Talk:Red vs. Blue/Archive 7

Red vs Blue: Out of Mind

If you havn't seen the main page of Red vs Blue today, Rooster Teeth has announced that a mini-series concerning a character is being released, for now, exclusively on the Xbox Live Marketplace[1]. (There are slight spoilers given in who it involves, so check the page if you want to know just slightly more. You can probably guess from the banner, though.) So, here's the question. How do we treat this? I'm thinking either a section on the special episodes page, or more likely, a new page, as if it were a new season. In either case, there should probably be a small section and summary on the main page, whether a plot summary or a "The mini-series was created in 2006 and distribute don the Xbox Live Marketplace" origin summary. Anyway, whatever we do, I just know I can't help. I don't have a 360. And apparently, the first episode is up, so we should probably get moving. -- Viewdrix 12:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should wait until it is available for the public. From what I've read that won't happen until after all the episodes are out on Live. Not to mention that might increase the chances of having a citeable source that has reviewed it.--Drat (Talk) 12:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If a new episode is released every few days, I'm fine with that. But if it's at a rate of the regular series, and we could have to wait 6 weeks to two months or more before putting any information up, I think that's a mistake. -- Viewdrix 19:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone already added it to the main characters article. Not sure where it best fits in the main article proper. By the way, Burns's comment, "It does not focus on the main characters of the episodic series.", seems to imply that they really don't consider Tex a "main character" as we've been assuming (and, yet, we have as much written on her as we do on anyone else on the main characters page) based on the DVD introductions. Should we move Tex off of main characters page, or somehow retitle the article to fit the description more clearly? — TKD::Talk 05:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Tough decision. This would also require possible rewording of characters section of main article.--Drat (Talk) 08:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the rewording in the main article will be fairly straightforward and manageable. I'm more concerned about the reorganization of the character articles. I see a few options of varying viability:

1. Leave the organization as it is, and somehow retitle "main characters" ("recurring human characters"? ack; that's awkward)
2. Move Tex to the "List of characters" article, under the Blue Team. Pro: Very straightforward move. Con: It might feel out of place to have so much text there, especially with Tex being the subject of her own miniseries now.
3. Re-cast the characters pages as Red Team (Red vs Blue), Blue Team (Red vs Blue) (working titles only) and the current List of characters in Red vs Blue (for unaffiliated characters). Note that the first two wouldn't have "List of", because, at this point, each character has sufficient development that it's not really a list any more. Sheila and Andy could be moved to the Blue Team page, and Chupathingy to the Red Team page; they're not really stubby sections anyway.
4. Split off any substantial characters to their own articles. This goes against the whole mergist philosophy, but there's some room for expansion for most of the characters in terms of out-of-universe information. This may eventually be necessary after season 5 anyway. Whether you advocate this, I think, depends more on whether you're an eventualist or not, rather than a mergist or not. I'm not necessarily advocating this option, but it's not as if any of the main characters' articles would be stubby.

At some point down the road, I would like the current List of characters to be merely a list, and not contain more than a paragraph or two on any character (at most), with the substantial characters having their own articles or grouped logically under subarticles. It might be possible, then, to get it to featured list status.

— TKD::Talk 11:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, in case you missed it, I made Red vs Blue: Out of Mind its own article, with the expectation that it'll be fleshed out in due time. — TKD::Talk 11:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

(unindenting) I've done some thinking. I don't see a very good alternate article name for (1). (2) seems a bit glib. (3) is reasonable; if we go with it, though, I might suggest moving all decidedly out-of-universe information (production decisions, voice acting, etc.) to a separate section, rather than be left to the individual character synopsis sections; it seems more of a logical grouping that way and might lead to more tightly interweaved prose in that section.

However, I'm beginning to think that, in spite of my mergist tendencies, individual character articles for at least the more prominent characters might be more viable, especially if we add more and more out-of-universe information / reputable secondary analysis. However, I'm still on the fence about this. Off the top of my head, there's some information for most characters:

