Wikia's forums are a place for the community to discuss subjects with other members. Remember sign your post with four tildes: ~~~~
Click here to edit page

Taken from the Minor Characters category talk page.

Category renamingEdit

Maybe we should sort the characters by primary, secondary, and tertiary. Though we can keep primary as major so just change characters to secondary characters and minor characters to tertiary characters. This is kind of like the system at Avatar wikia, though Bulbapedia has a category for what they call "Character of the Day" which is a character that is only ever shown on one episode, I figure those can just be tertiary characters, at least until Advebture Time has around fifteen seasons like Pokemon does which causes them to need to make that category... felinoel ~ (Talk) 13:28, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea, although I don't necessarily like the names "primary, secondary, and tertiary." We already have a "Main Characters" category, which only includes the six or so main characters. That's fine. Maybe "Recurring characters" for those who appeared in multiple episodes. Then some characters in this category get demoted to "Background characters" or something. That would be characters that are so minor, they only appeared in one scene and didn't play a notable role in the story. Just some ideas. --Cornprone 23:06, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Well I did say we can go Major, Secondary, Tertiary. But what is the difference between a background character and a background character who was actually given a name? If a character was given a name it seems more important but is only ever seen in the background... felinoel ~ (Talk) 03:32, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

This is some pretty old discusion, but I think I have an idea. There is a category for comic book characters, and since those characters do not appear on the TV series, they are not exactly considered minor characters. So, basically, the characters who appear on the TV series belong in this category, while the comic book characters go in the other category. Sky Monster 22:32, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Wait, are these comic book characters in the minor characters category? felinoel ~ (Talk) 13:29, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

No. I removed it from the pages when I thought of the idea. Sky Monster 22:15, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Ok so now we have Major Characters, Minor Characters, Genderswap Characters, and Comic Characters?

... I really think this should be reorganized... Bulbapedia has a category for one episode ever shown characters, could we at least add this? felinoel ~ (Talk) 13:03, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

The system could definitely use a reorganization. My suggestion is as follows.

I think categories of Major, Minor, and Extras would be a viable system. Major are obvious and the difference between Minor and Extra would be that Minor characters: 1. Have at least two lines of notable dialogue that is non repetitive (notable in the same sense of "notable quotes only" in the Quotes template)

2. Function in the plot of the episode to some degree and

3. Can be viewed as a single entity that is mostly independent (the word "can" so as to not exclude characters like BUFO).

This means that any character that does not have dialogue as specified above, doesn't impact the plot, or is functional as a group would be an extra.

There would obviously be exceptions - Snow Golem for example has only one true line, but is a minor character nonetheless. I'd like to hope we can be reasonable with characters that are slightly out of the boundaries of my system's rules.

Sorry for the wall of text, but I would really like to see this (or something like it) implemented - 6 major to 512 minor is incredibly disproportionate.

I agree with this having to reorganize the minor character section. I think renaming less well known characters as "extras" is a good idea. A category that encompasses nearly half of all of the wiki's article is much too broad, especially when you put characters like Flame Princess on the samel level as, say, Raccoon. Although the difference between "extra" and "minor" is controversial, I don't think it will be a problem deciding; the three criteria listed seem highly reasonable. I support this. SaberSworn 08:09, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the general idea of dividing the "Minor characters" categories into two using these basic criteria. I'm not too sure about using the word "Extras" because that's a word that more relates to live action actors. Maybe we can think of a better name? But yeah, I'm in favor of splitting and redefining the category. --Cornprone 12:12, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

lol Corn the name used has always been an issue with you, do you have any ideas for what to name it? (Though I do agree that extra isn't too relatable.) f e l i n o e l . 13:22, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

what about Major, Minor, and background characters? SaberSworn 13:29, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

That does sound better imo. f e l i n o e l . 14:03, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Of course though, when this change happens we will not be having a character be in the Characters category, just the Major, Minor, or Background category. I am not sure what the Characters category is for, but it is redundant and unneeded. f e l i n o e l . 16:19, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

I agree background characters is a slightly better term and the characters category is certainly redundant. Does anyone think the defining criteria need revision though? Flame Prince Finn

I think the criteria look good, if we allow for exceptions like Snow Golem, as you noted. --Cornprone 00:02, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Exceptions like Snow Golem has to be made, that wasn't really a talking episode but he was definitely the main character. f e l i n o e l . 12:41, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed lately that some people have been adding the character category to all characters that don't have it yet even though it is redundant.

