Jump to content

Talk:Walt Disney Animation Studios

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWalt Disney Animation Studios has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 5, 2014Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 12, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Walt Disney Animation Studios has released 53 animated features to date, from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) to Frozen (2013)?


Reliable references needed in several sections

[edit]

In '1960s,1970s, and Location subsection in section Studio, there is a lack of reliable citations. Please help!Forbidden User (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have 1960s covered, but 1970s is difficult because it's the least-covered period of the studio history. best bet is to use Google News and magazine searches to look for contemporaneous articles.--FuriousFreddy (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is not really restricted to those sections. To be honest, we should consider other parts as well. By the way, thank you a lot, furiousfreddy! Back after exam .Forbidden User (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues with User:FuriousFreddy's recent edits

[edit]

I'll concede at the outset that my edits about the Catmull/Lasseter takeover era (2006-present) were probably getting into WP:UNDUE and that User:FuriousFreddy was right to trim them down.

But one deletion I don't understand is the deletion of the reference to the Roy E. Disney Animation Building's interior as "dungeon-like." It's really quite amazing when the president of one of the most important animation studios in the United States uses several pages in a published book (Creativity, Inc.) to attack the building in which his studio is housed. Plus if you look around the Web, there are a lot of forum comments and blogs also attacking the Hat Building (that's what animators call it) as poorly designed. Any response before I restore that particular point?

Also, I'm going to fix the incorrect reference to "creative executives." Development execs by definition are not creatives.--Coolcaesar (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Lasseter, or anyone else, personally thought of the design of the building seemed - especially for an article that already had to cover nearly a century's worth of history - something that would also apply to WP:UNDUE. A third (or more) opinion would be welcome on this, however. I actually meant to put an apology to whoever wrote the section on the Catmull/Lasseter takeover (if it is you, I apologize), because while it was well-written material, it was too detailed in comparison to the rest of the article. I tried to keep it at a comparative level to the coverage earlier in the article about the Eisner/Katzenberg/Roy E. Disney takeover (which omits detail about but still implies what the animators themselves thought of the Glendale facilities), and also tried to cut down (even as I was working) coverage of some of the less historically significant Disney films in hopes of saving space (the intent was to keep the article's focus on the organization, and secondarily on the films, which have their own articles).
I apoligize for conflating creative and developmental executives; I was under the impression the different sources were using different terms for the same people ("creative executives" is how some of the interviewees in Dream On Silly Dreamer refer to the then-newly installed layers of management that took over much of the film development process in the late-1990s). --FuriousFreddy (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. Although I haven't read Dream On Silly Dreamer so I may be missing out on those viewpoints. But the quote I was referring to above is not about Glendale, it's actually about the current Burbank building. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it's about the current building. My point was trying to keep coverage of one comparable to coverage of the other. Also, Dream On Silly Dreamer is a documentary film, not a book. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the video section

[edit]

Neelix, it'd be better if you could find sources on the section. I must admit your edit is justified, but if you could help on that, it'd be appreciated!Forbidden User (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for inviting me to participate in improving this article. Unfortunately, I find it especially difficult to locate quality video-game-related sources. I am currently trying to find sources for Disney's Aladdin (1994 video game), but am having difficulty finding more than what is already there. Please contact me if you know of others I might add. Neelix (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any proper sources on the Aladdin video game would likely be in contemporary video game/computer magazines. Look (and this may require visiting a library) for old issues of Nintendo Power and Computer Gaming World, or try to find 1994 reviews of the video game (many reviews at the time commented on the use of actual Disney animation in the graphics). --FuriousFreddy (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just ran WorldCat out of curiosity on some of the old gaming magazines near Neelix's location (apparently Canada). Looks like they don't have that many libraries up there, and not that many of them carry old computer or video game magazines. On the other hand, it looks like Cengage Gale's Infotrac family of database products appears to carry some of the old gaming magazines, so you might want to try that. Many American public and college libraries subscribe to Infotrac, but it looks like Infotrac subscriptions are scarce north of the border. Good luck. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow the whole Collaboration section needs reference. What a headache.Forbidden User (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, FuriousFreddy and Coolcaesar! I tried one library today without success, but I'm holding out hope for another attempt. Neelix (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps add a notice to one of video-game related Wiki projects? Someone there is bound to have a vintage video game magazine collection or something else that can be used for a source. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How much info does ref #232 include? In this scenario we'd better put the ref on every bulletpoint it is used.Forbidden User (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When Will My Life Begin? AFD

[edit]

Please weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When Will My Life Begin?.--Coin945 (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1940s

[edit]

