Talk:Ánima (company)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2016

Hi, the user WikiFanCreator2010 has been editing information that directly personal of Ánima Estudios has added to the Wiki and he also has been adding new information that is not relevant at all, if you can check the email registered with this account I'm posting this from, it is directly from Ánima Estudios, the last correct information is from the edit made on 17:34, 29 September 2016‎ by 187.162.125.131

Can we get some help with this? that's why we have been reverting those new edits. Also we tried to add the new Logo of the company but that was deleted, also we have never been able to add it in the spanish version of the wiki even with the older logo.

Thank you very much!

ÁnimaEstudios (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for your request. I'm looking at the changes since the time/date index you indicated. Can you specify what, precisely, is wrong? Also, is File:Ánima Estudios Logo 2016b.png this logo wrong? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

There was an upcoming films section and i moved the upcoming movie to the part of Featured projects / Films because the movie will be released this Friday in USA and next friday in Mexico. Also some months ago we added information about a contest we did along with Cartoon Network and this person is adding extra information that is not necessary (the winners and more quotes). Also a link to the page Plano informativo contains information that is not relevant and keeps being added. Those are the main changes why we have been undoing the wiki page.

The logo File:Ánima Estudios Logo 2016b.png is the new one and that's correct (The difference with the former one we also changed this year is the atom in the letter i and the color of the smaller letters, the very first thinner logo has been 14 years in use by the company).

Hope this can be helpful to keep the changes we did and avoid the others, we understand the wiki can be edited by anyone but keeping real and interesting information.

Thanks, have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ÁnimaEstudios (talk • contribs) 16:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, point by point:

• The film is still upcoming. Once it's released, then we should move it.
• Cartoon Network contest: The entire history section needs a serious rewrite. I agree there are too many quotes. However, who won the contest is public knowledge and there's no reason to not include it here.
• On the planoinformativo.com link; that link is there to support the assertion that Top Cat Begins reached #3 on the charts. It's a relevant link.

Now, the history section is absolutely overwhelming. There is far, far too much detail and event by event details are way over the top. A complete rewrite is needed. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, that part of top cat the link is ok, the comment "performing weaker than its successful [[Top Cat: The Movie|" is what we don't consider relevant. Also the added things of Cartoon Network is not making the article cleaner as it stands the editor, it's contradictory. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ÁnimaEstudios (talk • contribs) 21:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm unable to find anything like the above in the article at this time, so I have deactivated the edit request. If there is anything in particular that needs changed, please open a new section with the specific details in a "Change X to Y" format. It would be best to request individual changes, rather than many changes at once. There's no harm in making several requests. -- ferret (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Please move in Animation services Pig Goat Banana Cricket[97] Nickelodeon to TV Shows, The show premiered on July 18, 2015 and to present day it's still running — Preceding unsigned comment added by ÁnimaEstudios (talk • contribs) 14:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Please delete the Upcoming Films section and move La Leyenda del Chupacabras to Films, the release date in USA is October 14 2016 Reference https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/la_leyenda_del_chupacabras/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ÁnimaEstudios (talk • contribs) 15:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Neutralised the lead

Articles in Wikipedia should be neutral, so I have again edited the lead of this article to make it neutral. Leads in particular should be factual, rather than be repeating opinion of one source.

To break down what was wrong in particular with the lead;

• "The leading and most prestigious " - This is direct peacocking. Although it is cited from a source, it is an opinion. The lead should report facts that illustrate why it might be considered "The leading and most prestigious".
• "it is best known for" - this is an unsourced claim. Who says it is best known for these?
• "highly successful animated content" - an unsourced opinion. What makes them "highly successful"?
• "recognizable brands" - recognisable by who?
• "etc" - what does this tell the reader? Other than suggesting that they have done more things that the article doesn't want to talk about?

Rather than reverting without explanation this poorly written sentence back into the article, could editors please focus on demonstrating what makes the company "leading and most prestigious", rather than just claiming it? What, for instance, awards have they won? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Added several sources showing how the studio it IS the leader in Latin America, those are facts (Forbes, Variety, Animation Magazine, etc), not opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.177.152.240 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I have re-neutralised the lead. Especially in the lead section of an article, an impartial, encyclopedic tone is important. Puffery can not be reliably sourced enough to be included in the way mentioned above. If you disagree, you may like to start an RfC about this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph style

Regarding Special:Diff/895190608, I prefer the version at Special:PermanentLink/895184817 because it seems to be more encyclopedic, not only because of the lead section. The "date first in every sentence" style seems to create a list instead of the natural flow of speech. This does not seem to match the appearance that is expected from Wikipedia articles, as described in our manual of style, specifically the part about paragraphs and line breaks. Because the suggestion has been undone by two editors, we should probably discuss it here. Ping: Kaoani, Animawiki29. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

RE: Paragraph style

Hi, I understand and respect your decision for "date first per sentence". One of the issues to that it is better if the dates have commas instead of periods and that the numbers appear before the months (e.g. 1 January 2010). Also, while there has been some "speech-like" writing, as you suggested, your revision looks like it's been copied-and-pasted and many grammar/spelling errors, plus the content has not been properly cited. Additionally, there has been many unnecessary or trivial sentences that you may not notice (e.g. countries of origins, unimportant "firsts" such as relating to film's/show's Mexico origin, whether a show or film is released in the U.S., etc.), which is why I have decided to move much of them to the linked articles rather than in the company's history. The I.P.'s have been purposely reverting the article to its "lazy"-written style and even defended their stances, which is why I had no other choice but to have the page protected. The point of having a more "readable" version of the article is that despite not being a well-known foreign animation studio, it must at least be clean enough for readers. Keeping all that in mind, I would suggest keeping the article the way it is before, but applying your style of "date-first-per-sentence". It's so new readers won't find the article lazy. Please let me know if you have any objections. Thank you for understanding. Animawiki29 (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent reverting

Hello,

It seems to me that the article has been repeatedly reverted to its "lazy" style of writing purposely. Let me be honest: I didn't create the article and I don't work for the company since I'm from California. I have been a fan of Ánima's works since 2011 and felt like I should make the article better and cleaner since it has been gaining popularity. There has been many grammar and spelling errors, and I've worked on hours trying to make the history section cleaner by citing sources and references the way they're supposed to per Wikipedia:Citing sources. There were many titles that needed to be italicized and linked. Plus, as many pointed out, there has been some 'unnecessary' content (which some I've added) included so I decided to move them out and put them into the linked related articles.

As a fan, I wanted to expand the article and make it nicely written, even if that's not necessary. After many IPs have been recently downgrading and reverting, and even "defended" their change, back to its error-like writing, it is starting to become frustrating. That's why I have been locking the article. It seems now it will just be an endless pointless argument if I were to keep this up; I feel like a dictator to this article. I just didn't want to leave it "lazy" even after working hours to fix what needed to be fixed. If there's a further explanation on why you favor the "lazy" style, please reply so I'll understand. Thank you for your understanding. Happy editing. Animawiki29 (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)