Talk:Walt Disney Animation Studios/Archive 1

Archive 1

Disney Pixar merger

Resolved

The deal has been agreed and announced, but it hasn't closed (which might take several months). Until then, Pixar will continue to be a separate company, and the corresponding wikipedia disney-pixar article merger should be held off. Bwithh 21:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. And even when it goes through I don't think it should be merged here as Disney-Pixar Animation Studios will still be a nominially seperate entity under the current Pixar managment.Gateman1997 22:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think Pixar should be merged. The merger does not change the fact that Pixar did exist and was a groundbreaking company in it's own right with work products labelled solely with that name. The existing Pixar article should remain as documentation of what Pixar (RIP) did while it was independent, and the post-merger accomplishments of the new entity should remain separate.   RandallJones 23:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• There should be no merging of Wikipedia articles period. A seperate article on WDFA to cover historical content, a seperate one on Pixar to cover historical content, and a new one on Disney-Pixar Studios will keep each article within a readable scope. --FuriousFreddy 02:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with FuriousFreddy. --Renesis13 03:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with FuriousFreddy. --Padrhig 25 January 2006
• Agree with FuriousFreddy. LordBleen 04:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the merge tags. There is currently a merge-triangle between three articles (Pixar, Disney-Pixar Studios and Walt Disney Feature Animation) all wanting to merge into each other. Not only does this not make sense (they can't all merge into each other unless all three become one article) but there does not seem to be any support for merging. It appears as if though this was added with malicious or vandalistic intent. If anyone still feels like the merge tags are warranted, please add merge tags at more specific locations (let us know which sections should be merged and to/from where). Zukeeper 09:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, it has been stated that WDFA and Pixar will not be merged, but will remain seperate entities under a feature animation umbrella [1]. Therefore, there should be no "Disney-Pixar Studios" article period. --FuriousFreddy 01:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No mention of Katzenberg?

How could an article on Feature Animation not contain ANY mention of Jeffery Katzenberg and his unbelievable run in the 1990's? The closest parallel is the mention of Larson bringing new blood to the studio with new hires and a string of hits starting with the Little Mermaid. Katzenberg was the head of the Studios while that was going on and had almost complete control over the productions, etc. His infamous 5AM staff meetings, unsatiable thirst for Diet Coke, and non stop criticism of the Studio staff is legendary. --Buggsbuny 16:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section Removed

I removed the Criticism section from the article because the criticism about direct-to-video sequels doesn't reflect what WDFA does. Disney direct-to-video sequels are not made by WDFA; they are made by Walt Disney Television Animation and DisneyToon Studios. This criticism only belongs in The Walt Disney Company article or the DisneyToon Studios article. This in no way belongs in the WDFA article because WDFA only made two theatrical released sequels, The Rescuers Down Under and Fantasia 2000. Jonyyeh 21:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

DisneyToon studios is now part of the new Disney Animation Studios, although it is still incorrect to include criticism of the DTS projects prior to this merger in this article. 204.128.192.3 17:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on moving the article?

<According to Variety, Walt Disney Feature Animation has changed its name to Walt Disney Animation Studios and is putting out one pic every 18 months. So, should this article be moved to Walt Disney Animation Studios? SpikeJones 22:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, looks like the article has been moved. There you go. SpikeJones 20:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

CGI

The Black Cauldron was not the first animated feature to use computer-generated imagery. See Lensman: Secret of the Lens. Alone Coder (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The short subject department

The articles says that Disney shut down the shorts unit in 1962, but in the article about Walt Disney, it is claimed this happened in 1956. Which is correct? 80.202.40.85 (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

subsidiary or division?

Some wikipedia pages say Walt Disney Animation Studios is a divison of the Walt Disney Company while others (including this one) say it's a subsidiary. So which is it? Web wonder (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal & Article Rewrite

