Template talk:Pixar

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

Birds of a Feather[edit]

Where did Birds of a Feather come from? Are there any sources validating this? RMS Oceanic 09:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new section[edit]

should this template be exclusively for theatrically released Pixar films? Should the DVD-exclusive shorts (Mike's New Car, Mater and the Ghostlight, etc) be removed or seperated out into their own section? My opinion is they should be removed and this should be strictly theatrically released films. SpikeJones 00:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think it's handy to have all of Pixar's films summarized as it is. This said, I think the DVD exclusives could comprise a third part of this template. RMS Oceanic 08:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section for Pixar People?[edit]

I see templates like those for Disney and Apple have a section highlighting relevant people to the respective companies. Would it be viable to do something similar for this template, adding John Lasseter, Ed Catmull, Brad Bird, Joe Ranft and so on? RMS Oceanic 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly see why individual pages for the principles makes sense, but not for the two most recently added items to the template, Peter Sohn and Joe Romano. I don't see where every single Pixar animator needs to have their own individual page (at this time, perhaps later) -- should they be on a single "Pixar Animators" page instead until there is enough info to break them out separately?SpikeJones 20:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I propose we restrict the list to the following people: John Lasseter, Joe Ranft, Brad Bird, Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter, Lee Unkrich, Steve Jobs and Ed Catmull. I'm not adverse to other employees getting their own page, but I don't think they should be on this template. RMS Oceanic 07:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So aside from removing the animators from the template, what do you propose is a good idea for handling their individual pages currently?SpikeJones 13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about making a list of animators and linking the list from the template under "people" or "see also"? --Butseriouslyfolks 17:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose to the list of animators how about a list of notable Pixar employees. There are many animators (per film) so i dont see how tht is possible. The page could have directors, ceo types, animators, notable voice actors, storyboard articts, notable dead employees, short film directors, producers etc. Martini833 00:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I've SProtected not SProtected this template for now because it has been a persistent vandalism target of late. --Butseriouslyfolks 23:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I deleted two people from the "people" section. they were two animators who voiced some characters from Pixar films but werent notable enough to be on the list. I did leave Glenn McQueen because he was a lead animator (but he is dead) so should he still be there? I also added Darla K anderson and grouped them in order of importance first John Lasseter the Ed Catmull then Steve Jobs then the directors in order of their films (pete docter m. i. andrew standon f. n. ...) and then co director lee unckrich and producer darla k anderson tehn jan pinkava then jonh ratzenberger and joe ranft then glenn mcqueen. Martini833 22:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template Guidelines[edit]

I have decided to step in and clean up the mess in the people section of the pixar template. I decided that animators storyboard artists voice actors etc. shouldnt be there but that they should be isted somwhere else (such as in Category:pixar). The only notable "people" should be john lasseter ed catmull steve jobs and directors and multiple time co directors of the FEATURE films and jhon ratzenberger (because he is named Pixars lucky charm). The producers were taken out because there were too many and glenn mcqueen and joe ranft are both dead so they shuld be added to another list. It was hard to take bud luckey out because he was a long time character designer but it would break the guidlines. Another guidline i would like to set is that someone in the list should have been working at Pixar for a good amount of time. Anyone want to oppose propose or agree? Martini833 20:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the potentially unpopular stance of removing Ratz from the Pixar template as he is not a driving force in the creation of Pixar or the day-to-day operations of the Pixar corporate machine. He may have been called "Pixar's good luck charm", but his roles have been getting smaller and smaller with each subsequent feature. Also, keep in mind that using your logic, as soon as any of the listed people die, they will also need to be removed from the template. SpikeJones 20:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable Pixar staff[edit]

I oppose to the list of animators how about a list of notable Pixar employees. There are 700 animators (per film) so i dont see how tht is possible. The page could have directors, ceo types, animators, notable voice actors, storyboard articts, notable dead employees, short film directors, producers etc. Martini833 00:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter of Mars[edit]

