Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Tasks

MainTalkAssessmentParticipantsShowcaseTasksResourcesTemplatesHelpPortal
Shortcuts

This is the a list of tasks that either need regular attention for WikiProject Animation.

To do list

[edit]

Cleanup listing

[edit]

A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Unreferenced BLPs

[edit]

This is the list of Unreferenced BLPs automatically generated by DASHBot.

There are no unreferenced BLPs tagged by Template:WikiProject Animation.

Requested articles

[edit]
Requested articles
Experimental animation
Films
The King's Beard, Timothy Tweedle the First Christmas Elf, The Return of the Prodigal Parrot [ru]
Television
Cyboars, Louie (animated show), Simsalagrimm, Brainphreak
People
Andrew Kepple, Chasen Kay, Vince Collins, Corin Hardy, Kondoh Akino
Studios
Studio CGI
edit


New articles

[edit]
New articles by topic — New articles (Animation)

The following articles have been identified by InceptionBot as potentially being within the scope of the project, based on the Animation ruleset. It is likely that some of them are false positives; please examine the log if you have any questions.

This page lists recently created Animation-related articles. Remember to nominate the best new articles at Template talk:Did you know so Wikipedia can highlight them on the main page.

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2026-02-16 19:15 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.


Article alerts

[edit]
Article alerts

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(8 more...)

Proposed deletions

Redirects for discussion

(3 more...)

Files for discussion

Good article reassessments

Requested moves

Articles to be split

(9 more...)

Articles for creation

(4 more...)
Updated daily by AAlertBot — Discuss? / Report bug? / Request feature?
Click to watch (Subscribe via  RSS  Atom) · Find Article Alerts for other topics!

Deletion discussions

[edit]
To edit this section, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation

Gooseworx (artist)

[edit]
Gooseworx (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent notability from The Amazing Digital Circus. No significant coverage, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Skyshiftertalk 22:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Comics and animation, and United States of America. Skyshiftertalk 22:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Draftify: per WP:CREATIVE, I'd say the one strong sources here are the Cartoon Brew and Forbes sources. If the article doesn't get improved by then, it'd be best for a draft for later sources to come out covering Gooseworx and her career. ConeKota (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree. I found sources about Gooseworx on...
So, I'm going with Weak Keep on this one. As for Kora's comment that "Gooseworx, what should be the title of the article, already redirects to TADC," that could easier be changed to "Gooseworx" and not necessitating deletion. Historyday01 (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, it's much more ideal to edit the article, expand upon it, and find a variety of alternative sources rather than it is to delete the article outright.
Gooseworx's work is actually quite popular, especially nowadays, and I think she deserves her own Wikipedia entry. The article itself doesn't have to be that long, but that makes sense, as she isn't the most public person ever. It works as a summary of her work, providing a list for those who need the quick reference, and elaborating upon her role in the various media she's worked on. SummerandWinter (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are You My Mummy?

[edit]
Are You My Mummy? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is perhaps one of the saddest AFD's I've had to make, since I happen to be a big fan of the show and watched it since I was a little kid. However, I have to admit that this episode sadly fails to meet GNG. Reception is sparse at best, and Disney Music is a primary source for Disney-related things. A Google search for the episode didn't turn up anything I would think to be SIGCOV either. I would be willing to reconsider if DVD Verdict and/or Toon Zone are found to be reliable. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 13:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Firehouse Tales

[edit]
Firehouse Tales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per TA request: Firehouse Tales has only one source which is about TV shows in general and does not count as WP:SIGCOV regarding the given topic. A quick internet search also reveals no reliable sources that pass WP:RS or SIGCOV—hence this show doesn't pass the WP:GNG and should be deleted. There are many children's shows that don't pass WP:GNG and hence have articles; its use as a redirect (given that its original network is itself a redirect) would also be somewhat dubious. ~2026-79355-8 (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC) - via UtherSRG (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source is about shows for kids in general, does not count as WP:SIGCOV. ~2026-10084-44 (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adit Sopo Jarwo

[edit]
Adit Sopo Jarwo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. AeroVolk, Parody of DeroVolk (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Black Order (comics)

[edit]
Black Order (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This minor Marvel group of characters does not appear to be notable. This is just a plot summary and list of appearances, with no analysis or reception. Their MCU version is a redirect (Teams and organizations of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Children of Thanos). I suggest this one follows suit per ATD-R unless someone's BEFORE yields better result than mine. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proxima Midnight

[edit]
Proxima Midnight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another minor Marvel character with no evidence of stand-alone notability. No analysis/reception (and nothing useful in my BEFORE), just the usual plot summary and a list of media appearances. Per ATD-R, can be soft deleted by redirecting to a relevant list of Marvel characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Supergiant (comics)

[edit]
Supergiant (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable comic (Marvel) character; reception limited to two listicles. Not enough for a stand-alone article; can be redirected to the list of Marvel comic characters per WP:ATD-R. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adept (comics)

[edit]
Adept (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, a WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. Article relies entirely on primary sourcing. Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Acanti

[edit]
Acanti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, sourcing is mostly primary. A WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Black Swan (comics)

[edit]
Black Swan (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This minor comic book character (or two...) does not appear to be notable (no reception/analysis, just a plot summary). Per ATD-R, suggest redirecting to a relevant list of Marvel comic book characters (could also consider Black Order (comics), but that group's own notability is dubious). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comix

[edit]
Comix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't currently show any WP:SIGCOV. A search only resulted in how-to articles, which fail WP:NOTGUIDE. I have a feeling this will remain as a WP:PERMASTUB. 11WB (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Other deletions

[edit]