Disney Renaissance is completely redundant with the scope of the history of Walt Disney Animation Studios. I briefly considered taking its content, summarizing it, and adding the summary here, but after I started trying to edit that article, I realized that once I was done, the scope of the text would be exactly the same as whatever would be included in the 1979-1999 history of this studio. While there's nothing wrong with expanding the history section here (and taking some of the animation content load off of The Walt Disney Company) and adding a "Disney Renaissance" section here with redirect, I really don't see any scholarly point in retaining this as a separate article. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse merge. I just did a quick Google search and found over 250,000 hits on "Disney renaissance". Skimming the first 30 or so hits, most are fan sites, blogs, Wikipedia mirrors, or only mention the term in passing. The term is definitely in the vernacular of the film/animation industry, but I have a hard time seeing how it meets the notability guidelines for a standalone article. I think the "History" section of this article should be divided into subsections with one devoted to the "Disney Renaissance". —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Additionally, at first blush, it appears that the inclusion and/or exclusion of films that make up the Disney Renaissance constitutes OR. The source given to back the claim that the Renaissance ended in 1999 appears to be an opinion piece, and most of the sources given in the rest of the article only establish the films' box office revenue, not that these films constituted the Disney Renaissance. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse merge, I think that, without reliable secondary sources, this is pretty much OR. If it is based on box office, then why Atlantis or Lilo & Stitch not included? Also, Lilo & Stitch and Brother Bear received positive critics, so this proves that the inclusion criteria is ambiguous and the topic must be merged. --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• I would like to point out that the term "Disney Renaissance" is, to my understanding, used in the context of the history of western animation, not in the history of Disney, and has more to do with the renaissance's overall effects on the industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.145.202 (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

An in-progress version of the revised page/merge has been provided at /rewrite. Please help improve, complete, and format this page. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have made a few edits to the page (added years etc.). I have also added the importance of Tangled into the History section on the current page, seeing as it is the studios 50th film. Effluvium (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article appears to have a lot of vandalism but is not a high quality article on Wikipedia. Thoughts on some protection level for the article? --ben_b (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This talk page needs a new banner

Resolved

 – Banner added by User:Georgia guy.

This talk page needs a banner on top saying that this is for improving the article and not for promoting your wishes about upcoming movies. Georgia guy (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The current banner indicates that the page is solely for discussion on improving the article, and should be sufficient. Any such wishlist discussions can be removed at will, if needed, although I would advise that the editor making the statement should be notified (although not necessarily warned, especially if a newcomer) of why it was removed. --McDoobAU93 15:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I added the banner briefly after I posted this section. Georgia guy (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well handled, of course ... this should be marked as Resolved, I'd say. :) --McDoobAU93 17:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of talk page spam, can we start making a list of discussions that are not relevant and begin to delete them? LeciaMan (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Divisions Section

Resolved

 – Banner added by LeicaMan (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)].

In the info box for Walt Disney Animation Studios, there appears to be divisions of Walt Disney Animation that were closed down in the mid 2000's (Orlando, Paris, and Tokyo), the late 80's (London), and that are part of another division of the Walt Disney Company (Disney Television Animation). The only division that is a presently part of WDAS is DisneyToon Studios. Having said that, can we agree that the former and non-affiliated divisions should be deleted from the info box? LeciaMan (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, they should be listed for historical purposes with the dates they were divisions similar to have the DTA page lists them. --ben_b (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I just meant removing them from the info box, not from the article. I agree they should be in the article for historical purposes, but not in the info box. LeicaMan 14:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeciaMan (talk • contribs)

Not sure I agree that they should not be in the infobox. See the DTA articles infobox. --ben_b (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just looked at the DTA infobox, I understand where you're coming from but I'm concerned that having those former divisions in the infobox is weighing it down. The purpose of the info box is to give a quick snapshot of the most important and informative facts about the subject of the article. LeicaMan (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Any more Traditionally Animatied features from Disney?

Is there any more traditional animated features from Disney to come? I hope these upcoming 2D animated features could be very successful like The Lion King and Tarzan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.178.57 (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to extrapolation, Frozen will be computer-animated. We'll have to wait until Disney's 54th Classic is revealed until we can answer this question. Georgia guy (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

What happened to traditional animation at Disney Feature Animation, now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.204.73 (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Circle 7 / DisneyToon Studios

Regarding Circle 7, your reference says "Disney animation chief David Stainton, to whom the sequels unit reports". It does not mention Walt Disney Feature Animation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm also dubious as to whether DisneyToon Studios is a subdivision of WDAS. But if we split, we can explore each entity in its own right without getting all jumbled up... --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's frustrating really. It seems all the Disney articles are a mess, with misinformation, duplication, omission, and contradiction... --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

email that Walt Disney Feature Animation President David Stainton: "we have rebuilt animation at this company, landed a hit our first time at bat in CG, built amazing teams at circle 7 and dts,.." And dts refers to most likely DisneyToon Studios. Spshu (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because the head of DTS reports to the president of WDFA, does not necessarily follow that DTS is a subsidiary of WDFA. And Stainton referencing Circle 7 in his outgoing email (reliable source?) doesn't necessarily mean that Circle 7 was part of WDFA either - when he says "we", he could be speaking about the whole Disney organisation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"DisneyToon Studios (DTS) is being restructured and will now operate as a separate unit under the supervision of Walt Disney Animation Studios". I'm not sure how we should deal with this really. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

