Talk:The Little Mermaid

message: Lovelin and Hapihapitchi were shown in "The Little Mermaid" story and They need to use "The Legendary Marine Blue" to Evolve Themselves into Land form, that's almost like "The Little Mermaid" has to Permanently Give Up her Singing Voice In Order to become Human by using a Magical Potion to drink it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONS3Tnow (talk • contribs) 23:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tamagotchi - Episode 40 - The little mermaid 

message: Some history links are broken from a yahoo news site.  I Suggest finding alternate sites.  A Gigantic Panda 02:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken Links

message: I think this summary might be missing an adaptation..I remember seeing this very sad film about "marina" who had blond hair and ends up dying at the end of the movie.
*My sister has it in her possesion, and it's almost hentai (anime porn), what with topless mermaids and such. The translation lapses in some places, and the villain shows up for about, I don't know, 5 minutes. Not as good as the Disney version. (A short description has been added between when you wrote that and when I wrote this.) Davidizer13 22:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're talking about this film "Rusalochka", which was a Russian live-action adaptation released in the US in 1979.  It's mentioned in the adaptations section already.  Here's a link to the English cover: .Luminum (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: There was another movie

message: The Adaptations section is to be used for works that are adaptations of the story, not to mention every film, show, or movie that mentions "The Little Mermaid."  I trimmed the list down so that only conclusive retellings and/or adaptations are included, though truthfully there are still a few listed that can possibly go, as well.  Please be careful in adding new material so that the section does not become overly bloated with superfluous trivia.  María (habla conmigo) 18:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adaptation section, notice to editors

message: We can all guess what "merperson" is supposed to mean, but the word is not well-established.  The word is probably too analytical to be used in connection with a work of fantasy. Monomoit (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merperson? 

message: Did the Danish version get translated into German, Norwegian, Swedish, and Dutch before it was translated into English?   Which years were they translated (or published), if ever?   The main page of this article implies it was only published once in Danish - the first year it came out.   Am I right to assume that initial sales were so disappointing that publication picked up in England and the United States after the Danish publisher gave up on it?
Which publishing companies were responsible for the various translations prior to 1837?  The main page of this article confuses me, and somebody should clear it up.
Do any of these early copies still exist?   If they have ever passed through an auction block, what prices have they commanded?   Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not quite sure what you mean by "main page" of the article, but the "Publication" section clearly states that it was published at least 3 times (possibly more) in Danish before the first English translation appeared in 1872, and it has been reprinted countless times since then. Except for the early years of his authorship, Hans Christian Andersen has never really been unpopular in Denmark, his works was mostly well recieved by the Danish readers and sold very well. And yes it is very likely that the story would have been translated into German, Norwegian, Swedish and Dutch before being translated into English. At the time the cultural ties were much stronger between Denmark and those countries than with the English speaking countries. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which years into which languages? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:LittleMermaidStatuealshami.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: The summary section has been subject to a number of recent edits, none of which has included an edit summary or a discussion here on Talk. I have reverted to the last clean edit, one which is perfectly serviceable and that does not begin with "Once upon a time" (appropriate for the tale itself but not an encyclopedia summary thereof), contractions, serious format spacing issues, and the repeated grammatical error of beginning a sentence with a coordinate conjunction. If an editor feels that this section is in need of an edit, well and good - but the edits need to be justified by an explanatory edit summary at the very least (and preferably some discussion on this page), and they need to meet the standards of the MOS and of proper English. Sensei48 (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree.  The IP editor seemed to have returned this morning, but I replaced back to your version.  What is going on, with this "Once upon a time" stuff?! EdumaGator (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary Section Edits 

message: As this source is a summary of these authors' original work, quoting directly from it shouldn't really be attributed to them. I think it would be best for the article if this quotation were paraphrased.Musicandnintendo (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bøggild and Heegaard "quote" 

message: The current paragraph on the Disney film violates [[WP:POV], and the fact that it's sourced criticism is irrelevant. The movie exists; some people like it, some people hate it, but discussion of the movie's merits isn't appropriate for this article. The referenced sentence would be fine for a criticism section in the film's article, but there's no way that "betrays" and "exploits" are neutral, and adding praise of the film to balance would be too much here. Better to just mention it and the sequels and leave the commentary for the film's article. PaulGS (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Objection noted. As you know, I disagree with removing it for reasons mentioned in my edit summaries. However, I would strongly suggest that should we and other editors decide collaboratively to remove it, a substitute notation should be included. With nearly every other item in the "Adaptations" section, where the adaptation differs significantly from the original story, the differences are presented at least in summary form. The 1989 cartoon has so many major differences from Andersen's story that it seemed to me the shorthand quotation was more succinct and useful. Maybe we could sandbox a replacement note here. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adaptations 

message: I'm wondering if we should add themes to this page like how the Little Red Riding Hood fairytale has themes about it. There were quite a few themes in this fairytale including: Religion, Loyalty, etc. Does anyone else think this should be added to the wiki?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sluppino (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Little Mermaid. 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://web.archive.org/web/20070613170013/http://www.museum.odense.dk/andersen/manuskript/visning.asp?inventarnr=HCA%2FXVIII-58-A&sprog=engelsk to http://museum.odense.dk/andersen/manuskript/visning.asp?inventarnr=HCA%2FXVIII-58-A&sprog=engelsk
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) 22:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Perhaps there should be some discussion on the extent to which Anderson's Mermaid plot itself borrows elements from the de la Motte German romance: notable probably is the matter of gaining a human soul, which I suspect is borrowed. The witch is definitely not in Undine. The question then collides with which element is from which story when we get to Dvorak's Rusalka.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk • contribs) 09:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undine/Ondine 

