Talk:Animated cartoon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
WikiProject Animation (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge with Animation[edit]

Information included here is nothing different than Animation. KyuuA4 05:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just what is this page about?[edit]

I'm getting more and more confused the more I look at it. Is this page even necessary? We already have an Traditional animation page. Doesn't "animated cartoon" specifically mean "traditionally-animated cartoon"? That's what people who're changing my edits (not that I blame them) seem to be saying to me. I understand that that article is more technical in nature than this one, but I can't help but feel that maybe this article should be somehow merged with either the traditional animation article or the Animation article (which bears many similarities to this one, only is more broad in its topic because it talks about ALL animated films, not just traditionally-animated ones). Can anyone tell me why this article is needed as a separate entity from one of those two? If I don't get any good responses, I may think about starting a discussion to merge this article with one of those two (probably the Animation one), but I want to get a feel for why people think it deserves its own name first. Esn 08:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I originally created this page because "animated cartoon" was a redirect that took you to the cartoon article, with just one paragraph about animation. Yes, this article could be merged into either animation or traditional animation, but, OTOH, those are somewhat different subjects. An animated cartoon really is a short, hand-drawn (maybe also using computers) motion picture for the movie, TV or computer screen. Feature animation really doesn't belong here, as the opening paragraph in that section in fact implies, and belongs more naturally in the traditional animation article. The field of animation is so large and multi-faceted that everything cannot be crammed into one article... --Janke | Talk 16:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright, you have a point - I think I do see the need for this article now. In that case, though, it should be made abundantly clear that the topic of this article is NOT animation as a whole, but animated cartoons specifically - "short, hand-drawn (maybe also using computers) movies for the cinema, TV or computer screen" (sorry, changed your definition there slightly ;). From looking at the "history" section, you'd think that this was an article about the entire field of animation, and this is made even worse by the fact that many who come across this page may not realize that it is not. I think we should clean up the history section and make it focus on the development of the cartoon specifically, not of animation in general. They are related, but they are certainly not synonymous. Esn 06:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've changed the opening paragraph... Esn 06:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is not needed. If anything, it is used to separate "animated cartoons" from "anime". Discerning such a difference is obsolete. KyuuA4 05:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


I'm just wondering - should any attempts be made to make this article less US-centric? Other countries have quite a rich history of animation as well, but if we include all of it it's certainly not going to be as nice and neat as it is now. Oh, and also - what does cartoon mean exactly? I'm assuming that it doesn't include all types of animation, correct? So which ones DOES it include? I may have made a mistake by adding information about types of animation which are not labelled "cartoons" - I'm just not sure. Esn 02:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • "Cartoon" means that it is hand-drawn, so most 3D stuff, as well as clay, puppet, cut-out, are not animated cartoons. Regarding US-centricity, yes, good examples from all over the world are welcome. I'd hate to see theis article becoming a long, long list. History of animation would be a better place, since it is basically a list, and in fact, there's a lot of non-US stuff there, already. --Janke | Talk 06:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The only art form separated from cartoon is the Japanese type. See Anime. From a logic standpoint, that is not logical. Japanese animation uses the same principles. As things currently stand, there is a clear separation between Japanese animation and all other forms of animation whose definitions are upheld by the fanbases. KyuuA4 06:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, so should there be so much info about 3D stuff in this article, as there currently is? Also, what do you mean when you say that "most" 3D stuff is not considered "cartoonish" - some of it is? Esn 07:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • One more thing: since the article states that the name "cartoon" implies a short film and is thus not applied to feature films, should there be a feature film section at all? This is all a bit confusing, made more so by the fact that I myself never use the word "cartoon" when referring to anything other than the 30-minute cartoon episodes on tv, but use "animated short" or "animated film". How do other people use the word? Esn 08:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Edited Intro[edit]

To reflect that NTSC and PAL shoot at different frame rates.

