Talk:List of characters in Red vs. Blue/Archive 2

message: I think it's important to have Vic's Jingle at least mentioned...as part of the scheme of his annoyance, and I totally forgot-what episode does Church and Doc mention it?
:Checking back, it's Episode 80 "Baby Steps". Frostmourne 16 21:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vic's Jingle 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Oppose; If we have more than one page for the minor characters people unfamiliar with Red vs Blue or beginning t learn about it will get confused, and anyway, there are other "Minor characters in (whatever)" pages that are FAR longer than this one.  Dac 23:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Would it be wrong to assume that the sister to Dexter Grif would share his last name? -- Viewdrix 20:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't be.  Where were you thinking of placing it? Dac 06:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Her little section. Have it say "Last name: Grif", just like how Wyoming says "First name: Reginald". Guess I'll do that now. -- Viewdrix 14:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: They explained it in her introduction episode: something about a the engine of the ship surpassing light-speed. -- Viewdrix 23:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't try to make sense of inconsistencies in RvB; it's meant mostly for comic purposes and things change all the time.  What's consistent is the personalities of the characters (and sometimes not even those).  As for Grif's sister's last name, I had previously put Grif in as her last name, and people here removed it, calling it "unsubsatiated conjecture." Something like that anyway. I personally think it's a fair thing to assume, but apparently others do not. --Doncroft 01:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Grif is Grif's last name, then Grif's sister, assuming she is not married, also shares his last name, unless they have different fathers. 152.23.196.162 04:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is one assumption that is fairly safe. If it's somehow proven false, easy fix.--Doncroft 02:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister's last name. 

message: Should we not also know the "Worthog" as a Puma also? Sence it was said atleast twice in its existence.
:No, it was never an official name.  Chupathingy, at least, is on its character profile.  Dac 22:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  M12LRV 

message: As of episode 95 there has been speculation that O'Malley is in Church. There has not been conclusive onscreen evidence of this point, but many edits supporting it. I just thought it deserved a mention on this talk page, if not the one for Season V. Ccs4ever 21:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Episode 96 already shows that O'Malley's currently possessing Captain Flowers, and Church did say that he was never promoted to Blue Leader officially, so Church is clean for the time being (and presumeably throughout the last few remaining episodes of Season V, unless some unexpected plot twist happens...). Frostmourne 16 12:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: O'Malley in Church

message: Some stuff I feel need to be focused on, just to share some ideas:
*Recent edits, especially of new characters Sister and Junior, have broken down everything by starting sentences with "In episode ______,". Nix this. Write it in proper prose like other characters.
*Appearances need to be added for at least Lopez, O'Malley (maybe when we see his personality. This would be easier to do, since we could just use Edit->Find in web browsers on rvb.roostertooths.com's transcripts for any O'Malley lines.), and Doc. I just added Sheila, including background appearances. I might have missed one or two.
*Appearances in the specials have to be added.
*We need a consensus on episode links. The choices are either trying to keep up linking to individual episodes once per page, or just link every mention. If my first idea is followed through with to eliminate the episode numbers mentioned in prose, I have no qualms with having every episode in Appearance counts be linked to that episode.
*Could we consider spinning off another character or two into main articles? Right now, Sheila, Lopez, Doc, Wyoming and O'Malley seem most likely. All but Wyoming seem notable enough in relation to the other characters on this page to have their own articles.
Just some stuff to think about. -- Viewdrix 20:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up. 

message: Two things are repeatedly being added to the Captain Flowers sections that have not been confirmed, so I'm just clarifying the fact that they shouldn't be.  First of all: Simmons referring to Flowers when they inspect the bodies.  For all we know, he was referring to Church when he was blown up by the tank.  Because, do the Reds know of Church's status as a ghost?  If not, then for all they know, it was someone else who got shot by Sheila.
Second, the fact that Flowers is wearing blue armour, does NOT mean that it's Tucker's old armour.  It may well be, and quite possibly is, but until we know for certain, we can't claim it.  Thanks.  Dac 08:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unconfirmed Captain Flowers info