  • The linked WP article explicitly says that this is not a Pixar production. If it is, then fix that article (with proper WP-allowed citations) first before re-adding JCoM here. SpikeJones 01:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
agreed and still vaild jj 17:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be included now as it has been confirmed to be a Pixar film BenW (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Houston, we have a template problem...[edit]

Is it just me, or are the two separate Pixar templates that are fighting for recognition here? I have Template:Pixar Animation Studios on one side, with the associated Template talk:Pixar Animation Studios page. And then over here, I have Template:Pixar films and it's associated talk page being redirected over to Template talk:Pixar Animation Studios. Something tells me that somebody either duplicated effort, or somebody did the move incorrectly. Looks like we need to determine which is supposed to be which and eliminate one of them. Cross-posting this over on Talk:Pixar. SpikeJones 03:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has commented here, then I propose deleting the Template:Pixar films page. Any objections? SpikeJones 02:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pixar Films because it has people and change the redirect thing when you try to edit because i want to edit some of the people who a long time ago we decided shouldnt be there. We had a criteria J. lasseter Jobs and catmull and the directors and thats it glenn mcqueen and joe ranft are dead so they aent notable as current people could someone fix that?? Martini833 18:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Pixar films[edit]

Template:Pixar films has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — SpikeJones 02:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder, citations please[edit]

That ALL new Pixar films that people would like to have included in the template can only be included after a non-blog, reputable 3rd party WP-approved source has confirmed this information. See WP:NOT a crystal ball and WP:CITE for details on what constitutes valid WP sources. Until such references exist, films such as UP will be reverted from the template.SpikeJones 02:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

short films collection[edit]

does the short films collection need to be included, considering that the shorts are already listed above? SpikeJones (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

name of template[edit]

since 1906 is confirmed to be live action, we need to change the name of this template from "Pixar Animation Studios". Suggestion? SpikeJones (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


You said "1906 is a CO PRODUCTION only FUNDED by Pixar, so it's not Pixar canon, it is Warner Bros". We agree that 1906 is a co-production between Pixar and a different company. Toy Story was a co-production between Pixar and Disney, yet it is accepted as Pixar canon. You tell me what the difference is between the two. SpikeJones (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toy Story is a different... story. 1) Disney owns Pixar and it's products (characters, films), Disney does not own WB 2) Toy Story is a Disney/Pixar film like ALL the others while 1906 is a Warner Bros. film co funded by Disney/Pixar as a whole. It fits under the cat. of BL of Star Command and TAoA&WB because it's not wholly owned or produced by Disney and/or Pixar. P.S. The article says the film will be out in the winter of 2009, i believe. (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll address your points one by one. (a) Disney owns Pixar. They didn't when TS was created. TS was a co-production between the two companies, and it was possible that if Pixar was purchased by a different company that Disney could have lost the rights to use the TS characters in the parks. (b) 1906 is a Warner Bros. film co funded by Disney/Pixar. Yes, this is similar to the LION/WARDROBE films being a co-production with Walden Media yet still be refered to as Disney films. As for your PS, not one article has confirmed a definitive release date for the film. They may be aiming for a specific year of release, but until a date has been announced, it remains "TBA". SpikeJones (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still we know Toy Story is canon, you can't argue with that, and the bottom line is it's a Disney/Pixar production, there's no if, ands, or buts anymore. I do realize Pixar was purchased in 2006, but that is almost the same because if you look on the DVDs they are all branded Disney... Pixar (in different ways but all retaining the same meaning). Now all of them are Disney/Pixar brand no matter what while 1906 isn't, and THAT is why. And I'll use your logic, we had release dates for TS3 before it was even announce so what makes 1906 different, wikipedians ought to know it'll most likely come out winter 09 as of now. (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is questioning TS as being canon or not. It was created as a Disney-Pixar production, and if Pixar started partnering with other companies, it would still be listed as a Disney-Pixar production under "Feature Films" in the template. All Pixar productions are branded Disney-Pixar per the purchase agreement, regardless of who is distributing the DVDs. 1906 is a Pixar-WB production (and therefore, a Disney-Pixar/WB production), making it no different than the way the original TS was handled, as mentioned above. And "ought to know it'll most likely..." is not enough proof to definitively provide a release date. Since you seem passionate about Pixar, please register an account name and join us in maintaining (with proper citations, of course) all the other Pixar articles as well. SpikeJones (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright so, I don't know why you don't understand the difference between Disney/Pixar and WB/Disney/Pixar, its IS different, WB doesn't own Pixar, that's the key factor, if you go to the DreamWorks Animation template, the Aardman features are listed separately for a good reason, they are not the norm, also the traditionally animated films are listed separately. The difference is clear, not accepting it is a different story. By the way, you do realize saying that "if Pixar started partnering with other companies, it would still be listed as a Disney-Pixar production" is complete speculation, this isn't about if, it's solid facts, and IF it did happen, they would most likely have a different category, as we see in the DreamWorks template. Also when you say that nothing has been solidly confirmed about the date, you do realize the release dates of Up and Toy Story 3 are both liquid as well so "what's the difference". About getting an account, I have one but am lazy so I hate logging in, and I AM passionate about Pixar. (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After thought, I propose we keep it in related works until we get an official announcement "straight from the source" about how the production will be divided and THEn make an official decision? Sound good? (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can make it real easy and remove ALL references to 1906 from Pixar and this page until official announcements come out that say that Pixar is doing more than co-financing the film and providing computer graphic work, if that would make you happy. I'm all for it -- your job (after you create a username and proper login, please) will be to keep all the Pixar fanboys from continuing to add it back in. SpikeJones (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change of template[edit]