Reverted, gets too complicated to state all - 24, 25 and 30 fps. "frames" now links to frame (film) . --Janke | Talk 06:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Former Redirect[edit]

This page was formerly a redirect to Cartoon. However, that page is more like a disambiguation page for three topics; art, editorial cartoons, and animation. For this reason, I created this page. Some redundancy exists in articles such as animation and traditional animation, but I feel this is the right place for the history and development of the animated cartoon. Please feel free to edit and expand. --Janke | Talk 09:23:33, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

Replace "Internet animation" with "Animutation"[edit]

Internet animation isn't really a genre. Would you really put The Demented Cartoon Movie in the same genre as There she is!!? I put Animutation in as separate step. I'm not claiming that all Internet animations are Animutations. --Billpg 09:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

agreed, "Internet Cartoon" is just a medium. There are quite a few genres that could be put into that section of the article, and im not sure how specific it needs to be. "Zany humor" is slightly more vague than "Animutation". Is Zany Humor a style of animation anyway? the list needs a major overhaul, methinks. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, please expand as you see fit. I originally created the list off-the-cuff, that's why I put a section-stub tag on it. The intention is that the main genres of animation should be listed, but not of course every single little sub-genre. PS: If you find a better name for the zany Clampett/Avery genre of 1940s and 50s cartoons, let's discuss it here! --Janke | Talk 19:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The article seems to be about the art of animation as well as actual cartoons. So i dunno, theres quite a lot that can be encompassed within the article. I'm not entirely sure what the focus is. The list though - should it be styles of animation in cartoons or genres of cartoons (like movie genres)? -- jeffthejiff (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, styles or genres, that's a matter of taste. My intention with the list was also to present a timeline of the artistic development of the animated cartoon, something that is missing in the other wiki artcles about animation. Feel free to change the section header to styles, if you think it's better. This is a fairly new article, so it will certainly develop much further in the future. --Janke | Talk 06:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I dont think its better particularly, i was just wondering where the article is heading. But now that i look at other animation articles, there is quite a bit of stuff missing i think, although i'm not an expert in the field of animation. There is a lot of stuff that could be written here though; might i suggest WP:RFE or something? -- jeffthejiff (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Done - let's see how it develops... --Janke | Talk 19:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
When I have a chance, I can put in something about Rotoscope. I'm thinking it should be in here as a style. --Happylobster 21:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, rotoscoping is more a technique than a style - rotoscoping can be used to create animation in many styles. But if you're thinking about the particular style used in music videos, I've included that in the list. --Janke | Talk 10:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Nah, I'm going beyond A-Ha's Take on Me. Consider the work of Ralph Bakshi. I would agree it's a technique he uses. However, when you see rotoscoping in the original Lord of the Rings cartoon and most of his other movies, it's unmistakably Bakshi. That to me suggests a style. Do you agree? --Happylobster 15:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, rotoscoping can be used to create many different styles, Bakshi's was just one (and not too good, IMHO). But I think it's OK to mention rotoscoping as a technique to implement a style. But lest this list grows too long, I'd not make a separate entry about it. --Janke | Talk 10:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Point made. I'll probably leave it be. Thanks. --Happylobster 14:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Additions to the notable artists[edit]

I added Warner Brother and Mel Blanc to the notable artists. I know Mel Blanc wasn't an animator per se, but he seems quite notable and where would animated cartoons be without his voice? --SavoirFaireIsEverywhere 23:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I revertyed your additions for the following reasons: Mel Blanc was a voice artist, not an animation artist, WB is a studio, not a producer. (Clampett was one of WB's producers, and he's mentioned...) --Janke | Talk 08:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Multiplane camera?[edit]

Why is there no mention of Ub Iwerks' multiplane camera? Or even the Fleicher Bros version (whose name I can't remember). Surely these were as important to animation as the rotoscope.

First animated movies[edit]

On youtube you will find some of the earliest examples of animated movies - if not the first ones. Search for "Stuart Blackton". No big deal, but interresting from a historical point of view.

Redirected to Animation[edit]

There was no information that is or should be offered here that shouldn't actually be in animation, history of animation, or another related article. This articles attempts to define its subject were vague and inaccurate, and its text incorrect and narrowly focused. --FuriousFreddy 08:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • You can't just redirect an entire article to another, without moving the relevant information to that article, too. Your opinion of vagueness and inaccuracy are yours, but don't erase a whole article made by dozens of contributors. You can do it after the information has been merged, if it should be merged at all. I don't think it should - this article concerns a specific "sub-species" of general animation, and deserves its own article. Do fix any errors you see, but don't make such a drastic move without discussing it first! So, I've undone your redirect. --Janke | Talk 15:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
PS: BTW, did you check how many pages actually link directly here? Many of them are animation related, so readers already know something about animation - they wish to know more about animated cartoons - besides, there are links from this page to most other animation articles. And finally, remember that wiki guidelines recommend keeping articles small (see WP:article_size), and all the animation info will never fit into one article! --Janke | Talk 15:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you check how many pages link to animation, animated and animated motion picture, all of which link to animation? The fact that someone writing an article on an animated short (this article even briefly mentions animated feature films) is prone to use any of the above as much as they are to use "animated cartoon" require that all terms point to the same article. This article is awful. The writing is poor, and the formatting is jumbled. Sections of it are very much incorrect, its title is dubious, and it only serves to make Wikipedia less useful than it already is. There is no need to put "all the animation info" into one article, but there should certainly be one decent general overview, similar to film. Just look at the current lead section:
An animated cartoon is a short, hand-drawn (or made with computers to look similar to something hand-drawn) film for the cinema, television or computer screen, featuring some kind of story or plot (even if it is a very short one). This article is not about animated films in general, but only about ones which follow the above definition. Although cartoons can use many different types of animation, they all fall under the traditional animation category.

