Talk:Battle for Dream Island/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2026

I am here to fix a issue in Impact, and it is grammer WelpThisIsMyUsername (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. What change do you want to make exactly? For example, if the bad spelling was "excpect", say "change excpect to expect". --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 14:46, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@WelpThisIsMyUsername, can you please clarify what word or sentence fragment you're concerned about? Giovanni Potage (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

They did, then didn't. Appears to have been a misunderstanding concerning the slash in "/Film". fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, i thought that was a typo, sorry WelpThisIsMyUsername (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2026

The latest episode of Battle For Dream Island Again (BFDIA) has been released on March 8, 2026 Eeasechooseadiff (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 15:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems like he wants the Series overview table updated with the date of the latest episode--Trade (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Already done Looks like there is already a date after March 8 in the table. So we'll need more details to do anything with this. meamemg (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

add award's and nominations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

bfdi has nominated from the webby award's Quilant Studio (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

See thread above this one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2026

Please change the article’s “Reception” section to add to it:

In 2026, ''Battle for Dream Island'' and ''The Power of Two'' received three [[Webby Award]] nominations, in the Social categories of Family & Kids, Best Use of Video, and Weird.<ref name="Surette-2026" />

The ref named “Surette-2026” should already be there on the page. ~2026-23063-34 (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. See discussion above. meamemg (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Please join the open discussion under #BFDI Nominated For Webby Awards —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done, although I worded it differently. Please join the discussion above if you have additional feedback on this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

new article on bfdi*

was wondering if this could be used in some section of the page. just asking for a quick response ! ;) rave (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

It has already been added. See this reference. Jude Halley ^talk/_contribs 23:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

It would fit pretty well at Draft:Object show, too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Does the article seem GA worthy?

like, if it was nominated, is there a chance it would pass? Finnfrog99 (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Go ahead and try Trade (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it might fail on the stability criteria but the easy fix for that is to wait just a little longer before nominating. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 06:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't have first hand experience with GA reviews but I would suggest reading over the WP:GA page and subpages, perhaps starting with WP:GAFAQ and WP:GACR. One thing that stands out is that the article must be nominated by an editor who is a "significant contributor" to the article. You can view the page stats here. It looks like they put mroe weight on amount (percentage) of text contributed as opposed to number of edits. Explanatory note [b] at WP:GANI#N1 indicates that the nominator should have contributed at least 10% or be in the top 5 contributors. It's also my understanding that the nominator is expected to be available and to participate actively in the review process. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

BFDI Nominated For Webby Awards

BFDI just got nominated for the Webby Awards.

It has been nominated in the Family & Kids, Weird and Best Use of Video categories.

Source: Help BFDI win a Webby Award (VOTING OPEN NOW!) TabRztoff (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

We should wait until it either wins or doesnt win the award Finnfrog99 (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, ok! TabRztoff (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

We can mention a nomination but we need a better source than that. The Webby Awards website is annoying to navigate and I can't seem to find a straightforward list of nominees. If you can verify that on the Webbys website or find a reliable secondary source reporting on this, it can be included. The article can be updated once the results are known. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

https://vote.webbyawards.com/PublicVoting#/2026/social/social-campaigns/family-kids is something, but it doesn't bother to say "nominees". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

That website is a mess! I was able to find direct links to the other two nominations via jacknjellify's YouTube video description:

• Weird https://vote.webbyawards.com/PublicVoting#/2026/social/general-social/weird
• Best Use of Video (TPOT 20): https://vote.webbyawards.com/PublicVoting#/2026/social/social-campaigns/family-kids

The URL —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Presumably there will be clearer sources when the voting is actually done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Possibly. I've seen partial nominee lists like this and this but they don't include the categories BFDI is nominated in. I would think that the Webbys themselves could be used as a primary source to say something was nominated. I think it's pretty clear but I agree that *technically* they don't say nominee/nominated —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Quilant Studio, if you'd like to discuss coverage of the Webby Awards nominations, please read the thread above and contribute here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I've added info about the nominations under Battle for Dream Island#Accolades. Feel free to make adjustments or discuss further here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

According to the website now, BFDI and "Alone" are the People's Voice Winner in the three categories (see the references in the article). Would this be appropriate to add in the "Recognition" section? Jude Halley ^talk/_contribs 21:24, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@JudeHalley Definitely! With that, I also think we can rename the section to "accolades". Giovanni Potage (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

