Talk:Animation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Animation is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Animation
Animation Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Peer review Animation has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Lack of Authority

I hate to complain, but this article needs a lot of work. It has obviously not been written by an animator or anyone with sufficient knowledge of the subject. For example, traditional animation is given a single paragraph, while computer animation is makes up the bulk of the article. This hardly seems right given that traditional animation comprises dozens of techniques and has been around for a century, while computer animation has only been around for a few decades. Then there is a number of things in the article that are just plain wrong. Such as saying the the cutout animation found in South Park evolved from drawing and painting and is a new technique. Lastly, there's a complete overlooking of important animation figures such as Cohl, Mesmer, Svankmajer, Avery, Jones and a great deal more. At present this is a poor article. But not to just complain, I will definately lend a hand in fixing up this article at a later date.

  • Yes, pleae help expand if you can. However, this article is just a starting point - see all the links to other articles such as traditional animation, the many "see also" links, etc. Isn't it better to keep this general article short and concise, and expand the topics in their own articles? --Janke | Talk 18:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, you're quite right. Also, the other pages on specific animation topics appear to be pretty excellent. I think now that the page has been reworked it gives a much better overview and makes it easier to find those other pages on specific types of animation. - Patronise, 14:36, 20 October 2006
  • This article is very sloppy, I know little about animation but I have worked a little with the application Maya, and I know for sure the example of the bouncing ball does not show correct animation technique. The first frame shows the ball being squashed, the second shows it recovering its shape, and the third shows the ball going further up into the air without changing shape, when it should show the ball being stretched out. Obviously this is an error( if an object like a rubber ball bounces back but it also stretches out in the process before it regains its shape). This is just a single error I saw in the paragraph and felt it would be a waste of time trying to fix the rest of it. What a mess, this is the first Wikipedia article that I've seen that is this unorganized.

-Candace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.161.47 (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You haven't been using Wikipedia very long, then, have you? ;-P We'll see what we can do to fix this, though. Little tinyfish 23:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More comprehensive history

I thought I would take a stab at outlining a more comprehensive history of animation, since right now this page is just a lump of names with no clear story. I just put down what I thought were key points in the history in some rough historical period, based on my fanatic devotion to the subject. Suggestions and contributions are, of course, extremely welcome.

- Shoehorn

Looks good so far! Animation history is such a vast subject that we might want to consider breaking it into several different sections, each with their own Wikipedia article. Perhaps separate articles for "History of theatrical (movie) animation" and "History of TV animation?"

Do we really have to call the current cartoon revivial a "Renaissance"? I think there's a lot of interesting stuff going on, but I think it is better to say "here's what happened most recently" than to gush about how fantastic shows like, uh, well whatever cartoon-of-the-week you like have brought about a Renaissance. We don't yet have the historical perspective to say this. - Shoehorn----------------------------------------

Well, first of all, the fun of Wikipedia is that you can edit anything you want; if you don't like it, then feel free to change it. And what I've been trying to do is provide examples of the various "important steps" in the history of animation. Steven Spielberg's collaboration with Warner Bros. to make Tiny Toons and Animaniacs was important, because it revitalized Warner Bros.' animation studio. Duck Tales was important, because it paved the way for high-quality animation in TV cartoons, thus escaping the crap of G.I. Joe. And so on, and so on. It's not just the "cartoon of the week;" it's cartoons that have had an effect on the industry, such as The Simpsons and Toy Story and The Little Mermaid.

[edit] Bigger and bigger

This "History of animation" essay keeps getting bigger and bigger, though I do believe some progress has been made so far. Nevertheless, I am asking for (begging for!) input from the Wikipedia community. These things need editing, especialli in the case of repetitive grammar, inaccurate facts, and the like. Also, I realize that all I've done so far is talk about the history of American animation. What about the history of anime in Japan? Animation in Canada? Animation in England or France? We need some input on Nelvana and the Canadian Film Board, on Danger Mouse, on Asterix and Obelix, on Astro Boy, and on many others! -- Modemac

The articles look excellent from my point of view, but the titles will have to change; it is indeed only about American animation and should therefore be called that (or "US animation"), with the "Animation History" section reserved for the history in general, global terms. You could probably lose the "Part <x>" bit if you're worried about the title becoming too long. You could of course also work in the other countries' animation, but they wouldn't necessarily have developed similarly, plus it would become an even longer essay...;) -Scipius 01:37 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting the first section

I took the liberty of dividing the first section to have a seperate entry for the silent period. It was around for at least a decade and a half with its own major players, so the move seems called for -- Kchishol1970

[edit] Traditional animation

Wikipedia was surprisingly missing a page on the traditional animation method, so I made one. :) Garrett Albright 05:43, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gender of actors playing characters

Which of these rules is more commonly followed in animated movies:

  1. The gender of the actor always matches the gender of the character.
  2. A male actor plays an adult male; a female actor plays an adult female; or a child, regardless of sex.