We need to make a decision on this, though I would like to suggest yet another (x.x) possibility, we keep main and minor characters, but add bit and extra characters. Bit characters are there to move the plot forward while extra characters are just in the background like animated furniture, aka most of the Candy People.

ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 05:58, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the category is unnecessary and should be deleted. I think that "background character" sounds better than "extra character."

Also, could you give an example of a bit character, as opposed to a minor or background character. SaberSworn 06:04, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

The Ice King is of course Major,
Cosmic Owl and Flame King are Minor,
Ancient Psychic Tandem War Elephant, Tiffany, Bucket Knight, Balloons, and Gumdrop Lass 1 are Bit,
Ice Cream Lady, Gelatin Man, Hawk, Dimension Wizard, and Candy Heart are Extra.
ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 12:52, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to bring up this discussion again so a decision can be made; it seems like it keeps getting ignored.

I don't really like the idea of having four separate categories for characters. What will most likely happen is disputes will pop up about whether or not a character is minor, bit, or extra, since they seem to be pretty similar categories, especially bit and extra. Instead, I think there should be three categories. Obviously, main characters for the first category. Although I like the name "recurring characters," I don't think it'd be too useful because not too many characters come back in a second or third episode. That leaves "extra" and "background." I believe that "background" is a better name, as long as the category is not limited to characters who haven't talked. Even though someone talks, I don't think they could necessarily be automatically classified as minor, per the above criteria. However, if others like the term "extra" better, I'd support that too (background is just my preference).

Also, regarding the characters category, it seems like the consensus is that it is unneeded and quite redundant?

Basically, I think Main --> Minor --> Background could work fine.

Thoughts? SaberSworn 17:40, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

Major -> Minor -> Background seems good to me. My assumption was that background characters would be any character worthy of an article that doesn't meet the above requirements. As long as we agree on the distinction I guess all we're worried about is the title? I think Extra and Bit is an okay distinction, but I don't think it's necessarily a big improvement over just Background. I support implementing that system.

As for deleting the characters category, I'm a bit surprised it hasn't been done yet. It's pretty darn redundant. Flame Prince Finn 18:07, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah for a year or more now this issue has been brought up, talked about, then no decision reached. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 18:37, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

I think the aforementioned system is good. What do we need to do to implement it? Flame Prince Finn 18:59, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

I think classifying the characters is a good idea. It will help non-members who only come to this site occasionally for information understand the importance of each character. At this time, I think that only three categories are needed. If the characters are categorized and you find that there are to many characters in one category, you can make further distinctions then. The main problem I am seeing is with classification requirements. Everyone seems to have a general idea of what characters should be in what category, but unless you make specific requirements for each category there will be a fair amount of arguing. I suggest that everyone list the three categories (Major, Minor, Background) and then a list of requirements that they believe a character must meet to be placed within said category. Once that is done, then you can further debate the requirements. This will hopefully put everyone's thoughts on the table and make it easier to agree on the categories, requirements, and character placement. - Alchemical 18:46, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

Here are the criteria listed earlier: 1. Have at least two lines of notable dialogue that is non repetitive (notable in the same sense of "notable quotes only" in the Quotes template)

2. Function in the plot of the episode to some degree and

3. Can be viewed as a single entity that is mostly independent (the word "can" so as to not exclude characters like BUFO).

This means that any character that does not have dialogue as specified above, doesn't impact the plot, or is functional as a group would be an extra. SaberSworn 19:13, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

I think that these criteria are fairly decent. Exceptions can be made for the first criterion, like with Snow Golem and Key-per Door Lord, who don't talk at all. So my vote goes for Main, Minor, and Background. FPF seemed fine with that too. What does everyone else think? SaberSworn 19:19, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

Here are some requirements I came up with quickly.

Main Characters: 1) Must make an appearance in at least ten episodes. 2) Must be central to the plot in at least five episodes.