I went ahead and made an Upcoming Films section, similar to what Dreamworks has. I think it works better like that. If there are any objections, please list them, but I think it makes the template plenty better. -- Frightwolf (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter of Mars & 1906[edit]

Since these two movies are the biggest issue facing this template right now, I suggest we redirect all discussion about them here. I do believe they should be added under the upcoming films list. As you can see in this video, a man who is most definitely Brad Bird states that he's working on 1906 and "staying at Pixar". I think this is good enough proof that 1906 is, definitively, a Pixar film. Here's a nice little page concerning John Carter of Mars. It doesn't specifically state that it's a Pixar film, but it is being created by Andrew Stanton and Mark Andrews, two Pixar veterans who have shown no signs of leaving Pixar as of late. These two films, while not officially, officially announced, are most definitely existent in some form and are undeniably related to Pixar, so I really think they should be part of this template. I'm going ahead and adding them to the Upcoming Films list. If someone feels they fit better in a different section, feel free to move them. --The Hams (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the continued addition/subtraction of JCoM in the template with no solid consensus either way, I propose that the template be locked to all edits until a discussion and consensus is reached via the talk page here. SpikeJones (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This template has been semi-protected due to the continued addition/deletion of the JCoM entry. Instead of continuing to delete/add it --- as there appears to be a lot of confusion surrounding its inclusion, and as Martini is now officially a Pixar fansite blogger --- we should try to settle this once and for all as to how it should be handled here. Who wants to start? SpikeJones (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is Pixar might create a banner for their live action films, or just release it under the WDP/Touchstone/Miramax banners. Worth considering as a reason to exclude from this template until official details are announced in the trade papers or elsewhere. Alientraveller (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removing it from the template won't stop people from adding it if they feel its missing (hence the current protection level). What we don't know is the level of involvement Pixar is going to have - is it to be treated like "Nightmare Before Christmas" is on the Disney template (aka 'see also' instead of 'official canon'... which brings up the non-sequitar for a different page as to how Dinosaur should be treated, as Disney calls it canon while others do not..... but I digress), or is it a complete side-project with minimal interaction of any kind beyond some SFX work where the Pixar name doesn't appear anywhere until the half-way through the end credits? If its merely SFX, then I would hate to see the template expanded to include (hopefully) every single title that Pixar ends up doing SFX work for. Similar to the non-existant ILM template, it would be a huge, huge monster of a template to have for no reason, because the Pixar fanboys would insist on including every miniscule SFX work onto the list as opposed to merely notable entries. SpikeJones (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, John Carter is in the template. But why would Stanton release this film under the Pixar banner? Pixar is now owned by the Walt Disney Company and effectively their San Francisco animation company (trying to think of a good metaphor here for Disney's level of control of Pixar, and Lasseter's over Disney animation). This headline also states Pixar will not become an effects studio, meaning they may not do the CG for Bird and Stanton's live projects. So for now, the two live action films may not be "Pixar" films, they could be "Walt Disney Pictures" or "Touchstone Pictures". I believe the "see also" route is best, to show, yes, these are live debuts from Pixar directors, but whatever resources they may draw from their "home" studio is unknown. Alientraveller (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anything from Pixar is to be branded "Disney-Pixar" per the pixar purchase agreement. We know that "1906" is a Pixar-Warner Bros production, but the question is to what level is Pixar's involvement and how 1906 needs to be included. We know Stanton is working on JCoM... but have no idea if Stanton is doing it as a Pixar production or not. SpikeJones (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, article is unprotected, I put John Carter in the associated productions. Alientraveller (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone on the John Carter talk page has pointed out (correctly, IMO) that the Pixar template shouldn't be appearing at the bottom of the article. I found an interview with Stanton in which he confirms that John Carter is a Disney production. "It's not being done by the Pixar crew. It's being done by Disney, and I'm sort of being loaned out. [...] We're not being purist with Pixar, but Pixar's a brand that you have to trust that's for all ages. This story of John Carter is not going to be an all-ages film". (http://blastr.com/2009/01/wall-e-helmer-andrew-stanton-talks-john-carter-of-mars.php). So Pixar appear not to be involved at all. Other than the fact that some of the personnel have previously worked on Pixar films, what makes John Carter an "Associated Production" ? Barry Wom (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed John Carter. Barry Wom (talk) 13:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry about the odd protection template placement, I put it in the noinclude section. · AndonicO Engage. 09:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cars 2 switches with newt[edit]