IMO "Accolades" sounds more pretentious/promotional, "Recognition" is a good catch-all heading. But it's not wrong for the current content and this wording is subjective WP:LIKECONTENT/WP:OTHERCONTENT stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with titling the section "Accolades" as that is flowery language prone to puffery. I don't mind alternatives like "Awards" which are more direct and imply less puffery. "Recognition" is fine too. The essay WP:CSECTION is relevant here. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 06:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

What I like about "Recognition" is that IMO it "catches" things like due awards and noms, as well as "Listed by The New Yorker as one of the 10 best web-thingies in 2020." (that was a hypothetical example). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I looked through a few TV show articles that have achieved GA status and the organization of content and language used is mixed. Many, but not all, of these are subsections under #Recognition or #Reception:

• Avatar: The Last Airbender#Awards and nominations
• Awake (TV series)#Awards and accolades
• Better Call Saul season 1#Reception has separate subsections for Better Call Saul season 1#Critics' top ten list and Better Call Saul season 1#Accolades
• Black Mirror#Reception also has multiple subsections—Black Mirror#Critics' rankings and Black Mirror#Accolades
• The Blacklist#Accolades
• BoJack Horseman season 5#Accolades and nominations
• Curb Your Enthusiasm season 3#Awards
• Degrassi Junior High#Awards and nominations
• EastEnders: E20#Awards and nominations
• Ed, Edd n Eddy season 1#Reviews and accolades
• Friends#Awards

There are hundreds (thousands?) of articles under Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama#Television so the above list is not comprehensive and may or may not be representative. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Fwiw, based on stuff like List of accolades received by Nightcrawler (FA), "accolade" in the WP-context seems to mean "WP:N awards and noms". If so, a heading like "Awards and accolades" seems redundant, but for example Awake_(TV_series)#Awards_and_accolades has other stuff, like an "almost nom." That is one example where I think "Recognition" works better. BFDI could atm use any one of Awards/Accolades/Recognition, since all we got for now are awards. Recognition is my personal choice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's more or less my read. Several of the examples I linked above also link to separate lists of awards/accolades. Accolade usually means "award" but could accommodate things like being listed on critics' "best of" or "top 10" lists. Mere praise should be covered in a "Reception" (or similar) section, if at all (noting that additional inclusion considerations apply but that's a bit off-topic). Award wins and nominations, especially for prestigious or well-known awards, are generally worthy of inclusion and it often makes sense to not lump these with "Critical response", etc. I agree that all these related subject headings are justifiable. "Awards" is the most restrictive, "Recognition" the most expansive, and "Accolades" is somewhere in the middle but maybe closer to "Awards" in practice. When I first created the "Accolades" section I debated between this and "Recognition" or simply combining it under "Cultural impact". In the end, I decided to pick something, with the understanding that others would likely weigh in. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm okay with changing it back to "Recognition", or something else other than "Accolades". It seems that "Recognition" is broader, and may allow for future awards, nominations, or other forms of recognition. Jude Halley ^talk/_contribs 22:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Apart from the section name, should the section's contents be in prose (how it is now), or put into an {{Awards table}} similar to The Amazing Digital Circus#Awards and nominations? Jude Halley ^talk/_contribs 22:30, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I don’t have a strong preference. I generally prefer an awards table since it’s ’cleaner’. This is more relevant when there is more content —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

How's this: (incorrectly formatted content removed.) Jude Halley ^talk/_contribs 22:47, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Oops, the outdent messed up the formatting. I just went ahead and WP:BOLDly added it to the section to let others weigh in. Jude Halley ^talk/_contribs 22:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Looks good! I tweaked it so the the year and award rows are combined and I moved one of the references around. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Overquoting

@Giovanni Potage the new section Conception has too much quoting, you need to summarise more

"had to create a fake catalogue for an algebra class", and "a comic about how rock, paper, and scissors ... could be improved. [Cary] replaced them with water, sponge, and fire." are unneeded quotes that could easily be summarised Finnfrog99 (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

"Michael created animations based on Cary's comics,[7] later stating that he wanted to "combine [animation] with Cary's characters"."

this is fine tho Finnfrog99 (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Archive bot misbehaving?

