User talk:Inanimanitatist

Hello, Inanimanitatist! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.

Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Discord server • IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please explain what you are doing, and why, on the talk page before you do it? Why do you think that there are only 58 films and not 64? What reliable sources are you using to establish this? Please also note that if your reasoning is based on your own research and opinion, then that is not an acceptable rational. Thanks. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

​"I apologize for the late message, Escape Orbit, but I needed time to compose myself of the right words so that I can get myself ready to explain to you directly the reasons behind my actions (or what I'm trying to do, in why I think there's 58 films and not 64). I'm done now and here's my full and direct explanation:

My actual goal here in proposing a re-classification or re-evaluation of the six 1940s package films by Walt Disney on Wikipedia (why I think there only 58 films and not 64) is not to completely diminish their legacy or remove them entirely from the historical output and/or filmography of Walt Disney Animation Studios (or exclude them from the "Disney Animated Canon" in any way), but to improve the factual and historical accuracy of the "List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films" page itself (and perhaps, take a re-evaluation towards any pages that always classified the number of animated films or "classics" within the "canon" as 64). ​This effort is rooted in reliable historical and critical perspectives and strictly adheres to Wikipedia's policies of verifiability and no original research, as well as make sure that any distinctions made are supported by external sources rather than my personal opinions. I want to assure you, as well as the broader Disney Animation fan or enthusiast community, that my intent is to provide a more nuanced understanding of Disney's filmography during a unique period, rather than to create confusion or frustration among you, the Disney Animation fans, and the people at Disney itself.

​About what constitutes the "Disney Animated Canon," this can be very complicated, especially when considering anthology films as a part of it, other than the 55 animated feature films or more (produced with single, coherent, and traditional narratives). I want to take my proposal as a distinction between different types of anthology films based on their main production intent, specifically historical and economic contexts in which they were created, and their contemporary and historical critical and public reception (as time passed on), as well as an approach that plans to clarify why (if you think that if I'm excluding the six (6) 1940s anthology films from the "canon" or studio's filmography but not the other three (3)) certain anthology films, particularly Fantasia (1940), The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977), and Fantasia 2000 (1999/2000), which (even if I think so or not) continue to be widely accepted within the "canon" (due to presenting a unique case for staying within the studio's filmography), while the six (6) 1940s package films continue to present a different case for categorization.

For "Fantasia" in 1940, while it is (technically) made as an anthology film (similar to the six 1940s anthology films, but unlike them), it was not a collection of shorts, unrelated segments, or short animations based on unfinished story ideas, all assembled out of wartime or economic necessity, but a highly ambitious artistic endeavor by Walt Disney to blend classical music with animation. ​Originally titled as "The Concert Feature," the animated anthology film aimed to present different musical selections visually to the audience. ​And while it was not a traditional feature film with a single and coherent narrative (like the other 55 within the studio's filmography or more), its purpose was a groundbreaking artistic exploration, and it has since been recognized throughout the decades (or 80+ years ever since it was first released) as a significant achievement in animation history, both in America and the world.

For "The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh" in 1977, while it is (too and technically) made as a cheaply-made compilation or anthology film of three previously released and popular "Winnie-the-Pooh" featurettes, Walt Disney himself (before he passed away) did not believe A.A. Milne's "Winnie-the-Pooh" stories could sustain a full-length feature, which led to the creation of individual shorts at first, but the decision to combine them into a feature-length film in 1977 came in later. ​And while it is a cheaply-made anthology film too, its inclusion in the "canon" was a subsequent recognition of the beloved characters from Milne's stories and the success of its individual components, rather than a primary production decision driven by economic desperation.

Lastly, for "Fantasia 2000" in 1999 or 2000, while it is (too and technically) made as an anthology film (similar to the six 1940s anthology films), it was a direct continuation of the artistic vision of the original "Fantasia" in 1940, made to explore new musical and visual interpretations. And evem if it was an anthology film, too, ts creation was driven by a desire to extend an established artistic legacy, not as a quick solution to financial troubles.

As for the six (6) 1940s anthology or package films (Saludos Amigos in 1943, The Three Caballeros in 1945, Make Mine Music in 1946, Fun and Fancy Free in 1947, Melody Time in 1948, and The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad in 1949), they were very absolutely necessary (even in the "canon" that many know today) but fundamentally different in their production intent and receptions, critically and from audiences:

1. ​These films were a direct consequence of World War II, which severely limited Disney's staff and income by closing European markets. And with many animators drafted and a significant portion of the studio's resources dedicated to producing training and propaganda films for the U.S. ​government, the animation studio lacked the staff and budget for traditional full-length features at the time.

