text:
Talk:List of Disney theatrical animated feature films

Sleeping Beauty live action sequences?
Stupid question. The opening and closing to Sleeping Beauty (with the book) certainly look like live action. Assuming they are, should note 2 be added? Or is it just too minor to add? --NE2 05:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

 * They are indeed. I believe D23's YouTube channel might have a video on how the book was restored to its original form; I did see a podcast of it, but don't know if it's on YouTube, though. Yes, it's too minor to add. Personally, Note 2 is pointless and shouldn't even be in use. -- McDoob  AU93  06:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to Streamline Disney Animated Feature Lists
Link to relevant discussion on Wikipedia: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disney/Animated Film Article Cleanup

After perusing all the "List of" articles under the Disney category, it seems that this list is now redundant since
 * All animated films released by Walt Disney Pictures in the US are already listed under the List of Disney theatrical feature films article, also color-coded as animated films (albeit Studio Ghibli films are not listed, they are already listed here)
 * Disney's big two animation studios, WDAS and Pixar, already have lists of their own films (List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films recently created and growing and List of Pixar films
 * And it seems people are still confused that this article should redirect to the list of WDAS films article, which wasn't and isn't that main point of having a broader Disney animated film list
 * And it's probably because the studio structure of Walt Disney Studios is somewhat confusing the average Disney movie fan, layman, and average Wikipedian

My suggestion is to either
 * Make this page into a disambiguation page to link to List of Disney theatrical feature films, List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films, List of Pixar films and other studios that released under Disney
 * Or Redirect to List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films and place "see other lists" links on the top of that page to link to List of Disney theatrical feature films and List of Pixar films

Plus any information not included in those studio-specific lists that's in this list would be transfered there.

--Rebel shadow 03:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All the Disney articles are a mess, and I can't see an easy solution! I'd be more inclined to leave this article here as an overview, and change the focus of List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films to those that were actually produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios (i.e. post 2006) and include their short films, expanding the information and development there.  Oh, and you may want to incorporate List of sources for Disney theatrical animated features somewhere too!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Good point, sir; now I'm thinking of using the Template episode list template and having seasons be the different studios and then have this be a summary page, so info can be changed just once from each studio's respective list page, for better streamlining; sounds pretty ambitious, but I think it'll look MUCH better. - Rebel shadow 20:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Would like to see the release dates of DVD and Blu-ray added to the list so it is easy to tell which of the cannon films are available on home media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.55.85 (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

 * The problem with that is, which release date do we show? Which region's release dates are used? In my opinion, the individual film articles are better at discussing when their particular releases arrived on home video in the various regions. By the by, I moved your comment to a separate part of the subhead as it appeared within another's comment, and I wanted to leave their comment intact. -- McDoob  AU93  23:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

New proposal: This article should sort films in a single list by date like in the List of Walt Disney Pictures films page, but with a column color-coded by studio, instead of separate lists of films which branch towards each studios' individual list pages, which is redundant. Details and technicalities for release dates and type of animation should only be noted in the individual studios' film lists and not on this list. List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films already has these details brought in from this page and more appropriately belongs there than here. Lead-in details would be concisely combined into the lead paragraphs and explain why many different studios are not releasing their films with WDS and not exclusively WDAS and Pixar. - Rebel shadow 18:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify what you mean, there should be a single film list where WDAS films are color-coded red and Pixar green, or something similar to that. Georgia guy (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup; thinking red-orange to match the WDAS logo and light blue to match Pixar. But different from just a pure animation fork of the List of Walt Disney Pictures films page, this would also include Studio Ghibli and other releases by WDS. - Rebel shadow 19:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Any objections to this proposal? If not, I'll go ahead and reconfigure this page. And don't worry if it doesn't look complete after a couple edits.. Rebel shadow 19:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems promising. I'm in favor of it. ~ Jedi94  ( talk ) 23:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Key objectives to this new format
 * There shouldn't be any distinctions or notes about whether a film "has live action sequences" or is "cgi" or "traditionally animated"; this article is for films that are uniquely known/well known to be animated films and are associated with an animation studio.
 * Do not add ratings, reception data, or "sources" for films listed; those can be found elsewhere on each individual films' articles
 * Sources are needed around dates; Release dates or either original wide release date in the U.S. or in the territory where the film was released/distributed by The Walt Disney Studios. If the film was a limited release only, then that date should be noted. Citations for release dates for future films should be noted, otherwise each individual films' pages should have citations and additional special release dates listed.
 * Rebel shadow 22:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Issues with new format Hi everyone - I really liked being able to easily see the list of the animated classics in the past. Would there be objections to having this as a separate article? Ie the (currently 52) films that make up the animated classics collection. I agree that this new joint list is good for seeing all disneys but it would be nice to have those separated out and including a collum in a table for them with their official number - Thoughts lordmwa (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Hi lordmwa, the "films that make up the animated classics collection" are already listed in the separate article List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films. The flagship studio, WDAS, seems right now to be the only studio that markets films by number--maybe to a certain extent Pixar does as well--, but numbers for the other sublists included in the previous version of the article were redundant in that those studios did not market their films as officially numbered since only one or a couple films produced by non-Disney-owned studios are if ever released through Walt Disney Pictures. --Rebel shadow 02:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Wonderful! Thanks a lot, Keep up the good work :) lordmwa (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Enchanted
Should Enchanted be on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4701:C4A0:9CBB:27F4:152F:E075 (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

List comparison
This article is a group of lists; I want to know if there are any thoughts on whether the word "List" at the beginning of the title should be "Lists". Georgia guy (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Traditional Animation off for 4 years
What happened to Hand Drawn Animation at Disney? Didn't John Lasseter like it anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.224.232.88 (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

 * You would probably need to ask Mr. Lasseter about that. Unfortunately, this is not the place to discuss that. The talk page is intended to be used by editors who are working to improve the article, not to discuss the article subject. -- McDoob  AU93  15:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

 * IMO the article shouldn't discriminate or make note about whether a film was "traditionally animated" or was a mix of or has live-action scenes. The detailed lists from each respective studio should include those technicalities and details. This list should only provide an overview. -- Rebel shadow 20:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Zootopia, Giants, Moanna
What's the difference among these 3 films that makes it so that the external link recently added is a reliable source for Zootopia and Giants but not Moanna?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The original source (which was deleted, but its cached version can be accessed here) was not certain about the "Moana"'s release date.--Carniolus (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Uh oh!
http://www.disneyanimation.com/studio/our-films changed its official list. It omits The Many Adventures of Winnie-the-Pooh and The Rescuers, but includes Paperman. Georgia guy (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd wait it out before making any drastic edits; looks like they just launched this updated portion of their site. Otherwise any discussion on inclusion/edits to the official WDAS list should be made here. -- Rebel shadow 20:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Update. The site corrected its list to include the 2 films mentioned above. However, it also still includes Paperman. Georgia guy (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Ratings for movies
If the other animation companies (DreamWorks, Blue Sky e.g.) have their rating on the list, then why can't Disney? --Adam the silly (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states that just because a similar page is organized one way doesn't mean that all pages like it must be organized the same way. Why should we include critical ratings that are primarily US-centric? Shouldn't that be left to the individual articles? -- McDoob  AU93  16:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Exactly what you mean the ratings are US-centric? Don't the ratings apply to all the people in the world.  What is different in each world is box office performance, and that isn't what was being added. --Adam the silly (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

 * The ratings used in Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are almost entirely based in the United States. That's what I mean by US-centric. -- McDoob  AU93  19:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

 * I never agreed that it should be added on this page if your aim is to add ratings for individual animation companies. For these films specifically in the WDAS "canon" it's more appropriate to add under a 'Critical Response' section in the List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films page or in a self-contained table there (separate from the main list table), and don't add ratings here since this page is for overall Disney-branded films. This page needs some major reworking as it is. -- Rebel shadow 21:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No numbers
I remember the good old list that had the Disney classic films 1-54 with numbers. Any way to bring the numbers back?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You can find that at List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films. - Rebel shadow 00:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

New List Format
I have frequently used this wiki page as a quick reference for Disney animated features. I think the new condensed format leaves out much information and is not as intuitive to use. I preferred the old format from a user perspective. Although I am not one to edit wiki pages myself, could there possibly be a discussion about this from editors and users before anyone decides to revamp the page? -99.6.108.182 (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Let us know which information you think was left out, 99.6.108.182, and we can add it to this list. The former format was more so a bunch of lists that mainly taken from other studio's films articles. If you are looking for separate lists of films see List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films or List of Pixar films, or separate film lists should be within this list. - Rebel shadow 17:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The multiple lists is the feature I really liked about the page. It was nice having them all in one spot rather than having them scattered. I understand the streamlined list is essentially the same thing, but perhaps descriptions of each colour-coded category? The old format had brief descriptions of what made each studio different. Again, I realise you are trying to alleviate repetition from other pages, but that was the reason I would frequently refer to this page as a reference. It had all the information I might need to know in one place. For instance maybe another column may be added for films in the supposed 'canon'. I don't like the term myself, but there ARE films that Disney designates with a number.
 * I have a problem with that. For the upcoming films, the films are set up to follow this rule:

 * Whenever there are 2 upcoming animated movies that whether they are the same film is questionable, Wikipedia is supposed to accept without proof that they are not the same. Thus, it would suggest that there are 62 films, not 58, in the canon. Georgia guy (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

 * A number doesn't need to be included until the film has been released. Rebel Shadow has created a separate list for films that have not yet been released. Disney gives their official number only after the film has been released or soon before. While I don't necessarily agree with their number system (Dinosaur), it is helpful to know what film is being referred to in media when they are only referred to by their number.99.6.108.182 (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As for "Dinosaur", we just have to accept it that Disney officially includes Dinosaur in its sequence, like it or not. Georgia guy (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That's not my issue. I would just like the designated numbers to appear on this list as well. Having all the information on a single page was extremely useful to me as a user and now I have to visit multiple pages to find the information I am looking for. 99.6.108.182 (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this list is not to be a "list of lists", and designated numbers are only relevant for WDAS films because they only regularly market their films as nth releases (the only exception would be Pixar). In addition, releases by Non-Disney-owned studios as numbered and listed by the previous version of the page was just a conglomarated list of films from different studios; their relation to each other was ambiguous at best. However, Studio Ghibli films seemed to be important enough to be listed separately. - Rebel shadow 02:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest if you are seeking to use this list as films separated and sorted by studio, clicking on the triangle in the column header of the Animated Studio column will sort films separated by studio, albeit films are not numbered. - Rebel shadow 02:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hand-Drawn Animation vs. Computer-Animation
If computer-animation will be loses, hand-drawn animation wins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.65.140.59 (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Distribution companies
Before I edited this list, it stated that all of Disney's animated films had been originally distributed by Walt Disney Pictures, a film label that did not exist until 1984. All pre-1953 Disney animated feature films were originally released by RKO Radio Pictures, as Disney did not have its own distribution company. The one exception is Fantasia, which Disney originally road-showed on its own. The live-action Victory Through Air Power was released by United Artists, and the True-Life Adventures were the start of Disney's own distribution company Buena Vista Distribution. Buena Vista distributed product from Walt Disney Productions (still no "Walt Disney Pictures" or "The Walt Disney Company" at the time) through 1984, when Walt Disney Pictures and Touchstone Pictures were created as film labels under Buena Vista. Buena Vista changed its name to Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures in 2007.

Most of this information should be found on the The Walt Disney Company and Walt Disney Animation Studios articles. Just wanted to make sure this was all clear before someone tried to fly into a rage and revert the page back (by the way, the organization/ordering arrows still work just fine with the separated headers breaking the eras apart).--FuriousFreddy (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Colours in table
Possibly I'm missing something obvious, but I don't see any key to the colour codes in the final column of the tables? While on the subject, relying on colour coding alone isn't very accessible! - Khendon (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

 * This is still true. Was the key removed at some point, or what has happened? Clearly it is not right. 85.217.20.78 (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

What about Cinderella II & Cinderella III: A Twist in Time?
They are not feature films theatrically releases, they were direct-to-video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.171 (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

 * They are not included in the list, so not sure what the point of this thread is. -- McDoob  AU93  20:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

who cares whether a movie is direct-to-video or direct-to-tv or direct-to-vhs or direct-to-torrent... a movie is a movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.29.172 (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Because the title of the article is "List of Disney theatrical animated features". -- McDoob  AU93  03:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea
The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea (2000) is not on the list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid_II:_Return_to_the_Sea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.29.172 (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Just as the others, these are direct-to-video and not theatrical releases. If you can find a reliable source indicating the film got a theatrical release somewhere, then it might be included. -- McDoob  AU93  03:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What about studio Ghibli Castle in the Sky?
I noticed that there are a few films from studio Ghibli that did not make the list. For instance Castle in the sky, The cat returns, My neighbor Totoro, Whisper of the heart, Spirited Away, and The secret world of Arrietty. I am sure there are more but I can't think of them right now. Can you please look into them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.87.230 (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

 * As these films were, as you indicated, produced by Studio Ghibli, they are not Disney films. -- McDoob  AU93  03:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

However, The Studio Ghibli films listed, are films that Disney was only the Distributor for the US.. So the ones listed Should be removed since they are NOT Disney Produced films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.234.129 (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Cars 3
I heard somewhere that they are planning on making Cars 3. DudeWithAFeud (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The Brave Little Toaster (film)
Removed the entry with the edit summary "The brave little toaster was neither produced nor released by Disney, though they had a financial stake in the film it is not a Disney animated feature." is adding it back without explanation either in edit history or footnotes in the article proper as to why this film is in WP:SCOPE for this article. I couldn't find anything that refutes Omnitographer assertion so have removed the entry. At the very least, if it is added, the proper footnote needs to be applied to state why it is in scope for this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

What does 'theatrical' mean?
In Australia, we call cinemas cinemas, so 'theatrical' refers to theatres, where plays, musicals and operas are performed. Would 'cinematic' be more universal? CactusPolecat (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Does this list include direct-to-video releases?
If so, where are the Aladdin sequels (eg, [Aladdin and the King of Thieves])?

If not, it should be stated explicitly, with a link to the complete list of releases. Also, the opening line should not say 'all'. CactusPolecat (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

 * Oops, just spotted the topics above re other direct-to-video releases. So, I now get it. Still, where is the complete list of all releases? And my points regarding the meaning of 'theatre' and a clear statement regarding the scope of this article still stand.

CactusPolecat (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Frozen 2
Frozen 2 has been announced accoriding to the list of Walt Disney Animation Studios Films that it will be released on November 25, 2020 but on the Disney Wiki it's going to be released in 2019. 75.165.126.116 (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Evan Kalani Opedal

Frankenweenie
Why is Frankenweenie marked as a "Other Disney studio" film (grey) rather than "Third-party studio" (white)? I understand that Burton's earlier films "The Nightmare Before Christmas" and "James and the Giant Peach" were "Other Disney studio" films as they were developed by Skellington Productions which Burton had sold to Disney by that point. However, Tim Burton Productions is a separate company and is not a subsidiary of Disney. So I think it should be classed as a "third-party studio". Kidburla (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Paris 2054: Renaissance
Under "Other films by other non-Disney owned studios, released through Miramax"

The film Paris 2054: Renaissance is typo'd it says "Paris 2054: Rennaissance" but should say "Paris 2054: Renaissance". 50.43.28.161 (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  07:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Fox
'With Disney buying Fox what colour will we gith the new animted studios fox, blue sky, Locksmith Animation and any other I forgot? 92.232.119.244 (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌. To make a change via edit request, you need to explain what needs to be either added to the article or removed from it and you need to provide a reliable source.  City O f  Silver  15:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * with Disney buy th;e whole of fox the studios future films above will be reslase by Disney will they be added to this page if so what coulurs will be added http://www.cartoonbrew.com/business/disney-buys-fox-key-points-deal-155390.html
 * Your response here indicates you didn't read my message above it. Please do so.  City O f  Silver  15:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Disney theatrical animated features. 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://archive.is/20130121160130/http://www.disneyanimation.com/studio/history to http://www.disneyanimation.com/studio/history
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130121160130/http://www.disneyanimation.com/studio/history to http://www.disneyanimation.com/studio/history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Debate between which hybrid films should be included here.
FilmandTVFan28, if other hybrid films (live-action and animation) are allowed here, should we include Mary Poppins and its sequel? Films on this list like The Reluctant Dragon and Song of the South are mostly live-action with only a few minutes of animation, just like Mary Poppins. I think Mary Poppins and its sequel shoulx be included on the list? Thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * None of them should be included as they are not animated features so are out-of-scope for this article. It is like the difference between a musical film and a film that has a few songs in it. For a hybrid to be considered it should be mostly animated with occasional live action sequences. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

That does not make sense to me. Films like Song of the South and The Reluctant Dragon, films already listed here for years, only have about 10 minutes of animation each. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Heck, Roger Rabbit has about 12 minutes of full-fledged animation, in Toontown. Where is the cut off with some hybrids being allowed and others not? No hybrids already on the list have more animation than live action. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

 * They should not be listed either then. About the only one that belongs is Who Framed Roger Rabbit as animated characters are included in a significant part of the film, even in the live action portions. That is a true hybrid. The rest are too biased towards live-action to be plausibly considered an animated feature. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Those films, Song of the South and Reluctant Dragon, have been here for years, it only made sense to add similar films. If we should remove them, ok. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

If you want, you can remove the other hybrid films. I can list them off if you want. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The Reluctant Dragon, Saludos Amigos, Victory Through Air Power, Song of the South, The Three Caballeros, Melody Time Cardei012597 (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