I edited the template to adjust the release dates. -- Frightwolf (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk About Animation —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Right so any plans for adding the announced Cars shorts that (i believe) are to debut on the Disney Channel? SWatsi (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Shorts Section Split[edit]

Should the split in the shorts section be Feature released vs DVD exclusive and TV exclusive rather than Original vs Based on a Film? I guess it doesn't make a difference now, but I would have throught that the idea of splitting that section would be to split the types of release and not the characters that are used?? Thoughts? SWatsi (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awards lists[edit]

There are currently two Pixar films awards list: List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E and List of awards and nominations received by Ratatouille. Shouldn't there be another group for Awards, containing these two and in the future more?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for discussion of the Pixar template. I think you're looking for List of Pixar awards and nominations. Henrymrx (t·c) 21:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Ratzenberger[edit]

An IP added John Ratzenberger to the list of people associated with Pixar, and then another IP deleted it. Both are working in good faith, but I'm kinda siding with the editor who added him to the template. Mr. Ratzenberger is the only performer to appear in every single Pixar feature, and has been referred to as "Pixar's lucky charm" in interviews (although I'm trying to remember if he attributed this to himself or if someone at Pixar did first). However, I'm curious what other editors think too. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, Ratz is not a Pixar employee responsible for the creation of the Pixar product. His contributions to the films thus far aside, the template is for the creative staff/brain trust rather than naming every actor who has appeared in the films (he had barely one line in UP and other films; his appearance in the films has almost become tokenism and there have been other actors who have appeared in more than one Pixar film). This is an old discussion, with debate floating in the archives somewhere. The good luck charm comment is attributed to JohnL. SpikeJones (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing, that he's not really a Pixar employee. That said, he is part of what makes Pixar Pixar ... and while there are a number of actors who have appeared in multiple Pixar films (the bulk of the cast of the Toy Story series being the most obvious), no one else can claim an appearance, even if just one or two lines, in every feature release. Maybe he belongs in the "other" category, thus leaving "people" for Pixar employees. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Ratz is not what makes Pixar Pixar. The creative brain trust and artists who create and direct the films are that. I wouldn't even put him in the "other" category. He may be known in Pixar circles as being in every film, but he is still "best known" for his work on Cheers. His inclusion in this template is a far reach.SpikeJones (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's reasonable. I'll go ahead and remove it from the template then. Thanks for the input, Spike! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdenting for new conversation) Disagreeing on this point. The section does not say "people who used their abilities to create the film", it just says "People". Of course it does not leave it open to any Tom, Dick, or Harry, but John is no Tim Allen, Tom Hanks, or John Goodman; he's on the Pixar employee baseball team, he is brought on to portray a character in every single film, so it does not create a precedence to include less recurring actors. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)q[reply]

