Talk:Mickey's Mellerdrammer

Mickey's Lips

This short was black & white. So I seriously doubt that Mickey had orange lips in the film proper. Perhaps the article means to refer to posters or some other related material? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.252.7.52 (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

The Blackface article says that it was colored that way on an advertising poster, I'll update this page to reflect that. You're right that it wouldn't make sense in a black and white film. -- Atamasama 18:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The poster for this cartoon clearly shows the orange lips, and 'black face' I'll link to the poster, as I am also framing out the page with content to convert from stub to full page. Link to movie poster on collectibles website Here is a link to the Movie poster for Mickey's Mellerdrammerwsbonduran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsbonduran (talk • contribs) 14:45, 20 April 2008

The poster also doesn't show mickey in black face, he is shown in his normal white face. If the poster is to be used as reference for the depiction of blackface in this short, it should he consistent with the short itself. Additionally, the link that was being used as reference makes no mention to the uses of makeup as described in the summary.

Either there needs to be a better description in the references, or the references should be removed. Zaius0930 (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess I should be more specific. The link provided for the poster is no longer active. That being said, while the poster may show mickey's lips as orange, in no other ways is blackface depicted in the poster. The use of the poster as reference should he reconsidered. Additionally, the link used as reference for mickey's and the cast's use of blackface makes no mention of the orange lips, not does it mention the other character's use of blackface. Zaius0930 (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Controversy section

While raising some valid points, I feel that this section is a bit off-topic, considering this article is supposed to be about this specific cartoon, not Disney's entire oeuvre. Brutannica (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree, even if the information is probably true, its feels pretty off-topic. I did not delate the information, but i added what page you can find the information on, as i think its wrong to cite the WHOLE book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.234.88.227 (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, i took out the information, plus one of Walts daughters called the book garbage, so im not sure its an realiable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.162.177.72 (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I just delated the controversy section as the whole section is redurant and irrelevant, every little bit of it. I also added some information to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.162.177.72 (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Brutannica, the section was off-topic, and the sole source appears to discuss Disney's cultural attitudes without specifically referencing this cartoon, so the connection was a bit of a stretch. I've rewritten the section with reliable sources. The intervening edits and comments here emanated from a disruptive IP, now blocked for three months. JNW (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, just saw that now. Thanks for reverting the vandalism, saves me the work of having to do it. I was in two minds on the information about Walt Disney, but you are probably right that it should not be on the article, plus the information can be found on the Walt Disney article, so delating that information are not that huge of a loss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.234.88.227 (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mickey's Mellerdrammer. 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/20141214195437/http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/11266/Mickey-Mouse-s-trademark-white-gloves-have-racist-origins to http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/11266/Mickey-Mouse-s-trademark-white-gloves-have-racist-origins

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

2029 in public domain

this short will enter the public domain in 2029, which is 95 years+1 after 1933 when the short first premiered. The renewal for the short can be seen here. MonkeyBBGB (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)