User talk:BrookTheHumming

Edits

I just want to say your edits were fine indeed, and shouldn't have been reverted. The user in question doesn't take the time to look into what is being preformed and have noticed that several times. In addition, The personal attacks in the edit summaries aren't even allowed and also has a history of that. If you find this counties I would recommend bringing up the issues to the admins, here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Disney Princess, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Who Framed Roger Rabbit (franchise) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Who Framed Roger Rabbit (franchise), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who Framed Roger Rabbit (franchise) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:A Loud House Christmas Movie: Naughty or Nice

Hello BrookTheHumming. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:A Loud House Christmas Movie: Naughty or Nice, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on List of One Piece characters

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of One Piece characters, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Koisuru One Piece

For example, in the creator template Eiichiro Oda is credited as the original story author as with past One Piece media but Daiki Ikahara is credited as the author (story and art) not creator, is there any way to figure things out. VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Two Chips and a Miss

Hello, BrookTheHumming. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Two Chips and a Miss".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

"Avengers" redirects at RfD

Hello. I've nominated Avengers (film series)Avengers (film series) at redirects for discussion. You are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 25 § Avengers (film series). Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of One Piece pirates

Hello, BrookTheHumming. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of One Piece pirates, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Apology and explanations (and request for permission) behind actions on the "List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films" Wikipedia page

To BrookTheHumming (reply to simple note): If you're receiving this message (or to whom it may concern), I'd like to sincerely apologize for removing the six 1940s package films ("Saludos Amigos" in 1943, "The Three Caballeros" in 1945, "Make Mine Music" in 1946, "Fun and Fancy Free" in 1947, "Melody Time" in 1948, and "The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad" in 1949) from the "Released films" table of the official "List of Walt Disney Animation Studios" films and putting them in the "Associated productions" table, but at the same time, may I kindly ask for permission to do this? I did this because I'm trying not to diminish the roles of these six 1940s anthology or package films (except for "Fantasia" in 1940, "The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh" in 1977, and "Fantasia 2000" in 1999/2000, which are also anthology films produced by the animation studio) within the main animated canon of the animation studio, but to re-classify them based on their actual purposes behind production at the time. I'm not going to fully explain this behind what I've done and what I am or trying to do on the official "Walt Disney Animation Studios films" page today, but what I can say is that I (a Disney Animation fan myself, too) have watched and re-watched all six of those films and even if this is unofficial at the moment (and are still part of the main canon), I had the impression that they need to be re-evaluated after 80+ years from their first releases (not 100 years since the birth of the animation studio and company) during their time of release. But if or when I do this again, I'd just like to kindly remind you that I do not plan to repeat or commit any editing crimes on Wikipedia nor the page (or do the same mistake again) nor get my account blocked or autoblocked and address denies in my permission requests and accusations towards my actions, but I fully pledge myself to explaining them and provide additional but accurate and/or relevant sources to other and official pages related to this (the "Reception" parts of each of the official pages for the six 1940s package or anthology films, the "Wartime Era" film description in the page for the "Golden age of American animation," etc.) very, very soon (tomorrow and the days after today). I'll explain to you more on this tomorrow and thank you very much for your clarity and openness. Have a nice day. Inanimanitatist (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Why can't you "fully explain this behind what I've done and what I am or trying to do"? No one here's under any sort of NDA or secretive agreement, you can explain to us directly why you're trying to do this. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

​I apologize for the late message, Harryhenry1, but I needed time to compose myself of the right words so that I can get myself ready to explain to you directly the reasons behind my actions (or what I'm trying to do). I'm done now and here's my full and direct explanation:

"You are absolutely right in asking me for a complete explanation behind my actions, and I sincerely apologize for any impression of mine in being elusive or operating under secrecy (in any way). ​I also know that there is no NDA or secretive agreement behind this, but the shortness in my earlier explanation was because of the complicatedness of the issue and my attempts to be concise within the Wikipedia edit summary limits, which, with hindsight, was unhelpful.