2. ​Following the commercial underperformances of Pinocchio in 1940, Fantasia in 1940, and Bambi in 1942, Disney faced immense financial pressure from the Bank of America, which specific focusing on less costly work. ​The package films were a way to generate income and keep the studio operating, while using unfinished story ideas and pieces left over from other projects. ​The film "Saludos Amigos" in 1943 was even given federal loan guarantees because the studio had over-expanded before European markets were closed by the war.

3. Critics and audiences, including Disney Animation fans, in the 1940s expressed a clear desire for Walt Disney to return to full-length, single-narrative features. New York Times critic "Bosley Crowther" described the package films as "a gaudy grab-bag show" with "adequate fillers-in" and "disordered" content as he expressed an experience of "precipitate ups and downs". Another critic noted that "Disney's famous cuteness... ​is hard on my stomach". ​Many felt that Walt himself had lost his vision, abandoned him as an artist, and saw him as a "sentimental, mawkish, callow, hack filmmaker". ​The "package era" films were often seen or described as "somewhat entertaining appetizers," with audiences longing for "the satisfaction of a full meal". ​And this sentiment from the public was further supported by the success of Cinderella in 1950, which proved that true feature-length animation could still thrive, and its critical and financial success marked the end of animated package films or compilation films during Walt's lifetime. ​(Additional mentioning for support: For example, "Make Mine Music" in 1946 had mixed-to-negative critical responses, being described as a "visual crime" by some reviewers. ​While "The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad" in 1949 received better reviews than its predecessors, it was still perceived as a compilation film rather than . ​The general sentiment was that audiences at the time wanted a full story, and not a collection of disjointed stories."

I apologize at this hour, Escape Orbit. I'm still not yet done explaining everything and reasoning out on my actions and I still have more to state, but it seems like the Wikipedia "Reply" space cannot handle any more sentences or statements. I will continue my explanations in another "Reply" space and I will include the reliable sources that I'm using for this (not any based on original research or my own opinions, since you said that it is "unacceptable rational").

For now, you may see what I've wrote so far but I haven't finalized it yet, so I please and kindly ask of you to not say anything yet until I'm done. (And by the way, I have to go to school and I may be offline to make another "Reply" space, so I may have to focus on the lessons ahead and I'll continue to explain myself when I have the time, get back home, or when I'm online again. Inanimanitatist (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me, Escape Orbit, but if you're receiving this at this hour, I'm done with school and I'm on my way home now so I'm now available and online again to continue my explanations and reasoning, so you can kindly say anything about it all or if there's anything that you'd like to ask me when I'm done. Here it is:

"Other than all of this, I'd just like to say that if I do this on Wikipedia, it is my responsibility to summarize what any reliable sources say, and not to argue using personal opinions (or sources based on original research) from any Wikipedia editor or predictions about any future consensus. And, in this case, it is also my responsibility towards drawing on academic works, creditable film criticisms, and/or historical accounts in order to present a distinction that clarifies the unique circumstances of the 1940s Disney package films, as well as, with objectivity, make sure that the categorization reflects established knowledge rather than any individual preferences or corporate marketing lines, which can be inconsistent over time. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Overall, Escape Orbit, I explain to you this proposed reclassification of mine because it is not an attempt to diminish the legacy of the six 1940s package films but to provide a more accurate and historically informed understanding of Disney's animated output. ​And by meticulously differentiating these films based on their wartime and economic origins, their episodic nature, and the contemporary critical and audience desire for a return to traditional narratives (other than the 3 anthology films that are similarly-formatted but continue to be widely accepted within the canon), I plan to create an entry on Wikipedia that serves as a clearer and more accurate historical record, as well as acknowledge the distinct circumstances that led to their creation while recognizing the different artistic and historical contexts of other anthology films produced within the animation studio’s filmography. ​Furthermore, I'd like to take a strong commitment towards Wikipedia's main principles of verifiability, neutrality, and no original research, and make sure that any changes are robustly supported by evidence and contribute to a more comprehensive and accessible understanding for all readers of the page and Disney Animation fans and/or enthusiasts."