All of that is incorrect. Cartoon shorts do not have to be or look hand-drawn - short stop-motion and computer animated films are still referred to as cartoons, and to say that they aren't or shouldn't be is incorrect (no one's going to stop referring to Gumby aor George Pal's Puppetoons as cartoons because Wikipedia wants them to). Any time you have to explain what your article is about in your article, you have a problem. And "Although cartoons can use many different types of animation, they all fall under the traditional animation category" is just plain laughable. If your aim is to write an article restricting your subject matter to American traditionally animated cartoons, move the page to an appropriate title. Animation is really no better, but I began trying to rewrite that article and moving bits and pieces from here that did work over there. Either this article needs to be moved to animated film and rewritten, or it needs to be merged with animation, because the overlap of this content with that of the history of animation articles is tremendous (and the narrow focus on American films does not help matters at all). --FuriousFreddy 17:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Disagree. Stop motion or puppet animation is not the same as cartoon animation. The reason for the intro of this article is to clarify this misconception. --Janke | Talk 18:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • "Cartoon animation" isn't a technical term; it's a colloquialism. Cel animation is a technical term, as is traditional animation. If you show a stop-motion short film to anyone -an animation historian, an animation fan, a child - they will call it a cartoon. We already have an article on traditional animation, and we already have articles on animation history. Lots of them, and they all need work, but not as much as this one. Accordingly, I am opening an RFC on this page. --FuriousFreddy 22:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I should rephrase my comment above: A stop-motion film, claymation, puppet or whatever, is not an animated cartoon. Colloquialism or not, Wikipedia should use proper terms. If not, people will soon call the marionette show "Thunderbirds" an animated cartoon... ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy and verifiability concerns still have not been addressed (or even attempted to be addressed. Reopening RFC. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • RfC response: based on discussion, it appears to me that Animated cartoon is probably a term too imprecise to ever be a truly cohesive topic here at Wikipedia. The majority of its contents should be merged with cel animation or of the relevant articles, where industry standard terms are being used more precisely and effectively. What this article strives to do is better served by the Animation article.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 15:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Voting "Keep as is"... I opposed the redirect done on Sept. 2, which basically deleted this entire article. There is room in Wikipedia for this topic, too! Animation is too wide a field to be compressed into just a few articles - the classic "short" cartoon (often made in Hollywood, but not always) is really too important to be lumped in with the more technical aspects of cel animation. --Janke | Talk 21:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
All of this content is already covered in better , more precise detail at either animation, traditional animation, and the series of articles on [history of animation in the United States]: Animation in the United States during the silent era, The Golden Age of American animation (which focuses specifically upon the "classic" American cartoon short), Animation in the United States in the television era, and Modern animation in the United States. This article lacks clear focus, has no citations, is not entirely factually accurate, and looks very much to be a self-promotional piece in more than one way. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
If by "self-promotional" you refer to the animation I've uploaded, then your're welcome to find some other free-licensed cartoon animation to put here! (I don't think many cartoon (i.e. "hand-drawing") animators are wiki editors... ;-) As you very well know, non-free images will be deleted promptly. As for "not entirely factually accurate", please specify more exacly, so a discussion can be held and edits made. Deleting by redirecting is not the right way, IMO. And some redundancy of information is no problem - WP:NOTPAPER, you know! --Janke | Talk 09:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Redundancy is a problem, however, when it is pure redundancy. There is no information in this article (or any potential information from what I can tell) that wouldn't be better served in a specific article. And the umbrella article for animation is Animation.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 12:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. And as an FYI for Janke, we have plenty of screenshots of public domain cartoons that could be used in addition to/instead of your user-created images. While the horse image is great for an article on animation or traditional animation in general, for an article on the history of animated cartoons, you need historical images. (And as an aside, how is a self-rendered version of the "Raid" bug free-use?) --FuriousFreddy (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the article, although there may be confusion with other animation forms, the editor(s) that generated the information operated under the best of WP:AGF and from my understanding of the topic, attempted to clearly differentiate what is undoubtably a very narrow sub-sect of the form. The underlining concern that all editors would have with the article is that it does not clearly identify sources of information and the lack of inline citations would tend to make this an example of WP:Essay and could lead to questions of verifiablity. Due to the disputed nature of the article, it is contingent on the author/editor to provide the matching citations that would establish the article's authority. I would recommend that peer-reviewed, contemporary industry sources would be of use, but the use of second-person sources that are authoritative are already present, but quotes and actual reference notes should now be used to develop the article further. My first "concrete" suggestion is to remove the spurious "Further Reading" section which implies that the sources are in addition to the reference materials used. If the sources that are provided are the sources that were used in researching the article, then they should appear in the following form (you may have to read the following notes in edit mode): Bzuk (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC).




