User talk:Jamie Eilat

Archives

The Amazing Digital Circus as Adult Animation?

Hello, why is The Amazing Digital Circus considered an adult series if it isn't? CroakyReserva (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the show, Gooseworx, has gone on record to state that the show's target demographic is "people in their 20s" and that "[t]his show isn't going to be very suitable for young kids"; additionally, there are news outlets have either directly labeled the series as adult, such as The Mary Sue, or have referenced it as appealing to an adult audience, such as CartoonBrew. I probably will though add a citation or two for the use of "adult" in the article lead, since if seems like it ought to have one. – Jamie Eilat (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as I am Brazilian, the IMDb website says it would be for ages 10 and up, that is, TV-PG, this does not mean it is an adult series, and it gives me a bit of a headache to watch, I am 14 years old and I watch this series and it is a good series, it can be recommended only for teenagers from 13 years old, or it can be for ages 13 and up, on the Glitch website it says the audience is 13 to 24 years old. CroakyReserva (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The definition for adult animation presented on Wikipedia 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" (emphasis added). The age range presented on the website does not thus serve to preclude the labeling of the series as "adult animation".

The matter of whether the series can be labeled as "adult animation" rests in whether there are reliable sources/citation that label it as adult animation, not in personal or subjective assessment; and, as I have already pointed out, there are reliable sources for the "adult animation" label. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't want it to be that way when I'm reading about the series because it's not "adult animation." CroakyReserva (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

reply! CroakyReserva (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simply not wanting something to be the case does not make it so; if the sources describe the series as being "adult animation", then it is. "I just don't like it" is not a valid argument. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can I understand this properly and accept it? CroakyReserva (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Netflix link, The Amazing Digital Circus is considered "adult animation" but Bee and Puppycat are also considered to be so (both programs are 13+) and several web series that are 13+ on Wikipedia are not considered "adult animation" despite there being a page listing web series for adults (13+ programs are included that on their respective page are not considered "adult animated" and also adult animation is not a genre and is only descriptive). 152.230.99.151 (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, per Wikipedia's MOS:GENRE guideline, the main deciding factor for whether a series is classified in an article with some genre label is if that label "represent[s] the genre(s) specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." Your argument here that 'series X doesn't use this genre label, so series Y shouldn't either' is rendered moot if series Y is indeed being reliably described using that genre label. In the case of TADC, if a distributor for the series (Netflix), news/review sources covering the series, and the creator of the series all describe the series as being adult animation/adult-oriented, then it is justified to label it as such in the article.

In regards to discrepancies between individual series articles & the List of adult animated web series article (which I assume is the one that you are referring to), then perhaps the "adult animation" genre label should be added to certain of the series articles, and/or certain of the listed articles should be removed from that listing, but that would be on a case-by-case basis of whether "a majority of mainstream reliable sources" do or do not describe each series as being adult animation/adult-oriented. (As a side-note for your specific referencing of Bee and Puppycat, there do in fact appear to be multiple secondary sources labeling that series as adult animation [1] [2] [3], so perhaps there should be discussion on adding that label to its article's infobox.)

And finally, the article for "adult animation" does in fact describe it, with citation, with the term "genre". — Jamie Eilat (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other Series Created by Kane Pixels

Hi! I noticed that you helped edited the page on Kane Pixels' Backrooms with accurate info a few months ago. This is probably a silly idea, but I was thinking about making some pages about other web series that Kane created, like "The Oldest View" and "People Still Live Here." Chadalvarez2021 (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do know that there currently exist a draft article for The Oldest View. However, I don't think that The Oldest View or People Still Live Here have quite meet the threshold of WP:NOTABILITY to warrant their own articles the way The Backrooms (web series) has. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I also saw the huge gap between Parsons' Backrooms series when he began working on these projects. Should we separate the episodes between these gaps into seasons or just keep the table as it is? Chadalvarez2021 (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dune: Part Three edits

Thank you for your edits on the Dune: Part Three page at the same time as me. I'm sorry if I were stepping on your toes, but we are both actively making improvements. Thank you! CNC33 (. . .talk) 02:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

I accidentally rolled back 3 of your edits. Sorry! Bearian (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem. Thanks for letting me know. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is that even a big deal?

So the top of the letter d touches the closing parenthesis? Why is that a big deal? That doesn't make it hard to read, and I can't imagine it's causing a conflict to someone who thinks there's now some mysterious combination of the letter d and a closing parenthesis. Nobody bothers about introducing this or being this finicky about introducing an unnecessary, awkward-looking space on other articles, yet you have persisted on doing it. Skyversay (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are still largely legible as separate characters, so it isn't exactly the biggest deal. But a text collision is a text collision, & if it can be avoided with a simple template made specifically for that purpose, then what reason is there for not using it? You state that it is "awkward-looking", but the slight additionally spacing honestly stands out far less to the eye than the text collision does. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really doesn't. The awkward space stands out a lot more to me and looks like a mistake. I don't know what device you're using but on mobile and desktop, for me, using Monobook, it looks fine. It just isn't a concern. I suppose fiddling with formatting is something you like to do, considering I haven't come across this on any of the thousands of music articles I've edited. Certainly at least nobody whom is dogged enough to reintroduce it. So that speaks to this being a particular issue for you and you alone. Skyversay (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm usually using Vector Legacy on desktop (MacBook), & when I'm looking at it on desktop, the collision looks to me pretty noticeable, whereas the kerning with the template just looks like normal spacing to me. Now, I was already previously aware that the text collision is only an issue with desktop Wikipedia; on the mobile version of Wikipedia, there is no overlapping. Something I've only just realized though, is that on mobile Wikipedia, the spacing caused by the template is noticeably wider than it is on desktop. You seem to be a much more frequent mobile editor than I am, so... has that been the source of the miscommunication here? Because, now having seen it, the spacing caused by the template on mobile is definitely more noticeable, like you said. I guess the template is more suited for desktop than mobile.

I do want to say though, I feel like you are assuming that I have a lot more investment in this than I actually do. I mean, yes, I was re-adding the template, but that was only because I simply thought it looked good (on desktop at least) & I didn't (at the time) understand why you were feeling the need to remove it (since I wasn't paying full attention to how it was looking on mobile). — Jamie Eilat (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]