Talk:8-Bit Theater/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Character bio

" His most powerful (and therefore, favourite) spell is called 'Hadoken!' A reference to Street Fighter, this spell seems capable of incredible destruction comparable to a nuclear bomb, but can only be cast once per day and it always seems that whenever he uses his Hadoken another situation pops up where it could have been much more useful." Hate this. Just not wikipedia-ish, in my opinion.

I dunno. The style is none too good, but it all seems to be accurate: no one would dispute the SF reference, the frequency of use, the destrictive power, the time limits, and the fact that a running gag seems to be Black Mage wasting his hadoken. --Maru (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm working on a cleanup of the character section. Most of these details should stay in the characters article, I think. Feezo (Talk) 07:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Red Mage, Blue Magic

I think the the comment about him being similar to a God Modder should be changed, he has merely recieved a class upgrade and can now cast Blue Magic (Enemy Skills) - Dark-Eco-Freak

Read today's comic carefully. Do you notice something? Danny Lilithborne 22:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
After some research I see a lot of RPG references that say the "rules" were bent a little but Red Mage wasn't the one who did it, it was their quest reward. I think it would be more accurate to say he changed classes and now has the ability to use Blue Magic, it seems stongly implied that the other characters have new abilities they don't know yet too meaning Red Mage wouldn't be the only "Godmodder" and thus making the comment redundant. - Dark-Eco-Freak
I don't think Red Mage learned Blue Magic, I think he just learned to Mimic. If it was Blue Magic, he wouldn't need to see someone else do something EVERY time he did it. Blue Magic only needs to be learned once, then the Mage can cast whenever he pleases. Furthermore, usually you have to be hit with a Spell before you learn it. - Neosuplex
The Biggest tipoff would be that Black Mage got Blue Magic. - NeoSuplex

Red Mage has blue magic, Black Mage has blue magic, and neither of them us it anymore. Whether or not Red Mage actually got blue magic or mimic and how blue magic works in Final Fantasy isn't relevant. It was called blue magic in the comic when Black Mage fired his Hadoken at Red Mage and missed, and Red Mage used the Hadoken back at him. Glotnot 11:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Black Mage called it Blue Magic, but Black Mage later admitted he was mistaken, too. --R. Wolff 16:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Red Mage does not have Blue Magic. In comic 648 RM claims to be unable to cast the Hadoken, and then mimics stealing from Thief. In #666 he mentions mimicing Fighter's swordfighting abilities and even mimicing crocheting abilibity from Fighter (#679). Red Mage, thusly, became a mime. And as for RM being a "Godmodder", remember the wiered dream sequences at the Cornerian Inn before setting off to fight Garland (#85)? In it, there is a quote of the Red Mage's quest to learn and understand the rules of their world; and that they are capable of "bending" the rules while not being able to fully break them. Remember "Rite of Stat Swap?". RM can very well be qualified as having some Godmod properties, but is unable to really assert any really useful power on the world. Nodnarb232001 10:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Summoner vs Warlock

The character sprite with the moon on its hat is NOT a summoner, it's a Warlock, the more powerful version of a Black Mage. The Summoner has a green robe and a horn growing out of his head. Look here[[1]] before reverting it again. (DrZarkov 02:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC))

Actually he's a Blue Mage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.59.225 (talk • contribs).

DrZarkov's comment is about the sprite used to represent Black Mage, not the character's class in the comic. Michael Slone (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Text Heavy?

Does anyone else think that there is a bit too much text here? Maybe a few charater pics would liven things up. BeefyJet 04:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I started adding pictures, but RM's and Theif's pictures have been deleted from the site.BioTube 02:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the main article particularly needs character pictures. The detailed bios (with the same pics) are linked from the character list. Also, since this section is intended to be short, I think four images of the Light Warriors would overbalance the text-to-image ratio. Fe e zo (Talk) 03:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks a little better with the picture adjustments, but a single picture with all four would be better. I don't know what happened to the pics of RM and Thief though. BioTube 00:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a picture from the one comic in which all four Light Warriors were riding blue Chocobos. I think it looks much better now. I also rearanged the bios from a random order to match the order they're standing in the picture. BioTube 18:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Random? Wasn't that the order of appearance? =P --R. Wolff 11:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably, now that I think about it. That thought had come to mind before, but I just settled with random when I wrote the comment. We can revert the order, if you can find(or make) a picture with them in that order. BioTube 18:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Running gags

This section is getting out of control. I'm not even sure it really belongs in the article. Thoughts? Feezo (Talk) 01:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, definitely. The old "I wanna retell that!" urge is at work again, I think. --R. Wolff 14:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the "unanswered questions" should probably be removed as well. The only real mystery in that section is the significance of the gods. I'm hesitant to just erase such a large part of the article though, without something to replace it. I'm working on a new "humor" section, which will attempt to describe the style of the comic without simply being a list of jokes. Feezo (Talk) 01:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Humor section is up. Running gags can probably be offloaded now. Feezo (Talk) 01:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody voiced an opinion to keep it, I deleted the running gags section. The most recent version in the article history is here. Feezo (Talk) 11:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I for one, agree with your decision. If the section is re-created there should be some relatively high standard for inclusion there. Such as a joke being used three or more times with a month separation between repetitions. The current "running gags" section was, indeed, getting out of hand, and reminiscient of listcruft. Better to start from scratch, if at all. — MSchmahl 11:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the section should be re-introduced with the following conditions (or a variation) being required;

It must have been shown at least 3 times in the comic
References to a previous strip are NOT running gags
Catch phrases are not running gags
Any running gag which has not been used for a long time (20 strips perhaps?) should be marked as disused until further noticed, or possibly even removed.Bisected8 17:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Unanswered Questions

