Talk:List of Adventure Time characters

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cartoon Network Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cartoon Network, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Cartoon Network on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cartoon NetworkWikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkTemplate:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkCartoon Network articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Animation: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance). United States: Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance). Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

I think the personality, characteristics and conception of characters are slightly different between the pilot and the series. (Especially, Lady Rainicorn's language.) Can you describe those in the pilot separately in

Maybe. I feel that's definitely something that should be in the pilot's page, and not here, however.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the characters pertaining to the Fionna and Cake universe not included in this list? --Matt723star (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't added before. I have mixed feelings about it. Frankly, they are fan-fiction creations of the Ice King, so they're not really characters in the story; they're characters in a story in a story. I feel maybe a paragraph of info on them would be interesting, but devoting a whole section to list all of them out would be tedious and rather unnecessary, considering they've only appeared in 2 out of 116 episodes.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm that's a good start. Possibly either here in the list of characters article or maybe on the main article somewhere. Good idea! --Matt723star (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An interview with Niki Yang suggests the Korean thing was Pen Ward's idea. But I recently found a tweet by Bert Youn where it suggests otherwise. According to that tweet, a friend of his who is a director wanted the character to speak something nobody can understand, so he suggested Korean. The tweet also says that Mr. Youn's wife was originally going to voice the character.

If anyone have Twitter or Facebook, can you ask him what happened? (Here's his Twitter and Facebook.) JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 16:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting. Unfortunately, I don't speak Korean, so I have no clue what the second one says. While this is rather interesting, I feel that it probably shouldn't be brought up in the article, as all that is really important is that she speaks Korean. Since there are two conflicting reports, we should wait to see if it clears up.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, Youn is fluent in English, judging from his other past tweets and storyboards of his episodes. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 01:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know this. I brought it up because the tweet you posted is entirely in Korean.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, if you have account, you can directly ask him. I think those things are worth a mention in the Development section in the main article. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 10:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per

I will have to agree formspring isnt a good way to get answers. For one the questions are minor relevance to the show, even if the answers are from producers themselves. We dont know whether their giving a well thought out answer or just an answer for the sake of having one. This is also why we avoid private messages of facebook and twitter as references. It may be a primary source, but the method of gaining answers is not right. Its like asking the developers why minor actions have taken place. Even if someone does gain an answer, theres no way w can add it unless third party sources deem it relevant. It just makes it superflous.Lucia Black (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of the second paragraph of

WP:VNT.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Just to prove they can be verified… For Pendleton Ward, his official website points to his twitter, which directly points to his Formspring. For Adam Muto, his official twitter states the Formspring address in the tagline. His Formspring also verifies Andy Ristaino's official Formspring account, and same with Cole Sanchez.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General sources, yes theres no room for interpretation, however these formspring sources dont fit with the general interviews and commentary or even blogs. These are answers from regular people, answered by yes primary source but overall without the proof of authority. For example: if you were an executive producer or even the original concept designer of a TV series, and i as any other person in the world, ask you something incredibly minor. Now you may give an answer, however without consulting the other primary sources (developers). Its not directly a fact but rather an opinion. I'll give you another example. This is the info from formsping:

• Are Lemongrab and Lemongrab 2 brothers or boyfriends?

• If Peebs made them out of the same formula/genetic material thats alot like twin brothers, right?

You see these answers arent really "Answers". I dont even see how that can be used. That source alone asks for interpretation from the actual answer. Another example is whether or not gunter is female or male, which the answer was "i 'think' their are multiple gunters" in which was already answered. The problem is this list uses formspring in such high regard to gain in-universe info where it can be verified by the episode.

From the most part you only proved how formspring can be avoided.Lucia Black (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede those two points; I think it is fair to remove the ones that provide conjecture or unclear answers. However, I've checked the remaineder of the Formspring answers, and they are all stating facts. (Muto states that BMO is spelled "BMO", for instance, or Andy Ristaino confirms Justin Roiland is the voice of Lemongrab). There's no reason that these should be viewed as opinions. Again, as for them not have the "proof of authority" 1) I proved that they are people from the show and are thus notable and 2)

WP:VNT states we report what is out there, not what we believe to be true. If there's no real reason to doubt the cites (none of them are controversial, for instance), then there's no reason to blanket delete all of them. Formspring should be used with discretion (again, 8 out 79 is not "high regard"), but the site is permissible.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Those answers arent unique to formspring, they are answers that the show itself can answer. For example, other sources call BMO as BMO, we dont need a formspring answer for that because other primary sources answer that. Same for Lemongrab voice actor change. An episode voice cast credits easily answers that. "Proof of authority" wasnt exactly related to them being "notable" (using the word notable is more in terms outside primary) i gave you the example to show you to show you how unconcrete some of these answers are. these easy access answers isnt exactly the answers we state are true, specifically in-universe ones. They can be avoided quite easily. Even you cant deny that.Lucia Black (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the BMO example is that no official source (other than Muto's formspring) has made a specific designation about the name. Some use "BMO", and some use "Beemo". The citation, coming from the show's creative director, should and can be used to clarify the "correct" way the show writes the name. What I'm worried is if there is a systematic "ban" on formspring, some elements of the other AT articles will suffer (for instance, Andy Ristaino gave some information regarding how the show is animated which hasn't turned up anywhere else, Muto explained why they dropped "director" from the credits which was the only place it appeared, various writers and producers have noted their opinions on characters for the "Reception" section of various articles, etc.).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network Uk blog showing facts of BMO use "BMO" so its unnecessary for formspring. The ones im specifically against are the ones being asked by any editor. The difference between formspring tthen facebook and twitter is that twitter and facebook announce any updates publically without one normal user asking it. Im unfamiliar with formspring, however the given example you gave, depending if it was a public announcement or an easy answer, i think it shouldnt be in there.if it is asked, the best way to go about it is report it a third party reliable source and see if they report.Lucia Black (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the Cartoon Network blog just shows "BMO", but they don't explain what "Beemo" is and how it is different (like Muto's source explicitly does). Anyway, we're just splitting hairs at this point. I'll make the deal that I'll remove ones that can easily and clearly be replaced with others (like the Lemongrab voice actor one, and the Gunters one), but ones that at least add (new and unattainable) info should stay. Your definition of an "easy answer" doesn't seem to hold much water; these people could give "easy answers" in third-party interviews, books, etc like your suggest we use. We're not supposed to interpret the sources (which I keep saying), we're just supposed to provide them. As long as there is no reason to doubt them (they aren't far-fetched, controversial, or supporting fringe theories),

WP:SOCIALMEDIA notes that they are fine and they don't need to be removed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Just because you say it doesnt hold "much" water, doesnt mean its as you say. Youmerely refuse to see it to its fullest degree. The easy answer is the fact that anyone can ask the producers at anytime about anything related to the show. Thats the "easy" answer, regardless of a third party interview where interviews are meant to be planned and give answers to the general public. On another note, WP:SOCIALMEDIA also says "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim" to which exceptional claim links to WP:REDFLAG. WP:SELFPUBLISH also states to forum postings and tweets are largely unacceptable. And this falls within that range.Lucia Black (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I was saying is that your claim is merely an opinion and unduly judges a primary source; there is no Wikipedia precedent that backs up your claim. How do you know/determine what is an "easy" answer from a primary source? You can't. As for WP:SOCIALMEDIA, the material isn't unduly self-serving. It's merely stating facts about the show. Using this rationale, we'd have to analyze every source to make sure it isn't an "easy" response (for instance, interviews are not necessarily prepared ahead of time. They can be, but don't need to be). They're just primary sources from the people involved with the show, so there is no need to doubt the information. As for WP:SELFPUBLISH, it states that "Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable" HOWEVER "Self-published expert sources [Formspring answers in this case] may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter [people related to the show], whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications [pretty much every third-party publication that mentions them, as well as the series and network themselves]." These sources are perfectly fine for citing facts such as these. There's nothing unduly or untrue or controversial. These people are notable (as I proved above), so these self-published sources are fine to use.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you understood what i meant by "easy" answer and how it differs from a typical interview. For now, it doesnt say "this trumps our previous statement". So even for primary sources, who are experts, and been noted in third party sources will still be innapropriate.Lucia Black (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Every hurdle for allowing this as primary sources has been jumped. I'll go over them again: the info is from an "established expert on the subject matter", whose "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (these were proved above). I think we all can agree this is true. Next, "the material is neither unduly self-serving"; no, the information is about the series itself, yes, but it isn't self-serving (ie Muto, Ward, et al are not benefiting overtly from their responses). The citations do not contain "an exceptional claim"; again, claims made by Andy Ristaino about how the show is animated or by Adam Muto explaining which way the staff spells BMO's name are not controversial. Second, "it does not involve claims about third parties"; again, this is all about the series, and not other people. In addition, none of the statements are claims, they are merely facts. Third, "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source"; again, no. These citations all pertain exactly to what was being asked about in the first place. Fourth, "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity", as the people who have answer these questions are notable in and of themselves. Finally, "the article is not based primarily on such sources." Like I said, 4 out 77 is nothing, and is barely a small minorty. I get what you're saying about the "easy" answers, but it is an untestable requirement. The Formspring accounts were created by the individuals specifically to talk to fans. No one is forcing them to answer them, which could potentially cause half-assed, or "easy" answers. These have all been answer by the individuals own free will, and thus there is no reason to doubt their accuracy. Again, even a fact-checked interview can have errors and "easy" answers, so this arguement makes little sense. Finally (as I've stated several times already), these facts are not exceptional and come from reliable people. There is no reason to doubt Andy Ristaino's (the show's character designer) claim that the show is hand-animated. If he had said it was illustrated on Venus, sure, doubt away. However, none of the answers seem erroneous. There is no reason to doubt them.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You just proved my point. Its to talk to fans, not to confirm facts. 8'll say it again, because it didnt click the second time. The problem is wikipedia still states to avoid forum post and tweets. It did not mention that all the facts you stated were the exception.Lucia Black (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely misreading what WP:SOCIALMEDIA says: "For that reason, self-published media [is] largely not acceptable as sources [BUT] Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." There is no blanket ban on social media, like you are implying; it's all about if it meets the criteria. I can see that this is spiraling into a circle.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all socialmedia, im referring to A)forum posts b)certain tweets C) everything in between. Theres no BUT in there. You read it as an exception when it doesnt say exactly. If its bad wording then you can ask if it to gain permission to elaborate on there so that this "cycle" doesnt occur.Lucia Black (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is your "everything in between" includes sources like "books", which have been allowed in FAN level promotions. In essence, you think that it states that forum posts and tweets can't be allowed (along with self-published books) at all, when in fact they can. That's why there is the remainder of the article. To be blunt, you're reading it wrong.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you dont know what "everything in between" means if you somehow believe self published books are in the same form of a tweet and a forum post. Everything in between is for example, a yahoo message, or a facebook private message, or lets say a voice recording that really wasnt proven to be posted "on the record" unlike an interview, regardless of planned or not. Prove that im reading it wrong. You have none at the moment. Ask them if the following sentence in WP:SELFPUBLISH is mentioning an exception. Its you word against mine and youre not gonna go anywhere because im being technical about a sentence structure in which you cant necessarily blame me if im hypothetically wrong. You have all the means to prove it.Lucia Black (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not being technical, you're just reading what you want to read. The sentence reads: "For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The long list is what is included in "self-published" media (and yes, it lumps published books and tweets, so my assumption is based). Notice that the two sentences talk about self-published media? One states that, generally (ie largely), they shouldnt' be included, but the second sentence states times when there can be exceptions, which is then explained in the following paragraph; this next paragraph discusses social media (WP:SOCIALMEDIA), and even explicitly mentions sites like Twitter and by extension Formspring.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then. Youre right. Regardless, I will challenge this to not allow low quality form of sources. Such as private messages and such.Lucia Black (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that private messages should never be used, but that's because you can't produce anything to prove it (same with emails... you really can't cite an email effectively). Formspring, however, is public, so it can be viewed by all.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But how on-record were they meant to be? Thats the question.looking at the sources, arent as visible as some make it out to be. Its completely different from an interview even if caught off gaurd. Sometimes these things are better to be reported to the third party reliable sources in order to deem it relevant enough to report at all. Private messages can be verified by images now, but should they? Not everything should be reported and not all primary sources should be aswell. It just shows how low quality wikipedia is on it. Maybe if it cannot be avoided, however i doubt it cant. thats why third party helps, because even if its reporting from primary source. Its relevant towards third party and makes it much more high quality.Lucia Black (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I've limited it to things that are important (like how the show is animated) or animators/designers opinions on character designs (for the reception parts of character pages). Everything else, as you said, should be backed up with other types of reliable sources.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Marceline has her own article, why doesn't Princess Bubblegum and Ice King have their own separate articles? — Confession0791 ^talk 06:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I made her one. If you want to make them ones, then make them.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Confession0791 ^talk 16:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marceline has her own article because someone gathered enough notable sources and crafted it around that. A character's importance in a work doesn't determine whether or not they should get an article; their notability as a real world subject does. As all the articles besides Marceline's currently stand, they do not meet

talk) 22:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, having separate sections for antagonists seems like it might be worth rethinking, since some of these characters are ambiguous. Ice King has has several episodes where he is the hero, and many where he is at least sympathetic. It might be better to combine both major character sections, to avoid having to make these kind of subjective judgments. Grayfell (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In The Art of Ooo, a very early sketch of ‘B-MO’, as it was stylised as then, has a mention of ‘Boron-Molybdenum’ close-by. It’s very anecdotal and probably has nowhere to go in the article, but it may be where its name come from. Nclm (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that many of the references reference a publisher called "The Onion" but the link leads to the Wikipedia page for the popular satire site. Is this a mistake? Vandalism? 174.124.183.77 (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Onion publishes The A.V. Club. While The Onion is indeed a satire site, the A.V. Club is not, and is a legit (and oft cited) website that reviews movies, tv, books, and other things.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Adventure Time characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.formspring.me/buenothebear/q/868104983
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.formspring.me/skronked/q/278205369044447654
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.formspring.me/MrMuto/q/310957428101358569
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.formspring.me/skronked/q/324089489322437247
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121217182117/http://adventuretimeart.frederator.com/ to http://adventuretimeart.frederator.com/

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.

• 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) 01:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Adventure Time characters. 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/20120326150425/http://deebaker.com/index.php/projects to http://www.deebaker.com/index.php/projects

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.

• 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) 07:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The pages says the following about BMO's gender:

> BMO while being voiced by a female, is male and has been referred to as male by other characters. Niki Yang who voices BMO has also called classified him as male.

While BMO has indeed been referred to as male by other characters (along with the actress who voices BMO), as far as I'm aware BMO's also been referred to as female, and there has no canonical gender. See the multiple instances of ambiguous references to BMO's gender in this wikia page.

Would it be more appropriate to correct that portion of BMO's section accordingly?

BMO is neither male nor female.[1] In the show both the pronoun "he" and the term "m'lady" have been used in reference to BMO. While BMO is an object used for recreation by Finn and Jake, BMO is still considered a close friend and treated as an equal by the two.^[1] BMO speaks English with a Korean accent.^[2]

What I wrote is not perfect and is always subject to change, but its a good start at least.Historyday01 (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the tips and pointers; I've edited the article accordingly.

talk) 09:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

It seems like many of the authorized photos here are from Flickr, and they can exist in Commons. But I wonder why there's no such photo for Hynden Walch, who voices PB. - George6VI (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to track one down, alas. (I don't have a source, but I've heard Hynden is a little more photo shy than some of the other voice actors.) For an unrelated project, I did reach out to her manager and ask about promotional images, but I'd assume anything like that would be copyrighted.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect The List of Characters of Adventue Time has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 4 § The List of Characters of Adventue Time until a consensus is reached. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Peppermint Butler (Black & White World) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 16 § Peppermint Butler (Black & White World) until a consensus is reached. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Gunter (Extinct World) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 16 § Gunter (Extinct World) until a consensus is reached. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Baby Lich has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 16 § Baby Lich until a consensus is reached. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect The Lich (Black & White World) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 1 § The Lich (Black & White World) until a consensus is reached. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Tree Trunks (Black & White World) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 1 § Tree Trunks (Black & White World) until a consensus is reached. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect BMO (Extinct World) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § BMO (Extinct World) until a consensus is reached. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect The Lich (Extinct World) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § The Lich (Extinct World) until a consensus is reached. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]