Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Tasks

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MainTalkAssessmentParticipantsShowcaseTasksResourcesTemplatesHelpPortal
WikiProject Animation
Information
Archives
1, 2, 3, Index
Threads older than 30 days may
be archived by MiszaBot II.
Departments
Project organization
Task forces
Related projects
Descendant projects
Animation Portal • Changes
Shortcuts

This is the a list of tasks that either need regular attention for WikiProject Animation.

To do list

[edit]

Cleanup listing

[edit]

A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Unreferenced BLPs

[edit]

This is the list of Unreferenced BLPs automatically generated by DASHBot.

There are no unreferenced BLPs tagged by Template:WikiProject Animation.

Requested articles

[edit]
Requested articles
Experimental animation
Films
The King's Beard, Timothy Tweedle the First Christmas Elf, The Return of the Prodigal Parrot [ru]
Television
Cyboars, Louie (animated show), Simsalagrimm, Brainphreak
People
Andrew Kepple, Chasen Kay, Vince Collins, Corin Hardy, Kondoh Akino
Studios
Studio CGI
edit


New articles

[edit]
New articles by topic — New articles (Animation)

The following articles have been identified by InceptionBot as potentially being within the scope of the project, based on the Animation ruleset. It is likely that some of them are false positives; please examine the log if you have any questions.

This page lists recently created Animation-related articles. Remember to nominate the best new articles at Template talk:Did you know so Wikipedia can highlight them on the main page.

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2024-08-11 19:25 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.


Article alerts

[edit]

Articles for deletion

(5 more...)

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

(8 more...)

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(1 more...)

Articles to be split

(6 more...)

Articles for creation

(2 more...)

Deletion discussions

[edit]
To edit this section, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation

The Podcats

[edit]
The Podcats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creepy Crawlies

[edit]
Creepy Crawlies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Jefferson, David (Autumn 1986). "Francis Vose director of Creepy Crawlies at Cosgrove Hall". Animator. No. 17. Archived from the original on 2024-08-11. Retrieved 2024-08-11.

      The article notes: "Creepy Crawlies is a new series about seven insects that live at the bottom of the garden. They find things we would regard as rubbish, but they see it differently. ... The animation team is lead by director, Francis Vose, Rachel and Loyd are animators and Mark and Bryan are the cameramen. Vose is given the script and he breaks down each scene into shots. ... The Creepy Crawlies set is unusual in that it is circular in design and can be viewed from all sides. The whole thing is on wheels and can be rotated. This gives depth within a shot because all the available studio space can be given over to the one large set. It also saves space by being able to revolve any side towards the camera."

    2. MacDonald, Keith (1987-01-03). "After Samantha for breakfast". Manchester Evening News. Archived from the original on 2024-08-11. Retrieved 2024-08-11 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "The Christmas card that proved the biggest talking point this year was covered in creepy crawlies, the creations of the Chorlton cum Hardy fun factory of Cosgrove Hall productions where ITV's latest pre-school series has been born. The Creepy Crawlies, which starts on Wednesday, are a colourful lot — in fact the card carried a suggestion that the creepy crawlies might be detached and framed. Paul Nicholas supplies all seven voices for Mr Ancient, an elderly caterpillar; Ariadne, a fluttery spider; Mr Harrison, a rather pompous snail; Lambeth, a body-building beetle; Anoraka, a woodlouse; a worm called Suppose the Nose; and a very pretty Ladybird."

    3. Powell, Lynne (1987-01-07). "Lynne Powell's TV Star Choice". Birmingham Metronews. Archived from the original on 2024-08-11. Retrieved 2024-08-11 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Just Good friends' Penny would think this highly appropriate Paul Nicholas, alias Vince in the hit BBC series, turns up as one of The Creepy Crawlies on children's TV today. Silken-voiced Paul is the narrator and every single voice in the series, including Lambeth the body-building beetle, Anorak the wood louse and pompous snail Mr Harrison. The new 13-part series, on Central at 4 p.m. is repeated tomorrow."

