Talk:Adventure Time/Archive 2

Character section

Why was the character section removed?--Kevin Beckman (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a vandal deleted plot and characters, but no one noticed to restore them. I've put them back. --Cornprone (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

CHANGE REQUEST: Princess Bubblegum is proficient in German, not Korean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.136.202 (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC) she actually can speak Korean, as shown in "Lady & Peebles" when she can understand what LR is saying. Dmartin969 (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

The Ice King character description has the following phrase: "He is shown and later explain that he is a sociopath, however, to have companionship with the penguins (primarily one named Gunter) and snow & ice beasts who masturbates in the Ice Kingdom." It might just be me, but this sentence doesn't seem to make much sense. I would fix it, but I am not too sure what exactly it is trying to say. Perhaps someone who has more knowledge of the subject matter could take a look and fix this/edit for clarity. 69.14.253.223 (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The penguins may not be all that fond of Ice King after all. In the episode "Hitman", when Ice King returns to his castle, he comes upon two penguins negotiating with Scorcher the hitman. When Ice King begins to address him, Scorcher turns around and quickly conceals what looks like another contract under the back of his cloak. Seems to me the penguins had decided that as long as the hitman was available, they might as well put out a hit on Ice King! Lithonius (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Poor referencing

The article makes the claim that "The show has also received harsh criticism from some parents, who say the show is disturbing, and inappropriate" and points to the following reference; Lloyd, Robert (2010-04-05). "'Adventure Time With Finn & Jake' enters a wild new world". The Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/05/entertainment/la-et-finn-jake5-2010

This reference is a brief TV review that makes no mention of any parental criticism of the show.

121.74.241.208 (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've gotten rid of that unsourced statement. It had nothing to do with the Robert Lloyd review. --Cornprone (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 3

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. This new title didn't get much traction here, but see new move discussion below. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 08:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Adventure Time → Adventure Time (TV series) — I think per WP:MOSTV naming conventions, Adventure Time should be renamed to Adventure Time (TV series), like Chowder (TV series) and Lost (TV series). Also, Adventure Time (disambiguation) should be renamed to Adventure Time. JJ98 (Talk) 22:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose/Suppport "TV series" is not good, but moving the disambiguation series is preferred, "TV series" should redirect to the disambiguation page. This article should be renamed to Adventure Time (animated TV series) since there are two other "Adventure Time" TV series with articles as well. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I believe the manner of disambiguating articles goes by country then year, not by manner of production. Thus, perhaps, "Adventure Time (U.S. TV series)" or "Adventure Time (2010 TV series)"? -happy5214 08:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "US TV series" won't work, there's already "Adventure Time (WTAE-TV series)", which is from the US. Adventure Time (US TV series) should redirect to the disambiguation page. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Notwithstanding my other comment (which is not a vote), It seems highly likely when people search for "Adventure Time", that this is what they're looking for. -happy5214 08:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment the other American TV series lasted 15 years, this one hasn't. Isn't there recentism at work? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes it lasted 15 years. According to the stats, it viewed 112159 times back in March. Adventure Time (disambiguation) had viewed 436 times, Adventure Time (WTAE-TV series) had viewed 590 times, and Adventure Time (Canadian TV series) had viewed 336 times in March. I think that it's unlikely that it will move any time soon. I going to withdraw the Requested move myself. JJ98 (Talk) 07:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: seems you all have poor experiences in moves which is easy to see.....you don't make the name even more specific by adding what kind of TV series it is or where it came from. It's done by year. unless falls on the same year. it really shouldn't be named "canadian" or "us" and i mention canadian because theres another article under that name.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment that would need three move requests. Go ahead an file them, I'll support you for year disambig. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 4

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Adventure Time → Adventure Time (2010 TV series) — match the recently initiated requested moves for the two other Adventure Time TV shows, "Adventure Time" is ambiguous, having multiple uses, and multiple TV shows by this name. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support it's simple and distinguishable.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reverted move

I reverted the recent move because the other participants in the discussion above were not notified. I think the article should stay where it is per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The most common usage of "Adventure Time" is this show. Even if this is considered "recentism", why is that a bad thing? The vast majority of incoming readers are looking for this show, which indicates that it is the primary topic and it would make logical sense for it to stay here. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Recentism? It could be considered a bad thing depending on the views. But as long as there's a disambiguation page it shouldn't matter. if it were to be moved to a different title, than it should be done by year. And avoid looking for this "show". they're looking for the article about the show. it gives a sense of bias.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

When a particular usage predominates over all others, our policy is to assign it the base title. Otherwise, we inconvenience more readers than we convenience.

In this instance, the current television series clearly predominates over all other uses of the name "Adventure Time," and it doesn't matter whether this is because it happens to be the most recent. —David Levy 20:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article shouldn't have been moved on the basis of a two-person exchange overlapping another discussion in which the idea of a move was shown to be lack consensus. I suspect that Vegaswikian overlooked this fact. —David Levy 20:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Frederator Studios and Cartoon Network

This page states:

"This also marks Frederator Studios' first production for Cartoon Network."

If you go to the Frederator Studios Wikipedia Link, it lists one of their productions as Megas XLR. That was shown on Cartoon Network. This link: "http://www.bcdb.com/cartoons/Other_Studios/C/Cartoon_Network_Studios/Megas_XLR/" also credits Frederator Studios and Cartoon Network for the show.

One of these statements is a lie. I propose we remove the above line, as it is not accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.229.239 (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

A good replacement for File:Finn and Jake Pastures.jpg

When File:Finn and Jake Pastures.jpg was first uploaded, it had bad picture quality. Then, someone replaced it with a much-better-quality version but was cropped.

I found a could-be-better version on flickr. It's from Feed Seibert's official flickr account, it's as large as 1000×713, and what's more, we have a flickr uploader bot. But there are some errors, such as a bad colouring of Lady Rainicorn like it was from the Random! Cartoons short.

So, I'll take a number of screenshots from the title sequence: the Ice King, Princess Bubblegum and Lady Rainicorn, Marceline, and Finn and Jake doing fist bump to place under the characters section, and title card one for infobox. I'll grab them from the QuickTime 480p one at the Art of the Title website, so there should be no problem with quality and resolution.

If no objections within a few days, then I'll go with it. JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 05:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. No objection found. Then, I'll start uploading, right now. JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 13:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Image gets a bit blurry when sized down. I'll replace them with PNG ones. JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail}

Fionna and Cake

It's all started by Natasha Allegri, then-character designer working for Cartoon Network, as a personal fan work, then spread across the internet with lots of fan arts from others, and made into its own episode in the Finn and Jake S3. The preview of "Fionna and Cake" was shown at the San Diego Comic-Con 2011. But it seems like it will be a one-off event, at least for television. So, how should we deal with "Adventure Time with Fionna and Cake" issues? JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 13:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Just treat it like any other episode. Perhaps include a reception section about fan response but that's all. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think no animated shows well reflect ideas from staffs and fans like how Adventure Time does. "Fionna and Cake" was Natasha Allegri's idea. (I don't know the circumstances at all, but) Allegri also drew baby Finn's dancing moves (uploaded December 15, 2010) at least after "Memories of Boom Boom Mountain" was aired in May 3, 2010, which were later animated and seen in "Memory of a Memory". (aired July 25, 2011) In a Twitter poll conducted by Pendleton Ward, an interactive 8-bit game played by Beemo, Finn and Jake in "Rainy Day Daydream" eventually became Conversation Parade.

Something about the fandom can go under the reception section, but I don't know where to put descriptions about this kind of interactivity above. Anyway, I would describe "Fionna and Cake" like this:

"Adventure Time with Fionna and Cake", originally a personal idea of the then-character designer Natasha Allegri about two gender-switched characters named Fionna the human girl (a counterpart of Finn the human boy; voiced by Madeleine Martin in the televized episode) and Cake the cat (Jake the dog; Roz Ryan), has spawned a significant amount of fan arts circulating across the internet. Later, it made into an episode of season three about Fionna and Cake rescuing the kidnapped Prince Gumball (Princess Bubblegum; Neil Patrick Harris), whose companion is Lord Monochromicorn (Lady Rainicorn; /as of yet, we *know nothing* about the episode other than the official previews. (Leaked copies might be fake.) So, do not write about what Lord Mono. sounds until the episode has finished broadcasting./), from Ice Queen (Ice King; Grey DeLisle), also starring Marshall Lee (Marceline; /Leave it blank until episode finished broadcasting./).

It would be perfect with reliable sources (like news reports and press releases, not the fan speculations in blog posts and fan wikis) supporting those facts. JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 08:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

With the episode airing so soon, I think it's safe to wait just a short while more so we can say what actually happens in the episode. That said, the Adventure Time fandom is definitely a notable topic which deserves its own section in the article. If you can find some reliable sources, I say go for it! Axem Titanium (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

i think it's best to keep it in the list of episodes article, for stuff like this, you really have to push for the idea. 1 episode spun out of a personal early design of the previous character designer just doesn't seem much. Unless we also get reception. Still....it's one episode and the heat at the moment, i thnk we're all putting too much thought onto this. i don't think we should add any info on "fiona and cake".Bread Ninja (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Expanded episode description a bit. (go to List of Adventure Time episodes) On this article, when a paragraph that would explain a kind of creativity of some crew is well prepared somewhere in the Production section, I would describe "Fionna and Cake" briefly like this. It must be stayed just like this, even though another "Fionna and Cake" episode is added for another season:

Natasha Allegri has set an idea of gender-switched characters named Fionna and Cake. Later, the idea was made into an episode of third season titled "Adventure Time with Fionna and Cake" [and fourth season's...].