I removed the above noted section. Frankly, I don't think it has any place in the article, and it was attracting fan speculation like nobody's buisness. I'm open for discussion if anyone thinks it should still be in there. - Kalarchis 02:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ack, sorry, I thought it was vandalism at first. Anyway, I don't see why it shouldn't stay. If there are a lot of speculation edits, they can just be reverted. Geg 17:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the section is just fancruft, and the fact that it draws so much speculation is good evidence of that. It really belongs more on a fansite or a forum than it does on an encyclopedia article (I don't see such a section on the Neon Genesis Evangelion page). But, even with that aside, I consider such a section to only be applicable after the work in question has been finished, and then only if the questions are particularly notable (meaning, not just the result of comedic non-continuity, which I think a couple of these are). - Kalarchis 18:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, let's have some more opinions on this. I'm going to wait a few more days, and if I don't get a good counter-argument by then, I'm going to take the section out. - Kalarchis 04:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The section seems pretty factual and non-speculative to me (might need a little more clean up on that). Anyway, it seems to be a decent listing of 'hanging minor threads' that could easily be revisited by the comic at some point. So, it's list of things the comic may reference at some point who's current setup is easily overlooked. (I might say that the second point is pure speculation, however.) --Rindis 05:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, but that really doesn't change my argument at all. I'm not arguing against its factuality, I'm arguing against its place in the article. - Kalarchis 04:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It had sounded like your major objection was that it was all speculation. I don't think it's a great section, but neither is it useless or out of place. IMHO. ;) Basically, I feel as a long work presented slowly, a small list things that could be easily forgotten (and therefore mystifying) when they turn into a actual plot thread is useful as a minor adjunct to information on the plot so far. (Of which there isn't much, which may be part of the problem.) Actually, I just realized this article could probably use some sort of section talking about the unusual way in which 8-bit is telling the story of FF1. --Rindis 16:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Reread my paragraph up there. My major objections are that it's fancruft and that such a section doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia article. To wit: Even if the dialoge in Episode 434 does appear again at the end of the comic, I still don't think it would be notable. So it's a dialoge from the future. So what? The comic does stuff like that all the time. Is it important and pivotal to the story/characters? No. Is it necessary to the article? No. It's fancruft. The Death of One, same deal. First of all, it wasn't even by Clevinger, so how canonical is it? Second of all, even if Clevinger told Sosa about an upcoming character death, was this written before or after Black Belt died? If before, then it's no longer notable. If after, and if it's been confirmed canonical, then it's alright if a note about it is put somewhere in the article. Megahedron. He's already covered in the characters section. But, is he important enough to warrant a note here? I don't think so. What's stated in the characters section is all that's needed. Same exact thing with The Gods.

I know I'm being kind of harsh about a harmless section, but I just don't think it belongs. - Kalarchis 19:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It's an on-going story and a list of notable plot threads should be included. Vandalism-ic changes by speculators is another issue all together, and you're not going to tell me this is the only section of any article on here that suffers from that problem. I don't care about "The Death of One," but the other three are notable enough to remain. NoDot 06:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The only one I would consider a notable plot thread is The Gods, as it's appeared multiple times throughout the comic. The dialoge in Episode 434 and Megahedron, on the other hand, only appeared once and haven't even been referenced since. I'd hardly call them plot threads. I'm willing to keep a section about The Gods, as yes, that does appear to be a major plot point. For the others, I stick to my comments above. - Kalarchis 07:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. "Episode 434" and "Death of One" do not appear to be connected with the plot. This leaves "Megahedron" and "The Gods", which could be moved to the characters section. Fe e zo (Talk) 13:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The main problem is that 434 cannot be referenced again, except when the dialog's source is revieled, so it obviously waiting for it to be mentioned again is essentially the end of the comic. So any debate might as well throw out that possible argument. (This isn't supposed to be an ad hominem attack, just that your argument leads to a Catch 22.) 434 is also unusual, because it's an example of blunt, obvious, and serious foreshadowing. The normal foreshadowing is either humorous or small enough not to be noticed without looking a bit.

Megahedron is notable for other reasons. He indicates another group of four, one which is actually parallel to the Light Warriors, unlike the Dark Warriors, the Other Warriors, and the Four Fiends. He's worth brief mention until he's seen again. NoDot 18:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes but, as I said, I still don't think 434 would be notable even if it shows up again at the end of the comic. It's just simply not important. And Megahedron does have brief mention...on the characters page. There's no reason to list him again here. - Kalarchis 06:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Then this is where we frankly disagree. 434 is notable for its obvious foreshadowing, IMO. NoDot 15:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not foreshadowing. It's a flashforward. We can speculate on the circumstances surrounding the dialoge, but there's really no foreshadowing in there. Nothing is revealed, except that at some point two characters are going to look back upon the event of the Light Warriors going to Gurgu. So, is that bit of information really important? Does it add anything to the article? I don't think so. - Kalarchis 00:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Rindis/NoDot/Anyone else who disagrees with me, what's the verdict? I'm not going to change anything until I know whether or not you guys still have arguments about this. - Kalarchis 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed "Megahedron" and "The Death of One." I would still like to remove "Episode 434", but I'm still waiting for responses from those who disagree. - Kalarchis 07:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been over a month now, so why don't we see if we can live without it for now? --R. Wolff 13:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Field of Battle

Removed the following: It is also dedicated to an 8-bit reader named Ray who is "very far from home," presumably stationed in Iraq.

It's dedicated to "Roy G. Bivowitz," a name that (as has been pointed out somewhere on the Nuklearpower forums) could be derived from the colors of the rainbow. Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet => ROYGBIV. I think this is just another typical Clevinger joke, but if anyone has information that indicates otherwise, I'll be happy to be corrected. ^^ --R. Wolff 16:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Rating

I asked on the WikiProject Webcomics page and was told a rating in the infobox should be based on an actual rating. Just to clear that up. ^^ --R. Wolff 06:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the Site?

I kinda feel bad about posting this here, it seems like me asking for help, but anyway, has the site been having problems? Because the comic won't display on my computer. Is it me, or is there an issue on the site? DoomsDay349 03:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am having no problems with the site, so it must be your computer. - Kalarchis 19:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sorry I figured it out. Sorry! DoomsDay349 20:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference to Wikipedia

Today's (2006 15 Aug) comic makes a fun reference to Wikipedia. I thought some of you might enjoy it. — MSchmahl… 10:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure Emmett5 will. Fe e zo (Talk) 10:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it amusing that there was a lot changed to the page (stuff that doesn't appear to be in the history) and yet Brian missed one reference to 'Wikipedia', never bothering to change it to 'Magipedia'. - Fëaluinix 07:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion for reintroducing the running gags section

I was thinking (to keep the list short) that the following criteria should be met;

The joke may not be a reference to pop culture
- Though repeat references to a specific area of popular culture may be considered (e.g. Simpsons references)
It must have appeared at least three times
It is useful in deciding (though not necessary) if the joke has been parodied (e.g. The gunpowder "amnesia dust")

I can't remember what would be included in this list, feel free to point out flaws in my logic and such. - Bisected8 21:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would an encyclopedia need such a list in the first place? None of these running gags have any bearing on the main plot (not that we know of, anyway) or the characters. Put it this way: anyone who knows the comic knows the running gags, anyone who doesn't know the comic probably doesn't want to know about such miniscule details, but rather what the whole thing is about. (Now that I've written this, I realize there's a significant lack of information regarding running gags as part of the overall humour of 8BT, and I will rectify that shortly.) --R. Wolff 17:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The article for Concerned has the series running gags, as would the articles for other web comics (probably) if I looked. - Bisected8 20:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. I did a quick runthrough of popular ones - Bob and George, Sinfest, Sluggy Freelance, Ctrl+Alt+Del and VG Cats. Sluggy has a section on "Traditions," but references to earlier storylines are a big part of that comic. The others all either don't mention running gags or do so only in passing. As for Concerned, I don't know the comic, and I did find the section on running gags largely uninteresting. --R. Wolff 21:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because you don't find it interesting doesn't mean others won't. Personally I love running gag sections (or any other form of infomation which can be presented in a list TBH). - Bisected8 21:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because you love 'em doesn't mean they're noteworthy. ;) You know what, let's try and find some kind of official policy on the subject, or ask the guys at Project:Webcomics, because we're not going to come to a conclusion this way. Deal? --R. Wolff 07:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense - Bisected8 10:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Webcomics#Is_there_a_consensus_on_running_gags_sections.3F - Bisected8 18:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That does help somewhat. We should keep in mind that those running gags are just that and don't have much of a bearing on the main storyline (at least not as far as we know). --R. Wolff 10:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The "young" character sprites

