Talk:Red vs. Blue/Archive 3

message: I understand the reasons for adding the character bios back into the main page, but I'm still not convinced if they're really that helpful for the page.  They still take a good deal of page space, esp. with the added pictures too!  I'm still voting to take them out and just provide links to the characters on their seperate page.  I prefer neat pages then extra long pages that try to cover everything.  --LifeStar 19:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good point. But I really dont know how top address this. -- Psi edit 20:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it depends on how the other major editors want to deal with this.  I took out the bios a while ago and created a seperate bio page for this reason.  It had been suggested in previous discussions so I just went and did it one day.  I forgot who wanted to add them back, but I didn't fight it just so I can see how it'll turn out.  If no one objects, I'm thinking of removing the bios again and let people see how does the page look after that.  The page looks great already with Drat's edits and info on the production of the series.  I personally feel this can make up for the bios and validate that info being on its own seperate page.  --LifeStar 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I think the short character bios' are a tad redundant at the moment.  They give little information, and so I think a box with links to the major individual bio pages would make for a more coherent structure - Welshy 20:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: All right, I took out the bios and put down links to the characters page.  I do agree with Dr. B that the season summaries could be shorten, but those I can justify for being longer as long as they describe the main plots well for each season.  There are some contributors who have been adding in misc. info to these pages (another reason why I wanted to take out the bios) thinking that they're helping make the page look better.  Problem is these people aren't looking to the other links to this main page.  This was a major reason why I went and created that seperate character page.  There were endless edits to this main page b/c people were debating about armor color on it!  Come on people!  --LifeStar 15:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoah, whoah, whoah, wait a minute - Why are we compleatly eliminating the character summeries? If we have one or two short sentances, I don't see how it hurts the article. Redundancy? No. It gives a basic outline of the charachter so those who want to quickly find out who they are can just look without going elsewhere. The minor, one or two episode charachters we could probably do without summeries for, but we should not just get rid of the summeries all together.Dr. B 19:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is to keep the main page uncluttered. The problem with even short bios is that, with 21 characters at one or two sentences each, the text quickly adds up. Perhaps, as a middle ground, we could only describe the truly core characters of the series. Who these are exactly is debatable to some extent, but a minimal assessment, in my opinion, would be the Red and Blue team members who have been integral since Season 1 (as presented in the Season 1 DVD intro): Sarge, Simmons, Grif, Donut, Church, Tucker, Caboose, and Tex; you could make a strong argument for Lopez and Doc being major characters, too. If we then leave out the bios (at least on the main page) for the others, that would save space significantly. -- TKD 11:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, I restored the eight character bios I listed above and added a short introductory paragraph, just to see how it looks. Feel free to add Doc/Lopez/O'Malley in as major characters (reword the introduction if you do). The point that Joylock made is valid. It might even be better if the main eight (or so) are briefly introduced in prose (not list) format in the main article, and the lesser characters left completely to the characters page. It's not as if the casual reader needs to know about Wyoming or Vic as much as, say, Church or Simmons. -- TKD 12:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added O'Mally (and only O'Mally) as he is the true villan of the series, and starting with season 2, takes a very large role in what happens. (Sorry, forgot to sign)Dr. B 22:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little iffy about adding back O'Mally, but I'm okay with it for now.  Thing is that O'Mally hasn't been mentioned or seen for the whole 4th season so far (same goes for Lopez).  I'm starting to wonder whether Season 4 will have a twist at the end where those two characters will pop up again.  --LifeStar 14:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I remember correctly, the RT crew has said that Lopez will be coming back some time in Season 4. -- TKD 00:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm also OK with O'Malley being in there for now, although if the section is rewritten in prose (I think it should eventually be), I think I would prefer to stick to the main eight. -- TKD 00:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the short character bios still be there? 

