Talk:Characters of 8-Bit Theater

Major/Minor character criteria

I was wondering if someone should go through the article and make sure all the characters are in the correct sections. Mostly becasue I noticed that Matoya and Bahamut were in the major character section despite only two appearences (albeit with some degree of importance to the plot) while EPS and King Steve are only in the minor characters section despite having whole comics devoted to them. --Bisected8 17:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Right you are. My criterium was that a character has to have regular appearances (as White Mage does and Black Belt did) or have furthered the plot in a major way. Matoya send the Light Warriors on a quest that eventually lead them to Elfland, leading to the whole elemental orb shebang, Bahamut was involved in the Class Change.

I set minor characters as those who either only appearead for one storyarc and never again (ex.: Dr. Malpractice) or whose plot significance isn't fully clear yet (Swordopolis, the Dark God, the Other Warriors etc.). Princess Sara hasn't been heard of much in the last few hundred episodes; neither has King Steve, although you could argue the LW's wouldn't have gotten anywhere if not for his quest and, of course, the Kick Ass Bridge. So I suppose going by that he's equally suited as a major character, why not. --R. Wolff 18:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

But with Bahamut, he will most likely never appear again! At least Matoia has a chance to be repeated. I think Bahamut is done for and should be moved to the minor characters... Timebender13 13:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If Matoya has a chance, so has Bahamut and just about everyone else, and we won't know until the comic ends. It's not only about frequent appearances, it's about being instrumental to the overall plot. Class Change, anyone? --R. Wolff 23:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally think Steve and Sara (at least Steve) should be moved to major characters, Gary should be put under minor characters, and the Cultists and the Ordeals should be put under "===Minor Villains===". The Cultists have only appeared twice, and in the first appearance they weren't too important (the central plot of the Ice Cave arc would be pretty much the same, although there might not be the crates), and while the Ordeals were important, they have only appeared in one arc all in a row. --Jopasopa 02:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

A Wizard did it

Can we discuss a consensus for how exactly to explain this reference? I've seen it linking to at least three different articles, and right now there's just an explanation in brackets. I don't mind either way, but maybe there's a best way to do it? --R. Wolff 09:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bikkes.JPG

Image:Bikkes.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Blackbelt.gif

Image:Blackbelt.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sara.JPG

Image:Sara.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Swordopolis.GIF

Image:Swordopolis.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeff

I've been wondering, is Jeff really significant enough for this article? He's not really a running gag (2 appearances compared to Akbar's appearances in most of the arcs, even appearing more than once at times), nor is he as important as, say, Bahamut. He's on about the same rank of importance as the Mob Boss. Maybe a minor mention in Akbar's description, like "There is also Jeff, whose business is just as shoddy, but tends to be honest about his services and has helped the Light Warriors travel to their destinations." --Jopasopa 01:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive

Anyone have an objection to me archiving some of the older discussion on this page? It's pretty long now. bahamut0013♠♣ 21:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody objected, I have gone ahead and done it. bahamut0013♠♣ 20:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Images

I'm thinking we should come up with a criterion for which characters have images. We could upload fair-use images for just about everyone on the list, but do we need to? My first thought is to include major characters only, but then it might also be beneficial to a reader to see a face to match to the name (it took me a bit of memory searching to remember who Akbar was). My final conclusion was that we can justify a small image of any character notable to make it on the list. Thoughts? bahamut0013♠♣ 21:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have begun the process of uploading fair-use images of the major characters. bahamut0013♠♣ 20:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The messenger's name

I was searching the "Help me find a comic" thread on the NP forums and found something interesting: [1] Good enough proof that his name is just Messenger? It fits the naming scheme found in the Light Warriors, Other Warriors, White Mage, Black Belt, Dragoon, King Elf, Mob Boss and maybe something else I forgot. --Jopasopa (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, how does this "closely resemble" "Now Shut Up"? Unless I'm missing something, it involves using his pieces in Gurgu, not the the "stone BB from 1 second ago" like Brian used. Secondly, it was written over a year after the episode. (Now Shut Up: Nov. 10, 2005, Post: Dec. 5, 2006). Perhaps someone has a better link showing what the episode was in response to? --Jopasopa (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Muffin. And Ur, too, I guess.