In the flashbacks (e.g. when Fighter/BM met) are those the FF map sprites? - Bisected8 12:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The child versions of the characters (and "chibi" versions of the normal characters) are the sprites used in the Overworld Map in Final Fantasy. Cat's Tuxedo 13:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that should be noted in the relevant section of the article then? - Bisected8 14:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This article lacks information.

There's a huge problem with this article. 8-Bit Theater is a plot- and character-driven comic, yet all this article has to offer is side informations and website trivia. The fleshy parts are in separate articles, which seems like a lot of needless clicking - not to mention that, if push comes to shove, this article has the least information of the four currently existing. And it's supposed to be the main article.

I propose a radical change in organisation. We should eliminate all information from the other three articles that isn't absolutely necessary for an outside reader to get what the comic is about. Then we should merge all articles into one. In their current form they are little more than a platform for fans to enter their favourite moments or spread their interpretations of events in the comic. We can do better.

--R. Wolff 19:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Some good pictures

Found some good shots of the Light Warriors in their normal bio order: [2] [3] [4]
I personally prefer the first panel of the second one I linked. --Jopasopa 02:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Cultural References

I think it's extremely ill-advised to try and list every single reference in the comic. Extremely. The comic is full of those, and a complete list would almost certainly end up being larger than the recommended article limit by itself while not telling an uninformed reader anything new or relevant in particular. --R. Wolff 17:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking because each of the Family Guy episode entries have a 'cultural references' section, I thought it'd make Wikipedia more complete if this page had one too. That's why I added one to the Rayman Raving Rabbids page. Just wanted to point that oot. Cat's Tuxedo 01:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the section should be limited to just saying basically "8-Bit Theater makes many cultural allusions, both pop and non, both recent and obscure/long past; here's a short list of very good examples to edify you and prove the previous clauses were not a load of crap." --Gwern (contribs) 05:18 3 December 2006 (GMT)

I'm taking the section out. There is simply not enough room here to list and explain every single reference. I will add something about cultural references to the Humour section, but I ask that examples in that section are kept to one or two overall. If you're interested in creating a comprehensive and complete list, I suggest visiting the Nuklearpower Forums. --R. Wolff 15:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

List of every sprite used in the comic

This section strikes me as completely unnecessary. I can't imagine why it belongs in an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia is not intended to be the sole source of all trivia. --Pariahpress 02:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean you should delete a whole section without asking - Bisected8 11:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, I agree with Pariahpress. I was going to edit it down to maybe half size, but removing it entirely works for me. --R. Wolff 12:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought I was supposed to "Be Bold," eh? Okay, I'm asking, "Why should this even be in an encyclopedia entry?" --Pariahpress 03:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

My obejction isn't that you deleted it, its that you asked if you should delete it, and then delted it anyway without waiting for a response--Bisected8 11:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't ASKING, I was EXPLAINING myself. --71.214.122.248 18:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Who said you weren't?--Bisected8 12:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Putting the list here in case someone wants to know what sprites are used and/or it is decided to bring it back without digging through the page history. --Jopasopa 17:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned image from the plot article

Image:Lightws.png was orphaned after the plot article was merged. Please add it to this article (or a related article) if you wish to keep it. --- RockMFR 00:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability

Pointing out a lack of Notability according to guidlines defined by Wikipedia is NOT trolling, despite what fans of the material may believe. It's nice that you added one source, but the guideline states: "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.". To meet this, you will need at LEAST one more source. Even then, I'm uncertain that a thesis paper at a college meets the "non-trivial, reliable published work" criteria. I'm a fan of 8bit myself, but the article needs to notable just as any other Wikipedia article. If this cannot be done, I recommend maintaining the article in the Comixpedia wiki instead. 68.84.81.13 18:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please pardon my edit summary, your above explanation wasn't up when I made it. Regarding notability, see 1. Feezo (Talk) 19:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, I tried to post them right together, but I think the internet-tubes were clogged. ;) And if I was supposed to wait until after discussion before re-editing, I apologise. My thought was that the notice would lead more people to actually LOOKING at the discussion page to help find and add those notability references. Moving on... If in fact the 2002 WCCA award and the Wired News article are notable and substantial enough for notability requirements, then they should be added to the article's "Reference" or "External link" section and then Notability should never again be an issue. My concern with the the three sources mentioned are: (1) I'm not sure a Thesis paper can be considered for notability requirements, especially if it is written by a web comic author (same field, thus biased); (2) I'm not certain of the WCCA award's notability which, if I read the guideline page correctly, is required for them to be an acceptable source of establishing notability (makes sense to me); and (3) I'm not certain whether or not (due to my contributing inexperience) Wired's article passes the check for "non-triviality". - 68.84.81.13 19:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What webcomic does Charles Rozakis author? I can find nothing in Wikipedia or in Google; further, if he is a webcomic guy, that would seem to strengthen his credentials as he would be more of an expert as opposed to a (possibly) totally clueless layman. The article at present seems to meet WP:WEB, particularly either 1 or 2. --Gwern (contribs) 20:12 17 January 2007 (GMT)

My bad, for some reason I read Anez in the quote and transposed that to the thesis' author. Dunno what's wrong with me making a mistake like that. Anyway, that part aside, my previous post's points on my fears of the other two sources still stand. If you believe them to meet criteria, fine by me. I'm just trying to get the article up to standards as 8bit is a great, long running webcomic (which has long graced my read-list) and deserves nothing less. :) 68.84.81.13 20:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The WCCA award has been found non-notable and I'd call the Wired article trivial as it goes on about a bunch of web comics. Is there anything else or should this be brought to AfD? --Simonkoldyk 05:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the Wired article is trivial or you would call it trivial? Moreover, why should something be trivial because it concerns webcomics? Are they trivial in themselves? --R. Wolff 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering Wikipedia's rather blasé stance that every webcomic is non-notable, regardless of printed volumes, awards won, or notability of the author (see Talk:Evil_Inc. and Talk:Girly), I wouldn't be surprised if this article gets deleted. Wikipedia is a web-based encyclopedia, and as such, people are going to be coming to it for information about web-based items that really don't have any notability outside of the internet. In addition, Wikipedia does have Wikipedia:WikiProject_Webcomics going on; surely then the issue is less one of notability and more one of readership? Is a newspaper with a large readership not notable because other newspapers don't talk about it? 67.177.38.246 13:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Plot synopsis too short?

