# Talk:Cinderella III: A Twist in Time

Walt Disney, literary piracy
15  Nov 2009 15:40 
Fariorz Rowshanekr, the Iranian script writer, has started a weblog revealing the truth about Walt Disney’s literary theft. In this blog, he has published for the public all his corresponding with Walt Disney in pdf format.
IBNA: The dramatic news that has spread recently through the press was an assertion based on weighty documentations. 
Fariorz Rowshanekr, the Iranian script writer, has started a weblog revealing the truth about Walt Disney’s literary theft. In this blog, he has published for the public all his corresponding with Walt Disney in pdf format. 
Also, two complete autopsy pictures of Cinderella III and his spec script, reached Walt Disney 8 year prior to release of Cinderella III, has been placed in his blog. 
Fariborz Rowshanfekr told the press: “In October 1999, I sent a letter to Walt Disney, suggesting a new story for Cinderella series. 
In this spec script, devil takes the magic wand from the fairy and captures her. Hence, Devil puts Cinderella and the prince in the magic twister of time and returns them to days before their good fortune.” 
He added: “I explained to Walt Disney officials the logic for this story as existence of many Cinderellas in this world who never find the chance to meet a fairy or their prince charming. 
Hence, it is better to show people their own fairy of perseverance rather than the outside fairy of desire,’ ‘A month later, I received a letter from Walt Disney saying the company’s long established policy does not allow them to accept or review ideas, suggestions, or creative materials not solicited by them or their subsidiaries. The company sent me an application form of many pages that I did not fill it in.” 
“After a while, a person from Walt Disney called me and said my story was poetic and fascinating, but the company is not interested to make another Cinderella cartoon as it is a holy figure of the company. Interestingly, he tried to persuade me to apply for a job in Walt Disney that was none of my interest and I tired to forget everything,” Rowshanfekr continued. “Three years later, Cinderella II was released that was not related to my original story. However, I remembered those words about the termination of Cinderella for Walt Disney and their decision of not making another cartoon for it.” 
The script writer added: “After a few years, one of my translator friends congratulated me on Cinderella III release, as he knew about my spec script on Cinderella story. He said: “Congratulations! They stole your story without even one change in dramatic structure.” 
To answer the question if all the documents are placed in his blog Rowshanfekr said: “As my lawyers recommended, I did not place all documentations in my blog. The rest of them are to be presented to the court of law.” 
The script writer, also, has sent his gravamen to World Intellectual Property Organization , writers Guild of America, and American Court of Justice to claim his legal right. 
Additionally, Rowshanfekr handed a copy of his documentations to Farhad Tohidi, the head of Iranian screen writers, before his visit to Oscar Academy. Rowshanfekr mentioned that Tohidi examined the documentations and promised to help as these evidences were strong enough to claim Rowshanfekr’s right. 
In Iranian commission’s meeting with Oscar Academy officials, Rowshanfer’s legal documentations shocked the American panel. Fortunately, they introduced a person to Iranian commission who could give juridical advice on this issue. 
Rowshanfekr would like to ask all liberal members of cinema, especially script writers, around the world to visit his blog and check the documentations. 
It is not just about Mr. Rowshanfekr, it is about all script writers. 
If you type in Google browser for “literary theft & Walt Disney” in Persian language, you can find the news about Walt Disney’s literary theft from Fariborz Rowshanekr – an Iranian scriptwriter- as one of the most prominent national headlines. 
For more details log on to 

http://cinderellaiii.blogsky.com

[1] Cinderella III & literary piracy

The Wikipedia article credits Steve Bencich and Ron J. Friedman as writers on this film, but IMDb doesn't.  Is IMDb wrong, or are we?  If it's IMDb, could we have a citation for Bencich and Friedman's work on this film?  Thanks. Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
IMDb isn't always right, as I have found out in the recent years.But it might be best to leave it out for the time being. JakeTheBlake 22:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the lengthy list of Goofs in accordance with wiki policy. (See WP:TRIV) I've saved them here in case anyone wants to submit them to IMDB, which does allow goof listings. Annie D 00:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The magic wand brings out green (instead of white) magic dust when used by Lady Tremaine or Drizella (but not when it is used by the not-so-wicked and sympathetic Anastasia), though this could be a visual representation of "dark magic".
