Talk:Critical Role/Archive 1

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... there's no wikipedia page yet for this greatest streaming D&D show — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.227.147.251 (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion
Hey, that contested deletion was a pretty weak claim, whoever wrote it. But yes, Critical Role is credible and significant. Article's messy right now, but that's beside the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.77.151.201 (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Plot section is incredibly messy
Yeah. Someone fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.77.151.201 (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion
The reasons for put forth for speedy deletion are nebulous at best. There is a significant community that supports Critical Role, and several wikia pages, as well as fan sites that abound. All that is needed is some cleaning in format and it would be fine. 75.213.130.74 (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC) KennefRiggles

With all the disambiguation pages for phrases, pronouns, acronyms or initialisms, terminology, and so forth, difficulty in finding this article is going to be as per normal for Wikipedia, but that concern is noted.--64.134.222.18 (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Jason T. Reimche

Contested Deletion
Seeing as Critical Role has helped the Geek&Sundry community raise almost $300,000 in the passed seven months as of the day of this postfor charities, I believe the page should not be deleted because this page has not had sufficient time to reach its potential and should be allowed to remain on the website. They are an amazing group of people who entertain thousands of people every week. At around 3:38:00 in episode 30 of Critical Role, Overlord Zach presents the amount of money contributed by Geek&Sundry to charity. I don't know how to cite that properly. If someone could do that for me i would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFellowCritter (talk • contribs) 18:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It may be more productive at this time to comment at Articles for deletion/Critical Role than here. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Initial Page Creation
I have been working on creating this page for a while, and finally feel it is ready to go live. A previous WP entry for the show was the subject of an AfD discussion. The article was eventually deleted, but with encouragement to resubmit when more mainstream coverage was available. I have drastically revised the page, added the "(web series)" modifier to the title to resolve the name commonality concern, and added a number of additional media references. I am happy to hear all feedback, as I am a new editor and really want to do this properly. Gamma Liz (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Critical Role Sourcebooks
Should the upcoming sourcebooks by Green Ronin Publishing be mentioned in the article? -- 84 (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Honestly? I don't see a reason to include anything under a physical product is available. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

4th Edition Origins
In a recent comment made by Matt Mercer, the one-shot that began the game was actually using 4th edition rules, only getting converted to pathfinder after players expressed interest in continuing. Not sure how that would best be altered, but it should probably be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.230.115 (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * incorrect. they started with pathfinder and then converted to 5e once the show began. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.64.164 (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Nah, they're right. They played 4th E for the one off, then swapped to Pathfinder for the continuing campaign. Darquis (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * no they didn't. they started w/ pathfind and converted to 5e when the show started. get your facts straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.123.139 (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess we should tell Matt to get his facts straight too? https://twitter.com/matthewmercer/status/667457335917342720 Darquis (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you all provide reliable sources for your claims?--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Viewership numbers
"On January 11, 2018, the second campaign's first episode peaked at 135 thousand viewers on Twitch and YouTube compared to the first campaign finale's 40,000 viewers"

I'm quite sure that the finale of campaign 1 opened with about 115,000 viewers on twitch alone and over 12,000 on youtube. There's even a con where Matt Mercer mentions that right before streaming the episode, Travis saw the number of viewers for the first time and told the others, stunned. (Then refreshed just in case and it had gone up by a couple of thousand, right before the stream started and they had to compose themselves) So this is definitely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatrixM (talk • contribs) 18:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That sentence is tagged as needing citation, Though it's not a reliable source the figures may have come from the subreddit. Do you have a citation for your statement? For example; have Critical Scope have uploaded the con talk to YouTube? If so, the video's URL and time stamp should be enough for WP:V. I'm not sure if it's even possible, but get tempted into collating the views from the Twitch, Alpha and YouTube streams &mdash; as that would count as original research. Little pob (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)