←We may never know which company is truely a subsidiary (or division) of which company in a large congomerate like Walt Disney Company. But it makes them effectively a unit of another unit as the head of one unit is subordinate to the head of another thus under the control of that unit making it a defacto or dejure sub-unit. Further down in the PR: "With DisneyToon Studios now part of Walt Disney Animation Studios, we hope to explore a wide variety of fun and original story ideas and projects." Seems to supports my position that "reporting to" creates a defacto if not dejure sub-unit. Hmmm, DisneyToon Studios must of been removed at some point (2004? - given she was president of DTS in 2004) from WDFA then returned in 2007.Spshu (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Walt Disney Animation Studios: "Properties: Walt Disney Animation Studios, DisneyToon Studios"

[ttp://www.waltdisneystudios.com/corp/unit/76 DisneyToon Studios is listed under a heading of Walt Disney Animation Studios] Spshu (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Spshu's stance on Circle 7 and DisneyToon Studios being subdivisions (or were once, in the case of Circle 7). I think the most prudent matter right now is re-hauling the whole page, addressing the problems Rob Sinden pointed out to, that continue to plague the Disney articles. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If DTS or C7A are WDAS subdivisions or not, the important thing is that we don't need to know the whole story of each of these studios here. That's what they have their own articles. A mention of his foundation and when they were finished (in the case of C7A) is enough. Tim Week (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Tim Week

Split?

Resolved

There seems to be a somewhat lack of focus for this page. A lot of it is a content fork from The Walt Disney Company, and the splitting, re-integrating and re-branding of the company's component parts leaves this page somewhat confused. As Walt Disney Animation Studios has only existed as an entity since 2006, would there be any merit in splitting the article, so that this page is only concerned with the company's activities since 2006, and splitting down the history and content to a separate article for Walt Disney Feature Animation for activities between 1988-2006, etc, etc? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem with this article is that it mixes completely different things as if they had some kind of connection. I've noticed that most of the contributors to this article sees Walt Disney Animation Studios as an entity that controls various animation studios within The Walt Disney Company, which is completely wrong. WDAS is a standalone studio within the company, as well as Pixar. On the fact of splitting the article, I agree in part. I think it is vitally important that the article be rewritten, removing things without connection with the history of WDAS, as the restructuring of Disney Television Animation or Circle 7 Animation story. I wonder who put this here, since they are two separate studios and that has nothing to do with the WDAS history. But again, it's like I said before, all this confusion is caused by people who think in WDAS as an entity that controls various animation studios in the The Walt Disney Company, rather than seeing it as it is, only a single studio. But just talking about the article focused with the studio activities since 2006, I disagree. Although the studio has just received its current name in 2006, it has existed for decades in its current form, the only thing that has changed is their nomenclature. What is needed is to know how to differentiate and separate what is the history of Walt Disney Animation Studios and what is the history of The Walt Disney Company and their others animation studios. WDAS is not a company, or control other animation studios (who does this is The Walt Disney Company): it's just an animation studio located in Burbank, nothing more. Tim Week (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Tim Week

I think we're coming from roughly the same position as regards to what is wrong with the page. My thoughts behind a split were to separate the history into individual articles for each entity (one article for WDAS, one for WDFA, etc), thus avoiding the confusion of mixing everything together. I notice someone had a go at a rewrite here which seems to be an improvement over what we have. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Tim Week: "I've noticed that most of the contributors to this article sees Walt Disney Animation Studios as an entity that controls various animation studios within The Walt Disney Company, which is completely wrong." Only if you ignore the sources. It has been pointed out to you that Circle 7 Animation was a unit of Feature Animation on [my talk page via a quote that indicates that the Circle 7 reports to the WDFA head and you still choose to ignore it. Now, you are claim that other units, like DisneyToon Studios, don't have anything to do with WDFA/WDAS when there is a direct source indicating that it was transfer into WDFA. You have no business edit this out or claiming this is wrong. Do not force your opinion above that of the sources in this regard. An animation studio is a company as this is a business entity.

Back to the issue of spliting. Heck, I could not even get a split on DreamWorks when there are two actual seperate legal entities (three if you count DreamWorks Animation) involved. Although, Viacom got the split. Go figure. This article is about the Disney features animation department that was renamed twice to WDFA then in 2006 to WDAS. That is all. Spshu (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Pixar President Ed Catmull will serve as president of the combined Pixar and Disney animation studios, reporting to Iger and Dick Cook, chairman of The Walt Disney Studios.

