This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide toanimation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you canedit the article attached to this page, help out with theopen tasks, or contribute to thediscussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcomputers,computing, andinformation technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofvisual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between18 January 2022 and10 May 2022. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Nutellatoastt (article contribs).
We stumped on the french wiki page of "dessin animé", equivalent of cartoon in english, and the first inventor in both French and German pages is Emile Reynaud with "Pauvre Pierrot" in 1892. We definetly think that the historical section of the page needs major revisions, starting from considering adding this.
On which German pages is Reynaud actually mentioned as "the first inventor"? The German page for Animation doesn't mention any inventor and doesn't even have a history section, neither does there seem to be any German article on the history of animation.
"Dessin animé" is described as a film genre on the French page, so it makes a bit more sense to ignore all the animation before film and consider Reynaud's work as earliest examples. Imho, this doesn't look like an example that we should follow here. The French page for "Animation (audiovisuel)" is the more general page about animation and of course prominently features French pioneer Reynaud, but doesn't ignore what came before.
Reynaud's praxinoscope is mentioned on this page and the bluelinkedHistory of animation has hisTheatre Optique and associated titles as a section of "earliest animations on film" (using the term "film" rather loosely, since Reynaud used a chain of inflexible and rather fragile gelatine plates, which is quite different from what's usually called film).
It may be fair to mention Reynaud's contributions on this page. However, imho, the history section would probably benefit more from getting shortened into a very brief abstract of the history article, in very broad strokes, with less names and titles rather than more.Joortje1 (talk)11:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki Education assignment: Equitable Futures - Internet Cultures and Open Access
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between22 January 2024 and10 May 2024. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Cecibudzyn (article contribs). Peer reviewers:JadaClark2002.
I've revertedthis edit for now because the edit caused far more problems than it created.
The Production section was written to avoid duplication of other material inFilmmaking and several other related articles.
The first problem is that User:Epp44 split up the Production section and dumped its pieces all over the History section, with no attempt to revise them into any coherent chronological sequence. The result is that the article as a whole became logically incoherent and difficult to follow. Remember thePottery Barn rule: You break it, you fix it.
The second problem is that User:Epp44 added several new paragraphs that violatesWP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a textbook. Most of that material was also effectively unsourced in violation ofWP:V, due to the critically incomplete source citations.
The new paragraphs are as follows:
"Animation as a whole is a process. A long process that can be boiled down to a lengthy list of adjustable steps dependent on the type of animation being created. A general animation process begins first withpreproduction. Preproduction is the very beginning of creation, putting everything out on the table to be picked at in order to narrow down exactly what the final product is meant to look like, although in any production, this is always subject to change. This includes aspects of visual aspects as well as ideas for audio concepts, scripts, storyboarding and the final product."
"Following preproduction is the briefing step. This step is an aside from the physical product that would result from the entire creation. It includes the actions and permissions needed in order to complete this. Things like timescales, budgeting, possible technical difficulties, clients and their requirements are typically expected, followed by a few smaller, less necessary discussions in some cases. The nature of the project is always a factor, as no project is going to be the same as another."
"The following steps work together in the mixing bowl of creating. Scripts are developed with the help of storyboards where concepts and ideas are tried and tested to figure out what works for the final product."
"Research is conducted to add to the concept and approve the legitimacy of the information. Development is continued through storyboarding of new information in this way. This is followed up with work in musical concepts and sound quality, then allowing hands on work towards backgrounds and in-betweenframes before anything else solid or more focused on by the audience."
These are inappropriate in so many ways that I have no time to explain them all. The two biggest ones are as follows: First, the tone reads like a textbook in violation of WP:NOT. We have Wikibooks for that. Second, the word choices are way, way off. The result is both inaccurate and illogical. I have attendedD23 four times (yes, that means I got to see over two dozenA-list celebrities in person last August) and read numerous books on animation (includingOn Animation based on interviews byBill Kroyer andTom Sito). "Briefing step"? "Mixing bowl of the creating?" That's not how experienced animators actually talk or write.
For example, I just ran "briefing step" through Google Books and the closest result that came up is thatone textbook explains that the director and head animator must conduct a briefing with each animator for every scene in the production before animation commences (to ensure everyone is on the same page as to what is desired for that scene). But that's not how the nonsense phrase "briefing step" was used above! --Coolcaesar (talk)20:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed some sections tended to favor traditional methods of filmmaking. For example, at the beginning it says "3D animations into their film rather than usingpractical effects for showyvisual effects (VFX)." calling vfx showy feels like its being put in a negative light. It also seems like classic Disney animations tend to be used as an example and other studios aren't mentioned as much. For example the awards section only mentions Disney. Maybe that is just because Disney has had such a historical effect on the medium. Thoughts? —JFFlorez (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)JFFlorez (talk)20:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the late 1930s until the 1980s or the 1990s, theWalt Disney Animation Studios produced most of the box-office hits and thecult classics in the realm of feature-length animation. The company lost its dominance in the early 2000s, and it has since remained just one of the major studios competing for the attention of animation fans. I doubt that the article should ignore other achievements in animation, but I have no doubt that several of the available print sources and their writers are thinking of Disney when describingtraditional animation in the 20th century. "Showy" should probably be replaced by "impressive" or something similar.Visual effects are used in cinema since the late 19th century, and the sentence is trying to explain that 3D animations have largely replaced practical effects in the medium.Dimadick (talk)16:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the sentence that had "showy" in it. It actually seemed to favour the relatively new solution of CG over traditional fx, but are there more examples of any bias?
It's indeed hard to get around Disney's pervasive presence/influence in animation worldwide. The awards section's mention of 3 films that have been nominated in regular Oscar categories also reflect that (I assume there have been no others, but haven't checked). Although, actually, 2 of the 3 were Pixar, rather than Disney (probably still not entirely the same studio). The best solution for a better balance on the page is probably to add whatever non-Disney information seems relevant enough.
In the section ''Techniques/Full'', the prominence of Disney movies as "more realistically animated" than Warner. Bros "cartoon styles" does seem less apropriate. Does anybody know better examples? Or other ideas to rewrite it without that unconvincing comparison?Joortje1 (talk)18:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between18 January 2022 and10 May 2022. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Nutellatoastt (article contribs).
