Talk:Adventure Time/Archive 1

Topic

I think we defintely need to expand on this topic, and pictures too.(unsigned)

I want to watch more of these!! The creator of them will be famous! --Sonjaaa 15:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ive added a Trivia part and a Quote part before.

Sphooky 23:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the Ice Wizard look like he came straight out of the movie Big to anyone else? I wish I had some pics to compare...

I added a link to the vid on YouTube as well as a bit about the mathematical outbursts Frediculous biggs (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Lining up with WP:EPISODE guidelines

“ I have edited it as you have advised, and it still fails the guideline. It only has a plot summary and a couple awards. It a slightly popular cartoon that cannot be improved any further, so it should be redirected. TTN 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC) ” — TTN, User talk:Oni Lukos#Adventure Time

Well, you did remove all of the stuff about its internet popularity (I'm guessing because it's not really verifiable because there are no secondary sources that you could find), but I disagree and I think it could be improved. The summary is probably too long, but other than that, it is true that it can't be improved much. It is still notable, and if you do redirect the page, you should at least take the consideration to move the content to the page you're redirecting it to. ~ Oni Lukos _ct 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Internet popularity is not verifiable as you have stated. It is pure cruft based upon nothing but fan definitions of popular. The summary only needs to be three sentences as a seven minute cartoon doesn't need a real plot summary. There is nothing else in existence that could source this. Internet info includes "ZOMG wacky cartoon, lol" and there are certainly no print articles about it. You're free to merge some information. It's just rather worthless at this point because nothing actually exists on that article to hold it. TTN 19:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is too verifiable. Just look at the episodes that are still hosted on YouTube- one of them has more than 300,000 views. You need to rethink your methods, because from what I can see, all you do is delete things. 68.37.129.91 23:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read up on WP:VERIFY. NB the phrase verifiability, not truth. ~ Oni Lukos _ct 23:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Howbout use your own ethics instead of Wikipedia's rules. Truth > Verifiability. Ever heard of noumenon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 10 October 2007

Yes, I have heard of noumenon. Houwever, this is Wikipedia, therefore we should abide by Wikipedia's rules. Seems to make sense to me. Trust me, I really wish we could include more of the truth here than is verifiable. However, how are we to know what is truth if it cannot be verified? ~ Oni Lukos _ct 03:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

*Sure I've heard of noumenon! 79.72.139.72 14:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

this show has changed my life

Fair use rationale for Image:Adventure Time.JPG

Image:Adventure Time.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Adventure time logo.jpg

Image:Adventure time logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A video of the voice actors recording

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbpqvFR8Yjk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blsupr (talk • contribs) 09:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hugo Morales, the Argentine football midfielder

I clicked on Hugo Morales (listed as a director) to find out what other works he has produced. I ended up at the page of a soccer player. Unless Morales is a talented athlete who produces media in his spare time, this appears to be a mistake.

Can this be corrected? I'm not a regular here, so I don't know how this should be resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.214.181 (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Guest star

Andy Milonakis will be on this show. Blsupr (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC) He will? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanboy And Chum Chum (talk • contribs) 21:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Plot Summary

Should this be here? The summary is oddly written and is only the summary of the pilot, while the page is for the series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.118.186 (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

First aired: March 11th, or April 5th?

Even though the "official premiere date" of Adventure Time is April 5th, it DID air on March 11th, and will again on March 18th. Since Wikipedia only requests the "first aired" date on the page, I suggest we change it to March 11th (since that is indeed when it "first aired"). The page is confusing and misleading in its current form. Thoughts? 129.65.228.34 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Kinda Random Doncha Think?

I mean when an episode ends it ends in a way that you really see comeing like when Treetunk Explodes when she took a bite of that apple did ANYONE see that comeing? No? Ok then.

• The part right after was even weirder where she was just fine and walking through some cave. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place to talk about it, i suggest go on some social network.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Characters

I noticed the unimportant characters are entering the character section despite only two episodes appearing. I fear, this will be filled with loads of fan-service information once more episodes come out, so if anyone is listening, please respond because I'm about to remove some characters that seemed trivial, like chocoberry, Mr.Cupcake, Manfried, and Ricardio until further level of relevance to the show is shown. Also maybe moving lady raincorn to minor characters.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Characters with two talking appearances should be included, and the others should either stay till appearing again or be removed --Tikopowii (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Leave the major characters alone, they are fine.

