Talk:Disney Princess

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Disney on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Disney Princess article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Unknown
This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Kingdom Hearts

The concept of Disney princesses being collected is quite integral to the plot of the popular game Kingdom Hearts. Would anyone be adverse to including mention of this, and the different collection of princesses (with overlap) used in the game? Offhand, this would be Kairi (a character made for the game), Alice in Wonderland, Jasmine, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Snow White, and Belle (Beauty and the Beast). Tyciol 07:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Done! Hope this is good for you! Small5th 06:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mulan...(wtf)...

I think that there should be a citation for Mulan being considered a "Disney Princess". Who (does anyone) consider her a Disney Princess? While my comment here is biased (I loved the movie and the character), I think just for Wikipedia's purpose, there should definitely be some sort of citation showing that Mulan is considered a Disney Princess. The others are obvious (Cinderella, Snow White) but Mulan is not obvious at all. Citation please.


Added the citation to the Disney Princess Site, where Mulan is displayed with the other princesses Small5th

[edit] Meg

I may be mistaken, but when the Princesses line began, wasn't Meg from Hercules on the list? And even if she wasn't, I'm sure there have been some additions and subtractions over the years. Does anyone have more information? BethEnd 13:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, there've been additions and subtractions. Tinkerbell at one point was on there, and so were Esmeralda. But these eight stayed constant due to their popularity. (the main six will always be there, and apparently Pocahontas and Mulan are popular enough). In the Disney Princess CD these are the only eight featured. SO I guess if someone wants they can add a section on people who've been added in and out. But for official reasons, I guess these are the only eight. Thanks for your imput!!! Small5th

[edit] Princess Figures

There is a series of disney princess game pieces that can be found in toy stores (I have a few packs). The set includes not only the characters mentioned in the article, but other women like Mulan, Esmeralda etc. Do you think this is worth mentioning, as it ties into how many other characters are concidered "princesses" from the standpoint of merchandising? BethEnd 15:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure! I guess adding another category sounds good. The character list should remain the same because those are the eight from the site, but their could be a new one for the game pieces. For I noticed Tinkerbell, Esmeralda, etc. were also there. Would you like to write it? Small5th

No problem. The list of figures is on the package backing. I know I have one, once I find it I'll type up a brief piece. BethEnd 23:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopedic

Does anyone else think this is unencyclopedic? If so...how shoudl we edit it? Feedback please ^^;; Small5th

I don't think so, and I was alittle puzzled as to what that meant to begin with? Who put the tag on the artile and what were their reasons (if the mentioned any) BethEnd 16:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

well...if no one comments soon...then i might delete that banner Small5th

any objections to deleting the banner? Small5th 16:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

None here :) BethEnd 14:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other princesses

What about Princess Aba the ant from A Bugs Life doesnt she count as a princess? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.50.96.81 (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Notability

Is this notable? It seems to be an entirely arbitrarily created designation by Disney for marketing purposes, and doesn't seem to be independently notable. Titanium Dragon 01:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argumentative/NPOV

Meg is probably the one that should be in the Disney Princess line more than Mulan. Doesn't this blatantly violate NPOV?Jupiterzguy 23:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't know who wrote that...deleted Thanks! Small5th 03:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Forgotten Princesses

The "princess argument" section keeps being shortened or completely cut out. I will add it back in a few moments. But, if it's deleted again, I won't make any more fuss. However, I know a lot of people who wonder about the "forgotten princesses". It seems what justifies being in the section is in question. To me, what warrants mention in the section is any female character in a Disney production that could in some way be considered a princess. Be it by being born from at least one monarchal figure (king, chief, emperor, etc.), or by fallng in love with the son of a monarchal figure (prince). This definition, opens up the possibility to include sequel princesses, animal princesses, and sisters of more central princesses. It is incredibly likely that Ariel's sisters will never be included in the "character list" of the "Disney Princess" franchise. None the less, they are princesses. Mentioning them is interesting trivia, and provides wholeness to the overall article. It answers questions asked by people who go to Wikipedia to find an explanation for why certain characters are included, while others are ignored and forgotten. As to the claim of "lack of evidence" for this section. I agree that "controversy" is too strong a word. I do NOT agree poor word choice should condemn the section to deletion. Also, if you search "forgotten princesses" on DeviantArt, you'll see that there's certainly people who find the current "character list" arguable. Sorry for my long post. I edited it down as much as I could.DarshaAssant 08:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for maintaining this section! I agree it has merit to be added to this article. For myself, I have shortened this section a few times because people would add irrelevant information or diverge from the topic at hand...although I never was opposed having the section itself. I actually thought the last revision of this section was good enough. However, thanks for maintaining it and keep it up! Small5th 03:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Nala and Princess Kidagakash were not princesses at the end of their movies. Nala was never a princess she was a queen , and Kida was the queen at the end of the movie. And Maid Marian was a princess? I haven't seen the movie in a long time but I don't remember her being a princess.

