Jump to content

Talk:The Amazing Digital Circus

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.145.181.225 (talk) at 02:30, 25 December 2023 (→‎Synopsis: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Notability

@Blaze Wolf: I disagree with you assessment that the article's notability is questionable. After all, there are currently six sources cited in the article. It has received significant coverage in six reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which establishes presumed notability per WP:GNG. While more sources would obviously be better, and the article does need work, I don't think it's fair to call it non-notable. As such, I will remove the notability template. If you disagree, please discuss here so we can come to a consensus. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of sources mean nothing. Only two of those six are even vetted.
  • HITC hasn't been discussed but based on my own analysis seems to be of a similar level of source quality to Screen Rant, not usable to demonstrate notability.
  • The Mary Sue says barely says anything. It's basically "did you know you can watch this show?"
  • Cartoon Brew is unvetted but doesn't seem to have anything that leads me to believe it to be reliable. No credentials in sight for anyone but the founder, but the founder didn't make the article used here.
  • Yahoo Finance says "it's popular on the internet!" and says nothing else.
  • Know Your Meme is unreliable. Even if you say "it's written by editorial staff", the article is four sentences long.
  • The Beat is unvetted.
I find it unsafe to use any unvetted source (unless blatantly obvious) to demonstrate notability, so we are left with two sources. Of which barely say anything besides it was popular on the Internet. I tried to look for more sources myself, and there was so little that DeviantArt somehow popped up on Google News results for it. Even if The Beat was vetted, only one critical review would exist. I won't be taking this to a deletion discussion as I don't edit animation related subjects and there is a chances sources appear later on, but for now I've reinstated the Notability tag per WP:TOOSOON. This subject seems to be a WP:SIGCOV failure at this current point in time. NegativeMP1 22:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Di (they-them): I have to agree with Negative. You're missing the key part of GNG: WP:SIGCOV. The sources aren't really reliable or sig cov. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 02:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reliable sources (per WP:RSP) Yahoo! and The Mary Sue seems to be SIGCOV in my opinion. They dedicated an entire article to the series. They talk about plot, release, reception, and more. The title of the Mary Sue article is strange, but it goes beyond just telling where to watch it literally. Skyshifter talk 03:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's only 2 sources. Usually the minimum is 3. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 15:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally also consider the unvetted ones, especially Cartoon Brew, but apparently there's no consensus for that. Skyshifter talk 16:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyshifter and Blaze Wolf: According to WikiProject Animation, Cartoon Brew is considered a reliable source, and I've seen it cited in other reliable sources such as Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. I'd definitely say it's reliable, and I'm genuinely surprised there are people who think it isn't. Aside from the occasional blunder that virtually every reliable source makes once in a while, it's a pretty reputable news site. So that's WP:THREE in my opinion. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found two sources for this article which I'm not sure we should use it for this. The first one was from Ruetir which the source was explaining about everything you need to know about the series, but I also found that a user said that the source's website is blacklisted on Wikipedia and the second one was from In The Know which it explain why people are obsessed over it and everything else, but I found nothing so. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also I forget to link the sources just so you all know so here sources: Ruetir (Ruetir can't be link so it can't work) and In The Know. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In The Know is the same as the Yahoo one. Skyshifter talk 01:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also adding that Looper is unreliable per WP:VG/S due to a churnalism and repurposing problem. I wouldn't use it. Spinixster (chat!) 02:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding onto this to help contribute, I added a source from Forbes, editors please feel free to use it as I noticed it has not been used yet. I added in a bit of content from it on why it was so well-received (At least from the Forbes writer's perspective). Sunnyediting99 (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article was written by a Contributor, which per WP:FORBESCON, makes this source unreliable. NegativeMP1 05:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add that source again. Someone (I can't tell who) added it back and I've removed it for that exact reason .― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 19:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is Forbes not considered a reliable source? Rubellaclinton (talk) 09:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only certain Forbes sources. The one that keeps getting added is from a Forbes contributor which is deemed unreliable per FORBESCON which is linked above. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 12:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not. It quite literally just says "here's how to watch it!" and surface level things such as "there is only one episode so far", and does them in incredibly weird ways.
Wording it like "You don’t even need a YouTube account to watch the pilot. Granted, yes, the video has ads, but it’s a small price to pay for one of the greatest indie animated comedies to come out of 2023" makes me feel that this article was written to generate views. As the source isn't unreliable and can be used, I won't contest its use, but it should be a flat out failure of SIGCOV. NegativeMP1 05:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: After some searching, I'd note the following additional sources, though they do not seem particularly strong.
I've seen passing mentions on other sources, but passing mentions aren't good enough to establish notability. Mbrickn (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
80 Level has an original article on the behind-the-scenes of the show, and they seem to be generally considered reliable (they're cited on a lot of tech and gaming articles, at least):https://80.lv/articles/glitch-on-character-animations-in-the-amazing-digital-circus/ --Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, I found this source from TheGamer which looks reliable to me because the website is kinda reliable so I added it to the article but someone removed it but why? NatwonTSG2 (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's considered "reliable after August 2020" in WP:VG/S. Re-added in Reception with more relevant info. Skyshifter talk 14:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, while Valnet shouldn't be used to demonstrate notability, I am going to go ahead and remove the notability banner, as I think by this point it satisfies GNG. NegativeMP1 18:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

While Pomni as an avatar is female, I don't think it was confirmed she was a woman before entering the digital world, or that the same gender transfers over to the digital world. Pomni doesn't even remember her name before entering the digital world. It would be more accurate to confirmed details to describe her as "human" beforehand. --Meester Tweester (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Meester Tweester Pomni is said to be female at the description of the pilot video and website info so now you know. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatwonTSG2: Thing is, we don't know if the human was a woman before they became Pomni. @Meester Tweester: seemed reasonable, changed. Skyshifter talk 14:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh My Bad, I thought @Meester Tweester talking about the Pomni when she enter the digital world but we all don't know what the gender for the human version of Pomni. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Meester Tweester (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SubZeroSilver: I applied the above suggestion because we don't know if the human (before they became Pomni) was a woman (AFAIK). Skyshifter talk 14:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyshifter: The official website reads "A woman gets trapped in a crazy virtual world", not "a human gets trapped in a crazy virtual world as a woman". User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alright then. Skyshifter talk 19:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works then. --Meester Tweester (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is her favorite color? 49.177.198.162 (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to know Pomni's favorite color and it would be trivial so. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with NatwonTSG2, but that is a funny question MeesterTweester! 😊 76.145.181.225 (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

The show should not be listed as "surreal comedy". The only source for this is the description on Glitch's website calling it a "surreal dark comedy", but we can't say for certain that "surreal" is modifying "comedy" there. If there are no objections I will remove the surreal comedy category. Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gooseworx' page redirect

Why does 'Gooseworx' redirect here instead of having a seperate article? She has over a million subscribers on YouTube and is definitely notable enough for her own article. Theooolone (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theooolone, I think you might not have a proper comprehension of the general notability guideline. To have an article, Gooseworx must be significantly covered by reliable and independent sources. There are currently no reliable sources that significantly cover her. — Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, thank you. I'll have a closer look at the linked guideline Theooolone (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Characters

Why The Moon from the amazing digital circus has no description other than the voice actor, shouldn't be not featured and I add a description then an user removed but why? NatwonTSG2 (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiration

The creator of this Show claimed that it was inspired by Ellison's Work. L.R. Luther (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's true - but many other pieces of media were cited as inspirations as well. There's no reason to single out IHNMAIMS.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Amazing_Digital_Circus&oldid=1191686307"