Talk:Donut (Red vs. Blue)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Good article Donut (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.

Contents

[edit] Character Interaction

With these pages, I think a paragraph or two concerning the focal character's relationships with other characters could be used effectively. I think this could help a reader grasp the concept of the character. What do you guys think? Dac 09:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I covered most of the notable interactions already. One thing that we need to avoid is generalizations that aren't borne out in other commentary. Am I missing anything, either in the Synopsis or Themes section? — TKD::Talk 09:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
It's more what other characters think of the character in question. In this case, there's very little in regards to how the other characters perceive Donut. I think more on how his naivity (sp?) and cheerfulness annoy the others, more on how he (sort of) befriends the Blues, more on how he actually gets praised by Sarge from time to time, stuff like that. Rereading it, there seems to be very little in this regard. Dac 13:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh; I see what you mean now. I expanded it. Better? — TKD::Talk 03:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps could do with a bit more, but for now that's fine. Dac 08:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Be careful; we don't want to stray into too much of an in-universe perspective, or engage in original research. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). The point is that the "themes" are grounded with confirmation from external sources or from Rooster Teeth, to provide context. — TKD::Talk 21:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't going into original research, I was going on observation of how the character interacts with the others. What do you mean by in-universe perception? Dac 00:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
In-universe means treating the character from the perspective of the fiction. As a very crude and simple example, "Caboose becomes dumber starting when Sarge bombs Sheila out of action." This describes Caboose as if he were an actual person. Contrast with, "Initially, Rooster Teeth did not intend for Caboose to be especially stupid. However, they noted that fans of the series reacted well to Caboose's dumb remarks. In response, they began to orchestrate a long decline in Caboose's intelligence, starting in episode 9, in which Sarge bombs Sheila out of action." This is out-of-universe relative to Red vs Blue; it describes things from the perspective of the real universe instead. In-universe perspective is fine in limited doses, but articles should focus on describing fictional things as cultural artifacts in our world. Usually, in-universe perspective is best limited to plot summaries and/or brief character descriptions. To explain Donut's interactions with other characters at length, without providing any sort of Rooster Teeth rationale or third-party analysis, is to focus on the in-universe aspects disproportionately. It also tempts editors to analyze too much. Sure, we make an editorial judgment when we summarize plot, but that tends to be mostly factual and uncontroversial. Analyzing character interactions is dodgier, and we made some mistakes in that in the current RvB character pages. — TKD::Talk 01:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see what you mean. Thanks Dac 03:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Looks good

TKD asked if I'd read over this article and make comments. I just finished going through it, and I've made a few minor changes here and there, but nothing major. If I've changed the meaning anywhere, go ahead and change whatever needs it back. I think the article looks very good! My only remaining concerns are:

  • Because the RvB fiction is so new, it doesn't surprise me that there aren't a lot of non-Rooster Teeth sources consulted here. However, it might be worth checking for more reviews that mention the character (like the one from the Hawaiian newspaper that is quoted). Are there science fiction magazines or film columnists who have reviewed RvB? Like I said, the article is good, but it would be nice to temper some of the official stuff with third-party information.
  • I believe that episode and season should be capitalized in constructions such as "Episode 34" or "Season 2". I can't find any style guides that mention this either way, however.
  • There are some terms and plot descriptions that might assume too much knowledge on the reader's part. Read through and consider where a non-fan of the series might be confused. I'm familiar with Halo, so I wasn't in the dark too much, but my mother would be baffled by much of this. -- Amcaja 13:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the feedback, Amcaja. Taking your comments in order:
  • The thing is, there are quite a few reviews of Red vs Blue, just not that many that cover Donut specifically. I would very much like to have found third-part sources, and I'll keep looking periodically. There have been numerous articles in well-known print sources about Red vs Blue (see the references of the main Red vs Blue article); most, however, focus on the series as a whole or how the series is made.
  • The closest that I've ever found to any sort of guidance is WP:TV-NC, which suggests lowercase "s" for "season" in article titles of the format "XXX (season N)".
  • Thanks for that reminder. I'll go through again and try to clarify.
Thanks again for your time! — TKD::Talk 01:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of User:CapDac's edit

Sorry, CapDac, but I'm reverting the paragraph that you added. I had a good reason for not carrying it over to the new article when I did the rewrite. First, the premise of most of the paragraph, "Donut is not completely without a clue", is analysis, not really plot summary. The point about Donut's intelligence needs to be supported by either commentary from Rooster Teeth or critical analysis by a reputable writer. If you can find a source, by all means please do cite it and include it. But, until then, it's original research to say what Rooster Teeth intends a character's intelligence to be. While the examples are indeed legitimate, it's too much of a generalization to make without any analytical support for that point.

Second, breaking the fourth wall isn't really a sign of a character's intelligence. It's a dramatic device. Rooster Teeth could very well have Caboose break the fourth wall if it serves a comic purpose. Besides, he wasn't the only one to break the fourth wall in the series proper; watch the beginning of the Internet version of episode 7, when Church tells the narrrator, "Hey, dude, we didn't have a video last week. We were at E3, remember?" Breaking the fourth usually says more about what the writer wants to accomplish and how it's accomplished rather than about the character used for the device. — TKD::Talk 01:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Well, fair enough then, I guess. I've never seen that thing about Church breaking the fourth wall, though. Dac 13:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

Congratulations! This article is now listed as a good article. As far as improvements goes, some minor attention to the flow of the article, adjusting it to an audience not familiar with this video series would help. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last Episode?

I think the last episode Thing should Be Scrapped we don't know that donut is dead yet User:Infernomaster01 17:48 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Originally, that field wasn't meant to be permanent, in that it'd be updated if new episodes were released. But, yes, I can see that it'd be possibly confusing, and I've removed it as such. — TKD::Talk 22:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move proposal

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

[edit] Lead

I modified Joylock's expanded lead. I could see that he wanted a bit more included, so I worked in the two points that weren't really explicitly part of the lead previously (the annoyance of others and the jokes about Donut's sexual orientation), while hopefully keeping it succinct. Is this good for everyone?

It's OK. Being that most of it is covered in the article below we could probably condense it a little bit more but I'll leave that up to you. Dac 09:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rvbdonuthalo1.jpg

Image:Rvbdonuthalo1.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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rvbdonuthalo2.jpg

Image:Rvbdonuthalo2.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) 05:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)