Talk:Characters of 8-Bit Theater

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

comics
Portal

This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

More information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Related work groups (general):
	Webcomics work group

This article was nominated for deletion on December 21, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep (nomination withdrawn). An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

To-do list for Characters of 8-Bit Theater:	edit · history · watch · refresh
~~Fix formatting, it's a mess.~~ Done. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 11:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Get new images for some of the missing ones like Bahamut, Cleric, etc. Get episode references for the Other Warriors. Get a real picture for Princess Sara,

Archives
2005-2006

1 Major/Minor character criteria
2 A Wizard did it
3 Fair use rationale for Image:Bikkes.JPG
4 Fair use rationale for Image:Blackbelt.gif
5 Fair use rationale for Image:Sara.JPG
6 Fair use rationale for Image:Swordopolis.GIF
7 Jeff
8 Archive
9 Images
10 The messenger's name
11 Muffin. And Ur, too, I guess.
12 Main/Minor Characters
13 character order

[edit] Major/Minor character criteria

I was wondering if someone should go through the article and make sure all the characters are in the correct sections. Mostly becasue I noticed that Matoya and Bahamut were in the major character section despite only two appearences (albeit with some degree of importance to the plot) while EPS and King Steve are only in the minor characters section despite having whole comics devoted to them. --Bisected8 17:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Right you are. My criterium was that a character has to have regular appearances (as White Mage does and Black Belt did) or have furthered the plot in a major way. Matoya send the Light Warriors on a quest that eventually lead them to Elfland, leading to the whole elemental orb shebang, Bahamut was involved in the Class Change.

I set minor characters as those who either only appearead for one storyarc and never again (ex.: Dr. Malpractice) or whose plot significance isn't fully clear yet (Swordopolis, the Dark God, the Other Warriors etc.). Princess Sara hasn't been heard of much in the last few hundred episodes; neither has King Steve, although you could argue the LW's wouldn't have gotten anywhere if not for his quest and, of course, the Kick Ass Bridge. So I suppose going by that he's equally suited as a major character, why not. --R. Wolff 18:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

But with Bahamut, he will most likely never appear again! At least Matoia has a chance to be repeated. I think Bahamut is done for and should be moved to the minor characters... Timebender13 13:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If Matoya has a chance, so has Bahamut and just about everyone else, and we won't know until the comic ends. It's not only about frequent appearances, it's about being instrumental to the overall plot. Class Change, anyone? --R. Wolff 23:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally think Steve and Sara (at least Steve) should be moved to major characters, Gary should be put under minor characters, and the Cultists and the Ordeals should be put under "===Minor Villains===". The Cultists have only appeared twice, and in the first appearance they weren't too important (the central plot of the Ice Cave arc would be pretty much the same, although there might not be the crates), and while the Ordeals were important, they have only appeared in one arc all in a row. --Jopasopa 02:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Wizard did it

Can we discuss a consensus for how exactly to explain this reference? I've seen it linking to at least three different articles, and right now there's just an explanation in brackets. I don't mind either way, but maybe there's a best way to do it? --R. Wolff 09:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bikkes.JPG

Image:Bikkes.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Blackbelt.gif

Image:Blackbelt.gif 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 Wikipedia articles 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.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sara.JPG

Image:Sara.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.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Swordopolis.GIF

Image:Swordopolis.GIF 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.

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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff

I've been wondering, is Jeff really significant enough for this article? He's not really a running gag (2 appearances compared to Akbar's appearances in most of the arcs, even appearing more than once at times), nor is he as important as, say, Bahamut. He's on about the same rank of importance as the Mob Boss. Maybe a minor mention in Akbar's description, like "There is also Jeff, whose business is just as shoddy, but tends to be honest about his services and has helped the Light Warriors travel to their destinations." --Jopasopa 01:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

Anyone have an objection to me archiving some of the older discussion on this page? It's pretty long now. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 21:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody objected, I have gone ahead and done it. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 20:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I'm thinking we should come up with a criterion for which characters have images. We could upload fair-use images for just about everyone on the list, but do we need to? My first thought is to include major characters only, but then it might also be beneficial to a reader to see a face to match to the name (it took me a bit of memory searching to remember who Akbar was). My final conclusion was that we can justify a small image of any character notable to make it on the list. Thoughts? bahamut0013 ♠♣ 21:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have begun the process of uploading fair-use images of the major characters. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 20:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The messenger's name

I was searching the "Help me find a comic" thread on the NP forums and found something interesting: [1] Good enough proof that his name is just Messenger? It fits the naming scheme found in the Light Warriors, Other Warriors, White Mage, Black Belt, Dragoon, King Elf, Mob Boss and maybe something else I forgot. --Jopasopa (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, how does this "closely resemble" "Now Shut Up"? Unless I'm missing something, it involves using his pieces in Gurgu, not the the "stone BB from 1 second ago" like Brian used. Secondly, it was written over a year after the episode. (Now Shut Up: Nov. 10, 2005, Post: Dec. 5, 2006). Perhaps someone has a better link showing what the episode was in response to? --Jopasopa (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muffin. And Ur, too, I guess.

