Talk:Beauty and the Beast (1991 film)

Describing Belle as beautiful

SNUGGUMS, regarding this and this, if it were a different character, I'd agree. But in the case of Belle, the beautiful description is a core aspect of the film. All the townspeople consider Belle to be beautiful, and the only reason that Gaston shows any interest in Belle is because she is beautiful. Not just beautiful, but the most beautiful woman in town, according to Gaston and the rest of the townspeople. Furthermore, her name literally translates to "a beautiful girl or woman, especially the most beautiful at a particular event or in a particular group." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of name and role, "beautiful" is an opinion, and it's inappropriate to insert unattributed personal views within an article. This isn't supposed to be a Beauty and the Beast/Disney fansite, and inserting that without attribution comes off as in-universe and biased. It wouldn't be so bad if that was used as part of a quote or a statement of what other characters think (i.e. "who is considered beautiful") per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Except for discussions on whether or not Belle is beautiful, this is not a personal opinion issue. Like I stated above, it is a character description issue. Belle being beautiful is a core aspect of the story. This is why I do not understand your viewpoint on this matter. I could easily add WP:Reliable sources for "beautiful" with regard to Belle, but I don't see the point of doing that. I would also hate to have the content be subject to what WP:In-text attribution warns against, which, in this case, would be making it seem that Belle being beautiful is simply the opinion of a lone author or authors. I see the point of describing her as beautiful in the Plot section, for example, because her appearance is literally an aspect of the story. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

From what I heard about what you are talking about, please do not add something about her personality and physical appearance traits (even if her name literally means "beautiful" in French) on Wikipedia, unless any members (especially the screenwriters and the storytellers) that worked on the movie actually said that it is part of the movie's storyline in a reliable source, such as in newspaper articles and official documentaries on any releases of this film. It is still technically a personal opinion issue, as it is not really a fact, unless it is sourced reliably. Please know that Wikipedia is obviously more strict and different than on Disney Wiki and Beauty and the Beast Wiki. Thank you! - Truly yours, Aubreeprincess (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The title of the work is Beauty and the Beast and are descriptive of the main characters. The point of the story and a contrast. Hardly needs a reference that someone described as a beauty is beautiful. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beauty and the Beast (1991 film). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101006051531/http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/scene/movie-rewind-beauty-and-the-beast-1.1659560 to http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/scene/movie-rewind-beauty-and-the-beast-1.1659560

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) 13:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

VHS worth $200 bazillion

Re this edit.

Yes, "techtimes.com" reports that the Black Diamond VHS sells for $9,999. Their source is reddit, essentially a blog. Blogs are not reliable sources. Aside from WP:SPS, it's worth noting that blogs are often wrong, as is the case here.

If I print out a copy of this article, list it for sale for $9,999 and write about it on reddit, it would be wrong to say that printouts of this article are worth $9,999. The next two sources, thebalance.com (another blog) and snopes (generally reliable), point this out.

The edit in question cites two unreliable sources and a trivial report in a generally reliable one to tell erroneously tell us that the tapes "fetch considerably high prices on eBay". They don't. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the extremely late reply- my mind has just sort of been pre-occupied with other crap, but I've meant to respond to this so I'll do it now.

I would like to clarify that I am fully aware that the VHS isn't actually worth oodles of money, nor were a whole lot of people actually buying the few listings that there were. :However, I'm not trying to insinuate in the article that they really are worth that much money. I believe that this is a notable topic in the sense that there was a point where this subject did receive a considerably high level coverage- a lot of people were pointing at these listings and saying "hey, these old VHS's may be worth thousands!", although in reality they really weren't worth anything. To name a few articles that I'm pretty sure would be notable, Metro UK and tech times both did articles on this supposed phenomenon, and of course Snopes did an article "disproving" it. I would say that that's enough coverage to at least mention the event itself in the article, albeit not in a way suggesting that the tapes really were worth, or even sold for, thousands of dollars/quid/pounds/whatever currency the country used.

