Talk:Red vs. Blue/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Church's Ghost

How do they film Church's ghost? I don't actually own Halo so I'm not sure if that is a feature or not, but I know its not cloaking. How is it done?--Martin925 18:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

They film one version of the scene without Church and another version with him. Then the two are blended together. -- TKD 19:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok I get it. Thanks TKD!--Martin925 16:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Filming Andy and Blue Simmons

How do they film characters holding Andy the Bomb? During multiplayer games of Halo 2, can you hold a bomb? Also, how do they get Simmons partially blue and maroon? thanks guys.--Martin925 16:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a game type called Assault, with Red and Blue teams trying to bomb each other's bases It's like Capture the Flag, but you have to bring something into the enemy's base instead of grab something out of it. As such, Andy only shows up in shots with Blue characters (Caboose and the Alien, although it's of course possible to show up with Sarge if they wanted to, like they did in 47). As for Simmons, it's a new feature in Halo 2 which involves what's called "Secondary color". It was introduced as a way to customize your profile like the emblems you saw in episodes 43-45. -- Viewdrix, 29 January 2006

Season 4 Poster

Why not change the picture at the top of the page to the season 4 poster, the one with with all of them huddled together in a circle, with their backs to us and their weapons outwards (away from us), and the ghostly looking alien overhead? 69.114.151.176 23:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Because that image is unofficial. The Season 3 poster, on the other hand, is official. We are working to get this article featured status.--Drat (Talk) 23:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Article Length

With the lenght of the article going over 30kb, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if we could find some way to make the article a little smaller. Is there any portion of the article we can make into it's own article we can link from here and just have a summery of that section? Dr. B 17:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible areas would be:

1) Season summaries: It looks like we'll be having at least a season 5, so it might not be a bad idea to spin off a seperate page for that.

2) Shorten the brief bios: This has been a minor gripe for me, but I still think they can be made shorter or *cough* taken out completely.

3) Seperate or shoten the Production/BG info: I like those parts, but not sure if they're really needed to make this a featured article. We could also spin off seperate pages for that.

Anyhows, those are my thoughts. --LifeStar 18:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ideas.

1)Eliminate the second paragraph of the plot summary, or keep what is most relevant, such as a line saying how the series' plot is not connected to Halo outside a few brief references, or that it's relevance to the Halo plot is inconsistent.

2) Eliminate the more trivial part of Writing, speaking of the difficulties in season 3.

3) Spin Maps Used off to a new page, if that's justified. I think it takes upt oo much room here.

4) Shorten Reception, perhaps combine it with Impact with a segueway between. Call it 'Reception and impact'. :p

5) Shorten down season summaries, keep characters in tact. -- Viewdrix 1 February, 2006

It shouldn't really be a problem. The article on Daleks is a featured one, and is 46k. When it was shown on the front page on May 23 last year, it was 43k. Don't forget, that's partly what section editing is for. And the sections suggested for spinning off don't really justify seperate pages.--Drat (Talk) 23:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Despite what the guideline says, I don't think that 38KB is too large, especially since we are covering what is, at this point, essentially the material of four full-length movies. Obviously if we're into season 8 or 9 in a few years, then we'll have to rethink things a bit, but I don't think that a fifth season will change much on its own. As for the various suggestions:

• Plot summaries: According to WP:FICT, plot summaries should go in the main article. given that we are covering almost seven hours of video, I don't think that the length that we have is not unreasonable. I think they're pretty tightly written as it is....
• Characters: I think it looks weird just to have "Main article: Red vs Blue characters" in the characters section. It's normal to summarize the auxiliary article in the main one.
• Background/Production: I think it's important to chronicle the growth of the series as well as the mechanics of making it. One gripe that some people have with articles on fictional universes is that not enough is made of how various real-life factors influence the production of the fiction. This works on two levels with Red vs Blue because they are affected not only by the real-life situations of Rooster Teeth, but by the Halo universe as well, and I think that it's important to show the effects of both.
• Maps: I don't think that there's enough in this section to separate out into an auxiliary article of its own. The series doesn't really focus much on the location.
• Reception/Impact: Not sure how you'd really shorten the Reception section without losing NPOV. I personally like the distinction between Reception and Impact, but if someone can combine them without being awkward or abrupt, I wouldn't oppose. I just think that they're probably better as separate sections: Reception focuses on Red vs Blue itself, while Impact necessarily carries a more extroverted perspective.