 * A possible test is if the film is described in reliable sources as a live action/animated film. Most of the listed ones are described that way in the intro to their articles. Mary Poppins (film) isn't. If the main characters are animated such as in Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Saludos Amigos that also makes it more of a real hybrid. Song of the South is more on the edge but it is described in its article as live-action/animated. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

 * Doesn't Pete's Dragon (1977 film) have an animated major character? I don't know how much screen time that character has, though. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It did and the article calls it live action/animated and goes into some detail about the animation. This is just one character. At some point animation starts to overlap special effects. Gollum in Lord of the Rings films is also an animated character. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

But the Reluctant Dragon is not a true hybrid. Cardei012597 (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Reluctant Dragon (1941 film) article says 40 of the film's 72 minutes are animated and the article intro says it is live action and animated and more than half is animated. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

we should have a rule like the Highest-grossing animated films page Fanoflionking 16:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That rule, an industry rule, not a Wikipedia rule, is for award consideration as a animated feature film. That article is using it for WP:SCOPE definition. They say 75% animated means can be included in that article. That seems a reasonable rule for inclusion in this article too. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I hate to beat a dead horse but this page is ridiculous. The title of the page is "Disney theatrical animated feature films" not "Every Disney movie with 1 second of animation". The page should be split in two, or the chart should be be split on this page. see here for an example: https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Disney_theatrical_animated_features 2600:1700:1EF0:16E1:10E6:D389:4C71:99ED (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I tried to at least split the hybrid films from the fully animated films but it was reverted. It's ridiculous that Enchanted is considered an "animated film". Would ZX2006XZ please put back in my changes with 2 charts. Andcbii (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hybrid films
Enchanted, G-Force, The Jungle Book, The BFG, Christopher Robin and Dumbo are Disney's live-action/animated hybrid films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B111:1DBD:4490:D8B2:DE39:572D (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless called that in their article by reliable sources they are not. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We already have a List of films with live action and animation. What is your point? Dimadick (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse
there is a discuto on Wikipedia:Teahouse just wondering if any wants to join Fanoflionking

Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue
Like some of the other Disney Fairie series Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue had a limited US release to try to qualify it for an academy award. But it isn't included in the list - is there a standard for this that I missed above 65.127.183.235 (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=91650

CGI Lion King
The 2019 version of The Lion King seems out of place on this list. Technically, yes, it's animated, but it's not done in any recognizably animated style. The CGI Jungle Book, which was similarly photorealistic, is not included, so why is The Lion King here? Powers T 14:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Didn't the Jungle Book remake have live-action elements, though? The Lion King remake was created using animation, so it should be included even if it doesn't obviously look animated. Trivialist (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are tons of movies on this list that include live-action elements; there's even a footnote identifying them. Only Jungle Book is missing, and I assume that's because it was photorealistic and not "animated" in style. Powers T 20:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen it, so I don't know how much live-action material it has. But if it's mostly animated, then it should be added too, photorealistic or not. Trivialist (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to resurrect a dead discussion, but I think the scope of this list needs to be better defined. I can't see any reason for The Lion King (2019) to be here if The Jungle Book (2016) is not here. Powers T 02:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

 * How much live-action is allowable for it to still be an "animated" film? The Jungle Book combines live-action and CGI, whereas The Lion King is (I believe) all animated. Trivialist (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned earlier, there are lots of films on this list that include far more live-action elements than The Jungle Book does, so that alone cannot be the reason for its exclusion. Powers T 22:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect Dates
Under the "Highest grossing films" section 2010 and 2019 are referencing the incorrect Toy Story movies. It currently states Toy Story 4 happened in 2010 and Toy Story 3 happened in 2019 which is not correct.198.39.4.79 (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The Disney features canon
Excuse me. (For the purpose of this edit, please ignore the dis-ambiguation header at the top of this article; it's not the subject of this discussion.)

One thing I can do is sort the table by studio. This makes it so that the movies are segregated, and one section is the Disney animated features canon. However, this is only nearly true:

(1) Academy Award Review is included as if it were the first movie in the canon. (This would make Snow White the second, and Fantasia 2000 the 39th.) Does it look obvious at all that it's not part of the canon despite the way it is treated by this list??

(2) Dinosaur is put at the bottom to indicate that it was made by The Secret Lab. Does it look obvious at all that this doesn't mean it's not part of the canon (back in the days barely after the Disney Animation web site launched, there was a lot of discussion and by late 2010 it was agreed that Dinosaur is the canon's 39th film)??

(Please remember that the subject of this discussion is how we can segregate the films on this list by using the Sort option, which has the option of sorting the films on this list by studio, and doing so segregates the films so that one group is the Disney animated features canon.) Georgia guy (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this suggestion as the Disney Animation canon, once located here, has since been moved to List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films. It's not just a matter of disambiguation; that canon was once one of the purposes of this list, but no longer is. --RBBrittain (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's no longer a purpose of this list, then what still is a purpose of this list (with no other Wikipedia article competing this one)?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 31 March 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. It's time to close this, and there's not much appetite for the proposed move, since it would also require shuffling of contents. No such user (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

List of Disney theatrical animated feature films → List of Disney theatrical and Disney+ animated feature films – This title is a remnant from before Disney Plus was created, where "theatrical" was understood to be defined as contrasting with being direct-to-video, not with the not-yet-existent-at-that-time Disney Plus. Georgia guy (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Comment No opinion on the move, but if it does go through "Disney+" should be used for consistency, not "Disney Plus".162.208.168.92 (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – While I'm not the nominator, I updated the request/proposal, as the title should 100% match with the existing "Disney+"/"Disney Plus" page if it gets added to the title. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The suggested scope would cover films also covered by List of Disney+ original films. Dimadick (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems like primarily a question of whether to enlarge the scope of this article, rather than one of naming per se. It seems like the argument is that the intention behind the article is to list all Disney animated films except those which are direct-to-video. I'm not really sold on that. Why not, in the intro of this article, just mention how the distribution model has changed in response to streaming, and link to List of Disney+ original films? In the absence of a compelling special circumstance, I think it's better to avoid "List of X's and Y's" style list articles (in favour of seperate articles for List of X's, and List of Y's). Colin M (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That can apply to this list where X is Disney films that are theatrical or on streaming and Y is direct-to-video (which I'm sure is what this list was intended to contrast with.) Georgia guy (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure I follow - no-one is suggesting to expand the article to encompass those particular values of X and Y (i.e. to include direct-to-video films). Anyways, for the record I'm going to register an oppose on this. I still think the best solution is to just incorporate some text in the intro with a link to List of Disney+ original films, rather than expanding the scope of the article in a way that overlaps with that article. Colin M (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose, I don't see the benefit of noting two kinds of Disney products in the title. BD2412  T 00:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete or Redirect
I think this page should be deleted or re-direct users to a different page. First of all the info on this page is available on other pages. Second it's being cluttered by moves that most people would not consider animated. It's also missing films that potentially should be added due to the current low criteria (example The Lizzie McGuire Movie). For a full list of films animated an hybrid people should be directed to List of Walt Disney Pictures films. For animated films made and distributed by disney you should link to List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films List of Pixar films Disney Television Animation Disneytoon Studios. These four pages cover the vast majority of what's on this page (items not on them are on the full list). Andcbii (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You can take it through the WP:AFD process if you'd like, though this will probably be an uphill battle for you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Colour coding
Bring back the colors that explained which studio they mainly are from. Pederjo99 (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Disney didn't make The Brave Little Toaster.
Why is it on the list? I looked it up. Disney rejected making the movie straight out. 70.120.59.90 (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The film is rejected by D23 as such so yes, it shouldn't be on this list, and should be removed every time it re appears https://d23.com/a-to-z/brave-little-toaster-the-film/DoctorHver (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Walt Disney Pictures was involved in the titles and opticals, so it should particularly count as one. 86.133.213.239 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Roth/Kirschenbaum Films projects that have CGI characters count.
I just added Alice in Wonderland, Oz the Great and Powerful, and Alice Through the Looking Glass to the list as a public service announcement because they count as "Disney theatrical animated feature films", but the edit of mine kept getting reverted without explanation. WHY? IS IT BECAUSE THE PERSON HASN'T WATCH EITHER OF THESE MOVIES AT ALL? 213.58.176.66 (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * These films were not sold as animation, but as Live-action as stupid as that sounds especially in the case of Lion King 2019, with that said I think US and western film industry needs to dive Live-action films into two groups i.e pure-live action where there is no visible CGI, VFX or special effects such as most if not all comedy and drama films which are grounded in reality not to mention biographical films. and then start using the term Live-action cartoons i.e films that are so heavily dependent on CGI, VFX and special effects from them to function properly and have no bases in any kind of reality.DoctorHver (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Soul has wrong date listed
The main table seems to indicate Soul is Disney's latest, still-upcoming film. It links to a movie that came out in 2020. Probably just need a new source to fix the date. 2601:1C0:8380:15FA:AD6C:88A5:A479:D131 (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Actually, Soul was released on Disney+ in the US, and wasn't released in American theatres until January 12, 2024, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 86.133.213.239 (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is also the case for two other Pixar films, Turning Red and Luca, which were also released direct to streaming because of COVID but were originally planned for theatrical release. Perhaps it's worth an explanatory note that those films were initially released direct to streaming but are listed the way they are due to the date of their theatrical release in the US? - Purplewowies (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I note that in the navbox, the films are displayed with and are ordered by their original release dates instead.
 * Moreover, this article opens by saying that it "consists of animated films produced or released by The Walt Disney Studios", and the table in question has the headings, so it being "about the theatrical release date" in and of itself (quoting from the reply to the edit request below) may be overstating things, and initially presenting the table so that Elemental (2023 film) comes before Soul (2020 film) and Luca (2021 film) seems counterintuitive and borderline WP:CRUFT-y to me.
 * If there's consensus that the table should have an "original U.S. theatrical release date" and no other date column, that's fine - but the initial ordering could still be the common-sensical one, and for those users who really do want to have the films in their literal theatrical order, all it takes is one click on that column header.
 * - 2A02:560:5811:5600:9F6:BD9B:4846:6530 (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2024
Soul and Turning Red are not published under the right years that the movies were released in inside of the table (for Soul, change 2024 to 2020, and for Turning Red, change 2024 to 2022). 74.15.214.79 (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You are correct that those films were already released earlier than stated in the article. However, this list is about the theatrical release date, and the earlier dates you're referring to are releases on Disney+. --TheImaCow (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2024
The first and second link in the hatnote look to me like the overlinking that WP:HATEXTRA warns against. Users who end up here are looking for an article about films, not about filmmaking entities. Non-dab links like those belong, and already are, in the lede instead.

