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.
The crap non-compliant article abt studio set what i found in the accompanying supposed Dab off in the wrong direction, by starting with a dictdef that does not define an encyclopedic topic:
A studio is an artist's or worker's workroom, or an artist and his or her employees who work within that studio.
A proper WP article has a single topic, and workrooms and organizations are two distinct things, even if a single word shades from things that are only one to things that are both to things that are only the other. WP:NOTDICT, and its units are clearly defined topics, not the vague boundaries created by usage. So the fault that first becomes obvious in the old content of the accompanying former alleged-Dab is refusing to Dab between facilities and organizations that use them.
I'd be beating a dead horse of a different color if i went on about that page's other faults. The new page at that title is also lousy, but it's not crap bcz it points the direction toward improvement instead of needing to be thrown out completely. My guess about the right topic may be wrong; that will be clearer when articles on topics corresponding to other senses of "animation studio" have been written, and more easily fixed at that time than now.
--Jerzy•t 01:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The examples quoted or referred to on this talk page should not be treated a valid models. Please note that what must be in the article entitled "X" is different from what is acceptable in an article entitled "List of Xs". Also note that adding a dict-def lead secn like
does not make turn a list into an article, nor does renaming without "List of ...", nor the combination of the two changes. (Some legitimate articles include lists; can a list legitimately use e.g. "studio" as loosely as that list does? I think probably so, since it is so clear about it, but it should lk to one article for each sense, and it will be a more useful list if it labels each entry as to which sense(s) apply, or subdivides the list according to the sense(s).)
--Jerzy•t 05:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)