As for the Tech Times article, just because Reddit is used as a source doesn't make it unreliable- doesn't that just mean that it's using a primary source?? It would obviously be a different story if one were to actually use just plain old Reddit as a source, as that is undoubtedly unreliable, but this is a fairly reputable news source (as far as I can tell, of course) citing a primary source- in other words, sort of what you have to do in order to write an article like that. I suppose that the other two sources probably were unreliable as I may have just pulled them from completely random websites, but the two I've provided here (plus Snopes, of course) seem to be pretty damn useable. Maybe more references would be needed to concretely show notability, but I'm sure that more probably exist covering the subject.

So basically, to summarize my overly detailed set of paragraphs; I personally do believe that the subject shows enough notability that it deserves to be added to the page, and that while the myth about the values of the tapes isn't necessarily true, the fact that news outlets and other people bitched about it for a period spanning across a few months- that is true, and merits coverage in my opinion.

I realize that I'm responding to an issue that happened a little less than 2 months ago, so I'll mention @SummerPhDv2.0: so that they can input their thoughts on what I've said. 16:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing to indicate "Tech Times" is a reliable source. I see a post making real reaches base on a Reddit post.

This leaves the Metro article. I don't care how many blogs, forum postings, etc. discuss something. We are looking at reliable sources. This seems to be all we have. (Yes, snopes has a page debunking it. Snopes has hundreds of pages debunking rumors about Coke. We don't include them based on that. If a topic is notable, independent reliable sources will discuss it. We have one. WP:WEIGHT is clearly an issue, especially since the article is not about this film on VHS, it's about a a rumor about a dozen or so movies on VHS, one of which is this movie.

Further, it does not support your claim that this particular was "notable at one point for its tendency to fetch considerably high prices on eBay, with several outlets taking notice of copies of the tape being listed for upwards of thousands of dollars".

With additional sources -- reliable ones -- I might see a place for a single sentence on this in an article specifically about the "Black Diamond" tapes at most. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough points. If I ever find any other reliable sources then I’ll look into adding a sentence in another article. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Why the "big five Oscar sweep?"

This movie was nominated by AMPAS as the best, not only (1) overall, but also for its (2) sound and (3) score, including (4) certain original songs - - more than one song, but only one may win the prize. That's four categories, not five. Why does the "Accolades" section tell of its completing "the big five Oscar sweep"? Mucketymuck (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The Big Five Oscar sweep is in reference to The Silence of the Lambs winning Five Oscars. Perhaps the sentence can be changed to "It lost the Best Picture award to The Silence of the Lambs[112] which became the third film to complete the big five Oscar sweep." Crboyer (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Beast Glen Keane.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation

@Poirot09: I don't understand why you reverted my DAB. I wasn't identifying which of the 25 stand-alone articles titled Beauty and the Beast (xxxxx) this one is, since as you noted, the note in parentheses specifies which it is, but to help the reader find the article they're looking for. I.e. "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be," per WP:DAB. YoPienso (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Yopienso Explained at WP:DABLINKUG. Poirot09 (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@User:Poirot09 Thank you. But I still don't understand. WP:DABLINKUG says, For example, Treaty of Paris (1796) should include a hatnote pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Paris (disambiguation). We have exactly the same situation with movies titled Beauty and the Beast: Beauty and the Beast (1934 film), Beauty and the Beast (1946 film), Beauty and the Beast (1962 film), Beauty and the Beast (1978 film), Beauty and the Beast (1983 film), Beauty and the Beast (1987 film), Beauty and the Beast (1991 film), Beauty and the Beast (1996 film), Beauty and the Beast (1997 film), Beauty and the Beast (2005 film), Beauty and the Beast (2009 film), Beauty and the Beast (2014 film), and Beauty and the Beast (2017 film). Best, YoPienso (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yopienso Read the following sentence: "For example, Mirror (1975 film) is clearly about one specific movie and not about any of the many other meanings of "Mirror", and most users will know to type Mirror in the search box to find other topics." Poirot09 (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay in responding. Real life suddenly became busy and I can't really spend time on this discussion.

I believe you're editing in good faith and are trying to be collegial with me. I've found your terse comments difficult to understand, though. YoPienso (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)