Talk:Toon Boom

message: "Billy & Mandy's Big Boogey Adventure (2007)" is listed under "Warner Bros.", however it was a Cartoon Network production with (as far as I can find) no relation whatsoever to Warner Bros.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.191.242.231 (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Error/Mislisting

message: To me this article seems to be written like an ad.
---
I agree, I was looking for something objective.
--
isn´t it strange that this guy 
"23:20, 5 August 2007 71.217.121.31 (Talk) (268 bytes) (→Like an ad) (undo)" deleted the only critic in this article? (and added some pr stuff?) -- Elconejo 9:25, 10. Sep. 2007 (UTC-6)
this is totally an ad. anything objective that is added is being deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siskavard (talk • contribs) 17:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i moved the ad-like heading in the renamed "overview" section and added the citation needed tags. we should try to get some real references and reviews maybe to wash this pr-talk out of the text -- Elconejo 11:02, 18. Sep. 2007 (UTC-6)  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Like an ad

message: the last paragraph delete by ip 64.141.83.177 (which is located in canada.. what a coincidence) was really a bit much (looked like 1:1 copy from a press release). I think it would be appreciated if deletion will be commented in the future.
--Elconejo 15:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  self editing 

message: Hi there, I am a student animator, and have tried out the trial versions of both the regular Toon Boom Studio, and Toon Boom Studio Pro. The program doesn't function very well, the default is 12 frames per second, (not 24, the proper framerate), the watermark in "Pro" is horrendous. And the layout is confusing, and difficult to figure out.
Toon Boom is NOT the industry standard. I can bet you anything that the animators in the Disney Studio do NOT use Toon Boom as their animation program. Toon Boom is crap to me, and there other programs that are far more functional.
Toon Boom is a corporate scam. The list of films that "used" Toon Boom is bull. 
That's why I tried to delete the filmography list, and edit the description about the clientele.
Is there any other animator on Wikipedia who could confirm this? Toon Boom isn't used by major animation studios. But I can't find an article on the web to prove it. PLEASE HELP! 5:24, 24, September 2008 (MDT)
EDIT: I read the other comments on this discussion page, and I agree that the article reads like an advertisement page. It seems to me that Toon Boom is trying ever so desperately to keep this page clean, and deceive people.
Read the credits of all those movies in that list, they all credit toonboom at the post production with "digital ink & paint software  TOON BOOM TECHNOLOGIES" 68.47.12.149 (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toon Boom isn't the industry standard. 

message: The traditionally animated films have software from this company.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.31.44 (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dreamworks Animation 

message: Hi. The Films, TV Series, Music Videos and Video Games sections on Toon Boom Animation were removed in August for being unsourced. Can anyone here please find sources for the titles, or go to the Help desk for further assistance? Thanks! 5.167.49.12 (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Toon Boom is so widely used that listing every title that used it would just produce a huge list that wouldn't be useful. It would be like listing every album that used Pro Tools, or every magazine that uses Photoshop. Trivialist (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seriously, it's just a FILMOGRAPHY section. It's supposed to be dedicated to every film, TV or video game made using the software just like every other filmography produced either with software or other companies, and yet you don't even care. 85.29.164.158 (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  When the filmography was included, it took up something like 3/4ths of the article. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it a collection of indiscriminate information. You could try creating a stand-alone list, though you should get some references for that. Trivialist (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Declined, because: (1) this was an improper use of the edit request template; (2) at least two fellow users (User:Trivialist and myself) agreed that the proposed changes were not going to improve the article in any way; and, most importantly, (3) the requested edit did not cite any sources, and the requesting editor was too lazy to look for sources himself. The user further refused to acknowledge that it was not the burden or responsibility of other editors to look for sources. (Oh yeah, it should also be mentioned that the requesting editor was a sockpuppet of the permanently banned user Nate Speed.) 青い(Aoi) (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed filmography sections