During "A Perfectly Perfect Year" Drizella's apron disappeared while singing "...or even tea." And both Drizella and Anastasia's aprons disappear after they get the laundry off themselves.
After Anastasia gets thrown out of the house, she stands up to see Cinderella and the Prince riding by on horses and she walks forward. During this her apron disappears and reappears between several shots.
After Anastasia gets the wand Drizella is seen cutting tree pieces with an axe which gets stuck. After pulling out the handle the axe's head is pointing opposite of the house. But in the wand fight the axe's head is turned 90 degrees pointing either the chair's back or the Fairy Godmother and Anastasia.
While Lady Tremaine was reversing time, the brief glimpse of the wedding shows the Prince wearing a white groom outfit which is different from the wedding from the first movie where he's wearing a yellow and red outfit.
Jaq and Gus get the key at the wrong time compared to the first. In the first movie, Jaq and Gus get the key AFTER the Grand Duke comes. But after time reverses, the Grand Duke comes right after the mice are on their way to the stairs.
During the reversal of time at the scene, where Cinderella is holding the slipper her hair is in a bow when it's suppose to be loose.
When Anastasia was trying on the slipper, it barely fits on her big toe, but in the original it fit over all of her toes.
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manny H88 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC) 
When the slipper is falling it is about to be broken with the heel in the front. But in the crash the heel and the front of the slipper have switched places.
When Tremaine breaks Cinderella's glass slipper the front and the heel do not get broken or cracked. But when Jaq presents the put-back-together slipper to the prince we can see cracks on them. And when the prince puts the slipper down to go find Cinderella the heel does not appear broken at all.
While Cinderella is singing she connects the two halves of the slipper's heart together. But the heart appears to be too close over the slipper's edge.
On the back of the DVD case, it shows Cinderella with Drizella and Tremaine when Tremaine was turning back time, although in the movie Cinderella was celebrating her anniversary in the forest.
In the first movie, the king saw Cinderella before he got out, and obviously the Grand Duke, but neither, even when they're not under magic, don't recognize that Anastasia is not Cinderella. What makes the least sense is that the king even made a face at Anastasia at the ball.
After Anastasia gets done chasing the ring down after it bounces around the room, she puts it on her left hand. Later in the same scene, Anastasia is seen walking admiring the ring, which is now on her right hand.
After Anastasia is seen admiring the ring, the ring is no longer on her hand throughout the rest of the movie
When Drizella is tampering with the wand in order to make herself beautiful (a prettier hair style, bracelets containing jewelry, a rainbow dress with jewelry, and a gigantic crown), she was able to use it without saying Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo. When Cinderella's evil stepmother makes Cinderella disappear into a pumpkin, she didn't need to say Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo either.
When Jaq and Gus take the wand from the dresser, the tip of the wand is pointing forward. When they run out through the door it is pointing backwards and stays that way.
When Cinderella is running away from the guards, there is a shot looking down the stairs that shows a cement structure sticking out of the top of the end baluster of the rails. Later when Cinderella slides down the stairs it is not there.
While the shrunken Lucifer is attacking Gus, red pieces appear to be tearing off his shirt. And when the attack ends his and Jaq's shirts appear to be in perfect condition like nothing has happened.
When Cinderella gets on the boat, the sky is dark and cloudy. When the Prince is seen on his horse riding into a wooden house/storage to reach the boat the horse's point-of-view sees the sun shining inside the room. In the next shot when the prince is flying out the balcony door, the sky is dark and cloudy again, with no sun being seen only until he reaches Cinderella.