Sources (reliable ones, not ones based on original research) used:

1. https://cvdhistoryandmuseums.wordpress.com/2017/10/05/the-history-of-disney-animation-part-7-make-mine-music-melody-time-fun-and-fancy-free-and-the-adventures-of-ichabod-and-mr-toad/

2. https://www.bfi.org.uk/features/many-merry-eras-disney

3. https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/10/02/the-3-building-blocks-of-trustworthy-information-lessons-from-wikipedia/

4. https://cartoonresearch.com/index.php/the-disney-package-features/

5. https://mousterpiece.substack.com/p/the-disney-canon-saludos-amigos

6. https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Walt_Disney_Productions

7. https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Saludos_Amigos

I sincerely apologize for this, Escape Orbit, but I have to stop here for today because it's night time and I have to take care of nightly homework. I know there may be some or most things in my explanation that you may find "strange" or "unfinished," as well as that you may have questions that you'd like to ask me, but please kindly let me know what they are and I'll answer them when I have the time to. But I hope that you understand that I don't want to repeat the same editing mistake as I did for a third time and that I don't want to remove the six 1940s anthology films by Disney from the "canon" nor diminish their roles entirely. Have a nice day.

(written on February 4th, 2026)

Inanimanitatist (talk)Inanimanitatist Inanimanitatist (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Ice Age: Collision Course. Mr Fink (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me, Apokryltaros, but if you're receiving this reply, I'd like to sincerely and deeply apologize for the edits I made to the official Wikipedia page "Ice Age: Collision Course" in 2016 and for (if I still did without any harmful intentions) violating the "no original research" policy and inserting unpublished information (and my personal analysis, if it seemed like you for this) into the article. I'd also like to take this moment to come clean about my actions and explain myself about what I'm doing and why I'm doing this. But before that, I decided not to include any more original research or unpublished sources for the official "Ice Age: Collision Course" article anymore, after going through research and re-evaluation and agreeing that the 2016 is actually and primarily (not "technically") classified as an animated science-fiction comedy film, not a science-fiction adventure comedy film (since the absurdist and geographically/scientifically inconsistent "science fiction" elements and excessive visual gags or over-the-top slapstick led the film to being driven away from the primary "adventure comedy" genre that defined the original "Ice Age" trilogy of animated films (including the commercially successful but critically condemned "Continental Drift" in 2012).

In other words, I've decided to permanently leave the official page for "Ice Age: Collision Course" alone and never tamper with its genre classification or anything more, but I still need to explain myself and reason out (without needing to write a full essay ir anything) on why I'm planning to re-classify the main genres of "Rio" in 2011 and "The Peanuts Movie" in 2015.

For "Rio" in 2011, I actually made those edits never intended to be subjective ones nor from my personal opinions but to bring back the original classification of the animated film's primary genres on Wikipedia from 2011 up until the early 2020s and before it was classified now as a "musical comedy film": an animated "musical romantic adventure comedy film." While it is very true and accurate to describe the animated film's genre (until today) for having musical numbers influenced by samba and contemporary music and visual gags, humor, and/or slapstick provided by the cast of characters, it is also primarily classified as an adventure film (as the main characters, macaws Blu and Jewel, go on a high-stakes adventure throughout Brazil to escape smugglers and a menacing cockatoo) and a romance/romantic comedy film (as the forced "mating" between Blu and Jewel ends up evolving into a romantic relationship as the film progresses). Whether the sources I provide are considered accepted, verifiable, and original research or unnecessary/unneeded, not sourced properly, and not considered as original research, I understand. But if you'll allow me to make the edits without providing the sources (professional, not personal), I'll wait for your permission. What matters to me is that you understand that I'm trying to intentionally, harmlessly, and with no vandalism actions, properly re-classify the animated film back into its primary genre (as it is now and was then considered more than a simple "musical comedy").