I might be going out on a limb here, but am I the only one who thinks the plot section could use a little fleshing out, particularly the bit about the orbs? Nowhere near how big the original one was, but something more might be better. At least a small explanation of the individual orb arcs might be good, in my opinion, rather than just dismissing the whole thing with just one sentence. Some other major plot points skipped over include the class change. Again, I'm not saying we have to devote a huge paragraph to each, but a little information would be useful I think. Lord Seth 18:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hosted On

Sorry if I'm way out of line, its just I saw this "8-Bit Theater is hosted by ZeStuff" under the introduction and was wondering if that was correct seeing as I couldn't find mention of it on the website. To the best of my knowledge zestuff was just a online store for 8bit, vgcats and others (the vgcats wiki page stating that vgcats is hosted on its own webpage). I'm not sure about whats true or not, just hoping to bring it to the attention of someone who does know —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.149.53.192 (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Arc Names

Where did the names for each arc come from? They sound very made up by whoever edited that in. --Jopasopa 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much, yeah. If you can think of something better, by all means, change it. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 15:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Recurring elements

I've added this not to bring back the recurring gags, but to showcase some of the fundamental jokes that make b-Bit Theater popular. There really shouldn't be any more added without some discussion first. The ones I've listed have come up many many times over the run of the comic, are more than just the occasional recycled joke, and are somewhat of a foundation for the Light Warrior's personalities and how they interact.
I was considering adding a line about BM and WM's relationship, such as it is. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 22:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm on the fence about this - it's a very good addition, but with some of these elements it seems redundant to have them described both here and in the character biographies. --R. Wolff (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it makes you feel better, I started with Sword-Chucks because the article on it got deleted before the page was merged, like [discussion] said. I figured Hadoken was along the same lines, then the twinking out, and I decided to include Thief as well. We can reduce it back to just Sword-Chucks and Hadoken if you like, since those are better known than the comic itself. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 12:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hijacked / Missing

I just found that the site has been taken over by a site camper. Has 8-bit Theatre lost its host or been hacked? If so, does anyone know where it might have gone or what happened?

Sleet01 (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks fine to me. I just read the lastest strip like an hour or two ago without any problems. --Eruhildo (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

POV

"Also, the comic has a really unique sense of humor.": POV. Deleting.

Ahhhh....Good ol' 8-Bit Theatre....Still one of my favorite webcomics. It's up there with Bob & George and Kid Radd.... --Max Allen

Other good comics include ctrlaltdel-online.com, vgcats.com and pixelcomic.net . --netrider6

Gotta love 8-Bit Theater. MKguy42192 (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Page move: 8-Bit Theater -> 8-Bit Theatre

Even on their website, it is 8-bit Theatre, not Theater. Why then, does Theatre redirect to Theater? --Fëaluinix 08:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The website uses both theater and theatre in different places. --Clawed 10:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Ex. on the main page, the section of links dealing with '8-Bit Theater' are spelled Americanly, and the FAQ refers to it Americanly, Brian Clevinger is American (or at least resident in America- that much I am sure of)... I'd say don't move it. Redirects are fine.

'8-Bit Theater' on google: 189,000 hits. -'8-Bit Theatre' on google: 77,800 hits, and many of the pages are mixed betwixt 'theater' and 'theatre'. 'Nuff said. --maru 14:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

How confusing. -Fëaluinix 03:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

What is confusing about it? I gave examples from the site, and hard evidence of usage, all indicating that the global preference is for 'theater' not 'theatre', and that 'theatre' is if anything a vestige of 8-Bit theater's early days. --maru 10:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I just meant it was confusing to have both spellings on the website. Yes, you have all convinced me we should keep the American spelling. Fëaluinix 23:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

You have a good point. MKguy42192 (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 11:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Storyline:???

Looking at the completely empty section for Storyline, it looks like someone was in the middle of editing. Was it anyone here? And if it is, please submit the rest. As it stands it looks pretty silly to skip straight to links without any plot summary at all. --maru 01:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I've started a storyline, and since I'm kinda new at this it'll most likely have some errors. If you know, please fix them, 'cause I think it will be something big soon.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ridley (talk • contribs).

Just start fixing it, and we will all be happy. MKguy42192 (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Constant removal/reverts of the Characters section

This is concerning the issue of 68.194.250.30 constantly removing the information in the characters section (leaving just a link to the Characters of 8-Bit Theater entry). Then someone else (it varies who) reverts it back to its current version, with a brief summary of the most important characters on the main page, with a link to Characters of 8-Bit Theater, which has detailed information of the characters, plus mentions a host of minor characters not mentioned on the main page.

The version as it stands (character summary info on the main page, detailed information in its own setion) is good. It's how numerous wikipedia entries handle things. As it is now, people can get enough information to get enough information of the setting, etc. by viewing the main article (which is thus important to understand 8-Bit Theater -- the topic of the article). And if they want detailed reviews with histories, etc., they can view Characters of 8-Bit Theater.

And, consensus seems to be against 68.194.250.30, given that (s)he's the only person removing the section, while various other people put it back in. Though I do think a discussion is in order, so we can get a more clear consensus stated. So, comments people? (68.194.250.30 especially). --Matthew0028 04:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think as is is pretty good- I question the inclusion of White Mage, since she is not yet a major character (major humour, but not character), but I defintely don't think the whole section should be replaced. --Maru 13:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Major or minor, White Mage is just there. Brian ought to do more jokes with her and Black Mage. It's classic! MKguy42192 (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Forums

It has been mentioned on the forums that 8-Bit Theatre was supposed to be a series of parody sprite comics that focuses on different legendary 8-bit video games (Metroid, River City Ransom, etc.)

Is there any evidence for this? More specifically, does someone have a link to the forum post, or does anyone other than 70.29.255.176 recall this post? If not, it should probably be removed as unverifiable.

- Matthew0028 03:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to have to second this question. Does anyone else remember it? NoDot 22:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remember it, but a bit of googling led to this:

Trivia: The comic is not, technically, called 8-bit Theater. 8-bit Theater is the name I used for the section that hosted sprite comics on my old site. The idea was to run several comics. The Final Fantasy one that you're all familiar with, a story about Samus while she hunted down the last Metroid, a parody of 2D shooters (which saw some of its material in the too-darn-short-lived Space Blaster series of donation comics), a re-telling of the Mega Man mythos, and probably something with the River City Ransom sprites because it's a great game/series and the sprites are so easy to manipulate.