Please explain using whatever detail you can. 66.245.69.48 01:24, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am assuming by "actor," you mean voice actor. In that case, it's typically #2; male children are often voiced by adult women, because adult men usually can't get their voice in the right range for a boy. If the production has a decent budget, they will hire actual boys to voice young male characters (see The Lion King, in which young Simba was voiced by Jonathan Taylor Thomas, who was thirteen at the time); however, it seems that child labor laws and/or SAG rules make it prohibitive to use actual children for productions on a tight schedule and/or low budget. Garrett Albright 07:22, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Also, for a continuing series (aka The Simpsons), Nancy Cartwright was used as the voice of Bart probably because if they used a talented young boy voice actor, eventually his voice would change. Regards, Jeff schiller 17:56, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

In the seventies, I edited voice tracks on dozens of animated films (educational and for Captain Kangaroo) using actual 5-to-10 year olds. At first, they had to parrot line readings and I'd end up with dozens of tiny pieces of dialog; but soon they became natural voice actors and recorded material quite quickly.Jim Stinson 22:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Animation article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Animation}} to this page. — LinkBot 09:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

A vandal had deleted part of the article in oldid=12571324, but subsequent edits had not restored it. I have now.

I feel there is another part missing (a list of names of famous animators), I will investigate and if necessary restore.--Branko

I was right, a list of names was deleted in version oldid=12571084 and never restored. Restored it now. Perhaps this list would find a better home in the History of animation article though. --Branko

edit: Someone had pasted unrelated messages in the article, these have been removed. --Chris

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but what the heck is with all the vandalism? Is the subject of animation popular enough that people find it funny, or is this typical with most Wikipedia articles? Perhaps the other articles I watch are just too small for anybody to search for...Little tinyfish 02:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article needs to be edited. I don't claim to be an expert on animation, but I'm quite certain that my 'mom... filled with seamen' has nothing whatsoever to do with the animation process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.190.23 (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shaky border animation style

Roobarb article says that the sketchy drawing technique where the borders are shaky and the characters seem to be jiggling around, is called the "Roobarb and Custard effect". Is there any other name by which this style is known. I don't have any material on this now, else I'd have added it to this article. Jay 00:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not a specialized style with a name. Likely, the studio just has the animation artists render the cartoon that way for stylistic purposes. It's not notable enough to mention here; it's far below the scale of thsi article. --FuriousFreddy 00:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] what happend to preston bliar

hes an extrodinary animator who has tons of work on cartoons since the 1930s thats not cool that you wouldn't include him in the list of names

  • Preston Blair (note spelling) is here now. I removed Mel Blanc - since he's not an animator, albeit a fantastic voice talent... --Janke | Talk 13:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup needed

This page is getting uglier and uglier - those unwieldy lists of names and studios are really bad looking. Suggestion: How about making separate pages for the lists of animation studios, and notable animators/directors? These lists could then be in a single column, not breaking up every time someone adds a name. We could then link to the lists from this page. Also, the external links should be looked over - there are too many, some go to sites with ads, some to blog pages, etc. Only those really pertinent and helpful should be listed. Comments, please - can we reach consensus? Janke | Talk 20:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty to neaten up the various lists throughout the page. Itsonlybarney 10:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Hierarchy needed? - the 'Root page' suggestion

This is only one of many good articles on aspects of Animation, all of which tend to be suffering from omissions and duplications, as well as misconceptions over what constitutes CGI for example, as opposed to, computer animation, and whether CGI is a 'film technique'.