It says "People" because "Pixar Employees" or "Pixar Creative Staff" is too unnecessarily long. Ratz already has his own section on the Pixar References page, which is more than adequate recognition of his participation. SpikeJones (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A navbox is not an article is not a list is not a category. A navigational box exists to navigate people to relevant information. It is not for the supplement, or to be supplemented, by any different kind of content. Ratzenberger's contributions to Pixar are significant enough, more significant than any other person whose work in Pixar is exclusively acting, to be included. Being on the baseball team merely cements the fact that he is basically a "part" of the Pixar team. Tom Hanks, Larry the Cable Guy, and John Goodman are not on the team because they are not considered a part of the Pixar team. I'm sure that they love working with each other, but they are not a part of Pixar in the way that Ratzenberger is. In an earlier comment, you argued that other actors have appeared in multiple Pixar films, and you clearly do not understand the point being made at that time, considering you attributed the intent of including Ratzenberger to wanting to include actors from Pixar films on the sole basis that they are actors from Pixar films. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If your only argument for inclusion is that he participates on the Pixar softball team, that really doesn't help support your side of the discussion. We both agree that he is voices characters for Pixar. We both agree that he has done so in a number of films. The extent of his participation in each film varies - in some films, it's barely even one line, a courtesy throwaway. Separate out any Pixar fandom or emotional investment you have and look at the situation from a purely encyclopedic viewpoint, and you'll see that there is no need to include him in the Pixar template as he is not part of the Pixar creative brain trust. SpikeJones (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Incredible and Pals, Exploring the Reef, and George & A.J.[edit]

These are not recognized as shorts in the sense of the rest of the list. I've moved them to a separate section on the List of Pixar shorts page and on the template. Mr. Incredible and Pals is a mockumentary and is listed under "Other" on the DVD, not as a short. Exploring the Reef is an educational film by Jean-Michael Cousteau with Nemo characters as sidekicks. I haven't seen George & A.J. but it is not listed as a short film on Pixar's website. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shorts section[edit]

The compilations and series all fall under the category "Shorts". They are not distinct from the "Shorts". Additionally, the "Other" category which contains items not Feature Films, Shorts, or Documentaries, is needed. Why does this change keep getting undone by anonymous IP users? Pejorative.majeure (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can the template be temporarily locked from anonymous IPs until a reasonable discussion is conducted? Pejorative.majeure (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection has been requested ... please see your talk page. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE--page has been protected. OK kids, hash it out here instead. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the following section for my suggestion.


I'm proposing the template be redesigned along the lines of the Lord of the Rings template. It would consist of three subsections:

  1. Feature Films by Pixar - containing all feature films by Pixar. Also references list and awards for feature film list.
  2. Pixar Animation Shorts - containing all shorts, whether series, original, feature-based, compilations, etc. Also references list and awards for short films list.
  3. Pixar (the company) - containing people, documentaries, and technologies.