But everyone liked the FF one so much I just stuck with it.

Michael Slone (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As long as the comic remains, I just don't care. MKguy42192 (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank the lord!......And Black Mage.

I want to know who created this page. I had never before known that there was a page on this extremely funny webcomic. Who knew? If you did, you could of told me sooner!I'm still looking up at least another 70,000 pages.(Exagerrating, yes, but I think there is a ton of pages I still haven't seen.) MKguy42192 (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Piscodemon Redirect

Is there any particular reason that the word "Piscodemon" redirects here? To my observation, the word isn't even contained anywhere in the article. Piscodemons were in FFI, but in the NES version, which this comic is based on, they were mistranslated/renamed as "Wizards." Does anyone know anything about this? Unless someone can explain some compelling reason this should redirect here, I'm thinking the redirect should be removed. Ashelia (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. But Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Piscodemon contains a previous discussion that seems relevant. -Phoenixrod (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sprites used

All of the sprites used in 8-Bit Theater are either directly taken from, or edits of sprites from Final Fantasy I, II, or III.

Sprite List

Black Mage Pre-Class Change .... Black Mage (Final Fantasy)
Black Mage Post-Class Change .... Warlock (Final Fantasy III)
Fighter Pre-Class Change .... Fighter (Final Fantasy)
Fighter Post-Class Change, Vargus .... Knight (Final Fantasy III)
Thief Pre-Class Change .... Thief (Final Fantasy)
Thief Post-Class Change .... Final Fantasy III Ninja, with FF 1 head (Final Fantasy III)
Red Mage Pre-Class Change .... Red Mage (Final Fantasy)
Red Mage Post-Class Change .... Red Wizard, with altered head (Final Fantasy III)
White Mage .... White Wizard (Final Fantasy III)
Good Princess Sara .... Elia, altered (Final Fantasy III)
Evil Princess Sara .... Sara (Final Fantasy III)
King Steve .... Prince Allus sprite with custom head
Black Belt .... Black Belt (Final Fantasy)
Matoya .... White Magic Shopkeeper, recolor (Final Fantasy)
Matoya (small sprite) .... Matoya (Final Fantasy)
Sarda the Sage .... Dorga head on custom body (Final Fantasy III)
Garland without armor .... MKnight (Final Fantasy III)
Garland with armor .... MKnight, altered (Final Fantasy III)
Bikke the Pirate .... Altered FF1 Thief sprite (made fatter) & custom head (Final Fantasy I)
Prince Drizz'L .... Gordon, altered (Final Fantasy II)
Vilbert von Vampire .... Scholar, altered (Final Fantasy III)
Onion Kid .... Onion Kid (Final Fantasy III)
Real Light Warrior #1 .... Knight (Final Fantasy)
Real Light Warrior #2 .... Ninja (Final Fantasy)
Real Light Warrior #3 .... Red Wizard (Final Fantasy)
Real Light Warrior #4 .... White Wizard (Final Fantasy)
Akbar .... a citizen (Final Fantasy)
The Messenger .... Archer (Final Fantasy III)
Elite Royal Guard Hank .... Dragoon (Final Fantasy III)
Generic Half-Elven Dual-Class Ranger .... Bard (Final Fantasy III)
Berserker Axinhed .... Viking, altered (Final Fantasy III)
Cleric .... Summoner, altered (Final Fantasy III)
Rogue, Bikke's Crew .... Thief (Final Fantasy III)

You forgot the sulk, and brian clevinger, who are from megaman on the nes. --65.87.242.28 (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Is another more recent comic strip a better image to have at the top?

Or is the image significant, as it is from the first comic with commentary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.242.28 (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not the first by far, all commentaries for the others just got lost during a site update. As for the question, I guess one image is as good as any other. The present one does have the advantage of illustrating the graphical style and humour of the comic with no need for any lengthy explanations. Do feel free to suggest a different image if you have an idea, though. --R. Wolff (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Both Light Warriors (8-Bit Theater) and Characters of 8-Bit Theater should be condensed and merged into this section, as no assertion to their notability independent of the subject is established. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See? It's not just me! But seriously, been meaning to do that for a long time - it's just a pretty hefty task. --R. Wolff (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, I'll get on it... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy

Perhaps this should be added into WikiProject Final Fantasy? Korodzik (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The End

Anybody want to bother trying to add information about the strip ending? I expected its fruitless until no strip shows up on Saturday, and people realize that Clevinger isn't joking. (24.209.129.93 (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC))

Talk about a bit of a let-down. But I expected no less from such genius 71.233.44.94 (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the admins just closed the thread about it on the official site claiming that he/she was of the opinion that it was just a joke. I think we should wait for official confirmation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.146.204 (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That admin knows no more than anybody else. He closed the thread because it was getting way too heated. Given the totality of the evidence, I think we should take it at face value unless events show otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.135.161 (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There's evidence for this as the real end and there's evidence for the opposite, both real and imagined, and there's really no use trying to finalize anything right now and certainly no use fighting over it. Might as well put whatever we like, it's not like we can't change it again when either outcome gets confirmed on Saturday. --R. Wolff (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

More proof that it's a hoax. Direct quote from the writer's significant other on their official forums.

"Good Christ, people. This is that one April Fool's comic all over again.

YOU HAVE BEEN TROLLED. HTH. HAND." I think we should leave it as the original until a more official confirmation. Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.146.204 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.172.3 (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Look you guys do whatever you like but I'm just saying, you might as well not bother doing anything at all, cause nobody cares if the Wikipedia article on a silly little internet comic is inaccurate for two days. --R. Wolff (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the attitude that keeps people (including me) from taking Wikipedia seriously. 'Meh, who cares if it's inaccurate, someone else can fix it later.' ZydecoRogue (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we hardly had a choice and there was a definite point in the close future where we'd know for sure. It's certainly not a useful stance to adopt when "later" could mean "tomorrow or in two years or never." --R. Wolff (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wolff if right, this was the kind of situation where waiting to see how it develops and being inaccurate for a day or two would have been better than jumping the gun and posting false/unconfirmed information. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 21:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

ZydecoRogue, I fail to see how better to deal with some information that is changing while time passes. You will notice that it is a suggestion to keep the information tentative until confirmed, not to keep it wrong per se. BTW, it turns out that strip 1071 is aptly titled "Hook, Line and Sinker". The end is not yet there. Luis Dantas (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Bunch of over-eager knuckleheads... if it wasn't obvious that this was, or at least could be, a joke... well, you're not smart enough to edit Wikipedia. 75.178.67.254 (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. If you really thought that Clevinger might end it in the middle of so many story arcs, with an ending like that, and with no comment or anything - you definitely shouldn't be editing this story because you lack for all common sense. --Gwern (contribs) 20:23 13 December 2008 (GMT)

OK, I think we all get the point, but lets not be insulting everyone who fell for it and edited the article (WP:CIVIL). bahamut0013 ♠♣ 21:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Plot section

I did some editing in the plot section. Rather than giving a play-by-play of what happens in each episode or minor storyarc I aimed for giving a very broad summarization of events. In retrospect, a lot of minor arcs described in there didn't have a lot of significance.

