Jump to content

Talk:Revision3/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

'History' Is Getting Silly

We shouldn't list every event in Revision3 history, soon it'll start being like "On 19th September 2009, Patrick Norton bought a new chair as described on Tekzilla". It's making the article unnecessarily long. I have done an edit for proposal, if this considered 'bad' feel free to reverse it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.107.104 (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate Statement?

"The company was formed in San Francisco, California by Kevin Rose and Dan Huard, who at the time were employees of the television network TechTV." I'm pretty sure this statement is inaccurate. Revision3 was not formed until Kevin Rose's departure from G4. However, Kevin and Dan did produce The Broken while TechTV still existed. I wasn't sure what to put in its place, so I noted it here. Also, the name 'Revision3' comes from a third phase at providing tech content, the first being TechTV, and the second being G4 (after Kevin Rose continued to host a show there). Again, i wasn't sure how to implement this into the article, so I noted it here. Psykus 07:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


VfD

If you look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Systm, you can see that Systm was declared a "merge and redirect". However, it makes no sense to redirect it to Kevin Rose... he's only one-fifth of the team behind the show. It makes much more sense to combine Systm and thebroken with Revision3 Studios, the company that produces them.

In addition, the new Revision3 Studios article is much more encyclopedic than the previous article that was deleted. .... added at 02:06, 2005 Jun 20 by Taestell

Let's take a look at the VfD page. It was I who nominated it, and my objection wasn't that the article wasn't sufficiently encyclopedic but rather Google tells me that the total number of hits for "revision3 studios" is a rather underwhelming zero. That was on 2 June; perhaps there are some more hits now. Others voted on perceived vanity, crappiness, etc. -- Hoary 02:36, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
The reason that there are few hits is that the existance of the company was just announced. The videozines that it produces, however, have already acheived notability and had millions of downloads. And it still makes more since to combine Systm with Revision3 Studios than with Kevin Rose. --taestell 03:02, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
What you're saying suggests to me that Systm is a lot more noteworthy than Revision3 Studios. You may wish to claim that Systm was wrongly turned into a redirect. -- Hoary 04:15, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
The point is that if I recreated the Systm article, it would get nominated for deletion, and the result would probably be to "merge and redirect", just like before. The most logical place to merge it would be in Revision3 Studios. Therefore, I think since this article contains information about not only the studio, but also Systm and thebroken, it contains enough notable information to exist. --taestell 04:32, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I know this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, but think of it like this... Homestar Runner characters contains information about all of the minor Homestar Runner characters that don't deserve a full article each. Should we start a Revision3 Studios productions article for all of their productions that don't deserve full articles? Even if you don't think the studio itself is very notable, it would make more sense to put information about Systm and thebroken into Revision3 Studios rather than Revision3 Studios productions. --taestell 04:57, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


Added a new section for "Infected", but I had to mess around with the image sizes for Diggnation and the Infected logos in order for everything to line up right. If someone wants to clean that up, go ahead. Psykus 09:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Move to Revision3 Corporation

I decided to move this page from Revision3 Studios to Revision3 Corporation. The company's name is Revision3 Corporation and is not referred to as Revision3 Studios. There are probably I number of double redirects which I will fix soon. It is 4am in the morning as I type this and I must go to bed.
--Peter McGinley 17:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Systm article

Now somewhat removed from it's launch, does anyone think that there is sufficent notability to expand Systm to its own article? -AKMask 04:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Broken

Actually, I'm in doubt of this statement:

"It features advice on breaking wireless encryption, cracking windows passwords, and modding gaming consoles such as the Xbox, PlayStation 2, and GameCube. The show also demonstrates social engineering and various methods of piracy."

My question is, did it really advised people on doing such acts? To me, I believed that the show more on education purposes rather than advicing people to do so.

Another question is, I was wondering in which episode does The Broken demonstrates various method of piracy?

I think the mention of piracy came from a humor segment on The Broken called "Hacking with Ramzi", where Ramzi shows you how to "pirate" BonziBuddy (a joke because BonziBuddy is a widely known spy/malware application) via Kazaa (also spyware-ridden). 207.42.160.59 22:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

thebroken

The language in the following passage is biased and questionable:

Although marketed as shady and illegal, most of the concepts mentioned in the show are old, and although there are plenty of concepts (such as WEP and password cracking) which could be used illegally, they are concepts originating in the shallow, mainstream end of computer security, and are in no sense groundbreaking.

Shallow? Does that word even belong in this article? Who is to determine what is groundbreaking? This section should be prefaced with "critics argue..." or something similar. If critics do not say this, then it shouldn't even be mentioned.

