Talk:Red Star

List of dead entities

Should we have a list of "dead" beings who are or may be on the red star? Lhikan, Mavrah, etc.? --~Toanicky 15:56, 20 November 2012 (PST)

I think so. The article in general, need a lot of work. For example, where is the description of what it looks like inside? It was said in online serial The Powers That Be that there were a lab, and hallways made out of cold metal and cold organic tissue. I assume it was cold because the Red Star is malfunctioning. I hope that Greg will soon resume the story going on up there, so that we will know more about what it is like inside of the Star. --Luka1184 06:59, 4 May 2013 (PDT)

That dang line interrupts the template. Can someone fix it? ---The Joker

Mata/Voya Nui Deaths?

Can the Red Star revive beings that die outside the MU? If a Matoran died on Mata Nui or Voya Nui, would the Red Star still revive them? -- ^{Speak to Me} 09:01, 12 February 2016 (CET)

No, that's why Reysa weren't revived Surel-nuva (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2016 (CET)

Alive vs Revived

Why do we use "revived" as a status? What's the difference between "alive" and "revived"? --OnionShark 22:07, 17 February 2017 (CET)

Alive, who hasn't died, like Hahli or Tahu. Revived, who was killed and was resurrected like Lhikan or Jovan. -- Surel—Nuva (Talk) 22:10, 17 February 2017 (CET)

I knew that, but how is the status different? If someone's alive, he's alive. The fact that he died and was resurrected doesn't make any difference. --OnionShark 22:24, 17 February 2017 (CET)

I wasn't a BS01 user when this "revived" status was introduced. But I guess it wants to indicate that the person/character have been died and resurrected. But I don't know the proper answer. -- Surel—Nuva (Talk) 22:55, 17 February 2017 (CET)

Although Mavrah seemed fairly sane, there's no evidence it is the same for the other revived.

Since the resurrection process was designed for not fully sapient beings, it's entirely possible the revived MUians could have numerous post-traumatic mental disorders, which may incapacitate them (GregF already mentionned cases of "great confusion" among those, with for example the case of Botar who could not teleport himself outside the Red Star). So, for all we know, revived characters may have gone insane, or stayed in a vegetative state, and so on. Du7734 16:28, 29 May 2017 (CET)

Greg said that after being revived the beings are mentally scattered because of the trauma of death, and that they recover after a bit (like Mavrah did). So I don't see much reason to make the revived status different from the alive status. And them being "revived" isn't the particular status, it's them being mentally scattered. But because of the fact that we don't know who has recovered and who hasn't we can't say that they are in one status or the other, so I'd say that it would be best to simply have their pages say that they are alive. ~OnionShark 19:05, 29 May 2017 (CET)

I think we should just leave everything as it currently is. revived also currently provides a quick clue that they're stuck on the red star, as opposed to walking around spherus magna.Intelligence4 (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2017 (CET)

The character box says their location, so I still think it's unnecessary. ~OnionShark 07:26, 30 May 2017 (CET)

I'm pretty sure Greg also said at some point that Mavrah's case isn't the norm among the revived MUians (certainly the majority, but not the norm). But honestly, A LOT of things were discussed about that and our memories aren't infallible: an in-depth research for quotes has to be made.

Regarding the Revived status in itself, I see your point, but don't forget one of the goals of the summary tables: providing accurate information easily and quickly, without reading the entire wiki page. Even by assuming there's no difference at all between Alive and Revived, the last provides more information than the former: that character died once and come back to life.

But in the other hand, if you let the Red Star location and the rest of the info on the page clarify the Alive status, it would be less obvious. The well-informed fans might get it, but not the casual visitors, and this wiki is made for everybody.

Moreover, let's take a bit off-topic but still related example: your edit of the Jaller's summary table, where you've deleted the revived by Takutanuva in his rebuilt Matoran status. Although Jaller remained apparently the same, you're taking away a piece of information that could have been learned more quickly, by simply checking his summary table.

With the same logic for the other revived, that's why the Revived status has nonetheless a helpful purpose, IMO. Du7734 01:48, 1 June 2017 (CET)

No, Greg said that all of them recover after a while. (I'm gonna search for the quote if you want). And I disagree with you because the status is simply supposed to tell...well, the status. Any additional information should go somewhere else, shouldn't it? Sure, someone may learn something more quickly, but that's not the place to put it in IMO. ~OnionShark 07:32, 1 June 2017 (CET)

Yeah, revived is way more informative, which is the goal of a wiki, and I honestly don't see reason not to be as informative as possible, right? I mean, if it affected readability, or efficiency, I would understand, but that's not the case here, it's simply a different word that helps you understand the full story a little bit better, while still giving all the necessary info required to demonstrate the being's status.--Harsulin's Ghost (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2017 (CET)

pretty sure it wasn't organic

the features section says that the red star was made out of metallic and organic protodermis, like the mata nui robot. i'm pretty sure neither of those were made out of organic protodermis. pohatu just thought that it looked like it was organic tissue, but wasn't. Intelligence4 (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2017 (CET)

citations

i swear i already made a comment on this, but when we link to the powers that be for a source, we specify chapter 3, but clicking on the link just takes you to the page for the whole story, not the specific section for ch3. can that be changed, or is that part of the template? and if so, can the template be changed? Intelligence4 (talk) 09:24, 4 June 2017 (CET)

I made a modification. Is it what you wanted? — Surel—Nuva _(Talk) 15:44, 29 September 2017 (CET)

yeah, i think so. Intelligence4 (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

era years

Why shouldn't this have years listed on the era thing? it certainly didn't show up in the story in 2004/5... Intelligence4 (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2017 (CET)

Neither of the vehicles or the locations have Era years. And this is both, in a very strange way. — Surel—Nuva _(Talk) 21:42, 16 September 2017 (CET)

Makuta Revived

The answer that's currently on the wiki is that Makuta, and any other antidermis based beings, cannot be revived on the Red Star because it only revives protodermis based beings.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} However, Greg elsewhere suggested that the reason Makuta cannot be revived is because they evolved into pure energy/gaseous forms,^[6][7] but prior to that, they could have been.^[8][9] Judging from the times of the posts, this seems to be something Greg changed his mind on quite a bit, alternating back and forth between each. The first set of answers from 2013 state the latter. Dag (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion this post is pretty clear that the Red Star was built and programmed before the antidermis was a thing, thus wasn't programmed to revive it.--Surel (Talk) 00:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you meant this post? Besides, antidermis was a thing as soon as the Great Beings discovered how to create protodermis because it was a byproduct of that. And while the Makuta specificallly were created after the Red Star was completed, the Great Beings could've had every intention on the Makuta being revived once Mata Nui created them (since any species the Great Beings didn't create themselves, they programmed into Mata Nui^[1]). Dag (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually yes, idk how I managed to link the wrong quote, my bad. But still, the GBs may have already programmed the RS before they realized what to do with the antidermis at the first place. Similarly how the zyglak just came into being unwantedly.--Surel (Talk) 01:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Bodies Can Be Repaired As Well

Right now, this page only says that new bodies are made for deceased beings, without mentioning that the original bodies can be repaired as well. This "repair" option is included in the original source for the revival purpose of the Red Star. Is there any specific reason that the "repair" functionality has been omitted from this page, and it only says that brand new bodies are made for everyone?

The Jerminator (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)