Pejorative.majeure (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which, as I recall, is the way it was before. Don't misunderstand; I think what you're proposing is reasonable. However, that's basically what the IP is showing too, although the IP appears to break out the compilation videos of the various shorts into a separate line item. Taking a moment to play devil's advocate, how is the template improved if consensus determined that your format is better? Honestly, I'm not sure there is an answer here, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pixar is identified through three main items. 1. The films. Similar to the three Lord of the Rings books, these are what people identify primarily as Pixar. 2. The shorts. A popular item, but more bulky and so needs to be organized within its own element. 3. The company itself. This also needs to be split apart, into talent, regulars (including Ratzenberger), documentaries about the company, administration (Steve Jobs is not involved with any film, however, is identified with Pixar), etc. These three items are separate from each other, yet all linked under the main body of Pixar. That's why I believe the three should be broken out. I started that with the grouping of all "Shorts"-related items under "Shorts". This wouldn't entail creating three separate templates, but three sub-groupings akin to the characters, etc. sub-groupings under the Lord of the Rings template. But, if one wants to see just films, then one could show Feature Films. If one wanted to look at the company links, then show the Company.Pejorative.majeure (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is absolutely not neccessary in this case. It seems better to have it all in one place. Now, as for including the "Other" section, with Mr. Incredible and Pals, Exploring the Reef and George & A.J., I think there is no need to include those. The reason being that those films don't appear to be listed anywhere - not even on Pixar's website - those were more of a jokey kind of thing, and I don't think they are counted as canon. I'm a hard-core Pixar fan (I moderate full-time on the Pixar Planet forums), so I have strong knowledge of what is considerd canon. Now, as for Cars Toons, I believe that the "Shorts series" deverves its own section, once other series are created. The studio they are builiding in Canada is primarily going to specialize in shorts series. At the very least, we could put them under "related artices"; that's the only logical place I can see them going. -- Cartoon Boy (talk) 23: 26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the umbrella "Pixar" would cover the Shorts, Feature Films, and the company itself, as I described above.Pejorative.majeure (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but look at other animation studio templates, such as the ones for DreamWorks Animation and Blue Sky Studios. Everything is in one template. I know this might seem like a poor excuse, but my fear is that if people see this template seperated, they'll think those will need to be as well. I'm just concerned about possibly damaging the quality of the template. Please, just here me out. I was against what you had done recently, but now support it, with adjustments as neccessary. I've put thought into how we could keep the template as a whole, keep everything in, including those you added (putting them where it makes the most sense), and to prevent this kind of edit warring again. I propose that this page be protected so only estabished users can edit. Anything that people aren't sure about, they can discuss here. We will obviously never be free of vandalism, but for the most part I find that people here know what they're doing. Is there any possible way we could keep the template as is? -- Cartoon Boy (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BlueSky is too small and is dedicated to films and shorts. There is no "Technology" or "People" section, for example. Nor do these two examples exist for DreamWorks, which could conceivably be broken into two subsections, "Films" and "Shorts" to clean up readability. Four "<adjective> film" sections (arguably six)? Pejorative.majeure (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about this, and I have changed my opinion on this version - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Pixar_Animation_Studios&oldid=351257983 - it seems that the Series section is reasonable, although, I'd perfer that once new short series are made, that it have a seperate section; and I don't think "Compilations" should be in the Shorts section, either. As well, Exploring the Reef, Mr. Incredible and Pals and George & A.J. seem to filed under "additional work" in List of Pixar shorts. Perhaps, we could add an "additional work" section, and put those three there? -- Cartoon Boy (talk) 6:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I added the three items as they were proposed by another user and included in the List of Shorts page - however they don't actually fit as "Shorts" as defined in the general body of work, nor are they "Behind the scenes" snippets or commentaries. They're wholly different, as I view it anyway. I called it "Additional work" as I could not think of another appropriate title for a section including an educational film and background fluff that Pixar created specifically for the other two films.Pejorative.majeure (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. I meant adding a "additional work" or "related work" to the actual template. I agree with you that they're different, but nevertheless, Pixar did have a hand in some way with them. That is why I think an "related work" section in the template would be a good solution. -- Cartoon Boy (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to list "every single item" Pixar has ever touched in the template (ie Exploring the Reef, Listerine Commercial, etc). Similarly, the Cars Toons shorts ARE shorts. It's perfectly acceptable to list "Cars Toons" under "Shorts" for the time being. Once a second shorts series is developed, then "Cars Toons" can be moved to a new section for "Shorts Series" as there is no need to break out an entire section for just one item. I also stand by restricting the list of Pixar people to those notable Pixar brain-trust employees (and Ed, and Steve). To include anyone else would open up the floodgates of every single actor/artist/musician/marketer/etc who ever worked on a Pixar film. List of Pixar staff is adequate for most of the major players, and each film article already has links to the actors. SpikeJones (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by/support what SpikeJones said completely. That's what I wanted to say about this issue. I seriously, and honestly, believe that that is the directon we should take with this template. -- Cartoon Boy (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need to list all commercials, etc. The last three sections would be placed in the Company section. However, as particular people are re-used for multiple films, such as composers Michael Giacchino and Randy Newman, or Ratzenberger, there could be a film talent section which includes these people. Lasseter, Ranft, Stanton, others who have been there since the beginning would have a separate section. Lastly, Jobs and Catmull would be listed in the administration of the company.Pejorative.majeure (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revised the three items at the top of this section to more fully flesh out the idea.Pejorative.majeure (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While your idea to change the template isn't misguided, I just think it is way, way overkill and unnecessary to do so per my comments above (ie current setup is specifically structured for what should or shouldn't be included and is easy to control, your proposal opens up lots of fanboy opportunities to muck around and screw things up by adding way too much detail, for one. Who's to say what film talent qualifies over other, for example? Ratz - sorry to say - is *still* more well known outside of Pixar fandom as Cliff on Cheers, and his appearance on the Pixar template is not required....that said, he does have his own section on the Pixar References page, which should be a more visible location for him and what he means to Pixar anyway). SpikeJones (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to show what I'm envisioning - I don't think it opens things up too much at all.Pejorative.majeure (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have duplicate items in the subs, as some items (like the references page) apply across both features and shorts. A reiterate that "Cars Toons" belongs under "Feature-based shorts", as there is no reason to stick it in its own category at this time. "Additional Work" is completely unnecessary as being unencyclopedic as standalone items. And based on the overall size of the existing template, there really was no need to expand it into these sub-sections in the first place. As the template currently stands, it's not so large as to become unmanageable. SpikeJones (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Associated productions"[edit]

