Talk:DuckTales the Movie: Treasure of the Lost Lamp/Archive 1

Archive 1

'Based on'

DuckTales, the Movie: Treasure of the Lost Lamp is based on DuckTales, which is itself based on the works of Carl Barks, but right now the infobox says it's based on, I quote, "DuckTales by Carl Barks", which is nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.49.239.80 (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete this

This page is a hoax. Someone just copied the DuckTales movie page and made one for Darkwing Duck, which doesn't even have a movie. Delete it please.--Narlee 23:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, problem fixed.--Narlee 05:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Where I found the info on reactions to the film

I foun out how critics reacted to the film in John Grant's book, Encyclopedia of Walt Disney’s Animated Characters (3rd edition) ISBN 0-7868-6336-6 --JFP 17:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Music

At first glance, I see nothing in the article about the music in the film. I haven't seen this movie for probably over a decade, and can't remember what kind of music was in the film, but for whatever reason, I seem to remember thinking that the music was important. Maybe it was just important to me, I don't know. Either way, I think there should be some mention of the soundtrack in the article.

Allixpeeke 00:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What happened to genie?

Where did he go? I know Dijon showed up in the series, but what about him? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluecatcinema (talk • contribs) 12:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Duck tales movie dvdcover.jpg

Image:Duck tales movie dvdcover.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ducktales the movie treasure of the lost lamp.jpg

Image:Ducktales the movie treasure of the lost lamp.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) 21:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's funny that this movie came out the day i was born. User: Bryn Morgan —Preceding undated comment added 07:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC).

Spelling error

Shouldn't Scrooge's hometown be written as Duckburg (with a U after the B), not Duckberg (with an E after the B)?

Brichards85 (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:DuckTales the Movie: Treasure of the Lost Lamp/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 01:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Hi! So I'm taking this article on.

First thing... the Disney MovieToons section could just be merged into Production, I'd say. It's not enough for a standalone section. Also, you make it sound like they completely disbanded the studio; the DisneyToon Studios article suggests that they just renamed themselves. Same thing as how Walt Disney Feature Animation is now Walt Disney Animation Studios, just a rename. Can you introduce references to this section?

The critical review section is slightly anemic. DVDLaser's suggestion that it's really three episodes strung together seems relevant to mention, as (having never seen the movie) that seems really possible. Atlantis: Milo's Return was deliberately created that way as a pilot for a series, but whether or not this was intentional, it does talk about the pace of the storytelling. (Washington Post seems to find it as one plot, just over-extended.) -- Zanimum (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, can you trim the plot section? It seems rather wordy. Mulan and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) are both shorter plot summaries than Duck Tales.

Just an FYI, I'm probably going to fail this in the end, but I'm hoping that you use this as an opportunity to whip the article into shape. (I'd love it you prove me wrong and get it to GA, but there is a way to go.

• Just Fail It. There have been users who've nominated articles for GA too early and this nominator appears to be one of theme. Its too early. 和DITOREtails 00:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Infobox: Based on DuckTales by Carl Barks? Really? The TV series was based on his comic books, but did he directly have a hand in creating the program?
• Plot: Overall, this seems too detailed.
• Voice cast: The hyphens should be em dashes.
• Production: Where's the quote from (citation)? Citation needed about Raiders being inspired by "Cibola".
• Box office: Citation(s) needed. Also, there should never be 61-word long sentences, ever.
• Critical reception: Can you give some examples of praise for the film? Also, "Reception was positive... overseas... critics were kinder" seems a little strange. The suggestion that domestic critics like it flies against what John Grant says in the second edition of Encyclopedia of Walt Disney's Animated Characters, 1993. He claims it was squarely panned domestically, warmer outside the US. How many of the Rotten Tomatoes reviews are from 1990, and how many are contemporary? I'd really suggest finding a library with that book (or asking me kindly to scan a few pages for you) before the next GAN.
• Home media: VHS on March 15, Laserdisc on April 26th. (Cleanup, please.) External links should only go in references or external links sections, not in the prose. There's no shame in redlinks. This section is out-of-date, as Lost Lamp is at Target in Canada, which is region 1. "The DVD release is in widescreen presentation in region 1 and other countries." should be simplified to "All DVD releases of the film are in widescreen."
• References: The iTunes link needs to be turned into a proper citation.
• External links: Wait, what? There was a TV special about the film? Why isn't this mentioned in the article?