Muffin is never called Tiamat in the comic. We have no good reason to call her Tiamat in the article; we do have reason to point out that she's the comic's version of the game's Tiamat, but that should be the extent of it. If at any point she is called Tiamat we can still change it.

Same goes for Kraken/Ur by extension. Voices? --R. Wolff (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I say we refer to them as Ur and Muffin, since they are the most common names seen in the comic. We don't call Thief "Prince Elf" now do we? However, that might also mean the dark god should be called "Darko", since he's referred by that twice and even by Brian.[2][3]

Also, I have a question about first appearances: What qualifies as such? Going by what we have for Cleric and Rogue, a visual appearance and mention of name (even if the image is not actually them, in the context of the comic) counts, which seems okay (it's kinda like a flashback, I guess). But Kary, Ur, and Muffin sort of made an appearance here.

But what really concerns me is Ur: The being seen in the episode given isn't really Ur (although the characters refer to it as such).

Also, past or present tense for dead characters? Does Wikipedia have a rule for this? For BB, it uses past, but for the Fiends it uses present. I guess it makese sense as it is, since BB's death marked the end of his character, whereas the Fiends will likely stay till the end of the comic. But we can't exactly say that for sure. --Jopasopa (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Title-wise, I think we should leave it as it is, with the name of the Fiend and the nickname as an AKA. They are, after all, simply the fiends as Brian interprets the story of FFI. In the text, however, it should be mentioned immediately how the comic only refers to them as Ur/Muffin, and then refer from there by the nickname. I feel this allows them to be identified as the appropriate fiend, but still consistent with the comic. bahamut0013♠♣ 15:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Gotta ask, given its name, shouldn't Kraken's section refer to it as "she"? The Clawed One (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That was one of the jokes: all of the Doom Cultists were male (or masculine asexual) but had female names. I don't actually think the fiend was a chick. All of those tentacles... bahamut0013♠♣ 11:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Something about counting the game in as a factor beyond the barest minimum doesn't sit well with me. I feel like it would obligate us to point out every single difference. Basically, I think this article is about the comic, so the names of the characters should be taken from the comic, too. (Otherwise we would have to change Vilbert's entry to "Vampire, AKA Vilbert.")

As for Kraken, I'm willing to just call it "it" if you are.

While we're at the fiend section, what exactly is so important about when every single fiend was seen last, anyway? Couldn't we just say "after their defeat all the fiends ended up together in hell" or something? --R. Wolff (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see your point, but the fiends were a hugely significant part of the game, the vampire was not. I can see how many people would feel that if you are in for a penny, you are in for a pound, but there is no real obligation.

To dispute your provided example, the vampire in FFI had no name that we knew of (for all we know, it could have been named Vilbert!). Also, Vilbert's very name includes the word vampire, so I couldn't imagine that too many readers didn't make the connection. On the other hand, the clues connecting Ur to Kraken are a bit more subtle, and even more so for Muffin/Tiamat (so much so that we aren't even 100% Muffin is Tiamat).

It is unfortunate that Brian chose to not be consistant, because that is something very valuable to an encyclopedia. Again, that might be his idea of a joke.

"It" or "he" works just as fine for me either way.

I'm not really sure, I suppose that whomever added that wanted the reader to know that they were still in the story and would likely make some sort of appearance... to contrast with BB, whom we have seen is never coming back along with other dead characters. I will edit it to a single entry. I will also add a blurb about the names. bahamut0013♠♣ 15:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, every fiend in the game was a big monster that guarded an orb, every fiend in the comic was a big monster that guarded an orb. I think that's enough to make the connection for anyone. Also, I think this article shouldn't so much explain connections as it should collect and represent the information given in the source (in this case the comic), and by giving the last two fiends' names as Kraken and Tiamat we're giving out wrong information, because those are not (that we know at this point) their names as given in the comic.