message: This is a worthy and important addition to the article, but the cited sources are not generally up to the task that they are assigned. Norton is a RS, but he makes only a passing remark in the cited source. Brooke Allen's NYT piece mentions LM and touches on Andersen's sexuality, but she does not link them explicitly, making the attempt to use this as a source an example of WP:SYNTH. The Turner article is completely off-topic since it is discussing the 1989 Disney cartoon and not Andersen's story, to which the film bears only a skeletal resemblance. The problem with von Essen is also a  focus on the movie, and I wonder if a self-described "novelist and blogger who reads while walking and believes in magic" on a user-generated site qualifies as RS.
The points raised about Andersen and this story are worthy ones, but they need greatly improved and relevant sources.  
regards, Sensei48 (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an idea to bring back information from a previous version of the article where this section was called "Psychoanalytic Interpretations" which had some better sources that have been lost. See my new talk page section below for details, and if you're still interested in working on this section, I'd be happy to work with you and would appreciate any help as my assignment is editing related, not research based. Thanks! Aggiegal19 (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing Tag For "Potential homosexual subtext" 

message: I was confused when I read the synopsis because it's not quite what I remembered. The version that I read as a child didn't feature redemption for the title character: 
"She fled from the room, knowing that she must soon die. By dawn, she felt the change coming on. Just as the witch had threatened, she was turning into foam -- the beautiful white foam that caps the waves as they roll over the endless blue sea." The end.
I vividly remembered an illustration of her turning to foam as the prince and his new bride walked along the beach. After racking my brain, I figured out that it was published in 1971's Disney's Wonderful World of Knowledge, Volume 14 (https://archive.org/details/disneyswonderful14walt), which is an English translation of the Italian Enciclopedia Disney by Elisa Penna. 
There's mention on this page that the original ending "climaxed in the mermaid's dissolution," but there's nothing to suggest that this version was ever published. Clearly, it was (in Italy, at least!).
VinnieRattolle (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this reference! I'm coming at it from the other perspective; I've been mystified by the line about the ending with "the mermaid's dissolution." I've been searching and haven't found anything to indicate Andersen added a new ending; in fact, as mentioned on the page, the original working title was "The Daughters of the Air." Maria Tatar's book mentions that in the draft, the Daughters of the Air ending was longer and featured more dialogue. I've also been eyeballing the included picture of the manuscript page (do we have any idea where that image came from?) and comparing it to the Danish text (https://www.andersenstories.com/da/andersen_fortaellinger/den_lille_havfrue), I'm pretty sure they have the same ending paragraph about children affecting the Daughters' time before Heaven. Sgallison (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Ending 

message: In the statues section, under the Statues in Italy subheading, there is a sentence which reads: "A second always portraying a mermaid Post on a depth of sea about 18 meters." Does anyone know what this is supposed to mean? Can it be edited for clarity? Amashelle (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statues Section 

message: *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Works_based_on_The_Little_Mermaid
71.80.203.159 (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Den lille havfrue. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 11#Den lille havfrue until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Stefan2 (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Den lille havfrue" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I removed :Category:Works based on The Little Mermaid from this article, because it's not about a work based on The Little Mermaid. This was reverted by  who said it is "in effect" an eponymous category. I contest this: the vast majority of all articles have no eponymous category and that's perfectly fine, there's no need to shoehorn articles into a category like this. The article is in :Category:Short stories by Hans Christian Andersen, which is where it belongs. It does not belong in a subcategory of :Category:Adaptations of works by Hans Christian Andersen, which is part of a different category tree. Category:Works based on The Little Mermaid is the eponymous category of List of The Little Mermaid adaptations, not of this article. Ffranc (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a closely related category, in this case :Category:Works based on The Little Mermaid, makes it easy for a reader to find other articles on the same topic. If I found this article, how would I easily know what else was on Wikipedia on the same topic? In this particular case, having the category linked in a “See Also” section would achieve that, but surely a better general solution is to apply wp:CATMAIN and include the category as a category. —Northernhenge (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Andersen fairytale is based on general mermaid lore and Undine (novella), so its not a completely novel creation. Having it in the category aids navigation.לילך5 (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already categorised in "Works based on folklore". I don't think the influence from Undine is strong enough to warrant categorisation, but if it was it would belong in :Category:Works based on Undine (novella), not in Works based on The Little Mermaid. Ffranc (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

text: I agree with 's view here. It doesn't make much sense to add the original work in the category reserved for works based on it. : the category contains the List of The Little Mermaid adaptations as its main article, which can be added in the "See also" section to help navigation, if it's not already linked in the body of this article. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 20:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if there turns out to be no consensus for the category, “see also” seems like a good alternative.—Northernhenge (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick, simple navigation is already handled better by . Navigation templates are better alternatives to See also links when there are many relevant articles to link to, like there is here. If we use categorisation as a form of see also links based on gut feeling we just make the category system arbitrary, and less useful. A link to the category in the article is also just strange, and unnecessary because of the navbox. Ffranc (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. We haven’t heard from  who initially reverted the removal of the category, but – given the navigation template rationale – I’m happy to move on now. —Northernhenge (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Works based on The Little Mermaid 

message: Just to say Hans Christian Andersen version is not the original, there are earliest versions in countries like italy at least since the 13th century 190.73.95.189 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the original