Talk:Red Letter Media

Attack of the Clone Review Part 1 of 9 removed
According to RedLetterMedia YouTube page part one of nine was removed by the Cartoon Network request to YouTube for Copyright violation. No specific violation in part one was cited.--Bear 22:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Bear77 (4/6/10)
 * Aware of it, waiting for reliable sources (if any) to report on it as well as further coverage of the review. --M ASEM (t) 22:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's apparently back up on YouTube, for now at least. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 23:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The takedown request is generally understood to have been due to a fraudulent claim on the part of a scamming blogger who was seeking to redirect traffic to his own reposting of the review segment in question. If there's a quotable reference for this (or at least a reference for the fact that this is believed to have occurred) it should be included.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.79.10 (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw this on comments left on the video's page; that's not enough to put in the article though, I believe. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 22:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Live segment criticism
Just as a point: I have no doubt (and in fact know people have mentioned this) that the live action segments are questionable.

There's two problems: First, the section about Mr. Plinkett the character is the wrong place for this, this should go down in the para about how his reviews are generally recieved. But the more important point is is that we need better sources to show this. Four have been presented: one is already in the article and makes no comment about the live action stuff (in the comments, maybe, but that's not part of the article we can use); Huffington Post is an unreliable online news blog, YouTube comments are not usable as they are unreliable, and blogs are generally unreliable.

That said, I think there are reliable sources that call into question the live-action segments, but I can't find them immediately. We just simply need to get those in place. --M ASEM (t) 17:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate this new arrangement, of giving the discussion of the Mr. Plinkett character its own section, and including mention of his recurring misogynistic themes (murder of ex-wife, women held captive in basement). Because they are so frequent and carry such weight, it's important they be mentioned alongside his other traits. ~User:startswithj 2010.4.15, 3:40pm (UTC-8) —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC).

Spaces in name
According to redlettermedia.com, there are spaces between each word in its name. --90.184.11.6 (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding this edit, shouldn't the title have added spaces? --Svippong 17:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I didn't see this thread. But I agree, if there are spaces in the name then it should be reflected in the article title as well. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 21:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Source
This could be useful: Gran2 13:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ebert
Ebert watched and liked the reviews? if yes, I'd be surprised he wasn't a preques yes-man in the first place, like he usually sucks it up to hype movies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.173.236 (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

64.53.224.38 (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Guy, there's a difference between agreeing with a review and believing it was well written/executed.

Seriously?
Is this guy really worth a Wikipedia article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.207.233.113 (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, he has been mentioned in reliable third-party sources, including interviews, praised by notable people, and it is a small film production company. TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 00:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a huge fan but i'm staring to find it weird seeing Half in the Bag getting whole sections on some pages. The Zookeeper (film) page has a half in the bag section, and so does Super (film). Even if these guys are notable, and as i said, i'm a big fan, i still don't think the pages need it. I think it's the work of some hardcore redlettermedia fans, so they should be removed from those movies. As for red letter media having it's own page, i'm all for it. --172.129.11.102 (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Is THIS guy really worth an article? Now there's somebody with a severe lack of notability, if you ask me. --2601:C:4380:50:CC66:42C7:BCF8:CA4B (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Both RedLetterMedia and TGWTG are notable entries for WP - but their commentary on a work should not be large sections of their respective articles, as they are just two critics out of hundreds. Unless it is a case of something like "Plumbers Don't Wear Ties" by the AVGN which brought this game to awareness, or for something like MST3K and Manos where the film's popularity came from the MST3K airing.  But as best I know, these aren't, so on those other pages these sections need to be trimmed. But they are notable for WP to have stand alone articles. --M ASEM  (t) 04:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Reception
Does anyone object to referring to the number of times his reviews have been viewed on youtube and the thumbs up/down? Just to try to balance out the criticism from "some" Star Wars fans to show some people actually like what he's done. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Review details
Please note, that per our policy of keeping a neutral point of view, we cannot discuss the actual content of the reviews without a secondary source. Without a source, calling out any part of the review will be taken as highlighting any part of the review in a positive light, which is something we can't do. When other sources comment on that, that's ok, but we can't do it without the sourcing. --M ASEM (t) 01:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Which Any Leech Can Edit
This guy produced brilliant movie reviews. The credit is his. Why is every other sentence in this article ,"Schlub liked the movie", "Schmegeggy thought that such and such a comment was insightful", "Schmo told others about the reviews"? Leeches begone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Because this article is about the reviews, and we need to establish why the reviews are notable, meaning that we need to assert notable people that had discussed these reviews. --M ASEM  (t) 15:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It may yet be, to be, determined whether or not Stoklasa has hairy knuckles or not. This language is weasily.

