Talk:Cave Johnson (Portal)

Good article nomination

Jumping the gun a little, isn't it? Rehevkor ✉ 23:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

In good faith, I'm removing the GAN. The article still needs significant copyediting and rewriting. The character is basically "new", so development and reception is bound to pop up. As such, I do not think it qualifies as stable, even if it succeeded in being of top-notch quality in every other facet. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Spoiler revealed?

The portrait of both Cave Johnson and Caroline is technically a spoiler is it not? I stumbled upon this page and it was sort of ruined it for me, since I've yet to run across the portrait in game. If possible, I suggest using the earliest portrait here, http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110513220433/half-life/en/images/3/3f/Cave_johnson_50s.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.134.39.214 (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely a fair point; I'm sure more people recognize that portrait more than the secret one. Though I don't think that one is the best portrait to use. It makes Cave seem young, when a lot of his reception is of his more gruff and "cigar chewing" behaviour (which I don't really see in that image). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

1) it doesn't matter if its a spoiler - WP doesn't hide spoilers. 2) I don't think any of the three pictures really give the impression of the gruff cigar chewing man, but clearly at least in all 3 he exudes that industrial and southern look. 3) Getting Caroline at the same time is icing on the proverbal cake since her character is almost inseparable from Cave's. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Wikipedia is an information medium, for better or worse. Sites like the Internet Movie Database omit key "spoiler" plot elements because of their devotion to allowing people enjoy films fresh. The mission of Wikipedia is to provide knowledge and information. Preserving storytelling really isn't part of that. --SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Redundancy?

In both the article summary at the top and the first subheader, it's listed that JK Simmons voices him and he was created by Erik Wolpaw. Even on my first readthrough of this article, I thought it was very redundant and unnecessary. Instead of changing it immediately, I thought I'd post on this page to get feedback about which area should house which topics. WoogieNoogie (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article's contents, so this information needs to be present in both areas. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The Chell fatherhood conspiracy theory

It's a unsubstantiated fan theory and has no place here, a clear cut WP:OR violation. Forums are not reliable sources. Яehevkor ✉ 13:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Laura Dubuk = Caroline

I found this link to a Comic-Con pic where Bill Fletcher and Laura Dubuk portray their Portal 2 alter-egos. Does everyone think this is enough evidence to confirm Caroline was based on Laura's appearance?

http://joshy206.tumblr.com/post/30720782182/bill-fletcher-and-laura-dubuk-valve-animator-and

And more pics:

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/laura-dubuk — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperAnth (talk • contribs) 01:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The photo alone doesn't confirm it (it's original research even if true), even if the source is reliable (I doubt random tumblr accounts can be considered an authority) it makes no mention to them being "alter-egos" and makes no comment on who's Caroline appearance was based on. We need cold hard facts confirming this, evidence is not sufficient; please provide a reliable source. Яehevkor ✉ 10:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. Personal observations from tumblr photo's do not fly as reliable sources... Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I e-mailed Laura Dubuk and she confirmed that Caroline was based on her appearance. Another artist on the Portal 2 team, Jeremy Bennett, took photos of her and Bill then painted over them in photoshop. The revision stands. --SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any proof of this email? – Richard BB 12:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sharing personal e-mails between myself and someone else. Frankly I'm annoyed no one bothered to confirm this by going to her highly public blogspot page at http://lauradubuk.blogspot.com and e-mailing her themselves. Wikipedia is about confirming new information, not tearing down anything new.--SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You cannot exert a claim such as that and then expect us to believe it simply because you said so. The onus is on you to provide the evidence, not on us to each individually email her. – Richard BB 12:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Here. And it's out of line you forced me to do this. Nothing in my history shows that I make up Wiki posts. And my apologies to Miss. Dubuk if she comes across this:

"Jeremy Bennett, another artist on the team made the Cave/Caroline portraits.. he took photos of me and Bill Fletcher and painted over them in Photoshop to give that traditional look. Jeremy made me look older (he said he could've made me look even older) So yes, our faces were actually used.

Actually, a few Valve employees were photographed to be potential Cave Johnson/Caroline models, but Bill and I ended up as the final ones :) "--SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First off, please remain WP:CIVIL when communicating. Calling us a pain in the ass (for doing our jobs, no less), will get you nowhere. Secondly, you must realise that posting spuriously copied and pasted text doesn't constitute a reliable source? – Richard BB 12:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes that was out of line insulting you, hence I removed it during editing (so you might remove your reference as well). Also I don't see what more you could want from me at this point. A certified e-mail of some sort? --SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've struck out my comment. Secondly, it's not out of line that we've asked for evidence: this is the principle that Wikipedia is founded on. Claims require proof, simple. We haven't "forced" you to do this if you don't want to add the claim. Finally, I think it's best to take this to WP:RS/N to let the community decide how best to proceed. A screenshot of the email might help matters, but, for fear of image doctoring (I'll have to quickly assume good faith and say that you probably wouldn't have done that, but the average viewer of a page doesn't know that; we need something empirical), it's probably best that the experts decide how best to continue. (Unless, of course, there's some guideline regarding communication with the subjects in question of which I am unaware.) – Richard BB 12:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, you are in danger of violating the three revert rule. If you revert the edit one more time, you will have broken the rule, and could be blocked from editing. Please discuss this issue here before continuing to edit. Once WP:CONSENSUS has been reached, we shall decide how best to proceed. – Richard BB 12:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Under the WP:AGF my edit is acceptable, especially considering the reliability of my pasts posts on Wikipedia (you have no reason to doubt my information as forged). Also there is a general consensus that Caroline is in fact based off Laura Dubuk (see previous talk posts). I don't know why you saw fit to make that last reversion. I've made a post to the WP:IRS page so we'll see what happens there. --SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the information is forged in any way -- I'm simply stating that it does not pass WP:V in its current state. I've seen the post, and I'll reply there shortly. – Richard BB 13:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(Reposting what I said at the discussion): I think that is fairly conclusive. SuperAnth, I'm sorry that you weren't able to find what you were looking for - perhaps Valve might have published this information elsewhere? Perhaps if there's a "making of" for Portal 2, or a concept art book? – Richard BB 13:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(discussion repost) The logic is sound so I have no complaint, but if I were to invite Miss. Dubuk to confirm the info here on Wikipedia, would I be accused of WP:Sock_puppetry?--SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No, but that won't help. We need Valve or any other reliable source to publish outside of WP that Dubuk was used as the model for Caroline in the same manner that we have known Bill Fletcher to be the model for Cave. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's best to continue this discussion in one place, as it's happening both here and here at the moment. I think we should continue it at the latter (though I think this subject is almost done). – Richard BB 14:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)