  • Barrier, J. Michael. Hollywood Cartoons: American Animation in Its Golden Age. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. ISBN 0-19-503759-6.
  • Bendazzi, Giannalberto. Cartoons: One Hundred Years of Cinema Animation. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1994. ISBN 0-253-20937-4.
  • Maltin, Leonard. Of Mice and Magic: A History of American Animated Cartoons. New York: Plume, 1980. ISBN 0-45225-993-2.
  • Stabile, Carol and Mark Harrison, eds. Prime Time Animation: Television Animation and American Culture. London: Routledge, 2003. ISBN 0-415-28326-4.
  • Stephenson, Ralph. The Animated Film. London: Tantivity Press, 1973. ISBN 0-49801-202-6.

External links[edit]

This strictly conventional bibliographic record would first establish the "credentials" of the article and answer the questions of verifiability and accuracy posed by other editors. I would be pleased to help you create the framework for referencing and sourcing your information. If you note above, I have re-established your sources into a "References" section, identifying "Notes" (endnotes or footnotes) and a "Bibliography" or bibliographic record of print and non-print (WickWacky world uses "External links" predominantly to identify electronic/Internet sources). To assuage your concerns about an interloper helping, I am a former reference librarian (33+ years) before I turned to the "dark side" and became an author, editor (yes, a real life editor in that other world) and a filmmaker (actor, screenwriter, consultant and even dabbled as a director). If you wish you could contact me for further information. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC).

Cartoon series vs animated series[edit]

