Talk:Twelve basic principles of animation

Copyvio

Removed the Beauty Beast image - it's a WP:copyvio in this context.

Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding an image requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a free one that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.) --Janke | Talk 04:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Bias?

"Modern-day animators, working with computers, may not need to draw at all. Yet their work can still benefit greatly from a basic understanding of these principles."

Sounds like the sort of statement that would be made by a traditional artist who does not have a solid grasp of Digital animation. Of course, some animators, particularly in film or using programs designed for amateurs do not model / draw as there is dedicated staff for those roles but the statement seems to imply that this content appears from nowhere. This is an attitude, as a 3D artist, I have encountered in traditional art circles a number of times and I think this statement should be modified to remove this kind of bias for fear of damaging peoples understanding of this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.81.118 (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That part is based on websites dedicated specifically to digital animation, but maybe I have misrepresented their points. What would you suggest as a better way of saying it? Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 18:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not there's a "better" way to say it, it happens to be true. It is not a biased statement. One of the most irritating and persistent errors of digital animators is their ignoring the fact that physical objects have a finite mass, and thus accelerate and decelerate in a finite amount of time. They cannot start or stop instantaneously. Ignoring this results in people or objects that appear to have little or no mass. Good examples of this error occur in the first Spider-Man film, and in Shrek. Disney got this right 75 years ago; modern animators ignore it at their peril. The laws of physics are not an inherent component of digital-animation software. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:12 basic principles of animation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Articles are not usually reviewed so soon after they are posted at WP:GAC, but since I was reading the article anyway, I decided to go ahead and review. :) Although a very good start for an article on a fascinating topic, I'm afraid it needs quite a bit of work in order to be promoted to GA-class. I am failing the nomination at this time based on the issues raised below.

A major problem is that the article does not adhere to WP:LEAD; the introduction should be a summary of the entire article. As it stands now, the article is almost completely composed of material that does not appear in the body of the article. The publishing history of the book that includes the 12 basic principles of animation, the idea's genesis, the major players... all of this needs to be fully detailed and expanded in the article itself. How about a "History" or "Background" section to begin the article so these points can be discussed?

Similarly, although the lead alludes to the importance of the book, and therefore the twelve principles, and its lasting legacy, there is no "Reception" or "Legacy" section. What have other animators said about the subject? What influence has it had? Is it still utilized today, even with CGI and computer animation? These are hinted upon in the lead, but entire sections need to be written in regards to these points. I typically find it easiest to write the article and then write the lead, so as to be sure of not missing anything. In short, every main section (even a short summary of the 12 basic principles themselves) of the article must be summarized in the lead.

The quality of the sources pose a problem, as well. Many of the references come from a wiki relating to the website Blender, am I correct? Wikis, although easily accessible, are not typically considered reliable sources because they can be written by anyone. This wiki in particular does not cite its own references, although a list of sources (including Wikipedia) is linked to from the main page; all of these should be red flags. Although "Willian" is a developer at Blender, it is advisable that reliable, third-party, published sources be found to replace those from the wiki. Are the works listed under "Further reading" usable? Are there any scholarly journals or articles available? The Illusion of Life can potentially be used more, as well.

On a high note, the article's prose is mostly well written and the images are correctly tagged. It is also obviously stable and neutral. There is a lot of promise for such an interesting topic, but the issues described above are crucial for a good article. I'm sure that all points can be resolved in time, but unfortunately it will take more time than the typical seven day hold will facilitate. If you have any questions about this review, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Best of luck, María (habla conmigo) 15:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I thought I'd give it a shot. I wrote the best article that the sources I had available would permit. Unfortunately I haven't been able to get my hands on the book itself, which would probably be a necessity for the changes you're suggesting. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 16:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it turns out that "Illusion of Life" is in fact available online on Amazon (I must have checked the UK site first), so I've been able to add some refs straight from the horses' mouth. This means a less heavy reliance on Blender and Willian (I totally missed that weird 'n' there). I kept some of them though - I'm aware of this blanket scepticism against wikis, but the fact is that he covers the topic better than anyone else, often being more comprehensive than even the original authors themselves.

As for background and reception, I've added this too. Remember though, that this is not an article on the book (which has its own article), simply on the 12 principles. Too much on this aspect of the topic would be a violation of GA criterion 3b - unnecessary detail - so I've kept it to one, substantial paragraph.

I believe your fail was a bit premature; keep in mind that quick fail should only be used in extreme cases, such as complete lack of sources, which is clearly not the case here. I trust you will have another look at the article now though, and that I won't have to go through another nomination process. Cheers! Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 14:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Improvement suggestions

I don't feel confident enough to finish the GAN review, but I'll leave the notes and prose suggestions that I've made instead of letting it go to waste. Personally, I feel the article is mostly fine, although I believe there is an overuse of commas (which may just be a personal preference).