Comics and animation proposed deletions

[edit]

Categories for discussion

[edit]

Redirects for discussion

[edit]

Templates for discussion

[edit]
This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 November 5 § Redirect comics templates. (edit | history)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:R comics with possibilities with Template:R with possibilities; Template:R comics from alternative name with Template:R from alternative name; Template:R comics to list entry with Template:R to list entry; Template:R comics from merge with Template:R from merge; Template:R comics from related word with Template:R from related word; and Template:R comics to section with Template:R to section, respectively.
Note that this isn't a proposal to merge all these templates into one huge template, but to merge the comics redirect templates into their non-comics equivalents. I think the comics redirect templates should be merged into their respectively similary titled templates, without the word 'comics' in them, because they otherwise serve similar purposes, and I don't see the point of them being separate. I'm open to the proposals of the templates without the word 'comics' in their titles having the {{{comics}}} parameter instead if that's what Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics and its participants want. I'm surprised these proposals weren't made sooner. I've deliberately excluded 'Template:R comics naming convention' from this proposal because it serves a specific purpose and because there's no non-comics-related template similar to that one. PK2 (talk; contributions) 12:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've deliberately listed all the above templates in this one discussion because I don't see the point in having separate discussions for each of the respective comics redirect templates and their non-comics equivalents. PK2 (talk; contributions) 00:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TadgStirkland401: The nominator wants to merge all the comics into the non-comics. I.e. merge the first with the second ("R comics with possibilities" with "R with possibilities"), the third with fourth ("R comics from alternative name" with "R from alternative name") and so on. Christian75 (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As of 2025-11-09 I feel that the proposal is clear enough (replace all the "R comics" templates with their regular counterparts), and I weak support because this also seems unnecessarily redundant to me. If anyone has a good reason for keeping them then I'd be interested to hear it! But my hunch is that it's just historical cruft. Hopefully an automated replacement can also automatedly "add {{WikiProject Comics}} to the talk page of the redirect" or whatever (if anyone actually cares about that; I don't really know) as well. Dingolover6969 (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per voidxor. Christian75 (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the actual intent here. This was mislisted as a single merge (i.e. to one template), when the intent is clearly to merge {{R comics with possibilities}} to {{R with possibilities}}, then separately merge {{R comics from alternative name}} to {{R from alternative name}}, and so on. This should be done unless there's a compelling reason we need to divide each of these "R with/from/to generic_maintenance_categorization" rcats into topical subdivisions, and that comics in particular should be one of those subdivisions. (Even if that's actually true in some case, it is not necessarily true for all of them.) We shold do all of these merges in absence of a strong showing that one or more should not be merged. This is basically useless micro-intersection, of a sort that badly mixes categorization types and purposes. The identification of something as a comics topic is already accomplished (and is a reader- as well as editor-facing matter) by comics topical categories of the usual sort. Meanwhile, "R with/from/to generic_maintenance_categorization" categories are maintenance only and just editor-facing (nor do these generally need to be topically split, since editors working on categorization of, and other maintenance pertaining to, redirects that go in such categories are doing so on a cross-topical basis. Another way of putting it is that a redir being from an alternative name (or whatever) and it also pertaining to comics is a trivial intersection and non-defining characteristic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just clarified my proposal to request to merge the comics redirect templates into their regular non-comics equivalents. I've deliberately listed all the above templates in this one discussion because I don't see the point in having separate discussions for each of the respective comics redirect templates and their non-comics equivalents. PK2 (talk; contributions) 01:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question to supports: You are all saying you support the nomination, but three of you said per "SMcCandlish" which (if I read correctly) isn't in support of continuing with the comic-specific categorization. So it would seem the intent here is to replace (or redirect), rather than merge any functionality. Gonnym (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no need to differentiate FaviFake (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only Support merging the comic variants of these R-cat templates into the corresponding general templates with matching names. For the avoidance of doubt, I Oppose merging the various R-cat templates that do not include the word comics. The proposal is badly worded and confusing at first glance. It would have been clearer if a separate proposal was made for each template that it was proposed to merge with its corresponding target template; as I interpret the proposal, it is only proposed to merge Template:R comics from merge into Template:R from merge, etc. This is not actually a proposal to merge all these templates together, even though it appears to be one based on the way the templates are listed. Hence my partial opposition. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just clarified my proposal to request to merge the comics redirect templates into their regular non-comics equivalents. I've deliberately listed all the above templates in this one discussion because I don't see the point in having separate discussions for each of the respective comics redirect templates and their non-comics equivalents. PK2 (talk; contributions) 23:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the "redirect comics" after they have been replaces with the "normal" R-templates. My first vote was support, but it was unclear what I was supporting, but still per user:voidxor. strong oppose merging. Christian75 (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if I've understood correctly that this is fundamentally equivalent to replacing "R [media type] from [relationship between source and target article]", at least for those articles to do with comics. If we have "Redirect from alternative name", we don't need a more precise "Redirect from comic with alternative name", for example. I think I'm in agreement with BobKilcoyne. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NOPAGE Freddy[citation needed] 18:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE ~SG5536B 15:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Will this have any effect on the 109,000 uses of {{R with possibilities}} other than to add that template to a few comics redirects? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Daask (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support mergers of 'R comics xyz' to equivalent 'R xyz' templates and categories. The duplicate 'comics' categories serve no useful purpose. There is no clear rationale for comics' special treatment and this is likely to lead to inconsistent tagging. Oppose adding 'comics' parameter as I have not seen any rationale for adding this. Overall, I support simplifying Rcats and not having a million ways to subcategorize them unless there is a meaningful benefit to maintenance or another aspect of the project. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.