I noticed in the revision history that the bot is archiving in archive 1, though archive 2 also exists. I don't know why, maybe someone made archive 2 manually or something. Anyway, this means the archives will not be chronological. If there's someone good at archiving around, please take a look. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1350527014 should fix it. As for the existing archived discussions I'd just leave them unordered as they are, moving them might break links and make things worse. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, absolute chronology isn't that important. Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!!! I noticed this a while back when I manually archived something. I had been meaning to ask about this and it kept slipping my mind. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: It appears that whatever happened to create Archive 2 happened from November 6 to November 22, 2025. By my count there are 29 threads on Archive 2 and over 160 on Archive 1. I think there is some benefit to chronology, especially on a page where we have had a lot of repeat discussions and where a lot of important decisions were hammered out in the first few months. Moving the comparatively small number of threads currently in Archive 2 into (roughly) the correct spot in Archive 1 would be relatively minor change. On the other hand, Archive 1 is already bloated. I'm in favor of moving the current Archive 2 threads over to 1 and letting the newest threads start to populate 2. Maybe it's not worth it but the current situation is frustrating and may confuse future editors… —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree it's annoying, and I don't think you'll break anything if you move some archived threads around. Perhaps wait until after Cluebot acts next time, so we see that it works as it should. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Good call on waiting to confirm the current bot behavior. Special:WhatLinksHere/Talk:Battle for Dream Island/Archive 2 shows that Archive 2 is only linked from here, Archive 1, the article FAQ, and two User Talk pages (including yours, in a comment made by me). If I make a move, I'll review links in the FAQ and update as needed. If any external sites are linking to the archives, I would question their purpose and I would not prioritize a theoretical concern about maintaining the integrity of external links over improved organization of internal pages. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Do note that Special:WhatLinksHere won't show links from edit summaries, here's one where I linked to Archive 2, there may be more from others. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

That's a good point, and a major limitation of Special:WhatLinksHere. I still see imposing a local organization on the archives as a priority. This will improve things now and long into the future. The recent edit summary example only makes me wish I'd followed up on this sooner. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The thing is that archives aren't chronological even when things are working properly since discussions are appended based on their last reply date regardless of when they were started. The most reliable way to interact with any archive is by searching, and that's unaffected here.

This isn't a veto so feel free to move the discussions, it just seems like a lot of work for a null result. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Very true. Archives are often messy and they aren't really intended to be read straight through, especially large ones on active pages like this. I have a pretty strong preference for rough chronology. Maybe it's just a byproduct of the way I sometimes use them. I search the archives when I'm looking for a specific topic but I will often browse them just to get a sense of the activity level on a page, the major participants, and the types of issues that come up repeatedly. I don't know if I will dedicate the time to this, but I may. Thanks for raising these important points. I agree with all of them. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved the November 2025 threads from Archive 2 to Archive 1. I clicked the links to Archive 2 in the edit summary linked above and on the two user talk pages, and in all cases, I got the little pop up indicating that the discussion had been moved to Archive 1. Clicking the link took me directly to the intended thread now at Talk:Battle for Dream Island/Archive 1. I was glad to see this functionality worked with manual archiving! I did not attempt to put the individual threads in order but I do think having all the November 2025 threads on the same page in between the October and December discussions is an improvement over the prior (dis)organization. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

“Magical machine” are you serious?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just say recovery center ~2026-20653-08 (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

read the 5th frequently asked question Finnfrog99 (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

well still, the reliable sources calling them "magical machines" does not mean that the article should call them magical machines, considering everybody knows their called recovery centers -grimoire (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Everybody who is a fan of the series, sure. But consider that this article is written to benefit curious people who know nothing about BFDI, and IMO, "magical machine" is more helpful to that group of readers than "recovery center". MOS:INUNIVERSE touches on this a little. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

What if we just added a note to the first instance of “recovery center” used in the article that said “A magical Machine that brings characters back to life” -grimoire (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

IMO, to much bother. Fans know the term, and the in-universe name not important to specify, in note or otherwise. That's my view. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

thats like saying that we should call one of... lets say... Doofenshmirtz'es inators... should be called "magical machines" -grimoire (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The use of "magical machine" in the article is supported by an independent reliable source which satisfies the verifiability policy (and WP:BALASP), "recovery center" does not. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The term "magical machine"? The only way that I'd know what you're referring to if you used that term is if it was in this exact context. Brain Boy 53 (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that articles are generally targeted towards readers who are unfamiliar with a subject, in that context saying "machine" is more descriptive than "recovery center". fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