​

Anyways, my actual intentions in reclassifying the six 1940s package films by Disney (Saludos Amigos, The Three Caballeros, Make Mine Music, Fun and Fancy Free, Melody Time, and The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr.​ Toad, respectively) is not to remove them from the 'Disney Animated Canon' entirely or diminish their roles within it. ​Instead, it is accurately for me to say that my intentions are to re-evaluate and re-categorize them as 'animated compilation films' or 'package films' (in any way) within the broader filmography of Walt Disney Animation Studios. I wanted to take re-classifications towards them as an essential one because these films were produced under unique circumstances: ​wartime constraints and extreme financial pressures during and after the economic impact from World War II. ​They were very necessary to keeping the animation studio and/or its feature film division afloat at a time when resources were scarce and traditional full-length narrative features were economically impractical for them to produce.

​

These six anthology or package films, unlike "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" (1937) or "Cinderella" (1950), were created as collections of shorter segments, sometimes with the use of live-action bridging material, to manage costs and maintain output. ​Even Walt Disney himself viewed them as a necessary departure, but not his preferred mode of filmmaking. ​The distinct productions behind them are aimed at and formatted with a purpose as 'compilation films' rather than single, cohesive narratives, which sets them apart from the other 58 traditionally recognized animated feature films of the animation studio, including three other anthology films that did so among critics, audiences, and Disney Animation enthusiasts ("Fantasia" in 1940, "The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh" in 1977, and "Fantasia 2000" in 1999/2000). And while those later anthology films mostly had a clearer artistic vision or served different creative purposes, the 1940s package films were mainly and absolutely a practical solution for the studio and feature film division's survival at the time.

Furthermore, by proposing their placements in the 'Associated productions' section of the "List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films" Wikipedia page or a similar categorization, I plan to provide a more meticulous and historically accurate representation of Disney's film output for during the respective period of these films. ​And this would acknowledge their crucial role as 'historical artifacts' that sustained the studio, while also distinguishing their format and production rationale from the more commonly understood 'feature films' that contain the majority of the "Disney Animated Canon" (including the three other similarly-formatted but more widely-recognized anthology films). ​Overall, I'd like to say that my actions are intended to be a good-faith effort in improving the encyclopedic accuracy of the Wikipedia page while also engaging a re-evaluation of these six films based on their original historical context rather than a simple numerical count (64 to 58) that classifies all films of the animation studio, regardless of their fundamental nature and purpose."

​

Overall, Harryhenry1, for me to summarize the full explanation behind my actions for this, my true intentions behind (despite being unofficial at the moment) re-classifying of the six 1940s package films by Disney is to improve the historical and categorical accuracy of the 'List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films' by distinguishing between the 58 traditional narrative features (including the three similarly-formatted but more widely-recognized anthology films) and the six 1940s films produced as compilations due to unique wartime economic necessities. And these films (Saludos Amigos, The Three Caballeros, Make Mine Music, Fun and Fancy Free, Melody Time, and The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. ​Toad) served a very important purpose in sustaining the studio, but their very nature as 'package films', collections of shorts, differs significantly from the single-narrative 'feature films' that make up the majority of the 'Disney Animated Canon.' ​Ultinately, I plan to not to diminish their legacy but to (even if unofficial but one day) re-evaluate and re-classify them and reason based on their original production intent and format more clearly, mostly in the 'Associated productions' section of the page, while also providing a more subtle understanding of their role as essential 'historical artifacts' within the studio's filmography, distinct from the other 58 narrative-driven animated features, including three other but more widely-recognized anthology films."

Sources (reliable and/or relevant) used:

1. https://www.polygon.com/century-of-disney/23622082/disney-package-films-wartime-shorts-ranked-make-mine-music/

2. https://cartoonresearch.com/index.php/the-disney-package-features/

3. https://arxiv.org/html/2510.21526v1

4. https://www.imdb.com/list/ls051452524/

Inanimanitatist (talk)Inanimanitatist Inanimanitatist (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

While I do appreciate the clear amount of thought you've put into this, excluding them from the Disney canon goes against what all the sources we use say, including Disney itself.

