Well, if we won't reach a conclusion now, then I guess I should reply to the point I had pushed off in hope of getting somewhere fast.
I don't know those cases, so I can't comment on that. However, I question why you assume that the StarStarSpace Narrator is a different version than the other. As said, same production crew, same cooperation and there is no conflicts regarding continuity.
Of course some production crew is going to be shared when you have a team's animator and voice actor coming on to star in a crossover. That happens with Rick and Morty or Family Guy crosses over with the Simpsons. It happens with novel authors write crossovers with other books, yet we don't consider JORGE JOESTAR canon to the rest of JJBA, afaik.
And of course there are no conflicts regarding continuity if there's no consistent setting for there to be continuity conflicts with!
Difference is that the general worlds and scalings of those things aren't consistent to the main canon of them.
The same can't be said here. There is no indication that the crossover happens in something that would be non-canon to either continuity.
By our canon page "The generally agreed-upon definition is that the work by the original author and creator of the fictional setting is canonical, unless the author or the copyright holder declares otherwise. Few other exceptions are also possible and should be noted on the verse page." By this the situation should be acceptable.
The fact that the settings are unlikely to be in conflict of each other is not really an argument. I'm pretty sure that the burden of proof on a work by the author to be non-canon to another work of the author it does crossover with is on you.
Being an educational visual presenter doesn't appear to be the problem according to our rules. The character should just be fully fictional, which this fulfils.
If you're making this argument, I think there's a major loophole if something with less continuity and nigh-identical content to
The Science Asylum would be allowed just because it's fully animated and the narrator isn't named.
I have a feeling a relevant difference here is the fact that Kurzgesagt has the validity of a show produced by TV stations, while that youtube series does not.
But, assuming it was able to meet the relevance requirements in that regard, then I don't see a reason to not allow it either. A fictional character in a notable fictional world using supernatural powers for relevant and consistent feats sounds valid for tiering, even if it is a primarily educational show.
Kurzgesagt has at least as much story as Cueball.
I 1,000,000,000% disagree, to the point where it's hard for me to respond. Kurzgesagt videos are just science education videos. Cueball's single comic is not that at all. The only way I can think to respond is to compare it to other things so, Kurzgesagt is 99% of the time equivalent to The Science Asylum,
PBS Space Time, and
CGP Grey in content. I think none of them should be allowed. While Cueball's single comic is equivalent to the more fictionalised
Exurb1a videos such as
Upsilon Dies Backwards,
Bear and Goose at the End of Everything, and
and then we'll be okay. I think all of them should be allowed (and I actually made
a profile for the last of those).
If this does not help you spot the difference, I don't know what I could say that would.
Cueballs single comic, in total quantity, has less story. It also, likewise, is essentially a "What If" scenario. Basically, you're arguing that something needs a relative percentage of story instead of an absolute amount. I don't think that's really the rule here.
That aside I don't know your examples, so meh. Generally, I'm willing to apply the same standards. I.e. fictional characters, fictional world, superpowers, some degree of continuity all balanced by a high amount of notability.
We also occasionally have a plot.
There is a single video with a plot, which is an animated adaptation of an already existing short story.
That's not quite true. Several videos feature what can be considered a plot. Videos about how civilization develops in fictional scenarios are also stories. That's why we can have things like RPG verses that are purely world-building. E.g. Following the struggle of society as over month the moon is dropping towards Earth, told in third person perspective, is a narrative even if it is a narrative for the sake of answering a question.
I don't see how that is an argument, as we have no standard of needing some average amount of continuity per portion. Most SCP files stand alone and have no real connection to each other outside of happening in the same world.
It's an argument in response to your claim of there being demonstrations of continuity.
Also, not quite sure where to slot this in, but that rule about needing a story was written and used to exclude
asdfmovie, which I am certain has more continuity/setting/story than Kurzgesagt's catalogue. Yet it still does not have enough to be allowed profiles, as they're unrelated tiny unconnected comedic shorts in a vague world with only occasional references serving as continuity.
Asdf movie has less consistent feats, less content and less official notability than Kurzgesagt. In fact, what a narrative story progression is concerned, something like the "Do a flop"-guy is probably the only character that has comparable story to Kurzgesagt and if that character came from a TV series or something I think we could allow it without problems.
The majority of xkcd comics have no indication of continuity either, but we still allow them.
I haven't read much xkcd but I don't think this is very true. There's many recurring characters that repeatedly act similarly.
The narrator is also a recurring character that acts similarly. Same for the bird people for that matter who are about as consistent to each other as most xkcd characters.
If being reoccurring in an xkcd way qualifies, than Kurzgesagt should too.
At least those have stories for their episodes, instead of being just an animated rundown of the nutritional quality of milk.
The What If scenario's of Kurzgesagt are equally stories of episode length.
In more meta videos (talking about merch they're selling, and their researching process) from even
the first year of their channel you can clearly see this being the case. I think there may be some brief appearances implying that in other videos, but I've been watching most of their videos as they came out, so I can't greatly rattle off specifics like that off the top of my head.
That doesn't apply to a vast majority of the birds, I'm pretty sure. And even if: That doesn't make them author avatars. Why the makers put them in has no bearings on the role in the world. They don't represent the author or its actions.
Anyway, my point was that this isn't a slideshow, but a world in which things actually happen to beings.[/B][/I]
My point is that there's no story. There's a world, because when you're animating a history of humanity you have to animate humans. When you're doing a comparison of the sizes of stars you need to animate stars. When you're discussing what would happen if all nukes were detonated at once, you'd draw that in comparison to Earth, since that's what people are familiar with.
As said, there are plenty "What If"-scenarios which can be considered stories. And in the newer videos we basically always have the bird people do things beyond just explanation stuff, even if it is in the background.
