Template talk:Rooster Teeth Productions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Animation / Computer / Machinima (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Video games (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Usage notes[edit]

By default, this template will automatically categorize articles in which it is included under Category:Rooster Teeth Productions. The category can be overridden by specifying a value for the "cat" parameter. If you specify an unnamed parameter to this template, that will be used as the sort key. Otherwise, the page name will be used.

— TKD::Talk 09:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Automatic categorization is no longer active. — TKD::Talk 02:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Splitting this template[edit]

This template is getting a bit large. Insipred by the CVG project push for navbox template standardization and cleanup, I'm suggesting the following:

First, we're using custom styles. Let's ditch those and use the standard "navbox" CSS class.

Secondly, chances are that if you're looking at Grif's article, you're probably more likely to want to stay in the Red vs. Blue than to look at, say, PANICS. I therfore suggest splitting the template up and condensing.

First, one for the personnel:

Then, one for Rooster Teeth's productions:

Then one for the "high-level" Red vs. Blue articles:

And one for the individual main Red vs. Blue characters:

So, what got cut? The links to the games, the two auxiliary Strangerhood articles, and the RvB maps article. Here's my rationale for each:

  • The games can be found easily in the production infobox, or as links in the article. Not as many people are going to care about, say, Marathon 2 unless they're reading about the main Red vs. Blue article, the plot twist where Church is blown into the past, or Red vs. Blue production. Links to the game will be obvious in all three cases. If you're reading about Griggs, you probably don't care at the moment, and the link is just clutter.
  • The Strangerhood links are useful, but since there's only three, all three articles should be heavily linking to each other anyway.
  • The maps article: It's a bit low-level detail linked to from various RvB articles.

The idea here is that, instead of putting a huge 10-line template on every article in Category:Rooster Teeth Productions, we can be a bit more selective about what we present as related links. (Yes, we can keep the Tnavbar links, too; these are just proofs of concept.)

By the way, I've tested these on 800-by-600 resolution. They look much better than the current template, which takes up nearly a full screen.

Comments? Objections? Suggestions? — TKD::Talk 06:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine, except for removing the Maps page. Though it's a low level of importance, just that it's the only page directly related to Red vs. Blue doesn't sit right. It's just an opinion, not something I have much back up for. But I might try adding more detail tonight, as well as update Production to be somewhat more accurate and detail some more Specials. -- Viewdrix 17:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It would be more simple if Red vs. Blue had only one template. The character template isn't really necessary, and is a little redundant since there's a link to the character list on the other template. Maybe something like this--
Or, a less stacked version--
Cliff smith 05:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the point is that the individual characters articles are at a greater level of detail than the average person really needs to know to get the gist of Red vs. Blue. So in the top-level RvB articles, we'll show the general RvB template, but in the individual character articles, it'll be the characters template, which links back up to the main characters article and to the Red vs. Blue article. The assumption is that anyone reading a characters article will want (or need) to go back up to the general characters article or Red vs. Blue first to get more context, or would want to browse to other characters. On the other hand, someone reading about RvB for the first time will probably not want to jump down to the level of detail of an individual character without reading the overall characters article first.
Oh, another principle of the template cleanup was to reduce meta-commentary. — TKD::Talk 14:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
All right; I guess I'm fine with putting the maps back in for now. But eve4ntually I'm thinking it might be worthwhile to summarize it and stuff it back in the Production article. Not sure we'll have enough verifiable information on some of the more minorr locations.... — TKD::Talk 14:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand the "high-level" template idea better now. Sounds like a great idea. Think that the links to the Red team and Blue team (like on the examples I made) could be incorporated? —Cliff smith 18:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Generally, navboxes don't link to subsections.... — TKD::Talk 20:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Implemented. — TKD::Talk 23:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Rename the template?[edit]

Given that the template now includes links to articles for a number of non-machinima productions (Achievement Hunter, the podcasts, RWBY, etc.), wouldn't it be more appropriate to change the template name to "Rooster Teeth productions" or "Rooster Teeth filmography"? Just an observation. -- (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Remove current and former staff?[edit]

These categories made much more sense when the company was smaller. But as it now houses 200-300 full and part-time employees, it would suffer from overcrowding/rigorous updating to be accurate. Would anyone object to removing the current and former staff section?--Count3D (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)