MOS:INUNIVERSE applies to writing about fictional elements as thought they were real and including trivial details like a character's middle name or a fan-favorite line that are not relevant to understanding the plot nor widely recognized as part of a work's legacy. It doesn't prohibit using a work's terminology to describe the plot and the guidance even includes an example that does this: "The Currents of Space is set in 34,500 AD, when the Trantorian Empire encompasses roughly half the galaxy". —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source that calls them recovery centers? meamemg (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The actual show? -grimoire (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

We need a reliable, secondary, source, which the show is not. meamemg (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The shows wiki? -grimoire (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you take a read through WP:RS which discusses what constitutes a reliable source. User generated content, like a wiki, doesn't qualify (just as we won't cite to other Wikipedia projects). meamemg (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

how is the show not reliable, if the show itself refers to the "magical machine" as the recovery center? ~2026-20290-98 (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Because the wiki is not even reliable bro. Read WP:Fandom, as it is user generated content and NOT independent. Wikiman (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

THEY WERENT EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE WIKI- -grimoire (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

This has become counterproductive. This was resolved weeks ago. I'm going to close this thread. If there are new or ongoing concerns about the wording or sourcing, someone can start a new thread. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's have some common sense here. How many sources at all use the term magical machine? We also have to care about the common term. Dege31 (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Two sources say "machine" and one of those says "Hand Powered Recovery Center" which is a single specific instance of said machine. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Blame the reliable sources, not us Trade (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Is it consistently called a "recovery center" on the show? If so, the show itself can be used as a primary source. This is allowable for plot summaries, character descriptions, etc. in articles about works of fiction, per MOS:FICTIONPLOT. I know this has been discussed before, and I am very much opposed to filling the article with endless minutiae and "fancruft" but I think we are missing the mark here especially since "magical machine" appears to only be used by a single reliable source. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

It's also a matter of what is due for inclusion, this detail is only included at all because a reliable source mentions it explicitly, and so we too mention it in the same manner as that source. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Based on the description in the article and the source cited, the fact that characters can be revived is a central feature of the show and is a recurring plot element. For plot summaries, the work itself is typically the main source used, and often the only source. Secondary sources aren't typically needed to establish which plot elements are important to understanding the story. The "Format" section here is a bit different than a typical plot summary, and I think it is appropriate that we have kept the content brief here and relied on secondary sources, but the recovery center sticking point seems to misapply the relevant guidance. Relying on a single secondary source and using their terminology gives too much weight to one source's description, if anything. Saying something like character can be resurrected via machines called recovery centers does not require secondary sourcing if that fact can be readily verified by anyone who watches the show. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Revisited the sources. /Film states characters can easily be restored by a magical machine with a crank, and Plugged In that when characters do die, it’s easy to bring them back via the Hand Powered Recovery Center (HPRC) and most deaths are hand-waved away via a machine that simply brings the character back to life.

So two secondary sources use "machine" and one also uses "Hand Powered Recovery Center". So at a minimum "machine" seems to be a common descriptor across two secondary sources, no weight issue there. A source-supported argument for including HPRC could also be made, but I think that's tending too far into unnecessary detail. It's a judgement call, other editors will need to weigh in. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

My preference is to use the language from the show. The Plugged In source would further support using its full name and capitalizing it Hand Powered Recovery Center but I don't feel strongly about whether we use the full name. It seems that what readers find most jarring is the omission of recovery center. If for some reason we don't use the actual name from the show, a more generic description like a machine that resurrects characters is preferable to using a direct quote "magical machine". I'm curious what others think, too. If we can't resolve this we might make a post at WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN but I don't think that's necessary now. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that is a particular subset of "readers" (or Wikipedians, since we only know the views of those who edit about it), but anyway. IMO, the current wording is fine, but I don't feel strongly about it and any version of "via a magical machine (called a recovery center)", is probably ok-ish. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I think something like via a magical machine (called a recovery center) is the way to go. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Did more reading and it seems that the HPRC is a specific instance of many such devices, so singling it out should also be avoided.

a machine that resurrects characters is fine too so long as it doesn't restate "resurrect". fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

HPRC is just a varient of the Recovery Center so thats more going towards calling them recovery centers -grimoire (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

It is always called a recover center or an initialism, such as BRC (Bubble recover center) or HPRC BIF BOTET (hand power recovery center but it's French because of the Eiffel Tower). Brain Boy 53 (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Proposal