That's it. No more than this on this article. Can I remove "Fionna and Cake" thing from this article's character descriptions? JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 04:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

yeah i suggest you remove it. It's only one episode and the characters were presented more as fanfiction within the fiction. So it's hard to avccept them as real characters.Bread Ninja (talk)

Reliable sources

There are ongoing arguments about whether to cite social networking sites (like Twitter and Facebook) or not. As with this, can we consider someone's Formspring answers reliable, even if it comes directly from the artists/crew members themselves? JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 06:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Crew members' creative ideas

As I said in #Fionna and Cake above, a paragraph describing crew members' creative ideas needs to be placed somewhere in the Production section so, if reliable source is available, we can describe ideas like Natasha's "Fionna and Cake", Pen's Twitter poll, how the "Billy's Song" in "His Hero" was made, etc.. I think Lady Rainicorn speaking Korean (apart from making animal sounds in the 8-minute short) should be someone's idea. JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 06:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

the setup is too specific. I think we can say the ones who who contributed to the story as of now, but it'll be very hard to write it in the way you're asking.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing subjective and trivial information from character sections

Considering Adventure time isn't the type of series to make every episode count for development. We should really remove the subjective and trivial information tht seems to be misleading. For example "self proclaimed "awesome hat" was out of the quote "my hat is awesome" it was never refered to as "awesome hat". things like these and smaller other things that were mainly focused only on one episode should really be avoided.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Someone seems to have put a lot into writing those sections, and probably had a lot of fun with it, but they're not really encyclopedic. They're more like fan appreciation stuff. And that's fine...just not here.... PurpleChez (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Lady Rainicorn's language

I can't reference the episode, but I definitely heard her talking in Japanese, can a reference to her language be put in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.2.228 (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The DVD extras say she speaks korean. Initially she had a mix of languages I believe.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

According to most websites, Lady Rainacorn is voiced by a korean woman, and that Rainacorn speaks Korean. I am not sure though. It sounds Korean. DEIDRA C. (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

More accurately, in the Random! Cartoons short, Rainicorn sounded like what appears to be a pigeon cooeing. for the TV series, her language was changed to a human language that the target audience usually cannot understand. In English version, it's entirely Korean, read by a native Korean speaker whose main job is related to making animation. I heard Lady Rainicorn still speaks Korean in French version, but is played by a Belgian actress whose native language is French. (Haven't seen the actual clip, though.) Someone in Taiwan informed me that she speaks Taiwanese Hokkien in the Mandarin dub for Taiwan. (Haven't seen the clip, and don't know who played yet.) I remember watching a Dutch dub of "Slumber Party Panic," but because of bad audio quality, I couldn't get what does she speak, but it was definitely not Korean. JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 04:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

iwe only have to worry about is the english versions abd that is speaking korean.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I was over acted. After I heard that she speaks Korean, I thought not every dub would retain that audible part and even the dialogue. JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 14:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just discovered that the Russian version has partly retained original audio for Lady Rainicorn's dialogue. [1] JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 07:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant. We only cover the english version of the show.Lucia Black (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Rebecca Sugar

Why is Rebecca Sugar not mentioned among the cast? She's a storyboarder and writer who is an important part of the show's success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.246.180 (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you get me more information on her? I would be happpy to help! Dmartin969 (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

PB turning 13 again?

How should we take care of those claiming 'Princess Bubblegum will turn 13 again in next episode'? They were emerged since the airing of "Too Young", and they have done this with other episodes before "Another Way". I guess they are judging that way from nothing but episode titles. In my opinion, they are obsessed with PB in the younger form. JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 16:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If an episode mentions her age that could go in the article, but otherwise I think we should just continue to revert these people. I agree, they're just obsessed with her. The article should be factual, not based on anybody's fantasies. Ratemonth (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess this is referring to edits made on List of Adventure Time episodes? Not on my watch list, but generally if it's unsourced and/or based on speculation, nerf it. But then as far as I can see it's not the only future ep information without sources. Яehevkor ✉ 02:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Show is filled with drug references

There needs to be a section listing and citing every drug reference in the show. The castle made out of magic mushroom caps. The episode with the 4th dimensional black hole where Finn actually names the psychedelic Dimethyltryptamine by name. And the episode where Finn and Jake have to eat a mushroom and lick a toad in order to travel to another world. I'm sure I can think of more and I'm sure the internet can help me find several dozen more. This isn't even mentioned in the article once. What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.164.75 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that agrees with you, otherwise don't waste your time. Ratemonth (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You mean, this one? Oh, well... Just like someone's personal argument on the Marcel-Gum ships. JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 06:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

How about quotes from people who work on the show? Fans and crazy people can guess and make up all kinds up things, but no one put it in an encyclopedia. Ratemonth (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we note that http://www.commonsensemedia.org/tv-reviews/adventure-time-finn-and-jake gives it a zero drug danger level? Hcobb (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

depends on how important.the issue is.Lucia Black (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Just like to note the show mentions DMT (Dimethyltryptamine) by name in episode #15 of Season 2 - The Real You Source: Link to video of main character mentioning DMT by name: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIncG-hyQBM There is a character named LSD (Lumpy Space Dad) in episode #1 of season 1 - Trouble in Lumpy Space. FYI, LSD often stands for lysergic acid diethylamide. They talk about eating mushrooms to travel to another world in episode #. Which is what happens when you eat mushrooms containing psilocybin mushroom They talk about licking a toad to travel to another world in that same episode. Which is what happens when you lick a Sonoran Desert toad. Source: You can look here. They mention what I'm talking about. http://elrich.buzznet.com/user/journal/7922481/life-lessons-adventure-time-episode/ The character Jake grows bigger and smaller in size. Which is a commonly known direct effect of eating amanita muscaria mushrooms. This concept isn't new. You remember Super Mario? Remember eating a shroom and growing bigger? Getting my drift? No? I Guess I'm just a crazy fan, me so crazy.

Dude, just look at this dude... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-Lc18r4xKI < that is the CREATOR of the show. C'mon, dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.164.75 (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Character sections getting a little out of hand

There are several characters listed as "Other main characters" who really have little to no place being there, and should be discussed and if necessary removed. Some examples, the Fire Princess and the Lich are not at this point "main characters", both are apparently one-off characters who were in extended stories, maybe they'll appear again, but you can't presume. It's certainly unlikely that the Lich will ever appear again. Peppermint Butler, Cinnamon Bun and Hunson have been in a several episodes sure (less so for Hunson), but main characters though? This is an encyclopaedia article and only characters that are likely to have received independent coverage should be covered. I'm sure there's an Adventure Time wiki for the rest.. Яehevkor ✉ 00:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Cinnamon Bun and Peppermint Butler have also been mentioned by name in several episodes. Fire princess and lich might not come back. I thnk we should remove them aswell.Lucia Black (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Too much Formspringme sources for trivial info

As much as its great to have 1st party confirmation this seems to be to much of a QnA. For example "Marceline Albedeer" and "Princess Bonibell "Bonnie" Bubblegum" are things that were asked by the creators by fans. Its not really a full confirmation or relevant enough. A good way to choose the right name is looking at the end credits and see what they name the characters..Lucia Black (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Finn's age

There seems to be a lot of dispute about this, from both IP's and Users, so I figure we should open a dialogue on this. To my knowledge, in the episode "Burning Low" Finn said he was 14. I believe we should collaborate to determine his age, then reference this page in the likely event someone comes along who says they think differently about his age. So to start off, what does everyone think Finn's age is, and how can you prove it? Grammarxxx (talk) 4:13, August 9 2012 (UTC)

He's 14. This has been well-sourced for a long time: http://www.newsarama.com/tv/adventure-time-pendleton-ward-2-120214.html Ratemonth (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Character Articles

Be aware, Titanic1000 is creating separate articles for the characters in the show. I am a bit worried because: 1. I don't think they meet WP:NOTE and 2. They are completely unsourced. A quick check of his talk page reveals that he has a problem with this in the past. I wanted to post this here because I don't feel comfortable deleting any of the pages myself without consensus. I apologize if this seems harsh. --Noha307 (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bring this to light, and for being so courteous! Personally, I don't believe in character pages, I think they're best left for wikia's. Although this user may not have the best history, we should just observe right now and give him the benefit of the doubt. If he starts going around and making pages for every Finn and LSP, then we should get involved; although it's an attempt to add information, it could actually do more harm than good. Grammarxxx (talk) 3:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

character articles may be allowed if theres enough third party source and credible reception. That said, if theres enough info to make an article (as long as its not written in a wikia fashion) it can be done. I think it may be a good idea depending if we can find sources. Of course it has to be a group effort.Lucia Black (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Flame Princess is Finn's girlfriend

Maybe it was just hinted before, but in Burning Low it was clearly established. They are clearly dating. Any reason not to list her as his girlfriend? I don't see any discussion of this before on this talk page or in its archives. Dream Focus 09:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There was significant discussion of it after Burning Low aired, but unfortunately the participants in the discussion (including me) never took it to the talk page; rather the discussion was just in edit descriptions. I was of the opinion that they are dating, but eventually agreed to the phrase "emotionally involved" as a compromise. If you want to change it to say that they're dating, be my guest, but it may restart an edit war that was finished about a month ago. Ratemonth (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It is exactly what Ratemonth described, there was a compromise a month ago regarding this topic and everyone agreeds with the current facts. The 'dating' and 'girlfriend' views are still considered as a personal view point and has not been confirmed through Flame Princess or the people behind the series. As of now, only Finn confirmed his feelings for Flame Princess. In addition, in the later episode "King Worm", it was hinted that she might not have existed at all and was probably a part of Finn's imagination as it is cleared that this episode came right after the episode "Evicted" ends. I wish they will end up being girlfriend/boyfriend and maybe get marry in the future episodes, maybe this whole thing will finally be confirmed in the coming episode "Ignition point", but as of now, it is just an opinion; not proven fact. 207.237.167.6 (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