These films were Saludos Amigos (1942), The Three Caballeros (1944), Make Mine Music (1946), Fun and Fancy Free (1947), Melody Time (1948), and The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949). It doesn't look like a summary of information. Should we trim it down or even remove the whole thing?Forbidden User (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make sure I accounted for all 53 films at least in passing mention. While some detail could be added that Saludos and Caballeros were the results of an trip to Latin America Walt Disney and some of his more loyal employees took at the tail end of the 1941 strike so that the government could settle the strike and the Disney people could produce some Latin-themed cartoons as part of FDR's Good Neighbor policy (any of the Disney biographies will have plenty of info on this). The others are only notable in the context of this article in passing, though they are notable enough to be mentioned. Their impact on the history of the studio is minimal; we're not going into the detail of Mickey Mouse's voice actors here (that's better covered at Mickey Mouse and Fun and Fancy Free), so that Fun and Fancy Free is the last time Walt Disney adid the voice _and_ the first time Jim MacDonald did is irrelevant here. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Walt Disney Animation Studios/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 21:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty solid, I'll review. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1920s: Foundation and early years

  • Encyclopedia of Walt Disney's animated characters, the only resource I have at hand as I review this page, seems to be very clear that Walt must have bought out Newman Laugh-O-gram.
    • "was laziness of the part of the Laugh-O-gram company (and later the Disney company)"
    • "required Disney to hire back some of th staff he had had to make redundant from his Laugh-O-gram company"
    • "Still, Walt's company was nearing bankruptcy"
  • I'm not sure if this was the same corporation, legally, as Disney Brothers, or if this was separate, but it certainly is worth noting that Walt didn't just become a studio owner out of no where, he took over a studio he worked at, ran it into the ground, and then rebooted with a more long-term company.
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph is a run-on sentence.
  • "made only mild impressions": source? It's true, but it's an opinion.

Productions

Appropriately brief, as to not repeat things. I'm glad that the technological innovation element is referenced.

Parks and resorts

Video games

  • Sprites makes me think of either Fido Dido or Cool Spot (oh wait, those are 7UP) or that this has some connection to The Black Cauldron. This really isn't a common enough term to use.
  • Do you have a reference to prove that WDAS or its predecessors' staff actually worked on these video games? I recently watched a Timon and Pumbaa safety video animated by "Duck Studios", so feature characters are often animated elsewhere, if the top talent isn't needed. In early PC video games, animation isn't "wow".
  • "reference material" for Disney Infinity, does that just mean that the studio's films were inspiration? Or that the Interactive folks dropped by the Disney archives? That's hardly a collaboration, and the Epic Mickey and Kingdom Hearts are just as much related as Infinity.

There's a start. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Barrier takes up four entries in the references for his 1999 book. One copy was published in Oxford, one in New York, and one in the United Kingdom. Did three different editors cite three unique editions of this book?

1930s

  • Why is ChWDC not simply a normal reference, as opposed to be subdivided to its own area? You can combine multiple sources into one entry, without sending it off to another location.
  • Reference that Flowers and Trees was first colour animation? Was successful?
  • Reference all subsequent Silly Symphonies were colour?
  • Reference to success of Three Little Pigs?
  • Ref derision from most of film industry?
  • Ref of great expansion of studio?
  • Second ref that Graham spurred the creation or formalizaton of practices, it's fully possible, it's just that I've never heard that mentioned before.
  • It seems silly to mention how much a film cost, and that it was the highest grossing film of all time, without mentioning the actual gross.
  • Walt Disney Specials? I've never heard that term used. Was it on-screen? Source, please.

1940s

  • WDP's IPO is rarely mentioned, so a reference would be great here.
  • Pinocchio has a negative cost? They actually profitted through the process of making it? By George, Roy Disney should have won the Nobel Prize for Economics for that feat! Either that, or been charged as anti-American for not lending the technique to the war effort.
  • The RKO distribution note should be moved out of the sentence.
  • limited-searing sounds dangerous
  • "each" roadshow had receipts of $325K? Seven roadshows would reach $2 million. I know that there was a great loss on the film, but this whole statement just confuses.

1950s

  • "(though not final approvals)" em dashes, please

1960s

  • There should be some mention of the fact that the company continued to produce other projects, lest it look like the overall corporation was dead.
  • "rentals of" may be accurate, and it may keep wording fresh for readers, but it'll also inevitably make 99% of readers think you're referring to Blockbuster.
  • Ref CalArts as de facto alma mater, while well known, non-Disney fans won't know this.
  • Rentals, again.