[edit] I get it!

The forgotten princess weren't the main characters in their movies! (excluding the direct-to-video princesses) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.206.193 (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] constant reverts

Ehrm...perhaps you guys should discuss the constant reverting and unreverting =P Small5th 01:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Great Idea!DarshaAssant 08:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odette

Odette, from The Swan Princess has the qualifications of being a Disney Princess, doesn't she? Why won't Disney add her to the list, I wonder?71.247.92.87 03:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

partially because the Swan Princess isn't Disney =P Small5th 07:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Swan Princess" was produced by Nest Family Productions and Richard Rich (known also for the animated "King and I"). However, if I remember correctly, it has aired on the Disney Channel over the years. That's probably what made you think Odette was a Disney Princess.DarshaAssant 06:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] forgotten princesses

PUT THEM BACK! Just be like these are disney princesses not included, it is unknown why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.206.193 (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks Small5th and others for showing support for the "forgotten princess" section. I see it as relevant information as well as just all around interesting. I don't understand why people are deleting the section without explaining why. The only time it was fairly deleted was for poor word choice (implying there was an actual "controversy" over the character list) and also for being disorganised. Well, that problem was fixed. The wording worked and it made no wrongful implications. I really want to hear why people don't see the "forgotten princess" section as interesting trivia. Why isn't it Wikipedia worthy? Also, before deleting a whole section altogether, wouldn't it be best to try to adjust it to something more agreeable?DarshaAssant 06:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)oro

[edit] Forgotten Princess Compromise

I thought that rather than having edit wars, we could have a discussion in the talk page (as is its purpose). So here's an idea for the Forgotten Princess section. Just say what you think needs to be changed or post your own version. I think polite, intelligent replys are nice and solid critiques are great. My criticisms of the section are (and I doubt I'll find someone who disagrees with me) that the section is a bit too long and could use some trimming. I think the core information is necessary, and it answers questions asked within this very talk page. I did not make any links to the films as I thought it would make it easier to edit. That should probably be the last step. Also, I think it's best to copy from my post and change it in your own so that everyone can see the different versions. So, good luck.

Many princesses shown in Disney media are not used as characters in the “Disney Princess” franchise. There are many possible reasons for the exclusion of these princesses. These reasons include:

  • Featuring in a film that performed poorly. Examples are Eilonwy (The Black Cauldron), and Kidagakash (Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Atlantis: Milo’s Return).
  • Playing a minor role in a feature film. Examples are Prince Bambi’s bride, Faline (Bambi and Bambi II), Princess Tiger Lily (Peter Pan), and Ariel’s six older sisters, Aquata, Andrina, Arista, Attina, Adella, and Alana (The Little Mermaid).
  • Playing a role in a sequel to another Disney film. Examples are Melody (The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea), Kiara (The Lion King II: Simba’s Pride), and also Princesses Mei, Su, and Ting Ting (Mulan II).
  • Being not exclusively owned by Disney. Princessess Atta and Dot (A Bug’s Life) are clearly stated as a princesses, but their film was created by Pixar studios and released through Disney. The same applies to Princess Mira Nova (Buzz Lightyear of Star Command). “Buzz Lightyear of Star Command” is based off of characters from a Pixar creation (Toy Story) that was released by Disney.
  • Having unclear status as a princess. Nala (The Lion King, The Lion King II: Simba’s Pride, The Lion King 1 ½) while betrothed to Prince Simba, she does not marry him until he is king. This makes her never a princess, but eventually a queen. Maid Marion (Robin Hood) is stated to be King Richard and Prince John’s niece. As a princess is a daughter of a king, her status as a princess is arguable. Megara (Hercules) status as a princess is also ambiguous. Hercules is the son of the chief god, Zeus. This relationship could constitute him as the prince of the gods. Megara falls in love with Hercules, which possibly makes her a princess.DarshaAssant 07:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you should add that Animal Princesses are excluded in the line...hence Nala, Faline and Maid Marian. (that is a more plausible reason) Quite understandably is because Disney is marketing this line to little girls, and I doubt little girls would like to dress up as a lion or a fox when wanting to be a princess!!! Small5th 22:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning for not including "Being an animal princess" as one of the reasons was that Nala was, in fact, included in the character list for some time. Also, Maid Marian's questionable (in my own opinion, nonexistent) status as a princess seemed to take rank. Faline, like Tiger Lily, had very little screentime, leading to me to place her in the "Playing a minor role in a feature film" category. I do agree that animal princesses are not included, but I think that other reasons are more important, maybe. What do you guys think?DarshaAssant 01:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peggy Orenstein

