Talk:Claymation

message: This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TL017. Peer reviewers: Allieoster17.
wtf is wrong with people like slutty and sexy do NOT belong in this topic........!!!!!!!!!!!
==Claymation vs. Clay animation==00
I took the liberty of revising the previous entry in order to clarify the difference between clay animation and other forms of object animation. The term ‘claymation’ or clay animation is frequently (and regrettably) misused to describe all forms of object animation, whether plastic or not.
As an example, the movie Chicken Run was listed in the previous entry as clay animation when no clay or Plasticine was used at all. 
(N.B., I’ve been a designer of children’s television for more than ten years; for the past few years using stop motion animation. – D. Mark Laing)
:I'm questioning whether a greater distinction should be made between clay animation and Claymation; the latter is a registered tradmark belonging to Will Vinton, and technically only animation produced by Vinton or his various studios is Claymation.  Yet the bulk of this article concerns clay animation in general.  Clay animation redirects here.  This strikes me as sexy
and slutty≠→.  Shouldn't an article about Claymation be strictly about the work of Vinton, and the rest removed to a separate article about clay animation?  It shouldn't matter how often the term is used to describe clay animation, regrettably or otherwise, and admitting that it's now a genericized trademark doesn't excuse the fact that it's incorrect usage in the senses of both nomenclature and law.  The producers of Styrofoam have sued rivals for calling their products "styrofoam".  If Warner Bros. began producing movies using Ray Harryhausen's clay animation technique and marketed them as Claymation, they would get sued. Canonblack 20:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

message: i like clay animated movies. they're awesome!! tim burton is a cool clay animator. he is the best! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.207.175.133 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 19:26, 12 May 2006
:Tim Burton is not a clay animator, he's a stop motion animator who uses puppets.  Check out the stop motion page for more info about the differences. Esn 07:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too further confuse things, he's not even an animatior, he's a director, producer or scriptwriter, but he didn't animate any scene in either The Nightmare Before Christmas or Corpse Bride... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  :D 

message: Look people, it is really not so hard.  Corpse Bride is NOT clay animation.  Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit IS clay animation.  How difficult is that?  If it looks like it's made out of clay or plasticine (in other words, you can mold the whole character, not just the face), call it clay animation.  Otherwise, don't.  I think that a lot of things in that big long list of "clay animation films/tv series" are not actually clay animation. Esn 07:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, The Curse of the Were-Rabbit is computer animated. Though they did do a good job at making it look like clay. Pittsfordljb (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It used both clay animation and CGI. According to the trivia on IMDB, "the film required 2.8 tons of Plasticine in 42 colors and 1000 baby-wipes per week to wipe it off animators' fingers" and "there were 30 miniature sets." MFNickster (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop confusing clay animation films with [[puppet animation]] films!

message: The Presentators page lists it as CGI, but it is given as a clay animation example here. Which is it? --IanOsgood 01:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Presentators: CGI? 

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright.  If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally.  Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 14:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube 

message: Should they be moved to a separate "list of clay animated movies"? That is a common practise to get lists out of an article, but still keep the info. There's no need to have 30 Will Vinton films listed in an article not about that particular studio. I did remove a few redlinks too what looked like non-notable stuff. --Janke | Talk 07:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many examples 

message: The example list had grown uncontrollably. I took a bold step and moved all the examples to a separate article, now linked as the first "see also". Less clutter in the article, which needs some formatting still. --Janke | Talk 20:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example list 

message: did will vinton invent claymation or was he just a contributor? if he didn't invent it then who did? Madriaga (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Who invented claymation?

message: I hope that the new image is more suitable for "Clay animation". So, I hope that other users also will tell what the picture more suitable here, this   or that 
sorry for the electronic transfer of English Plastili com | Talk 22:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is plenty of room in the article for both pictures; the article is about pictures after all, another example is very helpful. --GRuban (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

text: To be fair to MikeWazowski, I also reverted your addition. I agree that pictures are good(!) and am happy for the picture to stay. The concerns (for me anyway) arose from you using a username that seems to advertise your business (User:Plastili; styled as "Plastili com"), repeatedly not only adding your own picture, but removing the other one, and also adding a link to the article Clay Studio of Sviridov Max which was created by you and then deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". If you are here to donate images; that's great, and thankyou. You might consider uploading some to Wikimedia Commons so that they can be used by all Wikimedia sites.--BelovedFreak 10:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

text: While it's all well and good that Max is "donating" his image to the public domain, his image doesn't really add anything to the article. And since it was added as part of his creating an article (Clay Studio of Sviridov Max) about himself/his company that was clearly self-promotional, I can't see this, his claims to the otherwise, as anything but the same. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike, I have reverted your change.  I can't see how you can claim that the image "doesn't add anything" - we have hardly any free images for clay animation, because they are all made by commercial companies.  The issue of an article about the company is entirely separate to the use of the image here - it isn't advertising for the company, it's illustrating clay animation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Elen. The article has plenty of room for images, is about images, when you come right down to it, and there is nothing wrong with donating an image of your own work. After all, no one can donate images of other people's work. --GRuban (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: It is quite unnecessary in the English Wikipedia! Otherwise, all other articles would also have Russian (and other language) versions of their name in the article... I have reverted once more and taken it to the talk page. If consensus can be reached with other editors, the Russian name can be re-inserted. --Janke | Talk 16:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian name for plasticine 

message: The lead currently says  I'm not sure what this is trying to say. Of course computer generated animation generates a sequence of single frame images, like all other forms of animation. Is this poorly worded or just incorrect? CodeTalker (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point being made is that with clay animation each frame is individually crafted by hand, while computer generated animation can use models which are rigged and then moved semi-automatically through a series of frames. (Hohum @) 00:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, confusing, and not a summary of something in the article. Removed. (Hohum @) 00:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! CodeTalker (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computer generated imagery 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Clay animation →  – Per WP:COMMONNAME, as shown by Google Ngrams. Wiktionary itself states that it is a generic trademark and Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com have it as a word. A Google search will show that it is now used to refer to the process itself by numerous websites and has been genericized.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Rename & move not necessary, since Claymation redirects to clay animation. Janke | Talk 18:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely nonsensical response. Support move as the clear common name of this type of animation. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 5 July 2023