Talk:List of Metalocalypse characters

message: As shown by a search of Adult Swim http://www.adultswim.com/search/index.html?queryText=ofdensen as well as Google, plus the show SPELLING OUT HIS NAME in the season 3 premiere, his last name is Ofdensen. One f, not two. Please quit changing it, especially given the official sources showing it's Ofdensen. Thank you. Nezu Chiza (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm, I may have spoke too soon. The latest episode actually spells his name as Offdensen, yet the Adult Swim website tends to use the Ofdensen spelling. Google has 5 times the number of hits for Ofdensen to Offdensen. So I'm at a bit of a loss since official sources contradict each other. I've been rabid about keeping it as Ofdensen in the article, but could very well be wrong. Suggestions? I'm not sure what to do when you have Cartoon Network/Adult Swim using two spellings in their own sources. Nezu Chiza (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally going for the definitive source is the best, and double 'f' is official in the show barring a separate instance using one. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All sources I've seen throughout the ages of Metalocalypse have been one 'f', hence my recent reversions.  If they would like to create accounts and discuss here before reverting, I'm all ears. Gpia7r (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Contradictions are quite normal in Writing About Fiction.  All that is needed is to state both spellings within the article, then arbitrarily pick one and stick with it for the rest of the article.  It doesn't particularly matter which one is "right" so long as the article is consistent, and edit wars are averted.  If desired, some discussion of the discrepancy (on the order of a sentence or two) can be added with appropriate citations. -Verdatum (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's only been one appearance of Offdensen, I'd attribute that to a typo rather than assuming both are legitimate. (Rogue Penguin reverse by accident.) It may be irrelevant, but I'd think that nationality-wise Ofdensen looks more authentic. Tkech (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In tonight's episode, Fatherklok, his name was again spelled with two f's during the opening news report on Skwisgaar's paternity suits.  Should we change the spelling on the article? RPH (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, I saw that, too -_-  Yeah, I guess... Gpia7r (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was spelled "Ofdensen" in early Metalocalypse press info. Since then, Brendon Small has always spelled it "Offdensen", including in the liner notes of both Dethalbum I and Dethalbum II. It was also spelled "Offdensen" in the Season 3 premiere. However, it was spelled "Offdenson" (2 F's and ending with an O instead of an E) in the 'Fatherklok' episode of Season 3. At this point, I believe it's safe to say TPTB don't care, so neither should we.216.148.231.67 (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop insisting upon adding that Offdensen is a Georgetown alumnus, e.g. "(In the special DVD commentary for Season 2, it is revealed that Offdensen is an alumnus of Georgetown Law School.)" There isn't any audio commentary on any of the episodes, nor has this ever been stated verbally or in writing by any official source. Unless this can further be specified, it should not be included.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.102.148 (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ofdensen

message: There is no relation between the fictional band Snakes n' Barrels and the 2007 album Snakes and Arrows by Rush, so please stop editing the article to say otherwise. The season one episode of Metalocalypse, Snakes n' Barrels, was aired in September of 2006, which was months before Rush even began recording their album. It is blindingly obvious that Snakes n' Barrels is a play on Guns 'n' Roses and sleazy L.A. glam/hair metal acts of the 80s. Any connection between this and Rush is just a coincidence. Thank you. 98.226.27.232 (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snakes n' Barrels/Snakes and Arrows 

message: in "Toki's Family" section can be verified here: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avnsgYvHPK8
starting two minutes in,.
ElizaBarrington (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This really seems like original research. Being able to watch a video still doesn't tie it in to Metalocalypse in any way, and there's no mention of Metalocalypse and Toki in the video that I saw. While I don't dispute there there are some superficial similarities (but not as strong as the paragraph in this article seems to indicate), unless this similarity has been commented on in a reliable secondary source, it doesn't warrant being mentioned in this article. If someone can add a citation, that would be great, but if one hasn't shown up in a few days, then I'll remove the content. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "True Norwegian Black Metal" documentary reference 