In the sequence where Cinderella is back at the castle and explaining to the King and Duke what Lady Tremaine did, her hair changes from being loose, to tied up in a bow, and back to being loose.
In the first film, Cinderella wore a black choker with her wedding dress. In this film, the brief flashback at the beginning to the wedding the choker is still there, but for the rest of the film, it is absent.
Cinderella's wedding dress has been slightly altered, the skirt in the original was a pale grey, but white in this movie, her hair was in a low bun (also kept while wearing the wedding dress) but when in her rags during the pumpkin sequence her hair has changed to a top bun like her blue/grey ballgown.
In the scene where Tremaine and Drizella are turned back into human, there is a cut on both aprons that they are wearing, but when Drizella gets "frightened" by the broom, the cut on her apron disappears.
In the first film, the king is the one who sent out the order to find the Cinderella by having every girl in the kingdom try on the slipper.

I am interested in expanding on the implications of time travel in Cinderella III: A Twist in Time, specifically on how the fairy godmother is involved in the alternate timeline. I would like to add a section to this page; below is the draft of the section I'd like to add. 
Cinderella III Alternate Timeline Consequences
	After finishing Cinderella III: Twist in Time, my sister Fiona and I both asked the question: What happened to the fairy godmother? If she was turned to stone in the original timeline, then shouldn't the alternate one be completely messed up somehow? So we made some diagrams to make this a little clearer.

We can boil down each timeline into 3 significant parts. In the original timeline, the significant parts (at least in relation to the time twist in the third movie) are the Fairy Intervention, Cinderella Fits the Slipper (which is screwed up in the alternate timeline), and the Time Twist itself. 
	In the Alternate Timeline, the Fairy had already helped Cinderella, effectively eliminating her from the picture anyway, since the only thing she did after that was show up at the wedding. This is fortunate, because she isn't there when Cinderella watches the slipper fit Anastasia, as that would have messed up everything.
	So, the 3 most important parts in the Alternate timeline are: the Fairy Intervention, the Anastasia slipper wearing, and the end where Everyone Gets What they Deserve. Lets break that down into simpler timelines.

In the original timeline, A leads to B, which ends up in Cinderella's marriage. That leads to the vengeful stepmother creating C, which reversed Cinderella's past to just before point B, which then changed to point D. 
	Remember, the Stepmother reversed time to when Cinderella would have put on the slipper and been proclaimed princess. This means that the fairy godmother has already played her significant part in Cinderella's tale, and isn't seen again 'til the wedding. 
	Since the Stepmother and "evil" stepsisters didn't encounter copies of themselves when they transported into the alternate timeline, we can only assume that the Fairy Godmother wouldn't have either, and since she shows up later in the movie (around E) we can assume that she was also transported into the alternate timeline, if at a different place.
	This would mean that from point D, the Fairy Godmother as we knew her in the original timeline ceased to exist and was replaced with the one encased in stone. 
	Eventually, someone found the statue and thought to move it into the throne room where Anastasia would marry the prince. Or perhaps it just appeared in the room and no one thought anything of it.
