Talk:List of adult animated television series/Archive 1

Ren and Stimpy

Does the original Ren and Stimpy really belong on this list? It had a lot of adult humor, yes, but it was advertised toward--and targeted at-- children. The "Adult Party Cartoon" remake was much more blatantly adult in subject, and is a better fit for this page.

It's hard to say - the list is pretty vague. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I know that it was aired on Nickelodeon, a children's network, but there are a few reasons for why I put Ren & Stimpy on this list. Number One: It was a massive influence on adult animation, as it influenced the creation of many adult animated series, such as Beavis and Butt-head, South Park and The Brothers Grunt. Number Two: There were many episodes of Ren & Stimpy that were banned from airing on Nickelodeon due to their obscene, crass, and offensive nature, and Number Three: this TV series is commonly associated with adult animation, which results in some parents banning their children from watching it. Superchunk22 (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources and inclusion criteria

How about requiring a reliable source for each entry that discusses why the entry is considered adult animation. The lead claims that these series are "commonly associated" with adult animation but gives no sources. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Organization?

For future reference, in case I find more shows to add to the list, how are the tables supposed to be organized? It looks like the earlier tables in the list are sorted by the year in which the shows first aired (and then alphabetically by the shows' titles if multiple shows began in the same year), while the later tables are just sorted in alphabetical order by the shows' titles (aside from a few seemingly disorganized ones at the tops). Alphius (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Wait, I just realized that the ones I thought were disorganized at the top are sorted by country, then year, so never mind on that. There still seems to be a discrepancy in organization when looking at all of the tables together, though. Alphius (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for the future (if necessary...)

Hopefully there won't end up being any issues, anyway, but if at any point in the future, this article would otherwise be deleted, redirected, etc. (due to having too few sources or for some other similar reason), please move it to my userspace instead. I had been looking for something like this for a long time, but had never been able to find anything even remotely as comprehensive until someone created it here. To be clear, I'm not meaning to ask that this be done right now. (I'd of course prefer it to stay in the mainspace if possible, but decided to post this as a precautionary measure.) And the same request also goes for List of adult animated films. Thanks. Alphius (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

How this list related to anime

Just scrolling through this list, I see a lot of shows that are primarily aimed at a younger (shonen) audience, like Yu Yu Hakusho, Dragonball, Sword Art Online, etc. Besides the fact that the target audience for this list isn't well-defined (when is someone no longer considered a child? 10? 15? 18?), it is obvious that the list would be absolutely dominated by Japanese animation. Everything that has ever aired on Noitamina has an adult target audience, yet shows like Bartender, Bunny Drop, Wandering Son, etc, aren't listed here. Could this list please be retitled List of English-language adult animated television series or List of North American adult animated television series? After all, the concept of "adult animation" being unusual is unique to North America, and this doesn't really apply to South Korea, China, or Japan, where adult-oriented animation is basically the norm. ~Mable (chat) 08:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

No comments? If not, I'll just go through with my changes boldly, though I am sure they are controversial? ~Mable (chat) 20:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Sym-Bionic Titan and ThunderCats

I don't think these two titles belong here. They did air repeats on Toonami which is aimed at an adult audience, but that was simply because the older fanbase enjoyed watching them on daytime Cartoon Network and requested them. They premiered all their episodes on the children's side of Cartoon Network. BigOnAnime (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Jetsons and The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends should be included

It seems to me that if The Flintstones qualifies as being targeted to adults, The Jetsons and The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends should also qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NVDan (talk • contribs) 21:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

POV

No sources indicate this is an actual topic that consists of these entries. This is simply POV, a matter of editors' opinions. Sorry to say, this fails WP:NPOV and WP:NOR unless some real reliable sources can be placed into this article. In any case, these are the reasons I tagged this article. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

