Jump to content

Talk:Marceline the Vampire Queen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMarceline the Vampire Queen has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 3, 2012Good article nomineeListed

What?

[edit]

How does Marceline have an article yet Finn, Jake, Bubble Gum Princess, and Ice King all don't? How is she more notable than them? --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make one then. It has nothing to do with her being more notable. It has to do with the fact that I spent about a week on this and made around 125 edits to get it up to GA. :P

Well honestly I have no intention of making them, I was just curious why the 5th most important character from a show had an article when the first 4 had not... --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, this article was around before I started editing it. I might make ones for Finn and Jake, though.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to do that, I'd say if Marceline is notable BP is definitely as well. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definately. I think Finn, Jake, BP, and The Ice King should eventually have articles.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article worries me

[edit]

It repeats constantly what episode reveals what rather than allowing the cite episode refs handle that. That's why their there for, so that we don't have to constantly say "Source A reveals this" and "Source B reveals that".

On another note, this has an "other appearances" which mainly is just brief cameos within the series. It's far too trivial to find each and every single appearance she makes when its in the same series and not important enough to be mentioned at all. It tries to record every single detail of Marceline and its leading to collect all the trivial too.

I find the tone sounding way too WP:FANCRUFT. It's just too specific and leaning toward in-universe.Lucia Black (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but I feel that your worries are uncalled for. Yes, "Episode X reveals Y" is used, but the statements are also backed up by the episode template AND a third-party review, such as one from The A.V. Club. Furthermore, the "Other appearances" is just brief cameos, but it also touches on out-of-universe appearances, like the comic, which is rather popular. I based a lot of this work on my involvement in the X-Files Project, so I'm fairly familiar with how to properly cite and write character articles. Just thought I'd clarify.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:41 24 December 2012 (UTC)
im sorry but you really didnt understand the point. Or rather you excused the faults with other things that dont relate. It doesnt matter if it backed up by episode template and third party sources, because im not asking to remove the info (well not when it came to my first point). Im simply saying the wording could be done in a less guide-like way. We already got the episode as a ref so even less necessity to state it in the article.
For my second point, i think the brief cameos that have not been given any significance by third party sources (meaning if the source elaborates on said cameo then we add it or if it was briefly stated without given anymore thought on it should be removed) should be removed. They dont help the article and make it closer to FANCRUFT style article. Im not saying that the whole section should be removed though because there is also important info.Lucia Black (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to rewrite it. I guess I just get frustrated when people petition others to change something, rather than taking the initiative and changing it themselves. As for the last part, I can understand that, but it really is only one sentence, which isn't that much of a worry.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem doing it myself but i rather discuss it before anyone else has a problem with it.Lucia Black (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ice King and Marceline screenshot

[edit]

I don't want to be bold and remove it, but considering it doesn't really have a satisfactory Fair Use rationale, it will probably get deleted. Is there really a reason that it is needed? The information can be conveyed in text, and it really isn't THAT essential to understand the character. Besides, this page has three non-free images, which is pushing it for a GA.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft

[edit]

Re-reviewing the article, it still too precise within prose about certain things. For example, this article should be all related to Marceline yet we see Finn, Jake and Abadeer's voice actors. This needs a lot more copy editing then i thought. The article may have been nominated for GA a little too early but i guess its not that far off for a GAR, so i suggest attempting to rewrite all in-universe info from present-tense to past-tense. It will also help summarize the info better. I found a few choppy sentences here and there. If you see any, be sure to copy edit it in a more formal and educative tone. Ive mention this before but lets avoid mentioning things in an "episode"-like way to avoid making the article sound guide-like.Lucia Black (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you fail to realize what 'fancruft' is. Mentioned another characters voice actor is not fancruft. As for in-universe writing, this probably could be tweaked, but its not the whole article that needs reworking, just a few places (for instance, "Appearances" should be in-universe, etc). In addition, all in-universe writing is supposed to be present tense and NOT past tense. That's not how prose is supposed to be done on Wikipedia (I know this from my experiences in other projects, I'm not just making up a rule).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Whichever project told you this, is clearly wrong, there is a way to present in-universe info without changing the tone of the article. Thats like writing "promotion" info in a "promotional" way. It is Also innacurate. Who ever told you this is straying editors of good editing. It also doesnt make sense more than half of the "appearance" section was already past tense.Lucia Black (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, well I was "told" by Wikipedia. See WP:TENSE and here. As for the in-universe writing, originally I had that, with "In the episode...", but you keep insisting that that makes it in-universe. Mentioning the episode is actually preferred. Again, see here. And please stop accusing me and others of being "led astray" or "taking advantage of others". I know exactly what I'm doing, and I'm very familiar with the prose requirements for high-quality articles.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article presents the information in mainly "Fictional History" as the link you yourself provided with WP:TENSE states that "past tense" is allowed. Obviously certain aspects is mandatory to be present tense because they are physically present tense such as "Marceline is a fictional character". But you cant deny that everything has to be present tense is wrong, such as Marceline "is" an antagonist (and short lived) and now a good friend of Finn and Jake, you cant present both aspects in present tense. The other link provides absolute nothing on allowing sentences to start "In episode X this ever happened. <ref>Episode X</ref>" Problem is thats already close to redundancy as the ref already covers what episode, and actually hurts the article by using too much self reference. By removin "In episode X" you dont treat the article in a guideline of Marceline-related episodes and more of a general biography, making the episodes as refs more relevant. Its too guide like to do so within prose and guide-like structure within in-universe info is WP:FANCRUFT in my book. In fact the guideline provided states to not get too intricate in fictional biography and certain episodes are listed here that provide no new info about her such as getting a new bass guitar.