Tree Trunks and Ricardio should stay, the rest don't really need to be there since they don't have significant roles. Blsupr (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Should L.S.P. be counted as a Princess of Ooo, considering she is the princess of Lumpy Space, rather than Ooo? I would say no, but there is room for discussion about whether or not Lumpy Space is part of Ooo. AdventureTime (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Bestiary of Ooo? I can't decide whether or not it should be incorporated into this page or not, it feels a little superfluous. AdventureTime (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I noticed most of the minor characters are made up of candy people, i think the name of the section isn't helping much either. the name is "minor characters" meaning that any character can make it as long as it has "some" role. So i suggest we change it to "Supporting Characters", and remove most of the candy people in the article. we shouldn't promote every character we see in the series.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering the number of appearances by most of the minor characters, should we leave them in, or should we take them out? Characters like Manfried and the Jiggler have only appeared once, and likely will not appear again. On the other hand, characters like Ricardio may show promise to return again. Thoughts on who stays and who goes? AdventureTime (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest having two sections for main characters and supporting characters. The former would have only Jake and Finn and the latter could include Ice King, Princess Bubblegum, and Lady Rainicorn. If people insist on including characters like LSP and Tree Trunks, then perhaps a very brief third section for recurring characters would be fine.

Really, characters like Ricardio or Marceline shouldn't be listed at all, and the list of royalty should also be done away with. tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.69.76 (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well we keep some characters in for some chance of a return, plus since marceline appears in the opening and had an episode about her, i don't think it would be a bit difficult to remove her. Some members will add her in. But i also seem OR in some of these. For example marceline has a rivalry with bubblegum princess.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand some of what you said (what's "OR", "don't think it would be a bit difficult to remove" but then say otherwise?) but to add to my previous comment I definitely agree with you on the ambiguity of the section headings and that some of these characters should be removed and not every character should be promoted. I went ahead and modified the characters section to bring it more in line with what has been suggested here and how character sections are usually done. I'm glad to see someone else went ahead and removed the ridiculous list of princesses. tildetildetildetilde

ATTENTION: Title Change

According to Eric Homan of Frederator Studios, Adventure Time with Finn & Jake is now officially titled Adventure Time. Read the comment for yourself on this page: http://frederatorblogs.com/adventure_time/2010/05/03/my-two-favorite-people-premiere/. This means we'll have to change the title of the article, but to what? "Adventure Time (Cartoon Network series)"? Our quick response to this issue is important. 129.65.227.137 (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Adventure time (cartoon) redirects to the article Random! cartoon article, which it shouldn't. this article should be Adventure time (cartoon series) and the other redirect shouldn't redirect there.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed the redirect for Adventure Time (cartoon) so that it redirects to this article. Hopefully it makes accessing the page easier. Nicklegends (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Adventure Time now redirects here

Adventure Time now redirects here. Before the automatic redirect went to an obscure live-action show of the same name broadcast locally in Pennsylvania in the 1960s-70s. I assume no one has a problem with this? Candent shlimazel (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. The Cartoon Network version, despite its (currently) shorter run, seems more notable since it deals with a popular, current topic. Nicklegends (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to change all the old links, so links which referred to the children's program now point to this cartoon (see the problem?). — Dispenser 05:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry. I just noticed this message. This was my first time moving a page. Did you take care of it? Candent shlimazel (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Article title change

The title should be renamed to Adventure Time (TV series). It sounds and appears a lot more natural than (Cartoon Network series). --Smash (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there was another Adventure Time TV series in the 60s and 70s. 129.65.182.123 (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Pen

Being that the character's name was originally Pen, shouldn't the article mention it, and use it in the plot summary of the pilot? I forget where exactly, but some interview said the creator changed it because he didn't want his own name printed on underwears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well if you can find that interview then go ahead and put it in, but until then it's staying as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.77.12 (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

{{movereq|Talk: Adventure Time}}

Adventure Time (animated series) → Talk:Adventure Time — The main article was renamed from "Adventure Time (animated series)" to "Adventure Time". Nicklegends (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Sorry, this was an oversight on my part. —David Levy 05:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Overdetailed tag

I noticed someone tagged this article with Template:Overdetailed. OK, which part is too detailed? The character descriptions could be a little shorter, but don't look too bad to me. The synopsis of the short is probably too detailed, considering that the short is only like 7 minutes long. Anyway, I'd like to hear what the problem supposedly is, and fix it.--Cornprone (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)