Talk:Circus

Animals and UNDUE, again

I'm new to looking at the page, but I concur that (despite agreeing whole-heartedly with their message), the animal cruelty/law change content has become wildly UNDUE compared to the topic of all circuses, across history, including all aspects.

Since it's been determined in the past that UNDUE is based off the current state of an article, not some "potential max coverage" state, it can't just remain in the hope that in a few years someone will even it out.

It's obviously a legitimate topic, and I particularly dislike to see valid information removed. Thus:

What are thoughts on splitting it off to be a new article, with a fairly large summary section (probably 20-25%, rather than the normal 10-15%), where these concerns can be put to bed? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear Yes I think this is a good idea. It will allow the animals and circuses topic to expand without any ongoing debate about undue coverage with enough in the main circus article to have reasonable coverage of the animal issue which is a significant aspect of circus history. The link to the standalone article will allow those readers who wish to go into more depth. Are you suggesting you will do this? Robynthehode (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Robynthehode I can take a look on Monday or Tuesday if there's no absence of consensus here. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that sections Circus#Controversy and laws and associated sections be split into a separate article called Circuses and animal cruelty. The content of the current page exceeds the size for splitting and these sections are large enough and notable enough to make their own page. Comments please. If there are no comments within a month I will boldly split the article Robynthehode (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Robynthehode: I support your splitting proposal. It merits a page on its own, and in the current page the information is very diffuse and fragmented. Legislation and international animal welfare standards deserve a section in this split-off article, and I'm willing to contribute to that. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw: Thanks for your post. How do you want to proceed? If you have experience splitting articles please do so as I have very little. I suppose the first decision is what to call the new article before the split is done. I am open to alternatives to the one I initially proposed. Robynthehode (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the section-split template to the right section. Edderiofer (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Some material copied from Circus#United_States into Tyke_(elephant) article

On 13 February 2023, I copied some text (with the accompanying footnotes) from Circus#United_States into Tyke_(elephant)#Background. Mksword (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

History of circus needed

I think we should create this based on the history section here, which then could be shortened. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus Very late to the party, here, but I agree. The article exists on Spanish Wikipedia. I started to bring it over at Draft:History of the circus, but that article is already overly long, so I moved on to other projects. If someone does want to break the history section out of this article, perhaps though, it would be a good resource to flesh it out. It has much more global content, even if it is a bit overly detailed. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Rjjiii I hope you can finish your draft, it looks like it has potential, and it's an important topic, as we agree here :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Piotrus, I agreed with what you said, so I made the article. I hope that you like it, and you can leave suggestions if you want. Gilliebillie🤡 (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Gilliebillie Thank you for trying, but that article is right now unfinished and it the current version cannot remain at the mainspace (I don't know any other new page patrollers other than User:Fram - pinging). To make it publishable, you need to ensure all content is referenced (per WP:V) and format the citations using WP:Footnotes. Right now, most of the paragraphs in it are unreferenced, and the few that are have citations in the WP:EL format, which is not acceptable. Additionally, you cite but how do you know if that page is reliable? Finishing the translation at Draft:History of the circus would be likely a better thing to do; it is longer and seems to cite many more reliable sources, and has a better density of citations too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Piotrus See, this is why I don't like trying to make articles on the English Wikipedia, always the moaning about the sources. Look, I want to try to fix them so they are complying with that footnote-thingy, but all the paragraphs are in one or more of sources mentioned. And by the way, I will not even try to translate a Spanish article while I don't even speak a word in Spanish.

Greetings Gilliebillie🤡 (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Gilliebillie Well, if you cannot follow WP:V, then forgive the moaning, but I wouldn't even accept such poor excuse of an article from my students. If you cannot do better than an average undergad, sorry, but I'll keep moaning. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Piotrus Yeez, you're friendly. I comply with that policy btw, every fact that I mentioned in that article can be found in one or more of the sources. So please, do something else than annoying me. Gilliebillie🤡 (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Excessive External links

Some things just grow by incremental edits and get out of hand. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, has grown to 7 entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a forth.

The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
• ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.

It would seem preferable if one of the article regulars could look at these. I have not been involved with the article. My solution of removing from the bottom a desired number might. I have found that oftentimes links stray from the guideline. Inclusion would contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. "Curlie", in the "about" section, states: Curlie strives to be the largest human-edited directory of the Web. However, Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTDIRECTORY.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

(four months later) I've nuked entire External links sections before—at Respiratory synctitial virus, for example. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Links moved from article

• {{Curlie|Arts/Performing_Arts/Circus}}
• National Museum of Performing Arts, Theatre Museum. Circus Guided Tour
• The Philip Astley Project