A few weeks ago, someone submitted a bulk update request (that has since been rejected) implicating several copyright tags to disney. Many of those were actually public domain fairy tales that had Disney adaptations and therefore those implications would be invalid. After looking into the subject a little, I found out that some of the implications in question were already active, and that many wiki pages for generic fairy tales were displaying Disney-related information.

Separate tags with the suffix *_(disney) must be created so that they can implicate disney while leaving the generic ones to implicate fairy_tales instead. Many character tags (such as aladdin_(character), puss_in_boots, peter_pan_(character) and rapunzel) will have to be disambiguated.

I've noticed the same thing and had it on my to-do list already, there's even some strange stuff like robin_hood_(disney) being disambiguated and then maid_marian being implicated to it despite being a character from the regular folklore and not being exclusive to the Disney adaption.

alias fairy_tale -> fairy_tales
alias fairytale -> fairy_tales
alias fairytales -> fairy_tales

remove implication sleeping_beauty -> disney
remove implication the_little_mermaid -> disney
remove implication mulan_(copyright) -> disney

remove implication mushu -> mulan_(copyright)
remove implication aladdin_(character) -> disney's_aladdin
remove implication maid_marian -> robin_hood_(disney)

create implication snow_white_and_the_seven_dwarfs -> fairy_tales
create implication pinocchio_(copyright) -> fairy_tales # Maybe the_adventures_of_pinocchio instead?
create implication cinderella_(copyright) -> fairy_tales # Maybe the_little_glass_slipper instead?
create implication sleeping_beauty -> fairy_tales
create implication the_little_mermaid -> fairy_tales
create implication beauty_and_the_beast -> fairy_tales
create implication aladdin_and_the_wonderful_lamp -> fairy_tales
create implication the_wolf_and_the_seven_little_goats -> fairy_tales
create implication little_red_riding_hood_(copyright) -> fairy_tales
create implication the_little_match_girl -> fairy_tales
create implication the_three_little_pigs -> fairy_tales
create implication rapunzel_(copyright) -> fairy_tales
create implication mulan_(copyright) -> fairy_tales # Maybe ballad_of_mulan instead?
create implication the_princess_and_the_frog -> fairy_tales
create implication the_frog_princess -> fairy_tales
create implication ali_baba_and_the_forty_thieves -> fairy_tales
create implication puss_in_boots_(copyright) -> fairy_tales
create implication hansel_and_gretel -> fairy_tales
create implication hansel_(hansel_and_gretel) -> hansel_and_gretel
create implication gretel_(hansel_and_gretel) -> hansel_and_gretel
create implication jack_and_the_beanstalk -> fairy_tales

remove implication big_bad_wolf -> little_red_riding_hood_(copyright)

Needs more suggestions, but I'll leave this here so I don't end up forgetting everything

Update: added Lance Armstrong's suggestion

I assume Mushu was created specifically for the Disney movie, so it should be implicated to a mulan_(disney) tag and not a generic one, and so on with other Disney-specific characters.

There should be distinguishment from the public domain fairy tales and Disney's take of it.

Should more recent stories like "Jungle Book" and "Peter Pan" be considered fairy tales as well?

If I missed anything in my BUR suggestion, please feel free to chime in

gattonero2001 said:
Should more recent stories like "Jungle Book" and "Peter Pan" be considered fairy tales as well?

If I missed anything in my BUR suggestion, please feel free to chime in

A fairy tale's a fairy tale, no matter how modern or recent.

Bumping the thread and registering my position of moving ambiguously named Disney films/movies to tags with year suffixes and ambiguously named characters to tags with disney suffixes.

topic #28439 Sleeping Beauty BUR

topic #28436 The Little Mermaid BUR

topic #28440 Mulan BUR

topic #28437 Aladdin BUR

gattonero2001 said:
Should more recent stories like "Jungle Book" and "Peter Pan" be considered fairy tales as well?

If I missed anything in my BUR suggestion, please feel free to chime in

The Jungle Book is Public Domain, like The Hunchback of Notre Dame the story can be used for plays, films, etc. The status of Peter Pan is still complicated, as the original book is public domain, too but the play and stage/screen adaptions are licensed in the US and the UK. Disney paid royalties for it's useage but doesn't own the characters.
Fun trivia: It's the Great Ormond Street Hospital that holds the royalties rights for plays of Peter Pan

The bulk update request #4698 is active.

remove implication maid_marian (2894) -> robin_hood_(disney) (4561)

Reason: This has already been an issue, see post #1176325

EDIT: The bulk update request #4698 (forum #364270) has been approved by @slyroon.

gattonero2001 said:
A few weeks ago, someone submitted a bulk update request (that has since been rejected) implicating several copyright tags to disney. Many of those were actually public domain fairy tales that had Disney adaptations and therefore those implications would be invalid. After looking into the subject a little, I found out that some of the implications in question were already active, and that many wiki pages for generic fairy tales were displaying Disney-related information.

Tags that implicate Disney, but should not

• sleeping_beauty -> Sleeping Beauty
• the_little_mermaid -> The Little Mermaid
• mulan_(copyright) -> Hua Mulan

I am divided regarding 101_dalmatians, since it is titled differently enough from its inspiration, but it could still lead to some ambiguity.

Tags that have wikis with Disney-related information, but should not

• the_little_mermaid -> The Little Mermaid
• mulan_(copyright) -> Hua Mulan
• snow_white_and_the_seven_dwarfs -> Snow White
• pinocchio -> Pinocchio
• the_hunchback_of_notre_dame -> The Hunchback of Notre-Dame

Separate tags with the suffix *_(disney) must be created so that they can implicate disney while leaving the generic ones to implicate fairy_tales instead. Many character tags (such as aladdin_(character), puss_in_boots, peter_pan_(character) and rapunzel) will have to be disambiguated.

Disney may not own the copyright, but they own the trademark. In fact, people who attribute these stories to Disney do not know their origin and think Disney made them.

I know it's the copyright category, not the trademark category, but I reckon it would be useful to have disney_(trademark). Oswald the lucky rabbit was made by the person who created disney, but disney does not own the copyright to that character. Mickey Mouse is equally as iffy.

Ruby Red Slippers comes to mind. Innocent little details like that could trap you if making an adaption of the (public domain) version of a story. Then again, you really should be at least you know READING the original if doing that. Preferably have someone who never saw the movie help double-check. XD

Yet...just you wait OP.

wolfmanfur said:
Disney may not own the copyright, but they own the trademark. In fact, people who attribute these stories to Disney do not know their origin and think Disney made them.

No??
They own IP rights for the specific depictions they created, and nothing more.
Trademark isn't operated on a basis of public perception, it's as legally-concrete as Copyright is.

Honourable shoutouts to shrek_(series), how_to_train_your_dragon, and the_bad_guys implying dreamworks,
and the users still manually applying netflix onto beastars and aggressive_retsuko posts.

The bulk update request #4698 (forum #364270) has been approved by @slyroon.