Talk:Tucker (Red vs. Blue)

message: On 23:15, July 7, 2006 (UTC), this article was split from List of main characters in Red vs Blue#Tucker. Prior editing history can be found in the editing history of that article. — TKD::Talk 01:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GFDL notice

message: Please see Talk:Red vs Blue#Requested move for discussion. — TKD::Talk 17:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move proposal

message: I've rewatched Season 3 and Church did not tell them that he was the reason that Vic thinks Red and Blue are the same.  He previously told them he didn't do anything, which would include convincng Vic of the discrepancy, and later on when he talks about the subject with Tucker, his exact words are "Vic just made it up to confuse us".  As such, that's why I reworded that section. Dac 00:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops; I just checked, and you're right. My mistake. This is why we all need to work on sourcing. :) — TKD::Talk 00:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed ;) Dac 00:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Church's role in the Red/Blue conspiracy

message: OK, one thing I've noticed with this article and also with the Sarge article is the fact that it's pretty much a direct copy of the original article on the list page.  All it does is report the character's history, pretty much.  I think we should go over it and copyedit it into something like Church or Donut's.  Your thoughts? Dac 02:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout

message: OK, my recent edit was reverted under the claim of original research, so I'd just like it to be known that the "sniper rifle" thing was based on a quote in Episode 82, which was recently released. If you still don't believe me, fine. Just pointing it out is all.211.28.230.23 11:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that was what CapDac was referring to when hje reverted. There was a comparison between the teleporting and sniper rifle that was original research. I actually think that some of the wording was somewhat improved in places before the revert. The whole article could use a good copyedit and combing for original research (subtle comparisons and generalizations can unknowingly slip in, and a lot of this text was written before we started to clean up these articles.) — TKD::Talk 11:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a non-sponsor so I haven't seen Episode 82.  As such, I wasn't aware of the quote at the time and thought it was pulled from somewhere else so I assumed it was OR.  I apologise for that.  However, even if I had been aware of this I would have reverted it anyway because we don't update new episode things until the episodes are made public.  My apologies. Dac 11:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No problem.  Feel free to put it back in when we scummish freeloaders get the episode.  Wink. Dac 12:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: :Image:Rvbtuckerhalo1.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) 05:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Rvbtuckerhalo1.jpg

message: :Image:Rvbtuckerhalo2.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) 05:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Rvbtuckerhalo2.jpg

message: This article is nothing but plot information.  It fails Wikipedia notability guidelines.  It should be merged into a short section in the List of characters in Red vs. Blue article. Pilotbob (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: It is true, there is sponsor video on Rooster showing how and when Tucker died.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shark113 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ...where? I've checked, there's no sign of this video. Dac (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I am a sponsor.  I checked, and found nothing.  I searched the forums and the video sections, and there was nothing.  Dac (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I checked that topic.  I saw a thread started three years ago as a joke that continued as a joke.  The one thing I missed is mention of a video in the last year that is alleged to have been up for less than 24 hours before being removed and not put into distribution, and is therefore not canon even if it did exist.  Dac (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Not released to the general public, not referenced in any other videos, only minimally distributed among sponsors, and so on and so forth.  Dac (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tucker dead 

message: I am tired of constantly having to revert this.  Tucker's armour colour is - indisputably - cyan.  Not only is that what the gaming engine labels it, but if you measure it up to the spectrum sheets there's no question.  Teal is, as you can see here, a much darker green shade, and aqua is just another name for the shade of cyan being used.  Hence, Tucker's armour is, at its bluntest, cyan.  Any further changes to this will be regarded as vandalism and reverted.  Thank you.  Dac (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armour colour 

message: This article easily deserves to stay on the Wiki. --24.184.200.190 (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: I challenge the proposed deletion