Its not "accusation" for the one getting strayed. Its the "strayer". Regardless you initially used anonymous wikiproject, so i wasnt left with much. If you provided policies and MOS first, it wouldnt have been an issue.Lucia Black (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TENSE makes it pretty clear that prose and summaries exist in a "perpetual present tense", thus, your example of "Marceline is first introduced as the antagonist of the episode "Evicted!"..." is perfectly fine, because she *is* introduced as the antagonist, but soon becomes FInn's friend (as expanded upon in the second sentence). Writing "Marceline was" implies that the events happened before "Evicted!", which is not the case. The narrative is supposed to unfold as the reader reads it, not have it laid out as if it happened in the past. I concede that "fictional history" may be written in the past (as WP:TENSE makes clear), and in this article, it already is. I present you with: "However, the duo soon learn that it was an elaborate trick by Ash" (because the trick had already happened when the viewer realizes it) or "In the penultimate fourth season entry "I Remember You", it is later revealed to the audience that the Ice King (vocied by Tom Kenny) and Marceline knew each other immediately after the events of the Mushroom War" (because it happened before the present state of "IRY"), etc. As for "In episode X this happened", that's what the last paragraph of the link I showed you says: "Plot summaries can be written from the real-world perspective by referring to specific works or parts of works ("In the first book", "In Act II") or describing things from the author or creator's perspective ("The author introduces", "The story describes")." In this article, it is written as the former (the real-world perspective), which is completely allowed. Your statement that "Its too guide like to do so within prose and guide-like structure within in-universe info is WP:FANCRUFT in my book" is pure opinion about minor quibbles in this article. Wikipedia:Fancruft is not solely about how something is written; it's also about what is being written about whether it is notable. To be fair, I cut down some of the useless plot info that you pointed out ("Heat Signature", "Graybles", etc.), but for the most part your comments seem ungrounded.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its completely grounded. I never said fancruft was solely on how its written, doesnt mean im wrong about my interpretation of fancruft. You havent stated why the article should list character info broken down by episode per episode. I provided why its not a good idea to use that form of writing is A) overly redundant in both prose and referencing. (Making the refs practically useless) B) its too guidelike, and in general WP:NOTGUIDE is there too attempt not make guides.Lucia Black (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has gotten ridiculous. I have refuted every point you've made. It boils down to the fact that the prose complies with WP:TENSE and the MoS manner for listing/referencing plot summaries (again, found here). WP:NOTGUIDE does not apply, because the way in which this is structured does not treat the material as an instruction manual, travel, video game, or internet guid, a FAQ, a textbook, a journal, or a case study. It treats it as an article about a character that is (now) completely out-of-universe, and backed up with notable citations. It is also stylistically similar in both prose and structure to other character GAs.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it constructive please. This is most certainly not "ridiculous". Lets keep this a discussion, not an argument. Initially yes you stated your reasons, but that doesnt mean you refuted all points i made. I also provided new points, so you most certainly did not refute "all". In fact, you misunderstood most of it when i stated past tense. Obviously i wasnt referring to present tense info to be past tense, but all fictional history. The links you provided proves that. Also most the GAs you provided are not similar in anyway to the what im referring to, most of them split character info by media, not episodes and some by season, however still doesnt have the level of intricacy this article is leading to. Then there were ones that made no sense why you brought them, one of them was Clover (creature). The very few that do it were Nikita, Adrian Monk, and Elle Bishop. And even then, they didnt use it regularly. Actually im sure you can agree how shocking some of these articles made it to GA class as certain sections having no refs at all. Point being, you use "Episode X" reveals such info and use that very episode as a ref. So we might aswell NOT mention it in prose if we're using it as a reference aswell. Its still redundant in both prose and its still guidelike. WP:NOTGUIDE isnt limited to just the bullets listed, if any article falls with the same issues WP:NOTGUIDE provides, it counts. You also change your point aswell, initially stating that it has to be in-universe, and suddenly stating its out-of-universe.