For "The Peanuts Movie" in 2015, this one was very tough for me (including classification, evaluation, and original research/sources for the primary genre of the animated film, but not on subjectivemess nor personal opinions). Yes, while it is very true that this one can be primarily classified as a simple animated "comedy film," it is very unique and different among other American animated films that are simply and primarily classified as "comedy films" because although those like "Despicable Me" in 2010, "Wreck-It Ralph" in 2012, or "Monsters, Inc." in 2001 have elements of high-stakes action and adventure or feature anti-hero/villain/monster characters and goals of redemption or "good" change within main characters, "The Peanuts Movie" goes something different (although featuring slapstick and visual or high-energy comedy). Unlike simple animated "comedy films" that feature traditional "hero's journey structures" or formulaic but effective high-stakes action and adventure-like missions for the main character/s, "The Peanuts Movie" instead focuses as a slice-of-life comedy, as Charlie Brown's subplot involves him trying to impress the "Little Red-Haired Girl" in his class and the everyday struggles and year-long school events (driven through character-driven situations and humor and relatable childhood experiences) that he goes through as he tries to increase his popularity and earn acceptance from his peers as a friend, other than from Snoopy and Linus (saving his sister from embarrassment at the talent show, having trouble flying a kite, being honest with his test score at the assembly, and writing a book report on Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace" for an assignment, among others). However, slice-of-life comedy as the genre of the film is what not drives it as the primary genre: so does "adventure comedy," particularly as Snoopy (in his own subplot) uses Charlie Brown's struggles, situations, and/or events as the inspirations for writing his "fiction-within-fiction" novel featuring himself as a "World War I Flying Ace" engaging in a high-stakes adventure to defeat his fantastical nemesis, the "Red Baron," and save his love interest "Fifi," with the help of Woodstock and his Beagle Scout's repair crew. Another main reason I intended, with no vandalism actions or whatsoever, on evaluating and re-classifying "The Peanuts Movie" in 2015 as an animated slice-of-life adventure comedy film because it is one of the only Blue Sky Studios films (and animated films, in general) to have both or all of its subplots well-executed. Unlike "Ice Age: Continental Drift" in 2012, "Rio 2" in 2014, or "Ice Age: Collision Course" in 2016, which all had subplots that were "poorly executed" or described as "thin" and "underdeveloped" and led to their condemnations from critics and audiences and "inferiorities" to their better-received predecessors, "The Peanuts Movie" uses Snoopy's imaginary aerial battles with the Red Baron and his mission of saving Fifi as a "mirroring" (rather than a distraction for criticism in the film's quality) for Charlie Brown's struggles in his relatable but emotional and quiet quest to earn acceptance from his peers as a "true friend" and impress the Little Red-Haired Girl, even if he perceives himself as a "failure". I apologize for explaining this much, but I just hope that you understand my reasons (objective, not subjective) of re-classifying and evaluating the primary genres of "The Peanuts Movie" (as it is more than a simple animated "comedy film"). And whether the sources I provide are considered accepted, verifiable, and original research or unnecessary/unneeded, not sourced properly, and not considered as original research, I understand. But if you'll allow me to make the edits without providing the sources (professional, not personal) or allow me to continue my search of providing sources that do support my point and are authentically "original research", I'll wait for your permission. What matters to me is that you understand that I'm trying to intentionally, harmlessly, and with no vandalism actions, properly re-classify the animated film back into its primary genre (as it is now and was then considered more than a simple "comedy").

I kindly ask of you to not block me from editing, but I also, again, apologize if these edits were violating Wikipedia's polices on Blue Sky Studios films, and for not considering how you felt about this, Apokryltaros. I will leave editing "Ice Age: Collision Course" and never tamper with it ever again, but I hope that you still understand the reasons of editing on the primary genres of "Rio" and "The Peanuts Movie" and I will be waiting for your permission and consent first of allowing me to make the edits and provide original research (if I'm supposed to as supportive evidence). Inanimanitatist (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)Inanimanitatist

Do not restore your copy and pasted wall of text replies onto my talkpage again, please. Restoring what other editors delete off of their talkpages without their permission is seen as harassment. Mr Fink (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I sincerely and deeply apologize for that, Apokryltaros. I won't do it again nor message you on this without your permission and I'm very sorry if I harassed you in any way.

However, I'll be waiting for other editors' replies to the explanations and reasons behind my actions and I'll be doing so (or begin the editing and original research, if given full permission) before or on March 4 or March 10. Inanimanitatist (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)Inanimanitatist

Please read WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. It does not matter if you justify your edits with a wall of text analyzing the films and reaching conclusions based on your own perceptions. Any change (such as editing a film's genre) need to be backed up with a source, and if users revert your changes, open a discussion in the articles' Talk page, not the edit summary. Multiple reverts will be deemed disruptive behavior and will warrant a report to admins.