Once we got that down we can get to explaining the reference. In fact, the only difference I'd propose right now would be to remove the explanation from the title of the according sections and put it into a more streamlined form within the paragraph. --R. Wolff (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your last statement. Just mention Kraken/Tiamat in the descriptions (Kraken already has its source, perhaps we can use the episode where Dragoon says he's "not sure if Muffin was really her name" as a source for Tiamat?) Also, should we just leave Rex's name as Onion Kid? I don't really get what Brian's saying about 700.1 here. (The episode is canon but not OK's name?) --Jopasopa (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Main/Minor Characters

Allow me to propose the following:

-Move Princess Sara, King Steve, and Dragoon to main characters. (Reasons: Sara and Dragoon have had entire story arcs practically devoted to them; Sara and Steve remain to be regular characters, even having their own side-stories along with other characters such as Gary and Hank.)

-Move Matoya and Bahamut to minor characters. (Reasons: Matoya's reappearances after they finished her quest have been mostly cameos; Bahamut, while very important, was only seen a few times.)

-Give Gary (Steve's left-hand man) his own section under minor characters. (Reasons: He's more than just a gag; if Megahedron can get his own section after only an episode and 1 joke, I think Gary can.)

I could maybe understand leaving Steve under minor since he's not too important, and I could definitely understand leaving Dragoon under minor until the current arc is finished. --Jopasopa (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think Sara, Steve, or Gary should be main characters. True, they show up plenty, but it's all side show stuff, and intermission to help break up the plot a bit. They haven't had a role in the plot since the comics numbered double digits. Gary does deserve a header of his own, though, and should be placed wherever Sata/Steve wind up.

I'm on the fence about moving Matoya and Bahamut: on one hand, they had a couple of big appearances and big roles, on the other, they aren't likely to show up again significantly, and only then as bit characters. I suppose when the article was first written, they were involved in a big portion of the plot, but now, they seem less significant compared to WM and BB and Sarda. I suppose I would weakly support moving them to minor.

Dragoon could very well be a main character if we see him at all now that the air orb arc is concluding. As of right now, though, I'd say no, he's a minor character. We will have to see if he disappears or not (I hope not, I like him). bahamut0013♠♣ 21:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering Sara and Steve are pretty much Matoya/Bahamut +2's (they were a key character for one arc, like them, but continue to be used regularly; also, Sara received more "screentime" in "her" quest than Matoya or Bahamut), I'll move Matoya and Bahamut to minor to remain consistent. I'll leave Sara and Steve where they are for now. (And Dragoon for the same reason you said.) --Jopasopa (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

-I'd like to know why my edit about Bard was removed. I mean I don't mind if there's a reason. I just thought it was as worthy of adding as anything. It seemed pretty official.

why does the above comment keep having it's signature removed? It's considered very rude to have an unsigned comment on a talk page. bahamut0013♠♣ 12:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have much to do with this wiki, so it put my ip address. I didn't like the idea so I signed up for a username. When I noticed it was putting my IP address again I assumed it was a hickup and so removed it. sorry again. [Virkokka] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virkokka (talk • contribs) 14:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To answer the question about Bard though, it was a one-time joke with no significance. At best it's just another example for Sarda's omnipotency, and we have enough of those to prove the point already. I didn't remove it, but I would on exactly those grounds. Should Bard somehow reappear until the end of the comic (very unlikely in my book) things might be different, depending on context. --R. Wolff (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

On a general note: I think we can't say for sure who's a main or minor character until the comic's over and everyone's role in the plot is completely clear. --R. Wolff (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I see someone added the Forest Imps. I was thinking we could maybe add a list of truly minor characters, something like this, except only like a sentence or 2 for each. Characters that can go there can be the Forest Imps, Queen Jane, the Sulk, Mob Boss (and his assistant), King Elf, and the Dwarf King. (I was also thinking Jeff and, if by the end he's nothing more than a gag, Megahedron. Maybe Gary, too.) Although I guess like 5 of those might be considered running gags. --Jopasopa (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What would that be good for, though? None of these characters are significant to the general plot, and there's very little that we could say about any of them that isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article already. What could we write about, say, Sulk that goes beyond "a Hulk parody"? It would boil down to just making an indiscriminate list of all characters.