The two companies will remain separate, with Pixar keeping its brand name and headquarters in Emeryville, near San Francisco. Maintaining Pixar’s unique creative character was a priority in the talks, executives said.

Disney Feature Animation ("Disney animation studios") is ID as a company in the above, Tim Week. Spshu (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• I withdraw my suggestion to split. I think the way we're going with the article is the right way. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

"Walt Disney Animated Classics"

Here on Wikipedia, all WDAS films articles says: "It is the X animated feature in the Walt Disney Animated Classics series". I believe the use of this term is definitely wrong, for a number of reasons. Here are some of them:

1. It is a commercial (and outdated) term: "Walt Disney Animated Classics" is a term created solely for commercial purposes. WDAS never used the term to refer to their productions ("This is our 50th animated feature", not "This is the 50th animated feature in the Walt Disney Animated Classics series"). To make matters worse, Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment no longer use the term, so what is he doing in the Tangled, Wreck-It Ralph or Big Hero 6 articles, for example?

2. Isn't uniform: Depending of the country, "Walt Disney Animated Classics" includes not only the WDAS films. In UK, Dinosaur is not considered a "Walt Disney Classic", but C.O.R.E.'s The Wild yes. In Brazil, all Pixar films are counted as "Walt Disney Classics". Thus, the term serves only to create confusion and trouble.

I suggest that an update in all WDAS films articles, replacing "It is the X animated feature in the Walt Disney Animated Classics series" for "is the X animated feature produced by the studio", or something. And also change the redirection for List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films, not List of Disney theatrical animated features ("List of WDAS films" is much more detailed, cohesive and informative, in addition to being directly connected to WDAS productions).

So, what are your thoughts? Tim Week (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Tim Week

How about the term internally used at Disney; Walt Disney Animation Cannon? LeicaMan (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Further Reading Suggestions

Post suggestions for a Further Reading section here. LeicaMan (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

1977 top grossing films?

The article says this" "The Rescuers...ended up being the third highest grossing film in 1977 behind Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope." Yet the Wiki page for 1977 in film has it 6th: 1. Star Wars $460,998,007 2. Close Encounters of the Third Kind $166,000,000 3. Saturday Night Fever $139,486,124 4. Smokey and the Bandit $126,737,428 5. The Goodbye Girl $83,700,000 6. The Rescuers $71,215,869 So...which is it? 70.91.35.27 (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)TF

Whatever source used for the first mention is probably including the 1983 reissue of The Rescuers in its total, which it should not be doing. Will correct. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Walt Disney Animation Studios/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 21:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks pretty solid, I'll review. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

1920s: Foundation and early years

• Encyclopedia of Walt Disney's animated characters, the only resource I have at hand as I review this page, seems to be very clear that Walt must have bought out Newman Laugh-O-gram.
  • "was laziness of the part of the Laugh-O-gram company (and later the Disney company)"
  • "required Disney to hire back some of th staff he had had to make redundant from his Laugh-O-gram company"
  • "Still, Walt's company was nearing bankruptcy"
• I'm not sure if this was the same corporation, legally, as Disney Brothers, or if this was separate, but it certainly is worth noting that Walt didn't just become a studio owner out of no where, he took over a studio he worked at, ran it into the ground, and then rebooted with a more long-term company.
• The last sentence of the first paragraph is a run-on sentence.
• "made only mild impressions": source? It's true, but it's an opinion.

Productions

Appropriately brief, as to not repeat things. I'm glad that the technological innovation element is referenced.

Parks and resorts

• Are there any earlier examples? I think Fantasmic is the oldest one you have here. Circle of Life: An Environmental Fable and Back to Neverland were outsourced, but was Cranium Command? Gran Fiesta Tour Starring The Three Caballeros?

Video games

• Sprites makes me think of either Fido Dido or Cool Spot (oh wait, those are 7UP) or that this has some connection to The Black Cauldron. This really isn't a common enough term to use.
• Do you have a reference to prove that WDAS or its predecessors' staff actually worked on these video games? I recently watched a Timon and Pumbaa safety video animated by "Duck Studios", so feature characters are often animated elsewhere, if the top talent isn't needed. In early PC video games, animation isn't "wow".
• "reference material" for Disney Infinity, does that just mean that the studio's films were inspiration? Or that the Interactive folks dropped by the Disney archives? That's hardly a collaboration, and the Epic Mickey and Kingdom Hearts are just as much related as Infinity.

There's a start. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Michael Barrier takes up four entries in the references for his 1999 book. One copy was published in Oxford, one in New York, and one in the United Kingdom. Did three different editors cite three unique editions of this book?