Your "explanations" are not needed, just follow the steps. Wikipedia is not a place for your own essays and analysis. Joy040207 (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Please stop with your persistent edits on films like Rio (2011 film), Ice Age Collision Course or The Peanuts Movie. Your edits have been reverted multiple times now, and a "please do not revert my edits" warning in your edit summaries will not work. This behavior is disruptive. If new to Wikipedia, please be mindful that, first of all, you do not need to leave a whole essay explaining your blatant original research and personal opinions. Even if you back it up with a source (unreliable, by the way. Other Wikis are NOT reliable, please see WP:RSPS), if your "harmless" change has been reverted more than once, open a discussion in the articles Talk page, and explain your reasoning and get a consensus before making the change again, otherwise you will start violating WP's policies regarding disruptive behavior. Your edits are "harmless", but your attitude is starting to not be that. Joy040207 (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me, Joy020407, but if you're receiving this reply, I'd like to sincerely and deeply apologize for the edits I made to the official Wikipedia page "Ice Age: Collision Course" in 2016 and for (if I still did without any harmful intentions) violating the "no original research" policy, my persistent edits, "harmful" attitude towards you, disruptive behavior and warnings,and inserting unpublished information (and my personal opinions and blatant original research, if it seemed like you for this) into the article. I'd also like to take this moment to come clean about my actions and explain myself about what I'm doing and why I'm doing this. But before that, I decided not to include any more original research or unpublished sources for the official "Ice Age: Collision Course" article anymore, after going through research and re-evaluation and agreeing that the 2016 is actually and primarily (not "technically") classified as an animated science-fiction comedy film, not a science-fiction adventure comedy film (since the absurdist and geographically/scientifically inconsistent "science fiction" elements and excessive visual gags or over-the-top slapstick led the film to being driven away from the primary "adventure comedy" genre that defined the original "Ice Age" trilogy of animated films (including the commercially successful but critically condemned "Continental Drift" in 2012).

In other words, I've decided to permanently leave the official page for "Ice Age: Collision Course" alone and never tamper with its genre classification or anything more, but I still need to explain myself and reason out (without needing to write a full essay ir anything) on why I'm planning to re-classify the main genres of "Rio" in 2011 and "The Peanuts Movie" in 2015.

For "Rio" in 2011, I actually made those edits never intended to be subjective ones nor from my personal opinions but to bring back the original classification of the animated film's primary genres on Wikipedia from 2011 up until the early 2020s and before it was classified now as a "musical comedy film": an animated "musical romantic adventure comedy film." While it is very true and accurate to describe the animated film's genre (until today) for having musical numbers influenced by samba and contemporary music and visual gags, humor, and/or slapstick provided by the cast of characters, it is also primarily classified as an adventure film (as the main characters, macaws Blu and Jewel, go on a high-stakes adventure throughout Brazil to escape smugglers and a menacing cockatoo) and a romance/romantic comedy film (as the forced "mating" between Blu and Jewel ends up evolving into a romantic relationship as the film progresses). Whether the sources I provide are considered accepted, verifiable, and original research or unnecessary/unneeded, not sourced properly, and not considered as original research, I understand. But if you'll allow me to make the edits without providing the sources (professional, not personal), I'll wait for your permission. What I hope for is that you understand that I'm trying to intentionally, harmlessly, and with no vandalism actions, properly re-classify the animated film back into its primary genre (as it is now and was then considered more than a simple "musical comedy").