Was there a "junior novelization" of the film? Any picture books based on the plot? (Try WorldCat and see if anything shows up.) Any toys or fast food promotions?

Anyway, failing. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

DuckTales the Movie: Treasure of the Lost Lamp in DVD 2015

What about DuckTales the Movie: Treasure of the Lost Lamp DVD 2015 in Australia? --58.168.125.12 (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

A sorcerer is not a wizard

Wizards do not exist in this fictional universe. There is a magic user that is called a sorcerer but that is not the same thing. I removed Category:Wizards in film from the article as there was no mention of a wizard in the article text so by WP:CATVER that category is not supported by anything in the article. Stating that something else means the same thing is original research and also not supported by anything in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not using original research to state that something is the same as something else - I am using the target articles to do so. I have reverted on the grounds of WP:BRD as while we discuss, the original version stays in place.

How do you know that wizards do not exist in the Duck Tales universe? And in any case, in our universe - the universe where Wikipedia resides - Wizards and Sorcerers are the same thing. The article Sorcerer is a disambig, and the first entries are Magic_(supernatural)#Magicians which includes "Wizard" as a description and the second entry of Sorcerer (fantasy) redirects to Magician (fantasy), and the lede there states: "A magician, also known as an enchanter (female: enchantress), sorcerer (female: sorceress), mage, warlock, witch, or wizard, is someone who uses or practices magic derived from supernatural, occult, or arcane sources."

Given that the target articles do claim that Sorcerer and Wizard (and other descriptions) are the same thing - what is your rationale to dispute this?

Whilst I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, the precedent has already been set in the "Wizards in film" cat:

• The Sorcerer's Apprentice (2010 film) is chock-full of reference to Sorcerers, has a single reference to a "Magician", but no mention of "Wizard" at all
• Excalibur (film) refers to Merlin as both Sorcerer and wizard.

Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, a look at the article history shows that this has been going on for a lot longer than I realised.

You first removed the cat here on June 5, and were reverted by Editor #1 here

You then removed it again here and were reverted by Editor #2 here.

Another removal, and another reinstatement by Editor #2 here and here

More removals here and reversion by Editor #3 here and again here and here

Your removal here was reverted again by Editor #2 here

And your removal here was reverted by Editor #4 - yours truly - here.

You have tried to remove the the information eight times, and been reverted by four different editors since June. Even the most determined editor should be able to see that consensus is against them on this, and they should back down gracefully - lest a rather obvious accusation of edit warring comes flying their way. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: If something is not mentioned in an article it should not be used as a category per WP:CATVER. Other editors adding incorrect information does not justify leaving it in the article. Re-adding it does not make it correct.

"A magician, also known as an enchanter (female: enchantress), sorcerer (female: sorceress), mage, warlock, witch, or wizard" shows that magician is the hypernym for all the types of magicians, not that each of the types of magicians listed are synonyms with each other. We know that wizards do not exist in a fictional universe as they are not mentioned in the source material that defines the fictional universe such as the ones in question here. Notice that both witch and wizard are mentioned in the list given and are generally treated as separate things with their own categories even. Warlock, is also on the list and also not a synonym for others listed. A careful reading of Magic (supernatural) § Magicians and Magician (fantasy) § Names and terminology goes into significant detail of why each of those types of magic user mean different things in works of fiction. The assertion that sorcerer and wizard are synonyms is not supported any more than would stating wizard and witch are synonyms or wizard and warlock are synonyms. None of them are and all mean different things. If anything can be gleaned from Wikipedia disambiguation pages, Sorcerer would show Wizard as a type Sorcerer not synonymous with one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

(e/c)

You are edit warring over semantics. Sorcerer and Wizard and Magician are the same thing - especially in the context of a Disney film, which is hardly high magick.