Sabrinarucker (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting and all, but it sounds pretty much like original research, which isn't allowed on wikipedia. (WP:NOR) I checked the articles of a couple of other films with time travel and they don't provide detailed explanations for the time travel mechanics other than than what's depicted in the plot and put in the summary. There was one, though, Primer that provided a timeline graph like yours, so that might be permissible, though my own feeling is that it won't, because films like Back to the Future and Looper, which are more similar to Cinderella III, don't rely on graphs despite their mechanisms being more often discussed off-wikipedia. Any other editors want to chip in? AD (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 Not done: Please read WP:FORUM. That is an interesting idea, but this is not the right place to share it. You might want to try the fan boards. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Cinderella III: A Twist in Time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070824235935/http://www.suntimes.com:80/entertainment/movies/447800,CST-FTR-dvd29.article to http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/movies/447800,CST-FTR-dvd29.article
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The absolutely most interesting thing with this movie is the development of Cinderellas younger stepsister who finally succeds to break away from her mothers domination and go better ways.In the beginning Anastasia does Not run away to avoid work; She is thrown out of the house during a fight with her sister. It may well be part of lady tremaines ruler- techniques to play her daughters out against each other. One of the funniest scenes is when Anastasia is supposed to dance with the prince and demonstrates that se has two left-feet. The king however finds Anastasias attempts rather touching. He is another character and character-role who is somewhat developed and deepened in this movie. The following scene with the king and Anastasia is perhaps the most important in the film.He lectures her about True love.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.130.31.203 (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC) 

The absolutely most interesting thing with this movie is the development of Cinderellas younger stepsister who finally succeds to break away from her mothers domination and go better ways.In the beginning Anastasia does Not run away to avoid work; She is thrown out of the house during a fight with her sister. It may well be part of lady tremaines ruler- techniques to play her daughters out against each other. One of the funniest scenes is when Anastasia is supposed to dance with the prince and demonstrates that se has two left-feet. The king however finds Anastasias attempts rather touching. He is another character and character-role who is somewhat developed and deepened in this movie. The following scene with the king and Anastasia is perhaps the most important in the film.He lectures her about True love.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.130.31.203 (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC) 

I felt the need to include Cinderella witnessing Anastasia refusing to marry the Prince, Cinderella protecting Anastasia from Lady Tremaine when she attempts to get revenge on her daughter for not going through with her plan, and finally, the subsequent reconciliation between the two when Anastasia reverted to her original form, as the articled did not include this prior to my edit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberJudoon (talk • contribs) 21:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC) 

Change the wording of this line "The king orders his guards to seize Lady Tremaine. In a fit of lust and with no fear, Lady Tremaine immediately uses the wand and turns them all into various animals as they all lunge for her, so they can't get to her, while Drizella tells her to turn Anastasia into a toad."  to 'The king order his guards to seize Lady Tremaine who uses the wand to turn the guards into animals.' 2604:3D08:757F:FC3A:FD94:F3A0:6B77:903E (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cinderella III: A Twist in Time/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 00:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Images are appropriately tagged.

What makes the following reliable sources?
filmtotaal.nl
Dutch film review and news website, used as a source for similar information in several Wikipedia articles. Source is only used twice in this article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Needs more evidence.  I see they're advertising for editorial positions but that's all I can find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
mouseplanet.com
According to their website, "a recognized source for information on the subject of Disneyland, as well as Walt Disney World and the Walt Disney Company.", offering extensive, researched coverage on Disney topics. Writing staff/editorial staff, and full mailing address are available on the website. Used as a source in several Wikipedia articles.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
ultimatedisney.com
Site owner/founder Luke Bonanno "has written and edited over 2,000 reviews of movies in theaters and on disc, interviewed a handful of Disney legends and rising stars, been quoted in a bunch of high-profile". The website hosts a plethora of detailed interviews with quotes directly from Disney staff members/filmmakers, which is the sole purpose of the website's use in this article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
This seems like a definite no -- the page you link says it's a one-person site, he started it as a high schooler, and has no professional experience. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Christie Hello, thank you for your response and for taking the time to submit the sources for additional input at WT:FILM. However, I would like to ask that you kindly reconsider your verdict on ultimatedisney.com or, at the very list, submit a query for the source at WT:FILM as well. Yes, the author/owner may have begun the website when he was in high school, and although you claim he has no professional experience (that we know of), I would argue that maintaining a website that has become a go-to source for Disney-related information, news and interviews across Wikipedia would constitute experience to some degree.