She isn't his imagination. The King Worm episode was in a dream, obviously nothing there matters. If no one sincerely doubts they are dating, then there is no point to keep that information out because of some vague rule somewhere. Wikipedia rules are descriptive not prescriptive. That's written down somewhere. Also, look at the transcript for that episode. [2] Where Jake says "Looks like your date went pretty good buddy." So they were clearly on a date. Dream Focus 21:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I'm trying to say. Yes, nothing in the dream world created by the worm king is real, however the timeline this episode presents a lot of unanswered holes regarding Flame Princess (Think about it, the episode "King Worm" continues right after "Evicted" ends, so, when did Finn actually meet Flame Princess?). Until these holes are fixed, we all have to wait and see before putting things up that might not be true at all in the coming future episodes. Maybe this whole thing might be explained in the next episode "Ignition point" when Finn and Jake visit the Fire Kingdom. Furthermore, maybe Flame Princess will appear in "Ignition point" and admit that she is in love with Finn, however so far she never said that out loud in any past episodes and by Wikipedia rules it isn't considered as facts. Like you said, Wikipedia rules are descriptive not prescriptive; and as of now, Flame Princess hasn't confirmed with her own voice (not based on other characters' opinions) regarding her feelings. Don't get me wrong, I do wish Finn and Flame Princess will have a relationship that can end up becoming boyfriend/girlfriend, but, again, it's just my opinion and not proven facts.207.237.167.6 (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I put in the article they are dating, and referenced the episode where they went on a date, and Jake even called it a "date". So its not a problem, references have been found. Also common sense. Not a single person sincerely doubts they are dating, so its not an issue here. Please stop editing warring over nonsense. Also, you watched the episodes out of order. "Evicted!" is from the first season, and "King Worm" is from the 4th. Dream Focus 15:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

You are using WP:synthesis which isn't allowed. We saw a funny bit where king worm made them hug him. Then seasons later they had an episode where they were king worm was attacking them. Maybe they were connected. Maybe one was done as a funny joke ending, and later on they decided to make an episode out of it. This isn't a true story after all. Dream Focus 15:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• More input please to stop mindless edit warring. This is ridiculous. [3] "(Undid revision 512360535 by Dream Focus (talk) Revised to the original confirmed facts.)" The confirmed facts are that they are dating, it mentioned in an episode, the word "date" used. Nowhere does it say they are "emotionally involved". And what does that mean exactly? He is involved with his friend the talking shapeshifting dog, and has emotions as to how he feels about him, do we say they are emotionally involved too? Dream Focus 15:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

it's difficult to say, the easier and less controversial way of writing this is that they are in a relationship. But terms like dating would mean they are currently still having dates. So it's best to avoid terms like that because one date doesn't mean they're dating off-screen. the character section is a bit muddy, it's best we try to clean it up and not add "synthesis" like sentences.Lucia Black (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Just write that in the episode "Burning Low", Finn and Flame Princess were on a date. Or wait till Monday when the next FP episode airs - maybe things will be cleared up in it.--In Donaldismo Veritas (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that might be the safest way to go.Lucia Black (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Lucia Black and In Donaldismo Veritas are on the point. I wasn't using WP:synthesis, or making a conclusion from two different sources, but basically, pointing out the many questions that will be asked by various casual viewers of the series. Like I said before, "maybe this whole thing will finally be confirmed in the coming episode "Ignition point"" or further future episodes which Lucia Black and In Donaldismo Veritas stated above. In addition, Lucia Black stated a valid point about the word 'dating' (that is why we compromised with the term "emotionally involved") which I've tried to explain to you on my previous explanations and I think you misunderstood it based solely from your reactions. I'm not trying to argue with you; just trying to explain the matter clearly. 207.237.167.6 (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree with "emotionally involved" as its not really used as often as "in a relationship".Lucia Black (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that there is consensus for "in a relationship" so hopefully the IP can live with that. Ratemonth (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Lucia Black, when I stated "we" in the statement regarding "emotionally involved", I wasn't refering to you, I was refering to everyone who was involved during last month shuffle regarding this topic. Hopefully, soon, everything regarding this topic will become much clearer and this whole thing will be just a dust in the past. Ratemonth, I think you should rephrase your last statement regarding "IP" as it may cause others, who don't have a user name and who is not involved, to be confuse, or in a confusion that will lead to many misunderstanding. In addition, I didn't disagree at any point regarding "in a relationship" as evidence in any of my previous talks. 207.237.167.6 (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So where are we on this now? As it is, Flame Princess' bio says she and Finn are only friends, and in Finn's it says nothing and 108.0.38.163 keeps removing it. As for my opinion, I believe listing them as girlfriend/boyfriend would be acceptable. Grammarxxx (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on, but I just revised back before the vandalising begins. After, "Ignition Point", I hope the next/future episode will be an episode or two-part episodes dedicated to Flame Princess' feelings; we can only hope and see.207.237.167.6 (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Follow the above discussion. They are not friends, they are in a relationship. That has been very obvious to anyone who watches the show. Ratemonth (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

They were friends in the beginning and ended up being in a relationship. I didn't change anything, just add additional information to build up a history which is required in a bio. I'm not disagreeing with you; I just want to make things much clearer for future wikipedia readers whom visit the Adventure Time page and avoid future confusion/misunderstanding. 207.237.167.6 (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

He had a crush on her from the start, and she showed interest in him in the first episode they met. They were dating in no time at all. Just say she's his girlfriend already, or that they are dating(as the episode transcripts I mentioned before clearly shows). This obsession with using words other than those that specifically describe the situation as it is, is just ridiculous. Dream Focus 07:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Dream Focus, you even said it yourself, in the first sentence "'HE' had a crush on her from the start" not 'she' had a crush on him. Throughout "Burning Low", only Finn speaked out about his feelings and his buddy Jake is helping him out. In Princess Bubblegum journal, she even wrote "Finn + love" not Finn + Flame Princess + Love. In no where in the episode or other episode (up-to-now), Flame Princess said 'I love you Finn' or 'Finn, you are my Boyfriend'. I understand what you are trying to say, but in no where in a bio that a personal perspective can be justified as cold hard facts . I don't want to cause future misunderstanding and confusion for future visiters to the Adventure Time Wikipedia page. Just wait until future episode with Flame Princess, she might later acknowledge her feelings with her own voice and then we can move from there.207.237.167.6 (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

She was clearly interested in him also in that first episode. And are you referring to Princess Bubblegum's presentation where she tried to explain that they shouldn't be together? And if consensus is that its painfully obvious by now, then you don't need to wait for her to specifically say they are dating. When he built her a house, didn't they kiss, or just hug? Dream Focus 16:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No I'm not refering to Princess Bubblegum's presentation and yes, Finn and Flame Princess hugged and kissed before, but it doesn't mean she is in love with him. For example, Finn hugged, and kissed Princess Bubblegum before, but it was cleared that she doesn't felt the same way (when she made that 'what!?' facial expression) after Finn revealed his feelings in "Burning Low". This is a bio for Flame Princess; not a forum or a place to place opinion. I understand your views, but It is still a personal perspective and can't be justified as real facts in a bio. When you write a bio, the purpose is to inform the readers about the character, not a place to provide subjective opinions about the character based on your personal views or other characters' perspective. Until she voiced her OWN feelings, or the people behind the series said something to solidify her feelings; what you described is still a subjective view point; not facts.207.237.167.6 (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 October 2012

genre = Adventure, comedy, science-fantasy, black comedy, surreal humor, comedy-drama

173.122.99.89 (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Done in this edit. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 09:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

ice king and princes bubblegum

It is hinted in "Holly Jolly Secrets" within a picture that the ice kings fiancee resembles princes bubblegum within a quick frame[4] this has also been noticed by others as shown in this link... a mention on the wiki page would be nice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solsage (talk • contribs) 04:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

PB invented the candy kingdom/people

It is shown by the invention of goliad and lemongrab the the entire candy kingdom including its peole may have been made (at least the origins of it) by PB (Princess Bubblegum). As well when PB is turned 13 she is turned back to 18 by combining candy mass maybe hinting they are all made by the same design. other various episodes hint at this idea as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solsage (talk • contribs) 04:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Candy people have been around before her. See Susan Strong and His Hero for example. Hcobb (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

She is a candy person, how could she have created herself? Dmartin969 (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Minor Character Order

I am probably going to reorder the "Minor Characters" subsection, as they don't appear to be in any particular order. Should I put them in alphabetical, appearance, or number of episodes in? Dmartin969 (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

by appearance would work.Lucia Black (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Split into Character list?

i think its notable enough to split into a list article for the characters to comply with WP:SS. What do you all think?Lucia Black (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, new major characters are seldom added and the current list isn't long enough to justify its own page. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 00:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The characters all together, takes up more than a third than the article and we can only go by summary style. Such as listing the major characters here and supporting and minors in a separate list (with major characters included of course).Lucia Black (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It says the first season DVD came out after the ones for the first three seasons

It says they released the first two seasons, then the three seasons collection, and then the first season only DVD after that. That doesn't make any sense. Dream Focus 18:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Some of the DVDs listed are not complete season sets. They are collections containing only a few episodes from multiple seasons. And yes, two of those were released before the complete first season set. --Cornprone (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It could be worded better.Lucia Black (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Finn is said to be 14, but

in the pilot he claims to be 12 (jake tells that he himself is 28). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.4.251 (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Many series change after their pilot. In an interview at http://www.newsarama.com/tv/adventure-time-pendleton-ward-2-120214.html they say "Finn is not that old – he's 14 now, he ages every year." So as time goes by on the show, he'll get older perhaps. Dream Focus 14:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