I also disagree with your intepretation of hypernym in this instance. To be a hypernym the lede should say "could be" or "includes" instead of "also known as". The use of the term "also known as" strongly implies interchangeability of the terms with no loss of meaning.

And finally, let's not lose sight of the fact that you are the only person who thinks this way. Four other editors have reverted you on this, and although you may think them wrong, edit warring very specifically states: An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. You're a mop-holder - you should know this. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: Discussing me instead of the issue is somewhat off-topic and not really helpful. I will note that the IPv6/64 range and the IPv4 have similar geo locations and the logged in new user has the exact same edit patterns as the IPv6/64 in generally adding this category to lots of articles, so highly probable that 3 of the editors you identified are the same person. My first edit removing this category was part of cleaning up the category from articles that don't belong in it and that was Sept 1. This was one of them. I started this discussion on the talk page on Sept 2 and waited for some response from the other editor which was not forthcoming so removed it again. Saw it incorrectly added again and as a compromise added the next higher category in the category tree to replace it. Then this discussion started.

An argument about the meaning of words is a semantics argument so of course this is about semantics. I have demonstrated that the term Wizards and the term Sorcerer don't mean the same thing similar to Wizards and Witches have different meanings. so the category Category:Wizards in film is incorrect in an article that does not mention Wizards. Category:Witches in film is also incorrect and that was also listed as a type of magician in the list. We don't have a category Category:Sorcerers in film so the next higher category in the tree, Category:Magic in film, was an appropriate way to handle the need to categorize it which is why I added it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

We are not discussing you, we are discussing your actions - which are to consistently remove information that has subsequently been added/reinstated by different editors. This is known as edit warring, and I reiterate - you should know this.

And yes, I know what semantics means - I would suggest we don't have a cat for sorcerers because it is accepted that Sorcerer and Wizard are the same thing ergo it is unnecessary. You have not satisfactorily demonstrated that the two are different, rather I believe I have demonstrated that they are the same thing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

My actions were to remove misinformation from an article per WP:CATVER and start a discussion explaining why when it looked to be contentious. We have a category for witches and wizards because there are enough articles where those are explicitly mentioned to make those categories meaningful, not because those are the only two types of magic users that exist. The only differentiation between witches and wizards from a categorization standpoint is usage in articles, they both are Magicians. Sorcerer, witch, wizard, warlock are all different things as I demonstrated. Wikipedia has chosen to create categories for two of them. That does not mean we shoehorn every magic user into one or the other as either a Wizard or a Witch depending on the whim of an editor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Why am I having to explain edit warring or the third time to an administrator? It doesn't matter that you think you are correct, or this information is wrong - what matters is that you repeatedly removed it. Are you going to accept that you were edit warring to get your preferred version? That your preferred version was correct or incorrect is not being discussed in this paragraph, just whether repeated insertion of contentious information by a single editor after being removed multiple times meets the criteria for edit warring. Yes, or no?

I am not edit warring, I'm trying to have a reasoned discussion. I explained what lead to this discussion and why. I disengaged after interacting with a single editor using 3 accounts and left a note to start a discussion which was ignored. Waited for a response and when one was not forthcoming removed the contentious category again. Another editor added it back, I removed it per WP:CATVER again and attempted a compromise replacement, then finally started getting interaction on the discussion I started. I have left the article alone while discussion is continuing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Much of your argument can be used against you. Wikipedia believes that a Sorcerer is the same thing as a Magician. we have an article that states this, not as a hypernym, but as a categorical (no pun intended) statement: A magician, also known as an enchanter (female: enchantress), sorcerer (female: sorceress), mage, warlock, witch, or wizard This statement "also known as" means that the terms are interchangeable. If you agree that witches and wizards are both magicians, why not Sorcerers? Where is the distinction? Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, here are reviews and summaries of the film that refer to Merlock as both Wizard and Magician, strengthening the view that the terms are interchangeable and mean the same thing.