message: Does anyone think that the "production" section of the article is enough to warrent its' own page?  It seems a tad lengthy for a seemingly introduction to RvB?  I don't know, just something I thought I'd bring up to try and stream-line the page - Welshy 00:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted, it's my opinion, but I do not like having to visit five, six, seven different articles on the one main subject, when it is reasonable to have it in one place. That's why I combined all the individual articles on enemies from Doom into Doom enemies. Of course, when a section gets REALLY long, it's a good idea to split it. The RvB character page and episode guides are good examples. But let's not go overboard with splitting things up. By the way, the reason I added the bit about the special RvB content included with Halo 2 is to illustrate the popularity of the show.--Drat (Talk) 01:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think that something should be there for the charachters. What we need to shorten is the Season summeries. We need to find some places where they can be cut down. Dr. B 06:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, well how about replacing the rather lengthy paragraphs we have now, with the teaser paragraph from the back of the DVDs?  I have the S3 DVD, but I'm sure we could dig up the others.  What do you think? - Welshy 13:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The writing style of that text isn't encyclopedic, and probably wouldn't make as much sense with the rest of the article. The current plot summary could just probably be condensed a bit further, especially since we have full-blown episode summaries for the curious. -- TKD 11:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: By the way, (belatedly) throwing in my two cents on the production section as a separate article issue: No, for right now, I don't think that it warrants a separate article as it stands right now. However, I do see two major sections missing from this article that would be of interest to the casual reader, and that would probably be necessary to elevate the article to feature quality: Something about RvB's inception and early history (some of that information already is in the Rooster Teeth Productions and Michael Burns articles, but it could probably be fleshed out more—e.g., the series was originally only supposed to be 6-8 episodes), and the series' critical reception (could possibly be combined with the Impact section). I'd be up for writing these when I have time, but no guarantees as to when that'll be. If someone wants to do it before I can, here are some links to articles on and reviews of RvB: , , , , , , , , , . (One of those links does provide a basis for inclusion of the "common" criticism that RvB runs out of steam, which would be something that we would probably want to mention for NPOV correctness.) After we have most of the content up, we can get a better feel of what, if anything, needs to be expanded, condensed, or moved to a separate article in the interests of ideal length. -- TKD 07:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production Section 

message: Considering the age of some parts of this talk page, should  a new one be created to clear it up?Dr. B 06:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (to some extent) - Welshy 21:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Page

message: I just adapted this userbox from the Doctor Who fan userbox. Template:User rvbfan. Needs work on the colours. I just picked the background at random, so change that. Can someone try making the "R" red and the "B" blue?--Drat (Talk) 14:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I thought that red, white, and blue on black looked best, so I went ahead with that. -- TKD 21:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It was getting way too late, and I didn't have time to fiddle with it.--Drat (Talk) 04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: rvbfan userbox

message: I reverted the additions to the Characters section because the blurb about each character is really meant for describing each dominant personality traits/quirks. Simmons' defection to the Blues is a ilttle too new right now: It's not clear what the ramifications of it are, and it feels kind of out of place to mention a currently developing scenario in the midst of all of the other characters' "permanent" traits.
As for Church, the fact that he is a ghost and that he has possessed several other characters and robots is more of a plot element rather than a personality trait. He's pretty much the same self-centered, cynical, sarcastic Church regardless of his physical state.
Also, as for the season 3 edit, Church and Grif never leave Sidewinder until the bomb explodes. -- TKD 02:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted additions to the Characters section and edits to season 3 

message: Does anyone know any sites to go for the old episodes? Roosterteeth only has a limited number of old videos.
rooster teeth had a reason for making the old episodes limited, you can still get them on a weekly basis(every week they put the other old episodes). this is what they had to say:
 Posted 11 months ago (2/18/05 9:48AM PST)  by matt  | Comments (87)
Rooster Teeth Productions, Red Vs Blue
February 15th, 2005
Our video archives explained
Over the last few days I have noticed a large number of people asking about how to see all of our archived videos, so I figured it would be a good idea to explain it for the benefit of our newer viewers. We are currently on Season 3. That entire season is up for download. Seasons One and Two are in what we call a "rolling archive". If you go to our videos section, and click on previous seasons you will see 6 different episodes from Seasons One and Two. They are up for a week, and then on each Tuesday, replaced by the next 6 episodes.
We do this to help alleviate the immense bandwidth incurred from people trying to download all 49 episodes at once, and to make sure that everyone can get the newest episodes as quickly as possible.
So there you go.
look around the messages on the redvsblue website, there's a message that clearly explins the reason, hope that helped.
Pece Kocovski 03:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can get them from sites like Machinima.com and fileplanet.--Drat (Talk) 04:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Episodes