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: 2025-01-27 19:31 (UTC)

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


Article alerts

[edit]

Today's featured article requests

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

(11 more...)

Articles for creation

(1 more...)

Deletion discussions

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

Felix The Cat Kept On Walking

[edit]
Felix The Cat Kept On Walking (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 had redirected this, and would suggest this as the outcome of this AfD. Neither source is significantly about the short film, and no better sources seem available that give this film more than a passing mention or a database treatment in lists of animated shorts or in more general Felix the Cat sources. This, with a short plot summary, is about the most extensive source I could find. In books specifically about Felix it gets nothing but a mention[1] Fram (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and United States of America. Fram (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as in the nom. I must thank both of you this morning; Fram's nomination at Herostratus's suggestion gave me exposure to an old film I'd never seen. I had a friend (long since passed) who was a huge fan of Felix, and as a child I was frequently exposed to many of these shorts on TV in Honolulu. As much as I'm happy to see these films available and in the public domain, I concur with Fram's source analysis above. I'm interested to see if Herostratus can find more direct detailing. BusterD (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but, on further consideration, let's rename and rearrange -- let's make the article be about the song, which seems more notable (and came first), so rename the article to the song name ("Felix Kept On Walking") and move the film stuff down to the bottom (or delete it, but why).
As a song It meets WP:NSONG I would say (the song is notable if it is the "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works...This includes published works in all forms", and "all forms" would include advertisements and chinaware and toys and t-shirts and what have you I think, and there are plenty of those (([2]) and some even still today ([3], [4]). and it meets 2 of the 3 supplementary bullet points (which are not proof of notability, but are worth considering and de facto considered pretty much sufficient I think): "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts", which they didn't have charts in the 1920s I don't think, but the song was clearly a hit which would have at least made the Hot 100 surely, and "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists", which we have a number of artists notable enough to have their own articles covering it.
It is true that there aren't any reviews or articles on the song, but this was 100 years ago, there weren't even music magazines then, and things were generally different then, and so of course not; I think we need to be a little flexible here or else we are going to end up overemphasizing recent material just because we have the sources for it rather than it being actually more notable, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER says not to do that.
And on top of that there's even a whole idiom based on the song (obscure and obsolete, granted, but still) -- "well, Felix kept on walking" probably something like "Well, another day in paradise" or something. I don't think we should throw info like that back into the darkness.
Whether to leave the stuff about the film in a short section at the bottom is a judgement call, something for the article talk page. Herostratus (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your extremely expansive reading of WP:NSONGS is contradicted by the explanatory footnote about the "non-trivial" nature of the published works: ""Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. " Advertisements, chinaware, t-shirts, ... are not reliable sources and thus don't count towards meeting WP:NSONG. A deviant art page similarly is of no value for this discussion. Fram (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hi Fram. I am glad that you are here with us, hope things are going well for you here.
OK. So, there are three things to untangle here for sources, reliability, notability and standing.
So, considering the pictures of the banks and ads and toys and cups and t-shirts, of course these entities do exist and we can rely on that. Yes, there is an (infintesimal) chance that maybe for one of them somebody decided to deploy their time, effort, and advanced photoshop skills to make a fake photo of a non-existent object, for some unfathomable reason, I suppose. That there is a pattern of this (which no one has picked up and reported this highly amazing, very high-effort conspiracy involving a number of people) is about as likely as the moon landing being a hoax, so we can dismiss that and agree that the photos of the tchockes and other stuff are indeed photos of actually existing objects. All entities are reliable for their own contents. A website of a photo of a Felix the Cat doll is reliable for that photo. Maybe not for other details like when and where it was made and by who, but for the photo, which is what I am referring to. As you know, many sources are reliable for some of their content, and unreliable for others. Whether I would use these sources in the article is a different issue.
So all these are real things. Do they indicate notability? Well of course they do. People don't banks and ads and toys and cups and t-shirts etc.for obscure entities. They just don't is all, because that would be silly and a dumb business model, and if they did that by itself would 'probably confer notability I think. Having one or two or three of these doesn't demonstrate notability. The plethora of tchotchkes we do have does.
Again, we are not going to have magazine reviews of the song because the world didn't work like that then. We also don't have magazine reviews of 17th century chanson. Doesn't mean anything.
So we have reliable indication of notability, done. If we can't use those sources, that's a problem, but it's a technical problem, the main fact that the entity is notable, so it's our job to find a way to keep the article if we can. Notable entities should have articles. (Anyway, we can use these sources. If one wants to play WP:DMV it it could be argued that rule 17, paragraph 4, subparagraph 6, bullet point 3 (or whatever) proscribes that, and then we'd have to dig up a contradicting rule (most rules have 'em) but really just say WP:NOTBURO and move on.
Anyway, doesn't matter cos 1) the song was covered by many notable artists, and 2) was surely up there in the "chart" of record sales and sheet music sales (they didn't play records on the radio much yet I believe), altho any figures are probably lost to history. This seems self-evident and the burden would be on editors trying to disprove it, I would say; and I don't think that any song that meets both these criteria has been deleted, or if so, not many and those cases would be mistakes, because of course we don't want to 404 readers searching such a notable entity when we already have an article. And really what rules are supposed to codify common good practice, and that trumps a rule that tries to hold the dam against the river of common good practice. Herostratus (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I can't be sure if any of tchockes with the phrase preceded the song or not. They very probably came from the song, but we can't be sure, so I don't thin we should even mention. Since works of art are their own regs, all of the article is ref'd (technically) even tho there's only two refs at the botton. Herostratus (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, I WP:HEYed the article, so it is now mainly about the song, so we are looking at NSONG and so forth. It's basically a different article, so I think the best next move, Fram, is to close this AfD, then can retitle the article (to the song title), and if you want you can make a new nomination of the song. I wouldn't because as a song it's not likely to be deleted, and if it is that would be unfortunate cos it's as good as very many of our other song articles, and no gain in causing unfortunate things. My 2c. Herostratus (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of X-Men: The Animated Series and X-Men '97 adaptations