    4. Inglis, Ruth (1987-03-30). "How to animate a cartoonist". The Guardian. ProQuest 186765378. Archived from the original on 2024-08-11. Retrieved 2024-08-11 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Hall and Cosgrove had an idea as Walt Disney realised before them that animators did their best work as a team. Unlike most other artists who tend to bloom in private, car toonists need to test things out together. Two young animators at Cosgrove Hall for example, had cogitated for months on how to get Worm in and out of his hole in gradual stages in The Creepy Crawlies, a series now showing on Thames for the under-fives; they ended up by making 31 different lengths of worm sculptures for this saga of suburban fauna."

    5. "Thames variety". Screen International. No. 586. 1987-02-07. p. 32. ProQuest 963226852.

      The article notes: "Creepy Crawlies, 13 x 10 min. From Thames' subsidiary Cosgrove Hall Productions, comes a new original pre-school series which introduces an entirely new set of Cosgrove Hall characters living at the bottom of a suburban garden. Paul Nicholas provides the voice of narrator."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Creepy Crawlies to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marlinspike Hall

[edit]
Marlinspike Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was tagged for speedy deletion four years ago (by User:Piotrus). The original rationale still applies:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

The tag was removed without addressing any of the issues. Despite the request for discussion, I could not find one.

I agree with the rationale for deletion. WP:BEFORE only shows official Tin Tin materials and other licensed sources. Jontesta (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I oppose the proposal for deletion. Tin Tin has been a notable figure in international popular culture over a very extended period and Marlinspike has provided a comprehensive character development and event framework for much of this time. Several of the Tin Tin "adventures" are set predominantly or entirely in this environment. Wikipedia page view, edit and page watcher statistics appear substantive for a short but well written and attractively illustrated article. Citations and source references are adequate for a fictional subject. Removal would frankly appear to be a pointless and potentially unpopular exercise. If however the consensus is for deletion then the alternative of merger should be given serious consideration. Buistr (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. First, about the speedy; a fictional location is not included among the valid speedy deletion candidate categories, so that was never the correct approach. As for notability, "Moulinsart" or "Chateau de Moulinsart" are among the most notable fictional locations in Belgium and France, instantly recognisable to millions. We have whole books like this, "The daily life at Marlinspike", which talks about Tintin in general, but also at length about both the village of Marlinspike and the castle. If there is a good merge target perhaps this can be merged, but deletion is not warranted. Fram (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment currently, I am leaning towards a Redirect to List of The Adventures of Tintin locations. All of the sources discussing Marlinspike are official guidebooks, at least from what I can see here. However, I do not know if the nom or anyone else has partaken in a source search in French sources. I would not know where to start unfortunately, but a search through there may prove more fruitful than an English search given Tintin's ubiquity in Belgium. I won't be changing my vote unless something is found, but I do feel there may be promise that hasn't been uncovered yet. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey's Mechanical House

[edit]
Mickey's Mechanical House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG with only one source. Almost entirely a plot summary. Found nothing via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Mysteries

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Lost Mysteries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm rather surprised that this survived the earlier deletion discussion, which seems very shallow. Most of those calling for keeping it cited only the sheer number of sources all piled up in one place, with apparently nobody, including the nominator, actually looking at them. Well, I've looked at them all, or at least those that are still online, and they are all nearly exactly the same: some fan horror fan website or podcast writes like two paragraphs saying "these are kind of cool" and then reproduces several of the illustrations (although those have mostly been taken down now as well). I didn't find a single one that a person could honestly characterize as significant coverage from a reliable source.

