Talk:Church (Red vs. Blue): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:00, 28 June 2007

Film Redirect‑class

	Film portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Animation Redirect‑class Low‑importance

	Animation portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Church (Red vs. Blue) has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}. (Reviewed version).

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)[reply]

Move proposal

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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:

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

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

peace out_Threewaysround 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

spoilers?

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

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)[reply]

Revision as of 15:59, 28 June 2007 edit Viewdrix (talk \| contribs) 2,478 edits m →spoilers? ← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:00, 28 June 2007 edit undo Viewdrix (talk \| contribs) 2,478 edits m →spoilers? Next edit →
Line 63:		Line 63:

	Shouldn't the ''role in the plot'' section have spoiler warnings?--[[User:124.185.70.46\|124.185.70.46]] 15:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)		Shouldn't the ''role in the plot'' section have spoiler warnings?--[[User:124.185.70.46\|124.185.70.46]] 15:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
	:As per [[WP:~~Spoilers~~]], it's been deemed redundant to put spoiler warnings in plot sections, as it should be clear that a plot section will reveal spoilers. -- [[User:Viewdrix\|Viewdrix]] 15:59, 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. -- [[User:Viewdrix\|Viewdrix]] 15:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)