I've solved a similar dilemma on other topics by introducing the concept of a 'Root page', in this case Animation, and a hierarchy. I suggest that CGI is computer animation, is animation. If anything, CGI is 'hi-end' computer animation, meaning probably hi-res 3D rather than 2D, but the distinction is disappearing. CGI cannot be a 'film technique' as fully animatied 'movies' like Toy Story are now about to be delivered to cinemas digitally without ever seeing 'film' even as 'videotape'. Avatars and games come 'highest' in the hierarchy, as they involve real-time CGI.

The newcomer to CGI, or to Computer animation, may need to have animation explained, hence the need for hierarchy, with the 'Root page' listed at the top of 'see also' and described as such. The Root page should list all key associated pages in the hierarchy first.

I agree with creating separate pages for lists of studios etc. I think I would also create a separate page for the history. There's a tendency with many topics to treat them as history, with too little detail of what they are about --Lindosland 11:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've taken the plunge and done the above, creating new pages for the lists and linked to from 'See also'. Also added a section on Animation techniques. Looks better to me, what do you think? --Lindosland 13:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links cleanup

I just removed a recently added "vanity" link. Would someone care to take a look at the link list, and reduce it to sites really useful for the reader. WP is not a link list. --Janke | Talk 07:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions and Sources

Animation techniques: “Pixar's work is a testament to this. The goal of an animator is not simply to "copy" the real world, but to enhance and to take the essence of the motion that is there, and this is how animation can be elevated to the level of art.” Does anybody else feel that this is a personal opinion? After all the question here is not what is ‘art’ and what is not. Or how to elevate a piece to become art. But what are animation techniques. I hope nobody minds if I delete this. Elfsareus 13:09, 11 April 2006 (EST)

History: In the third paragraph it says “some say exploited”. How says? Whoever wrote this, please provide a source. In the meantime I am will remove it. Elfsareus 13:46, 11 April 2006 (EST)

[edit] Styles

What excatly are chinese ink animation/chinese ink and wash animation? Is it different from traditional animation? And what are the animation that are made by drawing in sand or wet paint on a glass plate called?

well, the first one is made with watercolours I think... there was a rather famous animator in China who used it in the 1960s or 1970s, but I can't recall his name just now... I do know that a special edition DVD was recently released with his works (with English subtitles) to celebrate the man's 80th (maybe 90th?) anniversary. The others are "sand animation" and "oil paint animation". A good example of an oil paint animator is Alexandr Petrov. Esn 01:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added articles on sand animation and paint-on-glass animation to the techniques section. I need to find the name of that Chinese guy, because he had a pretty interesting type of animation as well... I just can't remember its exact name. Esn 21:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need your opinion, folks

I have a difference of opinion with violetriga, and I'd like to ask you which one of us you think makes the more persuasive argument. At issue is the direction of the redirect when a user types in "animated feature" - violetriga thinks it should be this page and I think that the list of animated feature films would make more sense. Here's a reposted record of our conversation that happened at his user page:

I'd like to know your reasons for thinking why, if someone typed in "animated feature", they'd be looking for a general article on what animation is rather than an article which explains what an animated feature is AND gives a list of them. Esn 01:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If animated film redirects to animation then animated feature should also. I think there should actually be a new article about animated films, which could easily be started off as a stub. violet/riga (t) 07:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
But "animated film" and "animated feature" are NOT the same thing! To quote WP:R, "We follow the "principle of least astonishment" — after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?". Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place." The point of a redirect should be so that the reader finds the information that he is looking for as quickly as possible. If a reader enters in "animated film", the animation page is the page that will answer his questions the quickest. If he enters in "animated feature", he is obviously looking for information on animated feature films, not just any animated films, and probably a list of them too. In that case, the List of animated feature films is much more appropriate. The "animation" page doesn't even describe what an animated feature film IS, and the only thing someone who is looking for that information could do is click on the "list of animated feature films" link at the bottom of the article. Isn't this terribly inefficient? Esn 21:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

violetrega hasn't bothered to reply to my last post and seems to be prepared to just ignore it, so I wondered what you guys think. If a user types in "animated feature", which page is going to answer his questions the quickest? Esn 21:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Suggestion: Write a stub that refers to the article, and the list, as well. --Janke | Talk 06:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello from Wikipedia:WikiProject American Animation!