This list is based around the notability of adult animation, of course, but that article doesn't really describe why the concept of adult animation is notable. Moreover, I agree that the lack of sources for this list is a big issue, and would !vote 'delete' if this list came up at AfD. ~Mable (chat) 05:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "an actual topic that consists of these entries"? It would admittedly take a decent amount of effort, but a source could likely be found for pretty much everything here to indicate that it is "adult animation" (I'd think that for a large number of them, just the fact that they've been labeled as TV-14 or TV-MA would itself be enough) - all this list is doing is accumulating the shows for which that applies into one article. And I haven't actually checked, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of them have sources on their own articles already that would support their inclusion. It is true that some people have occasionally been adding things that probably shouldn't be here based on their own opinions, but it's obvious that most of the shows here objectively belong. I'll admit that I'm pretty biased toward wanting this article to stay up, but it's been immensely helpful precisely because it's the only place on the entire Internet that I've been able to find with all of this information in one place (as opposed to being very incomplete or having it scattered all over). Alphius (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I've started the early stages of an effort to add sources to everything. At the moment, I'm mainly finding sources for the fact that they belong on the list at all, since sources for each show's specific information (original channel airing, production company, etc.) can generally already be found on the shows' individual articles. Alphius (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If this is "it's the only place on the entire Internet" that such a list exists, this topic is very likely WP:OR. Here's how we figure that out: Do we have unambiguous, objective selection criteria? One part of this is easy, the second is not. The easy part would be first restricting this to blue-link notable television series (i.e., not a show on a low-power college station, not a film, etc.). The hard part is sourcing. If a newspaper says the show appeals to adults, is it "adult"? Is a 14 year old and adult? ...and lots of variations of that. The term "adult animated" is hardly as widely used as "sitcom", "soap opera" or "talk show". I get the impression we'll be stretching language and torturing texts to get sources to say what we need them to say. It's pretty easy to find sources saying that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States or that oranges are citrus fruits as the terms are very well defined. Either she was nominated and confirmed or she wasn't. Either it's the fruit of a particular genus of tree or it isn't. Maybe a show is "mainly targeted towards adults and sometimes also teenagers". Maybe not. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Without actually checking every link, I'm sure the vast majority of listings on this article have their own Wikipedia articles, and thus "every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia" (as required for selection criteria). If there are any without their own articles, I wouldn't see any issue with removing them from the list. But with regards to finding sources, the definition is pretty much self-evident. I'm not just looking for sources that say they "appeal" to adults - something like...I don't know...My Little Pony...obviously isn't going to get put on here because no source is going to say it's targeted at adults. I'm looking for sources that explicitly describe them as "adult animation", "adult-oriented", "targeted at adults", "not for kids", etc. - anything along those lines - and I don't see how it could possibly be disputed that shows like Rick and Morty, Bojack Horseman, or essentially any other TV-14 or TV-MA show belongs here. Anything below TV-14 may very well require more extensive treatment in third-party sources to justify inclusion, but "adult animation" as a general descriptor is far more common than you seem to be indicating. Alphius (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, this isn't the only place where a list like this exists on the Internet by any means - there are lots of lists like it all over the place. But this one is easily the most extensive one I've found. So long as third-party sources can in fact be found to justify the inclusion of everything here (with anything that isn't justified being removed after such an overhaul is done), I don't see how it's any more "original research" than any other Wikipedia article that accumulates information from lots of different sources. I'd be shocked if it isn't extremely common for Wikipedia to be the only place that has as extensive coverage as it does of lots of subjects. Alphius (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that the inclusion criteria would be all blue-link notable animated television series that are rated TV-14 or TV-MA or are explicitly described by reliable sources as "adult animation", "adult-oriented", "targeted at adults", "not for kids", or something along those lines. So, all entries must cite reliable sources that explicitly say something along those lines -- except for those that are TV-14 or TV-MA, which don't need to be sourced because it was decided that anything rated for 14 year olds is "mainly targeted towards adults and sometimes also teenagers". It sounds rather ambiguous and subjective, IMO. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the inclusion criterion is all blue-link notable shows targeted toward adults or teenagers. Period. The fact that a show is rated TV-14 or TV-MA would be self-evident proof that that is in fact the case, but a source saying either that rating or preferably some other more specific statement about the show being targeted toward adults would still be necessary. I said "I don't see how it could possibly be disputed" as a general statement - I had no intention of meaning that we wouldn't still need a source. And the only reason that I said "anything along those lines" is because a source might not literally state any of the exact quotes that I said. There are a lot of ways to say the same thing in pretty much any case, not just for this kind of thing. And on another note, if "targeted toward adults" wasn't a specific enough category, then wouldn't Wikipedia apparently need to get rid of every list of any kind of "children's" thing, too? I don't see how that isn't the same type of criterion. Like this. Or this. Or this. Or this. And so on. (To be fair, some of those could probably do with more sources, too.) Wikipedia might even have to get rid of the Adult animation article itself if there couldn't be any consensus as to whether any of the things mentioned in it are actually targeted at adults and a third-party source saying so wasn't considered sufficient. But anyway, just out of curiosity, is there any problem with any specific source that I've added so far? Alphius (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