For "The Peanuts Movie" in 2015, this one was very tough for me (including classification, evaluation, and original research/sources for the primary genre of the animated film, but not on subjectivemess nor personal opinions). Yes, while it is very true that this one can be primarily classified as a simple animated "comedy film," it is very unique and different among other American animated films that are simply and primarily classified as "comedy films" because although those like "Despicable Me" in 2010, "Wreck-It Ralph" in 2012, or "Monsters, Inc." in 2001 have elements of high-stakes action and adventure or feature anti-hero/villain/monster characters and goals of redemption or "good" change within main characters, "The Peanuts Movie" goes something different (although featuring slapstick and visual or high-energy comedy). Unlike simple animated "comedy films" that feature traditional "hero's journey structures" or formulaic but effective high-stakes action and adventure-like missions for the main character/s, "The Peanuts Movie" instead focuses as a slice-of-life comedy, as Charlie Brown's subplot involves him trying to impress the "Little Red-Haired Girl" in his class and the everyday struggles and year-long school events (driven through character-driven situations and humor and relatable childhood experiences) that he goes through as he tries to increase his popularity and earn acceptance from his peers as a friend, other than from Snoopy and Linus (saving his sister from embarrassment at the talent show, having trouble flying a kite, being honest with his test score at the assembly, and writing a book report on Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace" for an assignment, among others). However, slice-of-life comedy as the genre of the film is what not drives it as the primary genre: so does "adventure comedy," particularly as Snoopy (in his own subplot) uses Charlie Brown's struggles, situations, and/or events as the inspirations for writing his "fiction-within-fiction" novel featuring himself as a "World War I Flying Ace" engaging in a high-stakes adventure to defeat his fantastical nemesis, the "Red Baron," and save his love interest "Fifi," with the help of Woodstock and his Beagle Scout's repair crew. Another main reason I intended, with no vandalism actions or whatsoever, on evaluating and re-classifying "The Peanuts Movie" in 2015 as an animated slice-of-life adventure comedy film because it is one of the only Blue Sky Studios films (and animated films, in general) to have both or all of its subplots well-executed. Unlike "Ice Age: Continental Drift" in 2012, "Rio 2" in 2014, or "Ice Age: Collision Course" in 2016, which all had subplots that were "poorly executed" or described as "thin" and "underdeveloped" and led to their condemnations from critics and audiences and "inferiorities" to their better-received predecessors, "The Peanuts Movie" uses Snoopy's imaginary aerial battles with the Red Baron and his mission of saving Fifi as a "mirroring" (rather than a distraction for criticism in the film's quality) for Charlie Brown's struggles in his relatable but emotional and quiet quest to earn acceptance from his peers as a "true friend" and impress the Little Red-Haired Girl, even if he perceives himself as a "failure". I apologize for explaining this much, but I just hope that you understand my reasons (objective, not subjective) of re-classifying and evaluating the primary genres of "The Peanuts Movie" (as it is more than a simple animated "comedy film"). And whether the sources I provide are considered accepted, verifiable, and original research or unnecessary/unneeded, not sourced properly, and not considered as original research, I understand. But if you'll allow me to make the edits without providing the sources (professional, not personal) or allow me to continue my search of providing sources that do support my point and are authentically "original research", I'll wait for your permission. What matters to me is that you understand that I'm trying to intentionally, harmlessly, and with no vandalism actions, properly re-classify the animated film back into its primary genre (as it is now and was then considered more than a simple "comedy").

I kindly ask of you to not block me from editing, but I also, again, apologize if these edits were violating Wikipedia's polices on Blue Sky Studios films, and for not considering how you felt about this, Joy020407. I will leave editing "Ice Age: Collision Course" and never tamper with it ever again, but I hope that you still understand the reasons of editing on the primary genres of "Rio" and "The Peanuts Movie" and I will be waiting for your permission and consent first of allowing me to make the edits and provide original research (if I'm supposed to as supportive evidence). Also, I sincerely, trult, and deeply apologize for my attitude and tone towards you, especially in the warnings I gave you. I didn't mean to act nor sound that way to you and I regret it. If you give me the permission or consent to make the edits on "Rio" and "The Peanuts Movie" and provide original research as supportive evidence to my point, I will never act like that to you ever again. Inanimanitatist (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2026 (UTC)Inanimanitatist

Hello, Joy020407,

I'd like to ask you for some guidance you regarding editing the primary genre description of "Rio" (2011) in its main article. I'd also like to restate again that my intention is not to reclassify the animated film but to improve and clarify on its genre description from an an animated "musical comedy film" (still highly acknowledging) to "animated musical adventure comedy film," which I believe better reflects the animated film’s narrative and tone (even if I don't use multiple or any reliable sources in order to prevent violating the "No original research" policy and committing "original research," although still supporting). I still understand and respect the importance of clear onsensus and properly observing Wikipedia policies, especially regarding "Verifiability" and avoiding original research.

I still, sincerely and deeply, apologize if any of my earlier edits to the primary genre description of "Rio" (2011) caused any disruption or if my actions seemed hasty or impulsive to you. But moving forward, I will stop (for real this time) and leave it alone. But I would greatly appreciate it if you gave any advice and your permission before I can attempt any further changes (even if it is only one change) to the genre classification. I am also eager to cooperate helpfully and productely on the article, as well as make sure that the article’s accuracy is refined in a manner that is consistent with Wikipedia standards and community expectations.

Thank you again for your understanding and support. I look forward to your guidance on how it can be best to proceed. Have a nice day. (I am truly sorry for what I've done these last days and I will stop for now until I receive your permission on this.)

(P.S. I intend on doing the same thing for "The Peanuts Movie" in 2015 and "Ferdinand" in 2017. I will explain to you on both and on your "Talk page" someday, but for now, it is "Rio.') Inanimanitatist (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Inanimanitatist

Why isn't this posted on Joy020407's talk page? Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)