Talk:Red vs. Blue/Archive 8

message: How about putting in Vic Jr. as an aside in Vic's description? Something like "He was replaced by his descendant Vic Jr. in season 4"? --OGoncho 08:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Replaced" isn't quite the word. Not really sure that he fits the threshhold yet. — TKD::Talk 10:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vic Jr.

message: I've made a proposal to redesign the growing  template, splitting it into four small templates; see Template talk:RoosterTeeth#Splitting this template. Feedback is welcome. — TKD::Talk 06:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting up the RoosterTeeth template 

message: I did put some research into this when I first made the table, so I have no idea whether it really was someone anonymous who changed it, which led to TKD's variation. But I've now checked a few episodes from each season, and from what I can see, Seasons 1-4, Quicktime and DivX HiRes are always 720x480 pixels, Quicktime and DivX LoRes are always 360x240, HiRes WMV has always been since 640x480 pixels introduced, LoRes WMV has always been 320x240 since introduced. If anyone can find me any episodes with different ratios from seasons 1-4, I won't change it back. Mainly, I'm looking at TKD, since his "they seem to vary" edit comment implies he's seen it vary. -- Viewdrix 23:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Episode 36 low-res DivX is 320-by-240. And actually, if you want to get really technical, my copy of episode 31 high-res DivX is 656-by-480. Episode 36 high-res WMV is 720-by-480. Same for the BungieFest WMV. — TKD::Talk 06:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Varying resolutions 

message: Should this article have a section describing the voice actors and their roles, such as that in The Simpsons article? raptor 00:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have the list of voice actors under the picture of the main article, but it could be a little more discriptive. Those articles are like half pages; if we could get more information and edit the articles in a more professional way, it would be a lot better. Fortunia 05:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, keep in mind that there isn't going to be as much information available on these voice actors as there is on, say, Dan Castellaneta. That said, the production section could stand to go into more detail about the roles of the voice actors, improvisation, and so forth. — TKD::Talk 04:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voice actors 

message: Many videogames and boardgames and games in general involves two teams fighting, beinf one red and the other blue. Usually the player (or good) is blue and the computer (or the evil) is red. Should it really redirect to this specific title or should it have a stub saying this I said here with an 'This is about blah blah blah, for waffle waffle, see ___'? 200.230.213.152 03:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's usually a coincidence in colours.  This one is actually something marketed under the official name Red vs Blue, so there's a considerable difference. Dac 04:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red vs Blue 

message: Is there any place where I can find what the characters said in each episode?--BigMac1212 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://rvb.roostertooths.com. Note roostertooths.com: it's a fan site. -- Viewdrix 23:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transcipts, Scripts, etc

message: Seems somone messed up season 3 in the article. We better revise it. 67.175.234.75 23:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems someone did while I was going back for a good version of the article to sub in. Ended up reverting a good edit. Whoops. At least everything seems fine now. -- Viewdrix 02:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I reverted it to the last edit, my own, before the vandalism occurred. Dac 03:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: However much I am a fan of unbridled profanity this is not very descriptive or professional: "Now Grif's siter has been given to the blues becuase of fucking slow witted Grif." 65.9.5.215 is a fucking idiot. --ProdigySportsman 01:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The description has been reworded. Even though Wikipedia is not censored, you are correct that, as a general rule, it is bad form (and unencyclopedic) to use vulgarity when the situation doesn't require it. — TKD::Talk 02:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 5: Episode 85 addition 

message: Are there any plans for having a wiki for Red vs. Blue?  I think it will be a wonderful website.--71.35.69.46 02:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with Wikipedia's coverage of Red vs. Blue? :) — TKD::Talk 23:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RVB Wiki

message: Although Viewdrix's changes are factually correct, we need to think about making sure that the change over from DivX to WMV is verifiable. This may involve citing old versions of pages, if they exist in the Wayback Machine on archive.org. — TKD::Talk 05:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed info about the change for the time being, while keeping the updated format info itself. If someone does find a way to cite the change, please feel free to add it back. Normally, I'd be a little less strict with information that I know to be true, but this is a featured article, and that information would be hard to verify. — TKD::Talk 05:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video format changes 

message: I would really, really like to include this information, but we need a reliable source (no fan sites, no forums or personal blogs) that makes the connection. The cited reference only states the name of the achievement and the what's required to get it.
The notability of Red vs Blue extends to other video games as well; in addition to many other references to pop culture, the developers of the Xbox 360 videogame Gears of War made a reference to a RvB episode with an achievement called "Is it a spider?" for grenade tagging.
— TKD::Talk 05:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would EMG count? I can dig out the old issue with GoW. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 20:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would, if it makes the connection explicitly. Be sure to cite the issue and page number. — TKD::Talk 20:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I believe that fits the bill. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 22:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I'll probably fiddle with the citation fornat and wording a bit a little later, but at leasrt it's not going to be tagged with  in the meantime. — TKD::Talk 04:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Gears of War'' achievement connection 

message: I think that, given the fact that Junior, Tucker's baby who has only appeared in a handful of episodes, is on the list of significant supporting characters, that Sister should be included on the list as well, as she has appeared in seven plus episodes now. I just thought I'd point that out, not to be rude to anyone.
 