-- TKD 12:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If I were to go and write out a list of maps as I've done with the ones shown here, but did it for the full map list, would that be enough to remove the list off the main article and give it it's own page?Dr. B 04:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. That format is a bit easier to read, and does allow us to go into more detail on the differences between RvB and Halo contexts if we wanted. I can see your point; I'm currently leaning in favor. -- TKD 12:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Should I do the same for the rest of the list, than?Dr. B 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If you think that you can flesh out that information enough to make it worthwhile article, go ahead, but we probably should ensure that there is consensus on splitting that info into a separate page before actually committing the edit. Note that I originally was opposed to idea of a separate article, but having seen the table and noting various interesting tidbits and commentary that the Rooster Teeth guys have mentioned about those maps and their use in RvB, I think there's enough material to justify putting it in an auxiliary article for the die-hard RvB fan. If you can, find out about the Marathon and Marathon 2 maps. That would be interesting information that obviously is unavailable elsewhere. -- TKD 03:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I know that the first one is a multiplayer map from Marathon 2, and the second one is a single player map from either Marathon 2 or Marathon Infinity. The exact names escape me, and I don't know much about them off hand, but as my brother plays the games, I could probably get that information from him at a later date.

I'll finish writing out what I can about the maps, then have you people take a look at it to see if it's good enough to start with (it doesn't have to be perfect when we make it it's own page, as we can expand it afterwards). I'm also including information about the map from the end of episode 73 (O'Malley's new base), though the name escapes me.Dr. B 08:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Drat and I both thought that the map with Gary was from the first Marathon (Gus wasn't 100% sure, but during the episode 49 commentary, he seemed to think that it was fro the original Marathon). If you can find out for sure, that'd be great. -- TKD 19:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've done what I can for now on the map page, take a look at it and tell me if you think it's good enough to turn into a real sub-page of the article. Dr. B 20:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hope that you don't mind, but I just did a copyedit on it and fiddled around with some material. Keep in mind that this is intended to talk about the characteristics of the maps and what Rooster Teeth uses them for, not necessarily what happens in those maps. -- TKD 01:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple things that I might prefur changed from the way you have it, but as far as making it an individual article, I think it looks good. We can dicuss other changes to it later if that happens. Should I just go ahead and create the page under "Maps used for Red vs Blue" (or something similar) and edit the main Red vs Blue article for it, or do we need to have a vote before we do that? Dr. B 03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

(unindenting for readability) I have no objections to the page. Does anyone else? Probably should be named either "Red vs Blue maps" or "List of maps used in Red vs Blue". -- TKD 09:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I trimmed about 2KB from the article length by switching to <ref>-style footnotes for citations. -- TKD 01:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My request for the map page is that we put more details and description as to the various uses of the maps (for instance, Containment's button to open the gate once used as a map, and in the series as a key lock), add PSA's and special videos to the list (including that Uncharted Territories video, including four maps or so, and involving that map use I noted), and whether the maps are from single player or multiplayer, all to justify it's existence as a seperate page. -- Viewdrix 13 February 2006

Well, now that The Filmaker separated out the Production section into its own article, the maps don't need their own article. But I still like Dr. B's format over the table. I'm not 100% sure about breaking it out, although I'll concede that it might be a good idea. What do others think? If we do leave it as a separate article, we still need to expand the lead of the Production section in the main article to cover most of the important points. Probably at least two paragraphs should be there, to give the reader an idea of what that article covers before clicking on it. By the way, it's okay if the articles are over 30KB, as long as they're well-written. I'd say about half the featured articles are over that 30KB guideline. -- TKD 01:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering that it was moved to the page with the Production information, I don't see a need for it to have it's own article now either, though, like TKD said, using the system I have would allow for a more in-depth look at each map.

I added information to the main page's production section, mostly by taking the primary sentances from each part of the production article and pasting it here.Dr. B 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It probably doesn't have to be that much, even. I'll try my hand at the lead later if I have time. -- TKD 01:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I redid the Production section lead and incorporated Dr.B's map list into the Production auxiliary article. Revisions always welcome. -- TKD 08:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll go on record as saying I'm against the spin-off of Production to its own page, though it makes more sense than Maps Used as a page to itself. But Production always seemed like an important part to have in the main article. -- Viewdrix 13 February 2006

Sorry, I confused you with The Filmaker. Yeah, I agree that it's important to mention enough about it in the main article, which is why if we separate it out into the separate article, the lead that's left has to be particularly well-written. -- TKD 02:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Non-sponsor spoilers.