Post by Keith on Rev3 Forum

I don't have time to put any of this into the article now, so I'll copy it here for the time being.

[1] "Posted by keith at 2006-06-11 14:51

I don't want to get into this too much or make up a bunch of excuses. The facts of the matter are this.

We are a VERY shoe-string operation. Three full-time employees, including myself, and one of whom is strictly talent. We borrow Ron, who is employed by Digg.com, once a week to help us get our content online. We work out of an apartment and have to deal with Comcast broadband to upload our files at painfully slow speeds, which also have to be cached before we can make them live. Sometimes there are technical glitches in the process that cause delays. Yes our communication can be lacking and that does need to be addressed. We are working on expanding and growing to tackle these issues but it is not easy and won't happen overnight.

We offer our content free of charge and provide the opportunity for people to make donations via subscriptions if they so choose. We don't intentionally try and miss deadlines or have delays. Sometimes it just happens because of the situation we are in. If this is a problem then by all means cancel your subscription and download the content for free when we make it public. If you understand this reasoning then you're apt to be a lot less frustrated when these delays happen to occur.

I wasn't a fan of having a scheduled release time at first but we decided to go ahead with it. Ron and I have worked hard to get to a point were we could work within that time frame. Unfortunately, because it is such a tight schedule, if anything happens along the process it can push things back.

We really think we have a good thing going here and we need all the support we can get. We have lofty plans for Revision3 and hopefully we will see great strides before the year is out. We are, as always, dedicated to providing quality content to the Internet masses."

68.184.209.190 07:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Zodiac"?

Any idea who "Zodiac" is, or if that is even a real person who has affiliation w/ the company? See this edit. I searched this article, and high and low on Rev3's site, and found no information about such a person. As such, I have removed that entry for the time being and left this note on the user's talk page. This was also the only edit the user has EVER made. Hoping someone can solve this mystery. Czj 02:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My Rollback

Ok, that's not the most helpful rollback summary, so here's my reasoning:

The article was deleted and protected to prevent recreation. It is not coming back, so no point in linking there.

Sorry for the bad summary once again. Cheers. --Falcorian (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm, why doesn't diggnation get its own entry? I think a lot of people who've heard of diggnation but not of revision3 would be pretty confused to find themselves at a revision3 entry instead of a diggnation one. Can we add the diggnation page back? ~~

The broken is not dead

Jay,the CEO, said the broken is not dead. I'm busy to add this in.--71.244.10.242 02:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Address Formatting

I recently rewrote the Diggnation section of this article, and I tried to reformat the mailing address section. Does anyone know how to make the pound (#) sign appear as the first character in a line without making it a numbered list like it is currently? Yavoh 23:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Use & # 3 5 ; but without the spaces. CardinalFangZERO 02:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rev3.JPG

Image:Rev3.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rev3 after show thing

It probably has a proper name, but recently, on all of Revision 3's shows there has been a little thing that rolls after the credits that depicts someone on a skateboard framed in the Revision 3 tv. The skateboarder then proceeds to perform some sort of trick and then some unknown person yells out something that sounds like "Oh cool". The screen then fades to the revision 3 symbol. Someone might want to find out who this person is and add it in under some sort of trivia section. Niksko (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

According to posts on the forums it is Jay Adelson and Kevin Rose. Kevin is the one who says "oh my god" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.79.158 (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

thebroken merge

I am suggesting a merge of the contents from thebroken here. The criteria is that the show has not been notable enough (as in, covered by enough reliable third party sources) to have its own article, and it has been discontinued (hasn't seen a release in over a year), which makes it even less likely to get new references. If nothing of the article is necessary, it will be converted into a redirect to this article. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to Revision3?

According to the Naming conventions (companies) the article names do normally not include the legal status of the company. Since the "Revision3" page is not an disambiguation page this page should move to Revision3. Cyzor (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Page moved by an administrator. Cyzor (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The two images