— Runner233::Talk 15:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I've removed Junior.  For the moment I don't think either should be one there as they have yet to do much. Dac 20:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sister isn't a supportring character, she is a main character. Although she hasnt been in many episodes, she is still a full part of the blue team... Timebender13 17:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a "full part" of one of the teams doesn't denote main character status.  If it did, Tex would not be a main character as she isn't really on the Blue Team, she's just aiding them.  Sister is a supporting character; she can't be in for 10 episodes or so and be labelled a main character.  Doc, Andy, O'Malley, Lopez, the Alien and Sheila have all been in longer and had a larger impact on the plot thus far.  If Sister is a "main character" then they all are as well.  Especially Sheila, since technically she is also a "full part" of the Blue Team.  However, those characters are supporting characters, and Sister is too.  Dac 22:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is ''Sister'' a significant supporting character?

message: Just so that you guys know, this article has hit the >50 KB size warning, but there is a caveat: Almost 40% of our wikitext is composed of notes, references, and the like. My prose size calculator puts us at 29 KB, which is within the bounds of acceptable prose size. — TKD::Talk 08:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is almost time to split the plot section into its own article as that section just will keep growing plus will take a good amount of refs with it. BJTalk 08:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plot-only articles are discouraged, though, for good reason. My long-term thought was to take the season summaries that we have in this article and move them to the season articles as part of an overall summary, and then to leave a highly compressed overall summary in their place here. But I'm not sure that's possible without losing coherence or comprehensiveness of this article. So I'd prefer status quo for now; it's better to have a little too much here than to gut a section without a suitable replacement. Perhaps in the meantime we can work on a highly compressed summary to see whether it's feasible. Star Wars manages to compress the storyline of six movies into two very long paragraphs. We have, right now, almost five full-length movies, so, either way, we're going to need to have quite a bit here. It's definitely worth exploring our options, but let's not jump to anything right away. — TKD::Talk 08:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Another thing: Separating the plot section would not take a lot of references with it, because the plot is trivial to reference; I was doing it mostly for completeness. :) Most of the references are introduced in the later sections. — TKD::Talk 08:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points, I really have no experience with articles of this size or quality (editing). At the current rate we should be adding a sentence or two a week or so to the plot so it should be good for a while. BJTalk 08:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I just checked Star Wars again. My eyes deceived me. It has four very long paragraphs for the plot for six movies. So I'm not sure that we can do much better than we're doing. — TKD::Talk 08:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size warning 

message: I do not see any mention in the article about the music used in the series. I picked up a CD of the soundtrack at the SDCC last year, and it's performed by a band (solo artist?) named Trocadaro, I believe. I don't know too much more about it, but it seems a pertinent subject to mention in the article if anyone wants to do a little detail on it. Elijya 08:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article could possibly stand to make mention of it in the Production section, but Red vs. Blue production goes into more detail. Also see Trocadero (band). — TKD::Talk 08:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a paragraph about non-dialogue audio to the Production section; that should cover it for this article. Further details could probably be added to the auxiliary article. — TKD::Talk 09:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: Me and my friends say that shiela might not be the vessel of Omaly as she has been known to be rebelious but rather possibley dounught as his radio couldve been rendered useless by Omaly so he could use dounughts body without being forced out —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.100.23 (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a discussion forum about the subject. This sort of speculation is not permitted in the article itself.--Drat (Talk) 07:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omalys where abouts? 

message: Hey in watching the RVB episodes, i realised that somewhere along in the progress of the story we started swithing O'mally's name to omega, especially in the RVB Out of mind episodes.  So i didn't see it in the article and i was wondering if we should include it, or if it is already included, or what to do with it.  Any thoughts????
peace-Threewaysround 02:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was solely referred to as Omega in Out of Mind, so in that article, he was referred to as such. I believe Tex, Wyoming and maybe Sheila all refer to him as Omega, and everyone else calls him O'Malley. -- Viewdrix 03:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tex sorta refers to him as both, but yeah, the majority of characters call him O'Malley, so let's stick with that.  Dac 07:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember reading somewhere (may have been the DVD) that Omega is his real name (In line with Delta and Gamma) and that O'Malley is a combination of Omega and Alison (Tex's real name). Regardless, as Dac said, O'Malley is what he's most commonly refered to as. RandomGuy42 13:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  O'Malley vs. Omega 