Minor Characters: 1) Must make an appearance in at least one episode. 2) Must be central to the plot in at least one episode.

Background Characters: 1) Must make an appearance in at least one episode.

- Alchemical 22:07, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

No that would open up the possibility for more main characters and I don't think this wikia will have that. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 13:12, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

I think our main character list is fine right now. It should be pretty obvious once a character becomes a main one. Anyway, I think the criteria FPF suggested is alright. SaberSworn 13:23, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

So you agree with these requirements:

1) Have at least two lines of notable dialogue that is non repetitive (notable in the same sense of "notable quotes only" in the Quotes template)

2) Function in the plot of the episode to some degree and

3) Can be viewed as a single entity that is mostly independent (the word "can" so as to not exclude characters like BUFO).

This means that any character that does not have dialogue as specified above, doesn't impact the plot, or is functional as a group would be a background character.

There would obviously be exceptions - Snow Golem for example has only one true line, but is a minor character nonetheless. I'd like to hope we can be reasonable with characters that are slightly out of the boundaries of my system's rules.

I have a problem with the last section. If we have requirements and then make exceptions to them, then that completely makes the requirements pointless. I agree that Snow Golem should be a Minor Character. Instead of making an exception to the rules, though, we should make the rules so that he would meet the requirements to do so. Also, no Major Character requirements were stated. Yes, it is obvious who the major characters are, but we should still make requirements for the class. Even if the requirements are "the Adventure Time staff stated that this is a major character". - Alchemical 00:21, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a criterion for major characters is very necessary because nobody really should be adding that category to any character page. The main characters probably won't change any time soon and if it does, we'd probably vote on it or something. A clearer, all-encompassing set of criteria might be a good idea, though. SaberSworn 01:07, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

That would mean we would either have to remove the notable dialogue requirement, or have a supplemental catch that can override other requirements. Such a catch would probably be something like "if a character is significantly important to the plot, they are a minor character without regard to other requirements."

I felt that including such a catch wasn't worthwhile, because either way we have to acknowledge ambiguity in "significance to the plot." That's why I said obvious exceptions. Saying "including obvious exceptions" seemed a lot more concise and equally as effective as including a catch for said obvious exceptions.

My point: Ghost Lady and Giant do not unambiguously fall into the minor character system that is currently suggested. Adding a catch about "certain degree of importance to the plot" does not resolve that issue; there are some characters that are going to fall into gray areas. We shouldn't try to qualify things that are highly subjective. I imagine that would either become unnecessarily complicated, or uselessly vague. Including the catch I suggested above does not improve the list enough to justify its addition in my opinion. If you have a better catch, maybe that is worth it.

Flame Prince Finn 05:01, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

Ghost Lady is definitely an extra imo, she was only known for like five minutes and after that she only got a thought by Finn and nothing more. As for Giant... idk, I mean he basically is a house, no real reason why a house with legs would be a secondary character over the tertiary character (or whatever you guys are gonna call it). ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 13:26, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

As for Ghost Lady, she is basically the equivalent of Bucket Knight except without dialogue in my opinion. The question of whether or not she was part of Jake's prank makes her noteworthy, but her short screen time is a big point in favor of her being background. Giant is a pretty important character in the episode. Even if he is basically the setting, he is one of the characters Finn needs to satisfy and he causes complications in the plot.

What about Swamp Giant? He appears only as a minor complication, and his dialogue is almost entirely repetitive. However, he has three appearances with some minor importance. And Cuber? He has no role in the plot of the episode, but a lot of lines and a decently long screen time. What about King of Thieves and Pineapple Guy?

And Snail? He's in every episode as a background character - but he is only important when possessed by the Lich. Is that actually Snail? Should we get into a philosophical discussion about the connection of mind and body?

In the above system if the exception is obvious (Door lord, Snow Golem) then it is a minor character. I am suggesting that if it is not obviously a minor character, then it is a background character by default. There will almost certainly be characters that are arguable for one side or the other. Again, we shouldn't try to qualify things that are highly subjective. If we're going to have to discuss either way, I don't think amending the rules is necessary. I'd rather not complicate this and leave it on the back-burner again.