When I say "go-to" source, I am also referring to Wikipedia articles. Although I understand that how often a source is used on Wikipedia does not make it reliable, something must be said of the fact that there are dozens of GA and FA quality  film and television articles (both Disney and non-Disney) that use the same source as a reference in some capacity, without the source being so much as questioned. Such instances include: The Simpsons (season 13), Fantasia (1940 film), Fantasia 2000, Violet Parr, Evita (1996 film), Pocahontas (1995 film), Beauty and the Beast (1991 film), Cars (film), Treasure Planet, Aladdin (1992 Disney film), Titanic (1997 film), Monsters, Inc., That's So Raven, Finding Nemo.
To me, this at the very least indicates that the general consensus is that Ultimate Disney is considered to be a reliable source among Wikipedia editors. Looking forward to your thoughts. Changedforbetter (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Passing by, but I agree with reviewer. As the ref lacks any editorial policies and is clearly a one-person blog, how is it an RS? The only evidence might be that absence of controversies for the source is evidence...? You said that it is go to, but a ref isn't reliable just because we use it at WP (in fact, before The Daily Mail is deprecated it was cited lots of times), if you could find a couple of other RS using it, that's an indication it's a well-respected ref. Essentially, the about us page is an ad for this person, along with the line Please hire him, backed up by no evidence. This might be just because I'm silly:), but somehow I couldn't find where it's used The Simpsons (season 13), a Command F search also didn't find any, strangely... VickKiang (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@VickKiang Thank you for your input. My quandary is: the practice by which Wikipedia editors/reviewers – particularly those who have little experience writing about or reviewing certain topics such as @Mike Christie (this isn't intended to be rude or disrespectful; the editor themself admitted this when they submitted the sources for additional review) – are able to determine what sources are reliable or not seems random at worst, and arbitrary at best. Obviously, there is a collection of Wikipedia editors experienced in editing film/television articles who consider Ultimate Disney to be a reliable source, or at the very least the best source of its kind due to the quality and scope of content available, as well as relevance to the topic. Am I to believe the fact that dozens of articles were promoted to GA while using the source holds absolutely no weight in helping to determine whether the source is valid? As for the The Simpsons (season 13) article, the source is referenced in this article Dvdizzy.com, which is the same website; I believe it was originally called Ultimate Disney before being renamed DVDizzy, or vise versa (I would imagine that your attempt to look for the source means your interest was also peaked as to how the source can be used in an FA article, despite being in your opinion "unreliable").
Although I have little faith that this will help my case much, I've found a few reliable sources that actually cite DVDizzy/Ultimate Disney as a reference in their own articles per your recommendation, ranging from cast and crew interviews, to specs about film and DVD releases: IGN, Texas Public Radio, Anime News Network, narniaweb.com, ComicBook.com.  Changedforbetter (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
In fact that does help -- the reliable sources in that list help establish that the source is treated as reliable, and I understand the concept that an individual who is sufficiently dedicated can establish themselves as an expert in a narrow field -- snooker.org was one such.  Can you find any coverage of the site e.g. interviews with the person who runs it, or descriptions of it, as opposed to just links to it, in reliable sources?  Is it perhaps described in books about Disney as a reliable resource?  And separately, any further comments on the other sources I've queried?  I'm not seeing any feedback at RSN in support of these, other than dvdtalk which I've struck below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Christie By sheer happenstance, I came across a review about the documentary film Walt - The Man Behind the Myth published on The Walt Disney Family Museum website in 2011, which actually quotes a review from Luke Bonanno of UltimateDisney.com. If this doesn't seal the deal, I don't know what will.