-- Zanimum (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks for these. Please hold on, I'll start fixing at the weekend.Forbidden User (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For 1920s: Foundation and early years, I cannot find a reliable source to link Newman Laugh-O-gram with Walt Disney Studio (and Walt Disney Animation Studios). The said opinion has been removed. Forbidden User (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The books are the same. I don't have the books, but they are not different in content.
  • For video games, by providing it means the studio gives permissions on use of images in the films, and sometimes lending staff to help (which is never public). Anyway, the use of the word collaborate is warrented. Reference material is information like story plot, characters' personality, etc. Collaboration is needed so that the game creators don't write conflicting plots for Disney characters, assert irrelevant power-ups ( like Elsa having fire powers ), etc.

These are my interpretations after reading Disney's description on the games. More opinions welcomed!Forbidden User (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the article according to you review. Please check if any more improvements are needed before it could pass. Good luck editing!Forbidden User (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a week now. Please do continue your review, Zanimum. Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I'm a significant contributor to this article, so I cannot review it, but I should point out that I never got around to writing the content covering 1995 to 2000, which one will note is sparse and mentions but skims over six major film releases. I can't really depend on free time to help at the moment, but the book DisneyWar is a good reference for this period. Also, not sure where i'd find a reference for it (Barrier seems a probable source), but Walt Disney Specials was a title used onscreen for the post-1939 non-series Disney shorts. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are more for him to review, if he has time to do so.Forbidden User (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wrap up the review since Zanimum's clearly moved on. I'll do what's left of the prose, but there are some bare URLs in the refs that I want to see fleshed out first. Wizardman 04:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!Forbidden User (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the bare URLs, the only other issue I found was that in the corporate issues section, we have two consecutive paragraphs starting with "In [date],". Change one to make it a bit more dynamic. Once that stuff is fixed I'll pass this. Wizardman 02:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything checks out now, so I'll pass this article as a GA. Wizardman 02:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this passed as a GA?
  1. Zanimum: "Why is ChWDC not simply a normal reference, as opposed to be subdivided to its own area? You can combine multiple sources into one entry, without sending it off to another location."
The reason was that the ChWDC website author check those sources out, not me. Now it has been disconnected and was left hanging. Just like a reference like "Barrier 1999, p. 229." While two others like this (Gabler 2006 & Stewart, James (2005)) do connect down to "Furture reading", It doesn't give the reader all the information in one place, as now you have to go up and get the page referenced. This would logically and common sense method of using ref groups. There are 19 primary sources (Hyperion Press books, Disney Museum, direct TWDC links) and other references that don't even match up to the linked inform (for example: A113 Animation isn't Big Screen Animation and isn't the original source of the A113 article Blue Sky Disney is. Blue Sky Disney & A113 are both avoid fan sites.
All reference and links to its other units, WFA-FL, WFA-AU, were dropped from history, what the hell? And dropped into locations with no context and no links. Spshu (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Emperor's New Groove (franchise)‎

[edit]

Please weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Emperor's New Groove (franchise).--Coin945 (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Walt Disney Animation Studios. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note about Wreck-It Ralph sequel in development in History section

[edit]

I don't think that we need to note that "A Wreck-It Ralph sequel is in development" here. If you look at every sub-section of the history section, the only things that are chronicled are events that occurred in the past, not events that are going to happen in the future. "History" only deals with things from the past. Are there any thoughts? If there are no objections within one week, then I will assume that it is ok to remove the note about a sequel in development. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess an argument could be made either way. It seems harmless enough, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for offering your thoughts. I'm going to go ahead and remove the note, because honestly, it seems proper without it. It is not an "upcoming films" section. This is the history section, and every subsection only chronicles past events. With that in mind, the next logical note to be included in the "2010-present" sub-section should be about Moana (after it has been released.) Wikicontributor12 (talk) 06:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hand-drawn animation in feature films probably isn't coming back at Disney

[edit]

If you read Ed Catmull's Creativity Inc. very carefully, he explains at page 268 that The Princess and the Frog "was profitable, as we'd kept costs down, but it just didn't make enough to convince anyone at the studio that we should pour more resources into hand-drawn films." As Catmull is the president of Disney Animation, that's a very clear signal that Disney is not going to green-light any hand-drawn feature films for a very, very long time, if ever. Any objections before I revise the article? --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent film produced by the studio

[edit]

I recently reverted a premature edit that attempted to replace Zootopia with Moana as the most recent film. Latest reports on the Animation Guild official blog (which can be found in about 30 seconds on Google) show that Disney is still working on lighting, so the film is not done yet. Furthermore, it's not really the most recent film until it's actually released, which won't happen until November. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Scheider's promotion and layoff in 2013

[edit]

