any of those three other films, but maybe The Jungle Book perhaps? That page and The Rescuers are in better shape than this one. I saw PrinceArchelaus was the one adding to The Rescuers the most. However, I don't know who else is interested in The Fox and the Hound out of the Rescuers and Jungle Book editors. But I will take it to the WP:WikiProject Disney talk page. 75.106.171.139 (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment. As for those roar sound effects, Jimmy MacDonald had done the effects. By the time Fox and the Hound was in production, MacDonald had retired so they were recycled from earlier productions. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I heard they were recycled from The Rescuers, but is it true that they started from Fun and Fancy Free like I thought? After watching these movies several times on Disney+, I noticed that Brutus and Nero, the bear, Shere Khan, and Lumpjaw seem to sound the same. However, I heard it wasn't considered notable for the articles if they used stock sound effects, but if it was, what would be a reliable source for it and a proper place to put it? I would guess the production perhaps, but I don't know what the source should be. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone would work on this page and other animated Disney classics sometime. This is one of my favorites, it reminds me of Bambi and Dumbo in its themes and structure. But on another note, I was looking at the classes of the other Disney articles according to WikiProject Disney, and some of them may be outdated. For example, Dumbo and The Rescuers were said to be C-class articles, but they might be closer to B-class now. Fun and Fancy Free was marked as start-class, but I have a feeling it might be a C-class now. When were the articles last reviewed? For example Dumbo is a lot better now than it was years ago. I saw there was another banned user besides Bambifan101 editing Dumbo. The one who added copyvios about the racism controversy. But the bright side, from what I saw, was that Dumbo became a better article after the other banned user made edits, because then there was more attention spent on the article. I wish I could say the same about Bambifan101 targeting The Fox and the Hound, but this page is not so active anymore. But is there anything anyone here can do? I believe that this page has the potential to be a B-class article soon. It just needs a bit more work. Will anyone take a crack at it? 75.106.171.139 (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They all sound as if they were the same effects. As for the reliable source, I have located a footnote in Hollywood Sound Design and Moviesound Newsletter by David Stone that states MacDonald provided the roars through a lamp chimney. Overall, I don't think it's too notable. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bear is a he.[edit]

The bear is a he. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.78.184 (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2019[edit]

Remove "be" from "Tweed, realizing Tod is no longer be safe with her, leaves him at a..." so that it sounds correct. Meowcenary (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meowcenary:  Done, though I believe with your latest edit you're now autoconfirmed and can perform such edits yourself! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2019[edit]

166.181.81.229 (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please enable the editing.

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Instead you may put a request here in the form of "Please change X to Y". Alternatively, if you create an account. Once you have atleast 10 edits and the account is 4 days old, you will be able to edit the article. — IVORK Talk 00:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2020[edit]

Change: “A power struggle between the two directors and co-producer Ron Miller broke out between them over key sections of the film with Miller supporting the younger Stevens. Miller instructed Reitherman to surrender reins over the junior personnel, but Reitherman resisted due to a lack of trust in the young animators.“ To: A power struggle between the two directors and co-producer Ron Miller broke out over key sections of the film with Miller supporting the younger Stevens. Miller instructed Reitherman to surrender reins over to the junior personnel, but Reitherman resisted due to a lack of trust in the young animators. Gooseman188 (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section: name of Amos Slade?[edit]

This article only uses "Amos" rather than the surname "Slade". However, is that really encyclopedic? Yes, he is only referred to by the first name, but isn't being encyclopedic more important than whether or not it matches what the movie said? Slade only refers to Tweed as "Widow" or "woman", but "Widow" is not a real name. My point being, shouldn't this be changed or at least discussed first? I wonder if anyone even cares, considering the lack of recent edits from registered users. Many of the recent edits have been reverted as well. Perhaps this page should be protected like Lady and the Tramp was? 104.58.147.5 (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:SURNAME should answer this, meaning obviously yes. The page is currently protected now, and it hasn't been edited in almost a month. It's too bad, the novel's page is a featured article, yet this is only a C-class article. It deserves better like the book's page. Meanwhile, The Fox and the Hound 2 is extremely underdeveloped. In that page, it mentions the term "midquel", which has already been removed from both the movie's pages several times. Shouldn't it be removed again? 75.106.171.139 (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:SURNAME applies to biographies and not to fiction ("For fictional entities, use common names.") (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2022[edit]

I'm not sure it's necessary to include the category for "Drama animation" when this page already has "Animated drama films". Shouldn't the former category be removed? 75.106.171.139 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bear is a he.[edit]

The bear is a male bear, and is a he, him, and his. He is a giant vicious savage bear, that should be added to the plot. 2A02:C7C:CB5B:8200:D58C:BFC4:D754:793A (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bluth's picture[edit]

What's with that (horrendous) picture of an octogenarian Don Bluth? He was in his 40s at the time. It's a very large picture that doesn't illustrate anything relevant to the information given and it's only presenting the reader with the bad candid shot of an old man who looks like he's having a stroke. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. If editors feel the photo should be reinstated, they can make their case here. DonIago (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with the original removal. I've re-added the caption with a link to a much better image, and noted that it's from 2023 so readers understand it wasn't what he looked like in 1981. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please add vicious disturbed savage between giant and bear.[edit]

Please make the plot look more better by adding vicious disturbed savage between giant and bear. And rename the bear an it to him, his, and he, because he is a he in the 1981 film. 2A02:C7C:CB5B:8200:3902:BF88:74E5:6A67 (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Fox_and_the_Hound&oldid=1218939017"