Muffin is never called Tiamat in the comic. We have no good reason to call her Tiamat in the article; we do have reason to point out that she's the comic's version of the game's Tiamat, but that should be the extent of it. If at any point she is called Tiamat we can still change it.

Same goes for Kraken/Ur by extension. Voices? --R. Wolff (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I say we refer to them as Ur and Muffin, since they are the most common names seen in the comic. We don't call Thief "Prince Elf" now do we? However, that might also mean the dark god should be called "Darko", since he's referred by that twice and even by Brian.[2][3]

Also, I have a question about first appearances: What qualifies as such? Going by what we have for Cleric and Rogue, a visual appearance and mention of name (even if the image is not actually them, in the context of the comic) counts, which seems okay (it's kinda like a flashback, I guess). But Kary, Ur, and Muffin sort of made an appearance here.

But what really concerns me is Ur: The being seen in the episode given isn't really Ur (although the characters refer to it as such).

Also, past or present tense for dead characters? Does Wikipedia have a rule for this? For BB, it uses past, but for the Fiends it uses present. I guess it makese sense as it is, since BB's death marked the end of his character, whereas the Fiends will likely stay till the end of the comic. But we can't exactly say that for sure. --Jopasopa (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Title-wise, I think we should leave it as it is, with the name of the Fiend and the nickname as an AKA. They are, after all, simply the fiends as Brian interprets the story of FFI. In the text, however, it should be mentioned immediately how the comic only refers to them as Ur/Muffin, and then refer from there by the nickname. I feel this allows them to be identified as the appropriate fiend, but still consistent with the comic. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 15:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Gotta ask, given its name, shouldn't Kraken's section refer to it as "she"? The Clawed One (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That was one of the jokes: all of the Doom Cultists were male (or masculine asexual) but had female names. I don't actually think the fiend was a chick. All of those tentacles... bahamut0013 ♠♣ 11:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Something about counting the game in as a factor beyond the barest minimum doesn't sit well with me. I feel like it would obligate us to point out every single difference. Basically, I think this article is about the comic, so the names of the characters should be taken from the comic, too. (Otherwise we would have to change Vilbert's entry to "Vampire, AKA Vilbert.")

As for Kraken, I'm willing to just call it "it" if you are.

While we're at the fiend section, what exactly is so important about when every single fiend was seen last, anyway? Couldn't we just say "after their defeat all the fiends ended up together in hell" or something? --R. Wolff (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see your point, but the fiends were a hugely significant part of the game, the vampire was not. I can see how many people would feel that if you are in for a penny, you are in for a pound, but there is no real obligation.

To dispute your provided example, the vampire in FFI had no name that we knew of (for all we know, it could have been named Vilbert!). Also, Vilbert's very name includes the word vampire, so I couldn't imagine that too many readers didn't make the connection. On the other hand, the clues connecting Ur to Kraken are a bit more subtle, and even more so for Muffin/Tiamat (so much so that we aren't even 100% Muffin is Tiamat).

It is unfortunate that Brian chose to not be consistant, because that is something very valuable to an encyclopedia. Again, that might be his idea of a joke.

"It" or "he" works just as fine for me either way.

I'm not really sure, I suppose that whomever added that wanted the reader to know that they were still in the story and would likely make some sort of appearance... to contrast with BB, whom we have seen is never coming back along with other dead characters. I will edit it to a single entry. I will also add a blurb about the names. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 15:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, every fiend in the game was a big monster that guarded an orb, every fiend in the comic was a big monster that guarded an orb. I think that's enough to make the connection for anyone. Also, I think this article shouldn't so much explain connections as it should collect and represent the information given in the source (in this case the comic), and by giving the last two fiends' names as Kraken and Tiamat we're giving out wrong information, because those are not (that we know at this point) their names as given in the comic.

Once we got that down we can get to explaining the reference. In fact, the only difference I'd propose right now would be to remove the explanation from the title of the according sections and put it into a more streamlined form within the paragraph. --R. Wolff (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your last statement. Just mention Kraken/Tiamat in the descriptions (Kraken already has its source, perhaps we can use the episode where Dragoon says he's "not sure if Muffin was really her name" as a source for Tiamat?) Also, should we just leave Rex's name as Onion Kid? I don't really get what Brian's saying about 700.1 here. (The episode is canon but not OK's name?) --Jopasopa (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main/Minor Characters

Allow me to propose the following:

-Move Princess Sara, King Steve, and Dragoon to main characters. (Reasons: Sara and Dragoon have had entire story arcs practically devoted to them; Sara and Steve remain to be regular characters, even having their own side-stories along with other characters such as Gary and Hank.)

-Move Matoya and Bahamut to minor characters. (Reasons: Matoya's reappearances after they finished her quest have been mostly cameos; Bahamut, while very important, was only seen a few times.)