Someone added John Carter of Mars back into the template. While looking through the talk page to find a rationale for its return, I saw that one of the solutions was an "Associated productions" field, which seems to have been removed. Again, there's no discussion on the talk page for why it was taken out. Since both John Carter of Mars and 1906 are connected to Pixar, even if just key people currently with Pixar (like Andrew Stanton's work on John Carter), I think the "Associated productions" field needs to be returned, and I'll be bold and add it back for now. Opinions? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the Buzz Lightyear TV series was definitely a Pixar co-production, it obviously belongs in this section, as opposed to the "see also" section. I will be restoring it to the proper placement. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Newt was officially cancelled today via the Pixar Blog. [1] Pejorative.majeure (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know this is Pixar's blog? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Chief Archivist for Disney said the project was dead, if you read the entry. It was previously announced as dead by an animator and consultant at Disney. Therefore it is cancelled. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC) ::If you need information about the creator of the blog, please read this article/ [2] I'm undoing your removal of my edits. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new parts[edit]

could you please change the feature films section to have subsections? here's the idea: 1: released films (Toy Story to Toy Story 3) 2: upcoming films (Cars 2, Monsters, Inc. 2, and Brave) 3 associated productions (John Carter of Mars and 1906) and 4: unproduced works (Newt) BRAINULATOR9 23:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainulator9 (talkcontribs)

Add Monsters, Inc. 2[edit]

Someone erased Monsters, Inc. 2 from the list because he/she said that is a rumor. The film has been officially announced by Disney and Pixar so there is no reason to delete it from the list. Please add it again.Disneyfolly2 (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I removed it because it doesn't have an article. Notice this isn't a list but a navigation template. You can't navigate to an article that doesn't exist. BOVINEBOY2008 20:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George & A.J.[edit]

Recently, there seems to have been an edit war going on about the inclusion of George & A.J. in the feature-based shorts section. I retain what I said before that Mr. Incredible & Pals and George & A.J. were meant as a jokey kind of thing, they are not included on Pixar's website under shorts, and, as a side-example, Mr. Incredible & Pals is not included in Pixar Short Films Collection – Volume 1.