The use of external links is also problematic, we don't usually include 140 external links in the body of an article, or any at all, actually. It would be more effort than this article is worth to even correct this problem as this appears to have been a flash-in-the-pan fad that the artist did to raise money for some other project, from what I can glean from the extremely scant actual coverage that goes beyond "hey look at this." Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Comics and animation. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't agree that it can be characterized as a "flash-in-the-pan fad" when it's been going on for 10 years continues to get coverage since the last time a source was added to the article, 1, 2, 3. What can be considered "in depth" is highly debatable, personally I would say that what is here gets the subject over GNG. And "article is bad/weird/unusual" is not a valid reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just saying What can be considered "in depth" is highly debatable is easy enough, but I don't think you can actually show that any of this coverage has any depth at all, and also none of it is what would be considered a reliable source, which you haven't addressed with your reply. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are considered reliable by the horror project as far as I know.★Trekker (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing whatever specialized sourcing guideline you are referring to. "I think a WikiProject agrees with me" is not a valid argument as that is obviously not how we determine what is a reliable source. Geek Tyrant, for example, does not look at all like proffessional journalism. Neither does The Retroist, which spilled all of 131 words on the subject, hardly in-depth coverage. Paste (magazine) seems an ok source, but they wrote only five sentences, that again, boiled down to "hey look at this guys Tumblr" and nothing else. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Little Pony villains

[edit]
List of My Little Pony villains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR without independent sources, or any indication of notability. There is already a list of List of My Little Pony characters with its own errors and problems. Wikipedia doesn't allow editors to arbitrarily make repeated articles about the same topic unless there is WP:SIGCOV to justify it. Jontesta (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of My Little Pony characters. This article is a great labor of love but I really don't see anything indicating any independent notability for it as its own list. jp×g🗯️ 07:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabby's Dollhouse: The Movie

[edit]
Gabby's Dollhouse: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacking significant coverage per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 20:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is generally unwise to assume that a film that is still in production will be notable when/if it is publicly released. In particular, the WP:NFF guidelines state: "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." This does not seem to be the case. It also states: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines..." I think it is clear that these criteria have not been met in this case. Of course the editors can retain a draft or the article could be draftified, but it is not suitable for main space. Lamona (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gabby's Dollhouse#Film as an WP:ATD. I think this is a fair compromise between Lamona and Mushy Yank. Overall, though, I have to agree with Lamona and the nomination that this doesn't really meet WP:NFF due to a lack of significant coverage. Stating that the film is live-action and animation and that the live action piece is in progress alone does not satisfy the NFF requirements. We have three references (expanded here to include publisher): Ref 1,[1] Ref 2,[2], and Ref 3.[3] Refs 1 and 3 offer significant coverage; however, they are not of the production, just the announcement of the project. They are also on the same date and from the same company, and the way they are structured, these are really reports based off the same industry announcement, both of which go against WP:INDEPENDENT (same company alone, they're probably OK given different editorial structures, but the nature of the "report" reduces the relevance.) Reference 2 does not WP:VERIFY the information that it claims, as the production is not actually listed. I checked the archives, and they do not help, either. (See archives on 10, 17, 21, and 23 July, respectively. I cannot get them to display, but perhaps someone else can?) The problem with this site is that it is formatted in a way that getting verifiable archives is next to impossible. Maybe archive.today would work, but it doesn't have any entries. Anyway, I still WP:AGF that the information was once there given the listed access date. The problem remains that even if it was there, it would not provide any WP:SIGNIFICANT coverage. Basing this off the current entries, it provided a simple fact verification of the start date, and did not provide any prose reporting on this production, failing the significant coverage piece needed to meet NFF. A list of facts is good to verify information, but not to establish notability. -2pou (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Filming already started and they have a release date, there's no reason to delete the page. KingArti (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ McClintock, Pamela (25 April 2024). "Gabby's Dollhouse: The Movie to Get the Big-Screen Treatment in 2025". The Hollywood Reporter. Penske Media Corporation.
  2. ^ "In Production - Creative BC". Creative BC. July 10, 2024. Retrieved July 10, 2024.
  3. ^ Anthony D'Alessandro (April 25, 2024). "DreamWorks Animation Dates Big Screen Version Of Netflix Streaming Series Gabby's Dollhouse For Fall 2025". Deadline Hollywood. Penske Media Corporation. Retrieved April 25, 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comics and animation proposed deletions

[edit]

Categories for discussion

[edit]

Redirects for discussion

[edit]

Templates for discussion

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Animation/Tasks&oldid=679516692"