[edit]
List of X-Men: The Animated Series and X-Men '97 adaptations (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)

Beyond being a largely WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that is only supported by a few sources (largely for the X-Men '97 portion) and can be considered trivia, this information seem better suited to note, if applicable and notable, in each series' respective articles rather than its own article (I do believe X-Men '97 already has some of this information in its "Writing" section). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edd Gould

[edit]
Edd Gould (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've been pondering on nominating this for AfD, and I've finally come to the conclusion that this article is not eligible for standalone notability and should either be deleted or merged into Eddsworld (if that article is even notable at this point with such sketchy sourcing). A WP:BEFORE search brings up obituary-style sources and passing mentions in articles. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 01:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: while i agree Eddsworld isn't sourced properly (and that it probably is impossible to source well given the mainstream media snobness about early-2000s internet culture), this article in particular seems pretty well sourced to me. That his notability mostly comes from the continuation of his work by Ridgewell (ie he became notable mostly posthumously) is irrelevant because he is notable. I think EddsWorld should be merged into etiher TomSka or this article, but that's not the subject.
Themoonisacheese (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There aren't very many in-depth sources (including in the article) but I think there are just enough to support a short article on Gould or Eddsworld. However, most of the coverage is overlapping between Gould and Eddsworld and I don't think there is enough to justify articles on both of them so I would support a merge to Eddsworld (or vice versa). Shapeyness (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eddsworld and Edd Gould have alot of disconnected stuff from eachother, and do have their own histories, alot of content involving the show and it's creator reference these articles, so they are definitely in use.
They should'nt be deleted or merged Charliephere (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Eddsworld. Not sure about sourcing individually but I think merging together would be good. Procyon117 (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comics and animation proposed deletions

[edit]

Categories for discussion

[edit]

Redirects for discussion

[edit]

Templates for discussion

[edit]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Animation/Tasks&oldid=679516692"