There are two parts to your inclusion criteria: 1) notable shows that 2) are "adult animation". The first part is easy enough; it's a common selection criterion. The second part, however, is ambiguous and subjective.

You say it is "self-evident" that a TV-14 show is adult. That would depend on 14 year-olds being "adults". That is not self-evident. Further, I'm not sure why you are attaching this strictly to U.S. content ratings.

The phrase "anything along those lines" screams subjectivity and ambiguity.

(Yes, there are other articles on Wikipedia. Some of them are virtually perfect and might serve as useful models for similar content. Others are some of the worst articles ever added and should be deleted as soon as possible. Most are somewhere in between, with some good and some bad material. Rather than ferreting out where various articles fall on that continuum, it's generally more productive to build articles based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.)

I haven't looked at any of the sources you've added so far because we do not have criteria to judge them against. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

There are two parts to the inclusion criteria: 1) notable shows that 2) are targeted at adults (and/or teenagers). It is self-evident that something explicitly described as "adult animation", "targeted at adults", etc. is in fact targeted at adults. There are many ways of stating the same objective fact. I am only attaching some importance to US content ratings because many of the shows on the list are in fact produced by American companies, and those companies are the ones deciding the ratings for their own shows. But American ratings would only be relevant for American shows, and ideally they should probably be relied on as the sole source for a show as little as possible. For now, at least, the only show that has a source with nothing but its rating is Son of Zorn, and that's only because I wanted to quickly replace the source that someone else added which didn't explicitly state anything about it being targeted at adults. (On another note, you appear to be stating that if 14-year-olds were adults, than a TV-14 show would be for adults. 14-year-olds are teenagers, and "adult animation" is for adults and teenagers, so based on that reasoning, it would appear to be sufficient.) Overall, I still don't understand the issue, and it may be possible that I'm just not doing a good job of getting what I mean across in this discussion. Perhaps if you actually did look through the sources I'm adding, you would have a better sense of where I'm coming from. A couple random samples: 1) Close Enough - "Centering around a married couple adapting to all of the changes that occur when you make the leap from being a twenty something to a thirty something, the new show will be geared towards adults." ["Geared towards adults" here is an example of the reason for the "anything along those lines" remark - I didn't suggest that exact quote as a possibility, but it's obvious that it means the same thing.] 2) Disenchantment - "Netflix, the world's leading internet TV network, has ordered twenty episodes of Disenchantment, an adult animated comedy fantasy series from the mind of Matt Groening." Alphius (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is self-evident that shows described by reliable sources as "adult animation" are "adult animation". Your criterion, however, accept an undefined set of phrases other than that. You are also proposing accepting two ratings as fulfilling that criterion.

Our article, Adult animation, currently says "mainly targeted towards adults and sometimes also teenagers", though I don't currently see a source for that (we'll need one).

We also seem to be taking the judgement of the networks that the "program contains some material that many parents would find unsuitable for children under 14 years of age" is an indication that the show is intended for adults... or adults and sometimes also teenagers... or something.