• Empire Online[1]
• Rotten Tomatoes[2]
• Common Sense Media[3] - I confess I don't know who this group is, but they describe themselves as "the leading independent nonprofit organization dedicated to helping kids thrive in a world of media and technology. We empower parents, teachers, and policymakers by providing unbiased information, trusted advice, and innovative tools to help them harness the power of media and technology as a positive force in all kids’ lives."
• Movie Guide[4]
• Sky Movies[5]

Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Then why not call him a witch as that is also in that list of what you are calling synonyms so wizard and witch should also be interchangeable. Why pick one category over the other when both are available. Maybe because they are not the same thing and neither is wizard and sorcerer. Disney's official marketing calls him a sorcerer. The review sites not matching what Disney calls their character is an error on their part. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure, if you can find sources that call him a witch I'm good with that.

I see you're still ducking the issue of your editwarring - are you ready to accept that yet?

I see you are still trying to poison the well with this irrelevant derail. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Here are two more sorcerers sorry - sources - already used in the article that use different terms to describe Merlock:

1. Chicago Tribune - Magician
2. LA Times - Wizard

References

My point is that the terms are interchangeable and not exclusive as you think they are. It seems that not only editors here on Wikipedia adhere to that viewpoint, but also people elsewhere, such as movie critics and journalists. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I am unwilling to accept that the terms are synonymous, sloppy usage of others acknowledged. As a compromise and based on the references you provided, I suggest calling or referring to Merlock as a wizard in the article text based on most common usage in reliable sources using the LA Times reference as direct support. It is used only in the plot description. If the word is in the article, my objections per WP:CATVER go away. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with that - as I've said I believe (certainly within the mystic realm of Wikipedia) that Wizard, Sorcerer and Magician are interchangeable, so there's no issue at all with that substitution. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:DuckTales the Movie: Treasure of the Lost Lamp/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SL93 (talk · contribs) 06:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• The plot section is too lengthy.

• The voice cast is not referenced.

• The 8th reference should not be in all capital letters.

• There are three citation needed tags in the production section.

• "Director/producer Bob Hathcock revealed in an interview that the film began as a five-part episode for the TV series, adding: "Our first idea was to see if there was a way to release that as a feature." - : should not be used to show that someone said something.

• "Hathcock spent most of his time between London and Paris, while ink/paint/camera work was done in China, and additional work in Spain." - A list of things should never be written with slashes.

• The box office section needs to be referenced.

• The critical reception section has reviews combined into weird run-on sentences.

• "A more positive review came from Chris Hicks of Deseret News, who claimed he went in, "with very low expectations ... I was pleasantly surprised at how clever and funny the film is." - This is an interesting way to mention a review. I can't say that I have seen it before.

• "Reviewing it for TV, ABC's Joel Siegel said: "Here is a movie you can take the kids to you'll all enjoy." - I'm not sure why : is there and I doubt that the review had bad grammar.

• Variety called the film a, "lushly animated, smartly scripted, wise-quacking adventure." - Just remove the comma.

• The home media section has a citation needed tag.

• "The DVD release is in widescreen presentation (1.66:1) in region 1 and other countries]]." - I'm not sure what wikilink was intended to be placed here.

• "The HD version of DuckTales the Movie: Treasure of the Lost Lamp is available on Disney's Movies Anywhere service]] -" This is not referenced and I'm not sure what wikilink was intended to be placed here.

• "A soundtrack album was released by Intrada Records in 2017, including David Newman's score, but not the film's end title version of the TV series theme]]" - The same as above.

• None of the tracks are referenced. The fact that David Newman wrote the tracks is not referenced.

• animated-movies.net is an unreliable source.

• WorthPoint cannot be reliably used in this case.

• Disney Afternoon Forever is unreliable and access is denied.

On top of this, there needs to be more details on how it performed in the box office, the soundtrack, and sequels.

I am quick-failing this which makes this the second time. SL93 (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)