And I just remembered that we did have a few of those in the article way back and eventually threw the lot of them out - there are a few paragraphs on that in the discussion archives - for that very reason. Personally I'm already very uncomfortable with including the imps - in fact, I've been saying for years that the entire running gag section could conveniently be deleted without any detrimental effects on the article as a whole. --R. Wolff (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I think a Minor Character page would be horrible. This page already gets fancruft every week (whenever Brian makes a joke character), and trying to keep that article up to the standards of the encyclopedia would be a nightmare.

On taht note, I don't think the Imps should be a character. They don't seem to have any collective personality, and for all we know, the ones we see could all be Garland's imagination. They just don't have any role in the plot other than a joke. We can add it to the running gag section of 8-bit Theater. bahamut0013♠♣ 15:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

They don't even merit that if you ask me. That section will pretty rapidly become a dump for insignificant tidbits of information if we include every recurring element. --R. Wolff (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was just if we were to keep the imps, since they threw things out of balance. --Jopasopa (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

character order

I understand that the current convention for what order a character appears in is chronologically, but I think we might explore a few other options. Today, I noticed that LHM Gary wound up pretty distant from King Steve, with whom he shares an image, and Princess Sara. It occurred to me that the three are pretty much exclusively seen in each other's company since around episode 100 or so. It made more sense to group them (if only for the image). Then I realized that Dr Swordopolis, Darko, and Megahedron would all have to be grouped as well for consistancy. Matoya and Bahamut would make sense together, since they have seen similar levels of import and "screen time" in the comic. The Raven and Dr. Malpractice have seen so little significance, they could be toward the bottom...

Am I appealing to anyone's sense? Or should we leave it as is? At least the chronological order would be incontrevertable and unarguable, while we could bicker for days who is more significant to the plot to go on top.... bahamut0013♠♣ 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I know the order is chronological, but I think the casual reader who has not read the comic would think the current order is rather haphazard. --Eruhildo (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Grouping the gods together/Proxy war

I don't see the proxy war aspect at all. You could certainly interpret it from the current situation, but it's not immediately obvious and a different outcome is entirely possible. They should probably remain separate until something definite has been said. As for Megahedron, I believe we discussed him in the past and agreed not to mention him in the article until there's proof he actually exists outside of Red Mage's head. --R. Wolff (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Upon further thought, they should not be grouped together at all, as all other groups summarized under one heading are individuals who work together (as far as 8BT characters do) and appear as one unit, whereas the gods have always appeared as singular characters. After all there's no section called "The Kings" that groups King Steve and the kings of Elf- and Dwarfland. --R. Wolff (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I suppose I got a little ahead of myself. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh hey look who's in the latest comic. Still doesn't clear things up entirely but it's good enough source material to finally properly include Megahedron. --R. Wolff (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You see? It's not that implausible! :P bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Fiends, Other Warriors and running gag characters

Quoting myself from the discussion archive:

"I specifically put the running gag characters under one heading so the list at the top wouldn't get overly long. They are extremely insignificant to the plot (being, well, nothing but running gag characters) and, as such, don't merit their own section (if it was up to me entirely, I'd have removed them altogether months ago). Hardly anyone will want to look for, say, the messenger specifically as much as, say again, King Steve."

This point still stands, the contents list is a terrible mess as it is and having sub-sub-sublinks in there so readers can jump directly to the part about the Lawninja who were in two or three comics out of 1079 isn't helping. I suggest reverting the structure back to grouping the fiends and Other Warriors under one heading respectively; also once again to remove the running gag characters entirely as per the above, or if not that, to group them under one heading likewise. --R. Wolff (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I broke them out under thier own subheadings yesterday specifically to link to one of them in another article. Doing that for one didn't seem to make much sense, so I broke everyone else out as well. I'll fix up the TOC. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. That should be satisfactory, no? The links can still work, but the TOC is not cluttered. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Best of two worlds? Excellent! --R. Wolff (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

All Comic Links Are Broken

Due to the nukclear power site changing its format, all the ref links to the comic are broken and need to be fixed. I know, pain in the ass, but unfortunately its true. The Clawed One (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