It is not a matter of sources. ALL "List of..." articles need unambiguous, objective inlusion criteria. Right now, the inclusion criteria are "animated programs that are not mainly targeted towards children", which are ambiguous, subjective and (as they are unsourced) apparently arbitrary. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I can accept that using a rating alone as a source in any case at all may be up for debate. (Though perhaps less so in the case of TV-MA as compared to TV-14.) But the "undefined set of phrases" thing makes no sense to me. Any explicit statement that something is targeted at adults obviously means that it's targeted at adults, no matter how it's phrased. Requiring every source to use one specific quoted phrase makes no sense whatsoever when there are many ways to say the same thing. That practically has to be admitted in order to write anything on Wikipedia at all, given that changing something to be in your own words (so it isn't plagiarized) would inherently involve writing a new phrase that means the same thing as whatever the original source says. And "animated programs that are not mainly targeted towards children" is obviously objective, not subjective. A target audience is an objective concept. The only way it would become subjective would be if it was instead "animated programs that do not mainly appeal to children" or something like that. Then it would be based on viewers' own perceptions of it rather than the target audience. But it's not. Alphius (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Assuming "not for kids" (one of the suggested phrases you gave) means "for adults" means accepting an artificial dichotomy: If a show is "not for kids" it must, therefore, be for adults. Clearly there are shows for teens, shows for teens and adults, shows for families, etc.

An "animated programs that are not mainly targeted towards children" might be targeting families, teens, Latinos, Starr Trek fans, French Canadians, dog owners, etc.

A target audience may be an objective concept. The idea that a show "not for kids" is, therefore, "adult" is hard to swallow. Reviewing content for my young teen niece (and earlier, when she was a tween), it is clear there is content that is neither for kids (whether "inappropriate" or not attractive to them) that is not "adult" either. (Shows about high school relationships and such bore most adults to tear, while most kids find romantic relationships "icky", for instance.)

Pick a sitcom, any sitcom. There are reliable sources that directly state the show is a "sitcom"; not a "comedy-oriented", "circumstantial humor", "non-sketch comedy", or something along those lines. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, if the possibility of using a TV-14 rating alone as an indication that something qualifies as "adult animation"is being eliminated, the definition of "adult animation" both here and on the Adult animation article should probably be limited to simply be "animated programs that are targeted toward adults," period (with no "teenagers" addendum). That seems like the more common (and probably more natural) definition, anyway (the only reason I was originally going with the "adults and teenagers" definition was because that was what's currently up on the Adult animation article), and there are lots of sources out there for that, any of which could be used on both articles in support of it. I'm having a hard time finding any that include teenagers in the definition itself, as opposed to sources just saying that teenagers might end up watching, too. I can also accept that "not for kids" isn't the same thing as "targeted at adults," though none of the current sources rely on such a statement anyway. Revising the definition to more accurately reflect the apparent consensus definition eliminates all of the issues you've stated in this most recent comment, and all of the sources which I've found for individual shows as of this point would still be valid under the revised definition. Alphius (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, as I'd have thought I made fairly clear by now, "anything along those lines" didn't mean literally anything. It only meant anything that means the same thing. (And as I said above, I'll admit that "not for kids" wasn't necessarily the same thing and shouldn't have been included. But no current sources rely on that phrase, anyway.) Perhaps it was a bad choice of words from the beginning. With regards to your "sitcom" example, if I said we'd use sources that explicitly described a show as "'a sitcom' or anything along those lines," would you really refuse to accept the possibility that a source might say "situation comedy," "situational comedy," or maybe even "comedy situation show" as the reason why the qualifier was necessary? Alphius (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

While TV-14 was the poster child for why your proposed criteria are problematic, removing it does not solve the problem. The networks do not assign ratings to shows based on who they are intended for. They assign the ratings based on what parents might object to. While overlap between the two is no doubt extensive, using a tool designed to do one thing to do something entirely different is simply a bad idea. Many screwdrivers pressed into service as awls, chisels, metal punches, ice picks, etc. shatter.

