Talk:Red vs. Blue/Archive 2

message: Should Phil and Jimmy have Character bios? They were more like throwaway characters, there for one episode or a quick gag.
Viridis 13:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Phil and Jimmy were trimmed, along with much more.
Should Phil and Jimmy be added back in now that we have a seperate section for all the characters or are they not important enough?  It's interesting to note that we kept Captain Flowers even though he like the other throwaway characters appeared only once and has been mentioned once by Tucker.  Just some thoughts.  If people want to add them back in, I can do that.  Let me know.  --LifeStar 18:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: We learn very little about Phil and Jimmy. Captian Flowers, on the other hand, is much more defined.--DooMDrat 04:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, the descriptions of guest/extra characters are so streamlined, it's not as if it would hurt. Describing Captain Flowers, though he is a more developed character, as the mellow Captain of Blue team who died before the series started isn't much more of a description than Phil or Jimmy would need.
ViewTrix, please sign your name on your comments.  Anyhows, I thought it would be a good idea back then, but seeing as how long of a list we have for characters, the addition of these two may not be as important.  Flowers I can understand b/c his character pivots a lot of the main characters, such as Church and Tucker.  --LifeStar 21:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Throwaway Characters? 

message: I'm going to go over this page a little. The style and grammar are horrible. I'll try to leave the content alone, though. --Khaim 16:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  General cleanup 

message: which is you favourite character?
Pece Kocovski 05:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  favourite character? 

message: The article is in need of some more trimming. Try to cut a few kilobytes off of it. I'm not going to touch it, as I just got Java Development Kit working on my machine, and I've gotta start learning up if I'm going to have a hope in hell of doing a Java assignment and a test next week.--DooMDrat 13:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trimming 

message: Apparently (EP62), "shisno" is human - in which case the Great Destroyer is still unknown. Who's willing to edit the whole article? :) // Gargaj 17:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Shisno' does not specifically mean human, it's a general insult that gary calls the team-members some times.  Check out ep.53->55 (not sure which one) for the full description - Welshy 01:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Destroyer == Shisno == Human != Alien 

message: about Honk-Honk "THE GREAT DESTROTER" the one about the reclaimer you know, before when Honk-Honk was just the great destroyer and the third paragraph was about the reclaimer, ETC?
Also shouldn't Honk-Honk be counted as main character now?
Pece Kocovski 06:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  who got rid of the other informaton 

message: There has been a recent upsurge on those who believe that Tucker or the blue alien might be the great destroyer.  The only problem with this is that neither have displayed any of the actions that would lead to Gary's GREAT DOOM.  Another thing, Tucker, though he does own the energy sword now, he is referred to as a hero according to the alien (relunctantly), which makes it unlikely that this means he's the great destroyer.  We will have to wait and see who it really is, but please, don't add in assumed theories when it's still unknown.  We don't even know what the alien's name is because he's only been referred to as "Honk-Honk" once, and afterwards all the characters still refer to him as the "alien".  Nit-picky maybe, but it will save those of us who make edits a lot of re-editing if those assumptions are wrong.
LifeStar
* Nnnnnice but does every second word has to be bold? // Gargaj 18:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debatable on the final identity of the GREAT DESTROYER 

message: * What an awful writeup. Comprehensive, yes. But could we include a few more forms of "to be". The writing reads like limp prose choking on its own spit.
:Um... what are you talking about? Joylock 10:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  General rant 

message: well?
Pece Kocovski 06:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did. I felt that if this article is ever going to be featured (see above), it may as well have an official image, as opposed to a fan-made one. I asked Rooster Teeth for an official image, and recieved a link which I will keep secret, at their reqiest.--Drat (Talk) 09:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  who changes the poster image? 

message: Can't think of a proper title. Not important anyway. The page is coming along great. Just want to remind people that we should obviously also improve the other pages as much as we can, namely the episode guides and the character page. I will try my hand at converting the wikiquote page to the TV format. Oh yeah, I'm about to do some work on the third season episode guide, just as I did to the other three earlier, so don't touch that for an hour or so, to avoid conflicting.
Also, should we move the episode guide pages as such?:
Red vs Blue episode guide: Season 1 -> Red vs Blue episode guide: Season one
I think it'll look better.--Drat (Talk) 11:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the precedent on Wikipedia is to prefer the numbers themselves in the page titles rather than spelling them out? TKD 12:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah well. I'm finished with the Season 3 article, by the way.--Drat (Talk) 14:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obvious from episode 70 that the Church is from Zanzibar, and that he know's the "blue" is Simmons.  I've added the Quest events from 69/70, maybe some one else could the add the happenings of the reds? - Welshy 21:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress. 

message: I forgot to mention this before. How should we go about the use of wikilinks? There are probably quite a few more things that need to be wikilinked, but we don't want to go overboard. And what of repeat use of terms? The article is long enough (and will be longer, once I get around to the new sections) that linking the same thing more than once seems justified.--Drat (Talk) 08:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we link everything except prepositions and definite/indefinite articles. ;-) Actually, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) suggests that there should be no more links than lines, that no more than 10% of the words are part of links, and that only important links be repeated if a subsequent occurrence is "distant" from the preceding one. What qualifies as "distant" is unclear; in my (inexperienced) mind, more than a couple of large unrelated sections or so is probably reasonable. TKD 09:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of wikilinks 

message: Just wanted to make sure that we're all on the same page about this: Since RvB is an American creation, with the characters (sans Wyoming :)) speaking American English, we should probably stick to American English in the RvB articles, according to Wikipedia:Style#National varieties of English. TKD 00:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know we were using different variations.  What words were different?  --LifeStar 15:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Armor/armour, behavior/behaviour, -ize/-ise come to mind (these still exist, particularly in the season 2 and 3 pages). Also, I noticed a few cases where "team" was treated as a plural noun (e.g., "The Red team have..."). Granted, these are probably from pretty old versions of the pages, but I wanted to make a note of it going forward. -- TKD 03:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling/usage