All links have been updated for the new website, as well as tested... I really should have wrote a script for it, rather than doing it by hand. Primalmoon (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Non free image use

Copied from User talk:bahamut0013 I suggest you review WP:NFCC and WP:NFLISTS before removing invalid tags, especially with patronising edit summaries. Black Kite 09:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Black Kite I think you need a referesher yourself. There are no policies that prohibit the number of non-free images allowed per article. The images in that article satisfy all of the requirements for non-free content. There are currently no alternatives to using those images: prose drescriptions would be inadequete, there are no free alternatives, and there are no available "group" images or cast montages to reduce the number used (indeed, we've already done that where possible). If you believe there is a specific issue, please bring it up on the talk page for the article, and we will resolve it. bahamut0013^words_deeds 09:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:bahamut0013 Nearly all the character images fail WP:NFCC#8 (significance). The appearance of the characters is hardly discussed at all, and even if they were, the simplistic appearance of the 8-bit artwork means most of them could easily be described in text. Effectively, if the appearance of the character is not necessary to understanding the text, NFCC8 is failed. More to the point, as WP:NFLISTS says, multiple non-free images in lists are generally deprecated. Most articles of this type have had the majority of their images removed already; the latest database report shows that there are very few left (compare this list from a year ago). Note that not all the images should be removed; clearly, some are required to show the general artwork style. Thanks, Black Kite 10:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I could see removing the images from the "running gag" characters, but the remainder are pretty integral to the plot, and not identifying these characters in a visual media such as a comic would be detrimental to a reader's understanding. There is currently no textual description of each character's appearance because there is an image, and I feel that any textual description would be inadequete (given the number of characters, I origionally had trouble keeping track of who was who, and the text would add confusion). As a metaphor, I think that if we were to describe the AT&T logo as "a white sphere with five swooping longitudinal stripes", that would never give the same kind of recognition as the image does; I feel that the same logic applies here. Now, I'm looking at this in the concept of a reader understanding the comic series as a whole; it seems you are thinking of the guideline as it applies to each character individually.

While the use of a precedent is helpful, I don't feel that just because everyone else is removing images doesn't mean that it should be done here. While I hardly have the time to sort though your examples, I'm sure that there were several that were weakened by the removal of images. Until there is some sort of community consensus to limit how many non-free images in a given article, I can't abide removing these for the reason of bureaucratic inertia. bahamut0013^words_deeds 10:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the AT&T logo is one non-free usage. There are 20 in this article. As for weakening the articles, every non-free usage weakens the mission of the project to create free content, which is why such galleries have been deprecated. Black Kite 13:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

One vs. twenty doesn't refute the logic at all. Nor would I describe it as a "gallery". I understand that the goal is to eliminate non-free whenever possible, but it should only be done when a free alternative has been produced (when the other criteria have been met). bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's completely wrong, I'm afraid. Non-free images should only be used, not only when there isn't a free alternative, but as minimally as possible (NFCC#3a) and only when absolutely necessary for the reader to understand the article (NFCC#8). Black Kite 19:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

NFCC3 regards ths use of each non-free image, not the use of non-free images themselves. And I'm asserting that they are necessary for readers to understand the article. bahamut0013^words_deeds 05:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's also incorrect. "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." - the "multiple items" is fairly clear. The original wording was "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." which was changed to the current version as it was deemed to be clearer. Obviously it still isn't clear enough. Black Kite 11:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How in the world can you not see the portion that says "if one item can convey equivalent significant information."?? There is no way that a picture of one character can convey the information about another. Like I said, the opportunities for group photos and montages are pretty slim, unless we do make a derivative work (I could possibly cobble a number of images together in MS Paint).