Did the departure of Jeffrey Katzenberg lead to Peter Scheider being promoted and why were hand-drawn animators laid off in 2013?174.21.58.63 (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Evan Kalani Opedal[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Walt Disney Animation Studios. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Type

[edit]

It is actually a subsidiary because it is headquartered in a different place than the Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Studios, and Walt Disney Pictures.--97.113.114.59 (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Evan Kalani Opedal[reply]

Walt Disney Animation Studios in translation

[edit]

I think this is a vital article that is currently missing from wikipedia. The process of translating Disney songs is a complicated one as you often have to keep to a rhythm and rhyming scheme, while making the words to some degree synch up to the mouth movement of the character. The coflicting goals between being faithful to the original lyrics' core essense, while using words that flow well in the language, are key to this issue. How different languages interpret the lyrics with their own ideas and sensibilities is interesting. There is a huge team assigned to sort out this issue - as Disney is so dedicated to dubbing their movies into as many languages as possible (a fascinating idea in and of itself). There's also the larger issues of casting actors, and changing references etc. There's a huge variety of literature on this topic. Here is a sample.--Coin945 (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur

[edit]

How much money was Dinosaur expected to earn if it was a box office success? --Evope (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Evan Opedal[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Walt Disney Animation Studios. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Walt Disney Animation Studios. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2010–present

[edit]

I was curious as to when the cut-off point of this section will occur. I was wondering if we will be going by decade; will the next section start on January 1, 2020? -Wikicontributor12 (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Revival era

[edit]

Dose anyone want to help make Disney Revival era page for the current era of animated Disney films. Fanoflionking 22:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary since this page and Modern animation in the United States#Disney Animation already exists that tells of Disney animation's revival era. Christianster94 (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to User:Tim Week for fixing those incorrect edits by User:Wikicontributor12 on 25 March 2019

[edit]

No reliable source has indicated that Jennifer Lee is gaining control of Blue Sky. All major entertainment industry sources have been very consistent about the outcome of the Disney-Fox merger: the Fox production divisions are coming under Alan Horn's jurisdiction and the Fox business divisions are coming under Alan Bergman's jurisdiction. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people don't get the distinction between a director and a co-director followed by Disney Animation and Pixar

[edit]

I've seen a pattern on articles related to Disney Animation in which a lot of inexperienced editors do not understand that Disney Animation and Pixar (during and ever since the former Lasseter/Catmull management regime) both try to maintain a distinction between directors and co-directors. They apply the distinction quite consistently if you actually take the time to read both studios' press releases. The buck stops with directors (in the sense that they have final control over the artistic direction of a film), while co-directors share some directorial duties but ultimately are there to support the directors. Only directors get a formal "director" credit (which is especially important for film awards season). For example, Ron Clements and John Musker were the directors of Moana, and Don Hall and Chris Williams were co-directors, but did not get director credits. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“Formerly” problem

[edit]

Walt Disney Productions and Walt Disney Animation Studios are there own company's in February 6th 1986 Walt Disney Productions split into The Walt Disney Company and Walt Disney Feature Animation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Controlrabbit (talk • contribs) 13:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Female Artists, who helped make Disney great

[edit]

Reading the Wikipedia article about the artists, who largely contributed to the success of Disney animated features I fail to read the names of the women, who helped create characters such as Snow White, Dumbo, Bambi, Peter Pan, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, etc. They were not mentioned at all! Are those women, who worked at the Walt Disney Studios and who shaped the iconic films that have enthralled generations, not worth mentioning? Even today??? Without their sketching art, innovative ideas, and talent in story telling many beloved characters and stories in the Disney Universe may have never seen the dawn of day the way we know them today. Please do read the book "The Queens of Animation" by best selling author Nathalia Holt and complete this article by incorporating the names of the women, who helped create those animated jewels loved by millions. Give them the credit here that they deserve. Thank you so much! Sonja Donovan 2A02:8109:B03F:E874:25F9:1B55:201C:423A (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Walt Disney Animation Studios logo.webm listed for discussion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Walt Disney Animation Studios logo.webm, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

[edit]

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

  • There is an orange "more citations needed" banner atop of "Production logo", which has been there since 2023.
  • At over 11,000 words, this article is considered WP:TOOBIG and can probably be split or have information moved to other articles.
  • The lede is quite long and should probably be shortened.

Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Walt Disney Animation Studios

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

This article has an orange "additional citations needed" in the "Production logo" section from 2023 which needs to be resolved. It is over 11,000 words, which WP:TOOBIG states should probably be reduced. There are also a couple of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun to prune and source. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick update, here are the changes so far.
The article was 11705 words as of October 5, the last edit before I became involved, and now is 11470 words. I'll see what else I can weed, but this is a studio where even the unproductive eras are the sole focus of multiplebooks. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanimum: This article might be a good candidate to WP:SPINOUT sections of its history. This has already started with Disney Renaissance. After spinning out these sections, this article can give an overview of that time period (I recommend 4 paragraphs max per spun-out article) to reduce the word count. If readers are interested in finding out more information, they can go to the relevant article. Z1720 (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zanimum, do you still intend to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AirshipJungleman29: I do not have four paragraphs as a hard and fast rule, but I use that as a rule of thumb as MOS:LEAD used to have that as the target number for the lead. Articles need to be readable: I do not believe sections with 10 paragraphs enhance readability. MOS:BODY talks about how headings enhance readability, and adding these headings to the table of contents help readers find information. WP:CANYOUREADTHIS talks about how "Readers of the mobile version of Wikipedia can be helped by ensuring that sections are not so long or so numerous as to impede navigation."
In answer to the question about spun out information: "1989–94: Beginning of the Disney Renaissance, successful releases, and impact on the animation industry", which already has a spunout article at Disney Renaissance, "1999–2005: Slump, downsizing, and conversion to computer animation; corporate issues", "1999–2005: Slump, downsizing, and conversion to computer animation; corporate issues", and "2019–present: Continued success, COVID-19 pandemic, expansion to television and financial struggles". If some of the information was cut instead of spun out, I would be OK with that too as the article has over 11,000 words. Z1720 (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For me, these are not GACR-relevant issues which should not hold up the closing of the GAR, but as I'm involved now I won't do that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GAR coordinators: no further input appears forthcoming, could you please either venture an opinion or close? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Z1720 that the History could be on a subpage. However, I would say the focus just on that size is isolation hides other issues. The History section is not only large, it's so large it's almost the entire article. Of the 11501 words (not including the bulleted lists), 10119 are history. There's almost nothing else, with almost half that remainder being the lead. There's really nothing to say about the leadership, past and present? The feature filmography of the Walt Disney Animation Studios is covered in 3 sentences? This seems far too thin to meet broadness. Further, the current studio, as well as the tables and timelines at the end, do not appear sourced. CMD (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chipmunkdavis about the broadness; I think this is a remaining concern, however, it was not much discussed (except potentially spinning off some of the history), so I'm planning to leave this open (although other coords may close it, of course) for another week or so to see if anyone commits to resolving these issues. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The following information was present in the article until October 7, 2024. It was partially length and lack of reliable sources.


Excerpt of Mickey Mouse short Steamboat Willie on which the 2007 production logo was based
video icon Walt Disney Animation Studios logo

Until 2007, Walt Disney Animation Studios did not use a traditional production logo, using the standard Walt Disney Pictures logo instead. Starting that year, an on-screen production logo based on Steamboat Willie was added after the 2006 Disney logo. It depicts Mickey Mouse, in his classic form, being drawn in against a beige paper background. As pages flip in the manner of a flip book, the drawing is animated into a scene from the aforementioned short in which Mickey is whistling. The camera zooms out onto a yellow-gold spotlight background and the wordmark of the studio's name is displayed below the scene.

The logo has appeared on every film since Meet the Robinsons (2007). Milestone variants were used for Tangled (2010) and Encanto (2021), with text saying "50th Animated Motion Picture" and "60th Animated Motion Picture" respectively, and with Mickey in the "0"; the latter used a shortened version. An 8-bit version of the logo was used for Wreck-It Ralph (2012). Additionally, Mickey's whistling was muted to allow an opening theme to play over the logo, in such films as Frozen (2013), Moana (2016), Frozen II (2019), Raya and the Last Dragon (2021), the aforementioned Encanto, and Wish (2023).

The logo currently remains in use despite Steamboat Willie entering the public domain on January 1, 2024, due to the cartoon being a work published in 1928.(Barnes, Brooks (2022-12-27). "Mickey's Copyright Adventure: Early Disney Creation Will Soon Be Public Property". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-11-24.)

Walt's People citation

[edit]

While self-published sources can be an issue, Walt's People is a very valid source. The chapter quoted is an interview of Ed Catmull by Didier Ghez. Mr. Ghez is a significant Disney researcher and writer, beginning with co-authoring 2002's Disneyland Paris : de l'esquisse à la création, which was published by legitimate publishers in French and English, up to more recent titles like They drew as they pleased, a six-book series for Chronicle Books about concept artists throughout the history of the studio. He spoke to Ed Catmull, who was the President of Walt Disney Animation Studios at the time of the story being told here. This is an instance where self-published sources can be trusted. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walt_Disney_Animation_Studios&oldid=1250941576"