I thought when this database was supposed to be American only titles, then I see some Pokemon titles being registered amongst other things?

If the goal was to have this an US focused database that goal is lost the moment you start include bunch of material not produced in the US. There some gray eras but then again, includin Pokemon in US focuesd database looks odd, US focuesd database was the goal.

To quote from the "Our Mission" page:

"[F]or the time being, our focus is going to be on "classic" (i.e. pre 1960s) animation, but if current animators wish to add their work to the database, we will welcome them as well."

There is nothing about the database being focused only on American titles. Some of the most unique animation ever done was made outside the U.S. in any event.

---

Well, I recall eutychus saying something along those lines of this database being US focuesd when it was started, eather im mis remembering or he changed his mind since then.

But of course there lot of gray area. First of whats American animated film or TV series? Is film made only by Americans located in USA? Is it film made by Americans operating studios over seas? Is over seas faclites operated by major studios? Is it films only funded but Americans but not any meaningful work contributed? and what about Americans that are employees of Japanese or European studios owned and operated by Europeanss or japaneses? what about internationl co-production?

So it can be hard what to exclude and what to include when you limited youre self what it is even Jerry Beck broke his won rules in his Animated Movie Guide. Regarding how much of film needs to be animated so its included or exclud.

But its unforutnate how little there is about regarding most animation, theatrical animation is usually the most covered topic in books, but there is little about TV animation so internet is your best bet but how accurate are those information? it would take quite lot reaserch to find out. i have seen TV series been listed with diffrent country of origin both series produced by single studio and those co-produce between diffrent source. But for me country of origin is where the production company is located.

thus of course to avoid the problem above as well as other similar problems, its easier to just include everything (this of course can include other conditions than just country of origin ), that sounds like good idea but what happens then is that the original goals might be lost as the project becomes unfocused, and more changes of missing information and/or incomplite. thus it can easily envolve into next IMDB or BCDB, for that matter.

I don't believe I ever said that we were just going to focus on American animation. And, at the beginning, we were just going to focus on classic animation and spread our wings from there. But, as you say, where do you draw the line? Can early television animation be considered classic? Where is the dividing year? And as the years go by, does that dividing year change?

And frankly, it's kinda been my dream to be almost an IMDB strictly for animation. I know others have tried it but I thought we could do it better. And unlike the IMDB, I wanted to open it strictly to those who had some background in animation history so errord would me as minimalized as possible.

So, there's no real "focus" here, per se. We're open to all animation, made from any time and any place. I know this gives way to a sprawl of a website, but I think we've been able to keep it under control so far.

That should clear up my confusion, I was probably miss remembering what you said at the beginning when this site started.

With that said, I think the aim should be taking the idea of IMDB and improve on it where IMDB has it short comings and the major shortcoming of IMDB, is lack of source given. So you basically have no clue if that particular film ever existed unless its main stream movie. Wouldn't surprise at all me if large amount of titles in IMDB are just plain made up hoaxes.

If you are referring to BCDB, then I agree its complete mess of a database, after short period of time you will quickly discover that its almost unusable/inaccessible given how its set up (it would probably take many months if you want go through everything included i'm not going to explain it short commings if you have looked at that site you know whats wrong) and like IMDB it doesn't list it sources, so it wouldn't surprise me at all some titles on there are just made up hoaxes.

so best way far as i'm concerned to make intanibase even more credible is to list source for each invidual title included being it a theatrical short or feature film, television special or movie or TV series, or direct-to-video/DVD film.

so best way far as i'm concerned to make intanibase even more credible is to list source for each invidual title included being it a theatrical short or feature film, television special or movie or TV series, or direct-to-video/DVD film.

There's already a system like that for researchers inputting credits; when we add credits to a particular film, it's highly recommended we have sources to back them up. You can input "Unverified" if you're sure that a credit belongs on a particular film, but can't find any "official" source for it.

When it's discovered that incorrect or false information has appeared on the database, rest assured that it'll be brought to eutychus's attention.

---

There's already a system like that for researchers inputting credits; when we add credits to a particular film, it's highly recommended we have sources to back them up. You can input "Unverified" if you're sure that a credit belongs on a particular film, but can't find any "official" source for it.

And you'll be able to see the results of that when I rework the main section starting this week sometime. There will be a "credits" page which will list both the history of the page (who edited what and when) as well as listing the sources for all the credits where given.