Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RFC on production section wording in the Film Manual of Style

I opened up an RFC on proposed changes to the Film:MOS regarding proposed guidelines for production sections. You can vote on it here, Thanks --Deathawk (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Animation

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 13:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Template for cartoon characters and template for animated series characters

I propose to create templates under the names: Template:Infobox cartoon character and Template:Infobox animated series character. In Russian Wikipedia, there is only a template for the character of the animated series, but there is no template infobox character from cartoon. But I also suggest, after creating a template for the animated series character, to combine with him the character patterns of the Simpsons, South Park and others that are in EnWiki. In general, my idea is to use templates in articles about characters who appeared only in a cartoon or an animated series, and if the character drawn appeared in movies, video games and other format, then simply use a character template. Bogolub (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC) Bogolub (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment of Extreme Spots

Extreme Spots, 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. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Tom & Jerry "English", and italics

Why are cartoons like the original Tom & Jerry cartoon episodes being infoboxed and sometimes categorized as English-language, when they have no dialogue at all (some of the later episodes did, but not the original series).

Furthermore, I'm finding most of these with {{Italic title}} and given in italics in the infoboxes, but as episodes they should be in quotation marks per MOS:TITLES. The only one I care about watchlist-wise is "Cue Ball Cat", but there seems to a whole lot of cleanup to do.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I can only answer the first, since I'm only an enWP-visitor. The original T&J had dialogue, just no dialogue from T&J. The side characters Spike and Tyke, the landlady and many others had spoken early. --H8149 (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Request to reassess A Short Vision

I rewrote the article, so I would like to request a reassess the stub on the article. To see, if that would change. Thanks. Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 20:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Fake nominees in list of award ceremonies

While translating 44th Annie Awards in French, I've noticed discrepancies between the entries listed in the article and the list of nominees in additional sources. After a quick check of the official source, I've established these entries (about SpongeBob SquarePants and Sesame Street) are fake and immediately removed them.

I'm concerned, though. Who did this? Are there more fakes like this? Is it part of a wider marketing campaign or "test" of Wikipedia? I'm not used to Wikipedia in English and need to opinion about it. J. N. Squire (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Request to assess Bubble and Squeek

I made the article Bubble and Squeek, which is a set of late 40s British animated cartoons; but it is not assessed yet. I would like to request an assessment of the page please. Thanks. Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 18:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Need help finding sources for Portable hole

I've been working on Portable hole. When I started, it was almost entirely unsourced WP:OR. I've made some progress finding sources, but not as much as I'd like. Many entries remain unsourced, and many of the sources I've added are, admittedly, not reliable. There's no doubt that this is a notable concept, having been used in film, cartoons, and literature by many authors. But, good sources are hard to find. I'd appreciate any help. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Invader draft

Can anyone help with Draft:Invader Zim: Enter the Florpus Fanoflionking 14:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Should Woody Woodpecker be split or is it already the franchise article?

Need your opinions on whether Woody Woodpecker (series) should be created. Right now the Woody Woodpecker article lists all the adaptations and gives sufficient history on the subject. Please discuss at Talk:Woody Woodpecker#Woody Woodpecker (series) was redirected again. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:List of Darkwing Duck characters#Merge proposal

I've started a proposal to merge this page.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Ellen Woodbury

I have raised a discussion about her at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Ellen_Woodbury. Please go and comment on that thread. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Futurama for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Futurama is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Futurama (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Family Guy articles failing WP:ALLPLOT

@Hello The Cheat: @WuTang94: I have deleted numerous articles about individual Family Guy episodes that are not notable enough to warrant individual articles, but editors still recreate them (examples include Passenger Fatty-Seven, Guy, Robot, Scammed Yankees, and A Lot Going on Upstairs). In an effort to avoid a WP:3RR violation, can somebody else consider, at the very least, redirecting and watching the articles so that they are not recreated again? This is extremely annoying.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 14:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Molandfreak: Hi! Thanks for pinging me. I understand your concern, especially with some non-notable episodes which shouldn't have pages, but some other ones that were deleted (such as Passenger Fatty-Seven for its tribute to Carrie Fisher, which I sourced btw) may actually have some notable sources to back their notability. I'm not an admin, but I suggest that we get some other opinions in and open a discussion on what constitutes an episode notable or not, so that we can finally resolve this. Can you provide some examples of Family Guy episodes considered notable enough for their own articles?--WuTang94 (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Molandfreak, Why would you delete these? They are totally valid redirects. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Molandfreak: How about starting a RFC? AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Ratatouille

