Talk:Church (Red vs. Blue)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Church (Red vs. Blue) article.
Article policies
Good article Church (Red vs. Blue) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 11, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Machinima, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to machinima on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the main project page and join or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
Low This article has been rated as being of Low importance within machinima on the importance scale.
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance, but no comments have yet been left.

Contents

[edit] GFDL notice

On 20:24, July 7, 2006 (UTC), this was split from List of main characters in Red vs Blue#Church. Prior edit history can be found in the edit history of that article. — TKD::Talk 01:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move proposal

Please see Talk:Red vs Blue#Requested move for discussion. — TKD::Talk 17:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tubby?

In episode 82 and 85 Caboose and Tucker tease Church about snaking a lot, curiusly, Burnie Burns (voice of Chruch) has been accused of doing the same, dosent that count as trivia?[[1]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.211.157.123 (talk • contribs)

Well, it's not only trivia (which should actually be avoid), it's also original research, because there's no firm evidence that Rooster Teeth meant to make that parallel, or that a reliable source noticed it. — TKD::Talk 03:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Times as a ghost

Here's why I don't think the list of appearances as a ghost is useful:

  • Some of the appearances are trivial and brief — for example, the latest one.
  • Where it's important to the plot, it's already mentioned elsewhere, so as to give context. If you can cite a source that the appearance is significant for production reasons, mention it in the Filming section.
  • Thus, items on a separate list is either trivial or redundant.
  • To list these appearances separately is to imply that they are more important than the times in which he appears in armor, which isn't necessarily true. It's not a causal relationship.

I'm removing the section again; let's discuss this further before adding a list that seems to have limited benefit and exaggerates the notability of some appearances. — TKD::Talk 11:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination, maybe

hey has anyone thought of nominating this artile for good article, it's getting pretty close to the Donut quality, and it's looking pretty good. Also the worst that can happen is we get some insight on what to fix/improve. Any thoughts????

peace-Threewaysround 00:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

any thoughts at all anyone?!?!?-Threewaysround 20:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhm...I concur? Dac 01:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

awesome, i'll wait for a few more days to see if anyone else wants to speak, then i'll nominate.-Threewaysround 14:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

it's done-Threewaysround 20:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination Passed

Hi folks, I read over your article this morning, and I'm passing it for GA status. Here's the basic summary of what I looked at:

  1. The article was well written.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable (nice job with sources).
  3. It is broad in its coverage (covers briefly who Church is, what the show is, behind the scenes dev., interractions with other characters, etc.)
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. (Article was dry - in a good way - and had no personally invested tone)
  5. Article seems stable, and has many edits from many different parties, which is good.
  6. Article contains appropriate images.

As far as future improvements: the article was generally well-written, as I mentioned. The ending seemed abrupt, though, as a person reads through for the first time. It might be helpful to re-organize some of the ending content and have some kind of a summarizing sentence/paragraph at the end so that the reader has a sense of finality as they come to it. Not a huge deal at all, though.

Nice job, and congratulations. Have a great day! Nswinton 16:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I"m changing the rating on the page to GA, good job everyone!! :D

peace out_Threewaysround 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] good article userbox

Hey now that this article is a Good article. I would like to put this userbox here for anyone who made significant edits to this article, before it became a good article. I'll be takeing it down in about 1 or 2 weeks, i just want to give everyone a chance to get it. {{User Good Article|Church (Red vs. Blue)}}

-Threewaysround 23:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] spoilers?

Shouldn't the role in the plot section have spoiler warnings?--124.185.70.46 15:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:Spoiler, it's been deemed redundant to put spoiler warnings in plot sections, as it should be clear that a plot section will reveal spoilers. -- Viewdrix 15:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character Trivia

I think we should add some Trivia for some of the character. Or at least on the Season page. I have one that points out in both Episode 8 "Don't Ph34r the Reaper" and in Episode 43 "Make Your Time" Church's last words before being blown up were, "Oh son of a...". --Mr. S.C. Shadow (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I even have a template that points it out.

RvB
This user's last words were "son of a bitch"

--Mr. S.C. Shadow (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The last thing the article needs is a section full of trivial information. This isn't a fansite.--Drat (Talk) 01:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Guidelines state trivia sections should not be added to articles. Dac (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rvbchurchhalo1.jpg

Image:Rvbchurchhalo1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rvbchurchhalo2.jpg

Image:Rvbchurchhalo2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)