I read the Peggy Orstein's article (which btw someone needs to edit that section of the "controversy"...it doesn't sound encyclopedic at all) and it explains why these eight were chosen and not the other "princesses." Perhaps this should be worked in? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/magazine/24princess.t.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=8e5a1ac1332a802c&ex=1324616400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Small5th 03:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay! I was looking for a complete copy of the article. The NYT site will only let you see it fully if you pay money. I was just about to edit and ask someone with access to the article to expand the section and make it more encyclopedic. I can read the article and see what we could do for the section. DarshaAssant 05:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just finished reading the article and I'm unsure it really it warrants it owns section. I think alot of the information could really strengthen the overall article, but Orenstein's personal story seems possibly not notable. She provides enough background for the franchise that it could constitute a much- needed "History" section. It's great reference material, but I don't know if it really can stand on it own. Also made this discussion its own talk category.DarshaAssant 06:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC) DarshaAssant 20:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC) I agree...it seems more opinion than anything...though HOW the line came about is very interesting. Will you be willing to add the history section DarshaAssant and make the appropriate changes to the "Controversy" area? Thanks if you can! Small5th 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Orenstein is a professional journalist who also happens to be the mother of a young girl. In that New York Times article she gave a balanced, professional overview of the marketing phenomenon of the "Disney Princess" products. In giving this overview she also used her personal experiences as a parent to give a human twist to the story and make it more readable for all. This is a common technique used by seasoned journalists to make more approchable what could otherwise have been a dry write-up of a marketing economics and socialogical and psychological issues. --AlainV 03:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with most of what you said, AlainV. However, those "marketing economics and socialogical and psychological issues" span over more than just the Disney Princesses. It seemed that she used the franchise as a way to, as you said, hold her reader's attention. She used it as a way to tie all her points together. Do you think it warrants its own section? Also I wrote up a "History" section. Tell me what you think guys.DarshaAssant 05:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No matter what, the section cannot stay in its current state. It doesn't sound encyclopedic and doesn't present enough of the ideas presented in Orenstein's article. I'm up for the attempt, but it'll have to wait until tomorrow.DarshaAssant 05:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Great job DarshaAssant! I added citations. Also AlainV, thanks for showing this article, but however in the article I fail to see how whole "feminist groups" agree with Orenstein on this controversy. In fact, the impression I get is that this is more an opinion than anything. Which is fine; we have freedom of speech after all. But this article did provide much needed facts about the history of the line. I deleted the section because it sounded unencylclopedic. Perhaps if there is more sources of this we can add more information. However, for now I believe it does not merit Wikipedia standards. Thank you for your interest though. Small5th 23:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Small5th, good job on the citation, but I'm not entirely sure it's legal. The NYT site was charging money to see the article, and placing a link to here makes it free to see. I don't really know anything about that sort of situation.DarshaAssant 00:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove critical material from the article since without it (or other forms of information critical of the Disney Princess marketing campaing) this Wikipedia article is nothing more than an extended ad for the Disney Princess line. Ads and other promotional items are forbidden in Wikipedia and they are removed, deleted in a regular fashion. The article by Peggy Orenstein was not an "opinion" text but a state-of-the-art piece of objective reporting which gave a factual account of the topic this article covers and included elements of criticism which are otherwise lacking from this Wikipedia article. Since Wikipedia articles must absolutely not be based on original research they have to be based on summaries of serious books and newspaper and magazine articles such as the one Orenstein wrote. There is no copyright violation involved in making a summary of the information presented in the Orenstein article. The New York Times is considered a reliable source in such matters. --AlainV 03:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

AlainV, you completely misunderstand my comment. It was already decided that Orenstein article deserved mention. I said I would write a proper section. The criticism of the section that you continue to put back in is that it does not accurately present ideas of the article. There is no "controversy among parents" about the Disney Princess franchise. At least, such controversy is not detailed in the article. Orenstein used general psychological studies about the media's impact on young girls. In her article, she uses these studies and ideas to debate her opinions of the Disney Princesses. As you said, her personal experiences are merely a way to make the article more approachable to readers. Also, please note the reasons the section was continually deleted. "Unencyclopedic" was mentioned more than once. Before simply reposting the section with no changes, try to address the issues surrounding the articles deletion.