Shortly after I removed some plot developments for episode 73 under the reasoning "Removing episode 73 spoilers for non-sponsors", this discussion came up on my Talk page:

"Isn't that what the {{spoiler}} warning is for? -- TKD

I was under the belief that there was a difference between spoiling it for those who havn't seen the episodes because they havn't seen the series before, and spoiling it for the general public who do not have the choice to see the episodes yet without paying $10. Sponsors spoiling the episode for non-sponsors is frowned upon at the Rooster Teeth forums, and I thought that it would carry out here. Also, the lack of additions to the season four plot before an episode goes public in the past seemed to encourage my theory that we usually wait for public release. A few episodes ago, actually, someone using the same name as on Rooster Teeth added plot developments before public release, and when I asked if taht was an OK thing to do, he said he had forgot the episode wasn't public yet.

Perhaps we need to vote on it on the Talk page. Or just clarify. -- Viewdrix"

So, is there some sort of unwritten rule about this? Should we come to some sort of concensus? -- Viewdrix 9 February 2006

I added in information mostly because LifeStar had started the process in the auxiliary articles. At least for me, I would expect that, if the infobox shows the number of episodes as 73, episode 73 would be covered in the areas guarded by {{spoiler}}. But it's not a big deal to me either way. On the official site, there is a stigma attached to discussing, in non-sponsor forums, episodes unavailable to non-sponsors, but, on Wikipedia, you can't tell whether a reader is a sponsor, non-sponsor, or a complete neophyte to the series. Again, though, it's not that big of a deal to me; I was just curious as to whether there was an established convention, since LifeStar had already added some episode 73 information. -- TKD 02:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

We could do something like "This episode is currently only available to sponsored members" on the episode summary page until it's available to non-sponsored members, and then put the episode information. We could even write the episode summary and comment it out until the episode's been "released." Disavian 23:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

We did used to wait until it was made available to non-sponsers, but a couple of occasions happened that people started to add in plot ifo before general release...and usually were too detailed, so that's when I started to just go ahead and add in plot info whenever I saw it was released to prevent fan-boy syndrome from setting in. If we consent to post-non-sponsor release, no prob. with me. --LifeStar 17:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:rvbchar

I've just created a template, {{rvbchar}}, to make linking to individual Red vs Blue characters easier. See my recent edit and Template talk:rvbchar for usage. It cuts the keystrokes, reduces the chance for error, and doesn't take up half a line in the edit box (making editig a paragraph with character links easier to manage). -- TKD 12:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Peer review/Featured status.

Very little is happening on that front, and I think the time is approaching to take things to the next step, and nominate it as a featured article candidate. We've been working towards this goal for just over two months now. Hell, at least we'll get some more attention, and therefore feedback on how to improve it even more.--Drat (Talk) 09:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait at least couple more days for Production stuff to stabilize a bit. Other than that, the main article has been quite stable other than the addition of new episode material to the season4 plot summary and minor reworking of other stuff. Hmm... actually... Let's see... Taking devil's advocate and thinking critically for a second (hard to do when yo've been engrossed in the article for so long), here are some possible FAC objections that I can see:

1. The first paragraph in the lead is solid, but the second gets into some detail about non-main-storyline RvB videos that could probably go further down the article and be expanded to be more comprehensive (MTV appearance, XBox 360 launch video, etc.), and the second paragraph of the lead could then be used for a broader overview of the article.
2. The list in the distribution section looks a bit awkward and could be rewritten as prose.
3. I would mention somewhere either in the Production or Distribution section that there are three versions of the main series: the individual episodes, the DVD version (which is edited so that the episodes of a season flow seamlessly as a single movie (without the usual denounement, however), and a directors' cut of the DVD version that they show at Lincoln Center; that third version is further edited for length. The "movie" version requires that Rooster Teeth either edit out stuff that occurs during the fade to black, or shoot extra footage for it.

I've gotta run, but those are possible ewaknesses that I can see.