message: Hey i was considering joining the wikiproject machinima, but there was one small problem.  I don't have much intrest in machinima beyond Red vs. Blue.  should i join anyway, and has anyone thought of creating a red vs blue wikiproject.  soo.. any thoughts????
peace out-Threewaysround 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm part of the project but Red vs. Blue is the only area I cover, so that shouldn't be an issue.  Dac 23:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, anyone is welcome to join, even if his/her interest is limited to a single piece or author. The hope is — eventually — to obtain breadth of coverage as well as depth, but if too many proverbial cooks (editors) spoiled the Wikipedia soup, then the encyclopedia would have been in massive trouble about, oh, three years ago. Welcome aboard! — TKD::Talk 22:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiprojects 

message: hey i'm not sure but the whole thing with the series ending at episode 100, i'm a bit iffy on it.  I mean it was posted on april fools day, and i just get a weird feeling about it.  So maybe we should keep any stuff about it out till we have solid proof about it.   Any thoughts?!?
peace out-Threewaysround 21:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the citation, which is normally sufficient, given the author. I could go either way on it...  It's not a big deal if we cite it to Burnie, and it turns to be a joke; we then retract the "information". Still, there's no need to really rush to add it; Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, after all. — TKD::Talk 22:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it. If it turns out to be a joke, it can be moved down to Background, where all the other information about the length of the series is, with information added that it's an April Fools, if it's deemed notable. -- Viewdrix 23:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Burnie mentioned the thing in an update the day AFTER Fools Day. Seems real to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.185.99 (talk • contribs) 
I'm not going to argue if it's real or not, but Burnie did post it on April Fools day, not the day after.  I think you mis-read the post.  JBK405 04:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a note: Burnie has only explicitly said that the "Blood Gulch Chronicles" are ending, not "Red vs. Blue".  There is a possibility to consider there. Dac 07:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm guessing its real. And hey, at least they know when to end something when its good (looking at you, TV...) Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 14:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: ya we know, that's why there is a section about it-Threewaysround 22:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  end of series episode 100?? 

message: Since not everyone might notice topics that arise on category talk pages, I thought that a crosspost here might be warranted. Recently, discussion has arisen at Category talk:Red vs. Blue regarding whether :Category:Red vs. Blue characters should be folded back into :Category:Red vs. Blue. Opinions are welcome. — TKD::Talk 14:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add my notes here as well: "a category that only has those nine pages and will only ever have those nine pages seems useless, especially when you consider that each of the pages has an infobox that directly links to the others anyway." Dac 21:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters subcategory 

message: :is the series ending or the whole red vs blue completly
::The exact statement is "The Blood Gulch Chronicles will end with episode 100". Interpret that how you like. -- Viewdrix 02:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not a joke. If one were to follow the reference system, it leads to here. -- Viewdrix 20:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ending or No Ending 

message: *I was scanning through the article on RvB and i did not see anything on the New York Film Festival Short. Could someone please add anything they now about it? (I would do it myself, but, I've only seen the video. If you have not seen it: 
:It's only one specific video, so it's  instead. -- Viewdrix 02:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Film Festival Short 

message: Alright, everyone keeps reverting the page whenever the number 100 is put at the end of season 5. This is leaving out known information. Either way you interpret the end, whether "blood gulch chronicles" is ending or "Red vs. Blue" as a whole, Season 5 is still ending at 100. Stop changing it back. Pyrgus 23:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the note that is next to that space, you would see that the reason we keep reverting it is not because we disbelieve that fact, but because the season is still in progress.  Episode 100 has not been released yet so until it does, we aren't filling that gap.  And the information has not been left out because it is stated at other points in the article.  Dac 00:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wish wikipedians used common sense. If I wanted to know when a series was ending, the first place I'd look is in the section about that season. It doesn't matter if I read the note or not(I did) because if common sense says otherwise, than it's moot point anyways. It's not that hard to to just mention the season isn't finished yet, but will end up at 100. Episode 99 just came out for Sponsors anyways. The next episode is 100, no reason to wait. Pyrgus 11:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While you may be correct in there being no reason to wait, I find no compelling reason to rush. The fact that you put (ongoing) doesn't clarify anything, only reinforcing in the uninformed person's mind that the season has reached episode 100 and is still ongoing. Doesn't simply leaving it out for the time being until the episode is out and tangible make sense? Ccs4ever 17:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I do find it annoying that we are aware that the season will end on 100 and yet we cannot add the information, adding opens up a whole new can of worms that will be much more annoying. If there is some wording that can be discussed and decided upon that would leave out ambiguity than it should be left in. I agree with Ccs4ever on the "ongoing" tag which is not satisfactory. The Filmaker 20:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added an alternative phrasing that may be satisfactory. It would keep people from attempting to add the information back in and does not leave anything ambiguous. The Filmaker 20:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Season 5 ends at 100