Talk:Walt Disney Animation Studios

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Walt 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
Date Process Result
August 5, 2014 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated GA-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 discussion 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
 
WikiProject Animation / American (Rated GA-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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American animation work group (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Disney (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Somehow the whole Collaboration section needs reference. What a headache.Forbidden User (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

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)

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)

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)

GA Review[edit]

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

  • 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)

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)
It's a week now. Please do continue your review, Zanimum. Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)

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)

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

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)

Everything checks out now, so I'll pass this article as a GA. Wizardman 02:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
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)


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)