Talk:Donut (Red vs. Blue)

message: With these pages, I think a paragraph or two concerning the focal character's relationships with other characters could be used effectively.  I think this could help a reader grasp the concept of the character.  What do you guys think? Dac 09:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I covered most of the notable interactions already. One thing that we need to avoid is generalizations that aren't borne out in other commentary. Am I missing anything, either in the Synopsis or Themes section? — TKD::Talk 09:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's more what other characters think of the character in question.  In this case, there's very little in regards to how the other characters perceive Donut.  I think more on how his naivity (sp?) and cheerfulness annoy the others, more on how he (sort of) befriends the Blues, more on how he actually gets praised by Sarge from time to time, stuff like that.  Rereading it, there seems to be very little in this regard. Dac 13:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh; I see what you mean now. I expanded it. Better? — TKD::Talk 03:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps could do with a bit more, but for now that's fine.  Dac 08:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful; we don't want to stray into too much of an in-universe perspective, or engage in original research. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). The point is that the "themes" are grounded with confirmation from external sources or from Rooster Teeth, to provide context. — TKD::Talk 21:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I wasn't going into original research, I was going on observation of how the character interacts with the others.  What do you mean by in-universe perception? Dac 00:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In-universe means treating the character from the perspective of the fiction. As a very crude and simple example, "Caboose becomes dumber starting when Sarge bombs Sheila out of action." This describes Caboose as if he were an actual person. Contrast with, "Initially, Rooster Teeth did not intend for Caboose to be especially stupid. However, they noted that fans of the series reacted well to Caboose's dumb remarks. In response, they began to orchestrate a long decline in Caboose's intelligence, starting in episode 9, in which Sarge bombs Sheila out of action." This is out-of-universe relative to Red vs Blue; it describes things from the perspective of the real universe instead. In-universe perspective is fine in limited doses, but articles should focus on describing fictional things as cultural artifacts in our world. Usually, in-universe perspective is best limited to plot summaries and/or brief character descriptions. To explain Donut's interactions with other characters at length, without providing any sort of Rooster Teeth rationale or third-party analysis, is to focus on the in-universe aspects disproportionately. It also tempts editors to analyze too much. Sure, we make an editorial judgment when we summarize plot, but that tends to be mostly factual and uncontroversial. Analyzing character interactions is dodgier, and we made some mistakes in that in the current RvB character pages. — TKD::Talk 01:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I see what you mean.  Thanks Dac 03:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Character Interaction

message: Sorry, CapDac, but I'm reverting the paragraph that you added. I had a good reason for not carrying it over to the new article when I did the rewrite. First, the premise of most of the paragraph, "Donut is not completely without a clue", is analysis, not really plot summary. The point about Donut's intelligence needs to be supported by either commentary from Rooster Teeth or critical analysis by a reputable writer. If you can find a source, by all means please do cite it and include it. But, until then, it's original research to say what Rooster Teeth intends a character's intelligence to be. While the examples are indeed legitimate, it's too much of a generalization to make without any analytical support for that point.
Second, breaking the fourth wall isn't really a sign of a character's intelligence. It's a dramatic device. Rooster Teeth could very well have Caboose break the fourth wall if it serves a comic purpose. Besides, he wasn't the only one to break the fourth wall in the series proper; watch the beginning of the Internet version of episode 7, when Church tells the narrrator, "Hey, dude, we didn't have a video last week. We were at E3, remember?" Breaking the fourth usually says more about what the writer wants to accomplish and how it's accomplished rather than about the character used for the device. — TKD::Talk 01:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh.  Well, fair enough then, I guess.  I've never seen that thing about Church breaking the fourth wall, though. Dac 13:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of [[User:CapDac]]'s edit 

message: Congratulations! This article is now listed as a good article. As far as improvements goes, some minor attention to the flow of the article, adjusting it to an audience not familiar with this video series would help. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA passed 

message: I think the last episode Thing should Be Scrapped we don't know that donut is dead yet User:Infernomaster01 17:48 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Originally, that field wasn't meant to be permanent, in that it'd be updated if new episodes were released. But, yes, I can see that it'd be possibly confusing, and I've removed it as such. — TKD::Talk 22:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Episode?

message: Please see Talk:Red vs Blue#Requested move for discussion. — TKD::Talk 17:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move proposal

message: I modified Joylock's expanded lead. I could see that he wanted a bit more included, so I worked in the two points that weren't really explicitly part of the lead previously (the annoyance of others and the jokes about Donut's sexual orientation), while hopefully keeping it succinct. Is this good for everyone?
:It's OK.  Being that most of it is covered in the article below we could probably condense it a little bit more but I'll leave that up to you. Dac 09:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: :Image:Rvbdonuthalo1.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Rvbdonuthalo1.jpg

message: :Image:Rvbdonuthalo2.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Rvbdonuthalo2.jpg

message: Hey guys, I was talking to Casey (churcheswife on roosterteeth) According to her the reason Donut isn't in the series anymore is because Dan Godwin doesn't work for rooster teeth no more and so with no voice actor means no character. Maybe put this in the article somewhere?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.171.45 (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearsay isn't verifiable. — TKD::{talk} 00:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for Donut to not be in the series