I'd like to see if we can move this discussion forward. @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four appears to be the last holdout, with @Gråbergs Gråa Sång having come around to the idea of incorporating the phrase recovery center. I will note that @Trade and @Finnfrog99 initially opposed and have not weighed in in a while. Myself and @Brain Boy 53, @Dege31, and @Grandgrimoirearclacks, and @Meamemg agree recovery center should be used since this is the language that is used in the show. (If I've missed anyone, please tag them below.) This is supported by MOS:FICTIONPLOT, which says a work of fiction can be cited as a primary source for fictional plot elements, and by WP:PSTS, which is quoted in the MOS guidance. Examples given at MOS:FICTIONPLOT include descriptions of fictional characters, devices, locations, and the plot itself. Recovery center fits right in. I propose the following change:

−

Even though characters often die in ways that reflect how their real-life counterparts would be destroyed, they can be resurrected via "a magical machine".

+

Even though characters often die in ways that reflect how their real-life counterparts would be destroyed, they can be resurrected via a machine called a recovery center.

The version on the left is the current version (Special:Permalink/1348601083#Format). This is modest change that aligns with the language which any reader can verify by watching the show, and it retains a description of what a recovery center is ("a machine") that is consistent with how secondary sources have describe it. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Correction: Meamemg has not indicated support for this. If I've missed anyone or mischaracterized anyone in my hasty attempt to summarize, please correct me below, and hopefully we can move forward. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae I'm fine with using recovery center if everyone agrees on it Finnfrog99 (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Consider me just a drive-by who doesn't have a strong opinion, assuming there is consensus from others. meamemg (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion and no opposition to: they can be resurrected via a machine, referred to in-universe as a "recovery center". This disambiguates what supports what. Consider this a weak neutral. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Clarification/addendum: The current version includes a reference at the end of the sentence: … resurrected via "a magical machine". I was envisioning no citation, since I do not believe it is necessary, as in: … resurrected via a machine called a recovery center. However, if it's more palatable, I would be fine with a citation along the lines of: resurrected via a machine called a recovery center. I don't think the referred to in-universe as clarification is helpful or necessary. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd agree that it wouldn't be necessary were this a typical plot section, but it is not. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that it should be "a magical machine known as a recovery center." Brain Boy 53 (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it's good to that or some wording like that, "recovery center" is supported by the Plugged In source: when characters do die, it’s easy to bring them back via the Hand Powered Recovery Center (HPRC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meester Tweester (talk • contribs) 05:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I have updated the passage in question (with this edit) to read: they can be resurrected via "a magical machine" called a recovery center. For the record, I still stand by my initial proposal but this represents a compromise among the various positions. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Meester Tweester

@Meester Tweester, who I presume is the editor of the same name on FANDOM, has edited both this article and List of Battle for Dream Island episodes. While most mentions of them in the franchise is user-generated content (e.g. Ten/Eleven Words of Wisdom and appearing as a recommended character), they are also mentioned in official merchandise (name faintly visible on the preview), may be indirectly mentioned in the article linked above ("The Tweested Temple") and personally know the Huangs (example). Does Meester count as having a possible conflict of interest on this article? Xeroctic (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I will be transparent here. I have met the Huangs enough that one might consider us friends (as shown in the YouTube link posted here). If users here decide I should not be editing BFDI-related articles, I will abide by this decision. Also, if Inanimate Insanity (mentioned in the article) ever gets an article in the future, I have met its creator Adam Katz too. I do not think this applies to any other show I edit about on Wikipedia (like Ranma ½ or The Amazing Digital Circus). --Meester Tweester (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Meester Tweester, thank you for acknowledging this. Please familiarize yourself with the WP:COI guideline, especially the section on disclosure (WP:DISCLOSE). I advise making edit requests and suggestions on the talk page rather than editing these articles directly. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2026

For "Awards" You could put the Cartoon Crave Awards of Outstanding Web Series Winner. This took place in 2021 by the way. TopHatYT (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Inclusion of obscure awards seems WP:UNDUE, but I'd like another editor to weigh in. I did find primary sourcing on this from the Cartoon Crave awards. Note that these are called the "2021" awards but were announced in 2022. For the Webbys, we labeled these "2026", the year the awards were given out, even though the content and eligibility period was from 2025. I think it's easier and more consistent to list the year the awards were given/received. I'm not sure if there is a guideline for this. I've seen some articles specify what is meant by the year. This becomes more important for subjects that have received many different awards in multiple years. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