To be "unambiguous, objective selection criteria", the criteria must be unambiguous and objective. Pick a sitcom, any sitcom. There are reliable sources that call it a "sitcom". Are there sources that call it something else (an "ensemble comedy", "comedy situation show" or something along those lines)? Sure, but as a defining characteristic, reliable sources regularly and repeatedly refer to sitcoms unambiguously as "sitcoms". Objectively, "sitcom" means sitcom; there is no judgement call. There are movies that are "ensemble comedies", but are not sitcoms. I'd say SNL is a "comedy situation show". Numerous terms that might refer to "adult animation" are judgement calls; the terms are not unambiguously, objectively the same. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Removing it obviously solves the problem. If none of the sources are based on the rating, then the issue is completely moot. You're focusing way too much on the minutiae of my mostly meaningless hypothetical examples and how exactly I'm phrasing things in this discussion, and I think we're really just arguing about semantics at this point. Going through practically every source so far: "for adults," "adult-aimed," "adult-oriented," "adult animation," "animated adult comedy," "adult animated," "adult cartoon," "geared toward adults," "animated adult action-comedy." Point out a specific source that I've added so far that's a problem and maybe I'd get your point, but I see no possible way that those wouldn't all mean the same thing for the purposes of this article. Alphius (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not discussing sources. Sources should be cited to show that entries fit the article's inclusion criteria. This article does not have inclusion criteria at this time (other than the unworkable "animated programs that are not mainly targeted towards children" currently in the article).

My goal here is to attempt to determine if there is a viable "List of.. topic here. That would by necessity include unambiguous, objective inclusion criteria. Finding sources, then crafting inclusion criteria is putting the cart before the horse. I can Google for a few minutes and come up with sources that say various people are "ugly politicians". That does not make it an encyclopedic list. This list is meant to be comprised of "adult animated" TV shows. We know what a TV series is (for the most part). However, we don't seem to know what "adult animated" is. We know what a "justice of the Supreme Court of the United States" is (someone who is nominated, confirmed and sworn in). We know what a "citrus fruit" is (the ripened ova of a specific genus of tree). We know what a "sitcom" is (a show that independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly refer to as a sitcom). An "adult animated" show, OTOH, seems to be slippery with an evolving definition: sources might call it any number of things, it might be defined by U.S. networks' parental advisory notes, age of viewers might include teens... or not. Once we determine that it is aimed at "adults" (or sometimes teens, maybe), we'll presumably decide for ourselves whether it is animated or perhaps we'll just add that part from another source?

If you feel you have unambiguous, objective selection criteria, please outline those criteria here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You keep using the same examples and quotes over and over again despite them being irrelevant to the discussion at this point, and the "issues" you keep bringing up simply don't exist.

"animated programs that are not mainly targeted towards children"; "Once we determine that it is aimed at "adults" (or sometimes teens, maybe)" - Sources all over the place say that adult animation is animation targeted at adults. The inclusion criterion should be "animated programs that are targeted at adults." Period. That first sentence of the Adult animation article should itself be corrected. I have no idea why you keep seeming to rely on it despite saying yourself that it was unsourced.

"sources might call it any number of things, it might be defined by U.S. networks' parental advisory notes, age of viewers might include teens" - Sources do not call it "any number of things." "Adult animation" is simply something that has more direct synonyms or ways of saying it than "sitcom" does. That doesn't mean it isn't just as valid of a category. No matter what synonym is used, it is in fact saying the same thing. The other two parts to this are already moot since the article won't be using a parental advisory rating alone as a source and the fact that teens might also watch is irrelevant to the fact that a show is being targeted at adults.

"we don't seem to know what 'adult animated' is" - It is animation targeted at adults.