- 2A02:560:5811:5600:9F6:BD9B:4846:6530 (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  (talk | contribs) 14:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Fluppy Dogs
Hello! I added "Fluppy Dogs" to the list of Disney Theatrical Animated Films, but it keeps being removed. I tried to check the standards for what would qualify to be on this page. (A clearer explanation on the page itself would be helpful both for the audience and for anyone trying to contribute).

- "This list of theatrical animated feature films consists of animated films produced or released by The Walt Disney Studios, the film division of The Walt Disney Company." Fluppy Dogs was produced by 'Walt Disney Television Animation', which is on the list.

- I understand that the 'Fluppy Dogs' film was developed as a pilot to a television series, but the series was never made.

- It is feature-length, going by the standards set on wikipedia's pages on "Feature Films" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_film and "Lists of animated films" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_animated_films (it's 45 minutes long).

I left a similar comment on the Talk page of the first user who deleted my entry, asking to discuss why it would or wouldn't be included, but they deleted my comment without reply. I hope that mentioning this here is a more appropriate place, and that I might get some sort of response! (Long-time wikipedia user, very occasional contributor, still learning!) :)

Thanks, Jellybeangrrl Jellybeangrrl (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


text:
Osteopetrosis

Osteopetrosis, literally stone bone, also known as marble bone disease or Albers-Schönberg disease, is an extremely rare inherited disorder whereby the bones harden, becoming denser, in contrast to more prevalent conditions like osteoporosis, in which the bones become less dense and more brittle, or osteomalacia, in which the bones soften. Osteopetrosis can cause bones to dissolve and break.

It is one of the hereditary causes of osteosclerosis. It is considered to be the prototype of osteosclerosing dysplasias. The cause of the disease is understood to be malfunctioning osteoclasts and their inability to resorb bone. Although human osteopetrosis is a heterogeneous disorder encompassing different molecular lesions and a range of clinical features, all forms share a single pathogenic nexus in the osteoclast. The exact molecular defects or location of the mutations taking place are unknown. Osteopetrosis was first described in 1903 by German radiologist Albers-Schönberg.

Signs and symptoms
Despite this excess bone formation, people with osteopetrosis tend to have bones that are more brittle than normal. Mild osteopetrosis may cause no symptoms, and present no problems. However, serious forms can result in the following:
 * Stunted growth, deformity, and increased likelihood of fractures
 * Patients experience anemia, recurrent infections, and hepatosplenomegaly due to bone expansion leading to bone marrow narrowing and extramedullary hematopoiesis
 * It can also result in blindness, facial paralysis, and deafness, due to the increased pressure put on the nerves by the extra bone
 * Abnormal cortical bone morphology
 * Abnormal form of the vertebral bodies
 * Abnormality of temperature regulation
 * Abnormality of the ribs
 * Abnormality of vertebral epiphysis morphology
 * Bone pain
 * Cranial nerve paralysis
 * Craniosynostosis
 * Hearing impairment
 * Hypocalcemia

Malignant infantile osteopetrosis
Autosomal recessive osteopetrosis (ARO), also known as malignant infantile osteopetrosis or infantile malignant osteopetrosis (IMO), is a rare type of skeletal dysplasia characterized by a distinct radiographic pattern of overall increased density of the bones with fundamental involvement of the medullary portion. Infantile osteopetrosis typically manifests in infancy. Diagnosis is principally based on clinical and radiographic evaluation, confirmed by gene analysis where applicable. As a result of medullary canal obliteration and bony expansion, grave pancytopenia, cranial nerve compression, and pathologic fractures may ensue. The prognosis is poor if untreated. The classic radiographic features include endobone or "bone-within-bone" appearance in the spine, pelvis and proximal femora, upper limbs, and short tubular bones of the hand. Additionally, there is the Erlenmeyer flask deformity type 2 which is characterized by the absence of normal diaphysial metaphysical modeling of the distal femora with abnormal radiographic appearance of trabecular bone and alternating radiolucent metaphyseal bands.

The precise and early diagnosis of infantile osteopetrosis is important for management of complications, genetic counselling, and timely institution of appropriate treatment, namely hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), which offers a satisfactory treatment modality for a considerable percentage of infantile osteopetrosis. Amelioration of radiographic bone lesions after HSCT in infantile osteopetrosis has been proposed as an important indicator of success of the therapy. A few publications with limited study participants have demonstrated the resolution of skeletal radiographic pathology following HSCT.

Adult osteopetrosis
Autosomal dominant osteopetrosis (ADO) is also known as Albers-Schönberg disease. Most do not know they have this disorder because most individuals do not show any symptoms. However, those who do show symptoms will typically have a curvature of the spine (scoliosis) and multiple bone fractures. There are two types of adult osteopetrosis based on the basis of radiographic, biochemical, and clinical features. Many patients will have bone pains. The defects are very common and include neuropathies due to cranial nerve entrapment, osteoarthritis, and carpal tunnel syndrome. About 40% of patients will experience recurrent fractures of their bones. 10% of patients will have osteomyelitis of the mandible.

Causes
The various types of osteopetrosis are caused by genetic changes (mutations) in one of at least ten genes. There is nothing a parent can do before, during or after a pregnancy to cause osteopetrosis in a child.

The genes associated with osteopetrosis are involved in the development and/or function of osteoclasts, cells that break down bone tissue when old bone is being replaced by new bone (bone remodeling). This process is necessary to keep bones strong and healthy. Mutations in these genes can lead to abnormal osteoclasts, or having too few osteoclasts. If this happens, old bone cannot be broken down as new bone is formed, so bones become too dense and prone to breaking. Normally, bone growth is a balance between osteoblasts (cells that create bone tissue) and osteoclasts (cells that destroy bone tissue). Those with osteopetrosis have a deficiency of osteoclasts, meaning too little bone is being resorbed, resulting in too much bone being created.
 * Mutations in the CLCN7 gene cause most cases of autosomal dominant osteopetrosis, 10-15% of cases of autosomal recessive osteopetrosis (the most severe form), and all known cases of intermediate autosomal osteopetrosis.
 * Mutations in the TCIRG1 gene cause about 50% of cases of autosomal recessive osteopetrosis.
 * Mutations in the IKBKG gene cause X-linked osteopetrosis.
 * Mutations in other genes are less common causes of osteopetrosis.
 * In about 30% percent of affected people, the cause is unknown.

Mechanisms
Normal bone growth is achieved by a balance between bone formation by osteoblasts and bone resorption (breakdown of bone matrix) by osteoclasts. In osteopetrosis, the number of osteoclasts may be reduced, normal, or increased. Most importantly, osteoclast dysfunction mediates the pathogenesis of this disease.

Osteopetrosis is caused by underlying mutations that interfere with the acidification of the osteoclast resorption pit, for example due to a deficiency of the carbonic anhydrase enzyme encoded by the CA2 gene. Carbonic anhydrase is required by osteoclasts for proton production. Without this enzyme hydrogen ion pumping is inhibited and bone resorption by osteoclasts is defective, as an acidic environment is needed to dissociate calcium hydroxyapatite from the bone matrix. As bone resorption fails while bone formation continues, excessive bone is formed.