The criteria you've developed is especially strange: Why exclude the 1940s package films for "not being single narrative films", while including 3 other package films in the list anyway? (Fantasia, Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, Fantasia 2000) based on a vague and arbitrary notion of artistic respectability. And as for "they were just cheaply made to keep the studio afloat," Many Adventures was a cheaply made compilation of shorts (and previously released ones at that) to keep the studio afloat, so should that be excluded too? The practicalities of filmmaking don't keep Disney from counting them as part of an animated canon, so why should we do the same? And what's with the bit about "unofficial at the moment" and "unofficial but one day"? Are you just assuming people, including Disney itself, are going to eventually agree with you no matter what on this topic? Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

"I apologize for the late message, Harryhenry1, but I (again) needed time to compose myself of the right words so that I can get myself ready to explain to you directly what I'm still doing and answer your question properly. I am done now and here's my direct explanation and answers:

My actual goal here in proposing a re-classification or re-evaluation of the six 1940s package films by Walt Disney on Wikipedia (why I think there only 58 films and not 64) is not to completely diminish their legacy or remove them entirely from the historical output and/or filmography of Walt Disney Animation Studios (or exclude them from the "Disney Animated Canon" in any way), but to improve the factual and historical accuracy of the "List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films" page itself (and perhaps, take a re-evaluation towards any pages that always classified the number of animated films or "classics" within the "canon" as 64). ​This effort is rooted in reliable historical and critical perspectives and strictly adheres to Wikipedia's policies of verifiability and no original research, as well as make sure that any distinctions made are supported by external sources rather than my personal opinions. I want to assure you, as well as the broader Disney Animation fan or enthusiast community, that my intent is to provide a more nuanced understanding of Disney's filmography during a unique period, rather than to create confusion or frustration among you, the Disney Animation fans, and the people at Disney itself.

About what constitutes the "Disney Animated Canon," this can be very complicated, especially when considering anthology films as a part of it, other than the 55 animated feature films or more (produced with single, coherent, and traditional narratives). I want to take my proposal as a distinction between different types of anthology films based on their main production intent, specifically historical and economic contexts in which they were created, and their contemporary and historical critical and public reception (as time passed on), as well as an approach that plans to clarify why (if you think that if I'm excluding the six (6) 1940s anthology films from the "canon" or studio's filmography but not the other three (3)) certain anthology films, particularly Fantasia (1940), The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977), and Fantasia 2000 (1999/2000), which (even if I think so or not) continue to be widely accepted within the "canon" (due to presenting a unique case for staying within the studio's filmography), while the six (6) 1940s package films continue to present a different case for categorization.

For "Fantasia" in 1940, while it is (technically) made as an anthology film (similar to the six 1940s anthology films, but unlike them), it was not a collection of shorts, unrelated segments, or short animations based on unfinished story ideas, all assembled out of wartime or economic necessity, but a highly ambitious artistic endeavor by Walt Disney to blend classical music with animation. ​Originally titled as "The Concert Feature," the animated anthology film aimed to present different musical selections visually to the audience. ​And while it was not a traditional feature film with a single and coherent narrative (like the other 55 within the studio's filmography or more), its purpose was a groundbreaking artistic exploration, and it has since been recognized throughout the decades (or 80+ years ever since it was first released) as a significant achievement in animation history, both in America and the world.

For "The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh" in 1977, while it is (too and technically) made as a cheaply-made compilation or anthology film of three previously released and popular "Winnie-the-Pooh" featurettes, Walt Disney himself (before he passed away) did not believe A.A. Milne's "Winnie-the-Pooh" stories could sustain a full-length feature, which led to the creation of individual shorts at first, but the decision to combine them into a feature-length film in 1977 came in later. ​And while it is a cheaply-made anthology film too, its inclusion in the "canon" was a subsequent recognition of the beloved characters from Milne's stories and the success of its individual components, rather than a primary production decision driven by economic desperation.

