Talk:Contemporary circus

unpopular in norway
circuses without animals fail in norway. there could be other countries that is the same way. all sources are in norwegian i believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Contemporary circus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oregonlive.com/performance/index.ssf/2015/04/bringing_back_the_underground.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Improperly named; should be Modern circus
There is no verification of the statement "the term contemporary circus is generally preferred". And whoever named this article must be an ESL? The term contemporary does not mean "modern"; it means "at the same time as" (something else). Therefore, the word "contemporary" has no absolute meaning throughout history. The article should be moved to "Modern circus".

Are there any reliable sources to verify use of the term "contemporary circus"? JustinTime55 (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 8 November 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Closing as no consensus after a 7-day listing (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk ) 02:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Contemporary circus → Modern circus – "Contemporary" appears to be unverified, and means "at the same time as", not "new" or "modern". JustinTime55 (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC) JustinTime55 (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Contemporary circus" seems to be well established for this type of circus developed in the later 20th century, as in this book. Sources I see on Google Books referring to "modern circus" use the term much more broadly, for circus shows going back to the 18th century.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Contemporary circus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091214203639/http://www.komedykollective.com/skewedcircus.html to http://www.komedykollective.com/skewedcircus.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090925120348/http://www.cirquedusoleil.com:80/en/about/intro/intro.asp to http://www.cirquedusoleil.com/en/about/intro/intro.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)