This article is within the scope of WikiProject Intellectual property, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Intellectual propertyWikipedia:WikiProject Intellectual propertyTemplate:WikiProject Intellectual propertyIntellectual property
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rodents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rodents on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RodentsWikipedia:WikiProject RodentsTemplate:WikiProject RodentsRodent
I would like to proactively establish the rules for this list because I believe it could be susceptible to abuse. I consider any article from a reputable publication that mentions the project to be a legitimate "creative work." My criteria for determining a "reputable" publication is whether it has its own Wikipedia page. Jonastav89 (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to reinvent the wheel here; Wikipedia already has guidelines for notability that are much like what you've proposed. Tisnec (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend limiting this to just those projects that are notable enough for their own article. This would prevent the addition of projects that have only received coverage that is essentially "this was announced" (ie, they're either reprints of a press release, heavily based on one, or are otherwise saying the exact same thing as another outlet but in slightly different wording) and no substantial long-term coverage. Since the topic of Mickey in the public domain is still interesting, you're going to have outlets reporting on an announcement. Rephrasing a press release is "cheap" for news outlets, especially if it's a slow news day, as they can more or less just write 1-2 sentences and then heavily quote the press release to make up the additional content. Actual meat and potatoes type sourcing like reviews and other content that would require that they put in more of their own actual work are harder to come by, as that takes up more time and effort.
I think that there needs to be a prose section about the character's status in the public domain, like the history, challenges, impact, future, and so on. That way anything that could warrant a brief mention can be covered there. For example, Brock's Dub isn't really notable itself but the fact that it was challenged was, so that could be mentioned in a brief sentence in the impact or challenges section. I think that this would work well as an article akin to say, Portrayal of East Asians in American film and theater. It would allow for further expansion on the topic than could really be covered in the main Mickey Mouse article and could gather all of the info in a single area so that when future versions of Mickey go into the public domain, it's not all scattered everywhere and doesn't overwhelm the parent articles.
I am in favor of retitling the text. I am definately in favor of expanding the opening text to give a clearer explaination on the background of the Mickey falling into the Public Domain and the history behind it, and honestly would encourage you to do so, from the deletionpage I got the current feeling that the story behind it is not well enough communicated on this page, so if you can make it clearer it would be much appreciated. I am also in favor of putting Brocks Dub as a mention in that opening text. I am however not in favor of removing all well-sourced (emphasise on well-sourced) released Mickey Mouse works. "Inverse Ninjas" for instance had the noteriety of being the first videogame released with Mickey Mouse after he lapsed in the Public Domain and it was therefor mentioned by enough credible news outlets (unlike for instance Rubber Horse Rampage). Jonastav89 (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of your second and third paragraphs, but I think the article would be more useful if it does include things that are covered in "announcement"-type articles from reputable sources even if they aren't necessarily notable enough for their own articles. It's not like it's a particularly long list right now; a discussion regarding trimming it down could be had at some point in the future if it eventually becomes unwieldy, but right now, limiting the criteria too much would put the point of the list even existing into question. Alphius (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this article might be better off titled something else, although I'm not exactly sure what. The current phrasing feels like it's saying Mickey Mouse is the author. Maybe "List of works featuring Mickey Mouse in the public domain," or "List of non-Disney works featuring Mickey Mouse." The latter has a slightly larger scope, but I think it could be divided into "before" and "after" columns regarding public domain, and the former would contain works of satire (i.e., Mickey Mouse in Vietnam) or notable copyright infringers. At the very least, I think the word "creative" is redundant. Tisnec (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to rename it. I had great difficulty naming this to begin with. Maybe something like List of works of a Copyright-free Mickey Mouse of List of works of a Public Domain Mickey Mouse sound beter? Jonastav89 (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still stumped on this. I feel like we ought to be able to get it down to five words or so but I can't find the correct phrasing. I'll see if I can find a wiki-project to explain the problem to. Tisnec (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was my thought too after soliciting input (thanks for weighing in here). And one of the other users pointed out that we don't need "List of" at the beginning if we want to get the title even shorter. Tisnec (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me non-Disney works featuring Mickey Mouse seems to broad in scope, Are we mentioning every parody of the last 100 years? Does this include multiple South Park-episodes? I am honestly not in favor of this because the list will lose its focus then. Also it disregards the recent trend and uptick in media related to Mickey Mouse. I maybe then prefer seperating it in two different lists (even if it is in the same article) Non-Disney works featuring Mickey Mouse before 2024 and Non-Disney works featuring Mickey Mouse after 2024, so that January 1st 2024 remains a pivitol date seperating the works. That way the works that entered after it's public domain-status would still have a seperate spotlight.Jonastav89 (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has guidelines against the kind of cruft you're describing; see Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). If we went this route, I agree with you that two separate lists on the same page is the right path, although I'm not sure exactly what I would call them. "Before entering the public domain" and "after" would do the trick, I think. If you still think that's excessive then I'd be fine with the translated Dutch title in your comment below. Personally, I favor the "non-Disney works" route, but I'm not super attached to it. Tisnec (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with this if you think "non-Disney works" is too broad. It communicates the idea unambiguously and isn't excessively long. Tisnec (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checking in on this again. The conversation kind of stalled out without reaching any solid consensus other than that the current title isn't great. I suggest we just go with the English version of the Dutch title. How does that sound to people? Tisnec (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is kind of dead, but I agree with Blueskiesdry in that this should be titled "Mickey Mouse in the public domain". Per my above comments in the first section, this would allow us to create a more general topic about Mickey Mouse in the public domain AND have a central location for the topic. That way it wouldn't overwhelm the parent article (Mickey Mouse) and the info wouldn't be scattered across various pages, especially as future versions fall into the PD. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)17:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is a bit strict but all other works mentioned of this list all contain some media coverage from a reasonbly well known news site or webblog. The only mentions i found of this book online is the Amazon purchase-page, the twitter anouncement and a mention of goodreads.
.svg){kind=small}