Now something that's missing entirely are the Other Warriors. Do we include them? Keep in mind, I'm not sure if they have any large significance to the story as a whole, and I don't think we can know until the comic's over. I'd prefer to wait until then, but if we do include them, though, we should mention them at three points for now: their first appearance, during the Air Orb arc, and getting killed by Sarda. --R. Wolff (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I'm going to do a brief cleanup, I spotted some spelling errors and places where a wikilink could go. I'll post back when done. bahamut0013^words _deeds 17:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I forgot exactly when the Other Warriors first appeared, so I linked them in at thier confrontation with Sarda. You can move the link as appropriate. bahamut0013^words _deeds 18:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure it was around the Fire Orb arc. I'll check and put one or two lines about them in. Meanwhile, do you mind if I take the bit about voting back out of the last paragraph? It doesn't make much sense if we don't explain what they were voting for, but at the same time that's ultimately too insignificant to explain. --R. Wolff (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually think it's pretty relevant, because it demonstrates one of Clevinger's favorite writing styles: build up the tension, ratchet the audience up for a conflict, then offer an anti-climactic non-battle. I also feel it merits inclusion because without noting it, you skip past several weeks worth of content without so much as a word, as well as diminish the understanding of why they agree to truce for the night. I suppose it may become a non-issue as as teh strip develops, but we can always remove it if necessary.

For similar reasons, I'd like to re-insert "After a series of prolonged stops in Onrac and Gaia...": that is months of strips cut out of the plot summary, and it is a very concise way to sum them up. bahamut0013^words _deeds 10:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Okay, I put a line about that in. I'm just always wary about mentioning things that aren't very significant, even if they take up months of "comic runtime." Then again, those cities are stations in the game and it won't hurt to reflect that in this article.

Incidentally, the runtime argument is interesting, and I'm not sure how I feel about it. If a chapter in a book takes the author a long time to write, but is ultimately unimportant for the very general plot, would it get included in a plot summary just for the time factor? I think it's more important to look at how much time reading the finished chapter (/book/comic) takes and how it measures up against the rest of the work. I guess in this case that's something to consider once the comic is finished, though (and also the Wikipedia guidelines for plot summaries). --R. Wolff (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not referring just to how long it takes the author (we really have no idea unless he happens to mention it). There are examples of literature where huge portions of it are character development with no plot (examples: Lonesome Dove, or The Waste Lands). Would you cut half of a book out of an article because there is no plot movement at all? I think maintaining a balance is absolutely critical, so thus I'm OK with several month's worth of comics being reduced to a single sentance, wheras some fast-moving events over a few episodes can take up a whole paragraph, depending on the impact to the plot they maintain. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Flash movies

82.7.34.105 keeps adding links to a youtube version of the comic made by himself (confirmed by an IP search on the nuklearpower forums) here and in the Light Warriors article. There's probably a conflict of interest there regarding promotion through external links, so I removed the reference here. I'm actually wondering about the notability of the "Other Media" section in General: that other flash series is, for all intents and purposes, discontinued and has been for a long time. I do faintly recall Clevinger mentioning that one on the site, though - if we're gonna keep it, we should find a reference for that. And by "we" I mean you. Yes, you. --R. Wolff (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I was dubious about keeping it at all as well, but I do recall it having more or less "official" sanction from Clevenger, so I pruned it down and left it. If it's not referenced within a few days, I'll remove it. bahamut0013^words _deeds 06:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This fellow did it again. I'm pretty sure it's a good faith edit and the anon simply isn't familiar with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines concerning external links, spam, and edit warring; however, the lack of acknowledgement to his/her talk page messages does trouble me a bit. The simple fact that he or she keeps re-adding the link, quite persistantly, makes me think that we may need to request a short-term block if this keeps going on without any communication: that'll certainly get this fellow's attention and get him or her to reply. Maybe a day or so, just long enough to disrupt the editing pattern and make sure the user understands that he or she is doing something in violation of Wikipedia's rules. Any thoughts? bahamut0013^words _deeds 05:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I may have been hasty in that assertation of good faith... the anon not only is aware of the warning, but managed to use the undo function on his talk page to remove a warnng: diff bahamut0013^words _deeds 05:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd do longer than a day. I actually don't know the best way to contact an admin about one specific user, but if I did I would have done it yesterday already. --R. Wolff (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for intervention from an admin I know well. bahamut0013^words _deeds 10:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked: log says 24 hours. Thank you ER! bahamut0013^words _deeds 05:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So hey. We were gonna wait / look for references to the Flash movies. Well, there's only one mention of it in a newstext on nuklearpower.com, and that's a) from 2004 and b) not even on the site proper anymore since a new site design went live. I only found it in the Google cache. (Search term was "TLF site:www.nuklearpower.com", for reference.) Considering all that, the fact that it's apparently discontinued and the lack of arguments against it since we proposed a removal, I'm going to go through with it. --R. Wolff (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. I forgot about it myself. :P bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

General changes to the articles

I'm gonna change some things around and document the changes here.

1. rearranged the sections in the main article. I looked at a few webcomic articles (mainly The Order of the Stick and Megatokyo) and noticed they have the character section before the plot section. I think this is good because it'll allow us to skip any descriptions of characters in the plot section. I put the "recurring events" section at the end because I'm not sure if it's not just a trivia list at this point, we should look at that separately.

2. speaking of removing redundancies, I'll move plot events from the character articles to the plot section here. Again, that seems to be how the other webcomic articles do it, and it makes more sense to me. Plus, that way we can get sources for currently unsourced plot points.

More to come as I think of it. --R. Wolff (talk) 08:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Let's keep in mind that all of the anons will insist on adding it back in every week. :P

We might want to consider merging the Light Warriors back into the Character list... the former is fairly short now, but the latter is pretty long. bahamut0013^words _deeds 10:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A merge like that is definitely part of my plan. :P I haven't properly looked at the Characters article yet but I'm sure it has a lot of material that would be better suited for the plot section, so that article will probably also shrink a bit.

At the moment, though, I'm happy to stick with just removing redundancies. At least until the comic's over and we can definitely determine the overall significance of events. Probably gonna have to do some major editing then. --R. Wolff (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Theater / Theatre

I think the IP who recently removed the reference to "Theatre" as an alternate spelling had a point. If it's really never been used in the comic or in official sources, we shouldn't include it - sure lots of people use the British spelling, but that's a result of alternate spellings of the actual word, not so much anything to do with the comic itself.