I've re-added the two images that were removed [2] [3] for the reasons of "Pointless image that adds no information" and "Another image that adds nothing to the article" as both images directly address the subject of the article. The office image directly shows the subject in it's day to day operation. The control board image directly addresses the text about the new studio (it's their new control board in their new studio). The editor that removed the images immediately put one of them up for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. If you have an opinion on whether it should be deleted or kept there, please feel free to join the discussion there. Ha! (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the images all together may be a bit much, but really, how do those images add anything to this article? Showing a sound board and a meeting, how does that help? Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The meeting image illustrates a) the premises of the company, albeit the inside rather than the outside (I don't think the outside of a company's building is more significant than the inside though) b) the staff of the company (the CEO and (I think) chairman and employees) c) an aspect of their mode of operation (their regular Friday meeting, it's apparently informal nature, the technology used in it)
The AV board: Granted, it's contribution is sketchy. It does illustrate their new studio though, which is mentioned in the article. Do you think a shot of the CEO using their new AV board would be more relevant (given that it's a media company)?
Also, can you clarify a couple of things 1) are you saying that the images (the meeting one in particular) literally don't add anything to the article, or is that just my interpretation of your phrasing? 2) If you came across this article in your travels, would you remove them? Ha! (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Dbrobeck, per WP:IMAGES: "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significant relative to the article's topic." DMacks (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
An image of the company in it's day to day operations and in a meeting with the majority of their staff, including CEO must surely be relevant to an article about that company. Ha! (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You say that the images illustrate "x". All images illustrate something, but the point this article is to discuss Revsion3, its history and shows. The meeting has nothing to do with either. And neither does the sound-board. They illustrate something, yes. But this isn't a corporate handout where we are trying to make the compnay look interesting. We are describing the business, not illustrating it. Delete 77.96.99.100 (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Come now, that's semantics. I don't mean illustrate as in '"to draw a diagram of something" and I don't think it takes much imagination for to see that. To illustrate what I do mean, here are some examples of the meaning I'm using the word in
  • the concept of
  • 'exemplify: clarify by giving an example of
  • The skill of giving examples to describe something
  • Explain [...] the subject using a diagram or a concrete example
and also..
  • showing something relevant to the article and significant, relative to the article's topic
In any case, I don't say the images illustrate x. I'm much more specific. I'm saying they illustrate (you can use the word "describe" there if you like, but illustrate is more appropriate) Revision 3 i.e. the company, which is made up of the people that are employed by it, the physical infrastructure it's made of, the ideology that motivates it, the money that went into it, the products it produces, the methods it uses to create those products etc. I really don't understand the point of view that says an image of the head and staff of a company, having a meeting within the context of the company, in the company building, discussing the company, with the company's equipment around them and their company's notes on a whiteboard doesn't describe the company. If it doesn't, why does a picture of a building at Microsoft belong in it's article, or any other picture that's relevant to the company belong in any company's article. I suppose it's just possible that I'm not understanding what is meant by the words "relevant", "significant" and "describe". Tell you what, give me 20 examples of images you would regard as appropriate, and why they would be appropriate. Lets see if that helps elucidate (or indeed illustrate) those concepts for me. Ha! (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem interesting, important, or notable that the company has staff meetings. Sitting around a conference table with laptops looking at a projected image is about as hopelessly generic a company image as I can think of. If the point is that it contains some of the key people, then that could be useful (but this picture isn't a good example of that type of picture...see the guideline I mentioned above). DMacks (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The guideline doesn't explain why the meeting image isn't a good example, or at least doesn't explain it to me. The guideline addresses two requirements. "Relevant to the article" and "significant" I doubt it's possible that you're saying the meeting image is not relevant to the article (it's not a picture of the moon, a rabbit, my foot, the third revision of some book, a student revising for an exam, the number 3 etc) so am I right in assuming you mean it's not significant? If so, could you provide some examples of company images (or potential revision 3 company images) that are significant (or just aren't what you term hopeless) and why they are? Ha! (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I am honestly surprised that you think that a picture of a meeting and a picture of a sound board is relevant. You need to explain why it is notable, interesting and important. And you haven't so far, you have just put spin on "the company has meetings" and "the company has a soundboard". Those two pictures are only relevant on article about meetings and soundboards. See WP:IMAGES 77.96.99.100 (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You shouldn't be too surprised that I think the mixing desk is relevant because I've already said the mixing desk "contribution is sketchy". To be clearer that means I don't really think it imparts a particularly useful contribution to the article (i.e. I'm not actually saying it's particularly relevant, hence the lack of need for you to be surprised). Although, I don't really think it hurts the article (not so sure of that now) and I did ask if one of the same mixing desk with the CEO using it would be any more useful, given that the media company in question uses that desk to produce it's shows. Now, I've already explained (in some detail, to be frank) why I think the meeting image is useful and I'm particularly clear in my own mind that I've not "spun" that explanation in any sense of the word, so I'm not going to repeat myself (or accuse you of spinning anything). I will repeat my request for some examples of the types of images that you would find more appropriate though. Ha! (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I dont think this article needs any images. Its not as if they have a beautiful product to show off like at apple. An interesting building like Swiss RE. Or a particularly fascinating piece of technology that is relevant. Even your suggestion of the CEO at the soundboard I dont agree with. It still doesn't portray anything useful, we aren't trying to make the business look all nice and pleasant. We are trying to be as descriptive as necessary. 