Lastly, for "Fantasia 2000" in 1999 or 2000, while it is (too and technically) made as an anthology film (similar to the six 1940s anthology films), it was a direct continuation of the artistic vision of the original "Fantasia" in 1940, made to explore new musical and visual interpretations. And evem if it was an anthology film, too, ts creation was driven by a desire to extend an established artistic legacy, not as a quick solution to financial troubles.

As for the six (6) 1940s anthology or package films (Saludos Amigos in 1943, The Three Caballeros in 1945, Make Mine Music in 1946, Fun and Fancy Free in 1947, Melody Time in 1948, and The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad in 1949), they were very absolutely necessary (even in the "canon" that many know today) but fundamentally different in their production intent and receptions, critically and from audiences:

1. ​These films were a direct consequence of World War II, which severely limited Disney's staff and income by closing European markets. And with many animators drafted and a significant portion of the studio's resources dedicated to producing training and propaganda films for the U.S. ​government, the animation studio lacked the staff and budget for traditional full-length features at the time.

2. ​Following the commercial underperformances of Pinocchio in 1940, Fantasia in 1940, and Bambi in 1942, Disney faced immense financial pressure from the Bank of America, which specific focusing on less costly work. ​The package films were a way to generate income and keep the studio operating, while using unfinished story ideas and pieces left over from other projects. ​The film "Saludos Amigos" in 1943 was even given federal loan guarantees because the studio had over-expanded before European markets were closed by the war.

3. Critics and audiences, including Disney Animation fans, in the 1940s expressed a clear desire for Walt Disney to return to full-length, single-narrative features. New York Times critic "Bosley Crowther" described the package films as "a gaudy grab-bag show" with "adequate fillers-in" and "disordered" content as he expressed an experience of "precipitate ups and downs". Another critic noted that "Disney's famous cuteness... ​is hard on my stomach". ​Many felt that Walt himself had lost his vision, abandoned him as an artist, and saw him as a "sentimental, mawkish, callow, hack filmmaker". ​The "package era" films were often seen or described as "somewhat entertaining appetizers," with audiences longing for "the satisfaction of a full meal". ​And this sentiment from the public was further supported by the success of Cinderella in 1950, which proved that true feature-length animation could still thrive, and its critical and financial success marked the end of animated package films or compilation films during Walt's lifetime. ​(Additional mentioning for support: For example, "Make Mine Music" in 1946 had mixed-to-negative critical responses, being described as a "visual crime" by some reviewers. ​While "The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad" in 1949 received better reviews than its predecessors, it was still perceived as a compilation film rather than . ​The general sentiment was that audiences at the time wanted a full story, and not a collection of disjointed stories."

I apologize at this hour, Harryhenry1. I'm still not yet done explaining everything and reasoning out on my actions and I still have more to state, but it seems like the Wikipedia "Reply" space cannot handle any more sentences or statements. I will continue my explanations in another "Reply" space and I will continue to include the reliable sources that I'm using for this (not any based on original research or my own opinions, as well as no vague notion on artistic respectability or assumptions or anything).

For now, you may see what I've wrote so far but I haven't finalized it yet, so I please and kindly ask of you to not say anything yet until I'm done. (And by the way, I have to take care of school matters and homework and I may be offline to make another "Reply" space for most of the day, so I may have to focus on the lessons ahead and I'll continue to explain myself when I have the time, get back home, or when I'm online again.