1930s

• Why is ChWDC not simply a normal reference, as opposed to be subdivided to its own area? You can combine multiple sources into one entry, without sending it off to another location.
• Reference that Flowers and Trees was first colour animation? Was successful?
• Reference all subsequent Silly Symphonies were colour?
• Reference to success of Three Little Pigs?
• Ref derision from most of film industry?
• Ref of great expansion of studio?
• Second ref that Graham spurred the creation or formalizaton of practices, it's fully possible, it's just that I've never heard that mentioned before.
• It seems silly to mention how much a film cost, and that it was the highest grossing film of all time, without mentioning the actual gross.
• Walt Disney Specials? I've never heard that term used. Was it on-screen? Source, please.

1940s

• WDP's IPO is rarely mentioned, so a reference would be great here.
• Pinocchio has a negative cost? They actually profitted through the process of making it? By George, Roy Disney should have won the Nobel Prize for Economics for that feat! Either that, or been charged as anti-American for not lending the technique to the war effort.
• The RKO distribution note should be moved out of the sentence.
• limited-searing sounds dangerous
• "each" roadshow had receipts of $325K? Seven roadshows would reach $2 million. I know that there was a great loss on the film, but this whole statement just confuses.

1950s

• "(though not final approvals)" em dashes, please

1960s

• There should be some mention of the fact that the company continued to produce other projects, lest it look like the overall corporation was dead.
• "rentals of" may be accurate, and it may keep wording fresh for readers, but it'll also inevitably make 99% of readers think you're referring to Blockbuster.
• Ref CalArts as de facto alma mater, while well known, non-Disney fans won't know this.
• Rentals, again.

-- Zanimum (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks for these. Please hold on, I'll start fixing at the weekend.Forbidden User (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

For 1920s: Foundation and early years, I cannot find a reliable source to link Newman Laugh-O-gram with Walt Disney Studio (and Walt Disney Animation Studios). The said opinion has been removed. Forbidden User (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• The books are the same. I don't have the books, but they are not different in content.
• For video games, by providing it means the studio gives permissions on use of images in the films, and sometimes lending staff to help (which is never public). Anyway, the use of the word collaborate is warrented. Reference material is information like story plot, characters' personality, etc. Collaboration is needed so that the game creators don't write conflicting plots for Disney characters, assert irrelevant power-ups ( like Elsa having fire powers ), etc.

These are my interpretations after reading Disney's description on the games. More opinions welcomed!Forbidden User (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article according to you review. Please check if any more improvements are needed before it could pass. Good luck editing!Forbidden User (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a week now. Please do continue your review, Zanimum. Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I'm a significant contributor to this article, so I cannot review it, but I should point out that I never got around to writing the content covering 1995 to 2000, which one will note is sparse and mentions but skims over six major film releases. I can't really depend on free time to help at the moment, but the book DisneyWar is a good reference for this period. Also, not sure where i'd find a reference for it (Barrier seems a probable source), but Walt Disney Specials was a title used onscreen for the post-1939 non-series Disney shorts. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Zanimum when will you finish this review? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 16:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think there are more for him to review, if he has time to do so.Forbidden User (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll wrap up the review since Zanimum's clearly moved on. I'll do what's left of the prose, but there are some bare URLs in the refs that I want to see fleshed out first. Wizardman 04:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!Forbidden User (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the bare URLs, the only other issue I found was that in the corporate issues section, we have two consecutive paragraphs starting with "In [date],". Change one to make it a bit more dynamic. Once that stuff is fixed I'll pass this. Wizardman 02:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Everything checks out now, so I'll pass this article as a GA. Wizardman 02:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Why was this passed as a GA?

1. Zanimum: "Why is ChWDC not simply a normal reference, as opposed to be subdivided to its own area? You can combine multiple sources into one entry, without sending it off to another location."

The reason was that the ChWDC website author check those sources out, not me. Now it has been disconnected and was left hanging. Just like a reference like "Barrier 1999, p. 229." While two others like this (Gabler 2006 & Stewart, James (2005)) do connect down to "Furture reading", It doesn't give the reader all the information in one place, as now you have to go up and get the page referenced. This would logically and common sense method of using ref groups. There are 19 primary sources (Hyperion Press books, Disney Museum, direct TWDC links) and other references that don't even match up to the linked inform (for example: A113 Animation isn't Big Screen Animation and isn't the original source of the A113 article Blue Sky Disney is. Blue Sky Disney & A113 are both avoid fan sites.

All reference and links to its other units, WFA-FL, WFA-AU, were dropped from history, what the hell? And dropped into locations with no context and no links. Spshu (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)