Most of the articles that deal with "cartoon series" use the term "animated series". "Animated series" is not necessarily incorrect, but it is imprecise as animation mean more than just cartoon animation. For example Tom and Jerry and Star Wars: The Clone Wars are both animations, but while the first is an animated cartoon the second is a 3D animation. Wouldn't be better to use the precise terminology? Kenshin (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Agree. Go ahead, be bold, make the changes! But do explain in the summaries... :-) --Janke | Talk 08:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that's what got me first, no edit summaries. Anyway, I figure that people have used animated series in the most general sense because it seems to be the accepted term and it covers everything without being precise. If there needs to be precision then it'll be explained as in "3D CGI animated series" or "traditionally drawn animated series". Maybe I'm seeing things oddly but I don't see a distinction in terms, both represent the same thing but that's because my understanding of the term "cartoon" doesn't represent single frame humorous illustration, it represents the animated form as I imagine it does for many and some, not myself mind, won't be too happy to read how a show they like is now some goofy ass cartoon. Given all my reservations based on a long-standing consensus (they don't need to be documented to exist, general acceptance is a consensus) I'd say to give it a shot and see how it goes, hopefully no small scale editwars develop from this as I can see it being slightly fractious for some given the examples given by Kenshin where both would be considered cartoons but using different methods of animation. treelo radda 10:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Just as an addenum, does this also affect other forms of animation such as cinema and internet animations? If so seeing as this is a big change which I don't think should be agreed on by a handful of people as it affects ~1000 articles on the basis of animated series alone there should be a centralised discussion t o get a better general community view. Even if it's not, 1000 is still a lot of articles and I don't feel good about changing a widely used term without getting a community wide view. treelo radda 11:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Janke, I've been bold and made the changes, but they were reverted, so now I've started this discussion.
  • treelo, because for you "cartoon" means "animated cartoon", doesn't mean that this is the reality, and because many articles use a terminology that is probably inaccurate, this isn't a reason to "let it be". I do agree that more people should take part in this discussion, if it will led to a more or less big change. There is no need for edit-wars, I think we can do this in a civilized manner. Kenshin (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure Janke knows you've tried it and that's exactly why we're trying to build a consensus for the change of a term that is "probably inaccurate". I don't think I'm the only one thinking cartoon = animation, just have to look around on this talkpage to notice that the exact same semantic issue has come up before with Janke doing well to keep this meaning around which I applaud him for. To flip around what you said to me, because for you "cartoon" means "humourous illustation" doesn't mean this is the reality (or rather the truer of either meaning), I don't agree and others don't either, are we wrong because we don't agree with you? If you read what I wrote fully I did say I'd like to see how it'd go but with edit summaries but not until a wider consensus is given because to be fair, few who edit the articles will be watching this talkpage. If Janke thinks it's a good idea, an RFC should be opened regarding this issue because if you're going to apply this new term (which nobody noticed until now and others clearly accepted as accurate) then it has to cover all animated cartoons and that's a lot of links and terms to fix. treelo radda 12:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
So we agree that this discussion is needed. Kenshin (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Well of course for the simple reason that we are disagreeing over what term to use, a generally accepted one or the one that you think is right. 17:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why you keep presenting this as a "you vs me". Do you have other arguments than this? The primary usage of "cartoon", according to the dictionary, is that of a (static) drawing: [1] Kenshin (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It isn't a "you vs me" issue, just upto the D part of WP:BRD which usually can get a bit heated. Even though MW says it's the correct term I don't believe it to be the commonly accepted term which are two very different things. Animated series redirects here, where's the issue in your mind with this? Too imprecise? To me that's not good enough a reason to make huge sweeping changes because your semantics disagree with others. Nobody else felt it was an issue so why did you? I know what the term means, I've told you that several times and each time you just have to tell me it is the right term and even here had to link to MW's definiton, don't patronise me like that. I understand that animated cartoon is the right term for what we're discussing, your issue is that animated series is correct but imprecise but is the precision needed when the meaning is lost or slightly confusing as it is for me? Animated cartoon sounds like animated animation to me, it's saying the same exact thing twice, there's already been an RfC about this term already so we're just going to have it come back? If you can give me better reasoning than "it's the right term" (been there with this phraseology before) which transcends the confused interpretation it's open to then we can do a whole new RfC based on this dumb little beehive you had to poke with your stick. treelo radda 11:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)computer
  • Look at the cartoon article - the word has has several meanings. All animated cartoons are animation, but not all animations are cartoons (think clay animation, or 3D animation for instance). --Janke | Talk 13:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand that and it's a good point, I'd rather just have a coverall term which is discipline agnostic and vague by necessity than by technicality where it's easily interpreted and understandable than one which will differ for people in meaning and if it should be used in a given context. Just think that the change being asked of Kenshin opens up a bigger issue than one of semantics which should be avoided. Best thing is to open an RfC on this because whilst this specifically involves television series of the animated variety I can see it having much wider ramifications across other forms of animation also. treelo radda 13:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
because your semantics disagree with others, each time you just have to tell me it is the right term, Animated cartoon sounds like animated animation to me - My semantics? Your semantics? Others semantics? Who are the others? You keep telling me that for you "saying animated cartoon it's like saying the same exact thing twice", but do you think about other people? The only other person that express his opinion was Jankand and he also agrees that not any animation is an animated cartoon. I've come with an open mind, and I don't try to impose my semantics, but I'm trying to find a correct and "objective" one. And if there are good arguments for your statement that "cartoon" implies "animated cartoon", than I am ready to accept it. I have even asked if this has been discussed and you toled me not. Now you tell me that there was already a RfC for this. Where it is? Kenshin (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I see a pattern emerging, it's a good one though as we are slowly carting along. Anyway, yes, I do think that for others that is the case because cartoon for many is synonymous with animation. I get that you come with no means of imposition and neither do I but the argument sits on your knowledge of the English language against mine. Not any animation is an animated cartoon is true, they're two disparate things to some extent but nobody is saying animated series is somehow flawed except you. My argument is simple, what the dictionary says it means is not always what the most common term will be, in this case one is used over the other because it's the common term. I'm merely exercising the principle that clarity should trump technical accuracy where it's not required. If people want to know more, let them click on the meaning as it redirects here anyway. The RfC regarding a totally different matter but similar principles was dealt with further up this talkpage, in all truth it has no relevance here. Mind if we take a breather on this? This is a small deal which feels like something incredibly supid because it was brought here and made into dictionary versus common knowledge terms. Both are colloquialisms anyway. treelo radda 11:48, 14 February 200o9 (UTC)
To be honest, this seems to be "a storm in a glass of water"... I'm a professional animator myself, so of course I stick to the precise definitions. (Think about this: "I saw a cartoon in the newspaper" vs. "I saw a cartoon on TV" vs. "I saw a cartoon on a webpage" - in the last case, it's ambiguous!) However, when you're talking about different animated TV series in a general sense, I think "animated series" is just fine. If you're going into technical details of production, then you should differentiate between animation in general vs. cartoon animation. --Janke | Talk 14:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the only times when using cartoon animation is probably when dealing with something that exists as both, if it exists as only an animated series then you're not going to confuse it with the static cartoon. So, what do we do now about this? I'd be happy to bury it if Kenshin is fine with an expert on the subject matter (and some lowlife like me) saying it's a good enough definition of the subject matter. treelo radda 15:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what is the most common usage. I also use "cartoons" as a short form of "animated cartoons", but I never forget that is just a short form of "animated cartoons".
  • Even if "cartoon" would be the most common usage, that is not always the most relevant aspect here, because Wikipedia is still an Encyclopedia, and it has to remain strict and correct. That doesn't makes us technical freaks.
  • I agree with the "take a breather" part though, but this is because I don't have the time right now, I'm still not convinced that the current terminology is the best. Kenshin (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Common usage must be broken where it would introduce significant ambiguity. You will notice that countless Wikipedia articles and textual conventions incorporate minority usages because the majority usage is too imprecise. I'm opposed to treating informality as a sin in and of itself, but that doesn't mean that we're a slave to the most popular term either. Although ideally we would always use colloquial words because we are writing for laypeople, this is not feasible or desirable when the commonest word has too many connotations, and when a suitable synonym is available. A cartoon is a visual (although not necessarily only visual) artwork in 2D or 3D (the third dimension being time), especially one with a humorous or satiric style. Thus 'cartoon' is undesirable here both because it can refer to things other than animated cartoons, and because it connotes non-serious work. It would be like using the word "funnies" in place of comics (which, fortunately for us, has recently begun to drift toward generality and away from its long-standing low-art, comedy-genre connotations). -Silence (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