Mutations in at least nine genes cause the various types of osteopetrosis. Mutations in the CLCN7 gene are responsible for about 75 percent of cases of autosomal dominant osteopetrosis, 10 to 15 percent of cases of autosomal recessive osteopetrosis, and all known cases of intermediate autosomal osteopetrosis. TCIRG1 gene mutations cause about 50 percent of cases of autosomal recessive osteopetrosis. Mutations in other genes are less common causes of autosomal dominant and autosomal recessive forms of the disorder. The X-linked type of osteopetrosis, OL-EDA-ID, results from mutations in the IKBKG gene. In about 30 percent of all cases of osteopetrosis, the cause of the condition is unknown.

The genes associated with osteopetrosis are involved in the formation, development, and function of specialized cells called osteoclasts. These cells break down bone tissue during bone remodeling, a normal process in which old bone is removed and new bone is created to replace it. Bones are constantly being remodeled, and the process is carefully controlled to ensure that bones stay strong and healthy.

Mutations in any of the genes associated with osteopetrosis lead to abnormal or missing osteoclasts. Without functional osteoclasts, old bone is not broken down as new bone is formed. As a result, bones throughout the skeleton become unusually dense. The bones are also structurally abnormal, making them prone to fracture. These problems with bone remodeling underlie all of the major features of osteopetrosis.

Diagnosis
The differential diagnosis of osteopetrosis includes other disorders that produce osteosclerosis. They constitute a wide array of disorders with clinically and radiologically diverse manifestations. Among the differential diagnosis are hereditary ostoesclerosing dysplasias such as; neuropathic infantile osteopetrosis, infantile osteopetrosis with renal tubular acidosis, infantile osteopetrosis with immunodeficiency, infantile osteopetrosis with leukocyte adhesion deficiency syndrome (LAD-III), pyknodysostosis (osteopetrosis acro-osteolytica), osteopoikilosis (Buschke–Ollendorff syndrome), osteopathia striata with cranial sclerosis, mixed sclerosing skeletal dysplasias, progressive diaphyseal dysplasia (Camurati–Engelmann disease), SOST-related sclerosing skeletal dysplasias. Besides, the differential diagnosis includes acquired conditions that induce osteosclerosis such as osteosclerotic metastasis notably carcinomas of the prostate gland and breast, Paget's disease of bone, myelofibrosis (primary disorder or secondary to intoxication or malignancy), Erdheim–Chester disease, osteosclerosing types of osteomyelitis, sickle cell disease, hypervitaminosis D, and hypoparathyroidism.

Treatment
It was the first genetic disease treated with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (osteoclasts are derived from hematopoietic precursors). There is no cure, although curative therapy with bone marrow transplantion is being investigated in clinical trials. It is believed the healthy marrow will provide cells from which osteoclasts will develop. If complications occur in children, patients can be treated with vitamin D. Gamma interferon has also been shown to be effective, and it can be associated to vitamin D. Erythropoetin has been used to treat any associated anemia. Corticosteroids may alleviate both the anemia and stimulate bone resorption. Fractures and osteomyelitis can be treated as usual. Treatment for osteopetrosis depends on the specific symptoms present and the severity in each person. Therefore, treatment options must be evaluated on an individual basis. Nutritional support is important to improve growth and it also enhances responsiveness to other treatment options. A calcium-deficient diet has been beneficial for some affected people.

Treatment is necessary for the infantile form: Bone marrow transplantation (BMT) improves some cases of severe, infantile osteopetrosis associated with bone marrow failure, and offers the best chance of longer-term survival for individuals with this type.
 * Vitamin D (calcitriol) appears to stimulate dormant osteoclasts, which stimulates bone resorption
 * Gamma interferon can have long-term benefits. It improves white blood cell function (leading to fewer infections), decreases bone volume, and increases bone marrow volume.
 * Erythropoietin can be used for anemia, and corticosteroids can be used for anemia and to stimulate bone resorption.

In pediatric (childhood) osteopetrosis, surgery is sometimes needed because of fractures. Adult osteopetrosis typically does not require treatment, but complications of the condition may require intervention. Surgery may be needed for aesthetic or functional reasons (such as multiple fractures, deformity, and loss of function), or for severe degenerative joint disease.

Prognosis
The long-term outlook for people with osteopetrosis depends on the subtype and the severity of the condition in each person. The severe infantile forms of osteopetrosis are associated with shortened life expectancy, with most untreated children not surviving past their first decade. Bone marrow transplantation seems to have cured some infants with early-onset disease. However, the long-term prognosis after transplantation is unknown. For those with onset in childhood or adolescence, the effect of the condition depends on the specific symptoms (including how fragile the bones are and how much pain is present). Life expectancy in the adult-onset forms is normal.

Prevalence
Approximately eight to 40 children are born in the United States each year with the malignant infantile type of osteopetrosis. One in every 100,000 to 500,000 individuals is born with this form of osteopetrosis. Higher rates have been found in Denmark and Costa Rica. Males and females are affected in equal numbers.

The adult type of osteopetrosis affects about 1,250 individuals in the United States. One in every 200,000 individuals is affected by the adult type of osteopetrosis. Higher rates have been found in Brazil. Males and females are affected in equal numbers.

Osteopetrosis affects one newborn out of every 20,000 to 250,000 worldwide, but the odds are much higher in the Russian region of Chuvashia (1 of every 3,500–4,000 newborns) due to genetic traits of the Chuvash people.

Recent research
Recent research demonstrated that the systematic administration of RANKL for one month to Rankl(-/-) mice, which closely resemble the human disease, significantly improved the bone phenotype and has beneficial effects on bone marrow, spleen and thymus; major adverse effects arise only when mice are clearly overtreated. Overall, it provided evidence that the pharmacological administration of RANKL represents the appropriate treatment option for RANKL-deficient ARO patients, to be validated in a pilot clinical trial.

Interferon gamma-1b is FDA-approved to delay the time to disease progression in patients with severe, malignant osteopetrosis.

Notable cases

 * Laurel Burch
 * Lil Bub
 * Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (possibly)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Osteopetrosis


text:
Academic major

An academic major is the academic discipline to which an undergraduate student formally commits. A student who successfully completes all courses required for the major qualifies for an undergraduate degree. The word major (also called concentration, particularly at private colleges) is also sometimes used administratively to refer to the academic discipline pursued by a graduate student or postgraduate student in a master's or doctoral program.

An academic major typically involves completion of a combination of required and elective courses in the chosen discipline. The latitude a student has in choosing courses varies from program to program. An academic major is administered by select faculty in an academic department. A major administered by more than one academic department is called an interdisciplinary major. In some settings, students may be permitted to design their own major, subject to faculty approval.

In the United States, students are usually not required to choose their major discipline when first enrolling as an undergraduate. In addition, most colleges and universities require that all students take a general core curriculum in the liberal arts. Normally students are required to commit by the end of their second academic year at latest, and some schools even disallow students from declaring a major until this time. A student who declares two academic majors is said to have a double major. A coordinate major is an ancillary major designed to complement the primary one. A coordinate major requires fewer course credits to complete. Many colleges also allow students to declare a minor field, a secondary discipline in which they also take a substantial number of classes, but not so many as would be necessary to complete a major.

History
The roots of the academic major as we now know it first surfaced in the 19th century as "alternative components of the undergraduate degree". Before that, all students receiving an undergraduate degree would be required to study the same slate of courses geared at a comprehensive "liberal education".

In 1825, the University of Virginia initiated an educational approach that would allow students to choose from an area of focus. Offering eight options (which included ancient languages, anatomy, medicine), other higher educational systems in Europe began to develop into a stricter specialization approach to studies after the American Civil War.

In the United States, in the second half of the 19th century, concentrated foci at the undergraduate level began to prosper and popularize, but the familiar term "major" did not appear until 1877 in a Johns Hopkins University catalogue. The major generally required 2 years of study, while the minor required one.

From 1880 to 1910, Baccalaureate granting American institutions vastly embraced a free-elective system, where students were endowed with a greater freedom to explore intellectual curiosities.

The 1930s witnessed the appearance of first interdisciplinary major: American studies. Culture was the grounding concept and orchestrating principle for its courses. 1960s to 1970s experienced a new tide of interdisciplinary majors and a relaxation of curriculum and graduation requirements. (Civil Rights Movement spawned Women's studies and Black Studies, for example.) In the 1980s and 1990s, "interdisciplinary studies, multiculturalism, feminist pedagogy, and a renewed concern for the coherence and direction of the undergraduate program began to assail the Baccalaureate degree dominated by the academic major."

Major's significance
The academic major is considered a defining and dominant characteristic of the undergraduate degree. "The ascendancy of the disciplines in the late nineteenth century and their continuing dominance throughout the twentieth century have left an indelible imprint on the shape and direction of the academic major" and research affirms that the academic major is the strongest and clearest curricular link to gains in student learning. While general education is considered to be the breadth component of an undergraduate education, the major is commonly deemed the depth aspect. Choice of major has a significant impact on employment prospects and lifetime earnings.