-Give Gary (Steve's left-hand man) his own section under minor characters. (Reasons: He's more than just a gag; if Megahedron can get his own section after only an episode and 1 joke, I think Gary can.)

I could maybe understand leaving Steve under minor since he's not too important, and I could definitely understand leaving Dragoon under minor until the current arc is finished. --Jopasopa (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think Sara, Steve, or Gary should be main characters. True, they show up plenty, but it's all side show stuff, and intermission to help break up the plot a bit. They haven't had a role in the plot since the comics numbered double digits. Gary does deserve a header of his own, though, and should be placed wherever Sata/Steve wind up.

I'm on the fence about moving Matoya and Bahamut: on one hand, they had a couple of big appearances and big roles, on the other, they aren't likely to show up again significantly, and only then as bit characters. I suppose when the article was first written, they were involved in a big portion of the plot, but now, they seem less significant compared to WM and BB and Sarda. I suppose I would weakly support moving them to minor.

Dragoon could very well be a main character if we see him at all now that the air orb arc is concluding. As of right now, though, I'd say no, he's a minor character. We will have to see if he disappears or not (I hope not, I like him). bahamut0013 ♠♣ 21:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering Sara and Steve are pretty much Matoya/Bahamut +2's (they were a key character for one arc, like them, but continue to be used regularly; also, Sara received more "screentime" in "her" quest than Matoya or Bahamut), I'll move Matoya and Bahamut to minor to remain consistent. I'll leave Sara and Steve where they are for now. (And Dragoon for the same reason you said.) --Jopasopa (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

-I'd like to know why my edit about Bard was removed. I mean I don't mind if there's a reason. I just thought it was as worthy of adding as anything. It seemed pretty official.

why does the above comment keep having it's signature removed? It's considered very rude to have an unsigned comment on a talk page. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 12:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have much to do with this wiki, so it put my ip address. I didn't like the idea so I signed up for a username. When I noticed it was putting my IP address again I assumed it was a hickup and so removed it. sorry again. [Virkokka] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virkokka (talk • contribs) 14:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To answer the question about Bard though, it was a one-time joke with no significance. At best it's just another example for Sarda's omnipotency, and we have enough of those to prove the point already. I didn't remove it, but I would on exactly those grounds. Should Bard somehow reappear until the end of the comic (very unlikely in my book) things might be different, depending on context. --R. Wolff (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

On a general note: I think we can't say for sure who's a main or minor character until the comic's over and everyone's role in the plot is completely clear. --R. Wolff (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I see someone added the Forest Imps. I was thinking we could maybe add a list of truly minor characters, something like this, except only like a sentence or 2 for each. Characters that can go there can be the Forest Imps, Queen Jane, the Sulk, Mob Boss (and his assistant), King Elf, and the Dwarf King. (I was also thinking Jeff and, if by the end he's nothing more than a gag, Megahedron. Maybe Gary, too.) Although I guess like 5 of those might be considered running gags. --Jopasopa (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What would that be good for, though? None of these characters are significant to the general plot, and there's very little that we could say about any of them that isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article already. What could we write about, say, Sulk that goes beyond "a Hulk parody"? It would boil down to just making an indiscriminate list of all characters.

And I just remembered that we did have a few of those in the article way back and eventually threw the lot of them out - there are a few paragraphs on that in the discussion archives - for that very reason. Personally I'm already very uncomfortable with including the imps - in fact, I've been saying for years that the entire running gag section could conveniently be deleted without any detrimental effects on the article as a whole. --R. Wolff (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I think a Minor Character page would be horrible. This page already gets fancruft every week (whenever Brian makes a joke character), and trying to keep that article up to the standards of the encyclopedia would be a nightmare.

On taht note, I don't think the Imps should be a character. They don't seem to have any collective personality, and for all we know, the ones we see could all be Garland's imagination. They just don't have any role in the plot other than a joke. We can add it to the running gag section of 8-bit Theater. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 15:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

They don't even merit that if you ask me. That section will pretty rapidly become a dump for insignificant tidbits of information if we include every recurring element. --R. Wolff (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was just if we were to keep the imps, since they threw things out of balance. --Jopasopa (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] character order

I understand that the current convention for what order a character appears in is chronologically, but I think we might explore a few other options. Today, I noticed that LHM Gary wound up pretty distant from King Steve, with whom he shares an image, and Princess Sara. It occurred to me that the three are pretty much exclusively seen in each other's company since around episode 100 or so. It made more sense to group them (if only for the image). Then I realized that Dr Swordopolis, Darko, and Megahedron would all have to be grouped as well for consistancy. Matoya and Bahamut would make sense together, since they have seen similar levels of import and "screen time" in the comic. The Raven and Dr. Malpractice have seen so little significance, they could be toward the bottom...

Am I appealing to anyone's sense? Or should we leave it as is? At least the chronological order would be incontrevertable and unarguable, while we could bicker for days who is more significant to the plot to go on top.... bahamut0013 ♠♣ 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I know the order is chronological, but I think the casual reader who has not read the comic would think the current order is rather haphazard. --Eruhildo (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)