I too having been awaiting additional commentary about the remaining sources from RSN as well since I've already offered my initial feedback, but I can look into those as well if it would expedite the process.  Changedforbetter (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I think that just about gets us over the line.  I think you would run into more pushback if you were to take this to WP:FAC, to be honest, but it's clear it's widely enough respected that it's not much of a risk to use it. Re the RSN comments, you've already commented here, so for my purposes that's enough, but that thread will be archived eventually and used as a reference by others researching those sites, so you might want to add your thoughts to the mix.  Yes, it would help if you can find similar evidence about the other sites; at the moment the only significant commentary about them is negative. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Your reply is certainly reasonable, Changedforbetter, depsite my personal disagreement. It seems to me that you're saying that evaluating refs via RSN is... arbitary? Still, the refs that cite it looks quite convincing, so I guess it should be fine for GA for uncontroversial topics that don't fall under 2b, probably. VickKiang (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Actually this particular source wasn't included in the ones I listed at RSN, because I was sure it was unreliable!  But I think even if it had been, when Changedforbetter found good evidence, I ought to be able to take that into account.  I wish all the WikiProjects had pages like the video games sources page; I'm sure this site's been discussed half a dozen times before which is a waste of everyone's time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Christie You were "sure it was unreliable". This....this is what I mean by arbitrary lol. At least we can agree that it was a waste of time.   Changedforbetter (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
cbr.com -- I can see that some of this site is reliable, but I can't see how to distinguish reliable staff reporting from user-contributed material.
CBR operates in a similar vein to Bustle, Collider, Screen Rant, wherein most of its contributors are freelance writers whose content is vetted prior to publishing on the website, in addition to a host of historians, reviewers and industry professionals. One of the site's authors, Anthony Gramuglia, has written for The Mary Sue and Screen Rant.
I'll post at the comics WikiProject to ask about this one.  Gramuglia is not listed as one of the site staff, which would have made this OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I found support for this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/References.
thedisinsider.com
I would agree there is not much to argue this source's credibility, and most of its content is supported by better sources. Removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
animatedviews.com
Largely a review site, revered within the animation community as a source for upcoming information, interviews, reviews and news since 2003; similar to Ultimate Disney in the sense that it hosts a plethora of interviews with animators and filmmakers, particularly by Jérémie Noyer. Their interview with Alan Menken is listed on the composer's own IMDB page. Used in several Wikipedia articles, including GA.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Needs more evidence; I'll ask at COMICS about this one too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I know this nomination has already been failed per my request, but for my own reference and possible re-nom I've found two uses of this source in books published by legitimate publishing houses: Hayao Miyazaki: Exploring the Early Work of Japan's Greatest Animator by Raz Greenberg; How the Movies Saved Christmas: 228 Rescues from Clausnappers, Sleigh Crashes, Lost Presents and Holiday Disasters by William D. Crump.
Both references are written by Randall Cyrenne, an Animated Views contributor.  Changedforbetter (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
animesuperhero.com
Recognized source in the animation/cartoon community for upcoming news, events and reviews; several interviews with industry professionals, similar to Animated Views.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Needs more evidence.  I'll ask about this one too.  When there's nothing about corporate affiliation on the masthead or footer it often (but not always) means it's an amateur or fan website.  Those can still be reliable, but it's rarer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
filmschoolrejects.com -- seems to be a blog
A news blog, yes – similar to HuffPost – but mainly a review site; the website has been cited/quoted by outlets such as The New York Times, CNN and the Los Angeles Times. Founder/publisher Neil Miller has an entry/biography on Rotten Tomatoes. Source only used once in the article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Christie This listicle is written by Christopher Campbell who, according to the website's "About Us" page, is both a founding and senior editor of the publication. Film School Rejects itself has been cited in a USA Today article, specifically a quote by managing editor Scott Beggs. Other publications that have referenced the website include AMC; IndieWire (the website references a tweet by director Guillermo del Toro, in which he quotes a Film School Rejects review of one of his films)  Changedforbetter (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
You use this for "Dating back to as early as 1950's Cinderella, Anastasia had always been depicted as Cinderella's marginally less unpleasant stepsister."  I think you should cut this.  It's a blog, it's a listicle, and in any case you get to make most of the same argument using the source for the following sentence. This is not a statement of uncontroversial fact; it's an opinion about the content for which we should be citing reliable sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