Flame Prince Finn 23:03, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

I just think that adding qualifications would decrease any arguing that would occur during character categorization. Also, the process of character categorizing will be more clear cut. Otherwise, we have to discuss each character's placement individually. - Alchemical 00:38, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

Flam, All of those characters you've listed (except Snail) are extra imo.

Alch, I believe we are currently trying to define the terms by deciding who is what and then basing the terms from that.

ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 12:28, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

That is a pretty good idea. I suggest we work our way down form Main Characters to Background Characters. - Alchemical 02:09, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

This is going to be one of those classic slightly-too-big walls of text, so you can skip to the last paragraph for the gist of it if you don't feel like reading.

Swamp Giant is pretty integral to "His Hero." Finn saving the Old Lady by fighting him is at root what convinced him that his violent ways were righteous.

Pineapple Guy is also pretty important to "Mystery Train." If you take him out, the murder mystery is less complex - take out all the other suspects (Lollipop Girl, Ice Cream Guy, Chocolate Bar Guy, and the characters that actually have other important roles) then the plot doesn't exist. In a sense, Pineapple Guy is integral to the plot of the episode. It's a voters paradox type situation: you could say that because one character alone doesn't matter it isn't important - or that because one character is part of the collective (which does matter) it is important.

Snail is a background character in my opinion. Aside from his possessed role as the Lich (which I agree is most aptly defined as Snail, though it seems intuitively incorrect) his most common role is clearly a background character. In short, his primary function in the show is as an easter egg - his role is arguably "minor" in two episodes out of roughly 100. He only has dialogue in one episode, and in that episode it didn't directly affect the plot at all. In the future it is possible he will perform a more notable role, but it just hasn't happened yet. I asked three people in chat whether he was minor or background, and all three agreed background (despite minor being clearly arguable in my opinion...). I could go on with other characters, but that would just be silly. I think I've given more than enough examples for my point.

Multiple characters are arguable for either background or minor roles, and the reasoning varies. In general, it is "relevance to the plot" based, but to make fact-based specifications for that is beyond me. Again, if someone wants to suggest a better method of defining the exceptions, I would be happy to hear it. I have just been unable to come up with one myself. I don't think we should wait around for more than a few days for a perfect list of specifications, lest we find ourselves waiting forever.

Flame Prince Finn 04:06, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

Alch, Main Characters are set in stone the ones they currently are it seems.

Flam, how about this, background characters are those that do nothing and are nothing, characters like Grape Popsicle Guy, Cloud People, Forest Inhabitant, Jaybird, Chocolate Bar Guy, Banana Guy, Banana Guy and arguably, Knights, while minor characters are what is left so essentially take my idea from above when I mentioned the four types of characters, and have the extra characters be the background while the minor and bit characters are both minor. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 13:21, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

How about major characters are characters which have been the focus of the plot of three or more episodes? Seems easy enough to retroactively include that.

I imagine the "doing nothing" aspect would allow characters of very small importance to be considered minor characters. That is a more clear system (though I imagine even something as small as "do nothing" will cause some contention - consider the basket-stealing montage in "Thief City" and Blindfold Guy), but I don't think we should make the system clearer solely for the sake of it being clear. That would include characters like Fairy, Ab Demon, Ant, and Antelope as minor characters. To me, that seems too generous. Alternatively, if we allow that those characters "didn't do anything" and are thus background, we haven't avoided the ambiguity.

I also note that Jaybird was pretty important in Apple Thief, Chocolate Bar Guy was one of the characters Finn includes in his murder mystery explanation, and Knights are the basis for the plot of "Blood Under the Skin." In short, if we're going to use "do / are nothing" as the basis for a criteria we will have to be very clear on what that means.

PS: Indent resent time, someone.

Flame Prince Finn 02:27, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Based on past discussions I can safely say that the current major characters are and will always be what they are, unless something extremely radical happens which is unlikely.