When the show launched in April 2010, he was 12. In Season 2's "Mystery Train" (14 March 2011), he had his birthday - his 13th. Season 4 began in April 2012, so Finn would be 14 by then. Voice actor Jeremy Shada, is likewise an adolescent (actually nearly 14 months older than his character Finn is), so both are growing up. Whether Finn will continue to celebrate his birthday each March, and thus turn 15 in the latter half of Season 5, remains to be seen. -- Glenn L (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

change request for spelling in pig section

CHANGE REQUEST: The spelling in the last added section (on the Pig) is frightful. Could someone please fix it?--Polypartite (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. [5] New post go at the bottom not the top by the way. Moving your post to the proper area. Dream Focus 07:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Marceline wikilinking

I would like to ask Rtkat3 why he has continually removed wikilinks to the Marceline the Vampire Queen, a Good Article, from the characters section as he did here, here, and most recently, here. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 02:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious as well. It's an important link. Without it most people won't even know the page exists. Here you can see the drastic drop in the page's number of views, from the day the link was removed (Nov. 14) to the day it was added back (Dec. 2). --DocNox (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

the article (including this one) tends to cite episodes within the article. So thats definitely a problem. Theres a cite episode template for that.Lucia Black (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

How is that a problem? I got the article to GA awhile ago. Citing episodes in articles is a commonly accepted practice, and has been used on several FAs, for a matter of fact.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Falls closer to WP:NOTGUIDE. Its best to use ref citation instead of constantly state which episode happened. Especially in a non linear plot like Adventure time.Lucia Black (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel that's a pretty simplistic claim. Just because it states both attribution and a citation, does not make it somehow automatically unencyclopedic.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic tone. Its still an article that can potentially be GA.Lucia Black (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Character list

Considering i improved an article i chose as a personal project to the point where i cant improve it any further without comment, i came back to focus on Adventure time to improve the article as another personal project. And im strongly considering a list of characters. Some arent warming up to the idea because the article isnt big enough. However, the article is already lengthly and the Character section although may not be incredibly long, it is long enough for it to take more attention then the out-of-universe information. Personally i think the other reason is that it doesnt provide sources. So i created a special page so that others can help contribute and focus on actually making the article. The page is right here: List of Adventure Time characters But i prefer the improvements to make the article have a less in-universe content.Lucia Black (talk) 07:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that looks pretty good. You're right, as the page is getting rather large. I'd like to one day work on separate Finn, Jake, Bubblegum, and Ice King pages as well.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Airing of Adventure Time

Someone created this article and it has no refs and wasnt really brought up. Should we AfD it or do we merge it here? It looks like original research considering how its reworded but at the same time could find some source on it. What do you all think?Lucia Black (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I just merged, as it is not sourced and not particularly notable.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 January 2013

Hi,

The Ice King is not "primarily friends with one penguin called Gunter". He is insane and refers to all the penguins as Gunter, frequently addressing more than one of them by this name in the same sentence.

Thanks!

Cole Morris 92.234.31.19 (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Done! Enjoy! Axem Titanium (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ice King should be given credit

In the episode "I Remember You" Ice King shows Marceline a news paper clipping. On this clipping, the article states that on a recent expedition Simon Petrikov discovered an old leather book titled "The Enchiridion" it also contains a photo of Simon holding the book. Please add to the Ice Kings section giving him credit for finding the book. Lokotor (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 January 2013

I just want to let everyone know that Goliad is a recurring character in Adventure Time, and(along with Stormo) will appear in more episodes. 321Wikiman (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not find a reliable source that says this? Without a source it's not going in any article. Ratemonth (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Comedy-drama

The show has it's share of serious and dramatic moments, much akin to older animated series like Hey Arnold! or Lupin lll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.166.15 (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Snail

The Snail is a minor character that appears in every single episode of adventure time. He should have some mention on the list of minor characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.46.175 (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point. It has been added!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

blurays?

This article is missing information on the recently announced blurays. They should be mention. --99.120.152.215 (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

They are mentioned in the table that documents the seasonal releases. They're also mentioned in each season's article. I feel that's adequate.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Adventure Time/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khanassassin (talk · contribs) 19:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Once again: Khanassassin! --Khanassassin ☪ 19:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Lede

• Remove the "[citation needed]" in the last paragraph, since that bit of info is sourced later in the article. Otherwise, a'right, a'right.

  Good catch. Someone keeps adding it in there, even though, as you mentioned, its in the main body.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Development

Concept and creation

• Nice, nice.

Production

• Great!

Cast

• Again; nice, nice.

Setting

• Ah, you know!

Title sequence and music

Characters

• I haven't looked through this section yet, but this is like 40% of the article and it's well-sourced, so couldn't it be moved to List of Adventure Time characters?

  See below.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Episodes

• The section's fine, but this is just a personal preference; since there's a link to the full episode list, the overview table could link to the seasons' own pages. The "Pilot" is already linked in the article, and it's listed in the table as a "Season", which it's not, so you could remove it. If you feel that the pilot episode should be mentioned in the section, you could maybe add it in the paragraph below the table..?

  I linked the seasons, as that makes a lot of sense. I kept the pilot, however, because the graph/table is shared with the List of Adventure Time episodes page, and the pilot is really a separate entity, as its the same show in name, but was released at a completely different time and by a different network.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Reception

Ratings

• All cool.

Reviews

• Yep, you know what.

"What Was Missing" controversy

• The "somewhat controversial" bit is kind of POV-ish, but otherwise, nice.

  Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Awards and nominations

• Nice, nice.

Other media

Toys and clothing

• Cool.

Comic books

• Coool.

Video games

• Cooool.

Home media

• All cool.

References

• Fine, except that the two Twitter links (#17, #18) are dead.

  Fixed. I fixed a couple more that I found, too.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You did one hell of a job with the article! Again, there's Just a Lil Bit of work left. Very little. :) -Khanassassin ☪ 20:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! And huge thanks for reviewing this one! I believe I have fixed or addressed all the concerns.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

i also agree on splitting the character list. Id be bold about it, but probably need consensus first.Lucia Black (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Let's be bold about this. Who should stay, and who should go?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably none, i think a summary of the characters in general would work well. Mention the plot focuses on Finn and Jake and recurring characters such as Princess Bubblegum, Ice King, Marceline and maybe Flame princess.Lucia Black (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Lucia. That sentence, plus a link to the character page, and bam! That's it. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 21:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me.Lucia Black (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

How does it look now? Here's the new article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Great! Once again, I'm giving this article_{of a notoriously overrated show (sorry)}a Pass! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Adventure Time Reverse Gender Character List

JoyfullJuneBug (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Adventure Time Reverse Gender Character List need to be added to the characters listings

Fionna – is the gender-swapped version of Finn the Human

Cake – is the gender-swapped version of Jake

Marshall Lee - is the gender-swapped version of Marceline

Cinnamon Bun in Dress is the gender-swapped version of Cinnamon Bun

Doctor Prince is the gender-swapped version of Doctor Princess

Female Starchy is the gender-swapped version of Starchy

Flame Prince is the gender-swapped version of Flame Princess

Ms. Candy Cane is the gender-swapped version of Mr. Candy Cane

Ms. Cupcake is the gender-swapped version of Mr. Cupcake

Ms. Pig is the gender-swapped version of Mr. Pig

Muscle Prince - is the male counterpart of Muscle Princess

Prince Gumball - is the gender-swapped version of Princess Bubblegum

Prince Prince Prince - is Princess Princess Princess as a boy

Tree Trunks With Mustache & Bow Tie - is a gender swapped version of Tree Trunks.

Gumdrop Lad - is Gumdrop Lass gender swapped

Ice Queen - is the fictional gender-swapped version of the Ice King

Lollipop Boy - is a gender-swapped version of Lollipop Girl

Lord Monochromicorn - is the fictional gender-swapped version of Lady Rainicorn

Lumpy Space Prince - is the gender-swapped version of Lumpy Space Princess

Gingerbread Cookie - (or Gingerbread Rebecca or Gingerbread Sugar) is a female cookie, the gender-swapped version of Gingerbread Muto.

1, most of that list is really fancrufty, as only a few of those characters are gender-bent versions of the main characters.

2, there are only 1 (soon to be 2) episodes, out of 114, that feature these characters.

3, the source you posted is a link to the Wikia. That isn't considered reliable at all.

4, info regarding the gender-swapped episodes can be found on season 3 and 5's pages.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Finn's Age

I just want to get some consensus here. Since Finn ages in real-time, and Ward has confirmed this, should it be added that Finn is now 15? Since his birthday is in mid-March, as confirmed by Mystery Train when he turned 13, and that was 2 years ago, he should be 15 now. Thoughts?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It. Should be noted whenever a birthday has passed and a new age is. Unless its redundant, so instead it would be best to say "as of episode X, he is - years old" I dont. Even know if Mystery Train actually confirmed a date. Ill have to rewatch it. Shows like the simpsons andd Family guy have passed through multiple holidays multiple times and even then they stay the same age (unless confirmed, such as Meg who had episodes specifically about her birthdays).Lucia Black (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. In an interview that was held in 2012, Ward said Finn is 14, so the article says he is "14 as of 2012".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Given year may not be a good idea, but thats just me being a skeptic.Lucia Black (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

David OReilly

Should David OReilly be listed among the writers/directors? He only wrote/directed one episode, and it was a guest appearance.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm difficult....I say we mention them as "main writers/director" and David won't be mentioned cuz he's not a main one.Lucia Black (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television/doc mentions that the writers param shouldn't be used if the show has 5+ writers, but I would say if you cut the list down to the main 5, it should be okay. A guest writer like David could be mentioned in the season article for the episode he wrote/directed. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems fair to me. I'll cut him out.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Age-appropriate rating?