• Church: Directly modeled after someone in real life (Gus Sorola, in terms of usually being annoyed). Decision to kill him off early in the series was a difficult one, due to the extra filming required, but it was done to give acharacter more personality. RT was relieved to get him into a body (Lopez), but shortly after had the whole plot line with Lopez escaping. Burnie uses him to move the plot along.
• Tucker: RT noted that Tucker had basically two themes in season 4: writhing in pain or making "bow-chicka-bow-wow" comments. "Bow chicka-bow-wow" line made into a T-shirt. I think RT does mention the sniper rifle running gag explicitly somewhere in the commentaries.
• Caboose: Initially intended to have a smarmy, farm-boy personality, but fans really liked the stupid stuff. No initial plans for him; was initially a catalyst for annoying Church. RT calls him "braindead" by season 4. "Rockets on Prisoner" award.
• Tex: Own mini-series (obviously). Own musical theme ("A Girl Named Tex"). Initially was going to be named Dex, but Hullum showed Zuelch RvB, and she commented that the series needed a tough female. RT doesn't consider her a "main character". "Rockets on Prisoner" award. Fans thought that they saw her among compression artifacts in early episodes.
• Sarge: Initially modeled after R. Lee Ermey, but later an amalgam of different stereotypes. Hullum's voicing of the character changed over time (.ogg file from the season 4 DVD commentary where he demonstrates the difference in the two voices would be good). At one point, RT was going to have him mend ways with Grif, but this was abandoned as too far-fetched. Hullum ad-libs a lot and once created 58 minutes of recorded dialogue for 4 script lines for Sarge. Portrayed as an Office Assistant as part of the Microsoft PDC video ("Where do you want to go today, dirtbag?").
• Simmons/Grif: Dutch-Irish joke gag based on Sorola. Arguments (e.g., both/bolth) used to show boredom in the military. Opening dialogue of episode 1 has been called "slacker disquisition on Iraq". These two are probably the weakest right now in terms of secondary source material.
• Donut: Plan from the beginning was to get him into pink armor, which took longer than expected. Godwin ad-libbed some Donut jokes in season 2 (e.g., "Simmmons, I need your ovaries!"). The Jandoc article [2] is a secondary source that acknowledges Donut's sexuality and his season 2 mental deterioration as an important theme. Pink / lightish red gag was used on a T-shirt and for the season 2 DVD color calibration test.

I'm still not 100% sure here. I like keeping a few longer articles, but I'm not sure that's best given the varying amounts of information that we have on the characters (which makes undue weight an issue). We have several characters with substantial sections, and a good amount of information left to incorporate. Further thoughts from anyone else? — TKD::Talk 06:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the time is coming/has come for them to be split. Like you though, the mergist in me has reservations.--Drat (Talk) 13:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

As a test, I wrote up User:TKD/Donut (Red vs Blue) to see how a full article on a character would look, in terms of size. It's not too bad, and it'll look more filled out with an infobox and footer. Granted, I split up footnotes and actual references, in order to be able to reference different sections of the audio commentary without repeating the same DVD info twice, but I think 9 paragraphs is a decent size here. — TKD::Talk 23:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it's about 8.8 KB long, with 6.5 KB of text (i.e., no infobox, notes, references or external link). — TKD::Talk 08:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's good. All it needs is a picture and its about ready for article space. I've really gotta get around to ordering those DVDs.--Drat (Talk) 08:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Further revision of Sandpiper's edit

Sandpiper made an admirable attempt at clarifying points deemed unclear, but I revised the edit further:

• Since sentences were shuffled, the context introducing Halo: Combat Evolved had to be moved as well.
• I diagree that the storyline structure and extra videos belong in the lead. The lead needs to be a broad overview; understanding the structure of the storyline isn't as important as understanding why Red vs Blue is important, for example. I moved that paragraph back down to Plot.
• I added a little context for Halo 2 and Master Chief himself.
• "Showboating" was indeed not the berst word there.
• "never mentions that character in Halo" is misleading, but, to Sandpiper's defense, I can now see how he misread the original phrase "never mentions that character as part the Covenant from Halo".

— TKD::Talk 01:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

New continuity or Interquel?

This is totally confusing, Red vs Blue is a interquel between Halo and Halo 2, or a separate continuity outside of Halo canon? Leader Vladimir — Preceding undated comment added 00:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's completely outside Halo continuity. There was some talk in the original trailer about it taking place after Master Chief destroyed the first Halo, but thats all gone out the window (Sidewinder is supposedly an "Ice planet," the Covenant Elite isn't recognised as such, ect). The best thing to do is not to worry about it to much and just enjoy it for what it is. Iron Ghost 01:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

So, Red vs Blue is supossedly set between Halo and Halo 2, but actually is it's own storyline outside all Halo continuity, but containing references to Halo. Leader Vladimir — Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this paragraph clarify anything?