I posted this to the Pixar workgroup but I don't know if they're still terribly active, so I wanted to post this here as well. I just saw that someone had marked Ratatouille (film) (which is at GA status) with several tags. I don't really see where either tag is applicable, but because this is a GA, I wanted to get another person to review the article to ensure that they don't really apply to the article. Basically, if this does fail GA criteria (which it needing tags would) then it'll need to be fixed. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks like a drive-by tagging - no comments were left, the editor moved onto other topics, etc. And as that is on my watching and I've edited it in the past, I'm not seeing where those issues are so obvious as to need tags at the top (copy-edits are required on 99.9999+% of every WP article but there's not a need to call that out if the article is still legible, and I have no idea where the tone is at). If you feel that tag was added for no reason, you can delete it. --Masem (t) 13:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Plagiarism/Copypasting at Berthold Bartosch

Hello, I'm mainly active on Wikidata and have very little experience in the English Wikipedia. I hope this is the right place for this issue: I noticed that the Biography section of the article Berthold Bartosch is almost completely copied from the corresponding section in Giannalberto Bendazzi's "Animation: A World History: Volume I: Foundations - The Golden Age" (it is available via Google Books: [1]). I don't know how to properly deal with that issue. Thank you for your help and kind regards, - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I found Wikipedia:Copyright_problems and added it there (Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2019_October_11). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Copy-edits

Uh... I've given up on placing copy edit tags. I just want you to know that all your "[year x] in animation" articles need to conform with MOS:LEAD and have inappropriate ref spacing (there should not be spaces between ref tags and between words and ref tags). Also, there might be inappropriate structure as I've seen (some articles only have === headings, not == headings). From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 00:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Steve DuQuette

Steve DuQuette died on October 26, 2019. Supposedly the same person as Steve Duquette?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Turn some inactive child WikiProjects into a Taskforce?

WikiProject Animation has some inactive TV-show specific child WikiProjects. I invite editors to join the discussion at WP:WikiProject Television to convert those (NOT this parent WikiProject) into taskforces. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Vyond (ex GoAnimate)

Hey guys, I am writing to express substantial concern about the quality and notability of an article about Vyond (formerly GoAnimate). In additional to concerns about its promotional tone and scope of coverage, the article has references to the so-called Grounding videos, which I think does not have enough media coverage to justify a whole section about it. I am not an expert in animation, but I need to raise the issue to you so that you can take a good look at what needs to be fixed. Best, --Minoa (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2019 (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 • 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

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 wikipedia 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 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 • 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)

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 :

[2] , [3] , [4] , [5]

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^™ (en-3). 23:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Article at AfD that needs input

Hello, there is an article at AfD that needs input: Wikipedia: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)

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: [6]

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 (Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) 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)

GAR

Cool World, 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merger of LGBT themes in anime and manga and History of LGBT anime pages

A proposed merger of the LGBT themes in anime and manga and History of LGBT anime pages is located at Talk:LGBT themes in anime and manga#Merger proposal and may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. --Historyday01 (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Brenda Banks

Hello, I recently started a draft article for the animator Brenda Banks. She is believed to have been one of the first African American women to work as an animator. It is very hard to find out any information on her. If any one has the interest, feel free to improve the article. Hopefully someday her story will be told. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find anything. Sounds like a great topic. Thanks for sharing. --Historyday01 (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

A Computer Animated Hand

The article "A Computer Animated Hand" doesn't have many sources, trying to learn more about it is difficult with the sources shown. Wanderer0808 (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Animation articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion

Category:Animation articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject

Wit Studio 45,905 1,530 Stub Low (Excluding film/TV released in past year)--Coin945 (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Itchy & Scratchy episodes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Itchy & Scratchy episodes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Itchy & Scratchy episodes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mousymouse (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested split at Talk:Johnny Test#Split proposal