I've looked, and I just can't seem to find to which age group this series is aimed, or its TV rating It recently came to Netflix, along with many other Cartoon Network (And a few Adult Swim) titles, and for some strange reason, got dropped right into the "Just for Kids" programming block, despite such inappropriate situations/dialog as (S1E13 ending scene) "How about some knife in the neck!?" This is just the most dramatic example. This series is quite clearly not age appropriate for Netflix's "Just for Kids," and I've already done my part in informing them so, but other than that, and this, what else can I do to make sure this series is made more clear on just what its target audience is? 74.47.106.229 (talk)ducky69247@yahoo.com —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ummm, the show is marketed towards kids. That makes it a kid show. It's rated PG. Just because personal morals get in the way does not mean that this should be reassigned as to what it is.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with him in a way. Although I'm just fine watching it myself, I wouldn't allow my 7 year old brother to watch it - he's too impressionable. I know it's not a 100% reliable source, but simply looking at the TVTropes Dodging the Radar Article for Adventure Time shows that this show has a lot of sexual Double Entendres and Innuendos. For kids 12+ that can handle that, it might be OK. I really think something mentioning the sexual references (other than the Bubblegum/Marceline controversy) should be added. Kupiakos (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking be done here? The article makes no mention of the target audience either way. If you're looking for "activism" to "get the word out" or something, that's not really what Wikipedia is for, especially not without reliable sources to back it up. As far as I know, there is no moral panic around Adventure Time, nor should there be. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

it says nuclear war, but the last episode showed it to be a mutagenic bomb

The show mentions the "mushroom war" everyone assumed was nuclear, but it never says that does it? It was a mutagenic bomb that caused everything to change. Dream Focus 23:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

havent seen it. But does it say specifically?Lucia Black (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that's what they called it. Some fans are calling it the mushroom bomb. I can't find a transcript for that episode yet. Dream Focus 01:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

i heard mushroom wars but not exactly sure if thats whst they wee referring to.Lucia Black (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

So far, it has only been referred to as "The Mushroom War." The idea that it was a nuclear war (called what it is because of the "mushroom cloud" a nuke makes) is speculation from the opening sequence, where an undetonated radioactive bomb is seen amid some junk. Sailorknightwing (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It was a nuclear war but the radiation from the war was so bad that anyone who survived above ground was transformed into mutated creatures. The only reason the Ice King and little Marcy were saved was because Ice King (Simon) had the crown he could have easily protected himself and Marcy is the child of a demon and a vampire sooooooooooo you can see how that works out she wasn't human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.3.148.164 (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Title card or logo?

A few days ago, the infobox image was changed from a screenshot of the title card to the series' logo. However, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Image states that an intertitle would be the "ideal" image for a TV infobox. Personally, I prefer File:Adventure Time - Title card.png over File:Adventure Time logo.png because the logo doesn't show Adventure Time's two main protagonists, Finn and Jake, whose faces can't be found now that the image has been changed. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 21:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe as a compromise, this page could use the intertitle, which is the title card that was removed, and the logo could be used for the episodes page?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 21:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not put the title card as a picture in the body of the article cause i'm pretty sure the logo is preferred over a screenshot of the title card. Koala15 (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You're "pretty sure" it's preferred, but from where are you getting this information? Also, I don't see how it counts as my "opinion" if I'm citing clear project style guidelines. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 23:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Title card is the superior image and going by the guidelines should be used anyway. Not heard any viable arguments against it so far so title card it should be.. Яehevkor ✉ 23:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Paper Luigi is correct in this instance. MoS states that the intertitle card is preferred. However, the logo has been moved to the Episodes page, so it is still being used.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ice King and Princess Bubblegum

There are many reasons why the Ice King is so obsessed with Princess Bubblegum and one of them is yes that his fiancé did look a lot like her but another reason is that when he was in major need she helped him. This is shown in the Simon and Marcy episode in which the pink goo/bubblegum gives him the can of soup he needs to help little Marcy. After this happens the pile of goo smiles and (now I just have a theory) even though he said that it was creepy and gross the smile reminded him of his fiancé and it also reminded him that things could possibly get better.

While these are all valid theories, they need reliable, secondary sources before we can add any of them into the article. Also, be wary that this is not a forum to discuss AT, but rather to improve the article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

New Video Game Coming Out in November

Adventure Time: Explore the Dungeon Because I DON'T KNOW! is coming out November 12th, 2013 for the XBOX 360, PS3, Wii U & Nintendo 3DS. May want to add that to the Video Game section.

http://www.amazon.com/Adventure-Time-Explore-Dungeon-Because-nintendo/dp/B00CMD78L2/ref=sr_1_3?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1370632274&sr=1-3&keywords=adventure+time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.15.221 (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed for "a single episode takes roughly nine months to complete."

I would have just added a citation needed, but it's locked due to vandals. RunningDroid (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

References aren't needed in the lede if they are expanded upon in the main body, which is the case here. In "Production", there is a sentence that reads: "It takes about eight to nine months for a single episode to be created." This is backed up by reference 15 and reference 18. So, there's no need for another reference.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

So that means the entire series has taken over 97 years to complete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamoruanime (talk • contribs)

Erm, I suspect they work on more than one episode at the same time. Яehevkor ✉ 10:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That's certainly what the sources in the article say. That should probably be clarified in the article, since as written it does seem unclear and Ward made a point to clarify that "everything’s sort of overlapping all at the same time". - SudoGhost 10:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

why?, read this

Why is this always locked even though its a good article? Some of us just want to edit it, is that so bad wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.126.173 (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Your edit history show that you are more interested in vandalizing Wikipedia, though. The lock on this page prevents people like you from ruining articles here. -Thibbs (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• To be fair, it might be a shared public IP. I specifically created my account because it was the only way I could contribute (at the time) since my high school's IP was blocked because of vandals. It only takes one person to ruin it for an entire campus. --Crimson Bleeding Souls (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Goliad edits

Several people keep adding Goliad to the character list. However, the link that is provided as "evidence" does not mention at all that Goliad will be back; it's merely Adam Muto rhetorically reiterating what the person wanted. Goliad is already mentioned under Bubblegum's section. Furthermore, Goliad appears in only ONE episode. It is not a recurring/minor character. It was a one-off character, unlike the rest of the characters on the list. To all editors, please kindly stop adding this to the character list. If there is ever a character article, it would probably be appropriate to add the information there.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Goliad and Stormo can both be seen in the background in Princess Cookie, but 2 episodes from the same season doesn't confirm that they'll continue to be included that way. They were only really featured in one episode. Remember, Pokemon had an entire season centered around the journey to retrieve the GS Ball, and that's essentially vanished from the story. If AT continues to maintain story continuity with cameo appearances by Goliad and Stormo, I'll be pleasantly impressed. --Crimson Bleeding Souls (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Adventuretime Crossover with Futurama (2013)

Adventuretime's Finn and Jake (who is also the voice of Bender on Futurama) will appear in Futurama's episode "Leela and the Genestalk".

Source: http://geek-news.mtv.com/2013/08/06/adventure-time-futurama-crossover/ https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151770832876620&set=a.10150284184946620.378653.9588466619&type=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.31.128 (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It was more of a cameo, wasn't it? I think this probably belongs in the Futurama article more than this one, since it wasn't a two-way crossover.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Not seen the episode yet, but as far as I know it's a seconds long cameo. It has had some coverage though so could be mentioned somewhere on this article, but I'm not sure were. Яehevkor ✉ 18:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This could be briefly mentioned in some form of "legacy" section, and at the same time be mentioned in the Characters/finn/jake articles.Lucia Black (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Are there any more sort of "legacy"-types things that could be added? Maybe a cartoon that was inspired by AT, or the like. As it is, I don't know if we have enough info to start a new section right now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Well award and nomination could be considered as some form of legacy. But I'll look into more info on what could be legacy info. Another could possibly be some form of connection between Bravest Heroes and Adventure Time, so i'll do a bit of research. But even if we don't add it in some ofrm of "legacy" section, it could still be mentioned in Characters/Finn/Jake articles.Lucia Black (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we need an image for this?

I don't think we really need an image of what a storyboard looks like, just to stress the importance of it. Or rather, i don't find it all that important. there have been several series in the past and still some today that use storyboards. I believe a more relevant image is a storyboard of Adventure Time to show the production process even clearer. but thats just a compromise, i don't think we need such an image in general.Lucia Black (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I added it is because it is a free public domain image, and one of the comments left about the page is that it could use more images. An Adventure Time storyboard is not public domain and since a public domain board exists, it would probably get deleted.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a storyboard would be non-free, but its not impossible to add in. I don't think a rough idea of storyboards = what adventure time storyboards look like because one sends a completely different message. Regardless...maybe later on we can find a more relevant image.Lucia Black (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Maybe we should get others to weigh in?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Its been a while and no one has said anything else. I guess we'll wait some more.Lucia Black (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought of an idea. If we added a bit about the post-its being used to revise scenes, then we could add an actual storyboard that has been created by the show. It wouldn't (hopefully) get deleted that way, since it would then be used to illustrate how revisions are made. What do you think?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Wasn't there an image of scrapped storyboard later some of the content of those storyboards being re-used? I'm sure we could add an image of a scrapped storyboard.Lucia Black (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's one for "Brothers in Insomnia" that never got made.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well the point is to keep it relevant to the development section. i think the image would work great but i think some information on how the process works would make it more relevant. If there's any specific information relating to storyboards or scrapped storyboards, it would fit without issues.Lucia Black (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's some info on how the staff uses post-it notes to tweak and make corrections to their storyboards, which the image illustrates. I'll look around and see if I can find anything to add so that the image would be more at home in the article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I hope that if also offers more than just post-it notes. but if you find that info, it would be good to use, and then we can make that iamge more relevant to use.Lucia Black (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Incidences of Commas After Quotation Marks

This article has 25 incidences of putting commas after quotation marks. I have tried correcting this twice, and both times User:Gen. Quon has reverted my edits, watching the page like a hawk. He claims that commas can go after quotation marks "depending on whether or not the comma was in the origianl quote," which I know for a fact is wrong, just read any professionally written article or literary work and you'll see that this is the case. But aside from this, many of the quotation marks in question are used to denote episode titles, so even if his argument is a valid one, it would not apply to many of the incidence that are shown in this article. –Nahald (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I will only point you to what Wikipedia's official Manual of Style has to say about the subject: WP:MOSLQ. I quote, "On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." It's called logical quotation, and it applies to many "professionally written article[s] or literary work[s]". So, you are wrong.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Gen. Quon is right. Please follow WP's guidelines. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This still does not count for all the incidences of quotations used to denote titles and not quotes.

