Jump to content

Talk:List of animation studios owned by the Walt Disney Company

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clarity of article and tables

[edit]

The table of names at the start of the article is not written for clarity and consistency of use and content. I have attempted to condense it and assign each corporate entity its own line in the table (if alternate names must be displayed, they should all be contained within one cell of the table). However, Spshu (talk · contribs) continues to revert any changes to the table. Not wanting to violate the 3RR or start an edit war, I'm asking for additional discussion here to resolve the issue. My only concern is creating a clear, readable article; the table bounces between listing alternative corporate names and differing corporate entitles, rendering it potentially confusing to those without offhand knowledge to those who may not know what these entities are/were. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Your only concern is creating a clear readable article;..." Really, you muck the table up with incorrect dates, such that the feature animation department doesn't even exist until 1986!!! When that department existance going back to atleast what to "Snow White" feature. So rendering it abolute uninformative because the information is incorrect. Where are "Walt Disney Pictures Television Animation Group", "Disney Video Premieres", DisneyToon Australia" and "Dream Quest Images"? All lost in your version.
  • "Walt Disney Animation Studios (formerly Walt Disney Feature Animation) | 1986-present | feature theatrical animation division"
  • "feature animation unit formally made into subsidiary in 1986" I haven't been able to find any record of it imcorporation. Then you contradict it with "feature theatrical animation division" for WD(FA)AS.
Also, most all alternative name link to the correct article or section with the previous or alternative names and most any name change is listed in the discription. So they don't as you claim "rendering it potentially confusing to those without offhand knowledge to those who may not know what these entities are/were." Spshu (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cleared up the table, first for historical purpose I added Laugh-o-gram, since Walt founded that studio first, and most animation historians consider that studio's filmography part of Disney's library. JB Kaufman, Leonard Maltin to name few. Next the animation studio that was founded by Walt in 1923, then the Disney Television Animation studio, and ToonDisney Studio both founded by Walt Disney Company. those are all in the first group. in the second i put all currently owned animation studios not founded by Disney i.e Pixar, marvel and Lucasfilm animation. In the thrid group i put all animation studios that disny brought only to resell or close down, DIC for example. and in the last group i put all oversea faclites since I don't know if disney founded them or brought them only to change there name. Finally I removed all names that had nothing directly to do with animation. DoctorHver (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good, but it's definitely a start. Any thoughts on including Pixar Canada? And might I suggest to also include which respective TWDC unit each studio is included in? I might try a stab at it and hope it makes sense. - Rebel shadow 17:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Laugh-o-gram should be mentioned in the history or lead sections, not listed in the Overview section as it is not owned by TWDC or established by it. -Rebel shadow 00:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Um, how do you clean up a table by breaking into four parts? That makes it unsortable between the groups. Now we also need to clean up even more incorrect descriptions. Pixar was not found by Jobs but Lucasfilms, etc. Disney Enterprise, the former Walt Disney Company/Walt Disney Production, and technical corporation of which Disney Feature Animation Studios and Disney TV Animation may be divisions of, isn't animation related? --Spshu (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spshu (talk · contribs), my concern mostly for change in this for article is its form and structure; notes and details can be revised and citations added as needed in time. For clarity's sake, however, especially for readers, I would suggest at best dividing the overview section into a Current Studios table/section and the Defunct Studios table/section. If we agree on a sortable table of all current and formal entities, however, past names of said entities (e.g. WDFA) cannot be included since it would make it even more confusing. Right now your four-table format can be condensed to two. -~ Rebel shadow 00:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Article restructuring

[edit]

Ladies and Gentlemen, this article needs to be seriously restructured. Proposals and actions:

  • Removal of added infoboxes. Either every former studio gets one or no one gets one. All adequate information within infoboxes are already or can be added to each former studios' prose section.
  • Restructuring the article into first a main Overview section, and then subsequent sections for current studios then former entities. Always open to suggestions, it just makes sense to address currently owned studios since the title of the page denotes "studios owned" by the TWDC.
  • Overview section may make more sense with concise tables, I see the direction you guys were going in the discussion earlier.
  • Merger of History section into subsections of each entity

19:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, no. Those that got infoboxes don't have their own article. The article has an "Overview" with the lead, history and full list sections. Articles are not suppose to be mostly tables. I don't see why you otherwise gutted the article. Spshu (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what you mean by gutted. Otherwise, taking a stab turned out into vivisecting it, sorry for not waiting for any comments on the talk page or discussion, just though it could be fixed. However What needs to be clear though, especially to "lay" readers is:
  • Are satellite studios a part of the entire company/brand of WDAS?
  • Where each studio is in relation to the overall corporate structure
  • The overview should treat all current animation studio divisions equally regardless of production purpose, since the article title does not make a distinction between theatrical and television studios. There's too many forked wikipedia articles that list Disney things as it is

I'd want to make sure this is also cleared up; but honestly I didn't think my redone overview table was bad, the current one is still confusing-- albeit improved from its previous iteration-- to a lay reader, and especially since nowadays people can't tell who created Mickey Mouse (2013 series) and if Planes (2013 film) was WDAS or Disneytoon. Rebel shadow 00:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

