WikiProject Animation	(Rated Project-class)
v t e This page is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.Animationpopflock.com Resource: WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles  Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Points of interest related to Animation on popflock.com Resource: History - Portal - Category - WikiProject - Alerts - Deletions - Cleanup - Stubs - Assessment - To-do

WikiProject Animation was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 22 August 2011. If you wish to get involved with the Signpost, please visit the Newsroom.

Start a new discussion thread

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

GA reassessment of Adult animation

Adult animation, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Animated TV series and movies must be in the period of debut and ending in the animated TV series, and in the date of premiere in the movies

All the TV animated series in all years of the list of animated TV series must be sorted in 2 chronological categories: By the date of debut and by the date of ending. Meanwhile the animated movies in all years of the list of animated movies must be sorted by the date of premiere chronological.

Lots of unsourced, non-notable articles

I'm noticing a lot of these from Golden Age of American animation studios. E.g. I have turned many Tom and Jerry shorts into redirects that have no assertion of notability and in many cases, either no sources at all or only a single unreliable source. I recommend users here take a look at some American animation shorts articles to see how widespread this problem is. -Justin (koavf)?T?C?M? 23:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm bringing this up to community attention again as I am finding a lot of entirely unsourced or trivially-sourced (i.e. a passing reference that only establishes they exist, not notability). I am redirecting these to appropriate targets. I'll go thru other shorts (e.g. Looney Tunes/Merry Melodies) following this. -Justin (koavf)?T?C?M? 20:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Virtually all of the Tom and Jerry shorts were not appropriate for a full article. I'm seeing the same thing with Betty Boop and Woody Woodpecker. -Justin (koavf)?T?C?M? 20:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirects to a list of shorts is completely fair. The reason they probably exist as there are a number of standalone Looney Tunes shorts, but when we're talking works like "What's Opera, Doc" and "The Rabbit of Seville", they have clear notability. Unfortunately while Tom and Jerry and other cartoons also made that Golden Age of Animation, their individual shorts were nowhere close to this. So redirecting is a fair enough option. --Masem (t) 21:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen: @Visokor: See above. You have had a month to source these articles and have refused (in addition to the years or decade-plus that they have exited here). We cannot have original research, so we must show reliable sources that prove notability. These fundamental policies apply to all articles, even ones about cartoon shorts. -Justin (koavf)?T?C?M? 00:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@SonicClub: See above. We cannot have these unsourced articles. -Justin (koavf)?T?C?M? 02:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Note: Koavf, has linked me to this thread from my talk page. @Visokor:, User:Koavf indeed has a valid point here. Articles on popflock.com resource must be able to pass our notability criteria. WP:NFILM for example or, even WP:GNG. If you disagree with User:Koavf and would want the article to stay then find reliable source that can establish the notability criteria and restore the article back from WP:PAGEHISTORY. There is absolutely no time limit to do this revert and you can do it whenever you get time, but please remember that the sources must be WP:RS and independent of the subject. Koavf if you find that Visikor has reverted or undone your redirect without adding sources that can establish the notability, then the only option left for you will be to take it to WP:AFD asking for a redirect and let the community decide. regards. --DBigXray? 11:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  DBigXray, I don't think the articles should be deleted--they are valid redirects. -Justin (koavf)?T?C?M? 17:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, but if an editor believes that the article should be redirected and another disagrees, they should discuss it on the talk page and decide. If they are not able to come to a consensus, then the editor who believes the article should be redirected should take it to AfD for a discussion among the wider community with a "proposal to redirect". The community will then help to judge the notability and decide on it. There is no point in edit warring to add and revert a redirect. --DBigXray? 17:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  DBigXray, WP:AFD is for deletion, not redirection. Redirect can be an outcome but that's not the purpose of the page, nor what I am proposing. -Justin (koavf)?T?C?M? 23:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

  From my talk:

  I think a reply from me is warranted here, since I am (peripherally) involved in this: I don't see how claims that lack sources are of use to anyone who reads or edits Wikipedia. Content should be verified with reliable sources. Articles about fictional works should also have source-verified content that demonstrates notability--that is, descriptions of backgrounds and critic reviews of the works (articles about The Simpsons episodes are a good example of this); not just a plot summary, otherwise we're just left with an indiscriminate collection of information. Conversely, the Hanna-Barbera Tom and Jerry cartoons were made decades ago, long before computers even existed, so sources that might make these cartoons eligible for stand-alone articles might not be so easily accessible through internet searching--such sources may only be found in old newspapers which aren't stored digitally. Redirecting unreferenced articles for which sources can't be found easily seems to me to be reasonable (as long as their titles are plausible search terms), as the good-faith edits to the articles are preserved under the redirects instead of just being completely deleted, and the redirection can (but shouldn't necessarily) be reversed at any time. By the way, I have filed a full-protection request for The Midnight Snack as this edit war is getting out of hand. Linguist111^{my talk page} 03:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  Just another two cents. -Justin (koavf)?T?C?M? 05:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• User:Masem what is your opinion, on how to proceed when 2 editors disagree if the article should be redirected or kept. IMHO an AfD is the best place to decide on the notability in such cases. --DBigXray? 05:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