message: I think we had this discussion once before over which characters require episode appearances, and the consensus was that the last character to be introduced that did not require it was Doc.  So, why exactly has Sheila been given it?  With her large number of appearances, it makes her section look extremely cluttered, and to add, Lopez, O'Malley and Doc have arguably appeared more infrequently than her but do not have the lists.  Is it really necessary for her?  Dac 10:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vaguely remember said discussion taking place, but not any decision or consensus being reached. I wanted to add appearances for each character you mentioned (see the "Clean-up" section above, which I posted after adding Sheila's appearances), I just happened to do Sheila first, and she was a bit of effort, so I haven't yet started on the others. For one extra line of text, I don't think it makes her section look "extremely cluttered" at all, in my opinion. -- Viewdrix 16:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with that if the one extra line of text was within the main body, but such a lengthy line as one of the subheadings seems overexcesive.  And again, I seem to recall that there was a consensus, which I outlined above.  Dac 04:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sheila's episode appearances

message: could junior be the great destroyer way back when everyone was talking about how wyoming and flowers/omally want to get junior wyoming say that he want him because of what he going to do, and omally is iterseted in him, so back when gary/gamma is screaming the great destroyer is arrived could that mean when tucker got pregnate with the alien.
:I may agree with you on that - Flowers did say that he was interested in Junior, and Wyoming did say that Junior had a grand destiny to fulfill for those guys. So, yeah, Junior just might be the Great Destroyer (man, I so love plot twists!). Frostmourne 16 12:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we've confirmed that Junior is NOT the Great Destroyer, because the Great Destroyer prophecy revolves around stealing the weapon and using it to destroy everything.  However, according to Tucker, the prophecy being fulfilled is the one the Alien told them in Season Four, where the sword is to be used to save their entire species, not kill everything.  I think we can be safe saying that the Great Destroyer story was just a ploy for time used by Gary.  Dac 23:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There may yet be truth to both prophecies. If you consider the difference in point of view both descriptions may be of the same prophecy. The Alien's prophecy was of salvation of his entire race, while Gary spoke of his death and doom for billions of people. If the aliens and humans are at war to such an extent that it must be "won at all cost" than the salvation of one would undoubtedly be the doom of the other. Just a thought. Ccs4ever 00:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put like that the possibility is there, but the Alien's prophecy was confirmed in the latest video; anything about the Great Destroyer remains original research so we'll have to wait before anything like that occurs. Dac 00:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know if this is necessarily true. I could see the "stealing" referring to O'Malley/Wyoming/etc. taking the word to give to Junior, and something or someone coming and taking the sword back to save the species. This is less to try and get my theory recognized, but more to point out that saying Junior isn't the Great Destroyer is as much original research and interpretation as saying he is. -- Viewdrix 01:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: My point is for now we should just leave it blank and any implications about the Great Destroyer and Junior in the same sentence should be left out altogether.  The clues are pointing towards him not being it, and I'm aware saying either is OR, which is why I haven't added anything to decry it, but yeah.  The other prophecy was at least confirmed in the video.  Dac 01:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: great destroyer

message: OK, given that there's only one episode to go, I think we can be pretty certain that the two people interrogating Grif in the earlier episode were Flowers and the New Alien, as the colours, species, motivations and weapons are all the same and it's too late in the game to introduce more people to that fold.  Plus, Andy's dialogue in episode 97 essentially confirms that anyway.  So should we add that episode to their appearances or something? Dac 23:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flowers and New Alien appearances

message: That section is looking way too cluttered.  Is there some way we can cut that down a size?  Something like:
*Armour colour: Grey (Caboose's mental projection), whatever armour colour his host is
*Voice actor: Voice actor of whoever he possesses (except Kathleen Zuelch)
Maybe not the best way, but something just so it isn't so bulky.  Any thoughts?  Dac 11:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: O'Malley's armour colours and voice actors

message: The article says Lopez was put on the ship but I only saw him when he was brought up with Andy.
The only ones I saw on the ship were Tex, Junior, the other alien, and a Wyoming Helmet not Lopez's head, since it was white, not green.
:Checking back on the episode, you're right. -- Viewdrix 06:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Lopez didn't really die in the end - the only helmet brought onboard Sheila was from one of the Wyomings. Anybody got any ideas what happened after Blood Gulch? Frostmourne 16 09:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Lopez Die? 