But here's the thing, the setup you so vaguely defend hurts the article rather than help as it makes the article too intricate in detail, guide-like, and unnecessary to do.Lucia Black (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue to work on this, but as for in/out-universe, I was admitting my mistake. The issue I'm having is that calling something fancruft comes across as a major insult to those who worked on an article, and so I felt your tone was slightly attacking. I'll try to fix this article, but you need to realize that we have two different styles; while I am admitting my errs, you seem to think you have the know-all to fix everything. Like you said, let's make this more constructive. I could once again argue your points, but that's ridiculous.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "know-all" attitude is everywhere and subjective per editor, especially when in an argument. Don't think the feeling wasn't mutual. However I don't intend to make that a point in our discussion. Im just saying that feeling isnt unique in wikipedia. Editors should never consider FANCRUFT accusations as a major insult, thats where editor's pride gets in the way, because the accuser isnt blaming the editor, its just stating the issues it has. Perhaps WP:Fancruft should mention how it can happen even unintentionally. But still, its all assumed in goodfaith. The cruft-cruft link provided was more relevant if i was voting for deletion and used it as my sole argument which im not, just the words "In episode X" adds a more overly intricate and guide-like tone to the in-universe info provided. And considering the same episode is being used as a ref, makes it more redundant for the refs and less necessary. Removing them makes the section less dedicated to episode per episode. There are certain exceptions i believe are allowed such as if there a certain 2-hour (just an example) TV Special dedicated to Marceline, it wouldnt be just any other episode of the TV series.
But at this point im the one being redundant. We still have unnecessary info, such as voice actors that arent Marceline's and a couple choppy sentences, such as Marshall lee. Im sure those issues we can agree on.Lucia Black (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on the choppiness and I'll try to think of a better way to structure the "appearances" section (I think it does look better now). I'm still not sold on the argument about the voice actors. I've been told in quite a few A-class and FAN reviews to add relevant actors in parenthesizes into articles.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That can be interpretted in different ways. But we already have a list of characters article to cover said voice actors. The only one im "iffy" about is Olson's father voice acting marceline's father as theres more coverage on that in development section. Still its overkill to mention them in both "appearance" and the lead section of the article.Lucia Black (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concede to that point, then.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Internet controversy? or Fringe Theory

[edit]

What's that? So a few people post comments on a youtube page or blog and thus something become a controversy due to a minority opinion and fringe theory. So again the sources are limited and not reliable. This is really great example of why Reliable Sources and Undue Weight needs to be read. Of course someone will just proclaim reliable source, ok but Newsrama the only reliable source here doesn't elaborate enough. My view is a minority opinion that purported #1 a lesbian relationship is controversial, and #2 a fringe theory interpreted that the creators were implying a lesbian relationship. The episode still airs and there has been no outcry from the expected outlets like religious groups, so I think undue weight is being given to a minority opinion and this content is being added without a NPOV and reliable sources .

This was brought up in the main talk page, but the fact that Fred Seibert issued a public apology for it through the official Frederator Studios blog, and Pendleton Ward commented (not to mention writer Adam Muto) commented on the nature of the issue, I think it makes it notable. It wasn't *just* the fans who commented on it. It was apparently big enough for the staff and studio to issue public statements.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a heavy reliance on blogs for reference, which wikipedia discourages use as references. If a experienced editor comes along and makes suggestions, it never hurts to discuss and be receptive. I see you hover over this article which is fine. Also that can turn into a pov issue. Especially if you are discouraging any changes or suggestions you do not agree with. So typically a consensus often needs to be reached. I follow the show and until this article I never heard of this purported controversy until I read here. My tune has changed somewhat from not including it at all to including it, but a whole section dedicated too. Hmmm--0pen$0urce (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does discourage the use of personal blogs. The blog cited here is an archive of the official Frederator Studios blog, which is notable and therefore OK to use (see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SOCIALMEDIA). As for a whole section... it's only one paragraph in the reception section. I don't mean to hover, but the Adventure Time articles experience huge amounts of vandalism, so I try to prevent that. I don't view it as a POV issue, as small edits (or even big edits that are good) are all cool, but most of the edits I revert are blanket removal of content, or the removal of citations, etc.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cosplay

[edit]

is the cosplay image really necessary? i can't find any info on the body of the article relating to cosplay, so its difficult to keep such an image without coverage on it.Lucia Black (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It illustrates her popularity within the fandom, and besides, its a free file.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But there really should be coverage on it. Its best to illustrate what the article says.Lucia Black (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnes and Noble Panel

[edit]

