Talk:Animated documentary

	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 articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

Animation High‑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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Evolution and Theory of Relativity: Animated?[edit]

I watched the Fleischer movies "Evolution" and "Theory of Relativity." I wouldn't really call them animated. They are a montage of photos and live action clips with text. Don't take my word for it: they are posted on Youtube. So: can something that isn't animated be called an "animated documentary"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.23.69 (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question often asked in early animation studies class, and more specifically, what we should consider animation. See J. S. Blackton's Lightning Sketches for another piece that makes defining the form difficult. However, the pieces in question do feature animation as part of their documentary format. Evolution (1923) has a sequence showing two triceratops brawling, for example. So, rather than questioning "can something that isn't animated be called an animated documentary?", we should consider to what constitutes animated documentary - does it need to be entirely animated, or mainly?

In this case, it's likely that this piece was originally included purely based on who made it, and their place in animation history. However, it does play a role in the history of the animated documentary, and so we should consider framing it with that in mind. Gwilsen (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary about animation history[edit]

There is a differece between animation documenataries thats deals with the world and documenatries that deels with animation history as This articel is only about the former. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorHver (talk • contribs) 18:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The latter would be called an "animation documentary" or a "documentary about animation", not an "animated documentary". If you wanted to make an article about such documentaries, look here for guidance about how to do it. Esn (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaic Films[edit]

This section strikes me as promotional in tone and should be either cut or severely edited. It was created by the user Amandascott147, and it seems that there is an Amanda Scott who works at Mosaic Films (see here). That user has only edited this page, and has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. Michitaro (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were no objections, I have edited down the section, eliminating puffery and promotional language, as well as excess detail. I also cut out the unnecessary external links and awards, leaving only the major award with a clear reference. I then inserted the section into the main body. If some feel that Animated Minds deserves more inches, I would suggest creating a separate article. If it did win multiple awards, it might pass WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Animated documentary. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 08:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]