Jump to content

Talk:The Amazing Digital Circus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 15:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that Gooseworx's original pitch for The Amazing Digital Circus was more chaotic and silly before becoming deeper and more nuanced?
  • Source: Placido, Dani Di (2023-12-22). "The Amazing Digital Circus Team Talk The Making Of A Viral Hit". Forbes. Archived from the original on May 12, 2024. Retrieved 2024-05-12.
Improved to Good Article status by Skyshifter (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 12 past nominations.

Skyshiftertalk 11:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Good to go! Approving ALT4. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 11:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LunaEclipse: sorry, I made a mistake. The source for ALT4 says that Goose "hadn't worked a lot with 3D", not that she never had worked with it. My mistake. I've fixed the article accordingly. Skyshiftertalk 23:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Approving ALT1 then. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 11:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other hooks LunaEclipse? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cartoon Brew is reliable per WP:TOON/R, the hooks cited to Forbes are fine per WP:ABOUTSELF, In The Know should be fine as it is owned by Yahoo (reliable per WP:RSP) and Comics Beat is also reliable (see this discussion). These hooks are also good to go. lunaeclipse (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adult animated?

[edit]

I've seen several sources call it adult animated and Gooseworx herself admits that older teens and adults were the target audience.

Should we put that in the lead? Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The series does contain several adult themes such as profanity, existential dread, etc, therefore I would say we should. SleepDeprivedGinger (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the profanity is censored and existential dread is something found in something like Puss in Boots: The Last Wish and that's a kids film. So I wouldn't necessarily use those as reasons to call it "adult animated". Goose and GLITCH did clarify however that older audiences like teens and adults were the target demographic. So there's our proof. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We agree this show isn't intended for young children, but is it adult animation if teens are included in the target audience? The article itself says it does on occasion. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that the definition for adult animation presented in the Wikipedia article for "Adult animation" itself is "any type of animated motion work that is catered specifically to adult interests and is mainly targeted and marketed towards adults and adolescents".
But even given this, it is also worth noting is that Gooseworx, the show's creator, has described show's main target demographic as being "people in their 20s", without mention of teens. Further, news sources like The Mary Sue do directly label the series using the term "adult animation". — Jamie Eilat (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An update to this: the listing for The Amazing Digital Circus on Netflix directly labels the series as adult animation. If the sources mentioned in my previous reply didn't already settle the question of it being adult animation, then this, I think, surely does settle it. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know, SubZeroSilver, a lot of adult sitcoms have the rating TV14, so I wouldn't question it. 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:39F4:CB1C:9078:5E31 (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voice cast

[edit]

I'm wondering if we should limit the voice cast to the main characters and not fill it up with "guest" or lesser "recurring" roles, even in the event that some of these guests become recurring. My choice would be to keep it to the essential "main" section already there, since Wikipedia articles aren't meant to be an indiscriminate list of information. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any objections to removing all characters outside the main roles? User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any issue with the inclusion of voice cast outside of the main character, as it currently stands. I wouldn't call the section indiscriminate, since it only includes fully named voice credits & excludes any voice roles/characters that are only credited under "additional voices". — Jamie Eilat (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality (Australian, American, etc.)

[edit]

Hi, I'm wondering if calling the show Australian is the most accurate label even if creator Gooseworx is American. I'm asking about this mainly since this is a YouTube series produced cross-continentally, so I'm wondering how this would be done. Carlinal (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS specifies that show nationalities "should be referenced by reliable sources", and all of the available sources discussing the series are very consistent in only mentioning Australia when describing the series' nationality. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you! Carlinal (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nationality of films and TV shows is generally attributed to the production company that made them, not creators or directors, for example, films such as Titanic (1997 film) or Avatar (2009 film) are not considered Canadian films despite their director (James Cameron) being Canadian
And since the only production company of TADC (Glitch Productions) is Australian, it's only an Australian show Consistently Heinous (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source headers

[edit]

@Jamie Eilat: Thanks for clarifying the purpose of the "Primary sources" header as being for the episodes and trailers. However, I wonder if the headers should be changed. As of now, they're very misleading, as not all the sources under the "Secondary sources" header are WP:SECONDARY. Perhaps the "Secondary sources" header could be renamed to "Citations" (similar to PewDiePie) or be removed entirely, while the "Primary sources" section could be renamed to "Episodes and trailers". What do you think? Lazman321 (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the other sources should be moved indeed. All primary sources should be there. Skyshiftertalk 23:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is felt that the current headers do not adequately make clear the intended source groupings, then I would be favorable toward renaming the headers in the manner being suggested. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, per WP:PRIMARY, primary sources are "often accounts written by people who are directly involved", which would include social media posts and/or anything directly from Gooseworx and Glitch. Gooseworx's tumblr posts and whatnot wouldn't be appropriate as secondary, and reserving the "Secondary" header for only the YouTube videos would blur the line between primary and secondary too much.
I suggest the YouTube links be put under an "External sources" header, as a sub-header to the primary sources keeping the social media posts, if not act independently. Carlinal (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but this is NOT adult animation

[edit]

The show's official website literally says it is for "ages 13-24", why does it say adult animation BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 14:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait I did not see the previous discussion BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 14:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But 13 years people Still kids 179.0.49.80 (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is untrue; according to the article on Adolescence, teenagerhood can start at the age of 10 at the earliest. SleepDeprivedGinger (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read that again, very slowly BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 02:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Amazing_Digital_Circus&oldid=1250877279"