More on history[edit]

Q: Was Gumby the second-earliest animated TV series ever, as implied by List_of_animated_television_series? -Silence (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

George Herriman, producer of animated cartoons?[edit]

I've heard that while George Herriman created the Krazy Kat comic strip, he did not animate or produce any animated shorts as far as I know. Please provide a citation proving this. (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Animated music videos and bands[edit]

Should there be a list of animated music videos? Gorillaz, Bjork's "I Miss You" (granted this was a mix of animated and live action, but it was mostly animated, so it should be mentioned), that one hard rock video with the animation detailing USSR germ warfare that involves a virus that reanimates the dead (what was the name of that, anyway?), etc. -- (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia policy advices against lists in articles, so I'd say no. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a list collection. Such lists can be found elsewhere on the web. --Janke | Talk 15:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Rename "History of animation in the United States"?[edit]

Considering this article is so US-centric, I think it would be a good idea to move this article to that title to serve as a "index page" article for Animation in the United States during the silent era, Golden Age of American animation, Animation in the United States in the television era and Modern animation in the United States. It would be consistent with the other "History of (country name here) animation" articles and an improvement over the mess at History_of_animation#History_of_United_States_animation. Yonskii (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

  • The thing is, we do need a page named Animated cartoon. It is linked to from many places, including Cartoon, which has many meanings. True, animation is generally pretty US-centric, but just follow the link on this page to History of animation, and you've got the whole world... --Janke | Talk 05:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"featuring some kind of story or plot" = narrative[edit]

I see no other way to interpret the words "featuring some kind of story or plot", but if you do, please, explain how it should be interpreted, instead.

The other possibility is that the words do not apply to the phenomenon of "animated cartoon", at all. Therefore they should be removed from the lede. In other words, either the words apply and Animated cartoon is a narrative form of animation, or they do not apply and there is no rational basis for existence of the article and it should be redirected to some section in the article about animation.

The third possibility, though, is that this article is kept without any rational basis. So which one is true? --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)