I tend to over-exaggerate to emphasize my points, the amount of nothing those did are what I feel should be of the tertiary character position. There are a lot of episodes, being mentioned in an explanation in just one episode certainly would not make you a minor character and the Knights were not the basis of the plot but just one knight was, and he has his own article, the other knights were just furniture that were yes men to that one knight. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 12:53, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Indent reset

I am going based on the assumption that if it is a minor character in one episode, it is a minor character in the series. If that isn't the case I've been approaching this incorrectly. In the case of the knights, I don't think Finn would have been as bothered if he hadn't been on the receiving end of group ridicule rather than just one guy. Being mentioned in an explanation I can agree is a very small role to consider the character minor, but I don't see how we can get around it. To me it seems clear that those characters are minor characters in the episode, and distinguishing one minor role in an episode as background character and one major role in an episode as minor character causes complications that to me seem illogical (such distinctions would imply that we are referring to the characters significance to the series - a minor character in one episode rivals the significance of a major character in one episode in my opinion).

Anyway, all I'm saying is that if we're trying to avoid ambiguity I don't think this is the proper route. I feel this isn't going anywhere. We should try to address basic questions like "Do we want 3 or 4 character categories" and my original statement about minor in one episode meaning minor in the series. Flame Prince Finn 21:11, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

I think that three character categories will be sufficient. I am not quite sure about the second part, though. I am still not sure what we are defining as "minor". For now, though, I think that a character will need to have more than a minor part in one episode to be considered a Minor Character instead of a Background Character. - Alchemical 04:51, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

Going by episode instead of series? Interesting... I would see that as useful if we allowed every character to have their own article... ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 12:24, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

I assumed we didn't follow that policy based on the major and minor character sections on each episode article...? Flame Prince Finn 04:53, June 23, 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to add a list of the character's importance per episode. I meant that a character would have to have to have more than a minor role once to be considered a minor character. For example, Party Pat was a major character in "Belly of the Beast". But, at best he would only be classified as a minor character since he only made one appearance. Where as Cubby played a minor part in the same episode, but he might only be classified as a background character because he had a small part in only one episode. See what I am trying to say? - Alchemical 01:45, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

I realize, that's what I was saying when I said importance as it relates to the series. I think that system is bound to fail though. There aren't many characters that play multiple minor roles - off the top of my head, I can only think of Choose Goose and a few of the princesses. I think the "minor characters" category makes sense to add to a character that is a minor character in an episode.

More importantly though, it doesn't answer the question. If we're going based on importance to the episode (Party Pat being major character in ep. qualifying him as a minor character, Cubby as a minor character in ep. qualifying him as a background character) we still need a system for determining what minor character means exactly. Flame Prince Finn 05:10, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

idk I think both Cubby and Pat are Minor, while characters such as Poo Bear are background. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 14:10, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

But what specifically makes them Minor, in principle? Flame Prince Finn 02:06, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

Based on my opinion, they play a role on the show, instead of just being basically animated furniture. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 13:33, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

Defining that role is the problem though. What about Marc? He doesn't really have anything to do with the plot of Five Short Graybles, but he does have a role. I could give a lot of examples of where a character's role would be arguable for minor or background. The point of this discussion is to decide on specifications that remove as much contention in determining which category a character falls into as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flame Prince Finn (talk • contribs)

Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Marc is definitely not just animated furniture, if he weren't there LSP wouldn't have done so well in the Talent Show, plus he is a reoccurring character too not that that really means anything. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 13:37, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

Reworking original qualificationsEdit

As it stands here is what has been suggested in concrete terms, with noticeable revisions I believe are agreeably improvements.

I would like to ask that we suggest changes or amendments to the above in specific terms rather than idly discussing the problems. That is to say, please don't suggest things we should clarify or things that need improvement without also giving a clear and concise suggestion of what could be done to clarify or improve.

Here is my reasoning behind this system: Requiring one line of notable dialogue removes some of the ambiguity regarding plot significance, and obvious exceptions will disregard that requirement anyway. Because the dialogue must be notable, it should inherently denote plot relevance of the character because notable dialogue generally signifies importance to the episode. It would not make sense for a character to have said something "important" if it had no impact on the episode. I lowered the number of notable lines to one because it is virtually impossible that a character would say two notable lines and not be significant to the plot. This makes Snow Golem more clearly a minor character in principle, but that is coincidental.

I feel I should note that princesses will likely have their minor character numbers reduced significantly. In addition, non-recurring monsters would be categorized as background. This is accurate in my estimation, but I imagine it will be grounds for contention.