My reading of WP:PROPORTION in the "what awards to add on WP" context, is that an independent RS who noticed "hey they got this award!" is best, but if the award or at least the org behind has a non-crappy WP article (as in refs), a primary source can be ok. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

This seems right to me. The Webbys are notable, so any award or nomination is likely WP:DUE for inclusion and sourcing directly to the awards body should be acceptable. Some obviously prestigious awards like the Grammys and Academy Awards give out dozens of technical awards in obscure categories that may receive little press coverage. It would seem uncontroversial to include such awards and cite to the respective academy in such cases. Cartoon Crave is a fan site hosted on Word Press. It appears non-notable, even if it was popular in some circles in its heyday. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Spanish page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle for Dream Island has an official Spanish dub, which is why it seems surprising that its Wikipedia article does not have a version in Spanish. I don’t believe there are any sources about BFDI in that language, but the page had been translated into languages that don’t have a respective BFDI dub (Russian, Japanese, Portuguese, etc.), so it seems practical that there should be a Spanish version of the page. TheFlamer2024 (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

That's up to the people who edit Spanish WP. I think someone tried to start one earlier, but if you don't know the language (and/or write from a very "fan" perspective, that might have been it), your work will probably suck and be deleted. Each WP has it's own set of rules, and you have to know them and work from them. I don't think they demand that sources should be in Spanish. If you want, you can try asking for help on Spanish WP or Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

A few editors tried, eswiki didn't appreciate the effort. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Korean page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Even though "Talk pages at en.wiki are for the discussion of en.wiki articles, and en.wiki has no jusristiction elsewhere." according to Tbhotch, since there are many pages related to BFDI and Object shows on Namuwiki, which is a Korean encyclopedia website, I wonder if there will be a Korean Wikipedia page for it, even though many pages I have seen on Namuwiki are not on the Korean Wikipedia, likely because they are NOT notable, so this would also be practical in which there should be a Korean version of the page, even if each Wikipedia has its very own set of rules on how articles should be written. DiscoveringMysteries03 (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM Finnfrog99 (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I had no intentions of this being a forum post, this is just a question about the article. DiscoveringMysteries03 (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Your question is not about a Wikipedia article ("there are many pages related to BFDI and Object shows on Namuwiki"), and therefore WP:NOTFORUM applies. You are free to ask questions related to the Korean Wikipedia at ko.wiki. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 16:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I was talking about the Korean Wikipedia alongside Namuwiki, so it's kind of talking about a Wikipedia article. DiscoveringMysteries03 (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

not an enwiki one Finnfrog99 (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Still way outside "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle for Dream Island article." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent reverts

There's been a bit of disagreement in the past couple hours relating to the use of synonyms of the initialism BFDI in the lead section, involving @Not-cheesewhisk3rs, who made the initial change, @Giovanni Potage, who has reverted twice, and myself.

The question: Is it appropriate to refer to BFDI by name once and thereafter use phrasings like "the series", or is this undesirable elegant variation? Any talk page watchers willing to share their thoughts? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Just looking quickly at the recent series of edits and the the current version of the article, I don't see a big difference either way. Currently, in the article body, Battle for Dream Island appear 13 times, BFDI appears 11 times, the show appears once, and the series appears 6 times. Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation is an essay, not a policy or guideline. I think the essay's advice is quite good but the variation on display in this article does not rise to the level of the problems it describes. "The series/show" is not overused to the point of avoiding the show's actual name, there is no ambiguity as to which series/show is being referred to, we're not adding a bunch of flowery language, no new or irrelevant information is introduced or highlighted, and we're not using multiple different synonyms in quick succession. Out of curiosity, I clicked on a few random examples from Wikipedia:Featured articles#Television shows. All five articles I looked at use the series and the show multiple times. There is variation among the articles but the general pattern is to use the name of the show slightly more than 1/3 of the time and to use show/series each slightly less than 1/3 of the time. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

At the very least, don't switch between "the series" and "the show". Ideally, use "Battle for Dream Island" or "BFDI" or "it". This makes for clearer writing even if it isn't policy or guideline. Also, the edits were not limited to the lead section. I didn't have time to edit more than the first section, though. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 11:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)