Inanimanitatist (talk)Inanimanitatist Inanimanitatist (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me, Harryhenry1, but if you're receiving this at this hour, I'm done with school and I'm on my way home now so I'm now available and online again to continue my explanations and reasoning, so you can kindly say anything about it all or if there's anything that you'd like to ask me when I'm done. Here it is:

"Other than all of this, I'd just like to say that if I do this on Wikipedia, it is my responsibility to summarize what any reliable sources say, and not to argue using personal opinions (or sources based on original research) from any Wikipedia editor or predictions about any future consensus. And, in this case, it is also my responsibility towards drawing on academic works, creditable film criticisms, and/or historical accounts in order to present a distinction that clarifies the unique circumstances of the 1940s Disney package films, as well as, with objectivity, make sure that the categorization reflects established knowledge rather than any individual preferences or corporate marketing lines, which can be inconsistent over time. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Overall, Escape Orbit, I explain to you this proposed reclassification of mine because it is not an attempt to diminish the legacy of the six 1940s package films but to provide a more accurate and historically informed understanding of Disney's animated output. ​And by meticulously differentiating these films based on their wartime and economic origins, their episodic nature, and the contemporary critical and audience desire for a return to traditional narratives (other than the 3 anthology films that are similarly-formatted but continue to be widely accepted within the canon), I plan to create an entry on Wikipedia that serves as a clearer and more accurate historical record, as well as acknowledge the distinct circumstances that led to their creation while recognizing the different artistic and historical contexts of other anthology films produced within the animation studio’s filmography. ​Furthermore, I'd like to take a strong commitment towards Wikipedia's main principles of verifiability, neutrality, and no original research, and make sure that any changes are robustly supported by evidence and contribute to a more comprehensive and accessible understanding for all readers of the page and Disney Animation fans and/or enthusiasts."

Sources (reliable ones, not ones based on original research) used:

1. https://cvdhistoryandmuseums.wordpress.com/2017/10/05/the-history-of-disney-animation-part-7-make-mine-music-melody-time-fun-and-fancy-free-and-the-adventures-of-ichabod-and-mr-toad/

2. https://www.bfi.org.uk/features/many-merry-eras-disney

3. https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/10/02/the-3-building-blocks-of-trustworthy-information-lessons-from-wikipedia/

4. https://cartoonresearch.com/index.php/the-disney-package-features/

5. https://mousterpiece.substack.com/p/the-disney-canon-saludos-amigos

6. https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Walt_Disney_Productions

7. https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Saludos_Amigos

I sincerely apologize for this, Harryhenry1, but I have to stop here for today because it's night time and I have to take care of nightly homework. I know there may be some or most things in my explanation that you may find "strange" or "unfinished," as well as that you may have questions that you'd like to ask me, but please kindly let me know what they are and I'll answer them when I have the time to. But I hope that you understand that I don't want to repeat the same editing mistake as I did for a third time and that I don't want to remove the six 1940s anthology films by Disney from the "canon" nor diminish their roles entirely. Have a nice day.

(written on February 4th, 2026) Inanimanitatist (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

First, Fandom wikis and Substack blogs are not reliable sources, and reposting advice articles doesn't mean you're actually following those principles. Second, despite your claim that this is "rooted in reliable historical and critical perspectives and strictly adheres to Wikipedia's policies of verifiability and no original research", a lot of this seems to be based on your own personal subjective assumptions (i.e. original research) on how the Disney canon "should" be counted, based on artistic merit and the studio's intention. But Disney has never used the criteria when deciding what does or doesn't count as part of their animated canon: If it's just single narrative films, that excludes several films including the ones you claim can still count due to artistic merit. If it's artistic merit, many more would be excluded based on quality alone. If it's about audience reception, again some would be unfairly excluded because what does or doesn't count in the Disney canon has nothing to do with what audiences thought of it. This kind of arbitrary rulemaking doesn't seem to exist anywhere aside from your word. Meanwhile, the secondary sources we use follow Disney's lead, and the sources you've provided don't indicate that we need to change how the package films are counted. And so far, you haven't provided any real evidence or sources that your view is supported by anyone but yourself. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me, Harryhenry1, but I appreciate your continued and acceptable points or concerns that you raised with me on this, especially on anything regarding the strict observance to Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and original research. I also understand that the Fandom wikis, Substack blogs, and reposted Wikipedia advice articles that I cited before did not meet any of these standards, and I acknowledge that my previous attempts to express my position here may have, even without any intention, led to your perceptions of me explaining myself or reasoning out using sources based on "original research" or "arbitrary rulemaking." And I give my most sincere apologies if my explanations were not clear enough in demonstrating the important basis of my arguments here. But now, I'd like to re-state or re-explain myself behind my actions again.