-- TKD 13:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll take a good look at the article tomorrow, taking those points into consideration, after I've had some sleep.--Drat (Talk) 13:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the three issues you've addressed have been taken care of. Granted, some more editing could be done on them, but once that editing has been completed, I think it'll be ready for feature article nomination. Dr. B 06:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The other loose end is that the Production lead and the sentence about the special videos being in magazines and such need to be sourced. I can cite the season 3 DVD for the Sundance Film Festival (which I added); I'll check whether the other videos were named on as such on the DVD. If not, it's not a big deal. We don't need 5 examples if we can't source them. One or two would be fine. — TKD (Talk) 11:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll just say now that I think you guys should submit it for Featured status, I think this is not only one the best written articles on Wikipedia but one of the best maintained on Wikipedia. I'll support and I don't think that people will reject it for two sentences not being sourced. This is a great article. The Filmaker 04:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That's just the words I was looking for. It has been done Dr. B 08:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Missed this discussion. Yeah, it's probably time. — TKD (Talk) 10:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Should Vic Jr. be on the main page yet?

I reverted an edit by User:68.67.131.40 partially to remove Vic Jr. from the list of "Significant supporting characters". Vic Jr. was added back in. I know that Vic Jr. is probably going to be essential to the plot, but as of right now, he's only appeared at the end of one episode. I personally would prefer to leave him out until we have more information (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and all), although I could live with him there. What do others think? -- TKD 03:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I say we mention him in the part about Vic. Something like "Vic is later replaced by his decendant Vic Jr. in the future."Dr. B 04:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, have nothing but a sentence... when it justifies more, expand.--Drat (Talk) 04:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Splitting up character page

I don't like it. I don't like it one bit. Seems excessive. Remember, those size warnings are just guidelines, and it mostly affects chumps still using really primitive browsers. Not to mention, it means the rvbchar template will need tweaking.--Drat (Talk) 10:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that it feels awkward. All non-Red-Team character links are now broken, and the footnotes are screwed up as well (some are blank, etc.). 40-41 KB is not a huge page. WP:SIZE notes:

• >50KB - Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
• >30KB - May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size; this is less critical for lists) (emphasis added)

Red vs Blue characters is little bit like a list, although it goes into more depth for the main characters than a simple list would. Still, though, no character has more than five paragraphs yet.

By the time that article gets above the 50KB mark, it'll probably be well into season 5 or so, and, depending on how much character development occurs, we could possibly justify giving each major character his/her own article (as suggested in WP:FICT), or, barring that, break the article into major characters and unfiliated/minor characters, not Red, Blue, and unaffiliated/minor. I primarily wish that this had been discussed before being implemented. I know that WP:BOLD exists and all, but at least make sure that things don't break.

By the way, it IS possible to make existing {{rvbchar}} template transclusions work if the characters are spread across multiple pages, thanks to the power of the {{switch}} template; indeed, part of my reason for creating the template was to prepare for changing character page structure. I just don't think that now is the right time for the structural change. -- TKD 13:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, TKD. Yes, I am responsible for this. I have quite of few reasons so I will list my entire rationalization as follow:

• I personally believed that article was too long. I originally theorized splitting the major and minor characters apart would fix this problem. But seeing as how there were only four minor characters, I didn't think this would do the job.
• The article size was 41KB, the guideline (yes I agree that is only a guideline) states that the preferable article size is 32KB. I believe that the 50KB would have been hit with at the very least, half way through Season 5. I have some feelings that it would hit before this though.
• I've added a section in the unaffiliated/minor characters called "Guest characters" which I was considering adding before I split the articles. The purpose was to add a small section for one-time characters. Although I know that the preference in the past was for "signifigant" characters, I see no reason NOT to give them a short paragraph, especially when there are so few of them. This section would have bumped up the article size. How much? I do not know. But's worth mentioning for the sake of the discussion.
• Later while I was considering what to do, I realized that the Red Team would make a decent sized article and the Blue Team would make a decent sized article. And after I added the Guest characters section the Unaffilated/Minor section would make a decent sized article. And the splitting of the teams is somewhat inevitable, I think you'll agree with me there.
• As for the main page's rvbchar template and the footnotes. I can honestly say I did not know that the rvbchar template existed. I've been trying to work on a way to fix it, but I honestly have no clue what I am dealing with when it comes to this. The footnotes I just noticed last night and haven't had time to fix them.