I have done a discussion about the Johnny Test article getting split, as the "seventh season" may actually a different, separate series, according to what Netflix says. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

There's a discussion at Talk:List_of_cross-dressing_characters_in_animated_series#RFC_what_constitutes_as_crossdressing. Please feel free to weigh in on the conversation. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Harry Partridge AfD

The article Harry Partridge (aka Happy Harry) has been nominated for deletion. Though this discussion is already included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions, it doesn't seem like anybody involved in this project actually made it over to that discussion, so I'm posting it here as well hoping to get some more eyes on it. The discussion is here: [7] 101.50.250.88 (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

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.

WP:NFF has an RFC

WP:NFF has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Platonk (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild

Looks like a real mess over at Draft:The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild. It would be really helpful if some experienced editors would take a look. Thriley (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Madrigal family to Encanto (film)

There is a proposal to merge Madrigal family into Encanto (film). These articles are covered under the scope of this WikiProject. The discussion is located at: Talk:Encanto (film)#Merger proposal. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Looney Tunes Platinum Collection

The article Looney Tunes Platinum Collection has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article reads like an advertisement or press release, and has only one source for its 10.03-year history.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Wikipedia:Peer review/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show/archive1

Input for this PR is welcome. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

AFD help

Could I get some more television minded folks to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bounty Hunters (American TV series) in order to help establish a better consensus? My main concern here is that the show was too short-lived to have garnered any media coverage. Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

GA Review for Samurai Jack

Hello, all. I have nominated the article about the Cartoon Network animated television series Samurai Jack for good article assessment. This would be its first nomination in a year, and I believe that edits to the article have addressed the complaints from the previous nomination. The current nomination has stood unanswered since March 3, 2022. If anyone would like to contribute a review, please do so from the associated article talk page. Thank you. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

--Historyday01 (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Galaxy High#Requested move 30 May 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Galaxy High#Requested move 30 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show/archive1

An ongoing FAC for any WikiProject members who are interested in reviewing it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hanna-Barbera Information

I recently acquired a press kit for The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest that had a wealth of information on H-B's broadcast history, including original networks, number of episodes, etc. all from their internal archives. See http://questfan.com/Page/Preview_Press_Kit.html -- the "1954-1997" scans. Just wanted to throw it out there in case it helps any work. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 00:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Douglas Wilton

Trying to figure out how to get this info on Wikipedia article hello Ninja.

Excerpt:"The son of pastor Douglas Wilson of the controversial Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, and a close associate have made significant inroads into mainstream culture in America with a successful streaming cartoon based on a book published by the church’s own imprint.

The Guardian has previously reported on how the church, which aims to create a theocracy in the US, has increased its power and influence in its home town, while also campaigning vociferously against efforts to curb the coronavirus pandemic. Those developments come amid a broader rise in the right wing across the US. At the same time Christ church is seeking to use television and book publishing to enter US popular culture and promote its interests." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/28/christ-church-us-christian-right-group-books-cartoon-nature-doc

Wikipedia has a responsibility here to provide a warning to parents who would not want their kids exposed to this material.

Freedomlight (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Freedomlight

Wikipedia does not "warn" people about content. Please read WP:NOT EvergreenFir (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

request: Draft:3D stop motion game

hello one wikipedia volunteer KylieTastic said something about my draft: "You could ask at an interested project such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation."

unfortunately my draft is rejected but is there anyway to accept my draft? draft address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:3D_stop_motion_game — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.52.60.213 (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

History of Animation and related articles in need of major restructure

Hi, I've started a thread on Talk:History_of_animation with some proposals. --ERAGON (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on LGBT representation in children's television

I started a split discussion on the LGBT representation in children's television article, located at Talk:LGBT representation in children's television#Splitting proposal, proposing that parts of the "LGBT representation on Disney Channel" section about Disney animation be split out into another article titled "Disney and LGBT representation in animation". --Historyday01 (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hanna-Barbera internal history documents

I have obtained these and uploaded at: http://questfan.com/Page/Preview_Press_Kit.html I suppose they can't really be cited as a source (these were issued with a Jonny Quest press kit), but the massive listing of series and air dates might help the Wikiproject. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 18:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Felix the Cat, who really created him and what year did he really debute?