message: I think the description of Klokateers is incorrect. While some of them are servants, others are more employees, and not in anyway subservient to the band members, recall murderface getting maced by a female Klokateer. I think that the ability to sue for sexual harassment seems inconsistent with acceptance of the violent initiation rites. Perhaps their are different tiers of Klokateer. 72.19.68.26 (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's true that the Snakes and Barrels relations are unsubstantiated, I think they're accepted because most of them are pretty pretty blatant and undeniable.  Concerning the klokateers name, I expect it is a reference to mouseketeers, though one could argue that it's a reference to musketeers (from which mouseketeers derives), or just plain using the french suffix denoting occupation (which should then be closer to klokier, I know, whatever).  I'd like to see it only added with a supporting source, but if it was added without one, I personally wouldn't cry.  However, regarding The hoods, I find that much more arguable.  They appear to be standard executioner's hoods, and without a source, any reference to The Mentors comes off as conjecture.  Executioners after all, are pretty metal. -Verdatum (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Klokateers 

message: If Crozier is the "head of the military",  which is what the news lady called him in the news bit, or "chief of all military operations", which is what Olag called him, he's the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not just Army Chief of Staff. The highest ranking military officer that isn't the President is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs - the other Chiefs (there are five others, I believe, one of which is the Chief of Staff of the Army) are all considered immediately below the Chairman.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.27.206 (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds reasonable enough. ChelydraMAT This cursed Ograbme! 19:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My only concern with that is ... do we know for sure that he is the *USA* "head of the military"? Is the Tribunal based in the USA? It's a cabal, right, not an official group? I thought he was the head of the *cabal's* military. This is simply speculation on my part - erm, and possibly on yours (no offense intended, just sayin'.) It's original research even if we go directly from the show - it's beyond that when we extrapolate. Again, no offense meant here. Tkech (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid this sort of thinking is Synthesis.  Moreover, it involves taking details from reality (i.e. the workings of the US military) and attempting to apply them to a fictional universe.  It isn't appropriate.  He can be discribed as "head of the military", or "chief of all military operations", or explain how he's been referred to as both of them in the show.  But all in all, I don't think it matters much. -Verdatum (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crozier 

message: The entries for the Revengencers still reflect the "bloat" and specific episode events that we removed from the other characters as inappropriate. The entries for the Revengencers should be as short as the Recurring Characters. I haven't focused on the Revengencers enough to handle this. It doesn't matter if we don't know that much about them , just that we put what we know (like Snakes and Barrels). Ideally, listing a characteristic should be accompanied by an episode reference as demonstrated in the Klokateers section, but for now, any paring down is welcome. Is there anyone who can do this? Tkech (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revengencers character descriptions not events please 

message: They arnt listed in employees and they recurring so someone should make the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.199.176 (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dethkloks Scienctists

message: Just felt like pointing out that at the beginning of the page AND at the end of the page Magnus Hammersmith has paragraphs. Seems like an oversight.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.109.186 (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for mentioning that. I've combined the info into the Recurring Characters section (since he's not a member of Dethklok), but someone needs to go through that stuff and clean it up, as there is duplicate information there. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure. What do reliable sources state? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Magnus

message: I reworded the 2nd paragraph in an attempt to make it more readable, but it's still really clunky. It's not as bad as it was though. I used the terms "possess" and "pawn" (instead of minion) because that is the language Offdensen uses in the Season 4 finale. Seriously, I replaced one single sentence that had 68 words, at least 9 prepositional phrases, and no less than 6 participial phrases! I think some of us feel safer if we add information to existing sentences instead of rewriting them or breaking them down into smaller sentences. (Portions of that massive sentence seemed to have been written by different editors.) It's ok to break sentences into smaller bits. It aids readability. Really, it's ok to be bold.  :)  Dcs002 (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Salacia