Talk:Cartoon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B Class: This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.

"Toon" or "tune" was a popular designation in the days when news reels and cartoons ran ahead of the feature presentation in films, it was not brought to popularity with Roger Rabbit (though this may have revived modern usage). Examples predating or concurrent with Roger Rabbit include "Loony Tunes" & "Tiny Toons". Modern MMO players refer to their online characters as "Toons" as well. It seems like this language should be conistant with the language [here] as well. 66.92.15.93 02:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Motion Pictures" section says cartoons "are created by showing illustrated images in rapid succession to give the impression of movement". Then, it says "Animated material which does not fit the traditional conventions of Western animation, such as Japanese anime are often confused with the definition of cartoons. Anime comprises an entirely different genre in and of itself, giving it a distinguishable quality setting it apart from cartoons." That's clearly a POV statement. The definition of an animated cartoon would extend to any moving picture created with drawings, regardless of the nationality of the people who animated it. 67.187.239.163 06:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What? It's not talking about nationality at all. It's referring to style and history. Did you read what you quoted or just skim over it? (You and your Sailor Moon...)

Is "cartoons in the porn industry" really relevant?

I vote to move this to its own page 20:38, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
I vote the same. It looks as if it doesn't belong there.--Kaonashi 01:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I also agree. It certainly doesn't deserve a third of an otherwise short article. MK2 06:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK I've removed the bulk of it, it's moved to Hentai if someone wants it. Steverapaport 16:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hentai is the anime style of cartoon pornography which is a subset of cartoon pornography which itself is a subset of cartoons. As such I believe it should be included in this article. ShaunMacPherson
Well you're in luck, because the article does mention hentai. If someone wants any detail about it, they can read the wikilinked article. Tverbeek 14:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"Comic strips are either individual drawings or a series of (usually) three drawings side-by-side. Each square of a strip is referred to as a 'cell' " Why "cell", instead of panel?

Also, I would differ between "Comic Strips" and "Cartoons", in that "Cartoons" only have one panel, while "Comic Strips have" several. Arguably, Comic Strips are a form of cartoons, though not necessarily the other way around...

I think you should just make the correction in this case, not argue about it. I did. Steverapaport 15:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was sorely tempted to change the caption on the "Mad Scientist" cartoon to "Leonardo da Vinci" creating one of his "cartoons". But I resisted temptation. Steverapaport

Contents

[edit] Animation

I AfD:ed the article cartoon physics a few days ago, but the vote is definetly going to be keep. However, I still feel that if there are sub-articles of this one which are important enough to keep, the information should be mentioned here. Animated cartoons in general are very briefly summarized here when there's definetly a lot more material out there.