As a member, I've started reviving WikiProject American Animation after seeing it deteriorate in content and activity from the time of its February launch. Whether you are fans of cartoons or not, I'm sure you'll enjoy it when it gets fixed, and possibly become members. As of October 2006, this project has somehow faltered in the past few months, due to little activity, and now I am counting on you Wikipedians to help me bring it back to life. The main page of the project, from the looks of things, is halfway done; your appreciation is greatly welcome if you want to get it complete. You can also help pick out core articles for WP:1.0 assessment. The work on choosing articles for the project has only begun; in three to four days, expect to see a log of articles in the manner of that at WP:FILM and elsewhere. As they say, "that's all folks" for now! Notes, suggestions and feedback about the project at my talk page would very much be welcome. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

let's try to find representative images for all the techniques described. I have added a few. --Janke | Talk 07:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Techniques section

Who the heck changed this section? Why did they not keep the same divisions as existed before? Everything is a mess now. There are THREE main types of animation: traditional, stop motion and computer. These are further subdivided into many different sections (for example, cutout animation, clay animation and puppet animation are all types of stop motion animation). Then there are a few other types which do not fit into those categories: sand animation, direct animation, paint-on-glass animation, pinscreen animation. Now, there is no sense or order at all, and there is a long list under "other approaches" which is just a big glut of seemingly random links that nobody will ever click (and many of them are listed several times). In fact, I am tempted to think that this article has been vandalized.

This cannot stay. By all means expand the sections on the types of animation, but don't throw order out the window! Esn 01:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I think that Ladislas Starevich should be mentioned under "early animation", considering that he was making films before most of the people who are listed. Esn 01:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
P.P.S. To make things even worse, some types of animation are subtypes of subtypes. For example, silhouette animation is a subtype of cutout animation which is a subtype of stop motion. Also, some of the links in there (like character animation) don't belong to the same group as the others. Esn 01:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
According to the page history, User:Patronise did a Major overhaul of page. Simplified the definition, made the list of, brief description of and examples of animation technqiues, early animation history, references and the image of Fantasmagorie. I agree it is a mess, but maybe it's a step in the right direction? Therefore I didn't revert it. However, I won't oppose a revert to the 2006-10-19 09:03:44 version. --Janke | Talk 05:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
No... he did make the history section better (even though Ladislas Starevich should've been mentioned). But we must look at the Oct.19 edit and see in what ways it was better, because some good things were changed. Perhaps it's a good thing to describe the different animation types on the main page, but on the other hand maybe we should ALSO bring the old "styles and techniques of animation" section back, because it made finding things a lot easier. It was only a collection of links, but it was a well-organized one - certainly better-organized than the current collection of links. Anyway... I'll see if I can make things a little better... though I'm kinda busy over the next few days, really. Esn 09:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've changed it so that it is at least somewhat organized and more clear which types are subcategories of other types. I'm not sure if it's better this way. I had to remove the "further information" links because they took up too much space, and the headings are now the links. Again, I don't know if this is the best solution... but I do think that it's better than what was there before. And of course, it's not finished... Esn 10:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hunger

Should the animated short from 1974 called Hunger (by Peter Foldes) be called traditional animation or computer animation, or does it belongs in a category on its own? "In 1974, the first computer animated film called Hunger was produced by Rene Jodoin, and directed and animated by Peter Foldes. This effort was a 2 1/2 D system that depended heavily on object interpolation techniques."

There is also another version of sand animation that I once saw. Instead of using backlight, they are filming it from above, and adding sand in different colors to make it more cartoony. It reminds most about paint-on-glass animation, where wet paint is replaced with sand. Another version I have heard about is to use soft plasticine instead of paint. I guess there is many alternatives and possibilities when it comes to this form of animation. 217.68.114.116 08:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frequency of vandalism

This article is being vandalised quite frequently... for those of you with long memories, is this a recent thing or has this been happening for a long time now? I'm just wondering if maybe some popular website somewhere is sending people to vandalise this particular article. Esn 07:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Since this is a page of great interest to many, and it thus has many visitors, there's no wonder it is vandalized often, probably proportional to its share of visitors. We just ahve to keep reverting...