Non-notable
Come on, RedLetterMedia itself is an unknown. Only the Mr Plinkett reviews are popular. Also, to that end, the summary of the Plinkett reviews should say "Plinkett starts off by demonstrating that Star Wars is crap because...", not this "Stoklasa". 86.163.71.158 (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Since RLM's Half in the Bag review series has become quite popular, and features Stoklasa directly, he has become more well known as the face of the company in addition to Mr. Plinkett.Wyldstaar (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * lol this section is so uninformed it's hilarious24.136.136.91 (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Notability is determined by whether the topic is covered in reliable, secondary sources. The topic of this article is indeed so covered, given the citations seen in the References section, which include publications from The San Francisco Chronicle, MTV, Movieline, The A.V. Club, Roger Ebert's website, etc.


 * As to the issue of how the Plinkett reviews should be summarized, material on Wikipedia about works of fiction need to be written in an out-universe perspective, rather than an in-universe perspective, per WP:OUTUNIVERSE. The article is about the website, so its content should be presented vis a vis its authors, and not the names of fictional characters. Nightscream (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Splitting out the Star Wars reviews
I feel that enough content can be written about the subject of the Plinkett Star Wars reviews given the opportunity. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 11:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, as we are nowhere close to SIZE limits, and that those reviews are the reason RLM is notable to start with; we can't separate them out. --M ASEM (t) 13:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, would you be okay if RedLetterMedia was improved to a certain extent that its notability is clear without considering the Star Wars reviews? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 16:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You can certainly expand it, but consider how far away this article is from hitting the point where SIZE is a factor, and I do believe that even if you can expand the production aspects of RLM more, there's still a huge tying of notability between that, the reviews, and the Plinkett character that splitting would harm understanding. --M ASEM (t) 17:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * With respect to the problem of understanding, I wouldn't remove what we have now; I would merely elabourate further on it in a separate article. With that said, I won't split until I can make a suitably large article w/o leaving this one lacking. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 16:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Full name
After a quick look at the Wisconsin Finance Dept., I found that red letter media's full name and status is "RedLetterMedia, LLC". I will change the name to reflect it's full legal name as is common practice. Aug 10, 2017


 * A recent edit restored the spaces (wasn't me) and there was discussion above about including the spaces. I agree it's better and more consistent to include proper spacing and punctuation. I would strongly encourage editors to make sure they have consensus before changing it again. -- 109.79.163.79 (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Keeping or removing the section for re:View
As much as I'm a fan of RedLetterMedia, I don't think that their re:View series is notable enough to warrant its own section. The section is entirely unsourced, and I have yet to find any non-primary sources online that significantly cover the segment. Additionally, re:View is already listed in the Filmography section, so it's not like it isn't represented in the article. I removed the section back in March, but that edit was reverted without explanation by the IP address 63.140.96.79 earlier this month. I reverted it again, and that reversion was reverted today by the same IP address, with the accompanying reason: "This is a notable segment that is a regular part of their broadcast history". In order to avoid an edit war, I've brought the matter to this talk page. I argue that, because of a lack of recognition by any notable non-primary sources, the re:View segment should not have its very own section at this time. Any thoughts? – Matthew  - (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Cast list
Comments in re this line from the 2nd paragraph: "Stoklasa, Bauman, Evans and friends Jack Packard, Josh "The Wizard" Davis and Jessi Nakles comprise the cast for the vast majority of their releases." [Emphasis mine.] Mike, Jay, and Rich are irrefutably present for the "vast majority" of episodes. Jack and Josh are each present about half of the time. Jessi's last appearance was October 2014, so going on 5 years now. I got some pushback for removing Jessi's name as major contributor, so I'm bringing it to the talk page.

Consider this spreadsheet of HitB episodes (not my own). It's not 100% up to date; it goes through ep. 75 and it's missing a few here and there, but let's take it as a representative example. Jessi is marked with 9 appearances, tied with Colin. Jack and Josh are in the 30-40 range. The other guys are around 60. My suggestion was to rewrite it as: "Stoklasa, Bauman and Evans comprise the cast for the vast majority of their releases, with friends Jack Packard, Josh "The Wizard" Davis, and others making frequent appearances." I'm in no way trying to scrub anyone's name, just keeping the article contemporary. Jessi's mentioned further down the article, appropriately. --Proctris (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit:) As an aside, I can justify the difference mentioned below, vis-à-vis 9 appearances vs. 19; the spreadsheet lists just the HitB episodes where she was a panelist, whereas there were other episodes where she was just in the intro, etc. Proctris (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am of the opinion that is accurate to state that Mike, Jay, Rich, Jack and Josh do comprise the cast for the vast majority of their releases. In my opinion, those five appear together enough that it should be stated that they are the main cast. That statement does not say they comprise the cast for every release, rather it says the vast majority, which is true. Any combination of Mike, Jay, Rich, Jack and Josh tends to make up the panel for any of their series', thus I think the statement is fine.