Example: Mystery Science Theater 3000. I'm sure lots of people would spell it Mystery Science Theatre but that's not referenced in the article text because it's obvious. The alternate spelling does redirect to the article, and that's all we should do for this one.

Unless "Theatre" is a variation that has actually been widely used by Clevinger at some point, of course. --R. Wolff (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I recall there being a big argument about this a few years ago... though I can't recall if it was here or at the NP forums. But suffice to say, there is a large enough British audience that they used to keep adding it to the article. bahamut0013^words _deeds 06:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well okay, but should it be done here, or is it more like the business with Red Mage's last name?

Here's that argument, by the way - it revolves around the use of "theatre" on the site itself, but nowadays the site uses "Theater" exclusively as far as I could find out. I also checked the Wikipedia FAQ, which say to use British spelling in UK-related articles and American spelling in US-related articles. (Wikipedia:COFAQ#ENGLISH)

So, "8-Bit Theater" is the official name (from how it's spelled on the current version of the site) and it's an US-comic. And while it's true that British readers would spell it "theatre," that's true of anything that has the word in the title and doesn't need to be mentioned specifically. --R. Wolff (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm convinced, but I do think we should give this discussion at least a week or so before implementing, to offer other users a chance to weigh in (despite the fact that you and I seem to be just about the only regular editors lately). bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, it's not going anywhere after all. --R. Wolff (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like anyone objects. It is done. --R. Wolff (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Achive of 8BT news posts

Since the migration to the new site layout, old news posts on nuklearpower.com have not been restored, and from what I can tell, probably won't be. However, a few of the refs on the page refer to these news posts by Brian (and others) instead of the comic themselves. For example, this removed ref used to be for a link Brian had posted regarding sword-chucks on March 9, 2007; but the migration removed the news post and left only the comic. Unfortunately, I can't find an old version because the Internet Archive is now blocked from the website: "We're sorry, access to http://www.nuklearpower.com has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt." Does anyone know of an archive of news posts that we can reference instead? Or perhaps Clevinger would be receptive to removing the exclusion? bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is: even if he could be persuaded to remove the exclusion, archive.org still won't have archived the newspost during the timespan it was up. And now, of course, it's too late. Tricky. I think our best bet is to go through the references and check for every one that leads to a newspost if a different, more permanent reference can be found for the same point, for example on the forums (which is still a somewhat loose definition of "permanent"). For the swordchucks one, for example, we could maybe reference the CC game itself. If we can't find one we'll probably have to make do without a reference, and where points can't be held upright without a reference, without those points. --R. Wolff (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do know that as recently as a few months ago, there was no exclusion. I was bored last Feb and was looking at an archive of the origional site, waaaaay back in the day (circa 2001). I wonder if they still have it archived, and it's mere unaccessible, or of they deleted the archives when the exclusion came up. bahamut0013^words _deeds 04:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if they deleted it. If Clevinger were to allow archiving again in the future, they'd suddenly be left with nothing at all, which can't possibly be in their interest. We might have a chance there. --R. Wolff (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Latest developments

Just chiming in to say I'm completely fine with how we're doing things right now, i.e. waiting until a storyarc (or, as the case is presently, the entire comic) plays out completely, but we should at least give the issue a spot on the discussion page. Either to be convinced otherwise or to have something to point to as a revert reason. :)

My reasons are simple: there are likely to be a few new plot points coming up and we have no way of knowing which of the parts that are already written those will influence and make necessary to rewrite. Since the comic's end is just around the corner, we might as well wait until everything's on the table and then do one big revision/rewrite of the entire plot section.

Need to do that anyway because as plot summaries go this one is pretty long and could stand some trimming, but we can't know what we can safely trim until we have a definite ending and there's no chance anymore that a seemingly minor plot point from the past pops up as a central plot point now. See also: Sarda, young Sarda. --R. Wolff (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

While you have a point I've long agreed with, I do think that anons and new editors are going to simply make the changes without checking the discussion page. So if there happens to be an issue, we can bring it up then. I do usually check the contribs of anons and unfamiliar editors who appear on my watchlist, simply to see if they are making the same edits more than once, that way I can drop a note on thier talk page as needed. But I think this section suffices your intent anyway. :P

I definately agree that once we see the end of the series, we can make a real summary, and one that isn't seven paragraphs long. We can them shift some of those clever events that aren't particularly important to the overall plot, but which will keep getting good-faith edits to add them, into the biographies or something. You example of the orphan being Sarda is one I was wrestling with a bit last night... do we want to have mentions of this lad's suffering through the whole summary so that a reader can understand why he would want revenge when he grows older, or just a half-sentance blurb when it finally becomes relevant (which is what I went with). Once the series is done, and it surely will be soon, we can make those decisions final. I'll also point out that while this summary is large, I do think it's not too far from being proportionate... for example, the average film or book article has about three or so paragraphs devoted to plot summary. However, there are notable exceptions for thinsg like Lord of the Rings, which have such large and convoluted plots that condensing it such would mean having no mention of huge portions of the book. I believe that the same issue will apply here. But I digress... we can get to the nuts and bolts in a few months.

Sure will be a drag, though... by this time next year, there probably won't be any significant edits left to make to this article. :( bahamut0013^words _deeds 10:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

See, I'd rather shift event descriptions from the biographies into the plot summary. :) I think that's how other, similar articles do it, but we can still check when the time rolls around. (On the other hand, maybe it's a good idea to get as much discussion out of the way early?) For young Sarda a half-sentence at the end is definitely enough, I think. In fact we can probably cut/paste the last paragraph from his section in the characters article right over. --R. Wolff (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to devices that aren't very relevant to the overall plot, but do paint a better understanding of the character... like how Thief stole his Ninja class upgrade from his future self at an inopportune moment: the mention that the Light Warriors got a class downgrade is relevant (probably) to the Choas confrontation, but not that detail in specific. But that detail does illustrate his greed and skill in stealing, which makes it great for his bio. But like you and I have agreed, right now we can't see the plot as a whole, so we aren't in a very good position to decide what we should keep, what should go, and what should be developed further.