--Janke | Talk 21:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant Examples

Why are there two examples of rotoscoping the Edweard Muybridge's " horse on this page? If there is no reason, I think the 2nd example should be deleted in fairness to the editor that posted the first example. Objections? Oicumayberight 07:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree, also because the first one looks more like an animated cartoon, the second one is more like slow motion... --Janke | Talk 09:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting link

There's a pretty cool film over here from the NFB which demonstrates most of the animation techniques that are mentioned (except for pinscreen, silhouette and CGI). Esn 08:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's really cool, and very informative. You really should add the direct link to the article page! --Janke | Talk 09:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to add it, though. Straight into the techniques section or under "External links"? Esn 09:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
External links usually go under "External links"... ;-) A good, descriptive caption is a plus. --Janke | Talk 19:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikipedia

Hello whom ever is out there!

Sorry if I sound daft but does any one know who the author/s of wikipedia is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.236.130 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 3 December 2006. Or can anyone just add to it???

Anyone can add to it. But if what you add is not factual, it will be deleted. Oicumayberight 00:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Click on the "Help" link on the upper left to learn more. Or type "wikipedia" into the search box. Esn 05:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animation Genres

I suggest a new page listing animation genres for links that don't discuss animation technology or historical breakthroughs. The adult animation link in the "see also" section would be an example of an animation genre. Otherwise, people will just keep listing animation genres here and the article will get diluted with subjective trendy personal taste issues instead of appreciation for the overall art of animation. The new animation genres could be included in the genres page on the wikipedia. Oicumayberight 19:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Animation Techniques

I think the attempt to create an all encompassing list of animation techniques in the main article exceeds the scope needed for an informative and effective article. It makes the article seem disorganized and choatic. However, I am not suggesting that we throw them out altogether. My proposal is that we revert back to a basic summary of the three major types of animation and a fourth grouping for combined technique. A more comprehensize list of animation techniques will be formed as its own page with links to appropriate wikipedia articles. Any thoughts? --CFiorello 20:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal has merit... however, would it not mean perhaps creating too many sub-pages? There would be a separate page for the "types of animation", and in turn each type of animation would also have a dedicated page. What would the "types of animation" page look like - would it be merely a list? Anyway, if it is done, I believe that the summary on this page should be very short but shouldn't be misleading or leave crucial information out (for example, it should say that while traditional, 3D and stop-motion are the major categories, there are also other techniques outside of those categories which are used less often as well as combinations of techniques).
Also, something just struck me. If we put the techniques information in a separate article, this article will be a short one indeed, since both of its major sections will be summaries of longer articles. I'm not sure if this is a bad thing, just pointing it out. Esn 20:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wasn't Stuart Blackton the 1st?

I hate to be critical over this Wiki animation page, but saying that there is no one creator is all wrong. Stuart Blackton experimented with the old cameras and cartoon pictures by making them on a chalkboard, making the pictures look as if they were moving. The name of the feature was, "Humorous Faces of Funny Faces" Wasn't that the first? 134.241.194.133 20:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Grandkaioshin

  • I believe the argument could be made that animation didn't start with the camera.Little tinyfish 20:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed, the Phenakistoscope, Zoetrope, and other optical "toys" that showed hand-drawn animation, existed long before Blackton... --Janke | Talk 09:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animation

is there an artical on the subject of animation in the "bringing things to life" (EG commonly in fantasy fiction there are things such as swords with no users that float and swing on there own, and armours that walk around on there own) just wondering if there was a page for such. 74.226.227.49 07:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NFB festival of animation

Does anyone recall a weekly festival of international animation that was produced by the NFB (National Film Board of Canada)? It was broadcast on PBS in the 1970s, at least in the Boston market, on WGBH of Boston. Dogru144 20:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links to be considered

  • I had someone question a link I added to the External Links section so I would like to submit it for discussion here. The link in question is to the National Film Board of Canada's (NFB) Focus on Animation site. It has already been sited in the External Links section for one of its films -- Animando -- but I feel the site as a whole deserves to be cited as it serves as an excellent resource on animation. In fact, this site does one of the best jobs I've seen of giving a solid overview of animation techniques and history (at least from a Canadian perspective, and the NFB is internationally renowned for its contributions to animation) as well as presenting some outstanding animation classics (by Norman McLaren among others) for free viewing on the site. What do you all think? Canadian Rockies 20:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on animated cartoon

A request for comment has been made concerning the article animated cartoon, specifically its factual accuracy, tone, point of view, scope, and its existence as an article instead of a redirect to animation. Please visit Talk:Animated cartoon to participate in the discussion. Thank you. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)