• Intro: "The main purpose of the principle..., but they..." - unexpected change of the sentence subject
• online poll needs ref in the lead
• maybe repeat the number "twelve" again in the lead
• The Illusion of Life: "Earlier Disney cartoons had looked like little more than moving drawings" -> "Earlier Disney cartoons had looked a little more like moving drawings"
• "but for the studio's upcoming feature films, like Snow White (1937), there was a need for greater realism" -> "but the studio's upcoming feature films, like Snow White (1937), required greater realism"
• In Walt Disney's own words: "Our work... -> In Walt Disney's own words, "Our work...
• on things actual". -> reverse . and " because the whole sentence is quoted
• "Walt Disney jokingly used Franklin D. Roosevelt's dismissive description" - sentence has the word description/describe twice
• "over forty years' experience in the field of animation" -> "over forty years of experience in the field of animation"
• I am pretty sure that mid-sentence quotes should not begin with capital letters, maybe see WP:MOS
• The 12 principles: "the purpose of which is to give" -> "which (shall) give(s)"
• "is the fact that an object's volume" -> "is that an object's volume"
• "This principle is akin to staging" - better say something like "The third principle is akin to staging" or "Another principle is akin to staging", the same for the other sections (you can also start each section by repeating the name of the principle)
• "Its purpose is to direct the audience's attention" - direct where?

Anyway, good luck with your review. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:12 basic principles of animation/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm gonna review this. Looks interesting! Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are a few issues that need addressing, so I'm putting this nom on hold.

• I fixed some of the grammar, you should make sure to go over the article a few times, saying it aloud or in your head.
• Question: I'm no expert, but shouldn't the Illusion of Life section go under the Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life article? I can see how it provides background (which is why you should keep some of it), but this article is about the 12 principles, not the book. The section about the 9 old men is particularly out of place and could be cut down. I suppose a link above the section, something like Main Article: Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life would work... just a comment.
• The link Hamilton Luske in the first section is red. Red=bad.
  • Actually, red=useful, most of the time. Read WP:RED. —97198 talk 07:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• The end of the 2nd paragraph in "Illusion of Life": Disney exploitaion is a bit biased, plus it is not really relevant to the article that they did try to make money.
• I really would like images for all or at least half of the principles, especially staging and arcs (the two sections that are kind of unclear), if it's possible. :)
• The first sentence on Solid Drawing is bad; I'm not sure what "really means" is describing (after the comma). Is it describing the principle of solid drawing, or good drawing, or something else entirely.
• How can computer animators benefit from using solid drawing? Elaborate.
• In appeal, you end by saying there are several techniques, but you only name two. This could use a pic too, if there is one.
• The note is confusing. It's not really helpful where it is, and it doesn't explain what was shortened. I'm not sure if it's relevant in this page, but I could be wrong about that.
• hmmm refs from Blender... hmmm... it's a wiki, so I'm not sure if that's good enough. I'll do some research, but you might want to see if you can find a source that's totally reliable to subsitute.
• what makes ref #50 reliable (the frank&ollie one)?

Hope that helps. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page! Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I asked at the help desk about the Blender thing, and I recieved this response:

I would personally say no to this. This is a wiki, which means it is not really reliable, someone can change it to whatever they want, up to and including swear words, etc. See our guidelines on reliable sources. However not all is lost, check the wiki for what sources it is referencing. At most use this as an additional source, for clarifying information, but perhaps not for verifying large chunks of information. —— nixeagle 17:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So, I'm going to remove this from the list of GA nominees until you clear up all of the problems and find new refs. Sorry. Feel free to renominate it when you feel it is ready. Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop Motion Animation as a reference

Stop Motion Animation makes some claims that are contradictory to the way the 12 principles are presented in The Illusion of Life and other sources, with quite a sloppy and inaccurate interpretation. Please avoid using it. ----IsaacAA (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

1.5 needs some improvements

As a learner, the description of Follow Through and Overlapping Action wasn't helpful at all. I've found that this page has clear and helpful description about that. English isn't my native language so I won't edit the text of the main article and I hope someone else does. -80.249.213.43 (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.evl.uic.edu/ralph/508S99/exaggeration.html
  • In 12 basic principles of animation on 2011-05-23 02:41:15, 404 Not Found
  • In 12 basic principles of animation on 2011-06-01 11:39:11, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable trying to edit the link myself, but this seems to be an updated, working version of the link https://www.evl.uic.edu/ralph/508S99/exaggera.html 68.173.3.122 (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 12 basic principles of animation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090903005632/http://news.awn.com/index.php?&newsitem_no=1454 to http://news.awn.com/index.php?&newsitem_no=1454

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Other applications

The animation principles have being used increasingly in robotics. I tried to create an addition which was deleted . Reinhard80 (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The view that the principles of animation are relevant only to animation is not true anymore. Reinhard80 (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)