This book has some interesting info that might be worth including in the Felix the Cat article, the talkpage has a lot of complaints about potential pro-Messmer bias.★Trekker (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Diary of a Camper Featured article review

I have nominated Diary of a Camper 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Diary of a Camper

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Diary of a Camper/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Assistance requested at List of Cars characters

Hello! I'm here to request assistance in creating a list criteria for the article in the header and also trimming it down. As it stands right now, the article's size is 285,495 bytes, and has several maintenance tags for it for having OR, needing more sources, excessive detail, and now one for lacking a list criteria. I am looking for some help in determining what the list crtieria should be so that we can trim down the article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dinosaurs! – A Fun-Filled Trip Back in Time!#Requested move 22 October 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dinosaurs! – A Fun-Filled Trip Back in Time!#Requested move 22 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Skydance Media

Hey, everyone, i'm making a page called Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Skydance Media work group and i was wondering if anyone should join this group or something else. If not, i'm okay with it but i'm working very hard to make Skydance good for the people at the wikipedia and i could use some help to branch it better. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Bcdb

Template:Bcdb has been nominated for merging with Template:BCDB title. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Cuphead Show! § Cleanup the article

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Cuphead Show! § Cleanup the article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The Haunted House: The Sky Goblin VS Jormungandr

Major problems, and a new editor in need of some guidance. That article was draftified a few times, and it keeps coming back with little to no noticeable change. I think it passes WP:GNG but the sources are very weak, and it's barely a stub. Atsme 💬 📧 17:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed split of page for Amity Blight from List of The Owl House characters page

Hello everyone! I would like your input on a discussion on the List of The Owl House characters talk page, about whether to split off the section for Amity Blight into its own page. Currently, the page draft is available at Draft:Amity Blight, and consensus in this discussion is important to determine whether this character should get its own article. Thanks and I hope to see your comments. Historyday01 (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:History of LGBT characters in animation

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:History of LGBT characters in animation#Page name change/purpose?, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Thanks! Historyday01 (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Recently proposed mergers

In light of some recent drive-by editing by a certain user, I decided to propose some mergers of various pages about LGBTQ animated characters:

• Animated series with LGBT characters: 1990s into History of LGBT characters in animation: 1990s, discussion here

• Animated series with LGBT characters: 2000s into History of LGBT characters in animation: 2000s, discussion here

• Animated series with LGBT characters: 2010s into History of LGBT characters in animation: 2010s, discussion here

Also, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to participate in this discussion about the proposed merger of Animated series with LGBT characters: 2020s and List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2020–present, which has been stale since Dec. 2022.

Thanks! Historyday01 (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Should AI software be credited as a writer?

The March 8, 2023 episode of South Park, "Deep Learning", which depicts the characters using the AI-based app ChatGPT to write their romantic texts and school essays, credits ChatGPt in the closing credits. Some editors want this listed in the episode's Infobox, while others opposite it. Can editors please weigh in with their opinion at the RfC here?

The discussion that preceeded it, in which editors presented their arguments for and against the decision, is directly above it. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Kaeloo

Hi! I've been trying to bring some sort of order to the above article, but as I know absolutely nothing about the world of animation, tv series, etc., I'm clearly out of my depth. So I thought I'd bring this matter to the attention of other editors here at the Animation Project who obviously have a better idea of what goes and who might be interested in following it up. Thanks! --Technopat (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Randy and Sharon Marsh#Requested move 24 March 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Randy and Sharon Marsh#Requested move 24 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 10:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I have a dispute and I want your opinion