We do not need to put every single thing that Pixar touched or produced in this template. If we did that, the template would become crowded. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 1:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather than edit warring, maybe the parties involved would like to discuss the matter here?

  1. The navbox is not just for current Pixar employees. If John Lasseter left Pixar, we would not remove him from the Navbox. We might move him to a "former employees" section (like "former members" in band navboxes), if that were deemed appropriate, but all of his previous contributions still exist, so he's still connected with the subject matter.
  2. That being said, if someone did not make notable contributions while at Pixar, then only later made notable contributions for another company, they probably should not be included.

Where does Doug Sweetland fall? Considering his article currently is almost entirely Pixar contributions (many of which appear to be notable enough to me), I don't see why he can't be included in the navbox. Thoughts? --Fru1tbat (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to man up and say that I am the one whose been adding him back in (under an IP user account, obviously), and I want to apologize for my actions. You'd think I'd know better by now. Now, on the subject of whether or not Sweetland should be included - I am a hard-core Pixar fan, and, as I've said here before, I moderate on the Pixar Planet forums full-time, so I know the studio and it's employees, past and present, very well. Doug was and is one of their top animators, and had been with the studio since Toy Story, moving up the ranks to directing animator on Boundin' and supervising animator on Cars. He was nominated for an Academy Award for Presto. Despite him moving to Sony Pictures Animation for his feature-directorial debut, all Pixar employees who have been a main director for a feature film effort (with the exception of a few) are currently included. Should it really matter what studio he's currently at for inclusion in this template? I say absolutely not. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen and/or Dinosaur film[edit]

A number of editors have been adding info saying that the film about dinosaurs has a new name, Frozen. However, ComingSoon.net, one of the sources that has reported the story (although it hadn't been inserted into any such edit anywhere related to Pixar that I've seen), has now updated its story and said that Frozen is a completely new project from Walt Disney Animation Studios that has been given the November 2013 slot previously assigned to the Pixar unnamed dinosaur film. --McDoobAU93 21:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Silvers[edit]

Okay so I'm starting a page for Michael Silvers, who won sound editing for The Incredibles, he has worked on nearly every Pixar film, so think he should be listed? Wgolf (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short grouping[edit]

A recent edit merged the two short film groups (the somewhat awkwardly named "Original" and "Feature-related") into one group. This seems like a good change, but still I've always appreciated separate listing of the shorts that were created as original concepts (and released theatrically or similar) from those that were derived from a feature-length film and released on disc with the film. The separation is somewhat arbitrary, admittedly, and perhaps subjective, but also reasonably useful for navigation and reader interest. Thoughts? --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I preferred them being split into two groups, personally. --ERAGON (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in template[edit]

An anon IP recently tried to append ending dates to two cartoon series, the Toy Story Toons and Cars Toons. The articles for these series seem to suggest that they are at least somewhat ongoing, although there have been no recent updates on either's status. I undid the original edit as being original analysis, but the discussion seems to be heading in the direction that the current phrase—2011-present—is no less SYNTHy. That raises a question: why are there dates here at all? For the individual films, that will be information in the lede paragraph (if not first sentence) of each article. As to series and franchises, why not let the reader decide the status of the franchise for themselves by reading the subject article? I'd like to see what comes of this. --McDoobAU93 17:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion took place in User talk: The original concern was that replacing the word "present" with the date of the latest released episode (three or four years ago) is original research, although the dates came from the associated articles. (And since this template is a navbox, that's exactly where the citations should be.)
As the discussion progressed, however, these concerns were raised about the validity of status quo:
  • Claiming the series is still in production needs a source. Interpreting a three-years-old rumor to mean "production is still in progress" is WP:SYNTH.
  • The end date in a date range must not be restricted to official finale or official cancellation. Indeed, TV series and film projects are frequently postponed or abandoned with no official cancellation. (e.g. Night Hood) Per WP:CRYSTAL, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Release of a new Toy Story Toons is not almost certain to take place.
  • The word "present" is forbidden by WP:DATED. "Present" means an "episode is produced and released in the vicinity of today".
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]