Discourse and disagreement
Through its development, scholars, academics, and educators have disagreed on the purpose and nature of the undergraduate major. Generally, proponents of the major and departmental system "argue that they enable an academic community to foster the development, conservation and diffusion of knowledge." In contrast, critics "claim that they promote intellectual tribalism, where specialization receives favor over the mastery of multiple epistemologies, where broader values of liberal learning and of campus unity are lost, and where innovation is inhibited due to parochial opposition to new sub-specialties and research methods."

Difference from academic concentration
In many universities, an academic concentration is a focus within a specific academic major, that is a field of study within a specific academic major. For example, interdisciplinary programs in humanities or social sciences will require a student to pick a specific academic concentration as a focus within their academic major, such as an academic major in Interdisciplinary Humanities with an academic concentration in Film or an academic major in Interdisciplinary Social Sciences with an academic concentration in Geography. At several art schools and liberal arts colleges, an academic concentration serves a similar function to an academic minor at other universities, that is an academic discipline outside of the student's academic major in which they take a number of classes. At Brown University and Harvard University, however, the term "concentration" refers simply to the major field.

At the doctoral studies level, an academic major or major field refers to a student's primary focus within their degree program while a minor or minor field refers to their secondary focus. For example, a doctoral student studying history might pursue their degree in history with a major field in war and society and a minor field in postcolonial studies.

Impacted majors
An impacted major is a major for which more students apply for than the school can accommodate, a classic example of demand exceeding supply. When that occurs, the major becomes "impacted" and so is susceptible to higher standards of admission.

For example, suppose that a school has minimum requirements are SATs of 1100 and a GPA of 3.0. If a person applies to an impacted major, the school can raise the minimum requirements as much as needed to weed out the students that it is unable to accommodate. Because of this, some students may opt to apply to a school as "Undeclared". If in the above example the school implements requirements of SATs of 1300 and a GPA of 3.4 for the impacted major, a student may find it better to apply as "Undeclared" if they meet only the minimum requirements. However, many universities, such as the University of California, Berkeley, may in turn present more difficult requirements (such as a GPA requirement in certain prerequisite classes) to enter an impacted major even once accepted to the university overall.

title: Academic major


text:
Talk:List of mail server software

Mail transfer agent
Shouldn't this page be a redirect to mail transfer agent? --Nate Silva 14:28, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Would like some help researching the various mail servers. I'm attempting to create a set of tables based on aspects rather than the current mega-table.  Reboot 23:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Bad Article Name
This article is misnamed. 'List of mail servers' implies that it is a list of physical servers located around the world. This page should be moved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splendour (talk • contribs) 06:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

+1 This is a list of mail server software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.178.30.130 (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability
Some of the other technology lists limit entries to those that have their own article. This ensures notability, of the server in this case, and eliminates the temptation of link spammers to add a URL just to increase their google ranking. Another advantage is that the discussion of notability happens at the article level, not here. Does any other editor have a problem if we start elminating entries that don't have an article (blue link) associated with them? JonHarder 22:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

 * With absence of opposing viewpoints, we can start cleaning this article by removing entries with no internal article. Servers that are unlinked, redlinked or externally linked will be removed from the lists and tables. New entries will be accepted only if an article already exists. JonHarder 21:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comparison vs list
Usually, are not comparison and list articles separate? --AndrewZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.156.40 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for comparison criteria
Maybe someone could write a matrix/table article that compares Cyrus and other similar systems (such as dovecot, uw-imap, courier) based on criteria such as: -- AndrewZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.156.40 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Supports ACL
 * Supports shared mail folders
 * Supports quotas
 * Supports which mailbox formats: mbox, maildir, maildir++, etc.
 * Supports IMAP folders arranged in a hierarchy (aka subfolders; UW-IMAP uses mbox which does not support this)

Supports DKIM

 * IMAP folder hierarchy is redundant to mailbox format support. UW-IMAP does support mix, which allows subfolders (and it supports many other mailbox formats as well). --Karnesky 07:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Authentication via filesystem? db?
What the hell is authentication via *filesystem*? Is that an odd way of saying a mail server can keep a list of users and passwords in a file? Mentioning file*system* makes me think of a structure such as having users as files or directories, and then their passwords as subdirectories or something like that.

Also, the 'DB' column is imprecise. It would be good to specify the kinds of databases, maybe some software requires something special and can't work with any SQL server for example. --Joy [shallot] 20:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

qmail comparison
there are several things wrong in the comparison table for qmail.

qmail-1.03 has no smtp over tls nor ssl.

also, netqmail-1.05 is not "open source". netqmail-1.05 contains qmail-1.03, which is 'free to use'. only the netqmail changes to qmail are open source.Jkister 07:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

postfix error
In what sense does postfix deliver IMAP support? Such basic errors mean this page cannot be trusted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.137.39.71 (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I fixed the postfix row. It looks like the table has lots of errors for others, though. --Karnesky 07:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Other" storage?
What does "other" refer to in the comparison table for storage? Only Exchange has a "yes." Could we eliminate the column & put a footnote for Exchange (if it deserves one)? --Karnesky 07:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons fundamentally flawed
The page is attempting to generalize too much on what constitutes a "mail" server. This should really be broken up by protocol, such as SMTP, IMAP, POP, HTTP (with a sub reference for the protocol version of each). Saying that Sendmail lacks SSL support, for example, is really meaningless. If the tables maintain their current structure, then the SSL field among others should be moved over into a column group describing client, rather than server oriented features. Fehrgo 13:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

proposed guideline for inclusion
i've proposed this on a number of other lists, where it's been met with no opposition. fundamentally, the argument is that 'for lists of notable X, if X doesn't have it's own wikipedia article, it is not notable'. take care that i'm not saying that a given X is implicitly not notable - i'm merely saying that for a list, it's most helpful to confine what's listed to that which is already notable enough that it has a referring wikipedia article for people to learn more about it. on that basis, i would propose eliding all of the 'redlinked' mailservers listed. if there's a desire to have that mailserver listed, the editor should author a new article for that mailserver, then add the name back to the list. on the basis of WP:BOLD, i'm going to do so now. if there are strenuous objections, we can certainly discuss the rationale here. Anastrophe (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

oh, duh, i left out what is the primary reason for doing this: vandals. vandals love lists where they can dump plausible sounding entries that won't/can't be challenged. I've run across tons of these. by eliminating all redlinked (or plaintext) entries, the vandals have no entre. Anastrophe (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Article name
Should'nt this article be renamed to "List of mail server software"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.129.172.200 (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

tari bun ni bhos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.153.84 (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of mail server software


text:
Talk:Deep Blue versus Kasparov, 1996, Game 1

THE DAY THAT I SENSED A NEW KIND OF INTELLIGENCE
Why is there no mention of this article by Kasparov on game 1 on this move? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,984305,00.html 173.252.35.134 (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Updated article on same issue: http://time.com/3705316/deep-blue-kasparov/ Xonatron (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

When was this game played ?
The game was played on February 2, 1996 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ? On Deep Blue, the date was February 10, 1996. Can someone confirm this, please ? -- PFHLai 09:25, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

 * According to Chessbase's Megabase 2004, it was the 10th. I'll edit accordingly. --Camembert

 * Thanks. I also found the same February 10th date on http://www.uschess.org/results/tnmt/96kdb/game1.html and http://www.queensac.com/deepblueday.html . The event will be featured on the MainPage as a selected anniversary on this date. Thanks, again. -- PFHLai 17:44, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

On this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_-_Kasparov,_1997,_Game_6, it says that Kasparov won the first game: "Kasparov had won the first game, lost the second game (after resigning in a drawn position) and drawn games 3, 4 and 5 after having advantageous positions in all three. He was tired and dejected before this game." This page says Kasparov lost the first game. http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/

IN 1997 NOT 1996 !!!!!!! Lorenzo Alali french wikipedia user

Slant about rematch
The second paragraph makes several unsupported POV statements, including
 * The increase in strength between Deep Blue and "Deeper" Blue was minimal (the main article on Deep Blue says that several upgrades were made)
 * It doubled its power from 100,000,000 pos/s to 200,000,000 pos/s calculations, among other strength adjustments and was noted that Deep Blue 1997 would beat Deep Blue 1996. Information on this may be found in "Behind Deep Blue: Building the Computer that Defeated the World Chess Champion" book. Xonatron (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Kasparov suffered a bout of paranoia (I remember this from reports at the time, but citations are needed)
 * That IBM retired Deep Blue because it had scored its publicity coup (Quite likely IBM made a calculated decision that the risk of losing wasn't worth any benefits of winning again, but this position would need to be supported).