Thinking about that, I think that would actually be the best course! It would still be non free, but I can combine images together... probably along the three main headers? bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, combining two non-free images together to make one image is a derivative work and still two non-free uses. However, there do appear to a number of images on the web that include multiple characters ... this may be there way to go. Black Kite 17:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we could make free alternatives since even in the comic itself the sprites are used under the fair use doctrine. I don't honestly see any other way we could illustrate this article. That said: I do see the point, and it's probably true that not every character needs an image. Ones like Astos or the cultists could easily be removed with no detrimental effect to the article quality. Let's see: we could have one for the Light Warriors with White Mage and Black Belt, one for the Dark Warriors, one for the Fiends and one for Sarda. Maybe one for King Steve as well since the one that's there illustrates his character perfectly. So, four or five - would that be acceptable? --R. Wolff (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly on the right lines. If you'd like to have a go at that, I'd be happy to check it over. Thanks, Black Kite 19:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Would this be a problem if Brian himself authorized usage of the images? He's done so on other Wikias, including the 8-Bti Theater Wiki. The Clawed One (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It would still be unfree, even if we had an OTRS ticket. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh look, I finally get around to doing this. Sorry about the delay. I'm gonna leave the separate image of White Mage and Black Belt up for the time being, but we were planning on merging the Light Warriors article and this one anyway - once that's done we can pick an image for all six of them. --R. Wolff (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Give it some time"

I have to question this, because I've seen it mentioned before. Yes, I know how Brian works with the comics. But to discount events and exclude them from the page because he might pull a fast one on readers is foolish. For all we know, next comic Onion Kid could pop back up and go "BTW, I'm not really Sarda's past self, he was lying", or the Four Fiends could appear and say "Hi, we're not really dead", or something else equally out-there could happen. Point is, excluding information based on the presumption it may not be true is irrational. At any time, something presented as fact on this page (and in the comic) could be disproved on Brian's whim. Should this page not exist then on the principal anything stated here may not be the truth? Brian could turn around and have Black Mage take off his robe to reveal it's actually Garland, we don't know! Presumption of truth or presumption of falsehood, which is it?

In the latest comics. Chaos directly states "Sarda's body has become a portal for me", and identifies himself as Chaos. There's no reason to not mention this except for the rather POV opinion Brian could later change his mind. If a later comic establishes this isn't Chaos, oh well, we'll just change it then. In the meantime there's no real reason to not mention it now. I'll also note nothing has been said about the Chaos section on the page, and it mentioning Chaos possessing Sarda's body. If Chaos' section mentions he possessed Sarda, why shouldn't Sarda's section? The Clawed One (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no rush. Brian has shown a predisposition to pulling a fast one like this, and many plot twists that just utterly defy all logic, but these things are usually sorted out within a few weeks. Given that the events you're disputing are from the last two comics, there is no need to get them onto the article ASAP. For now, I would avoid anything that isn't 100% pure undispitable fact, at least until this plot arc develops some. Wikipedia has no deadline, and not including the latest plot twist before it develops isn't going to hurt the article or our readers. Quite the opposite, rushing to judgements have, in the past, lead to posting false information and incorrect assumptions. It's more important to be correct than it is to be up-to-date, which is why we are constantly reverting anons who post good-faith garbage. For example, the joke ending: [4][5][6][7][8][9] and on and on. Sure seemed "official" enough, but cooler heads knew that on the next update, all was well. bahamut0013^words_deeds 06:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sprites

Isn't this incredibly detailed listing of which sprite was used for which character technically original research? --R. Wolff (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but probably. I wouldn't know for sure, not recognizing any of the ones outside of the FF series. I'm not sure who has added them, but I haven't removed them because of the now-dearth of images. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Original research, and full of errors. Most of the major characters, enemies and class changes included, use sprites from the original NES Final Fantasy. I assume whoever edited that part hasn't played the original Final Fantasy for the NES. -- Alyas Grey : talk 05:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect discussion

Looking through this article, it seems to be based entirely on the primary source. I'd like to suggest redirecting this page to 8-Bit Theater#Characters, which also lists the most important characters of this webcomic. The cast of 8-Bit Theater simply doesn't seem to be notable at all, and this list consists entirely of a certain type of original research that webcomics are prone to. Before boldly turning this in a redirect, however, I figured I'd go and ask other people's opinions on the topic. As a general reader, I for one much prefer the short section on the main article over this huge list of minor characters. ~Mable (chat) 15:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)