Now, the point of my comment was not at all about the inclusion of information from the article. I know that is not a violation of any sort. What I was questioning was the link to see the entire article for free. This provides people a way to bypass the fee placed by NYT. I worry that it is a violation as it possibly keeps NYT from money that they would have received had the link not been posted. But, as I said, I don't know for sure.DarshaAssant 06:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What title would you give to that section instead of "controversy among parents"? --AlainV 08:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Intriguing! If you google the article, however, you can view it, but if you cite it it doesn't show! Well, I guess we can find another link for it, but it does need to be cited, for otherwise peopel will wonder where is the basis of our history? And thanks for rewriting the certain section; it definitely needs to be rewrote, and not deleted, as some users seem to insist. Small5th 16:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That is interesting. If the article can viewed independent from the official site, then, perhaps, there is no legality issue. Also, I'm working on the "Peggy Orenstein" section right now (in answer to AlainV's question, I think that's what the section should be titled.) However, it's taking a bit as I'm currently involved in other things as well.DarshaAssant 20:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long, but here's the Peggy Orenstein section.DarshaAssant 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Club Libby Lu" mention is irrelevant to the article and should be removed immediately because it can be considered as a commercial and giving the last section a title like "Peggy Orenstein" is incorrect. The section is not a section on Peggy Orenstein. It is a section about the controversy surrounding the values put forth by the Disney Princess marketing offensive and an article by Peggy Orenstein is the reliable source for this encyclopedic content. --AlainV 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand your concerns about this page sounding like a commercial. Are you referencing a Wikpedia policy? This page does not advertise anything in as much as any other Wikipedia article advertises its subject matter. Nowhere on this page does it encourage readers to buy Disney Princess merchandise. I’m actually inclined to agree that the Club Libby Lu paragraph is unnecessary. At the time of writing, it seemed relevant; but it is not a commercial for Libby Lu. As to the section’s title, I think “Criticism” is better. It allows a place for future information of this nature. Also, as I’ve said before, there is no controversy detailed in the Orenstein article. From what you said in your comment, it seems that you think there is controversy, but are unable to find sources to support that idea. Remember that the research decides what is written on Wikipedia, not the other way around. If you find something that shows a controversy to exist than share it, don’t construe other information to insinuate that idea.--DarshaAssant 03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Anyone agree we should have more images in this article? I have a picture with all the princesses standing together, but I think it was fan made and not disney issued, so i'm not sure if it's eligible. Anyone have another one? Or do you think it's okay? Small5th 07:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


Pictures sound good, but I think something that more clearly showed the princesses would be better. Is there a way to take pictures off the official website? Maybe we could take those pictures and place them next to each princess's name. Fan art definitely doesn't belong.DarshaAssant 21:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Majority of the pictures on the Disney Princes page are of the Disney "royal" couples, so perhaps they could be used on this page as well? To keep the two pages somewhat consistant (also, the Disney Princes page has short bios of each of the characters, so maybe similar short bios for the girls could be added to this page too? If anything, it would just make the page look more organized and informative.) Irish♣Pearl 16:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom Hearts' Princessess of Hearts

I'm sure others have wondered what I am about to ask. And there may be topics of it elsewhere but for some reason I can't see those discussions so I'll ask here. The princesses of hearts in kingdom hearts is as follows: Kairi (Kingdom Hearts), Jasmine (From Aladin), Aurora (Sleeping Beauty), Cinderella, Snow White, and Belle (Beauty and the Beast) and Alice(in wonderland).

The last one, Alice, is questionable for technically Alice is not a princess. She is a mere child from a family of upper class. So I ask why is she a princess of heart? I do hope someone out there satisfies my question. And forgive me if this is annoying or I have disobeyed a ruled in this here site for I am new to this.

That is a good question. Although Alice is not an official Disney Princess...that is how the game's plot works. If you play the game (it is a very good game!) people would expect the last princess to be Ariel, but as it turns out Ariel is a character in the world and not one of the Princess of Heart. They chose the princesses of hearts probably for the sake of recognizable Disney heroines...or the fact it would be hard for Ariel since she has a tail haha...but the fact is that Alice is a princess of heart and not Ariel. But good question though! Small5th 20:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/i/s/Talk%7EDisney_Princess_6c13.html"