This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies 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.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
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
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
This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2021.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles
While scrolling through this page, I noticed four mentions of "Abomitons" and I believed abomiton to be a misspelling of abomination, so I changed it. I did say to "revert me if I'm wrong" in my edit summary, so I was subsequently reverted accordingly. I've seen enough of this show to know what an abomination is (a purple goopy thing), but I'm not sure what an Abomiton is or what makes it different from an abomination. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confident that "Abomaton" is what's intended. That's what the show's subtitle use. I'm pretty sure they combined "abomination" and "automaton" to make the name. They are different from abominations because they are robots. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like there's some disagreement on King's age (or lack of one). I'm opening up this topic to invite discussion instead of continuously reverting edits. Axolotlanarchy (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chad The Goatman I apologize for singling you out, but you appear to have reverted edits of this repeatedly from several different people, so it may be beneficial for you to explain your reasoning here to avoid more conflict. Axolotlanarchy (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from three users, but only two of them are clearly new users, who sole repeating were furiously and attack me via weird bullying/witch hunt (no pun intended, if you watch The Owl House) in professional website like Wikipedia, which is unnecessery, and could warrant a temporary bans for these two users.
Instead, keeping that drama at [pre-Elon Musk control] Twitter, as I think it kinda and hilariously violate rules here. As where Wikipedia is not a blog (or social media in this case); along expending a dumb fan-based drama on that social media website only, over a heavily implied young fictional character from TDC show. Along, while their 'reasoning' (or what they proclaimed, when they wrote), doesn't help in their favor, and still not using any primary/secondry sources, from the creator or staff from the show, to backing up their claims (and the bigger problem of the common knowledge, in that fandom over King Clawthorne's age, that was revealed in early S2). In my opinion.
Yes. Even they're new to the site. They still need to read the rules or being tread to do so, by the site moderators. As, I been here since May 2017, and I been met the these moderators, with overtime conform the site rules, when I stand down, even through their rationale sounds almost unjustifiable. Chad The Goatman (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you stalked me, your friend DOXXED and sexually harassed me, you spread rumors about me being attracted to my comfort character and your friends tried to get me to commit suicide, all because I think it's morally wrong to jack off to underage characters. Whos the bully again? get a jon SamuraiHero2024CAFESWST (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the heck you are talking about, but your edits are causing problems for other users, and clearly are personal attacks, a clear violation of Wikipedia rules, like WP:NPA. Just give it a rest and step away from the keyboard for a while. Historyday01 (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting of Eda Clawthorne and Amity Blight into other pages[edit]
Honestly think it would be appropriate to make these individual characters a Wikipedia page since the descriptions on their parts of the list are getting crowded but the information is all correct. Arconning (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Especially in regards to Amity Blight, she is significant not only for being a major character, but for her groundbreaking status as the first lesbian character in a Disney property. I also think giving Eda Clawthorne her own article is a great idea due to the amount information regarding her character. ShinjiGrille58 (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually a draft page for Amity, but I'm not sure if there's enough there to submit or not. If you'd like to take a look at it, here it is: Draft:Amity Blight. As for Eda, there's no page for her yet, so that's probably a good idea. Historyday01 (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that the section about Amity Blight be split into a separate page. Currently, there is a draft page available at Draft:Amity Blight. Considering the importance of Amity as a character The Owl House, especially in relation to Luz Noceda, and her notability as a character, there is enough to make its own page. I am putting this discussion together to fulfill a requirement of the last reviewer of the Amity draft page, asking there be consensus "as to whether this character should get its own article based on the split discussion." Please note whether you support or oppose this page split. Thanks!
I honestly support this decision because of the same notes made in other discussions in the page, the breakthroughs Amity made as being the first lesbian character in a Disney property, being a major character, and her overall plot to the story. Arconning (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support this too, Amity is a very notable character from the show so having a Wikipedia article of her own makes since, especially with how the show she appeared in has more LGBTQ themes when compared to other Disney media. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but complete first - Many months have been spent creating that draft, and it has slowly filled up with the necessary information. Sourcing and content is all there though when I wrote the whole character biography it was sourced with episodes, (like Luz'sis), and that was changed. Still She definetely deserves the article, but we shall get it fully ready first, before anything. I tried uploading an Amity PNG at one point for the display, but as I'm more of a code editor than file uploader, I did that wrong, and had it taken down. Maybe someone could start by undergoing a similar process as the one for Luz was, and get the article a proper PNG for the display. But, I support nonetheless. Mjeims (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely. I cut down the "Fictional character biography" section because it appeared it wouldn't go through the submission process and be approved if I didn't do so. Historyday01 (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think that Amity is important rep so I added an image and would agree that it is a necessary split. OLI04:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
