Talk:Adventure Time

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)

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)

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)

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)