Talk:Pivot Animator

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Animation Mid‑importance

	Animation portal 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.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The deletion of PivotX/XPivot and the addition of Pivot+ has pretty much turned the page upside-down. I was frustrated about the References and External Links so me and WaterFox edited it. But because XPivot was deleted the picture of XPivot at the top of the page is not making any sense. We must change this to the original picture of Pivot Stick Figure Animator before this gets out of hand. 10:31, 1 December 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.220.167 (talk)

PivotX is not a legitimate version of Pivot, and therefore should not be included in the official program, as it can cause confusion for people looking for trustworthy and official versions of Pivot. I do not want Pivot getting a bad name for some pointless and skill-lacking modification which tracks IPs for NO APPARENT REASON. There is no reason for it to do so, and I can say this without regretting what I say because I have never heard of programs of any kind which track IPs like this program. Please note PivotX has no proper modifications which make it better or more advanced than Pivot. For your safety, your computers safety and the reputation of Peter Bone and Pivot, please only download the official versions --Bolt the Superdog (talk) 07:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Article needed redoing

I have completely redone the article to better categorize and make the information simpler to read and cleaner in spelling in grammar. Please make any of the few corrections where needed, but I believe in my opinion(and in many others) that this setup of the article will be best for viewing of the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medessec (talk • contribs) 06:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medessec (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pivotlogo.JPG

Image:Pivotlogo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No pivot 3

I was on darkdemon the other day, and it someone said that the Pivot 3 full verison idea was scrapped, and Peter will no longer be working on it. Peter Bone also has an account on darkdemon as well, so should we edit the section of the article of Pivot 3? NaiJohnny (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. >:D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paan 002 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pivot 3 Bugs

I have pivot 2.2.5 and 3.1 beta. I Just want you guys to know that pivot 3.1 Beta has a .piv and .GIF bug. When you save as a GIF in Pivot 3, sometimes the animation is real slow. When you save as a .piv in Pivot 3beta the last 5 or 6 frames are gone. So I'm just saying Pivot 3 Beta has save and load bugs. Which is why I prefer Pivot 2.2.5 better. Even though it cant load sprites. So what? Its JUST MY OPINION.... 20:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pivot Collector (talk • contribs)

gah

can't find the v3 beta D: Maiq the liar (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm.... this isn't a showcase for animations. Also, I think it's not very good to put 3 good (not great, good) animations with one crappy one (no offense). Snakecrack76 01:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakecrack76 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it's certainly beginner level. It just shows other things being animated besides simply a stick figure, which no other ones do. If you (or anyone) can make a better animation involving the clock or something else, please add it! нмŵוτн τ 03:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i agree. they look like 10 minutes where spent on it. artha14

I could make an anim better than that in 10 mins, seriously, I changed the anims into high-inter anims, me. D: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.220.104 (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added it gaiz... Paan_002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paan 002 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I say this needs a cleanup. A lot is badly phrased and needs to be reworded. --Super Shy Guy Bros.Not shy? 10:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT! :) hmwith τ 21:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forums

I noticed someone has changed a link from Droidz to stickman legacy. Being a member of darkdemon, I am pretty sure that this isnt the largest pivot forum around, with darkdemon topping 10,000 members and this forum having around 100. I would suggest that people do not use this article to advertise thier current pivot forum, and maybe links to forums should not be made avalible in this article. Im going to change that section to a list, but someone with more experience should maybe find a better way to show the larger forums but let people know about the numerous smaller ones. EDIT: Oh, and whoever was advertising Stickman legacy sneaked his link into the external links sections, which im pretty sure is only for important things. Edited out, and again, i dont think that any forums should be blantantly edited in over others. I missed some, feel free to add in ones I missed, and edit how I did it.--EatenBanana (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to forums should not be in the article per WP:LINKSTOAVOID. hmwith τ 21:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reword

i dont agree with the reword but ill do it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hintss (talk • contribs) 06:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stick Legacy and the wetpaint links REMOVED

I don't think that new (and especially FREE) forums should be advertised. If they reach some crazy sum of members and/or contain things that actually DIFFER from Darkdemon or Droidz rather than being cheap impersonations then yeah sure, link away. For now these forums/websites do NOT need to be linked. For that matter singular people are NOT important enough to be put up. Even Liquid has been left out so, yeah. No idiotic youtube freaks please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlashedGryffan (talk • contribs) 13:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following through on that Stickman Legacy link Slashed, you'd think they would learn >:C. And if darkdemon isnt on here anymore, any forum with under 50,00 members should not. and on those terms, individual pivoteers being reconized is beyond insane.--EatenBanana (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the formatting of the above comment so it doesn't warp browsers, and I also agree about the forums. I remove them on this page as soon as I notice they have been added. hmwith τ 00:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New link

http://www.pivotanimation.tk/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallman12q (talk • contribs)

Done hmwith τ 00:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I removed the link. I didn't realize that it was a forum; I thought that it was the new Pivot website. Sorry for the misunderstanding. hmwith τ 21:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Website is down?

On my computer, the new official pivot website crashed and is all glitchy, with the text unreadable and the website unuseable. It did work on my computer for several days and does not work on all other computers I've looked at. Does anyone else have this problem, and should it be noted on the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.109.49 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind, they fixed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.109.49 (talk • contribs)

Page Cleanup

I think that I'll try to clean up this article. It's a mess of uncited claims and it appears to have been written almost entirely by fans of the software. I've already started a bit, but I'll do some more when I have time. --Squid tamer (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redid Article

I reworded the whole article. If anything is wrong, pass it by me and i will change it ;) Wikicleaner2 (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i have added 7 citations and redirected 3 of them. my wikipedia source code editing sucks, so there will be little mistakes, like '[' and 'ref tags' lying around.

) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicleaner2 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to homepage or loadpage?

I can't find those. There aren't the homepage of that software or homepage of maker of that software. (Sorry for the bad english... (Finnish)) --80.221.112.196 (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I'm re-rating it as a stub as it doesn't have any sensible sources at all. If it had some more sources it'd probably be a C and maybe even a B. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old invalid references

Maybe they can be re-worked. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pivot 4.0

Is there literally a real Pivot 4.0? Gimme a link if there is 124.170.251.6 (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No there isn't (Peter Bone)

Screenshot

I'd rather not have a modded version of Pivot shown in the screenshot in the software information box. Could this be replaced with a screenshot of the original 2.2.5 version created by me. Thanks, Peter Bone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.22.82 (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but I just joined wikipedia and can't upload an image yet. --Aasuddjian (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Iusta (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added release info, re-categorized info

Now that we know that there will be no future Pivot releases, I added a subsection called "future releases" to talk about the fact that there will be none. Also added information about another project, stykz, that is based on the Pivot project. After a couple hours' worth of research, it seemed that stykz was the only program available that does what Pivot does. --Aasuddjian (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. I may still make another Pivot version. (Peter Bone) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.22.82 (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning this up

I'm going to plan on cleaning this up so that it meets Wikipedia's quality standards. Kaltiz (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this of any importance?

The link to the site and the download button there gave me a virus.... I think. Should the link be taken out or anything? 82.173.115.49 (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Somebody[reply]