Although the background of Red vs Blue is primarily taken from Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2, its creators consciously limit connections to Bungie's Halo fictional universe. A video made for E3 2003 portrays Master Chief, the protagonist of the Halo series, as a larger-than-life member of the army, and the Red vs Blue trailer and first episode establish that the series is set between the events of the two games. Beyond these references, however, the series follows an independent storyline, which, according to Burns, is intended to make it accessible to those unfamiliar with the games.

— TKD::Talk 03:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Season 5

Anyone know when new episodes are airing? I heard it's been slated for this month and I've been waiting forever. Have a nice night Abu!

According to the season 4 DVD, it was supposed to start in July 2006. However, that's all we know. — TKD::Talk 05:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

RoosterTeeth released the first episode of season five on September 30 to sponsors only, the non-sponsor version will be up this Monday.

My citation changes

I just did some more thorough reference checking, and had to remove or reword some points that weren't exactly implied by the sources in the previous wordings. I also removed the category Category:Absurdist fiction, because, per previous discussions, there's a little room for interpretation as to whether or not Red vs Blue fits the bill. The most NPOV that we can be is to attribute the claim to someone (in this case, Graham Leggat), and leave it at that. On the flip side, I did find a serious academic paper to cite, which only bolsters the claim that Red vs Blue was the "first big success" of machinima. — TKD::Talk 03:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My head hurts.

Here's a question. In Red vs Blue: Out of Mind, multiple scenes go against the Halo 2-is-the-future-bomb-blew-up continuity. Scenes of Tex's training and the implantation of O'Malley into her head, events set before Blood Gulch Chronicles, are depicted in Foundation, and Tex/O'Malley's subsequent escape spans multiple Halo 2 maps, however, not a map from Halo 1 was used. Furthermore, she meets another solider from the program, York, and they wander through multiple backdrops of Halo 2 maps set as one large city, yet no references to the idea that they're supposed to be set thousands of years in the future due to the bomb of episode 43 is made. Interestingly, a hologram depiction of York's AI uses a Halo 1 model Spartan. Now, granted, the appearance of Vic Jr. cleared most "the world has been destroyed, only the Red vs Blue cast survived" theories about what actually happened, but either Rooster Teeth has plenty of exposition planned, or some continuity's being sacrificed here. I understand that Out of Mind was created to take advantage of Xbox Live Marketplace and high-definition, so my thoughts are that the training scenes in Foundation were just oversight after the idea of shooting in Halo 2 hi-def was established in Rooster Teeth's minds. But...blah, I don't want to think about it anymore. -- Viewdrix 21:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about it. No rule says that they have to restrict usage the games by their own story timeline. — TKD::Talk 03:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Rooster Teeth shot Out Of Mind in Halo 2 to make it look nicer. ---Debt Jr.

Burnie has said in a thread that the reason they didn't use Halo 1 for the training scenes will be explained later. -- Viewdrix 05:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

hey wasn't there a message on top that said, the Re vs blue website noticed this or something?

Does anyone remember?

Pece Kocovski 01:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It was a high-traffic notice that was up when Rooster Teeth linked to us from their website. — TKD::Talk 01:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

why isn't it still? Pece Kocovski 09:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The message doesn't need to be up there forever, only when the impact is greatest — i.e., when the posting first appears. It was up for over a month. The purpose is to alert that the associated article may have new editors coming in from an external site, not really as a form of "recognition" or anything. — TKD::Talk 10:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Was there any new edits from the Redvsblue team? Pece Kocovski 05:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no, Rooster Teeth has never edited Wikipedia. Given the standards laid out by WP:AUTO, it would be improper for them to edit articles about themselves except to correct vandalism or uncontroversial factual errors. — TKD::Talk 13:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

So they can't edit the facts about the in-series universe? Dac 13:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Correcting obvious, clear-cut errors is one thing. But anything that would be original research for us to write applies to the creators of fiction as well. Wikipedia is not the place to establish canon. We rely on other published sources, possibly the fiction itself, to do that for us. — TKD::Talk 14:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No period in Vs.?

