Talk:List of The Lion King (franchise) characters

message: It's become quite obvious that nobody can agree on how these three are related. This is no doubt due to the fact that the movie never explicitly states it. I think we really need to decide on the wording this article should use. I personally think, minus my non-canonical theories, that Nuka is the son of Scar and Kovu & Vitani are littermates, thus K & V are half-siblings to Nuka. Anyone else? Nuka Lives (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kovu, Vitani, Nuka relationships 

message: Why does it say that Sarabi is anthropomorphic?  She walks like a regular lioness.
: The word 'anthropomorphic' applies to giving human qualities to non-human things, as well as giving said things human form and attributes. Since the lions in The Lion King talk, sing and don't always indulge in behaviours natural to their species, they can be classed as anthropomorphic. 62.31.56.132 00:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Er, that was me responding up there. Wasn't logged in for some reason. Blue Phoenix 00:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds you also asked the question! Aminabzz (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarabi 

message: Sarabi only appeared once in Simba's Pride as a reflection. 
Mrsanitazier 17:49, 5 July,2006 (UTC)
:Er, when? Blue Phoenix 12:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarabi in Simba's Pride 

message: Kiara redirects here but I am looking for the model Kiara, there should be a disam with Kiara....
--Sugarcubez 23:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Create an article about the model Kiara and a disambigulation page can be made. If there's no article, there's not much point. Blue Phoenix (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that model is called Ciara and not Kiara. Aminabzz (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kiara 

message: Can't these be integrated into the rest of the text? Nuka Lives (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personality sections 

message: About Nala, where is their parents her mother is Sarafina. User:Amir Hamzah 2008 12:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family Tree 

message: Is it alright if the T&P characters were moved to the bottom to give more prominence to the book/comic characters? Nuka Lives (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearranging sections 

message: There's virtually nothing on the main characters like Simba and Nala, but Sarafina, a very minor character, has a good three or four paragraphs to her name and could make a Wikipedia article of her own. Anyone want to develop these sections? ;) 86.135.106.134 (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason Simba and Nala aren't covered in much detail here is that they are notable enough to have their own articles.  Sarafina and many of the others listed in this article do not, so it's appropriate to go into a little more detail for them.  --Mwalimu59 (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of biographies 

message: Does anybody besides me think that she was modelled on Eleanor Iselin from The Manchurian Candidate? I mean think about it, are they not similar? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, can you say "the incredibly handsome and intelligent Jupiter Optimus Maximus is not in the habit of being ignored"? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Zira

message: "It should be noted that in the second film, just before the "We Are One" sequence, Kiara slides off a rock and her tail lands briefly on her head, creating a tuft similar to Kopa's. This is most likely just a coincidence."
It is kind of amusing, but does the casual Wikipedia reader need to know this? Nuka Lives (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not.  It sounds like the sort of thing that might be good for a couple of days' discussion in a fan forum but is much too arcane to be worth mentioning in a Wikipedia article.  --mwalimu59 (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  At all noteworthy? 

message: "Kopa, introduced in The Lion King: Six New Adventures, was the cub of Simba and Nala who appeared at the end of The Lion King,"
"It is sometimes believed that Kopa is the cub at the end of the first film, which for the most part does not resemble Kiara. Most, if not all, book adaptations of the film say that it was a male. Disney has stated that the cub was, in fact, Kiara;"
It doesn't help that neither assertion appears to be sourced. I don't know anything of the subject--could someone clear it up? 208.39.183.4 (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Kopa was introduced in Six New Adventures (1994) as Simba and Nala's son well before Simba's Pride (1998) was even conceived of. When they made the sequel, I would imagine the writers had no knowledge of the books, and just decided it was more interesting to make the cub female. I do have a copy of 6NA, and some of those adaptations, so I believe that during production of the first film, the cub at the end was thought of as a male (and called "Fluffy" apparently). Nuka Lives (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kopa - section contradiction? 

message: There's a reason there's a citation at the end of this section. You people might want to actually look at the link and stop making stupid edits replacing the deleted dialogue. It doesn't even make any logical sense! If you really believe there's nothing new in the deleted scene, then the whole section should be removed.
Let me make myself absolutely clear: If you view the video the citation links to, you will see that Nuka does in fact say "Well, I finally got your attention, didn't I?" in addition to "I'm sorry, mother- I tried". The former line was deleted, so it would be preferable if this quote wasn't replaced by one that actually made it into the final cut of the film.
(tears out hair on the inside) Nuka Lives (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuka's death scene 

message: Regarding the recent cleanup of the article by User:AnmaFinotera, I would concede that much of it was reasonable.  However, I think he went overboard in the extent of the deletions, and in my opinion some of the characters whose sections were removed are notable enough to deserve mention and should be restored, or if not in their own sections, at least deserve a brief mention in prose sections about the works they came from.  
My opinion would be to at least restore the sections on Sarafina, Kopa, and probably Ahadi.  There should also be at least brief prose sections addressing The Lion King: Six New Adventures and The Lion King's Timon and Pumbaa, as their total omission would likely appear to future editors to be an oversight to be remedied.  --mwalimu59 (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also removed were the screenshots despite their fair-use rationale. Sarabi, Zira, and Nuka were also shortened.If we really want to only restore book/comic characters that are important, I recommend restoring Uru and Mohatu as well. Nuka Lives (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Outlander lionesses are cool too, but somehow I don't think that many people will be with me on that, despite how interesting they are (interesting to the TLK fan community at least). Nuka Lives (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The images really are not notable. Policy is VERY clear on those. Having a FUR doesn't mean its being used properly. Character lists get 1-3 non-free images, not one for every character. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The books are minor adaptations that are not notable enough for their own article (fails WP:N and WP:BK), much less need mentioning here. A character list should have major characters from the series as a whole, not ever minor character possible. Timon & Pumbaa I removed because the main series already has an article and other than the main film characters, none of those series characters are notable. Sarafina is a minor character, as was noted in her own description. Each removal was done deliberately and per the guidelines for characters lists, examples of featured character lists, and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding WP:NOT, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and WP:UNDUE. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The books are based on an award-winning box office smash. That seems pretty notable. Nuka Lives (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:BK. Being based on the movie does not make them notable. The books are extremely commonly done by Disney and are not discussed in reliable, third-party sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Consensus occurs through discussion, not SPAs with histories of disruptive behaviors reverting without explanation nor discussion. Those who want to include Sarafina need to show why she is a major character, which is pretty hard to do considering those attempts at readditions continue to note that she has no real role in the films at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I have given plenty of reasons. She is a minor character and the OR comments that she agreed to some "arranged marriage" that doesn't een exist is not a fact. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. This is for an OVERVIEW not detailed, minutae. Her existence doesn't make her a major character, nor does her appearing more than once. She is a minor character. This is not my belief or feeling, it is fact. She had no impact on the story. And yes, all of those links give reasons, whether you like to see them or not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Being a character does not make her notable for inclusion in this list. She's already mentioned in Nala's section as her mother, which is the only minor relevance she has. She does not have any impact on the plot. Any lioness could have said her one or two lines. And how is hitting undo an accident? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

text: If you are that fatigued, then please go rest and come back to the discussion when you are refreshed as you are making a lot of typos and forgetting to sign your posts as well. That she is a character is, again, irrelevant. She is a minor one and does not need listing in a character list. I'm attempting to find balance between deleting the list all together as being fairly useless and completely against normal conditions such a list is allowed and what it was. If its going to be here, then this list needs to act as a proper character list, which provides brief summaries of the major characters of the series, no excessie plot summary, and does not give undue weight to minor characters by listing them. This is the consensus by all prevailing projects, as seen in AfDs, as seen in FL discussions of character list articles, as seen in peer reviews, etc etc etc. From your edit history, you seem to have edited in the Dragon Ball articles at some point, so I think you should be aware of this without my saying so, as its character list was also cleaned of minor characters and much inappropriate content recently. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Okay, just so everyone knows, this is sarcasm. I just wonder why Sarafina isn't allowed on this list when other such inconsequential characters such as Gilraen have their own article and nobody seems to challenge it. I have yet to see anything in Wikipedia policy say that minor characters from major works are not allowed. Tymime (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

text: A fan site is not an appropriate and the link to the dictionary does not provide a source for those claims. Leave off the personal attacks ad stick to the issues please. Consensus has long agreed that minor characters should not be included in character lists and certainly should not have their own articles. That there are articles go against this consensus and have not been addressed yes is not a valid reason to keep this article in bad shape. There are million of articles on Wikipedia, not all get noticed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When did I attack you? There were no attacks- there is absolutely nothing personal about this. I only pointed out what I've observed. Every attempt to add anything (minus the Sarabi thing I mentioned) you've reverted upon sight. Your efforts have essentially kept this article the way you left it after you completed your "cleanup". You've refused to allow anyone to change it.Informative fan sites are never spam, and to call them such is highly inappropriate. And if you took the time to look up the character names in the dictionary, you will find that each and every one has at least one definition. It's an undeniably perfect source, and if you really must need it, a reference link to each entry can be provided.You keep claiming that either consensus or policy dictates that minor characters should be left off Wikipedia. And yet after all this debate you have yet to provide any proof, and consistently ignore any hint that you ought to. You are the only person here who's claimed such a thing. Please link to the appropriate policy page or perhaps the discussion pages for any character list that is a good example of this- preferably one without your involvement, so that we can see that others feel the same way you do. Tymime (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming I was invoking ownership. I have no problems at all with people working on this article, within actual Wikipedia guidelines rather than attempting to return it to the crufty mess that was before. And yes, fansites are spam and as specifically excluded under WP:EL - they are neither informative, reliable, nor appropriate for linking (if you need to see the consensus there, go read the talk of WP:EL where it was just upheld yet again). The dictionary as a source might be fine, but first a reliable source should actually verify that the characters names are intended to be Swahili, and preferably what meaning Disney intended rather than what was gleened from an online dictionary. If you want links where I'm not involved, find them yourself because I'm not going to hunt them down. I am frequently involved in many many many discussions dealing with cleaning up character lists, so I do know what the consensus is. Go look at at featured character list, such as List of Naruto characters and List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters - no minor characters. Look at the AfDs for minor character lists - almost always end in deletion or, occasionally, redirecting to the main list. Go read WP:WAF, WP:UNDUE, WP:PLOT, WP:MOSTV, WP:LIST, and go read through the project lists at TV, Anime and manga, and Films and read through the many discussions at Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard, and of course go look at any other high class/quality character list and inevitably you will find a discussion where in consensus agreed to the removal of the minor characters. As no no one else claiming it here, that doesn't negate the reality because guess what, no one is here really supporting you either. This is a low traffic list of little interest to anyone and goes against guidelines as it is, so I suspect anyone who glances at it is just waiting for it to be deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was never intended to be a personal attack, and if you really feel that it was, that's your own interpretation. Besides, if accusing someone of such a thing is an attack, then why did you accuse me of the exact same thing earlier?It looks to me that it was agreed that linking to fansites is allowed as long as the site in question is informative and reliable, which is something I have seen on many an article. I don't see how the Lion King Archive fails to meet these standards.I would imagine that you're unaware of this, but this article was originally created because all of the characters listed were thought of as not notable enough to warrant their own article (as they had once), and thus were merged. So it just strikes me as odd that now the entire list is thought of as not notable (by you).I guess you've forgotten, but Mwalimu59 and Largoss are with me on keeping the minor characters. I don't think disinterested parties (i.e. the "glancers") should influence the direction the list takes, as they are clearly apathetic. All of us are willing to compromise by only including characters who are close relatives to the major ones (Sarafina, Kopa, etc.). If necessary, we could even merge the major characters into the list. Tymime (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are apparently reading for your own interpretation if you think anything at EL is supporting including a fansite link. Consensus is very clear - no fansites. And I'm well aware of the bad history behind this article, but that doesn't make it any better. The list itself is still unnotable by any realistic and neutral standard as it lacks any real info beyond reguritating the plots of their individual films - and neither person appears to be participating in the discussion nor saying that all minor characters should be included, only you. Glances can influence the list as much as anyone else, thanks. Anyone interested in having Wikipedia have appropriate articles, an interest in fictional topics, or just trying to help find resolution are free to offer views and can help form consensus. Consensus is not limited to obvious fans of the film. That said, I personally find the opinion of those who argue their case from the point of view of Wikipedia's articles and guidelines and who are experienced in crafted high quality articles (and in this case, character lists in particular) to be of more value than those who edit infrequently and seem to be speaking more out of their own personal enjoyment of the medium. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have much to add to this discussion, but since my name came up, I'll state that I'm still in favor of adding back a couple of the characters that got deleted from the article in the recent round of cleanup.  --mwalimu59 (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Everything you've said here is either untrue or makes no logical sense. I'll elaborate:The discussion on EL about fansites has yet to reach a conclusion, but it seems to be leaning towards "yes, as long as the site is reliable and informative", which unfortunately is probably something most people only have opinions on. Sites such as the Star Wars and Star Trek wikis are definitely well-researched and packed with information, but I'm afraid there isn't any Lion King equivalent at the moment. As it is, there really isn't any consensus on linking to fansites. So perhaps that's a debate for another time...Your opinion that this list is unnotable is, as I've said before, an opinion. It really would be best if we got more people (especially neutrals) to chip in on this discussion. Wikipedia isn't entirely democratic, but saying "yea" or "nay" based entirely on one person's thoughts isn't the way things go around here.Quoting Mwalimu59: "My opinion would be to at least restore the sections on Sarafina, Kopa, and probably Ahadi. There should also be at least brief prose sections addressing The Lion King: Six New Adventures and The Lion King's Timon and Pumbaa, as their total omission would likely appear to future editors to be an oversight to be remedied."Quoting Largoss: "...she is a minor character, but shes still a character. but you only keep saying that the fact she is minor she should be deleted, but wikipedia is also suppose to be a)encyclepidic and b)consensus is used for possible edits. your the only one who thinks she shouldnt be added. encyclepedias have thousands of minor sections. and your links do not say that a minor chacter should be completely cut. yes unneeded information, overly redudent facts, original research, etc etc. but your the only one who is deeming her unnecessary"...So I don't know where you got the idea that I'm the only one who believes the minor characters should be put back.Considering we have no actual way of telling how many people look at this article, nor what they think of it unless they add to the discussion, it's completely ridiculous to consider their opinions valid, as we have no idea what they are. Any person who only looks and doesn't comment likely doesn't care what happens to this list.(One thing I forgot to mention earlier: it's a well-known fact that Disney used Swahili words to name the Lion King characters. The fact that Kovu means "scar" is no coincidence.)This is probably be the last I'll say on the subject for the moment. Tymime (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the discussion is clearly upholding what EL already says - NO FANSITES and the Lion King fansite is certainly not of the quality or caliber to ever get past that guideline. The Lion King: Six New Adventures is so unnotable it was deleted so no, the characters from there are beyond irrelevant. The only relevant characters from Timon and Pumbaa are already included. Their omission is totally appropriate, especially from some minor, unnotable children's books that are of no actual relevance. Beyind a character does not make her includable. And yes, we can actually tell how many people look at an article. There is a link to view statistics available on the history tab of every article and talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, EL clearly states (emphasis added): "fansites, except those written by a recognized authority". The discussion, as of now, HAS NOT YET reached a consensus. Your persistent claim to the contrary is ludicrous. I have read it carefully several times now. They give several examples of websites that are technically maintained by fans, but are considered recognized authorities on a particular subject, such as Wookieepedia. I admit that LionKing.org does not meet the current standards, despite being the top Lion King fansite. Perhaps one day the Lion King wiki will be an RS.I was really hoping someone else would say this, but I guess not. Tymime (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, WRITTEN by a recognized authority, which consensus on the talk page agrees is extremely rare, and almost non-existent. The only debate is on whether to remove that exception. Wookieepedia is not one of those sites, it has an exception under the wikia guideline. Such a site would be something like escaflowne.anime.net, which is technically a fansite, but considered not only a valid EL but a reliable source because it is written by recognized authority Egan Loo. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad to see that you have admitted your being incorrect. I dearly hope that this is the last word on the matter. Tymime (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say I was incorrect, I said you were. The LionKing fansite is clearly NOT written by any recognized expert and does not meet WP:EL in any way, shape, nor form. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is exactly what I've been saying for some time now. I thought for a moment that maybe it could be linked to since it was written by someone who was obviously an expert on the subject, but then I realized that the only people who have so far relied on the list are the editors at the Lion King wiki. Until the 18th, you were stubbornly arguing that both EL and consensus stated that no fansites should be linked to at all- no exceptions. There's really no point in denying this (or even discussing it further), because your replies are right above for everyone to see: "And yes, fansites are spam and as specifically excluded under WP:EL - they are neither informative, reliable, nor appropriate for linking (if you need to see the consensus there, go read the talk of WP:EL where it was just upheld yet again)." "Consensus is very clear - no fansites." "No, the discussion is clearly upholding what EL already says - NO FANSITES..."Now please, can we move on? You may not be aware of this, but I agreed with you that LionKing.org is not suitable for linking two days ago. It's the minor characters that I'm really concerned about. Tymime (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: P.S. I just realized most of the characters from The Lion King have separate articles of their own aside from the main article for the film. Now they're discussed here as well. Doesn't this much Wikipedia coverage constitute overkill? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the main reason characters (or lists of characters) get their own articles is because if you were to offer thorough information on every one of them, the article for the work of fiction they appear in would become much too lengthy. Of course, this entirely depends on how complex the character in question is. If they amount to "so-and-so has a big nose and an obsession with sandwiches" then they couldn't possibly fill a whole article or section. Even Sarafina, who only had one line in the film, had things like book appearances and the "who was Nala's father" debate to make for a short section of her own.As for the characters in this list who also have their own article, they're only briefly covered here. And if notability is really such a big problem (because the list is filled with characters not many people care about), merging all of the characters- as I suggested earlier- would fix that in a jiffy.Oh, and by the way, thanks for stopping by. It's good to see someone well-respected take some interest in this list. Tymime (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, the character descriptions in this article easily could be incorporated into their respective film articles without expanding any of them to an unreasonable length. And thanks very much for the compliment. I appreciate your thinking I'm "well-respected," although there probably are those editors with whom I've tussled in the past who would disagree! :) LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I'm a bit doubtful that could be done, at least not with the major characters, since a number of them have other appearances that provide a great deal of backstory. The ones in this list at the moment, possibly, since the sequels weren't popular enough to have many (I only know of one) spin-offs. That would still leave the book/comic characters that have been the main sticking point, unless an article summarizing the books and comics (the interesting ones anyway) was made- which is actually something I've been considering lately. Tymime (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really beginning to like this idea. The characters from the first film can remain the way they are now, and the characters from the second and third films can be carefully incorporated into their respective articles without any significant loss in detail. (I notice only one of the deleted scenes is mentioned in Simba's Pride at the moment. That should be rectified.) Then an article called "List of The Lion King spin-off media" (or something to that effect) could be created. Hopefully, the spin-offs being summarized collectively would help deter any notability complaints. All that should please everybody, I think. Thoughts anyone? Tymime (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Anybody home? I'm getting the inkling to just go ahead and do this... Tymime (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly disagree with the idea of a list of "spin-off media" - the books are not notable as was clearly shown by their being deleted). They are par for the course for Disney films and at best should be mentioned briefly in the main film article. Their characters and what not are not notable nor do they need mention. Agree with LiteraryMaven to some degree. Film articles do not have character descriptions anyway, beyond the plot, so this list has never been an appropriate "spin-off" - but at least moving them to their film articles and redirecting this list to the first film article is at least a step in the right direction. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup - overdoing it? 

message: Vitani has virtually no influence on the plot. Why has no one removed her yet? Nuka Lives (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, just so everyone knows, this is sarcasm. I just wonder why Sarafina isn't allowed on this list when other such inconsequential characters such as Gilraen have their own article and nobody seems to challenge it. I have yet to see anything in Wikipedia policy say that minor characters from major works are not allowed. Tymime (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

text: A fan site is not an appropriate and the link to the dictionary does not provide a source for those claims. Leave off the personal attacks ad stick to the issues please. Consensus has long agreed that minor characters should not be included in character lists and certainly should not have their own articles. That there are articles go against this consensus and have not been addressed yes is not a valid reason to keep this article in bad shape. There are million of articles on Wikipedia, not all get noticed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When did I attack you? There were no attacks- there is absolutely nothing personal about this. I only pointed out what I've observed. Every attempt to add anything (minus the Sarabi thing I mentioned) you've reverted upon sight. Your efforts have essentially kept this article the way you left it after you completed your "cleanup". You've refused to allow anyone to change it.Informative fan sites are never spam, and to call them such is highly inappropriate. And if you took the time to look up the character names in the dictionary, you will find that each and every one has at least one definition. It's an undeniably perfect source, and if you really must need it, a reference link to each entry can be provided.You keep claiming that either consensus or policy dictates that minor characters should be left off Wikipedia. And yet after all this debate you have yet to provide any proof, and consistently ignore any hint that you ought to. You are the only person here who's claimed such a thing. Please link to the appropriate policy page or perhaps the discussion pages for any character list that is a good example of this- preferably one without your involvement, so that we can see that others feel the same way you do. Tymime (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming I was invoking ownership. I have no problems at all with people working on this article, within actual Wikipedia guidelines rather than attempting to return it to the crufty mess that was before. And yes, fansites are spam and as specifically excluded under WP:EL - they are neither informative, reliable, nor appropriate for linking (if you need to see the consensus there, go read the talk of WP:EL where it was just upheld yet again). The dictionary as a source might be fine, but first a reliable source should actually verify that the characters names are intended to be Swahili, and preferably what meaning Disney intended rather than what was gleened from an online dictionary. If you want links where I'm not involved, find them yourself because I'm not going to hunt them down. I am frequently involved in many many many discussions dealing with cleaning up character lists, so I do know what the consensus is. Go look at at featured character list, such as List of Naruto characters and List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters - no minor characters. Look at the AfDs for minor character lists - almost always end in deletion or, occasionally, redirecting to the main list. Go read WP:WAF, WP:UNDUE, WP:PLOT, WP:MOSTV, WP:LIST, and go read through the project lists at TV, Anime and manga, and Films and read through the many discussions at Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard, and of course go look at any other high class/quality character list and inevitably you will find a discussion where in consensus agreed to the removal of the minor characters. As no no one else claiming it here, that doesn't negate the reality because guess what, no one is here really supporting you either. This is a low traffic list of little interest to anyone and goes against guidelines as it is, so I suspect anyone who glances at it is just waiting for it to be deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was never intended to be a personal attack, and if you really feel that it was, that's your own interpretation. Besides, if accusing someone of such a thing is an attack, then why did you accuse me of the exact same thing earlier?It looks to me that it was agreed that linking to fansites is allowed as long as the site in question is informative and reliable, which is something I have seen on many an article. I don't see how the Lion King Archive fails to meet these standards.I would imagine that you're unaware of this, but this article was originally created because all of the characters listed were thought of as not notable enough to warrant their own article (as they had once), and thus were merged. So it just strikes me as odd that now the entire list is thought of as not notable (by you).I guess you've forgotten, but Mwalimu59 and Largoss are with me on keeping the minor characters. I don't think disinterested parties (i.e. the "glancers") should influence the direction the list takes, as they are clearly apathetic. All of us are willing to compromise by only including characters who are close relatives to the major ones (Sarafina, Kopa, etc.). If necessary, we could even merge the major characters into the list. Tymime (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are apparently reading for your own interpretation if you think anything at EL is supporting including a fansite link. Consensus is very clear - no fansites. And I'm well aware of the bad history behind this article, but that doesn't make it any better. The list itself is still unnotable by any realistic and neutral standard as it lacks any real info beyond reguritating the plots of their individual films - and neither person appears to be participating in the discussion nor saying that all minor characters should be included, only you. Glances can influence the list as much as anyone else, thanks. Anyone interested in having Wikipedia have appropriate articles, an interest in fictional topics, or just trying to help find resolution are free to offer views and can help form consensus. Consensus is not limited to obvious fans of the film. That said, I personally find the opinion of those who argue their case from the point of view of Wikipedia's articles and guidelines and who are experienced in crafted high quality articles (and in this case, character lists in particular) to be of more value than those who edit infrequently and seem to be speaking more out of their own personal enjoyment of the medium. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have much to add to this discussion, but since my name came up, I'll state that I'm still in favor of adding back a couple of the characters that got deleted from the article in the recent round of cleanup.  --mwalimu59 (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Everything you've said here is either untrue or makes no logical sense. I'll elaborate:The discussion on EL about fansites has yet to reach a conclusion, but it seems to be leaning towards "yes, as long as the site is reliable and informative", which unfortunately is probably something most people only have opinions on. Sites such as the Star Wars and Star Trek wikis are definitely well-researched and packed with information, but I'm afraid there isn't any Lion King equivalent at the moment. As it is, there really isn't any consensus on linking to fansites. So perhaps that's a debate for another time...Your opinion that this list is unnotable is, as I've said before, an opinion. It really would be best if we got more people (especially neutrals) to chip in on this discussion. Wikipedia isn't entirely democratic, but saying "yea" or "nay" based entirely on one person's thoughts isn't the way things go around here.Quoting Mwalimu59: "My opinion would be to at least restore the sections on Sarafina, Kopa, and probably Ahadi. There should also be at least brief prose sections addressing The Lion King: Six New Adventures and The Lion King's Timon and Pumbaa, as their total omission would likely appear to future editors to be an oversight to be remedied."Quoting Largoss: "...she is a minor character, but shes still a character. but you only keep saying that the fact she is minor she should be deleted, but wikipedia is also suppose to be a)encyclepidic and b)consensus is used for possible edits. your the only one who thinks she shouldnt be added. encyclepedias have thousands of minor sections. and your links do not say that a minor chacter should be completely cut. yes unneeded information, overly redudent facts, original research, etc etc. but your the only one who is deeming her unnecessary"...So I don't know where you got the idea that I'm the only one who believes the minor characters should be put back.Considering we have no actual way of telling how many people look at this article, nor what they think of it unless they add to the discussion, it's completely ridiculous to consider their opinions valid, as we have no idea what they are. Any person who only looks and doesn't comment likely doesn't care what happens to this list.(One thing I forgot to mention earlier: it's a well-known fact that Disney used Swahili words to name the Lion King characters. The fact that Kovu means "scar" is no coincidence.)This is probably be the last I'll say on the subject for the moment. Tymime (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the discussion is clearly upholding what EL already says - NO FANSITES and the Lion King fansite is certainly not of the quality or caliber to ever get past that guideline. The Lion King: Six New Adventures is so unnotable it was deleted so no, the characters from there are beyond irrelevant. The only relevant characters from Timon and Pumbaa are already included. Their omission is totally appropriate, especially from some minor, unnotable children's books that are of no actual relevance. Beyind a character does not make her includable. And yes, we can actually tell how many people look at an article. There is a link to view statistics available on the history tab of every article and talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, EL clearly states (emphasis added): "fansites, except those written by a recognized authority". The discussion, as of now, HAS NOT YET reached a consensus. Your persistent claim to the contrary is ludicrous. I have read it carefully several times now. They give several examples of websites that are technically maintained by fans, but are considered recognized authorities on a particular subject, such as Wookieepedia. I admit that LionKing.org does not meet the current standards, despite being the top Lion King fansite. Perhaps one day the Lion King wiki will be an RS.I was really hoping someone else would say this, but I guess not. Tymime (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, WRITTEN by a recognized authority, which consensus on the talk page agrees is extremely rare, and almost non-existent. The only debate is on whether to remove that exception. Wookieepedia is not one of those sites, it has an exception under the wikia guideline. Such a site would be something like escaflowne.anime.net, which is technically a fansite, but considered not only a valid EL but a reliable source because it is written by recognized authority Egan Loo. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad to see that you have admitted your being incorrect. I dearly hope that this is the last word on the matter. Tymime (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say I was incorrect, I said you were. The LionKing fansite is clearly NOT written by any recognized expert and does not meet WP:EL in any way, shape, nor form. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is exactly what I've been saying for some time now. I thought for a moment that maybe it could be linked to since it was written by someone who was obviously an expert on the subject, but then I realized that the only people who have so far relied on the list are the editors at the Lion King wiki. Until the 18th, you were stubbornly arguing that both EL and consensus stated that no fansites should be linked to at all- no exceptions. There's really no point in denying this (or even discussing it further), because your replies are right above for everyone to see: "And yes, fansites are spam and as specifically excluded under WP:EL - they are neither informative, reliable, nor appropriate for linking (if you need to see the consensus there, go read the talk of WP:EL where it was just upheld yet again)." "Consensus is very clear - no fansites." "No, the discussion is clearly upholding what EL already says - NO FANSITES..."Now please, can we move on? You may not be aware of this, but I agreed with you that LionKing.org is not suitable for linking two days ago. It's the minor characters that I'm really concerned about. Tymime (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break

message: Could someone please offer me a reasonable explanation as to why this article exists at all? Why aren't these characters simply discussed in the articles for the films in which they appear? It seems separate articles designed simply to describe characters are starting to become commonplace and I don't understand why. Thank you for your feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. I just realized most of the characters from The Lion King have separate articles of their own aside from the main article for the film. Now they're discussed here as well. Doesn't this much Wikipedia coverage constitute overkill? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the main reason characters (or lists of characters) get their own articles is because if you were to offer thorough information on every one of them, the article for the work of fiction they appear in would become much too lengthy. Of course, this entirely depends on how complex the character in question is. If they amount to "so-and-so has a big nose and an obsession with sandwiches" then they couldn't possibly fill a whole article or section. Even Sarafina, who only had one line in the film, had things like book appearances and the "who was Nala's father" debate to make for a short section of her own.As for the characters in this list who also have their own article, they're only briefly covered here. And if notability is really such a big problem (because the list is filled with characters not many people care about), merging all of the characters- as I suggested earlier- would fix that in a jiffy.Oh, and by the way, thanks for stopping by. It's good to see someone well-respected take some interest in this list. Tymime (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, the character descriptions in this article easily could be incorporated into their respective film articles without expanding any of them to an unreasonable length. And thanks very much for the compliment. I appreciate your thinking I'm "well-respected," although there probably are those editors with whom I've tussled in the past who would disagree! :) LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I'm a bit doubtful that could be done, at least not with the major characters, since a number of them have other appearances that provide a great deal of backstory. The ones in this list at the moment, possibly, since the sequels weren't popular enough to have many (I only know of one) spin-offs. That would still leave the book/comic characters that have been the main sticking point, unless an article summarizing the books and comics (the interesting ones anyway) was made- which is actually something I've been considering lately. Tymime (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really beginning to like this idea. The characters from the first film can remain the way they are now, and the characters from the second and third films can be carefully incorporated into their respective articles without any significant loss in detail. (I notice only one of the deleted scenes is mentioned in Simba's Pride at the moment. That should be rectified.) Then an article called "List of The Lion King spin-off media" (or something to that effect) could be created. Hopefully, the spin-offs being summarized collectively would help deter any notability complaints. All that should please everybody, I think. Thoughts anyone? Tymime (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Anybody home? I'm getting the inkling to just go ahead and do this... Tymime (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly disagree with the idea of a list of "spin-off media" - the books are not notable as was clearly shown by their being deleted). They are par for the course for Disney films and at best should be mentioned briefly in the main film article. Their characters and what not are not notable nor do they need mention. Agree with LiteraryMaven to some degree. Film articles do not have character descriptions anyway, beyond the plot, so this list has never been an appropriate "spin-off" - but at least moving them to their film articles and redirecting this list to the first film article is at least a step in the right direction. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break 2

