Talk:Tinker Bell

message: Is Tinkerbell a pixie or fairy?  How do they differ?
I think tinkerbell is a fairie.
:In the book, at least, she is clearly and unambiguously a fairy, who sprinkles fairy dust; the word "pixie" does not appear at any point in the proceedings. --Paul A 04:42, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the clarification.  The reason I asked was because the Disney's version of Peter Pan mention pixie dust, IIRC.
Why does this page get a disney stub? Tinkerbell was a literary character long before she was co-opted by disney.  DaveTheRed 20:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Headline News Article for Brittany Murphy addition.
--MichaelGray 15:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tinkerbell 

message: In opening paragraph, what does "The voice of Tinkerbell is Tida Mien, a 7 year old girl in Chicago Il." even mean? Tinkerbell is a literary character. Does it refer to the Disney film? In that case the sentence should be moved to a later paragraph. 86.131.204.125 09:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Since Barrie's novel is the original source, and her name is spelled Tinker Bell throughout, should that be the title of the page? I'll change it if there are no objections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.225.218.47 (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of name? 

message: I quote from the Gutenberg version Overhead Tinker Bell shouted "Silly ass!" and darted into hiding.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No dialogue? 

message: Added  to following sentence in opening paragraph: "...she has since become a worldwide icon due to Disney's adoption of her as its official mascot...". I could be wrong, but hasn't the "official Disney mascot" job gone to the mouse? Kkbay (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there's no "official" status; I've changed the opening paragraph accordingly. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Mascot? 

message: Someone tried to add the name of other fairies who are friends of tinkerbells. I'm no expert, but it looks like this is valid. Does someone want to source it and add it? The more fairies the better? ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They're characters in the Disney Fairies franchise, and are covered in that article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response. In the original book section it mentions other fairies but no names and no link is given. I think other fairies should be wikilinked to the article or section where they are covered. As far as the Fairies Franchise that seems to be a franchising marketing campaign for new fairy characters. But the original ones shoul dbe included here or prominently linked to, in my opinion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no other fairies named in the play or novel. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of other fairies

message: It seems odd that there's no discussion of Tinker Bell's role in the original play.  I wouldn't know where to go to get information, but would probably be good to put some stuff in about that... I originally came to this page because I was curious how she was portrayed (just a bell? was there a light? etc. I imagine special effects options for plays of that era were limited).  On a side note, it seems like articles relating to Peter Pan in general have a lot of information about the Disney adaptations (which is fine) and very little about the original source material (which is sad). 24.5.195.236 (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the Play? 

message: I want to add a section on this page about the tinker bell movie that just came out in 2008 does any one have good information or references on this topic?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garcijenn856 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already an entire article about it: Tinker Bell (film). - Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tinker Bell" The Movie 2008.. want to add section 

message: The other day  to the lead section of this article, changing "in particular" to "including" in the following sentence:I changed it to:I made that change because "in particular" implies that the Disney Peter Pan is more important than other film and television adaptations. "Including" only states that the Disney version is one of those adaptations; although the fact that it is the only adaptation mentioned here gives it de facto prominence while still using neutral language in keeping with WP's principles of neutrality. I gave what I thought was a reasonable and reasonably detailed justification for that change when I made it.
Another editor almost immediately , so that the statement again says "in particular", explaining the reversion simply by saying "because it clearly is" – meaning, I assume, that the Disney adaptation clearly is more important than any other. While I will not engage in any kind of competition over this article or any other in Wikipedia, I do want to give this more visibility, so that any other editors who may be interested can get involved.
The issue here is not which adaptation of Peter Pan is the most important; the issue is the neutrality of the language we use in Wikipedia articles. Neutral language is always preferable to non-neutral language. If absolute neutrality in language is impossible (and it probably is), then the most nearly neutral language we can come up with is the language we should use. As I read them, "including" is more nearly neutral than "in particular". If anyone disagrees, if in anyone's mind "including" unfairly derogates the Disney movie while "in particular" is more nearly neutral, please say so.
I don't disagree with the reverter that the Disney version is the most important adaptation for most people; I do disagree about the language we use here. The language we use when we introduce the Disney movie in this article – which is not about that movie, or about any other Peter Pan adaptation, but about the character Tinker Bell – should not give that movie extra emphasis by using non-neutral language to introduce it. Simply the fact that it is the only adaptation mentioned here gives it sufficient prominence.
I think the wording should be changed back to "including" instead of "in particular", but I will not enter into an edit war over it.--Jim10701 (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's neutrality that takes varying viewpoints into account and keeps personal opinions out, and there's neutrality that obfuscates information by insisting that nothing should be highlighted and sterilizes the prose into monotony in the process.  Wikipedia policies do not call for the latter.  If the Disney film adaptation is the most prominent and culturally influential portrayal of the character (and I don't believe there is any dispute that it is), then we do our readers a disservice by hiding that fact behind a veneer of false neutrality.  I reverted the article because the original version was more informative, more interesting, and more true, and these are attributes I believe are valuable to Wikipedia. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, if pedantic neutrality is to be avoided, it seems the article should say something like:</br></br></br>orThen the point will have been made clearly and straightforwardly instead of by using subtly promotional language, the significance of which many readers may miss, and they will have an even firmer understanding of the truth.</br></br></br>While I personally may not agree that Disney's is the most important adaptation of the Peter Pan story (I confess that I have little respect for anything he did after Pinocchio), I do agree that his adaptation developed Tinker Bell as a character (especially visually) more than any other, which is really what matters most in the context of this article on her.</br></br></br>That point is well made in the body of the article, so summarizing it here in the lead section would be entirely appropriate. I just have a problem with the subtly non-neutral language you're advocating, not so much with the point you make, especially if the point can be specified more clearly so it connects better with the body of the article, as I think my second suggestion above does.</br></br></br>But, as I said, I have no desire to contend about this. I've made my point; if it doesn't appeal to anyone else I'll drop out of the discussion and leave the article alone.--Jim10701 (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral language 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Why is no one discussing these edits? I agree that on its face the addition doesn't seem necessary, but it's not inaccurate content. --valereee (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is obviously unnecessary. It's just one editor making a whole mess of false, questionable, and useless edits vs. every other editor. There's nothing to discuss. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

text: It is WP:PUFFERY to mention "award winning" as an adjective. Particularly about something that isn't even the topic of this article. It is rightly removed from this article and all the others the editor is adding this to. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  academy awards edit war 

message: I found Tinker Bell (Disney character) in drafts and added to it if does anyone wants to help develop it Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disney