This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Pixar founders
It seems important to properly document the founding of Pixar, since Pixar itself somewhat disguises the history. The facts are that Ed ’n’ Alvy, a pairing once as inseparable as Rocky and Bullwinkle, along with a hardy band of souls who originally worked as the Lucasfilm computer graphics research group, were the true co-founders of Pixar. One early effort was in hardware, selling a sophisticated processor called the Pixar Image Computer. This was the first use of the name "Pixar", later extended to the company. Steve Jobs brought vital money to the table, but was an investor, not a co-founder. Alvy exhibits the founding documents on his web site, linked in the article.
O’Brien was looking down at him speculatively. More than ever he had the air of a teacher taking pains with a wayward but promising child.
"There is a Party slogan dealing with the control of the past," he said. "Repeat it, if you please."
"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past," repeated Winston obediently.
"Who controls the present controls the past," said O’Brien, nodding his head with slow approval. "Is it your opinion, Winston, that the past has real existence?"
I still remember, and I’m sure Ed does, too. KSmrq 21:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Anti-aliasing
The page cites Catmull as the "inventor of anti-aliasing algorithms" while at the University of Utah. While he may have made some contributions on that topic, the fundamental development of anti-aliasing for computer graphics was done by Frank Crow at around the same time frame (early/mid 1970's). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.150.10.200 (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
Removed Category "American Latter-day Saints"
The category was put back in after being removed for having no source. Belonging to the Church isn't a requirement for attending the University of Utah (It obviously has a high proportion of Mormon students, but that's not a source) and that would hardly be a source for his current beliefs....to get to the point, this should be sourced before being added again to the article.----Occono (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Removed it again, still uncited in the article.----occono (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
This article
This article makes a lot of statements in the second section which are unsourced. It also reads conversationally and sounds non-encyclopedic. 98.111.199.195 (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Fundament?
"Catmull saw Sutherland's computer drawing program Sketchpad and the new field of computer graphics in general as a major fundament in the future of animation"
He saw Sketchpad as the butthole of animation? Wonder how Ivan would feel about that. --ChetvornoTALK 01:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Catmull's Emails Regarding the Wage Theft Court Case
Catmull wrote some incriminating emails regarding the wage theft case. These emails are part of the court record and their authenticity is unquestioned. Their content is deeply incriminating. Therefore, I question the need to wait. Please respond.
- The need to wait is a BLP issue. Yes, he may have been involved, but that's not the sole issue here. Right now, the suit is in litigation. That means there has been no determination of any wrong-doing by anyone. What you call "incriminating" is first, a serious POV issue and second, your personal opinion. Right now, you simply have a complainant side making an allegation of wrong-doing. No neutral (ie court) has made that determination. So putting this in a BLP is WP:ANTICIPATION. Right now, including it would be more being a newspaper than inserting something encyclopedic. I'm not saying it should never go in the article. I'm saying it shouldn't go in now. When we see the results of the case, we can better assess if is belongs and in what form. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- The case was settled without any finding of wrong-doing. Since Catmull was not personally sued (Pixar was) and wasn't determined to have done anything wrong, there's no reason for this to be in his BLP. Niteshift36 (talk)
it is not the practice in Silicon Valley to include the investors as founders
o, he didn't. See the founding documents. Ed Catmull and Alvy Ray Smith were the Co-Founders of Pixar. They also took 38 founding employees with them from Lucasfilm in the spinout of Pixar. The spinout was capitalized by Steve Jobs, but it is not the practice in Silicon Valley to include the investors as founders [1], and Steve was not even close to being the first investor considered by the Co-Founders. Steve was a great, even spectacular, money man for Pixar, but the company was not his idea. See also Pixar Myth No. 5: Steve Jobs Ran Pixar for several examples of documents listing Ed and Alvy as the two co-founders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.31.128.170 (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)