Talk:Walt Disney Animation Studios

	; Excerpt of Mickey Mouse short Steamboat Willie on which the 2007 production logo was based
	Walt Disney Animation Studios logo

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Walt Disney Animation Studios article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Walt Disney Animation Studios. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Walt Disney Animation Studios at the Reference desk.

Walt Disney Animation Studios was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 5, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
December 8, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 12, 2014.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Walt Disney Animation Studios has released 53 animated features to date, from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) to Frozen (2013)?

Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Filmmaking / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Animation: American Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Top-importance).

Disney Top‑importance

	Disney portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies 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.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

United States: Animation / Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Animation portal This article is supported by WikiProject Animation - American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

There is an orange "more citations needed" banner atop of "Production logo", which has been there since 2023.
At over 11,000 words, this article is considered WP:TOOBIG and can probably be split or have information moved to other articles.
The lede is quite long and should probably be shortened.

Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Walt Disney Animation Studios

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Issues concerning broadness have not been addressed, and no work in fixing them seems to have arisen nor has there been any commitment to do so. As such, delist. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has an orange "additional citations needed" in the "Production logo" section from 2023 which needs to be resolved. It is over 11,000 words, which WP:TOOBIG states should probably be reduced. There are also a couple of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun to prune and source. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick update, here are the changes so far.

The article was 11705 words as of October 5, the last edit before I became involved, and now is 11470 words. I'll see what else I can weed, but this is a studio where even the unproductive eras are the sole focus of multiple books. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanimum: This article might be a good candidate to WP:SPINOUT sections of its history. This has already started with Disney Renaissance. After spinning out these sections, this article can give an overview of that time period (I recommend 4 paragraphs max per spun-out article) to reduce the word count. If readers are interested in finding out more information, they can go to the relevant article. Z1720 (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zanimum, do you still intend to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements have been resolved, but I'm still concerned about the length Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's on the long side, but not so long that I think WP:TOOBIG is in play, considering the significance of the topic. I'm in favour of keeping, Z1720. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Some of the history sections have several paragraphs, which I think can be trimmed. My opinion is that each section should have four paragraphs, maximum, before the next heading breaks up the text. This article has several opportunities to WP:SPINOUT the text, letting this article be an overview of the most important information. Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A four paragraph maximum in sections would see many FAs delisted Z1720; more importantly, it's not supported by any part of the MOS. Which text do you feel should be spun out, and to where? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I do not have four paragraphs as a hard and fast rule, but I use that as a rule of thumb as MOS:LEAD used to have that as the target number for the lead. Articles need to be readable: I do not believe sections with 10 paragraphs enhance readability. MOS:BODY talks about how headings enhance readability, and adding these headings to the table of contents help readers find information. WP:CANYOUREADTHIS talks about how "Readers of the mobile version of Wikipedia can be helped by ensuring that sections are not so long or so numerous as to impede navigation."

In answer to the question about spun out information: "1989–94: Beginning of the Disney Renaissance, successful releases, and impact on the animation industry", which already has a spunout article at Disney Renaissance, "1999–2005: Slump, downsizing, and conversion to computer animation; corporate issues", "1999–2005: Slump, downsizing, and conversion to computer animation; corporate issues", and "2019–present: Continued success, COVID-19 pandemic, expansion to television and financial struggles". If some of the information was cut instead of spun out, I would be OK with that too as the article has over 11,000 words. Z1720 (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For me, these are not GACR-relevant issues which should not hold up the closing of the GAR, but as I'm involved now I won't do that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GAR coordinators: no further input appears forthcoming, could you please either venture an opinion or close? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Z1720 that the History could be on a subpage. However, I would say the focus just on that size is isolation hides other issues. The History section is not only large, it's so large it's almost the entire article. Of the 11501 words (not including the bulleted lists), 10119 are history. There's almost nothing else, with almost half that remainder being the lead. There's really nothing to say about the leadership, past and present? The feature filmography of the Walt Disney Animation Studios is covered in 3 sentences? This seems far too thin to meet broadness. Further, the current studio, as well as the tables and timelines at the end, do not appear sourced. CMD (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chipmunkdavis about the broadness; I think this is a remaining concern, however, it was not much discussed (except potentially spinning off some of the history), so I'm planning to leave this open (although other coords may close it, of course) for another week or so to see if anyone commits to resolving these issues. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved from the article: Production logo

The following information was present in the article until October 7, 2024. It was partially length and lack of reliable sources.

Until 2007, Walt Disney Animation Studios did not use a traditional production logo, using the standard Walt Disney Pictures logo instead. Starting that year, an on-screen production logo based on Steamboat Willie was added after the 2006 Disney logo. It depicts Mickey Mouse, in his classic form, being drawn in against a beige paper background. As pages flip in the manner of a flip book, the drawing is animated into a scene from the aforementioned short in which Mickey is whistling. The camera zooms out onto a yellow-gold spotlight background and the wordmark of the studio's name is displayed below the scene.

The logo has appeared on every film since Meet the Robinsons (2007). Milestone variants were used for Tangled (2010) and Encanto (2021), with text saying "50th Animated Motion Picture" and "60th Animated Motion Picture" respectively, and with Mickey in the "0"; the latter used a shortened version. An 8-bit version of the logo was used for Wreck-It Ralph (2012). Additionally, Mickey's whistling was muted to allow an opening theme to play over the logo, in such films as Frozen (2013), Moana (2016), Frozen II (2019), Raya and the Last Dragon (2021), the aforementioned Encanto, and Wish (2023).

The logo currently remains in use despite Steamboat Willie entering the public domain on January 1, 2024, due to the cartoon being a work published in 1928.(Barnes, Brooks (2022-12-27). "Mickey's Copyright Adventure: Early Disney Creation Will Soon Be Public Property". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-11-24.)

Walt's People citation

While self-published sources can be an issue, Walt's People is a very valid source. The chapter quoted is an interview of Ed Catmull by Didier Ghez. Mr. Ghez is a significant Disney researcher and writer, beginning with co-authoring 2002's Disneyland Paris : de l'esquisse à la création, which was published by legitimate publishers in French and English, up to more recent titles like They drew as they pleased, a six-book series for Chronicle Books about concept artists throughout the history of the studio. He spoke to Ed Catmull, who was the President of Walt Disney Animation Studios at the time of the story being told here. This is an instance where self-published sources can be trusted. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganizing clean-up proposal

This company, being the animation unit spun off from The Walt Disney Company, was founded in 1986. They’re separate companies and I’m not sure why anything pre-1986 isn't removed from this article when they belong to the article of the conglomerate pre-split. As redirects are usually okay for articles, I want anything pre-split removed to differentiate itself. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Disney Animation" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Disney Animation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 23 § Disney Animation until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 14:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]