Talk:Red vs. Blue/Archive 4

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Oh ok I get it. Thanks TKD!--Martin925 16:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church's Ghost 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Season 4 Poster 

message: 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  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 . 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Non-sponsor spoilers. 

message: I've just created a template, , 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)
thread_title: [[Template:rvbchar]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, have nothing but a sentence... when it justifies more, expand.--Drat (Talk) 04:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Vic Jr. be on the main page yet? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Lopez's affilation