Talk:Motion graphics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I added a link to the Motion Graphics Festival. We are in our 6th year touring to over 30 US cities in 2010. Motion Graphics is in the title of the festival. Mason Dixon (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

How can you have a link to Ebeling Group, and not actual studios? Ebeling Group is just an agent, they aren't even the actual artists. I added a link to a non-profit motion graphics users group and it was removed. The moderation of this page is ambiguous and contradictory. What exactly is it that you see as the guidelines? Mason Dixon 02:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I had Ebling Group deleted. Mason Dixon 03:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Mason. I agree the the Ebeling Group probably shouldn't be included. When there was a large list of studios, that link seemed more appropriate. The contradictory nature of moderation is kind of inherent in Wikipedia. Having different people edit the same page will bring up some discrepancies. The guidelines that most people try to follow are here. For example, your addition of "Motion Graphics Chicago" could be deemed inappropriate/spam because it's very regional and not of wide appeal and that fact that you added it yourself (being the leader of the group). This page details what is appropriate and inappropriate for external links. The reason that the external links section got deleted was because we constantly had to delete self-promotional links that had no place in an encyclopedia page about motion graphics. I also do find this page frustrating to edit. Some of the external links that someone removed truly were deserving. But I hope you keep at it - we need more people trying to help this page.--Weakmassive 15:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh and why did you remove the page from the "Design" category?--Weakmassive 15:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That was an accident, sorry. I will continue to try and contribute to the moderation of the page. Thanks for the response. Mason Dixon 12:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Motion design[edit]

what do you think about this: Waekmassive?

I don't mind it much, because many of the links on their were indeed irrelevant. I've made a few revisions to his edit, but I agree that the really deserving studios (MK12, Psyop, etc) should have their own pages with supporting references on what makes them so.--Weakmassive 08:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


I'm the one who is constantly adding QS. Wikipedia is "the free enciclopedia" and notable Studios and relevant link don't get more hits to his sites, no... if my site contains motion graphics, why is not going to be relevant?. who you are your to decide by all Weakmassive?, is this freedom? Nothing else.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitimes (talkcontribs) 11:50, 9 November 2006‎

I doubt it's true that QS (who I assume is run by yourself) doesn't get more hits because of this. Just because your site contains motion graphics doesn't mean it belongs on the Wikipedia page. That's like saying just because you've directed a film that you belong on the Film director page. As stated here, "Wikipedia is not a web directory". Can you imagine if everyone who does motion graphics added themselves to this page? It'd be a mess and their would be no way to distinguish what is historically significant. I myself do motion graphics, but haven't posted by own work for this reason. Yes, this is a free encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean you can post whatever you want on it with no objection. Wikipedia is not a democracy. For most of the other links in the "Notable Studios" and "Relevant Links", I could provided verifiable sources for why they should be included. With QS, I cannot. Thanks for finally registering and using the Talk page.--Weakmassive 15:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I It's possible that you are right, although I hope that some day lets have it. Nondesire that google (or other) associates the name to which we talked about with this page and i have changed it by QS.

I removed the link to "QS - A freelance designer" for a second time. I think this page should be reserved for the most notable people and companies in the field, not just anyone who wants to promote their site.--Weakmassive 14:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the "Notable Studios" and "Relevant Links" sections as they repeated information and didn't provide accurate links. I also weeded out self-promotional and irrelevant additions to those lists. The "History of the Term" section should include something about John Whitney, who founded a company called "Motion Graphics Inc." in 1960. This page still needs much work.--Weakmassive 17:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove Notable Studios and Individuals section?[edit]

That whole section is a SPAM magnet. I suggest the section be removed or at least reduced to wikipedia articles. Oicumayberight 01:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ya, the list does invite spam and is very subjective. On the other hand, I think it's beneficial for the article to point to worthwhile examples of motion graphics to illustrate what has happened and was is happening in the field. Unfortunately, many of the best (current) motion graphics houses (Psyop, MK12, Digital Kitchen) don't have their own Wikipedia pages. Some of the more historical places, like Robert Abel and Associates or film title designers like Kyle Cooper and Pablo Ferro, do. Perhaps we could weave some general accepted names (with references) into the rest of the article and get rid of the list.--Weakmassive 15:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think having just a few wikipedia links would be OK. I'm going to check back in a few weeks. If nobody objects, I will remove the external links from this section. If anyone thinks that some of the external links are note worthy enough to have a wikipedia article, they should start one. Oicumayberight 16:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds find to me. --Weakmassive 16:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved the external links to studios to the bottom for now. It looks like nobody thought any of them were worthy enough to make wikipedia articles since my last notice. I will delete these in about a month since most of them are in the Motionographer link. If anyone wants to write wikipedia articles on any of them, they should do so and link them in the Notable Studios and Individuals section. Oicumayberight 21:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears now that over half of the studios listed are not listed in the Motionographer link. I don't want to be the only policeman here, so I will leave these links alone. For now it's just a bending of the rules that doesn't seem to be drawing negative attention.
I still think that if any of these studios are noteworthy enough, wikipedia articles should be written and used in place of spam links. Someone else may eventually delete these links and maybe the article if it gets out of hand. Oicumayberight 22:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The links that aren't mentioned on Motionographer are mostly spam and I've removed them. Yes, certain people/studios should get their own links - just need to find to create the articles.--Weakmassive 05:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed Tutano Films and Nightmare Kinetics again and again. Please do not keep posting, as it's obviously spam posted by the people that run those businesses. I do "respect the other people work", but this is an encyclopedia, not a directory (see my previous comments above in this page). If you've got a problem with this, please comment here. --Weakmassive 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This page should be titled "Motion graphics" rather than "Motion graphic." In the body of the article the term "motion graphics" is used repeatedly. The majority of books, websites and organizations devoted to this area use the term "motion graphics," and this is the accepted term. Does anyone object?

Scaatt (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've never heard anyone refer to a singular "motion graphic". I also support a merge between this article and and Motion graphic design, but there's been some opposition to that - see Talk:Motion_graphic_design. --Weakmassive (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't oppose reverting "motion graphic" back to "motion graphics", although I doubt it matters much since they both link to the same place. I can't remember why I initially renamed the page, but I'm guessing it had something to do with the way terms often get linked, sometimes as singular with the "s" outside the linking bracket. Even though plural use is far more common than the singular, many wikipedia articles put singular before plural. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason it matters is that having "motion graphics" forward to "motion graphic" implies that the latter is preferred. People (students, for example) who are trying to learn about the field will be misinformed. An extremely similar example is that "computer graphic" forwards to "computer graphics." Scaatt (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh. I see. You may be right. Point taken ;) Oicumayberight (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Ambiguity of "graphic" (singluar form is almost always used as an adjective, e.g. "graphic violence", etc) Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Video link list[edit]

Hi! Sorry, but why did you take out the video link list?: Video clips Marcellus Wallace FLICKERMOOD - by Sebastian Lange IBM type animation – by Sebastian Lange Matisyahu - King without a crown The Child - Alex Gopher Thesis on Typography TYPO Party Design Visuals - Handlettering Typofonie tisch eins / design studio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basisbild (talkcontribs) 10:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Most, if not all of the clips were added by their creators, as self-promotion. See WP:WPSPAM. And although a few are good pieces, none of them belong in an encyclopedic article on this subject. --Weakmassive (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)