Hello, I will try to keep everything short, I am an editor and my question is about my dispute with the editor "Andrzejbanas" about The Super Mario Bros. movie. in the paragraph about countries, the USA and only it are indicated. This is where our discussion began. Because at first I wrote that Japan also took part in addition to the USA (because the film was also made by Nintendo, which is a Japanese company), to which this editor did not agree and asked me for proof, then I threw him this https://eiga.com /news/20230418/13/ and wrote about the phrase here's the translation of the phrase "This work produced jointly by Illumination and Nintendo." To which another editor came and replied that "You're right, but I think we should discuss on talk page about Nintendo being Japanese company." Which really surprised me because Shigeru Miyamoto is listed as the producer and he is the head of Nintendo (Japanese) and the head of the American Doug Bowser who is not listed at all (I also understand that nationality does not play a role and that in the conditional Japanese Nintendo there may be non-Japanese as well as vice versa, but this is not the case here.) (I also understand that nationality does not play a role and that in the conditional Japanese Nintendo there may be non-Japanese as well as vice versa, but this is not the case here.) But okay, let's go with that. Later, I sent sources where Japan is indicated or that Japan has a part in the creation by dropping the link https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Super-Mario-Bros-Movie-The-(2022)#tab=summary To which, after my source, he replied "The-Numbers pulls it's information from IMDb, which we don't use as a source per WP" well, I agreed with the rules of Wikipedia, but I also sent him an interview https://www.bloomberg. com/news/newsletters/2023-04-09/super-mario-bros-producer-explains-the-movie-s-box-office-success and this https://variety.com/2023/film/features/super -mario-bros-movie-shigeru-miyamoto-interview-1235572488/ where Japan is mentioned and it is said about communion with creation.To which he also disagrees, I want to ask a question, the source that this editor requires (I really don’t understand how much more sources he needs to confirm), but let’s say I’m wrong here and maybe Japan is not related, but based on his requirements, why then the USA is indicated with a source that says nothing at all about the USA and is even worse and not more accurate than mine (because there, in general, about the countries where they did it were not indicated in the source to the United States, only companies), while when I threw him the same about Japan, he did not agree, and even with the sources where it is nevertheless indicated or said.Therefore, I would like to know which of us is still right here and whether I have the right to enter Japan into the countries of the filmmakers? I understand that such sources https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Super-Mario-Bros-Movie-The-(2022)#tab=summary are not considered accurate by Wikipedia, but in this case based on the sites above sources to the United States are also without any evidence, he does not mind indicating although there is also a source where there is no evidence, but he does not agree with Japan. Maybe I'm wrong here, but why then is the source in the USA also without any evidence and is this normally considered for him? It just seems to me that everything is unfair (his arguments) I'm asking for your opinion on this situation and I'm not saying that I'm extremely right or anything, but this situation is extremely strange for me and it seems like the other editor does not want to listen to the other side at all and is hypocritical in some way. Because I'm already afraid to say something there, because LancedSoul threatens me with punishment. Xaskithe (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It's just that it's very strange that my sources for this editor seem "insufficient" but at the same time he does not see problems in the source attached to the United States (which confirms nothing at all and even less confirms than mine.) In that case, why is it written? After all, this is also an "insufficient source" that does not confirm anything, but simply names the companies who made the film (the same absolutely similar source that I attached to Japan, but which this editor described as "Insufficient") But it's absolutely the same "Insufficient" in the opinion it is also attached to the USA. Xaskithe (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I will also add that I am not the only editor with such a problem, after me and before there were also many editors who had a dispute about this with Andrzejbanas and he neither gave me nor them anything really confirming why no one can add Japan to the countries of the filmmakers. Xaskithe (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Lowest Grossing Animated Films

Hello, I'm making an article about the Lowest Grossing Animated Films and I need help trying to find some sources for the 50 lowest grossing animated films WORLDWIDE. Help would be nice. Here's the article:Draft:List of lowest-grossing animated films. It's still a work in progress so don't delete it yet. Nostalgia Zone (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Move Discussion

Please provide your thoughts here. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Mukpuddy Animation

Hi - I am drafting an article on the New Zealand animation studio Mukpuddy Animation and would be grateful of any assistance with references or information about them to improve the draft before I submit it for publication. NealeWellington (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I found one of the actors in an animation Mukpuddy produced were nominated for a BTVA award, but can not find anything useful about BTVA. Is this an insignificant award? There is nothing on wiki about BTVA or in mainstream media I can find. They are cited in a number of articles. Any help would be appreciated. NealeWellington (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Interactions (The Spectacular Spider-Man) at FAR

I have nominated Interactions (The Spectacular Spider-Man) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)