"We know what a 'sitcom' is (a show that independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly refer to as a sitcom)." - Okay. I'm not sure why you're refusing to do any research yourself, but a show that is "adult animation" is a show that independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly refer to as "adult animation." As I outlined earlier in my sentence listing quotes from most of the sources that I've used so far, there may be many indisputably equivalent ways of doing so. Some sources more explicitly state it than others, but they are still in agreement that this is the case. We should use the more explicit statements as sources simply because we shouldn't be doing our own analysis of other sources. (Some sources may describe all of the adult content within an animated show, thus making it clear to readers that it is an animated show for adults, but may not actually say so explicitly. Or they may simply assume that readers already know that a show is "adult animation" and may thus merely discuss the show without mentioning that fact directly. We should avoid using those sources for this list since construing them to be saying the animated show is for adults would require at least some basic level of analysis, but it doesn't mean there isn't consensus that the show is "adult animation." Some sources may describe all of the content of a sitcom, thus making it clear to readers that it is a sitcom, but may not actually say so explicitly. Or they may simply assume that readers already know that a show is "a sitcom" and may thus merely discuss the show without mentioning that fact directly. We should avoid using those sources for this list since construing them to be saying the show is a sitcom would require some basic level of analysis, but it doesn't mean there isn't consensus that the show is "a sitcom.") And if there was in fact widespread disagreement about whether a show was "adult animation" or not, then it presumably shouldn't be on the list, but that simply isn't the case for at least most things here.

"Once we determine that it is aimed at "adults" (or sometimes teens, maybe), we'll presumably decide for ourselves whether it is animated or perhaps we'll just add that part from another source?" - This is the most ridiculous non-issue of all. Any source that says something is "adult animation," "animation for adults," etc. obviously says both that it's for adults and that it's animation. Given that that's the very definition of "adult animation," it's literally a tautology, and no synthesis or original research should ever be necessary. Alphius (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

If you feel you have unambiguous, objective selection criteria, please outline those criteria here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• The optimal sourcing for lists would be lists themselves. After all, that's the best way to ensure that you're not creating a type of synthesis list. I actually just managed to find such a list, but it starts off with Gravity Falls... Maybe a refocus along the lines of List of animated series with significant adult audiences would make more sense then? Here's a source or two that more closely resembles the current scope of the list. I dismiss my "delete" comment from earlier, as there are clearly sources for this, but I don't know what this will do with our scope or how to handle this. Perhaps just turning this whole thing into a category would be a much better choice. After all, there isn't really any encyclopedic content in this list anyway; it's all data. ~Mable (chat) 14:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  The Daily Dot also lists all-ages cartoons such as Steven Universe, Avatar, Animaniacs, and Adventure Time, which currently fall outside of the scope of our list. I assume we should redefine our content criteria? I'm still searching for more sources. ~Mable (chat) 14:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  This TV.com listicle features similar shows as we currently have on our list, but I don't know if this is a reliable source. This Comic Book Resources article is definitely a reliable source, though it creates the question of how to handle anime again. I assume we will simply exclude all Asian shows, though it would be nice to have a good source as to why we would decide to do so. Of course, that's a question for a different thread. ~Mable (chat) 14:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• I assume no one is interested in working on stepping away of the current arbitrary nature of the list and following the sources instead? It does seem like a lot of work, we'd probably have to rewrite the list from scratch. ~Mable (chat) 09:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mable, I've been thinking about the main page again. I'll take a list at all the sources and revise it soon. Yeah, it is pretty arbitrary, I agree. Historyday01 (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The Flintstones

Shouldn't The Flintstones be added? It aired in prime time and was aimed primarily at adults, at least the first two seasons, anyway Dpm12 (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and added The Flintstones myself Dpm12 (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I re-added The Flintstones. --Historyday01 (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

O'Grady

Does anyone remember that one cartoon that ran on The N (known today as TeenNick), called O'Grady? I remember it using certain expletives such as "damn" and "crap" and whatnot. Shouldn't that be on this list too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NDEdminson (talk • contribs) 05:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Added. I remember O'Grady being on here a few months ago. I guess someone took it off Dpm12 (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

TV-G and TV-PG-rated series

I just thought of something-- I really think the animated shows that have been rated TV-G and -PG but have not once received a TV-14 or TV-MA rating should not be on this list. Does that work? Better yet, why not have a neutral animated series list Wikipedia page for said shows?

That might be getting too far into the weeds. --Historyday01 (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)