|This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Animation and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
|WikiProject Animation||(Rated Project-class)|
|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.|
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.
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.
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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 :
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)
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
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)
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: 
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)
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.
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)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Spongebob episode articles. Kingsif (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)