 * As for Jessi, I am unsure of how to refer to her. I'd like for other prominent editors of this article to have a say before anything changes in this regard. 00aa0 (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to talk. For clarity, there have been some efforts by an uglier part of the RLM fanbase to "erase" Nakles, which is why you got pushback from me. According to IMDB (which is not a RS, but can be used to give us a rough sense, and which I trust more than an anonymous spreadsheet), there have been 83 episodes, out of which she appeared in 19 (not 9). That's almost a quarter of the show, and she was a regular member 2013-2014 (while Cunningham's appearances are spread out over a five-year period), so it'd be odd not to mention her by name. I see what you're saying about the wording, but "Stoklasa, Bauman, Evans and friends Jack Packard, Josh 'The Wizard' Davis and Jessi Nakles comprise the cast for the vast majority of their releases.", grammatically, means the members of this group form the cast for the majority of episodes; it doesn't mean that each, individually, appeared in the vast majority. Regardless, I'd be fine with a rewrite that identifies Stoklasa, Bauman, and Evans as appearing in a majority of episodes, while Packard, Davis, and Nakles are also regulars. Or, alternately, that the five appear in a majority of episodes while Nakles was also a regular from 2013-2014. Grandpallama (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, you know what? I think I'm going to walk back my position. With the rewrite that 00aa0 did earlier in the summer to name contributors in the lede, I think it's fair (since we're not talking about a particular series from RLM, but all videos) to exclude Nakles from the list in the lede. I think, instead, I might suggest that it'd be better to do a Cast section, or a major contributors section, down in the body, rather than trying to name all the names in the lede. In any case, yeah, it's good enough to make sure her name remains connected to Best of the Worst. Grandpallama (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * After consideration, I agree that a cast section later in the article is the right direction to take this in. Not only does that make it easier to clarify who was apparent in what shows, it also makes the time periods of these appearances more obvious. I think we're in agreement that the lead should state that Skolasa, Bauman, Evans, Packard and Davis are the consistent main cast, and that Nakles and others should be in this planned cast section.


 * The next question would be how exactly would this cast section be formatted? I see the two potential options as either a table or a horizontal bar chart (as used most often by bands noting member tenures). However, again, I think this is a topic that needs discussion. I can see the pros and cons of both. For example Nakles has appeared in Best of the Worst, but not re:View. So that would be a distinction, yet she has not appeared in BotW for 5 years, so would we have to seperate that series by year too? You couldn't do this with a bar chart unless you had a huge amount of different bars, and you couldn't do this with a table unless you had a huge amount of columns.


 * Also, as another question that would need answering if a measure representing guests was included in the article. How do you think the 'deleted episodes' of Best of the Worst' should be handled? If you are unaware, certain episodes (including every Max Landis featured episode) have been removed by the channel. I'm unfamiliar with any previous practices of situations like this, so I'm unsure what the best course of action would be. 00aa0 (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the Max Landis episodes have not been removed from YouTube. They are "unlisted" but can be found with a bit of digging. What other episodes have allegedly been deleted? The Keymaster (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The "Mr Plinkett" section is a little excessive
Do we really need a separate section and explanation for every single video? I understand why the Phantom Menace review would get a lot of coverage as it's the video that put RLM into the public eye more than anything else, but I feel as if a lot of the other ones could be included in a smaller "Other Reviews" heading or something similar. I mean, the entry for the Titanic review is just two sentences saying how long the video is and that it's a review of Titanic. On a similar note, I don't think we need a plot summary for each video. A single sentence maybe summarizing the main criticisms would make sense, for anything else people can watch the actual video. --Birb ebooks (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Overly detailed tagging - December 2019
Similar to arguments made above, there doesn't seem to be a need for detailed descriptions of each review. Perhaps some time spent on the Phantom Menace review given that it seems to have been particularly noteworthy, but otherwise much of this seems like it can be trimmed. However, I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject matter to feel comfortable making such decisions myself. Rugpug (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Breaking Out Reception Into It's Own Section
Because reception is addressed in multiple sections and has its own subsection under the Plinkett reviews, should the reception of Red Letter Media be moved to its own section, with specific projects named if they are mentioned in the review?