Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation/Archive 3
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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:
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
Furthermore, I'm finding most of these with {{
- 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.
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
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Need help finding sources for Portable hole
I've been working on
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)
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)
I have raised a discussion about her at
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
@
- @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
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
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
- 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?
- 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?
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
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)
@
- @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. @ 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)
- 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 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. Linguist111my talk page03:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- 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
- Just another two cents. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- From my talk:
- 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)
- @WP:BLAR, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 71#"AFD is not for redirecting"?. – Joe (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- WP:AFD says (emphasis added): "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." I read this as beings needing to be redirected. It's disappointing to me to see you adding unsourced information to our encyclopedia: I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. – Jimbo Wales, 16 May 2006 [1] Why do you think that adding back unsourced information is acceptable? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯
- @
- 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)
- 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)
- ^ Wales, Jimmy (2006-05-16). "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". WikiEN-l. Retrieved 2007-01-31.
- @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)
- WP:SOURCE. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:05, 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)
- 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 :
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
). 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 (
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 ({{
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
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 History of LGBT anime pages
A proposed merger of the
Brenda Banks
Hello, I recently started a draft article for the animator
- 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
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
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.
RFC
The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild
Looks like a real mess over at
Merge proposal: Encanto (film)
There is a proposal to merge
19:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)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
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.
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
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)