Examples galoreEdit

Characters that would not be minor for lack of dialogueEdit

Marc: In the episode, he sets the scene for the talent show as a bunch of apparently talentless Candy People. He is the only Candy Person seen performing to create this impression. However, he doesn't say anything. Background character.

Old Swans: These radically change Ice King's perception of love. However, they don't say anything. Background character.

Dust Mote: This "character" proves to Finn that his magical powers are working. However, it doesn't actually say anything. Background character.

Ghost Lady: This character scares Finn into running up the stairs and creates confusion about which events were planned by Jake and which weren't. However, she doesn't say anything. Background character.

Flame Jester: He is important to the plot in that causes complications in earning the favor of the Flame King. However, he has no dialogue. Minor character.

Characters that would not be minor for lack of importance to plotEdit

Rock: Says plenty of things about the meteor, showing the apparent danger. He doesn't actually do anything though. Background character.

Squirrel (The Duke): Multiple appearances in the episode and plenty of dialogue, though perhaps not notable. However, he has no impact on the episode. In fact, it is his lack of importance that makes him a humorous character. Background character.

Royal Tart Toter: This character is also important for his lack of importance. If he had been around to tote the tarts, we would have no episode. His appearance at the end is also after the resolution of the plot - the tarts had been delivered and PB would not lose her head. Background character.

Cuber: Loads of dialogue. However, he is a mere narrator. If the episode is a story, to consider the storyteller a character would be fallacious. He is not part of the story itself. Background character.

Nurse Poundcake: Has a decent amount of dialogue all relating to the ill Princess Bubblegum. However, nothing she actually does is important to the episode. Without her worrying about Princess Bubblegum or introducing the 13 year old Princess Bubblegum, we would have the exact same plot. The princess would still be near-mortally ill at first, and still turned to 13 afterwards.

Characters that are minor despite not fitting specificationsEdit

Stormo: He only squawks and therefore has no dialogue. However, without him you can say goodbye to the Candy Kingdom. Obviously a minor character.

Door Lord: He only mumbles with intonation, obviously not notable dialogue. However, without him there is no "What Was Missing." There is only "What Wasn't Missing," an uninteresting episode to say the least.

Fire Wolf Pup: Barks and whines are not exactly notable, regardless of the emotions they express. However, without the pup we have the story of Snow Golem eating pears and nuts. The end.

Giant Monster: Maniacally cackles, obviously not notable dialogue. However, without him we get to the end of Joshua's Dungeon with no climax. "Wow, that was easy" is probably not something you want your characters saying if you're trying to tell a story of trials and tribulations.

Gladiator Ghosts: Their dialogue is totally unimportant, but without them we have no plot in "Morituri Te Salutamus".

Group clarificationEdit

Businessmen: Obviously minor characters that fall into the above catch. Individually it is difficult to assess who says what, but as a group collectively they are a minor character.

Hot Dog Knights: Basically the same case as the Businessmen despite being slightly more unique in appearance.

Monty, Glasses, and Lenny: Individual, unique characters. Glasses is the only one without notable dialogue (his lines are redundant to the concerns of his compatriots). Nonetheless he is a minor character, because his importance is plausibly diminished because of his friends.

Grimby, Taddle, and JJ: Individual, unique characters once again. Taddle and Grimby's brief dialogue shows the desperation of their circumstances. JJ's actions cause Finn and Jake to begin their tart losing journey. All are minor characters.

Knights: These more-or-less identical characters antagonize Finn, causing the events of "Blood Under the Skin." Their dialogue is the medium through which this occurs. Minor characters. Flame Prince Finn 03:30, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed changesEdit

Please keep the discussion of changes here so we don't have a ridiculously long string of comments directing attention from the system I am suggesting we discuss. Flame Prince Finn 03:30, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you made that post long enough. Anyway, I agree with most of it. SaberSworn 04:59, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

*Cough cough, arm scratch* Flame Prince Finn 07:03, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds more like a bump to me. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 14:06, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

I think we should make a formal voting page for this so there's a time limit before voting expires. Otherwise, it seems like this discussion will keep dying.

• SaberSworn
  • Talk
  • Contributions

Vote here. Flame Prince Finn 22:55, July 7, 2012 (UTC)