As a response to " I don't see why you otherwise gutted the article. ", information in the History section is redundant and found below and can be easily distributed to the lead and to each individual studios' section. Ideally WDAS should also have a section in the article, as noted above. In addition, yes I agree that "articles aren't supposed to be mostly tables", that's the purpose of having substantial article sub sections, the overview should only list and explain what is included in the article as an overview. - Rebel shadow 00:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the history:
  • "Merger of History section into subsections of each entity"
  • "information in the History section is redundant and found below and can be easily distributed to the lead and to each individual studios' section."
Your first comment assume like that information was in the entity's subsection.
All subsection have their portion of the history section and usually plus more history if they don't have their own article. The main history section usually covers: 1) starting of a unit, 2) a unit's transfer, 3) closing/merger of a unit. In the main history section there is information only about Disney distributing other animation studios' films, Studio Ghibli and Vanguard Animation, so as to head off (if they bother to read) the assumption made if a studio distributes a production companies' film that company is own by the studio. (I must of have reversed atleast a half a dozen time that Marvel was owned by Paramount.)
"studios owned" is past tense.
  • "Are satellite studios a part of the entire company/brand of WDAS?"
Most of the satellite studios were shut down. At best, DisneyToon Studios could now be consider the remaining satellite studio (to WDAS). So of them particularily the overseas ones seem really tight as they were not necessarily credit seperately.
  • "Where each studio is in relation to the overall corporate structure"
The infoboxes indicated the parent unit if we know it, but you ripped them out. It also discussed in the main history section.
  • "The overview should treat all current animation studio divisions equally regardless of production purpose, since the article title does not make a distinction between theatrical and television studios. There's too many forked wikipedia articles that list Disney things as it is"
Agree with this. But I have had difficulty finding any sources on the TV units, which is why the Fox Family/Jetix/Saban units are lump together (besides their coverage in Saban Entertainment article). DisneyToons/MovieToons was the easiest, but the Australian unit put a "knot" into figuring that out.
RE: gutting:
  • lost of main history particularily the unique info.
  • lost or duplicative to the point of incorrect info in new tables
  • lost information in the infobox that you want back in. Spshu (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can agree on having each representation studio with its own Top Heading Level section, the only caveat is how all of WDAS's former subdivisions and substudios should be treated. Citations have to be included for acquired and divested "briefly-Disney" studios to ensure it makes sense for their inclusion. Because of this though, I felt that a History section would be unnecessary as its existing content can be split into each studios' subsections, and a summary of the history can be included in the lead (as I've added already). If we want to take a step further to have a section dedicated to a chronological overiew, a timeline template on the side may work, but it might just be a fork of info already found here. - Rebel shadow 01:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Overhalled the article. May be some smaller changes need like linking from the tables to the sections instead of the main article. Take a look. Spshu (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with that table

[edit]

That table is confusing. So Disney owns how many studios exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.54.194 (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Animation studios owned by The Walt Disney Company. 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) 08:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Feature Animation Florida

[edit]

Only Mulan, Lilo and Stitch, and Brother Bear were produced primarily at Walt Disney Feature Animation Florida. --97.113.114.127 (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got sources? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the Wikipedia or Disney Wiki page for Mulan, Lilo and Stitch, or Brother Bear. I cannot give you a link. --97.113.114.127 (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Evan Kalani Opedal[reply]

Not sure that what the point of this is. They are already listed and sourced in the article. Spshu (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is almost as if you are requesting that all other works be removed. There wasn't any point in you dumping in links to the WP articles, as you, the IP editor, has been told that the article already has sourced that indicating what you are after. Also, the section has been clarified. Spshu (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTV

[edit]

What about UTV? They produced Arjun: The Warrior Prince while owned by Disney. Kidburla (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Animation studios owned by The Walt Disney Company. 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) 07:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Mermaid

[edit]

Should The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea be on Disney Animation Australia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.86.71.225 (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Walt Disney Animation U.K" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Walt Disney Animation U.K. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 14:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Animation Canada

[edit]

How was A Goofy Movie produced at Walt Disney Animation Canada if it was produced in 1995 the year before that studio was founded? It doesn't make any sense. --Evope (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santa, Baby! (2001)

[edit]

Before Disney bought Masaki Iizuka's Pacific Animation Corporation and renamed it Walt Disney Animation Japan, this Tokyo-based animation studio did animated four television productions from Arthur Rankin, Jr. and Jules Bass' defunct New York-based company, Rankin/Bass Animated Entertainment' television productions: ThunderCats (1985–89), SilverHawks, The Comic Strip (1987) (all in traditional animation), and The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus (1985) (in stop motion animation). In 2001, the two companies teamed up with Perisphere Pictures on their very last project, Santa, Baby! (2001), which features the voices of African-American actors Patti LaBelle, Eartha Kitt, Gregory Hines, Vanessa L. Williams and Tom Joyner, the artwork by Paul Coker, Jr., and the music of Glen Roven. This TV special also features sound effects by Akiko Muto, Shizuo Kurahashi and Katsuhiro Nakano at Sound Box, with the Aoi Studio as one of its seven studio facilities, and some of the animation was outsourced to Steven Hahn's Hanho Heung-Up in Seoul, South Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.46.130 (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalized article

[edit]

Some anonymous user vandalized the main article! Can someone please fix it? Elijah Abrams (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Animation U.K.

[edit]

Why was Walt Disney Animation U.K. removed from the section of overseas studios? After the success of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, this studio worked on DuckTales the Movie: Treasure of the Lost Lamp. The other animation studio that the film was primarly made at was Walt Disney Animation France. It wasn't till 1989 when Brizzi films was sold to Walt Disney Television Animation and was consequently named Walt Disney Animation, France S.A. This is what led to the creation of Disney MovieToons as the idea was to revive the style of cartoons from the 1930s and 1940s. --Evope (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney animation studios is a animation studio is really make 90000 cartoons and cartoons movies

[edit]

Disney is a animation studio that really makes cartoons 2601:80:4780:47C0:7C2A:5598:8D99:C0F3 (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_animation_studios_owned_by_the_Walt_Disney_Company&oldid=1251944745"