Yes it absolutely does. You place the punctuation inside "if they are part of the quoted [i.e. episode title] material". Since there aren't punctuation marks inside episode titles, the punctuation goes on the outside.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"Post-apocalyptic" in opening paragraph is a spoiler

Someone watching this show for the first time isn't going to describe their world as such and should not be primed with that knowledge. The fascinating episodes that give glimpses into the genesis of the Land of Ooo and the Candy Kingdom don't show up until several seasons in, and in my opinion, deserve not to be spoiled. Suggestion: Replace "post-apocalyptic" with "surreal and fantastic" or similar adjectives. Scezumin (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Being a spoiler isn't a good enough reason to delete something from an encyclopedia. Can you offer another reason for this change? Ratemonth (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Does Not Fear the Spoiler.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Muto promoted to co-executive producer

Adam Muto has recently promoted as co-executive producer. 86.45.8.104 (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2014

Adventure Time is currently nominated for Favourite Cartoon at the 2014 Kids' Choice Awards. 86.43.171.140 (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2014

94.59.14.144 (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. (t) Josve05a (c) 09:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

"What Was Missing" controversy

This section needs better references for starters. Also I think this being a controversy or even article worthy is debatable as it appears to be from a minority opinion. --0pen$0urce (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'better' references. They're directly from a secondary source, quoting a primary source. Anyway, I just merged it with Marceline's article..--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There's actually a fair ammount of direct and indirect news sources to be found about the controversy, and it was apparently noteworthy enough to be addressed by the show's creators, Frederator studio and several people working on the show. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I just didn't want to start a fight, but I think it's appropriate.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Re-tagging, if need exists to have a criticism or controversy section, then it really has to be sourced well and written from a universal/neutral/majority perspective. Only 2 sources, one is a blog, that's a standard wikipedia no-no. The newsrama one is acceptable, but doesn't elaborate enough or really support the claims of the "controversy" or claims made in the section. One thing we want to avoid is soapboxing, scandalmongering, and advocacy which without solid references is a challenge. Doubtful a major news outlet even covered this as I couldn't find any, and still lingers on being a minority opinion that this was even significant to mention let alone dedicate a whole section too. So I am hopefully before someone just reverts, some changes be made such as at least adding additional, quality references that support this section.--0pen$0urce (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Also to further add this really looks like a issue with Reliable Sources and undue weight, and a fringe theory. So a few people on a comments section or a blog proclaim controversy, so what. I didn't see this covered on CNN, no uproar from religious groups. The dialog and song in the episode are being broadly interpreted. I really don't think a majority opinion really walked away thinking controversy. So what the producer, not the creator addressed it in an interview by prompting from the reporter and was vague and somewhat dismissive. Same as how the youtube page was pulled. mountain out of a molehill, by a few overtly opinionated internet commenters. I just don't see that this has been substantiated enough to be article worthy.--0pen$0urce (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Fred Seibert issued a public apology for it through the official Frederator Studios blog, and Pendleton Ward commented on the issue makes me think it's less of a fringe theory. Besides, being reported on CNN and having religious fanatics angered are not the only way controversies are allowed on Wikipedia.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I Agree with Gen Quon. The fact that it received a responce from the creators means the controversy was significant enough. It did however previously mention that the episode would still air despite issues. So if its not there, idk why its not.Lucia Black (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

0pen$0urce just removed the source to the Frederator blog and added a "references "needed" tag in its place. That's not cool.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've improved the section quite a bit. It now has citations pointing towards Frederator Studios/Fred Seibert, Pendleton Ward, Adam Muto, and Bitch magazine. That's unique responses from the series' production company, creator, episode writer, and a feminist magazine. I'd say all of those combined make this controversy perfectly acceptable for an article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

First off blogs are discouraged as being used as references, read up on reliable sources. Ok so a minority opinion and I am still holding my ground on that feels this is controversy. What is the wikipedia community consensus on this? Until I came here to read an article on a subject I am familiar with I never heard of this supposed lesbian controversy that was fabricated basically on the youtube comments page. Also You have 1 very active editor who feels this should be included, I disagree. Maybe a mention of but a whole section dedicated too, REALLY!?!?!? Again Undue weight to a minority opinion.--0pen$0urce (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Being familiar means nothing and should never be used as a point. Do we argue on the controversies of Death Note or Pokemon even if we claim to be familiar? It only seems like undue weight because you never heard of this contraversy despite that you are familiar with the show. The section also helps for future controversies and its big enough and independent enough to have its own section.Lucia Black (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I can use whatever I want to use as a point, there is no rule for that thanks for the tip though. Its undue weight for 2 reasons, not just me ok so a minority group feels this is important enough to include, a rather small internet community maybe has heard of this. Also part 2 of undue weight as even the heavily sourced blog which should not be sourced is saying, a supposed, vaguely implied lesbian relationship isn't a controversy to a majority opinion. Regulars to an article should be more receptive for feedback and suggestion, not try to badger an experienced editor. Lets focus on content. Understand my position I come to read this article and I see a controversy. I was intrigued to say the least. Really adventure time controversial. When I read the section, and the whopping 2 sources, one a blog and a what is one-source. I didn't delete even though I don't agree on its inclusion, I tagged for ref improve. Well initially refs weren't really improved and my tag was just removed. I appreciated the references being improved and I accept it being included but a whole section, and a section titled controversy, hmmm, really!?!?! Controversial to whom? So 2 editors who seem to we'll say watch this article feel this is not a minority opinion, maybe we need a community commentary. Even Paranorman which has a gay character and drew way more media attention than this adventure time thing has a mention in a paragraph under critical reception with a balanced of opposing views and does not have a dedicated section. I understand gay/lesbians topics can be heated in today's society, but that doesn't merit majority views, or reliable sources. Basically a few shouting loud doesn't make it a majority --0pen$0urce (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The argument for future controversies is somewhat weak. The fact you guys feel this is its own section worthy supports my argument for undue weight to a minority opinion. Again a mention of of. But a somewhat wordy paragraph, with quite a bit of name dropping to drum this up, hmm, really!?!?! --0pen$0urce (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You're status means nothing to me. stay civil, disrgarding typical advice. No one is stating "majority" here. You're assuming what majority is. You're only adding subjective views. So the controversy is somewhat minor, its still big enough to have a controversy section.Lucia Black (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Fine line between advice and telling someone what to do. Also defining "typical advice" could be a challenge. Nothing I have said has hinged on lacking civility so sorry that's you're interpretation. As far as subjective views goes, the same could be said for the few who feel this deserves its own section. Please, again focus on content and not on me thanks. Not really assuming, some obscure internet discussion about an episode that has few reliable sources could certainly be called minority opinion. And again lets focus on content, not on me.--0pen$0urce (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, I went through and cut some stuff and added more citations. I removed the whole Muto section because, on review, I realized it violates the required unbiasedness and neutrality for included a primary self-published source.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

looks good, much better, even the GA review mentioned possible point of view issues with the section. My bigger concern was lack of reliable sources, which seems to have been resolved. I still think some undue weight is being given here, but overall much better.--0pen$0urce (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that Frederator inadvertently reinforced this "controversy" when they pulled the YouTube channel. That kind of knee-jerk damage control invites people to speculate. There's plenty of other little things in Adventure Time that could be be blown out proportion if anybody bothered to speculate on their meaning, but the studio hasn't done anything to draw attention to that stuff, so nobody is inclined to give it a second thought. My point is, giving something as small as this a section labelled "controversy" only encourages people to continue the back-and-forth arguments which deter the writers from ever trying anything different. If we never try anything different, creativity stagnates and then ultimately everyone loses. --Crimson Bleeding Souls (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with you in a certain degree, Wikipedia's job is to just explain the facts. As I mentioned, this section has several types of sources that back up this controversy. I could understand if a "What Was Missing" episode article was created, maybe moving this away to that page, but as for now, I think it should be reported.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Crimson Bleeding Souls, a year later I decided to revist this. I just didn't like the way it was presented and Reliable Sources and undue weight certainly is an issue. I agree with Gen. Quon that maybe should be moved to the episodes page.--0pen$0urce (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Moved.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There's many sources mentioning it and for over a year now, there have been no objections to it being included. It was already on the article about the episode but I see no reason not to have it on the main page as well as it has been on for so long. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Many sources may be a stretch, the shows blog is well reliable see wiki policy on blogs and a one soure again see wiki's policy on that. The sourcing was terrible when I came here a year ago and a year later no further mention. I don't like it at all a caved cause I knew the die hard wanted to forward there undue weight on a minority opinion. This whole thing just laments what is wrong with wikipedia. Too many use for things other than an encyclopedia.--0pen$0urce (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2014

"During this tme, retakes, music scoring, and sound design are completed." should be changed to "During this time, retakes, music scoring, and sound design are completed.", the word "time" is misspelled. It's in the third paragraph of the "Production" section.

