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: 2025-02-05 19:27 (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

(2 more...)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

(11 more...)

Articles for creation

(5 more...)

Deletion discussions

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

Fred & Eric

[edit]
Fred & Eric (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)

The article lacks sufficient coverage from reliable, independent sources and also a lot of links to your own website Loewstisch (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cambria Productions

[edit]
Cambria Productions (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)

Cambria Productions should be deleted as it lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources to establish notability. Additionally, the content in the article is minimal and doesn't provide substantial information about the company's impact or contributions to the industry Loewstisch (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Over Isla Island

[edit]
Moon Over Isla Island (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 as an individual episode. Can't find anything on Google Books, while Google News is just listicles from pop culture websites. Sources provided on page are just ratings digests that don't even name the episode, and even the one review reviewed everything else on Fox that night. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now willing to say redirect – one review is insufficient to keep, and I failed to find further reviews or coverage. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nestor (comics)

[edit]
Nestor (comics) (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)

Minor character from French Tintin comic book series. Nothing here suggests WP:GNG is met. Pure plot summary and list of appearances. Fr wiki article is no better; my BEFORE failed to find anything that goes beyond a plot summary. Per WP:ATD-R, we can redirect this to List of The Adventures of Tintin characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Adventures of Tintin characters per nom. No real SIGCOV I could find either. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Adventures of Tintin locations

[edit]
List of The Adventures of Tintin locations (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)

Poorly referenced list that fails WP:NLIST. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of boats in The Adventures of Tintin

[edit]
List of boats in The Adventures of Tintin (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)

So, there's some interesting stuff here in the form of well written and referenced text on "The maritime world in The Adventures of Tintin", but this is wrapped in fancrufty and poorly referenced list that fails WP:NLIST (and while the list appears to have plenty of footnotes, many are just unreferenced notes or commentary). As a list, I think his has no reason to exist, but the content could probably be merged somewhere, or maybe split (or perhaps we could just delete the list part of this article and rename it?). It's a weird case, I've very rarely seen some good content bundled with bad one in such a way... If this is somehow kept, obviously, this is not a list of boats, but ships (or ships and boats?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn (Tintin)

[edit]
Unicorn (Tintin) (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 is a Good Article (from 2015), but it also seems to be a major piece of WP:FANCRUFT with big WP:GNG issues. There is no analysis or significance section; there is "Plot role" but that's pure WP:OR based on the original graphic novels(!). The only part using independent sources is 'creation', but that's just some SIGCOV trivia about how the author was researching materials for his work. Fine, I don't dispute The Secret of the Unicorn is notable, but I don't see how this article meets WP:GNG. Per WP:ATD-R, I suggest this is redirected (maybe partially merged?) there (while the ship appears in another book; there is no source that cares about that that's not a plot summary). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article seems to be consistently well-sourced to books discussing the Tintin series, and discusses at length the creation of the fictional boat and what is admittedly some trivia about similar real boats, but given this "trivia" is present in multiple reliable secondary sources, it's probably OK to include. If the article was just the "In the Adventures of Tintin" section, which is mostly a plot summary (although just the fact that it is a plot summary does not make it OR, which is important), then I could see this AFD, but with the quality of reliable secondary sources, I think it's worth keeping.
I don't know if it's really a good candidate to merge, either, given it features in two books and the articles for those are already quite long. Maybe take it as a necessary split of The Secret of the Unicorn? WP:GNG just requires significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, which this article does have. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrfoogles Size wise, The Secret... article is just 3516 words, so can easily absorb this rather small one (particularly since the only useful content is the 'creation/design' stuff, with the plot summary being non-encyclopedic plotcurft, per WP:ARTICLESIZE. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are non-fiction published reliable sources currently present in the article, including Hergé, the Man Who Created Tintin, Hergé: Son of Tintin, and The Art of Hergé, Inventor of Tintin, supporting behind-the-scenes information about the creation and design of the ship. There are a lot of plotcruft articles to delete; this is not one of them. Toughpigs (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to The Secret of the Unicorn. The dev info here is valuable, but given the ship is primarily associated with The Secret of the Unicorn, and shows no indication of any actual real world impact beyond merely existing, I don't see much value in it remaining afloat. If the dev info isn't already at the respective book's article, I'd merge it there, since this is good stuff, but tied almost exclusively to the development of the Unicorn's appearance in this story. An article without any evidence it's notable in way of SIGCOV or actual Reception/Analysis of its role just isn't notable, no matter how much BTS info exists, especially when the ship itself has only appeared three times (With all being tied directly to Secret of the Unicorn) Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Farquaad

[edit]
Lord Farquaad (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 went deeper to find sources about this character. However, I found only this source is proven to be usable [2] (this source alone wouldn't be enough). This source [3] didn't discuss Lord Farquaad, while this one is just a theory thing [4]; thus failing WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire (Marvel Comics)

[edit]
Vampire (Marvel Comics) (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)

Entirely non-notable subject with no significant coverage I could find in a BEFORE. Though there's a few subjects in the Marvel Comics lore that relate to vampires (Such as Blade (comics) and Morbius the Living Vampire, the topic of Marvel's specific incarnation of vampires is just entirely non-notable. All mentions of vampires in sources I could find are just discussing characters who happen to be vampires, like the aforementioned Morbius, and notability is not inherited from these characters. Most of the article is just overly detailed in-universe information, so I don't see much need to keep the article around, but if there's a valid merge/redirect target, I would not be against a very light merge or redirect per AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George DiCaprio

[edit]
George DiCaprio (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:NOTINHERITED, George here is only known in connection with his famous son Leonardo DiCaprio. His "acting debut" is a very small few second cameo, his work as a writer/artist (not really clear) fails WP:ARTIST and his work as a filmmaker fails WP:FILMMAKER, getting a small stint editing on local newspapers does not make you notable. Source 5 in the article shows he's worked on... three comics? Don't know if it's even reliable as a source but clearly not noteworthy in itself. jolielover♥talk 14:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He stills fails WP:AUTHOR, as none of his work in the bibliography is notable. jolielover♥talk 03:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. The entire underground comix movement was designed to change people's perceptions of what stories were "worth" telling in the comics format, so many products of that era fail a mainstream definition of "notablity". Nonetheless, the material produced during that era changed the comics industry forever, heralding the alternative comics movement and the rise of the graphic novel. That history has been well established. DiCaprio's role during that time as a writer, publisher, editor, and distributor is also well-established. Not to mention that he collaborated with such "notable" artists as Justin Green and Jay Kinney, and contributed to anthologies such as Arcade and Slow Death. -- stoshmaster (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yours is an admirably expressive and nuanced opinion. However, our own take matters very little as far as a person's notability is concerned. Sources rule-The Gnome (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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[5] 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 (([6]) and some even still today ([7], [8]). 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since this article was reworked such that it is mostly now about the song... does it pass WP:NSONG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:04, 30 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]
Keep Edd's influence on the indie animation community and Internet as a whole is worthy enough to warrant a seperate article Flixxy0 (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Flixxy0: With your permission, I have bolded your position:[9] Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There's yet to be a consensus on whether this is a keep or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:06, 31 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"