With the whole Barnes and Noble panel thing exploding, I feel we need to discuss the ramifactions of what Olson said and how best to handle it. I feel that while Olivia Olson is a notable person, her comments do not really in any way confirm that Marceline is currently in a relationship with Princess Bubblegum, only that the crew members/Pen wanted her to be in one. There's a difference between confirming what the staff originally wanted and everyone screaming "canon" and jumping at the gun to categorize her as an LGBT character. Thoughts?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She claimed it was Pen Ward himself who told her, which I suppose makes it pretty much as canon as it ever will be, the same way J.K. Rowling outed Voldemort after the series had ended. Just mentioning the statements and their coverage itself would likely suffice, in my opinion. As for the "currently in a relationship thing", it does not say that at all, Ward and Olsen spoke of a previous relationship, not a current one so to write in the character description box that they are would be incorrect either way. I think the source is sufficient enough to categorize the character as LGBT, however. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference there is that J.K. Rowling (the progenitor the media) directly mentioned that Dumbledore was gay, whereas Olivia Olson (an actress) said that Pen Ward (the creator) said it. It just seems like one too many degrees of separation. There's also the fact that it was planned, but hasn't happened (see my talk page), so it can't be considered "canon". That's why I'm leery about adding the LGBT category at the moment (it could totally change in the future).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I commented it out with a note explaining not to restore until better referenced.
@Larrysuncle: added something about her redacting on Twitter. If we can confirm an official account by Olivia Olson knowing roughly what date she allegedly did so could help in confirming or denying a cite. Uncle if you know where you heard this please share so I can help vet your claim.
@EvergreenFir: you mentioned this was discussed on the talk. When do you recall first hearing about a redaction Tweet? This could help in knowing where to start looking. Ranze (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • found http://archive.is/QcNvU of an 8 August 2014 Tweet (day YT vid went up, week prior to articles) that appears to have been deleted from https://twitter.com/OliveOlson which has the look of being her account though if we were to cite it more confirmation may be needed. Not very specific. Not sure if she said anything else fantastical at the panel this could refer to. It does seem worth mentioning though since nothing else at the panel seems to have got such a serious reaction. Ranze (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ranze: I think the discussions might have been on Talk:Adventure Time more. Check out List of LGBT characters in animation and graphic art too. The source used there is this. Other sources include Entertainment Weekly which mentions Olson's panel comments and refers to the relationship. Bustle too. Even Gay Star News. I think enough secondary sources cover it for it to be included. The mention of the tweet is not covered though. Please consider restoring the categories as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the retractive tweet is worth mentioning even if secondary sources don't cover it. Consideration that an archive is required to view it, it seems like the tweet was deleted though, so it's like a retraction of a retraction, so we can mention all 3 events, although it's unclear specifically when the tweet was deleted since it was archived the day of posting and no later archives were made. That said, even if we do take Olson's panel comments as true testimony and not a funny story (the tweet certainly calls this into question) I think we should require a confirmation from Pendleton Ward directly before treating this as 'word of god' on Bubblegum and Marceline's sexuality. Particularly since the verb "date" does not necessarily indicate anything about sexual preferences. A blind date for example can be set up by third parties where you don't even know anything (including the gender) about the person you're seeing. I couldn't listen on my tablet earlier due to low volume so I'll check the video recording and see if something more specific was said. Ranze (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Pen Ward or, at this point, Adam Muto would have the final say about the canonicity of this, but I think mentioning the tweet/redaction is a bit over-kill and not acceptable per the MoS. First, and perhaps most damning, is the fact that nowhere in the tweet in question does Olson redact the whole Bubbline business. The tweet comprises this quote: "I like to make things up at panels. Ya'll take my stories way too seriously..." While it's not a bad assumption to think she's talking about the Bubbline confirmation, we would be veering waaaaaay too far into original research were we to mention the tweet in the article AND assert its referring to/redacting the confirmation. Second, there's the fact that the tweet is deleted and not really directly accessible (other than the archive), which could be a verifiability/authenticity issue (not sure about this one). As to your point about dating and sexuality... yes, but that's kind of nitpicking the issue. I feel like a reasonable person understands what Olson was implying, and the secondary sources (which are the ones we are supposed to be using when we write this encyclopedia) interpreted her comments as 'them dating' to be a confirmation of their sexuality.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Supposedly the reason it's not explicitly canon (yet?) is that it's illegal in some countries where the show is aired. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Marceline the Vampire Queen. 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:

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: 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) 04:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marceline the Vampire Queen. 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:

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: 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) 23:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Marceline photo

[edit]

Would it be better to use this image instead [1]? The current one I don't believe is a great example of Marceline.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 19:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea. The intro shot has been here as long as I can remember. I once attempted to find a good pic of her with her bass, but was unable to at the time.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marceline_the_Vampire_Queen&oldid=1218523228"