Rappercake (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Emmy nomination 2014

Received an Emmy nomination for Short Format Animation for the episode Be More. 86.43.171.113 (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Done - Wasn't hard to find source... http://www.emmys.com/sites/default/files/Downloads/66th-nominations-list.pdf EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 Outstanding Individual Achievement in Animation

Art director Nick Jennings received a 2014 Emmy Award for Outstanding Individual Achievement in Animation for the episode Wizards Only, Fools. 86.42.118.16 (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Already done see Adventure_Time#Awards_and_nominations. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Card Wars

Just letting you all know there is a playing card deck based on the episode "Card wars". Heres more info, fin vs Jake, BMO vs Lady Rainicorn collectors pack, Princess bubblegum vs Lumpy Space Princess collectors pack Archived 2014-08-03 at the Wayback Machine. (All first-party sources, therefore all reliable). I hope this helps, i looked at the article quickly, didn't see any mention of them, so if their mentioned in the article, sorry for wasting your time. Lucia Black (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Good catch! Added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What happened to the controversy section?

Why was this deleted? This show is popular enough and and has been around long enough to have generated enough controversy over that What Was Missing episode to justify a Controversy section. Bring it back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.91.85 (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Since it wasn't about the series and was more about the episode "What Was Missing", it was simply moved to that article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect ratings numbers

The show averages 6 million viewers nowadays. You don't become one of the most popular shows on T.V., THE most popular cartoon, and THE most popular children's show on T.V. since 2010 with the incorrect ratings you have posted here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.212.211 (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the show's ratings the past 2 1/2 or 3 years, but between 2010 and 2011 IT DID average between 2-3 million viewers.

Yeah, that's not right at all. First off, this isn't the "most" popular children's show (SpongeBob still has it beat, ratings-wise). Second off, I have come across no citation that has ever said the show averages 6 million viewers. Ever. The last episode barely got 2 million (which is good for CN), and the series' most highest-rated episode got about 3.5 million. Provide a source, then we'll talk.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Uh, yes Adventure Time IS the most popular Kid's show on T.V., and, no, SpongeBob SquarePants IS NOT popular anymore, seeing at how it has had terrible ratings since 2010. AT averages 6 million viewers nowadays, while SpongeBob only averages between 1-2 million, which is bad. That, and CN is Number 1 in the ratings nowadays while Nick has been bumped to 3. SpongeBob isn't even in the top 5 when it comes to ratings and popularity. Please. get your facts straight and fix this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.206.5 (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This is the most popular kid's show and cartoon on television right now. And a show like that would average 6 million viewers not counting digital distribution and DVR recordings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.205.151 (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If they're are going to be complaints about the inaccurate rating numbers, just take them off the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.218.241 (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

How about you all provide citations for these numbers, then we'll talk? Currently, we have bunches of citations (check here) for the ratings that say the show only averages around 2-3 million, so if you're suggesting there's some sort of ratings consortium that's hiding information, then I'm sorry there isn't anything we can do to feed your ideas.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Everybody in this particular discussion seems to have incorrect ratings numbers listed. According to this Rolling Stone article, it's way more than that.

www.rollingstone.com/tv/features/adventure-time-the-trippiest-show-on-television-20141002

About 14-15 million minus online streaming and DVR recordings. Or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.205.87 (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming that "14 million weekly viewers" refers to all of the viewers of every weekly broadcast (new episodes, reruns, etc), added up. If you look at the numbers the cable sites report, you'll see that the show averages around 2 million a week for new episodes.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Cable ratings websites suck. Crap like TV by the Numbers is always contradicting itself. If a show on NBC only averaged 2-3 million viewers, it would be cancelled mid-season. You have proof the show gets better ratings than a measly 2 mil or something, why don't you change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.204.210 (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I dunno, I feel like NBC might keep a show that gets 2-3 million viewers... but that's only because it's NBC! Alas, yes that is normally true, but you need to remember that cable does not equal network television. Because cable is much more expensive when compared to network TV, less people buy it and thus less people watch it. Anyway, the numbers from cable news sites might contradict a bit, but they all uniformly state that AT gets around 1.8-3.4 million viewers per week per new episode, depending on the episode (season premieres will be around 3 million-ish, for instance). There is no evidence, other than poorly worded and vague magazine articles, that AT has ever gotten more than 3 million viewers per new episode, ever.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I trust that RT article. And since when is cable TV a luxury? It's not 1980. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.214.72 (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a very privileged opinion.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"Everyone in the developed world has cable". Does that sound better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.192.122 (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Region 1 DVD releases incomplete

MY TWO FAVORITE PEOPLE - two editions; 1st 12 episodes, single DVD (UPC 883929159475); 2nd 16 episodes, 2 DVDs (UPC 883929274758) ADVENTURE TIME AND FRIENDS - Walmart Exclusive release - 8 episodes, single DVD (UPC 883929435746); on wrap, two stickers that read "Only at Walmart Save money. Live better. 4000048670" (rectangular, blue with white text) and "Over 80 Minutes 4000046603" [circular, red with white text); includes episodes "The Enchiridion" "Card Wars" "What Was Missing" "Mystery Train" "Slumber Party Panic" "Too Young" "Trouble in Lumpy Space" and "Wizard Battle" 99.164.58.1 (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC) EK

Thanks for the input, but we need verifiable sources before we can put that in the article. Luthien22 (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Understandable. As I PHYSICALLY OWN all three of the above items, what type of source would qualify as verifiable? Pictures, what? Responses...Anyone... 99.51.210.228 (talk) EK

You know, like a web citation, press release, etc.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

All I can find for the second Wal-Mart one is this, which really isn't that reliable.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's the Walmart Adventure Time & Friends. How bizarre that one can own a physical copy and that is not acceptable! What about a video showing said items? 99.51.209.4 (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC) EK

Well, I do believe you. It's just that we need a proper source to add it here. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

And that's because its not following the WP:TVMOS guidelines. JJ98 (Talk) 09:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, fellas, I guess you can add Adventure Time & Friends - now for sale at AMAZON.COM (with street date of March 3, 2015! http://www.amazon.com/Cartoon-Network-Adventure-Time-Friends/dp/B00S91DMF2) - I told you this was an official release... It just so happened to be a Walmart Timed Exclusive (for sale at a single retailer before everyone else gets it). Please note, the ORIGINAL release from 2014, includes the "Only at Walmart..." sticker. ~ EK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.208.198 (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

when are you going to add the two disc Walmart exclusive DVD edition of MY TWO FAVORITE PEOPLE? Do you require pics? 99.164.63.174 (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC) EK

We require citations.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Why did you ruin the genre section?

It was perfectly fine and you shortened it. You took out stuff that is crucial to that section! Science fiction Fantasy Drama And since when is it considered "action"? Fix it! Now! Please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.203.216 (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@174.130.203.216: Per Template:Infobox television genre must be sourced. We're not interested in everybody's personal interpretations of subjects. If genre wasn't monitored, there would be a litany of interpretative genre, that I'm sure you'd disagree with. Also, we only need main genre, not subgenre, and a max of four examples. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Those are the genres that literally define the show. Stop vandalizing this article. It's not even an action show.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.192.122 (talk • contribs)

Cool.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Can't wait to tell the higher ups what a terrible job you're doing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.192.122 (talk • contribs)

Quon's response is valid. You're venting without providing any contrary opinion that is supported by reliably published sources. If you can do that, then you might have an argument worth entertaining, otherwise, your snipes don't seem constructive and I too choose to ignore them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have updated the genre section with a source now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

  That looks nice. Thanks.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"Yeah, because Amazon is the end all be all of defining a TV series' genre". That still looks terrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.217.78 (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@151.213.217.78: Who are you quoting? And if you have a more reliable source for genre other than your personal feelings, feel free to pitch it. Complaining without providing an alternative is unhelpful, as previously noted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's called sarcasm, stupid. And who needs a source when you can actually watch the program and see what it's all about. Wikipedia and it's lame mobocracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.192.54 (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Watch the personal attacks. Sarcasm doesn't typically include quotation marks, hence the confusion. And the fact still remains that you're complaining without providing an alternative. Either do that, or drop the stick. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Series Finale

Is a Tumblr blog post with a single image saying Finnale the best citation that can be provided for the series ending on June 5? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.136.2 (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

1) That Tumblr post is from the official production blog, so it's fine. 2) The series isn't ending in June, the season is.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

lgbt category request

since Olivia confirmed that her character is bi, and marcelone and pb are main cast members, I feel we need to classify this as lgbt Banpena25 (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Banpena25 Before any categories are added, per WP:CAT, there should be sufficient sourced prose content that supports such a thing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

its actually been talked about quite abit by reliable sources http://www.afterellen.com/tv/224572-oh-my-glob-adventure-times-olivia-olson-confirms-marceline-and-princess-bubblegum-dated 66.25.246.226 (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

And as mentioned before any categories are added, there should be sufficient sourced prose content that supports the addition, and you may run into resistance since a voice actor is not a show creator or a writer, and since the person is recounting what someone else said. So even if we were to use a primary source, it's a questionable one at that. If the series creator made a vocal point about this, that would be something different. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

A television show is not automatically catted as LGBT-related just because it has an LGBT character or two in it — the characters' LGBTness has to be central to the show's core premise in some WP:DEFINING way. Frex, we categorize Looking, Cucumber, Will and Grace and the British and North American versions of Queer as Folk as LGBT-related shows because the characters' LGBTness was the entire point of the shows — and we categorize Glee as LGBT-related because Kurt's bullying storyline was the narrative through arc of an entire season (it didn't get an automatic "LGBT-related" pass right from pilot just on the fact that Kurt existed; it earned the category by foregrounding his sexuality as a key storyline.)

But we don't categorize Commander in Chief as LGBT-related just because Mackenzie Allen had a gay assistant, we don't categorize Veronica's Closet as LGBT related just because of Wallace Langham's character, we don't categorize Community as LGBT-related just because of Dean Pelton, we don't categorize Law & Order as LGBT-related just because one of the DAs once got one line of dialogue confirming that she was a lesbian, we don't categorize Archer as LGBT-related just because Ray Gillette is gay and Pam's a sexual omnivore, and we don't categorize House of Cards as LGBT-related just because one episode contained some veiled hints that Frank Underwood might have had a bisexual past — because those characters' sexual orientations are not central characteristics of what the shows are fundamentally about.