dvdtalk.com
News and review website devoted to home video/DVD releases; perfect considering a A Twist in Time is a direct-to-DVD release. Founded by writer Geoffrey Kleinman in 1999. Used sparingly in the article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Struck per conversation at RSN. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
mediamikes.com
Movie/entertainment news and review site, with about page that lists history and writing/editorial staff: https://mediamikes.com/about/--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mike ChristieI have found examples of mediamikes.com being cited by publications such as Northwest Florida Daily News (specifically in reference to the work of contributor Mike A. Smith, who has apparently written a making-of book on the film Jaws 2); Woman's World Magazine; blabbermouth.net; Yahoo! Sports (or Yahoo Entertainment); IndieBound; and Screen Rant  Changedforbetter (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
You're using this to cite the Blu-Ray release date, which is not a controversial fact.  I would think a better source exists, but I think this is harmless to leave in.  The fact that other sources cite it again seems like just enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
movieweb.com
Movie/entertainment review and news website. Website says they "strive for 100% accurate headlines and apply a rigorous vetting process to every news article on the site". According to the website, "one of the first movie sites to appear on the web", who "continues to be one of the most trusted destinations for the connected generation." Editorial staff/writers available on website. Owned by Valnet Inc., the parent company/publisher who also publishes Screen Rant, Collider, and Comic Book Resources, among others. Use in article is minimal.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
whatculture.com -- listed as unreliable at WP:RS/PS
Dispensable. Removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to pause the review until these are resolved, as removing these might change the text of the article substantially. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. All points have been addressed.  Changedforbetter (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Christie Changedforbetter (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll go through each one above and reply individually, but to save repetition under each one it's quicker if I add a comment or two here that may apply to more than one above.  It's not how much a site is used in the article that counts, or whether it is used elsewhere in Wikipedia; it's whether we can trust the site to provide reliable data.  In a couple of cases above you link to pages that list editorial staff; that usually does it, because it makes it clear that the site is run to editorial standards.  Pointing out cases where other reliable sources clearly trust the site is also good.  A site's own statements about how trustworthy they are can be helpful, but only if they describe editorial policies.  Sites run by a single person are only occasionally going to be reliable; usually that's when it's the personal site of an acknowledged expert in the field.  I also do look at the sources listed at WP:FILM/R and usually go along with their assessment, so you might want to suggest on their talk page that they should add sites to the list.  If I say "Needs more evidence" above, it means I don't think any of these criteria have been met, and it also means I've looked on the website myself to try to find evidence of editorial control and so on, and have been unable to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I've struck three from the list based on your feedback, and have left a few notes above; towards the end I decided to quit posting individual notes and have posted a query at WT:FILM. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I've posted at WP:RSN as well and have pinged you to that thread. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Changedforbetter, without more evidence I'm not going to pass this with animesuperhero.com and animatedviews.com in the article.  That would tear a big hole in it and I think I'd probably have to fail it anyway while you cut that material out and rewrote.  If you're convinced they ought to stay, I suggest that I fail this GA while you work on finding evidence that they are reliable.  Any future GA reviewer will read this review and ask the same questions, so I think there's no point in just delaying.  Let me know how you'd like to proceed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie Fail it please.  Changedforbetter (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm failing it.  Re your comment above: it was not a waste of time.  I would have wasted your time if I'd failed it without asking you for evidence, but I asked for evidence before failing it and you provided some.  That's how it should work -- the fact that I was sure it was unreliable didn't prevent you from changing my mind.  I should have included it in the RSN list, though; that was an oversight, though in the end it made no difference.  Anyway, best of luck with the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

37.26.83.179 (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Please specify what change you want to make. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I like to change the run time to 74 minutes Super Chow58 (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Cinderella III: The Reverse of Time has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 26 § Cinderella III: The Reverse of Time until a consensus is reached.   Jay 💬 04:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)