I'm also going to do some image maintenance... right now, they are pretty haphazard. We'll have to decide which sample panel to show, because I don't like the current one (I'm thinking one that shows all four main characters would be better). The rest are inconsistant, I need to re-do the backgrounds for the Light Warriors and trim some excess off of a couple others, as well as clean up the quality (probably do PNGs). But I shall wait and see if maybe Brian will post a strip that will take care of the work for me. :P

Knowing Clevinger, there will be some kind of awful yet awesome anti-climax... he might not even end the series at the end of the FFI storyline. We shall see... bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Not sure if the plot section is the best place for the primary-template. It implies there could be secondary sources that could be used to describe the plot when in reality the comic itself is pretty much all we have to go on. It makes more sense applied to the article as a whole. But I also think there are plenty of secondary sources listed - they're just massively overshadowed by a heavily referenced plot section that takes up the majority of the article (and is quite a bit too long in the first place). --R. Wolff (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The template was originally listed at the top of the article, as the non-plot sections need the most work. "Massively overshadowed" is putting it lightly; there are a grand total of 4 (out of 60) non-primary sources (not a very large amount for an article this large). Without any non-primary sources, the notability of the article could be called into question. We need more real-world references rather than more 'in-universe' detail in the article is my point. Trimming the plot section is a great idea too! DP76764 (Talk) 19:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The plot section is where almost all of the primary sources are. We are unlikely to find a reliable third party plot summary. For that reason, the overshadowed argument is pretty silly. The rest of the article has several good third party sources... a bit on the thin side, but nothing worse than a lot of C- and B-class articles out there, especially in the relevant Wikiprojects. There are six solid non-primary refs for the rest of the article, and three which come from the author's mouth but aren't part of the comic (technically primary, but not as duious). On the other hand, there are fifty sourced from the comic.

I guess my point is this: if you took away the majority of the references in the plot section, would you still want to put up the tag to the whole article? I think not.

Since I'm on a long holiday, I'll try to dig up some more refs. But regardless, I think the tag only makes sense to the ONE section that has more than one preimary reference in it. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Six more. A couple aren't the greatest, but they are worth something. bahamut0013^words _deeds 22:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding some more references; that definitely improves the situation. The tag was applied to the article as a whole originally because of the overall imbalance (sure, it's mostly 1 section, but I was more concerned about the article as a whole). It would be good to see if there are any FA or other high class articles that have that significant of an imbalance in sourcing (guessing: no). DP76764 (Talk) 04:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

"But regardless, I think the tag only makes sense to the ONE section that has more than one preimary reference in it." - on the one hand, yes, on the other it specifically doesn't make any sense for the plot section because there aren't any secondary sources. :) Regardless, good to hear we have more secondary sources now; as for trimming the plot section, we're definitely planning to do this, but we agreed to wait until the comic's over so we don't end up deleting something now that would turn out to be an important plot point later. Might be that this is a bit too careful an approach; lately I've been thinking the section really does need trimming now and if we accidentally cut something important we can always put it back in later. I guess if there are no objections I'm gonna go ahead with it? --R. Wolff (talk) 09:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that Clevinger is stringing things along, and it might not be over as soon as I thought. I'm consistantly thinking that the end will come within a few months, and I'm consistantly wrong (with the practical joke aside, which I didn't fall for :P). But I think my edit summary explains my position on this. bahamut0013^words _deeds 17:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, don't mind if I do! It's still kinda long but I think we're getting to a point where removing more would be unhelpful to readers' understanding of the summary. --R. Wolff (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Aside from accidentally removing a ref, good job. Maybe when it's done, we can get some better sources for a plot summary and expand, or possibly even break it out into its own article. After all, shorter isn't better for a very long work of fiction. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely you're not comparing a 1200 page webcomic to a classic, fully written novel. Hardly an apples-to-apples comparison. DP76764 (Talk) 20:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure am! :D bahamut0013^words _deeds 20:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I daresay the Fellowship of the Ring is a bit more complex than a comic that spoofs an NES game though. Either way, I think expanding the plot section wouldn't be a good move. We had it as a separate article in the past, which didn't work out. It might actually be a good idea to move away from the idea of a start-to-finish plot description and more towards a section that explains, very broadly, how the comic expands on or changes plot points from the game. --R. Wolff (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, "Maybe when it's done, we can get some better sources for a plot summary..." It is coningent upon that.

I'm not really sure what your suggestion means or what it would entail. Can you explain a but further? bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with R Wolff. Keep in mind WP:NOT. Also, WP:WAF might provide some good guidance on brevity vs detail. DP76764 (Talk) 22:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What I'm thinking of is instead of the current plot section we'd have one that first gives a broad outline of FF1's story - very broad, more or less only as it relates to the comic - and then has two or three paragraphs that describe notable differences between game and comic (the general tone or the whole Sarda thing, for example), makes a short mention of how some elements have been almost completely dropped (such as Dr. Unne or the fairy/Oxyale sidequest), and maybe mention elements new to the comic. We'd have to watch out for overlap with the characters articles, which could use some trimming/merging as well, and also be careful not to get into original research too much, but I figure things that are plainly observable should be fine in regards to that. --R. Wolff (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure a comparison to FF1's plot would be particularly valuable. Aside from the fact that it would inherantly be pure OR (since most of the refs only mention the plot difference in passing and offer one or two examples), 8BT is only partially a parody of FF1. Its notability derives from the aspects it doesn't share with the video game, not to mention that Clevinger deviates from FF1's script far more than he sticks to it. I can't think of any parody articles that outline thier subject in this way.

However, I'm willing to keep an open mind. Maybe you could open a sandbox page in your userspace and do a draft, so I can see what you mean with something more concrete and less theoretical. I think either I'm overlooking something in this, or this is a radical change. bahamut0013^words _deeds 20:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sample panels

I was wondering if maybe the current sample panels are not the best representation of the comic. I'm thinking that something with all four of the LW bickering would be more appropriate, since that's the bulk of the series thus far. The previous image shows that Clevinger has released permission for his work, but we can slap on a fair use if he's not willing to work through the OTRS process. Tthough, if he has changed his mind and is now resistant to featuring his comic, it may not be worth changing the image anyway; however, given this, I don't think that's the case. Thoughts? bahamut0013^words _deeds 18:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Only that it's worth it to keep in mind that the note on the cast page is somewhat old by now and should be seen in the context of other quotes. But that's a whole different issue - as far as the sample panels are concerned, knock yourself out, but I'd stick to one row or maybe two rows of panels at most. --R. Wolff (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sword-chuck

Sword-chuck redirects here, but it (weapon?) is not mentioned in the article proper. It should be explained, or the redirect should be deleted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. It's still mentioned in Characters of 8-Bit Theater so I'm just gonna redirect there. Thanks for pointing it out. --R. Wolff (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Existance tense

I contend that the 'tense' of the opening sentence should remain "is", as the comic (and the publisher of it) still 'exist'. This same tense can be seen in any number of articles about old television shows, for example. Knight Rider (1982 TV series), The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson, etc. DP76764 (Talk) 21:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This is stemming from confusion on another article, where the subject is a newspaper (a newspaper company, where was is correct, because that company no longer exists. The editor seems to believe that the article is about the newspaper printed medium, which is incorrect.) This webcomic still exists. You can still go to the website and view it. Hence, it is a sprite comic. That new strips are not being made does not mean the comic suddenly does not exist and becomes past tense. - SudoGhost ™ 10:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 8-Bit Theater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://everything2.com/title/8-Bit%2BTheater
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091208130436/http://www.ccawards.com/2002.htm to http://www.ccawards.com/2002.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)