77.96.99.100 (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we have a few points in common here. I'm not trying to make the business look all nice and pleasant either. I find the niceness or pleasantness of the company or the people involved to be completely irrelevant, both to me personally and the Wikipedia project. I'd also agree that we're trying to be descriptive, which is why I added the images. And I'd agree that the mixing desk isn't particularly relevant, although I'd say the CEO (or any employees) at a mixing desk would be more relevant. In any case I think I've managed understand the framework for the objections. Basically (1) The article can't have any images at all because the company doesn't produce a (2a) beautiful (I'm praying that we're not talking about visual beauty here) or (2b) fascinating product. Well (1) is an obstacle that can't be reasoned with, (2a) is ridiculous and (2b) is a bit of a tall order, a particularly relative term and not in line with the projects goals (I'm not sure if it's even true!). In case it's of any use I've made a suggestion below which seems pretty sensible. Have fun editing. Ha! (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I was giving examples when i said beautiful products etc. Not being literal, I admit the wording was shoddy. You still haven't given enough reasons for the meeting image to stay. Just because its "useful" in your opinion is not a valid reason to have them. I am going to remove the images until further consensus is given, as currently the consensus is delete. Dont fret, we can always restore them if the vote swings the other way. 77.96.99.100 (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
1) It's not a vote, it's 5 people having a discussion. The fact that you think it is a vote demonstrates a slightly alarming interpretation of Wikipedia policy 2) I have given "enough" reasons and I've specifically related them to policy but unfortunately, for whatever reason, you don't get them (incidentally, are you actually saying that the amount of reasons is what you're after? If so, what is the precise number of reasons you require (1,2,5,7.5,19.3582?)? Let me know and I'll happily provide the appropriate quantity 3) you have still failed to give me examples of what kind of images you would find appropriate, instead you've avoided the request by saying that no images could fit into this article, which is simply a ludicrous concept. When (if?) you do give some examples (and when I say examples I mean specific examples, not something like "beautiful images", or any other phrasing of that concept) I suspect that your own reasoning, when applied to them, will essentially preclude any images in any company article 4) the meeting image is obviously relevant and significant to the employees section (it shows their employees!) and I will be re-adding it Ha! (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No it isnt a vote, but that can establish consensus. Stop asking for examples - that isnt the point of this discussion, in fact it is irrelevant. Dont be so over-protective of 2 images. The meeting image shows people, that could be in any meeting room anywhere - its a rubbish image for informational purposes. Crampy20 (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1) It's 1 image, not 2 - just the meeting one. I'm not protective over it, I just believe it's appropriate for the article. 2) Asking for an example of any image that would fit into a business article (or this article) in a discussion about images in a business article is relevant and obviously so. I'm trying to understand why anyone doesn't think it belongs by understanding what images do belong. Also, if I get an example of what you think is OK to add to the article, I'll try to find an image that matches. In addition, one of the reasons I'm asking for an example is that the argument against including the meeting image seems to be precluding any images being added to this article. 3) The meeting image shows the CEO and staff in a meeting. That's informational, not rubbish Ha! (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the history section is not the best place for the images, I vote to keep but move them to the end of the page in a photo gallery. Cyzor (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm personally not too fond of galleries. I think they tend to make the page look a little "ugly" (for want of a better word), even more so if there are only a couple of images in them. I'm also sure that the meeting image is useful to the article, but... it is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, so if anyone one feels strongly that anything shouldn't be in it, they should edit. Ha! (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you think the meeting image might belong in the "employees" section?
I like the image's they give a bit of "flair" to the article but sadly they don't add anything to the history section. The nice thing about a gallery is that the images don't necessarily have to add information but are there as an extra and new images can be added easily without messing up the article. But a gallery is indeed not the best looking element on a page. The meeting one can be useful in the employees section, shame it's so far down. But I don't see any use for the audio board except in a gallery, sorry. I hope you guys opt for the gallery option. I think it keeps the images more "alive" because people are more likely to add their own images there instead of in the article, it's more "informal" than images in the article itself. Cyzor (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think I've come around to that view RE the mixing desk. Ha! (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Meeting image

Does this image [4] belong in the article (see example with it in the employees section here [5]) or not? Ha! (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I came here as a result of the RFC request. There is a lot of apparently non-notable information and persons listed in this article. Unfortunately, the questions on the Talk page are not organized sufficiently so that one may simply evaluate the situation, articulate a rationale for a position on the issue, then move on. So I'm not really clear on all of the questions. On the pic staying or not, I say not. Definitely non-notable pic of a group of typical staff in a meeting doing nothing particularly notable. N2e (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of long standing Revision3 show pages

I Just checked back in to this page and in a day seven articles of Revision3 shows where deleted. Granted most where stubs but even some long standing articles with more than a few sentences as PixelPerfect, Ctrl+Alt+Chicken, XLR8R TV, and InDigital where not save. I never had the chance to see that they where up for deletion and now their gone. I just want the opinion of you guys of the delete rage going on under the Revision3 shows. Do you think it they were deleted correctly or not? It's fine by me if the majority agrees they had to go, but I can't shake the feeling that the decisions to delete all those pages where taken immaturely. Cyzor (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

They were all put up for speedy deletion on the 14th April with a reason along the lines of "A7 (web): Web content; doesn't indicate importance/significance" by User:Ukexpat. Interestingly the 14th was the same date the two images mentioned above were removed from the Revision 3 article. Here's a list
The problem was that the articles didn't indicate why they were notable (except for GigaOm, which did). If the article doesn't assert why it's notable (not justify it's notability), it can easily be very quickly removed with WP:CSD#A7. The GigaOm article (see the mirror linked above) did give "a reasonable indication of why it might be notable" though, so I'm not sure why it was speedy deleted. My thoughts on the matter are that most of the shows would be better with a short description in the Revision 3 article (or even an article that lists all their shows as I think this main article is getting unwieldy with it's list format), with a few of them as their own articles. They're simple enough to recreate though, you just need to add a line that asserts why they're notable to avoid a speedy deletion (you can request a copy of the articles that were deleted and aren't on a mirror). Obviously they do need to actually be notability as well as just assert their notability. If you want to recreate (some of) them I'll be glad to lend a hand. Ha! (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reaction. I think a List of Revision3 shows is a very good idea. In the style of say for example Characters from Arrested Development with some linking to a "main article" as Diggnation would do. The table in the main article can stay for a quick overview and shows without their own page would link to the "list article". I think it's best to ask a copy of all the articles since the mirror does not have the latest versions. I just added all new infoboxes to all the Revision3 show articles and we can reuse them in the style of List of Tru Calling characters or something like that. I very much like the idea of this "list of" article, the individual pages where indeed a bit insignificant but bundled in to one page seems right. Cyzor (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
How do I (or we) make the request to temporarily restore the pages to retrieve the content. The articles where deleted by a bunch of different admins. Should I post a message on every individual talk page or do you know a place/admin where/who we can ask. And do you think the title List of Revision3 shows is appropriate? Cyzor (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Army?

They may use this name on their site, but really, I mean would people consider it encyclopedic? I have no real care one way or another, but it strikes me to be a bit odd. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well fuck you. They're not the normal company.
Thank you for your well reasoned response 71.96.79.158. You ought to try signing your posts. Oh and umm what would the normal (sic) company be?. Anyway, does anyone else have an opinion on this? Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, it's not a good name for in this article, I just copy-pasted it from the site. If you have a better name for it be my guest. Cyzor (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
On camera staff? SOmething like that? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that fits the picture. The list includes all the staff except the management team, the camera staff is just a part of it. I think just "Staff" or something in that direction would do the job. Cyzor (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah you are right, it is the other people too. Yeah maybe staff eh? Other opinions? Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Timeline: Now variable

From the article: Define $now = ##/##/#### # Please keep updated. This is totally not possible and unreasonable. WTF. This $now business is stupid and ridiculous. can't easytimeline do a $currentdate function of some kind?

Maybe this discussion can take place on the talk page and not in the article itself. But you have a valid point. I copied this method from the "Template:Complete timeline of Macintosh models". If someone had a better option please edit the timeline. But I don't think there is so this is the only option, other timelines on Wikipedia used the same approach. See also: EasyTimeline/syntax Cyzor (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A "$currentdate" also isn't possible because the easytimeline code generates a PNG when you save the article. This PNG is then displayed when the article is viewed. So a "$currentdate" variable wouldn't be parsed unless the article is saved. Cyzor (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

$0 Revenue

I just noticed that to the right of the article near the top, it says that Rev3 had $0 in revenue for 2007. That can't be right, can it? Wolfbite110 (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A question mark would probably be more accurate Racer x124 (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Layoffs

Leo Laporte has just twitted that Revision 3 is laying off, any RS out there on this matter? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know to much either but Sarah Lane posted on here blog that she is "no longer work for Revision3". See: [17]. If someone else has more info please share. Cyzor (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Official Rev3 Blog: [18] Pixel Perfect, PopSiren, and Internet Superstar are gone. Also Rev3 will stop their distribution agreement with Epic Fu, and Wine Library.
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Revision3/Archive_1&oldid=315088629"