Talk:Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

Reference spam[change source]

There are a few places where references appeared to have been inserted en masse, and do not support their tagged/respective statements in the article. These extra references tend to follow extra periods–incomplete simplification attempt?

I have already removed a few, but it's now causing issues with dependent refs later on in the article, that is, assuming that those refs are even valid refs in the context of the article. Chenzw Talk 18:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was created by a sockpuppet (follow the user page link to enwiki). A lot is copied and pasted and so badly needs simplifying (not even 'film' has been changed to 'movie'). It has been on my watchlist, but I despair at doing anything, actually. I never patrolled this, hoping someone would delete on some appropriate grounds... Fylbecatulous talk 23:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that too, but unfortunately we have no QD provision for articles created by ban/block evading users. Doesn't look like it will go through RFD either, considering the subject of this article. I have tagged it for now, and will find some time another day to work on it. Probably will need to strip the article down to its bare essentials, then rewrite it. Chenzw Talk 03:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have trimmed an entire table (about third-party distributors) and simplified remaining content. The table for the top grossing movies seems relevant and therefore need the many citations. All orphaned reference names are gone and I have verified and updated access dates and agreement with statements. I do not wish to remove any sources, even though some are a long row at the end of a sentence. This being the Walt Disney company...once on English Wikipedia I was minorly involved in a copyvio dispute with an article about a record label that was later bought by DIsney (of all things).

We have most of the articles here that are in the table for highest-grossing movies and the remaining redlinks seem very promising to become articles, so I feel the table is an important part of the article.

Chenzw, If you believe the article is clean now , simple enough and good, please remove the tag. Thanks :) Fylbecatulous talk 13:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it definitely looks better now! I will go ahead and remove the tag. Sorry that I couldn't help out much during those few days... Chenzw Talk 02:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]