I don't have a concrete suggestion for fixing this (or I'd have done so :-), but the main Deep Blue article takes a more even-handed view. Given this, much of the material can probably be removed. -Dmh 16:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

NOT a copyvio
Note that, linked to from the bottom of this page, was written by the same person as the original author of this article. There is no copyright infringement. --Camembert

It's been noted that much of this text is based on http://www.dwheeler.com/misc/deepblue-kasparov.txt - but this is not a copyright violation. I am the author of the text on that page, and I have contributed that text to Wikipedia. I record that information here (under "discussion") so that it won't be accidentally deleted speedily as a copyvio. I've modified the web page location noting its contribution to Wikipedia, to make sure that's clear. Enjoy! -- Dwheeler 18:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing it up Dwheeler. Sorry for the speedy tag. After 3 years most of your analysis still stands! Sander123 20:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Pity the anlysis was so poor. Where did question mark on 25...Kh8? come from. It should, if anything be an ! and then followed by 27...f4! (27...d4 was inaccurate) after which black is better, with a draw likely. SunCreator (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Confusing and OR
I realize something like this is bound to get very technical, but could it perhaps get simplifed some? I found myself completely lost in trying to read through the jargon. Also, statements such as "This is an excellent place for White's queen." reek of original research. Cite "this is good/bad"-type statements to experts.--SeizureDog 23:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge
Ok, I can accept that the series itself is reasonably notable, and so warrants coverage, however, the individual games do not need their own articles. They can easily be covered in one single page. And oddly, there doesn't even seem to be a combined page on the events, so obviously that page will have to be constructed, though I'm uncertain as to the best choice for a name. FrozenPurpleCube 21:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is plenty on this match in the May 1996 issue of Chess Life, and plenty more on the rematch in the "Special Summer" edition of the same publication. I would support having an article each on both matches, but there is a lot of work to do in making that, and there are many other things I would like to do. However until we get such articles, a merged item like what you did will just look like an incoherent mess of loosely stitiched together games. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm going to explain in more detail why this should be merged, by using some analogies. Let us take the World Series. There are articles on individual years like 1989 World Series or 2003 World Series not on the individual games in the series. This is also true for the regular season baseball games. Coverage of the season, not individual articles on the games.  Yet all of these events receive repeated and unambiguously notable coverage.

 * Beyond that, there wasn't even a page on the overall Kasparov/Deep Blue matches. Is there not a problem in that itself? Specific coverage of the matches is one thing, but they did nothing to put things into a bigger picture. In short, it's just a bad way to do things and less helpful to the individual user. I fully intended to fix up the page to present a more coherent picture, I even said so in the edit summary.  So your objection that the page didn't look good when merge doesn't sway me.  It was nothing more than the contents as they were originally, and since I intended to fix that problem, I don't see why you're objecting.  If you want a separate page on both series, I can accept that, but the current setup, with a few games in the series (note, not all of them, just a few), is not acceptable to me.  If you don't want to clean it up, I will.  It might not be overnight, it might take to the end of the week or longer, but I ask that you give me time to do it.  If that isn't acceptable to you, I'll seek a third opinion. FrozenPurpleCube 14:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I really think you should know a bit about the subject before you start trying to clean it up. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically, we cannot merge these articles until we have a suitable place to merge them to. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please try to convince me with ways besides telling me I am ignorant. That is not persuasive.  You simply can't assert "I know better" to get your position done.  And frankly, given the state of the articles now, I don't see that there's any loss to them being in one place versus not. FrozenPurpleCube 15:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And since I don't expect to convince you of anything, I'm going to seek a third opinion. FrozenPurpleCube 15:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Further up you compare the situation to World Series. Have you tried comparing it to inidividual Super Bowl matches, articles such as Super Bowl XVI? Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Superbowl is a yearly match, occurs once each year. Unlike the world series, it is a single game.  See the difference?  Now the NFL does have yearly playoffs that are more than one game.  Guess what? National Football League playoffs, 2006-07 is the way it is done, instead of individual articles on the games.  This is the same situation with the Deep Blue Kasparov matches. An individual article on each game?  Not acceptable, especially when there's not even one to provide perspective on the overall series.   FrozenPurpleCube

 * FrozenPurpleCube, on what are you basing your merge request, besides the fact that there is no page on the overall Kasparov/Deep Blue matches? I do support a general article about the match, with links like "See Deep Blue - Kasparov, 1996, Game 1 for the main article", but I think merging the individual games into one article is not a good idea. Why don't you take your time and create a new page in your own user space at User:FrozenPurpleCube/Kasparov versus Deep Blue? Then we can discuss it. --ZeroOne ( talk | @ ) 20:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On the basis that appropriate coverage of the individual games is not of the in depth level which a subject should be before being covered in its own article, nor in line with the practices of Wikipedia as a whole. It's pretty simple really.  If you wish me to quote from WP:MERGE then
 * There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
 * If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.
 * are the criteria I would suggest. And I think it's clear an article on Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov is preferable than articles on the individual games which give no background on context.  Do you disagree with that concept?  FrozenPurpleCube 20:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I think the point 2 clearly does not hold. First, I don't think that this article counts as a short one, do you? Second, all the required background material is given in the first paragraph. The second paragraph is the greatest common divisor between the articles and would form the main content of the Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov article (which is currently redirected into this game 1). I guessed the point 1 would be argued. These subjects overlap for their first paragraph or two only, the games themselves are individual entities and do not overlap with each other. I'll quote Summary style:
 * Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs;
 * many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points (lead section),
 * others need a moderate amount of info on the topic's more important points (a set of multi-paragraph sections), and
 * some readers need a lot of detail on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate articles).
 * So the Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov article should explain the backgrounds and the current detailed articles about individual games should be left like they are, linking back to the summary article. --ZeroOne ( talk | @ ) 21:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, this is what I had in mind: User:ZeroOne/Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov. Please comment on and/or improve it. What do you all think? When/If this is moved to the main namespace, the individual game articles will be edited to link back to this one and redundant background information should be removed from them. --ZeroOne ( talk | @ ) 21:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would say that this article is actually a short one, (though it is longer than the others like Deep Blue - Kasparov, 1996, Game 5 given that the vast majority of it is coverage of individual moves in the match. That might be valid content in a book on Chess, or on the series itself, but even the articles on the World Series don't cover every inning, or the ones on the Superbowls every play.  Even if you believe a move by move recounting is a good idea (and I'm not completely rejecting it), summarization would at the least increase the value accessibility to everyone.  FrozenPurpleCube 22:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Right now, I think the style you are suggesting for the combined page is good, but I do not agree that the individual games should have pages. Going to that much detail just exceeds the provenance of Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 22:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Chess is different from baseball or American football. In chess, you have to know every move to know what the current position/situation is.  In baseball, you can just say "player X hit a home run".  In football you can say "player Y passed for a 15 yard gain", and it makes sense.  In chess, you can't say "Black moved his rook to the far side of the board".  It makes no sense unless it is in context of the exact position, which requires that all moves are known.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I agree. One could easily argue that knowing every single play in a football or baseball game is as important as knowing any move in a chess game.  After all, don't you need to know how the bases got loaded and 2 outs up before understanding the importance of a home run?  Besides, if all the article has to say is a recounting of the moves, I'm sorry, but there's no reason for it to be an individual article.  There has to be more content than that.  (And yes, that is a problem with several of the articles I'm suggesting be merged.  If you feel you have to include all of the moves, fine, but don't make it an article of its own just because you think the game is important.  Wikipedia doesn't list the statlines from every baseball game, or every world series.  Why not?  Because that is indiscriminate information.   FrozenPurpleCube 15:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Do you think that the moves of this game are "indiscriminate information"? They aren't a "how to".  Bubba73 (talk), 00:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

 * There is no deep strategy in football or baseball the way there is in chess. The strategic goals can go through the entire game, building on each position and each move.  In chess, you must know the precise position in order for a move to make sense.  In football, it usually doesn't matter if they get a first down on the 41 yard line or the 42 yard line.  In chess it makes a big difference whether the pawn is on e6 or e7.  Tou can't sensibly recount a chess game without giving every move.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

 * The thing is that football, baseball & such sports are "analog": they can be broken into smaller and smaller pieces. You might want to give the situation play by play or even player's locations within one meter every second but then someone could argue that you need to know the location within one inch every .1 seconds to know the position. Chess, on the other hand, is "digital": the smallest element that has any meaning is clearly defined: it's just one move. Not quarter a move, not hundredth of a move, not the move 100 times a second: it's just a move. Thus it is a lot more reasonable to list a game of chess move by move than to list a game of American football play by play, since the football version is always only an approximation whereas the chess moves describe the game totally completely. --ZeroOne ( talk | @ ) 21:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Good points, it is also like continuous versus discreet. Bubba73 (talk), 23:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

 * You can recreate a chess game completely from the moves, you can't do that with football/baseball/etc. Also, very often people DO play through the moves of a famous chess game.  I don't know if many people go back and try to recreate a football or baseball game. Bubba73 (talk), 23:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