Just out of curiousity, is there a reason there's no period in Vs.? or was it just stylistically how it was written and it's stuck now? TheHYPO 04:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The logo doesn't use it, so it's become known as both, and one was chosen for consistency. Besides, and extra period is a hassle. ;p -- Viewdrix 15:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Per the requested move, I've done the leg work and updated the name where I could find it. — TKD::Talk 04:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. I moved Red vs Blue, which was blocked, but not the others. —Centrx→talk • 14:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Red vs Blue → Red vs. Blue
• List of characters in Red vs Blue → List of characters in Red vs. Blue
• List of main characters in Red vs Blue → List of main characters in Red vs. Blue
• Church (Red vs Blue) → Church (Red vs. Blue)
• Sarge (Red vs Blue) → Sarge (Red vs. Blue)
• Donut (Red vs Blue) → Donut (Red vs. Blue)
• Tucker (Red vs Blue) → Tucker (Red vs. Blue)
• List of maps used in Red vs Blue → List of maps used in Red vs. Blue
• Red vs Blue: Out of Mind → Red vs. Blue: Out of Mind
• Red vs Blue (season 1) → Red vs. Blue (season 1)
• Red vs Blue (season 2) → Red vs. Blue (season 2)
• Red vs Blue (season 3) → Red vs. Blue (season 3)
• Red vs Blue (season 4) → Red vs. Blue (season 4)
• List of Red vs Blue special episodes → List of Red vs. Blue special episodes

An anonymous user just tried to cut and paste the article to the new name. I've reverted for now, but it's worth discussing. The official Red vs Blue website used to use all of Red Vs Blue, Red vs Blue, and Red vs. Blue in various locations, so one was apparently arbitrarily picked. They've recently replaced Red Vs Blue with Red vs. Blue, but some text still uses Red vs Blue. External publications tend to use Red vs. Blue, presumably because it appears more typographically correct in the absence of consistency from the creators. It's also worth noting that, although Wikipedia doesn't necessarily follow logo typography just for the sake of doing so, there is inconsistency in official logos as well. Most of the logos do not contain the period after vs, but this one does. In the absence of official consistency, I suggest that we follow the more usual typographic convention of including the period. — TKD::Talk 16:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Support per rationale above. — TKD::Talk 16:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both are used interchangably by the creators, so it doesn't seem to matter. Recommend sticking with the status quo. Jefffire 17:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support just because the ball's already rolling; it'd probably end up looking neater, but it's such a small issue, I'd have opposed if it was a small discussion and less developed. -- Viewdrix 21:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support TJ Spyke 04:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• I assume that we'd have to go through CFD to get Category:Red vs Blue and Category:Red vs Blue characters renamed, since the speedy renaming criteria only allow for typographical errors and capitalization fixes. The inclusion or exclusion of a period isn't technically an error, but rather a stylistic convention chosen due to ambiguity from the creators. Also, I'd like to say that, although it'd be a bit of work to go through all pages that mention Red vs Blue and fix them, that shouldn't be a factor in a decision whether to move or not. — TKD::Talk 16:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, if this is renamed, then it could probably be treated as a typographical error and the categories speedy renamed. — TKD::Talk 17:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not a typographical error. "vs." and "vs" are both correct English, and which one is preferred depends on local conventions. In British English, for example, you don't use a period in abbreviations when the final letter of the abbreviation is the same as the final letter of the complete word; therefore "Red vs Blue" would be correct. Bluap 14:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a fair point, I suppose. But, given that this is an American production, if consensus decides that vs. is preferable, it seems a bit silly to go through a full-blown CFD for the corresponding categories. — TKD::Talk 12:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• By the way, I just wanted to clarify that I do agree that this is a minor issue. But since an anon already tried the move, we're probably better off establishing a consensus now one way or another, so that we have a point of reference for any future inquiries either way. I support the move, but wouldn't have bothered to file the request if the cut and paste hadn't occurred. — TKD::Talk 22:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Supporting characters

Is Delta really necessary? His entire appearance revolves around York and his actions are included in York's section of the character page. Dac 05:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I let him stay because York was there. However, I'm not really a big fan of Delta or Vic Jr. being in the list, either. I'd prefer that all three go until they have more impact on the series. I mean, the Grunts appeared in more episodes than these characters. What do others think? — TKD::Talk 07:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to take out Gary, Vic Jr., York and Delta. None of them have turned out to be vital to the overall direction of the plot. The only possible exception is Gary, though I feel more that the "trapped inside with a time bomb" scenes were written in order for Gary to stop the clock and seem important, and otherwise, he's just commented on everything else going on. -- Viewdrix 21:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed Vic Jr., York, and Delta for now. — TKD::Talk 10:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I would've though York could've afforded to stay since he contributed something large to the plot, but oh well. Dac 12:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I argue that Out of Mind could have been written to the same end without him or a substitute character. By comparison, the Alien died, but he created the entire Quest and Tucker's Baby plots. -- Viewdrix 22:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