All in all, it boils down to I thought that the article was too big now, and it was only going to get bigger (even after I added the Guest characters). Season 5 isn't very far away, if Rooster Teeth only has it's 3 month gap (i.e. Season 3 to Season 4). I'll suggest that we (or I?) bundle the Red and Blue teams together and have two articles, one for the "Blood Gulch characters" and one for the "Unaffiliated and minor characters". The Filmaker 18:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the rationale. I don't disagree that splitting would have eventually been preferable. I guess that, being more or less a mergist, I would have waited the few months before splitting. The other thing is that Lopez, Sheila, et al., are treated as significant supporting characters in the main article and yet appear in the Red/Blue articles. There is a clear distinction between the main eight characters and the rest of the cast, and yet there is also the Red/Blue/unaffiliated distinction. That's the other problem of splitting. My first choice is still to merge everything back for now, but I could live with two articles, either going along Red/Blue and unaffiliated/minor lines, or main eight and everyone else. -- TKD 21:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've now updated the {{rvbchar}} template to account for the current split for now. As long as a character is a section and not a separate page, the current format should be easily adaptable to whatever arrangement we decide upon. If you add a character or change a section heading, you'll need to update the template. -- TKD 00:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

While I see your point that, if I had too, I would call the eight members of the Red and Blue teams the main characters. While Lopez, Shelia, and Andy are really more of supporting characters. The only problem with this is that placing them in a section called "Supporting characters" could cause........ confusion? Maybe that is not the word. But with the way they are placed now, it is clear that Shelia is Blue, Andy is Blue, and Lopez is Red (although I'm thinking that it wouldn't be a bad idea to move him to the unaffilated section, I'll start a new discussion). I guess my vote goes toward having a "Blood Gulch characters" article and an "Unaffilated and minor characters" article. The Filmaker 02:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I like this setup:

List of characters in Red vs Blue

Blood Gulch Red Team

(see also: List of main characters in Red vs Blue)

(summary info of Sarge, Simmons, Grif, Donut, as in main Red vs Blue article, group shot of team)

Chupathingy

Blood Gulch Blue Team

(see also: List of main characters in Red vs Blue)

(summary info of Church, Tucker, Caboose, Tex, as on main Red vs Blue article, group shot of team)

Sheila

Andy

Captain Flowers (let's move him up here, even though he's a guest character)

Unaffiliated characters

Recurring

Lopez (?)

Doc

O'Malley

Alien

Vic

Gary

The Great Destroyer (do we need all caps just because Gary doesn't know lowercase?)

Wyoming

The Red Zealot

Battle Creek soldiers ("soldiers" is probably a better term)

One-time

Private Mickey

Private Jimmy

Phil

Max Gain (not sure of title off-hand; this is the guy who captures Church/Grif at the end of season 2; worth mentioning because RT had some plans to incorporate him in season 3, but the plot was condensed due to the Halo 2 shift)

List of main characters in Red vs Blue should be pretty obvious as to structure. I think that this keeps us to two articles (for now), while providing sufficient context for everything (one of the pillars of mergism). Also, I never liked the idea of Red vs Blue characters redirecting to the Red Team, and this addresses that point. Thoughts? -- TKD 06:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a really good idea. In fact, I'm starting on the new setup now. I'll post again when I'm done. TKD, you'll have to make changes as necessary to the RvBchar template.--Drat (Talk) 07:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles done. I've dealt with some links from other articles, so that "see: article name" looks right. I fixed the rvbchar template. I have to dash, got a couple shows to watch.--Drat (Talk) 09:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the rest, I think. I also moved Lopez/Sheila/Andy/Chupathingy out of the main characters article because they're not really main. I also put Lopez as unaffiliated, per reasoning below. -- TKD 10:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Good. Things are looking much better. I'll get around to a couple more changes I want to make to this article before long. Been distracted by other things. Laziness has also been a factor.--Drat (Talk) 12:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm fine with that. Nice job. The Filmaker 18:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Lopez's affilation

As I stated above, I think we should consider moving Lopez into the "Unaffilated" article. It's pretty obvious that Lopez's affilation with Doc will probably stick. And if nothing changes within the next three episodes, Lopez will have been on the O'Malley team for exactly half the season. The Filmaker 02:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. And even before then, he had gone to the the Blues after Sarge and Simmons tried to run him over with the Warthpog in the middle of season 2. Thn came the whole robot army bit, then the capture by O'Malley. I'd say that's enough to move him to Unaffiliated. -- TKD 07:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)