AFD would be the wrong place to take what everyone knows at worst will end up as a redirect. AFD should only be used when the initial goal is deletion. In this case, since there is a desire to redirect and nothing worse, then the best solution is to start an RFC on some reasonable page so that it gets picked up by the RFC. (You'd probably want to at minimum ping the Television wikiproject, they have had to deal with the same aspects here). --Masem (t) 05:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: That's not the current consensus on redirects at AfD. See WP:ATD-R, WP:BLAR, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 71#"AFD is not for redirecting"?. – Joe (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Joe Roe, The second sentence at WP:AFD says (emphasis added): "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." I read this as beings needing to be redirected. It's disappointing to me to see you adding unsourced information to our encyclopedia: I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. - Jimbo Wales, 16 May 2006 ^[1] Why do you think that adding back unsourced information is acceptable? -Justin (koavf)?T?C?M? 07:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: 13 year old quotes from Jimbo are not policy. I was involved in the discussions about redirects at AfD and actually agreed with you, but nevertheless that wasn't the consensus. In any case it doesn't matter. Discuss at AfD or discuss on a talk page. The important thing is that you discuss; edit warring is unacceptable. I'll say more on your talk page in a minute. – Joe (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Joe Roe, "13 year old quotes from Jimbo are not policy"... ? WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NOTABLE, WP:RELIABLE, WP:SOURCE. -Justin (koavf)?T?C?M? 23:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I see that the case where "when a redirect has been challenged" has been specifically added as an allowed AFD (there has long been a stance that AFD is *not* "articles for discussion" meaning you should bring non-admin actions like merges and redirects should not be covered at AFD). As that now is explicitly allowed, and there is clearly a dispute over the redirecting, then I would recommend AFDing a few - like 3 to 5 - of these shorts to get larger consensus , on the basis that really for redirecting them all but doesn't make sense to make that massive a nom at one time. --Masem (t) 14:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Masem Glad to know that you agree now. I stand vindicated. I dont suggest bulk AfDs here. let each article have its own discussion. --DBigXray? 06:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I hate to admit it, but this entire conversation has become way too technical for me to fully understand. You guys are talking about the possibility of garnering discussion of certain individual Looney Tunes/Tom & Jerry cartoon articles about their notability on WP. As I see it, no article should exist on WP without reliable sources. As one pointed out, these types of sources were more scarce when these cartoons were created, which took place decades before the Internet as we know it came about. I would be completely for converting appropriate articles into redirects for those that have questionable sources (i.e. only mentioning the source material in passing, or at all). All of these cartoons do exist, but existence and popularity do not necessarily equate to notability. If an editor wishes to redirect an article with inadequate sources to a more appropriate page, such as a list of Tom & Jerry cartoons, then so be it. No deletion or AFD should have to take place. If a single cartoon reel is not notable enough to be its own article, its title should become a redirect to a relevant list. That's all there is to it. Paper Luigi ^{T o C} 18:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Looney Tunes Bugs Bunny -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:121D:88E3:39EC:DA41:7350:9337 (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Della Duck standalone article proposal

Hello, I've created a standalone Della Duck article draft at Draft:Della Duck, including substantial work aggregating reliable sources with coverage of the character and depiction in recent years (and even covering the character's lack of depiction in past animation!), in my opinion demonstrating notability. I've posted on other project pages, but as explained below, I need to find more editors to weigh in.

The first AfC submission was declined because there was not yet a discussion or consensus on the Talk:Duck family (Disney) page about whether a Della Duck standalone article is appropriate. If you have time and interest, please join the discussion on that page and help form a consensus on the proposal. Danazar (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Big City Greens

There's a RFC at Talk:Big City Greens about including writers in the infobox. JDDJS (talk to me o see what I've done) 16:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Questions regarding topic improvement

I am currently working on the Talking Tom and Friends (TV series) article (in my sandbox (http://www.popflock.com/learn?s=User:RedBulbBlueBlood9911/sandbox)), but I have a few queries related to my work:

1. There is hardly any major information (excluding reception) about the show outside the YouTube videos of the show and the show's official site (I believe that almost all publicly available information about the show is already covered in the article), so I am currently adding citations and rewriting paragraphs and episode summaries. If done properly, what is the highest class this article can achieve?
2. It turns out that many different writers were working on different episodes in season 1, so should I add them all or just the ones that wrote many episodes?

RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the List of years in animation and film articles

Hello. A discussion regarding the List of years in animation and List of years in film articles is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Regarding what should go on the List of years in animation and List of years in film articles. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent activity at the Kimba the White Lion article

There's been a spate of recent activity at the Kimba the White Lion article in the section dedicated to the Lion King controversy. This activity seems to have been triggered by the appearance of a new YouTube video that claims to debunk some of the arguments used by those claiming uncredited influence regarding scenes and plot in Kimba the White Lion upon the first Lion King movie. Inexperienced editors had been removing sourced material and making what I feel are overhasty changes to the section. My feeling is that it is not Wikipedia's role to arbitrate the Lion King controversy, but merely to present the history and reasons behind the controversy, and that both reliably sourced arguments and counter-arguments are fine and appropriate in that section. Activity has settled down somewhat since the instatement of page protection from anonymous IP editing, but I suspect it will ramp up again after the expiration of the protection in a few days.

In the meantime, some discussion comments have appeared on the article talk page and remain unresolved. Some are calling into question at least one of the section's sources (a book by Madhavi Sunder). If someone can identify WP:RS third party sources that support these claims (or counter them), then I think that'd help resolve this ongoing concerns. I'm also open to having the article mention the YouTube video claims, though other editors differ on this. Anyhow, input from project members would be appreciated at Talk:Kimba the White Lion. Thanks.—Myasuda (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Eleanor's Secret no longer a stub, also potentially has sufficient citations

I am very new to editing on Wikipedia, so I'm not exactly sure what the procedure is for this. I just entirely revamped the Eleanor's Secret film page. I don't want to just unilaterally make the decision to delete the stub message, especially since I'm so new and may not know what is and isn't a stub. I also feel like everything is now sufficiently cited in the article, so that warning at the top can be removed. Second opinions on these issues would be appreciated! Comicguy333 (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Trolls (franchise)

Is there any reason why I should not accept this draft? I will accept it unless there is a reason that I do not expect. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Posible Vandalism in Animators articles

There is an IP editor than recently has been deleting parts of articles related to Walt Disney animators, w/o citing sources. I have reverted some of them, but the user sometimes seem to do constructive edits. So maybe we need some with some expertise to check his edits. There are some variation in the IP number, but seems the same user to me :

[1] , [2] , [3] , [4]

Could some expert take a look a this issue ?. Thank you Alexcalamaro (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

/* Statistics */ updated for Assessment section

Greetings, For Animation WP, I added progression, pie chart, rainbow; wiklink to "Popular pages". JoeNMLC (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Kimba the White Lion and YourMovieSucksDOTorg

There's an RfC regarding Kimba the White Lion that users might be interested in. © Tbhotch^(TM) (en-3). 23:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Article at AfD that needs input

Hello, there is an article at AfD that needs input: popflock.com Resource: Articles for deletion/Harvey Tolibao (2nd nomination). It's been open since July 24, due to a lack of participation/consensus. Anyone interested is welcome to join the discussion.   // Timothy :: talk  17:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

American Dad Season 6

Im sure you have heard it before the episode listed season 7 episode 3 shows up on Hulu as season 6 episode 3 so please add a side note if possible as this makes it very hard to find right off as one tends to expect popflock.com resource to be at least 90% accurate most of the time when it comes to television shows

GAR notice

To SquarePants or Not to SquarePants, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing Looney Tunes Episodes on Wikidata

Hi All,

Those of you who edit Wikidata might be interested in creating items for the missing episodes of Looney Tunes. It's easy through Mix'n'match: [5]

Best, Adam Harangozó (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

missing online video for The Man Who Planted Trees (film)

Hi all. For the The Man Who Planted Trees film in the article there is a YouTube link, which worked a few years ago but now it says 'Video unavailable'. Is there an official version available online? --Gryllida (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Update to peer review page

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (popflock.com Resource: WikiProject Animation/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The popflock.com resource peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

FAR Lord of the Rings (1978 film)

I have nominated The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Spongebob episode articles

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Spongebob episode articles. Kingsif (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)