 * You know, I don't think you read what I said. This is the important part:  Besides, if all the article has to say is a recounting of the moves, I'm sorry, but there's no reason for it to be an individual article.  There has to be more content than that.  (And yes, that is a problem with several of the articles I'm suggesting be merged.  If you feel you have to include all of the moves, fine, but don't make it an article of its own just because you think the game is important.  Wikipedia doesn't list the statlines from every baseball game, or every world series.  Why not?  Because that is indiscriminate information.
 * Get back to me when you're willing to acknowledge that point. I'm not terribly bothered by recounting the moves of the game if you can show the game itself important.  If you can't....well, that's a problem.  This is even true with these games.  I think one article would work just as well, as if you can't get more individual content, a merge offers the maximum information in one place, which is more of an advantage than having a bunch of stub-level pages.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Actually, there are replays of many football and baseball games, with notes and records of events in the game.  It's even been used to make virtual replays of the game.  And for boxing, there's even been a movie based on the concept.   So no, I don't agree that the difference in granularity is meaningful.  Being able to be precise doesn't justify including the information.  What does is significance outside the information.    FrozenPurpleCube 16:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

 * So what is wrong with someone being able to replay a chess game? With all of the moves, someone can do that.  It is completely non-indiscriminant.  If you listed all of the possible moves of a chess game, that would be indiscriminant.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Let's take Deep Blue - Kasparov, 1997, Game 6 as a simple example. Kasparov made a bad move on his 7th move: 7... h6. But whether h6 is a good move, a bad move, or in between depends on the exact position. And to see why that was a bad move and how Deep Blue exploited it requires the rest of the moves of the game. Bubba73 (talk), 18:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion
I came here via WP:Third opinion. I haven't done this before, but I'll give it a try. I think the one big article vs. several small articles is an editorial decision best left to the editors working a particular subject, as long as the results look reasonable and there is sufficient verifiable information in each article. My first impression of the Game 1 article was quite positive. It was clear, well laid out and about the right size. I know the game but am not a chess expert. I am not able to follow a game by reading chess notation. I got a nice feel for what happened from the article. It seemed like a model for a chess game article on Wikipedia. Same for 1997, Game 6. I'd like to see 1997 Game 2 expanded. Perhaps a few more positions such as 45 mentioned at the end.

I do agree that there is a need for a summary article. It might consist of the second paragraph of the Game 1 article, a table listing each game with its outcome and significance, links to individual articles about key games, and ideally more about what has happened since. In my opinion, the complete moves of individual games should not be in the summary article as they would put off non-expert readers.

I don't think the Baseball World Series articles are controlling precedents. The needs of each game are different. And one could argue that the Deep Blue - Kasparov matches are more notable than any World Series since they raise man vs machine issues that go far beyond the game. --agr 12:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, unfortunately, the problem is, these articles don't even discuss that issue. Perhaps that might be worth adding. FrozenPurpleCube 13:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Having a summary, with the technical details of each game pushed to individual articles, might make it easier for an editor who is not a chess expert to add well-sourced material on the broader implications. Just to be clear, I'm not saying the organization you proposed couldn't work, just that this is a judgement call and having a separate article per game is a reasonable way to go.--agr 14:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it might be, but that would depend on the level of content available. However, I don't think it's the case yet.  I think it'd be better to work from one page, and expand later.  In any case, the lack of a over-arching summary is the biggest problem.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that a summary article is needed. Why not write one?--agr 18:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said, I believe in merging the pages together, but when I tried that I got reverted before I could get a chance to get some resources and clean it up. Since I've got no interest in covering the individual games in their own articles, I'll leave the work to the people who have expressed a desire to do it that way.  As long as they're willing to cover the series as a whole, my main concerns are met.   Saves me the trouble of going to the library. FrozenPurpleCube 18:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Well I already began writing the summary article, as I stated above: User:ZeroOne/Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov. I'm planning to import it to the main namespace after finishing the initial copying of the moves and writing two-sentence summaries. I already suggested you should start such a fork in your own user space. Now that I've done so, we could compare the results. --ZeroOne ( talk | @ ) 21:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Good, when the summary article gets to the namespace that should settle the issue. Bubba73 (talk), 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I have zero interest in making a page just to compare results with yours. If I don't feel the page version you have is adequate, I'll just make appropriate edits to it or make suggestions as to improvement.   FrozenPurpleCube 15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I was speaking of ZeroOne's page. Bubba73 (talk), 16:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Summary page
I'm finished, I consider User:ZeroOne/Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov ready to be published in the main namespace. However, I cannot move it as there is a redirect in place of the target article, so I've just placed a move request at Requested moves. In case you disagree with me, just go ahead and delete the request, fix the problem and add the request back. Or delete the request and leave a constructive comment here. If/When the article is moved, Deep Blue - Kasparov, 1996, Game 5 and Deep Blue - Kasparov, 1997, Game 2 should be changed into redirects. About referencing: if no reference number is given, all the claims are referenced to (which is listed in the references) and its sub-pages. --ZeroOne ( talk | @ ) 00:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

 * A redirect page with that name exists, but I think you can just take your text and copy it over to the new page. Bubba73 (talk), 01:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I moved the text. Bubba73 (talk), 01:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Kasparov white or black?
The text in this article is ambiguous in terms of which side is Kasparov and which is Deep Blue. Above the board it shows Kasparov as Black, however the game annotation indicates that Kasparov is white. Which is correct?

Trojanfoe (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Kasparov is Black in this game. The comment after White's 23rd move may be confusing: "This type of pawn sacrifice is typical of Kasparov's style of play. Indeed, Kasparov commented that he might have played 23. d5 himself".  It is talking about White's move, but it is a move by Deep Blue that Kasparov might have played if he were White.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad analysis
THe analysis here is pretty much nonsense. The game is even until 27...d4, which loses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.169.158 (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Raymond Keene says White probably stands better after 21...f5, and after 25.b3 says Black is still not yet lost if he plays 25...Rd8! – so, he disagrees with you. Also, do you have any GM (or even IM or Master) analysis which supports your contention that 27...d4 was the losing move? Also, the analysis in the article seems pretty reasonable to me, can you be more specific regarding what you think is "nonsense"? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Well, Houdini 1.5 (34/57), which is far beyond GM strength, gives an evaluation of 0.0 after 27...f4, and White +.70 after 27...d4. For another example, the analysis gives a ? to 25...Kh8, which Houdini judges as the best move (0.0), while recommending 25...Ne7 (-.31). For another, 25. b3 is given an exclamation, but Houdini judges it as .2 inferior to 25. b4. So most of the punctuated moves are misspunctuated, the blunder that lost the game is unpunctuated. I agree that most of the comments themselves are pretty reasonable (except for the one on move 25), but because text never says anything like "this is the fatal error", the effect of the mispunctuation is to make a reader believe that black lost because of the ? moves, which is not the case.

 * All of which raises a key question: can analysis cited to a published piece of software (such as Houdini) with excellent bona fides be considered verifiable under wikipedia guidelines? Erniecohen (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Erniecohen (talk)

 * That is a very good question, and it needs to be addressed beyond just this article. It seems like a grey area to me.  My feeling is that it would be regarded as original research if an editor did it, but maybe not.  It also might be a reliable source and verify issue, since there are so many variables - the version of the software, what computer it runs on, how much time it is allowed to run, etc.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bubba, but see the distinction more clearly (i.e., not a grey area): if Houdini's analysis is published in a reliable source, it's fine to include, otherwise no (it's original research). Sasata (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, I don't see any problem if it is published in a reliable source - only if the editor does it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree that the analysis is pretty much nonsense (not precise or accurate) but it is what we have from sources. It's the same all over Wikipedia. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that the analysis is bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebestwikipedian (talk • contribs) 21:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Quote about game
Charles Krauthammer wrote a comment on move 29. Nxb7: "Deep Blue's king was under savage assault by a World Champion. Any human Any human under such assault by a world champion would be staring at his own king trying to figure out how to get away. Instead, Deep Blue ignored the threat and quite nonchalantly went hunting for lowly pawns at the other end of the board. In fact, at the point of maximum peril, Deep Blue expended two moves - many have died giving Kasparov even one - to snap one pawn. It was as if, at Gettysburg, General Meade had sent his soldiers out for a spot of apple-picking moments before Beckett's charge, because he had calculated that they could get back to their positions with a half-second to spare. In humans, that is called sangfroid. And if you don't have any sang, you can be very froid. But then again if Meade had known absolutely - by calculating the precise trajectories of all the bullets and all the bayonets and all the cannons in Pickett's division - the time of arrival of the enemy he could, indeed, without fear, have ordered his men to pick apples. Which is exactly what Deep Blue did. It had calculated every possible combination of Kasparov's available moves and determined with absolute certainty that it could return from its pawn-picking expedition and destroy Kasparov exactly one move before Kasparov could destroy it. Which it did. It takes more than nerves of steel to do that. It takes a silicon brain. No human can achieve absolute certainty because no human can be sure to have seen everything. Deep Blue can."

This appears in https://en.chessbase.com/post/25-years-ago-deep-blue-beats-kasparov and partially in https://www.journalstandard.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2011/03/15/my-view-education-must-appreciate/44912266007/ (And was memorable enough that I thought of it 25+ years later.) Does anyone have the original citation?

Jrincayc (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Ah, found it at https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,984175-2,00.html and added it to wikiquote. Jrincayc (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)