For me, it's a matter of being part of a significant arc in the big scheme of things. York deserves a substantial mention in the Red vs. Blue: Out of Mind article, definitely. But OoM is somewhat minor, a side plot, in the overall series. I think that you could argue for Gary's presence in the supporting list here due to his presence throughout the latter part of season 3 and the first third or so of season 4. That's a substantial chunk of time. — TKD::Talk 02:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

How about putting in Vic Jr. as an aside in Vic's description? "He was replaced by his descendant Vic Jr. in season 4"? --OGoncho 21:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Matt Hullum interview

A short interview with Matt Hullum on Computerandvideogames. Maybe it's just my computer, but that page has caused Firefox to crash three times.--Drat (Talk) 14:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'm able to open and access it using either IE or FireFox. It doesn't look like there's anything substantially new there. — TKD::Talk 04:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

External video archive links

Do we really need the http://unix.schluting.com/redvsblue/ link? Is there any reason to keep it over the machinima.com link? I'd much prefer to link to a site with some editorial oversight rather than a random archive. — TKD::Talk 06:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Season 5's started.

And since, as I remember, the general concensus on last season was waiting until public release before adding plot details, I wrote up a season 5 and episode 78 summary on my user page You can go edit and prepare it there, and move it when the public release comes. -- Viewdrix 15:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

New Low-Res videos

It should be noted in the distribution section that as of the start of Out of Mind (I think, or at least with Season 5), the black bars have been removed and the resolution of the Low-res videos has been lowered slightly. Most likely to encourage sponsorship. The Filmaker 03:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The lack of black bars is a universal thing in the move to widescreen, which is noted on the Out of Mind page, but should be moved here. -- Viewdrix 23:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Season 4 summary

This is just a suggestion, but the summary for Season 4 is way longer than the others and seems to just be a bit long; it's essentially a blow-by-blow account. Maybe I'm the only one who feels like this, but personally I think it could stand to undergo some condensing. Your thoughts? Dac 12:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can condense it further, go ahead. I tried, but most of it seems essential right now, until we get further into season 5 and learn what events matter and what don't. -- Viewdrix 19:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I tried condensing it without leaving out many details. I think it looks better as one paragraph. Let me know if I erased anything we needed. Dac 00:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Halo 1 and 2 shots of characters on their pages.

I started an experiment to add both Halo 1 and Halo 2 shots of the 8 main characters to their own articles. I found, however, on just doing Church, Caboose and Donut that both images don't always load up. I think it may be a problem with the fact Wikipedia has to resize them, so should I submit the other head shots, and re-submit the Church, Caboose and Donut shots, at 100 pixels each or so? Would that work?

Also, yes, I realise Caboose's backwards season 4 profile picture may not be write for an encyclopedic entry. I thought I'd have uniformity first by adding DVD profile pictures for everyone, and then come up with a replacement Halo 2 Caboose for if anyone noted it. -- Viewdrix 22:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, is there a licensing template I should use besides machinima-screenshot, as it is actually a still shot from a DVD menu? -- Viewdrix 22:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

{{machinima-screenshot}} is fine. If it contains game elements used outside their original context, that's the one to use. — TKD::Talk 23:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The images are appearing correctly for me. It might be a cache issue. — TKD::Talk 23:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do the other 5. -- Viewdrix 01:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

500,000 members

I think that someone should mention somewhere (perhaps in reception) that on the 15th of october they celebrated their 500,000 member User: Dr_P:

The community itself doesn't directly relate to the series, however. It'd be more appropriate for Rooster Teeth Productions. However, we'd prefer a secondary source, if one exists, to cover the reception and popularity of the site, to mitigate any sort of inherent bias. — TKD::Talk 00:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that forums often have untold amounts of members with few posts or none at all. On some sites I've seen, only 3-5% of members have ever posted, out of a few thousand to many thousands.--Drat (Talk) 05:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I see what you mean about forums being misrepresentative. User: Dr_P: