Talk:Adventure Time (short film)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Adventure Time (pilot)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khanassassin (talk · contribs) 12:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Alrighty then, I'm taking a look at this article. --Khanassassin ☪ 12:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• ""Adventure Time" is the name of an animated short created by Pendleton Ward, as well as the pilot to the Cartoon Network series Adventure Time." => ""Adventure Time" is an animated short created by Pendleton Ward, as well as the pilot to Cartoon Network series of the same name." --Khanassassin ☪ 13:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• "as of April 2008 the pilot had almost 3,000,000 views." Perhaps I'm wrong, but can "as of" and "had" really go together? Doesn't sound right to me. --Khanassassin ☪ 13:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Plot

• "...giving Pen a kiss, which he enjoys but greatly embarrasses him." => "...giving Pen a kiss; he enjoys, but is also greatly embarrassed." Something like that reads better, I think. --Khanassassin ☪ 13:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Characters

• "One of the main protagonists of the short." Not a big issue, but since there's only two protagonists in the short/series, Pen/Finn and Jake, shouldn't you write "one of two main protagonists"? --Khanassassin ☪ 13:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• "The other main protagonists of the short." "Protagonists" should be singular, it's one dog. --Khanassassin ☪ 13:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Production

• Not a single issue, just a personal preference: "Supervising producer of Adventure Time" instead of "Adventure Time's supervising producer". Just think it sounds better. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 13:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Release and reception

• The "as of April 2008" thing again, like I said, maybe not an issue, just doesn't sound right to me. --Khanassassin ☪ 13:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• "...if Ward could prove that the series "could prove the seven-minute short..."" "Prove" used twice. Reads a bit akward. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 13:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• "However, the network was not happy with this story, and specifically asked for an episode that contained the same elements..." "Elements" sort of doesn't fit in the "what made it so special" sentence, lol. Just write "things" or something. Or don't, again, it's just a personal preference. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 13:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

*""The Enchiridion,..." You forgot the second quote mark for the episode title. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 13:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

References

• Seems legit.

External links

• Either capitalize both "blogs", or keep both lowcap. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 13:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't see any more issues here. Fix these up and a promotion will come. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 13:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I got everything. Thanks for reviewing this. BTW, I'll try to get your article reviewed tonight.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You forgot a little of the "protagonists" thing, but it's cool, I fixed it. I give this article_{of a notoriously overrated show (sorry)}a Pass! :) Congrats, brotha. --Khanassassin ☪ 14:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adventure Time (pilot). 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/20121217182117/http://adventuretimeart.frederator.com/ to http://adventuretimeart.frederator.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Adventure Time (short film). There's a clear consensus here that the previous title isn't kosher. Several options were suggested, and Adventure Time (short film) was the best supported. While this disambiguator isn't specifically listed in the naming conventions, as IJBall noted, this is not necessarily a reason to avoid it. Another popular option, Adventure Time (film), is unavailable as it's already a redirect to a proposed film adaptation, and several participants here felt it would be confusing as a disambiguator anyway. Feel free to start a new RM if a better disambiguator is identified. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Pilot (Adventure Time) → Adventure Time (pilot)Adventure Time (short film) I'm not sure why this was moved to begin with. While the short is the pilot to the series, it only became so post facto. When it was initially released, it was simply called "Adventure Time". As such, having it labelled like it is now is incorrect. @Matt14451: I'm curious as to why you moved it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Iffy★Chat -- 19:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Not sure why your ping didn't work. I found this page in Category:Television articles with incorrect naming style. Pinging @Gonnym: who added it to the category July 14, 2018. Matt14451 (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Note: This one was already discussed at WT:NCTV – Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 13#Adventure Time (pilot) – but the discussion was sparsely attended and came to no resolution.... That said, I'm leaning in the direction of opposing the current proposal, as it doesn't follow WP:NCTV either. (And the correct proposal would be Adventure Time (TV pilot) in any case...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose proposal as "pilot" is not a supported term per WP:NCTV. As IJBall said, "TV pilot" while not (yet) in the guide, has become a common practice for "TV pilot only series articles", however this article does not seem to be actually it even. As Netoholic pointed out in the linked discussion and as the article itself says, this seems to be a short film, so would support Adventure Time (film) (there is no other film in the parent article, only a "maybe working on film" topic. --Gonnym (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Just making it clear I Support Adventure Time (film) and oppose any other option presented per woodensuperman. I don't see any reason for extended disambiguation because of a 2015 report about a movie being developed and which the article says On July 22, 2018, Muto noted that "an [Adventure Time] movie was never officially announced which makes it seem that it isn't even happening. Even if the film will eventually happen then the correct disambiguation will still be (2007 film) and not (short film). --Gonnym (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• Move to Adventure Time (short film) for all the reasons I gave in the discussion linked above. -- Netoholic @ 11:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  I think this is a better option. I switched the idea above.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Netoholic:, while I don't mind it being "(short film)", any reason why we shouldn't use the unused "(film)"? --Gonnym (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

    There is/was talk of a bona fide Adventure Time film which is what I believe that link leads to. Also, imho, "film" conjures up a full-length movie, and this is only 7 minutes long. But that's just me.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The disambiguator "(short film)" is not sanctioned at WP:NCFILM. --woodensuperman 13:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Not being listed in a "naming convention" doesn't mean a disambiguator should never be used – that's what RM's are for: in an RM, consensus may determine that a "non-standard disambiguator" is actually the best choice in a specific circumstance. This may be one of those circumstances... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm going to throw in the towel on this, and support move to Adventure Time (short film), even though I agree with Gonnym that I don't think "short" is needed here. But this proposal is clearly an improvement over the previous two titles for this article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support "Adventure Time (pilot)", "Adventure Time (TV pilot)", "Adventure Time (short)", and I guess "Adventure Time (short film)". I definitely oppose "Adventure Time (film)", which (to most readers) would instantly make it seem like it's an article about a feature film (which already exists as a redirect to a section on a proposed film). Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't use "(short film)" as a disambiguator per WP:NCFILM. --woodensuperman 13:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support Adventure Time (short film) per discussion above. "Adventure Time (film)" would suggest to readers that it's a feature length film as rumoured. Matt14451 (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.