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* 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.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Enchanted Tiki Room.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Will you all knock it off? We have SOURCES with NEW information, leave the damn page alone.Werebereus (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knock it off 

message: Why does it say that Kovu was adopted?  No-where through the films does it say that Zira adopted Kovu.  The only line was, "Scar wasn't even his father but he took him in."  The impression I got from that was that Scar was childless and therefore chose Kovu, the youngest of Zira's two sons, to be king.  No where do Kovu's siblings identify Scar as their father nor does Zira refer to Scar as her mate.  The only source given is a supposed early script plan, but that doesn't make the idea canon.  Emperor001 (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Adopted

message: Mufasa is a strong live-action lion, were talking about a strong live-action lion says "Sarabi and I didn't see you the presentation of Simba"!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.246.25 (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live-Action Mufasa 

message: I'd like to remove the section on T&P supporting characters from the article. Does anyone object? This entire section is unsourced and I believe most of these characters only appear in one episode. A more selective list of characters appears in Timon & Pumbaa (TV series), which is where this list belongs if anywhere, in my opinion. ~ Kimelea (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, in the absence of objections. ~ Kimelea (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timon & Pumbaa characters 

message: There must be a lot of reception out there in WP:Reliable sources about scar as a villain. Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scar doesn't have his own Wikipedia article? 

message: I'm not sure how this survives as a separate article given the majority is in-universe plot regurgitation, overly trivial content and only two sources to support the content, neither actually help the article exist separately from this list. Looking at least for a partial merge because the article is simply unviable as it is. tutterMouse (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep Timon and Pumbaa separate - Characters are in their own spinoff show and shown separately in other media.  The page seems appropriate to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Don't merge They are in spin-offs.Forbidden User (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Oppose merge, characters are notable enough to have their own spin-off series and to feature in real-world content such as the educational shorts. --LoЯd ۞pεth 20:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Timon and Pumbaa]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of characters in The Lion King. 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/20070228102553/http://disney.go.com/disneyatoz/familymuseum/collection/masterworks/bambi/index.html to http://disney.go.com/disneyatoz/familymuseum/collection/masterworks/bambi/index.html
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) 18:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Quite a few names have Swahili meanings cited; but nothing for Kiara. Any idea of the origin for the name Kiara (for this film)?  MBG02 (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they just changed the name Ciara. Aminabzz (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kiara. Swahili? 

message: This is a cartoon, with talking, singing animals. Is it a Zanzibar red colobus monkey? No. While it is clearly a monkey, anything more specific than that is your guess. Your guesses do not belong in an encyclopedia. Also, it is fairly well known that Zanzibar red colobus monkeys don't speak English. They prefer Swahili.
Oh, but you are absolutely, positively sure that it cannot be anything other than a spotted red-billed rhesus rhino? It has the purple feathers and is shown eating its favored North American mountain laurel and everything? Too bad. It's a talking, singing rhino unless the movie or an independent reliable source calls it something else. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species 

message: If anyone's interested, Italian wikipedia page on Shenzi, Banzai and Ed is well sourced and could be the basis of an equivalent English version. Mariomassone (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate article for hyenas 

message: Under the Supporting Characters line, in Lumba-Lumba’s bio, add the fact that “lumba-lumba” in Indonesian means “dolphin”. 139.0.101.67 (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020 

message: Some of the biological relations are unsubstantiated. Namely, concerning Mohatu and Ahadi. There is no evidence that Mohatu is Ahadi's father or Uru's father. Therefore, the family tree is incorrect. That information needs to be removed.Jaxhammer (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relations 

message: Remove all claims of Ahadi being definitively related to Mohatu. There is zero evidence for who Mohatu sired. Jaxhammer (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The text was added at Special:Diff/677609291. Is the previous text better? Would the text as added (with its disclaimer) be better? Cabayi (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a more accurate statement, yes. The family tree needs to be edited as well.Jaxhammer (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just removed mentions of his child as it's unspecified. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020 

message: Should a new section be made for deleted Lion King characters from previous drafts (such as Nala's deleted brother, Mheetu, for example)? MistyWilbury (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should a new section for deleted characters be made? 

message: Is Azizi also a Swahili name or an Arabic name? Aminabzz (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azizi