My intentions behind this here are not to introduce any personal assumptions or subjective opinions of mine about artistic merit maintained within the 64 animated feature films of Walt Disney Animation Studios (or the "Disney Animated Canon"), but rather to reflect on the established and actual distinctions stated by film historians and scholars regarding the production context and structural differences of the six (6) 1940s anthology or package films. The distinctions I seek to emphasize on are not my own inventive statements but are drawn from critical analyses that evaluated the unique circumstances of the anthology or package films produced within that decade. ​And the sources that they come from mostly discuss how these films, such as "Saludos Amigos" (1943) and "The Three Caballeros" (1945), were a direct response to the financial pressures and personnel shortages faced by the feature film division during World War II and that these six films were explicitly created as compilations of shorts to sustain the studio during a very challenging period. And these anthology films differed significantly from other anthology films produced by the animation studio, like "Fantasia" (1940) (which was created as an artistic experiment of blending between classical music and animation) or "The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh" (1977) (which was a later (although cheaply-made) compilation film of already successful "Winnie-the-Pooh" shorts under different animation studio conditions at the time).

While Disney's marketing has, within its history, used numbering systems for its "Animated Canon" or "Classics" lists, there are scholarly works that give a deeper understanding of the distinct historical and production reasons and/or explanations behind each film, which is what I plan to integrate. I also recognize that Disney defines its official canon for its own purposes, and my goals here are not to challenge Disney's list directly, but to improve on the full and comprehensive understanding of the films within it by providing essential and contextual information supported by academic research. ​Not only that, there are still ongoing discussions among fans and/or enthusiasts of Disney Animation who, much like the scholars, recognize and explore these distinctions and create their own categorizations and timelines that reflect a refined understanding of these films, which is I want to use to demonstrate an extensive interest in categorizing these animated films beyond simple inclusion.

Moreover, I understand that my plan is to provide actual evidence, not just declare any perspectives of mine. And 5herefore, I pledge to continuing to research and present further academic and scholarly sources (books by reputable film historians and peer-reviewed journal articles) that explicitly break down the production necessities, thematic structures, and critical and audience receptions that differentiate the six 1940s package films within the larger body of Disney's animated features.

No matter how many times you may resist me and/or my reasons and explanations behind my intentions and actions, I have no intentions on giving up, especially in attempting on the highest standard of accuracy and contextual completeness for this, Harryhenry1. This is not about me winning a personal argument against you or anyone else at Disney (or even the Disney Animation fans and/or enthusiasts that may end up with confusion or frustration fro, what I'm doing), nor is it about setting a new "canon" on Disney Animation. It is about ensuring that here on Wikipedia, as a comprehensive and authoritative encyclopedia, provides any readers (including Disney Animation fans themselves on official Walt Disney Animation Studios pages) with the most strong, improved, and historically informed understanding of these six significant films. Along with that, my determinations for this are grounded in what I believe that reflecting on this scholarly understanding can enhance the article and serve the public good by bringing greater clearness to Walt Disney's animation history. And as long as you and the platform can allow for obliged and evidence-based discussion, I will continue to advocate for this more detailed and accurate presentation through my plans for established Wikipedia processes and me aiming to contribute to a comprehensive record that ultimately addresses and settles any long-standing questions for both scholars and fans of Disney Animation. Inanimanitatist (talk)Inanimanitatist Inanimanitatist (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of One Piece pirates

Hello, BrookTheHumming. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "List of One Piece pirates".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)