Peter Isotalo 18:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I am creating a new article, Animated cartoon (which was once a one-paragraph stub, and is now a redirect here), which should be a general analysis of the animated cartoon, with sections about development and history, technologies, notable artists and producers, TV and commercial animation, etc. This article in progress can be edited here: Cartoon/Animated cartoon. When it is in shape, it can be moved to its proper place. Good idea? --Janke | Talk 04:20:53, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
    • Done. Please feel free to edit and expand the article. --Janke | Talk 05:45:47, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
      • Ok, but please concentrate on expanding the information in this article before expanding the sub-articles. Taking into account how major this topic really is, this article is barely above stub level and creating off-shoots is not really justifiable. There are way too many neglected top-level articles, particularly about pop culture, that get either very brief or outright bad treatment just because people concentrate on sub-sub-sub-articles. / Peter Isotalo 06:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I really consider this page a disambiguation page! Animated cartoon certainly is not a sub-sub-sub-article! There are three topics here; art, cartoons, and animation. Putting all info about animation here would swamp the other two subjects. I'd suggest writing proper articles for them, too - but that's not my kettle of fish! ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:02:33, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
          • This is what a disambiguation page looks like. Sometimes they might be bigger, like with French, but they are always rather bare-bones navigational aids. This is an actual top-level article, and intended to be read just like any other encyclopedic article. Considering how extremely eager everyone is about pointing out that we're not paper when voting to keep AfD:ed articles, it should apply to the major articles as well. Making sure that they are well-written is just as important in that case. Ignoring the top-level articles while concentrating on the far more specific and somtimes overly crufty sub-articles is making it easy on editors, but not on readers and that strikes me as a rather odd way of setting priorities. Are we writing this for our own enjoyment or because someone is supposed to read it and (hopefully) learn something from it? / Peter Isotalo 12:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Yes, I know what a disambig page usually looks like. But animation is such a humongous field that you simply can't put it all under "cartoon". Should we put animated cartoon, animation history, traditional animation, claymation, stop motion, computer animation, and yes, even "cartoon physics" onto this page? I don't think so. That's why I put in the "Main article" link! A reader interested in the subject will surely follow any pertinent links. And besides, the correct term for an animated film is animated cartoon, since "cartoon" can mean at least three things... --Janke | Talk 17:42:33, 2005-09-12 (UTC)
              • The keyword is "summary". It can be everything from an entire article to just a single word. In some cases it may actually mean complete exclusion. In this case, I would say that animated cartoon should be merged here. The article contains so little actual content that it would hardly present a problem. Now, since you're disagreeing with my posts so heartily, I have to ask; are you actually opposed to expanding this article? / Peter Isotalo 17:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
                • No, I never oppose expanding an article. (Do you?) However, what I oppose in this case is cramming everything onto one page, i.e. expanding this one with a ton of animation before there is more stuff about the cartoon in art, and editorial cartooning. The animation part would swamp the two "other cartoons". I have another idea, though: How about actually making this page a true disambig, and move the two other cartoon subjects to their own articles. In fact, editorial cartoon already exists, and I wrote animated cartoon myself because it didn't exist... Then, somebody with enough art history knowledge would need to expand Cartoon (art), and we would have the three subjects nicely separated, nicely detailed, and could make cartoon a pure disambig. You must admit that the three subjects are different enough to merit their own articles, right? But - OTOH, you say: The keyword is "summary". Hmmm... if all the articles in Wikipedia were "summaries", then the whole project would lose its usefulness to many people. I tend to use WP to get in-depth information on something I already know a little about. If all I could get would be "summaries", I'd lose interest fast! --Janke | Talk 07:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is intended for everyone, not experts or aficionados. If you're losing interest, then read about something you don't know much about. If you want super-in-depth knowledge of your own field of expertise, this is probably not the place to look for it. Believe it or not, most people want to read about things you might find boring, tedious or self-evident. Wikipedia is primarily intended to inform and educate its readers, not to please its editors. / Peter Isotalo 15:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Now you're misunderstanding. I was not speaking of subjects I'm editing on, i.e. "my own field of expertise"! I'm talking about WP as a general reference, in any subject I (or you, or anybody else, in fact) might be interested in. In general, when I look up something here, I'd indeed like to see an in-depth article, and not just a summary. I repeat from my previous post: "if all the articles in Wikipedia were "summaries", then the whole project would lose its usefulness to many people." Don't you agree with that? If you do, then a corollary would be that we need proper articles for all three types of "cartoon", right? --Janke | Talk 17:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I guess there's nothing more to discuss, since there doesn't seem to be anything to actually disagree on (except that you're using your own, very narrow and slightly pejoritive definition of "summary"). Just try not to ignore the article while creating countless sub-definitions. It's a lot easier to sync articles if sub-articles are created after there is enough material to motivate one, rather than trying to figure out the individual hierarchy and relationship afterwards, like you're doing now. / Peter Isotalo 19:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
      • FYI: The only "sub-division" I've ever created here was animated cartoon. All the other already existed... This discussion started with cartoon physics, and there's a healthy merging discussion/operation going on there. --Janke | Talk 05:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caricature and cartoon

What is the difference between caricature and cartoon? Is caricature by definition included as cartoon or the same as cartoon or else? Can probably somebody explain about the relation between cartoon and caricature in this article? Thank you. sentausa 11:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say a cartoon is a medium (probably several more or less related mediums/media), while a caricature is a drawing style. 惑乱 分からん 12:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoon style as distinct from cartoon media

Wikipedia seems to lack a page on cartoon style or cartoonishness, which is distinct from the various media we call "cartoons," and also distinct from caricature or caricature style. Cartoon-style art (in animation or print media) is characterized by heavily stylized and abstracted images, usually humorously distorted. There's also an argument to be made that cartoonishness goes beyond just visuals; as a style/aesthetic it can be applied to all different kinds of media, much the way camp and Symbolism go beyond any one type of medium. R.

[edit] Cartoons from Poland

Hi, Just curious. One day I placed an external link to http://www.cartoon.com.pl. Later it was removed, then it got back. Now it is removed again. Is it a vandalism or this link was considered as spam? In my opinion this site was OK, it was not commercial. Greetings --PhilYY 12:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if a link is not spam or vandalism, they are often removed because they do not fit the requirements of the external links policy. --Mdwyer 03:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)