In this case, if you have to rely on an external statement that two characters in it are lesbian or bisexual, because their sexuality has never been addressed in the show itself, then the show isn't LGBT-related enough to warrant categorization as such. Regardless of what sources you can bring to confirm what Olivia Olson said about her character out of universe, the show isn't "LGBT-related" if her character's LGBTness has never been touched on in universe. And even if it had been addressed in universe, the category would still hinge on how much her sexuality was addressed in universe — it would have to be prominently central to the show's storyline, not merely acknowledged or only briefly depicted. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

A really well structured response. Thanks for that, Bearcat! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected Requests

In the "Title sequence and music" section, the seventh sentence ("Pat McHale worked on the Ice King's shot and gave him a "high school book" smile") should read either "Pat McHale worked on the Ice King's shot and gave him a "high school yearbook" smile" or, if that was the actual quote, "Pat McHale worked on the Ice King's shot and gave him a "high school [year]book" smile" for clarity.

Done will do. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Adventure Time/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

5 images, 185 citations, referencing issues. JJ98 (Talk) 02:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 20:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

C/E edit

Feel free to disassemble and critique my copy-edit. Still learning a bit and happy to take on constructive criticisms and advice. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Gen. Quon, no they shouldn't have a double break[6], but the code should also be "enclosed" so that the visual editor doesn't incorrectly highlight other text as being affected. I've updated my prior edit to use <br/> which encloses the text-code but only creates one break. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• OK, gotcha! Thanks for all your help!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries, where there any specific areas that you felt were in dire need of a c/e? I've more just done a general c/e rather than specific c/e. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Just the production section near the top-middle, but it's looking pretty good now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2015

Wanted to include this newly-uploaded image from wikimedia in the critical reception sub-category:

The crew of Adventure Time at the 74th Annual Peabody Awards

Wes-unruh (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Good idea! I added it in the production section.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done - by another - Arjayay (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Jake the Dog is not technically magical anymore

In the episode "Joshua & Margaret Investigations", it is revealed that Jake is actually half shapeshifter. He is no longer magical, but part mutant/alien.[7]

That doesn't really mean he's not magical.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I think its best to leave the "Magical" part in as that is what he's believed to be for the most of the series. Lucia Black (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Request adding Wikiquote link

I would like to request having a link for Adventure Time's Wikiquote page in "External links" and be placed under Wikipedia Books links, thank you. Here are links below:

Adventure Time

AT's Wikiquote page is also one of the longest pages on Wikiquote (currently at 42.)

Special:LongPages

109.148.8.213 (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Cool idea. It has been done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

High Resolution Logo

Replace the show's logo with a high-res version from the Blu-rays.

https://i.imgur.com/uOIWzjR.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingGeorge83 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC) KingGeorge83 (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Because it is a non-free image, it is actually preferred that the shot be lower-resolution, that way we can use it via fair use.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2016

add action to the genres.--Hooincorn (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but do we have a source?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Unable to locate a source after doing searches online to add this, closing as Answered. If a reliable source is found, please reopen request. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Couch gag

The Simpsons Season 28 premiere, Monty Burns' Fleeing Circus, will feature a couch gag which [recreates the opening of the show], with Pendleton Ward having sung the lyrics for the Simpsons-ified version of the theme. This seems like a significant appearance to include mention of somewhere on the page, though I'm not quite sure where. Maybe under "Other Media"? -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It might be good under "Industry impact", too.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not? That seems like more an area for reception and commentary than discussion of a full CN-endorsed animated sequence like that. Regardless, could someone find an appropriate place to put it? Being an anon, I can't add it to the article myself. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I gave it its own section "Other appearances".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Adventure Time. 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://adventuretime.frederator.com/post/725318032/get-evicted-tonight
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://adventuretime.frederator.com/post/449703459/business-time-sneak-preview-tonight
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://theslanted.com/2016/12/25480/adventure-time-islands-mini-series-event/ Archived 2017-01-05 at archive.today
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160111225543/http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-100-monday-cable-originals-network-update-11-2-2015.html to http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-100-monday-cable-originals-network-update-11-2-2015.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.pixelawards.com/winners
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160317101344/http://comicsalliance.com/ryan-north-leaves-adventure-time-christopher-hasting to http://comicsalliance.com/ryan-north-leaves-adventure-time-christopher-hasting/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kaboom-studios.com/series/title?series_id=939&name=Adventure%20Time%3A%20Candy%20Capers
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160430135546/http://comicsalliance.com/adventure-time-playing-with-fire-vol-1-ogn-boom-studios-announcement to http://comicsalliance.com/adventure-time-playing-with-fire-vol-1-ogn-boom-studios-announcement/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151105213032/http://comicsalliance.com/adventure-time-toys-jazwares/ to http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/08/16/adventure-time-toys-jazwares/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2017

end in 2018 2601:2C2:501:A690:6111:7AA:46A7:EBDA (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it to the second paragraph in the intro.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Adventure Time. 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://archive.is/20140113181832/http://new.spring.me/%23!/daniloobolari/q/545295932506263707 to http://new.spring.me/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140113181832/http://new.spring.me/%23!/daniloobolari/q/545295932506263707 to http://new.spring.me/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140113181832/http://new.spring.me/%23!/daniloobolari/q/545295932506263707 to http://new.spring.me/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170301153128/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/ratings/monday-cable-pawning-damages-em-nurse-jackie-damaged/47625/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/ratings/monday-cable-pawning-damages-em-nurse-jackie-damaged/47625/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170301154203/http://www.indiewire.com/2012/11/why-adventure-time-now-in-its-fifth-season-is-more-groundbreaking-than-you-may-realize-43449/ to http://www.indiewire.com/2012/11/why-adventure-time-now-in-its-fifth-season-is-more-groundbreaking-than-you-may-realize-43449/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Premise

I do not believe that Flame Princess is sovereign of the Fire Kingdom. It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure her father holds that position. PurpleChez (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Her father was overthrown in "Earth & Water". Although he tried to stage a coup in both "The Red Throne" and "Bun Bun", he has not successfully recaptured the thrown, and Flame Princess (despite her name) is the ruler of the land.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adventure Time. 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/20170301154800/http://ew.com/gallery/25-greatest-animated-tv-series-you-ranked-em/485267_20-adventure-time-06-votes/ to http://ew.com/gallery/25-greatest-animated-tv-series-you-ranked-em/485267_20-adventure-time-06-votes/20-adventure-time-0-6-of-the-votes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"Epic Tales" by T.T.MacDangereuse

At one point , the four novels - so far - by T.T.MacDangereuse , were noted in the original article , are these not "official" ? The only descriptions found on booksellers like Amazon , note they are based on a premise by Pendelton Ward , but , that's kind of a muddy description. ( I know the books aren't canon to the television series , but , then , neither is some of the stuff in the comic boo … er … GRAPHIC NOVELS. ). Soooo , "official" , "okayed by the creators" , or simply "fan fiction" ? Just curious why they disappeared from the article. 75.104.163.77 (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why I removed them, but I've restored them as "prose novels".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

All good. My daughter , post first posting , found one , and it actually has the Cartoon Network logo on the cover. So , I guess that makes them less … "sketchy". 75.104.163.77 (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyone more familiar with the series than I care to add it to this list?

Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction is a page of, well, fantasy works (movie, TV, written, whatever) and the assorted mythological and/or fantastic critters they contain. This series would qualify. Anyone care to add it? Tamtrible (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Cool page! I have added Adventure Time; after all, it is so sprawling that all the categories are represented.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

A new Related Media/Other Literature input

In the movie Deadpool, the main character Wade looks down at his wrist to check the time, and is wearing an Adventure Time watch. The watch has a picture of Finn, Jake, and Princess Bubblegum on the face. The scene is about 4 minutes 30 seconds into the movie, where Wade is talking to the taxi driver. A quick Internet search reveals many references to the watch (which Wade has on upside down). A number of companies are marketing this watch as the one worn by Deadpool in the movie. So, the Adventure Time reference in Deadpool may be a good input to add to the Related Media/Other literature section of the article.

Not a bad suggestion at all! References in other media is probably the place for it. I'll try to track down some sources in the coming days.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Season 9 is 10.

CN has changed the way the seasons aired as its lists the ninth season a sits tenth season. So since its CN,I chnaged the season count to 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toonami1997 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Toonami1997: Thanks for the note. I left you a message on your talk page about this.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adventure Time. 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://www.webcitation.org/6XfZEkAJQ?url=https://www.pixelawards.com/winners to https://www.pixelawards.com/winners

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Season ordering

OK, so it seems that CN et al. keep flip-flopping on the order and contents of seasons 7, 8, and 9. I think it would be a good idea to get consensus here. Should we list the original production/episode orders for each seasons (meaning, "Bonnie & Neddy" through "Reboot" for season 7, "Two Swords" through "Three Buckets" for season 8, and "The Wild Hunt"+ for season 9), or should we list how we have them now? Thoughts?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)\

I think we should list them as CN lists them because its the official channel and that's how they list it.

I lean towards that direction myself.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Welp,nobody is replying so what do we do? 2602:304:780A:1870:B583:80D5:B04A:25BE (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem I see is that the episode ordering on CN's website is stable up until the mid-point of season 8. After that, there's no definitive list anywhere that says where seasons end and begin (the links for season 9 and 10 just give you this and this), and you have to do some serious digging to even know where to start.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Well,if it says Season 10,let's go with CN's Season ordering Bang. (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

As no one is willing to reply. Bang. (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've helped with the clean-up.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adventure Time. 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://archive.is/20130216225658/http://natazilla.tumblr.com/post/8033768492/adventuretime-adventure-time-with-fionna to http://pwcartoons.frederator.com/post/7986608184 Archived 2013-02-16 at archive.today

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)