message: Most of the characters present in ep 100 reference the "three endings" of the series, but now the DVD is released and there's about twice that, we should go about fixing this.  But, to say "died in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th endings" or whatever is far too long - how should we go about it?  Dac 11:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Endings

message: Is there a source that confirms what was on Lopez's readout? Every version I find has it too blurry to read. I know Sarge said Lopez was programmed to hate Grif but I think a source would be good.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BioYu-Gi! (talk • contribs) 22:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly readable (just) in the DivX version. Needless to say the Hi-res and DVD versions are readable.-Drat (Talk) 02:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lopez Hates Grif?

message: It says Griff wanted to name the Warthog Puma, but the link leads to Cougar?  -_- Shark 20:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're the same animal, the article is just titled Cougar.  Dac 01:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warthog name 

message: Delta's info was previously added into York's section but since Recovery One reveals he survived should we branch him off into his own subsection?  The S5 DVD credits note his voice actor and his section wouldn't be any shorter than other characters like the Grunts...your thoughts? Dac 01:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delta's own section?

message: In fact, the only place where it says that the incorrect Spanish was intentional is here, Wikipedia. It isn't sourced, and certainly isn't mentioned on the production company's website. I'd greatly appreciate it someone could point to the evidence.128.2.164.169 (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lopez' incorrect Spanish - intentional? 

message: I just searched Great Destroyer and got redirected here. Are people on the wiki aware that Great Destroyer is not only a NIN song but also a pretty significant fictional character from Guild Wars? As much as i love Red Vs Blue, i think it'd be best if there was some sort of disambiguation page.--99.225.57.217 (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problems with that, but do those other ones have articles at all? Dac (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Destroyer 

message: In the third commentary of Recovery One, it is revealed that the voice actor's name is Justin Mc'Cormick, I am not sure if this is the correct spelling as the name hasn't been written down anywhere. Should it be added? Ccs4ever (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Watching it now, it's actually Shannon McCormick, not Justin.  And I think it is worth noting on the page, and if it turns out we spelled it wrong we can simply amend it later.  Dac (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My wrong, sorry. I was planning on rewatching the video before commenting, but the name 'Justin' was so strong in my head it felt like it had to be the right one. Ccs4ever (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, don't worry about it, I know the feeling.  Also, we should probably add a section on South, we have info on her now as well.  Dac (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Washington's voice actor

message: I think that all of the AI's should be listed together  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.78.201 (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hunh...that's not a bad idea, although to avoid confusion over Sheila and Lopez I think we can limit it to AIs in the freelancer program.  Anyone else's thoughts?  Dac (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, since there was no one decrying the idea I think we can go ahead with it.  It can go in a subheading under Unaffiliated characters, since they all are, and I'll do a similar thing with Freelancer agents.  Dac (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of AI's 

message: I added Gavin Free as voice actor for Jones, if anyone doesn't like it please reason here - Jason Garwood.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.232.124 (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gavin Free

message: Shouldn't Captain Flowers be listed under the Blue team since that is his affiliation? Ccs4ever (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see any reason at all why the Red Zealot could be argued as affiliated with Red Team, but as for Flowers himself, yes, I think this is a valid move.  He was listed under unaffiliated after O'Malley's presence was known, but I think it's pretty safe to say he can be included under the Blue team heading. Dac (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Captain Flowers

message: Having Ralph in the same section as the others has never sat right with me, and the more I think about it the more I think Jacobs and the Pilot really aren't in the right location either.  Should we have another section for the non-canon characters, just to ease that up?
Also, the Great Destroyer section, seeing as it all appears to be false and isn't likely to be cleared up any more, seems a bit superfluous now, especially since most of the information there is covered under Gary's profile anyway. Dac (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-canon characters and Great Destroyer 

message: With the move of North to the Freelancer subsection under the recurring unaffiliated characters section, it occurred to me that shouldn't "Freelancer Agent," "AI's of the Freelancer Project," or a merged, "Freelancer Project" be counted as an affiliation on par with Red Team and Blue Team? It just seems wrong to me to have "AI's (affiliated with) the Freelancer Program" under "Recurring Unaffiliated Characters." The only problem I can see with this is how to classify Tex, but we already have this problem with the introduction of the Freelancer subsection, it would just be a little more pronounced to have Freelancer Tex in the Blue Team section on the same screen-full as Freelancer Project. Ccs4ever (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problems aren't lost on me, but given Tex is one of the core characters and operates essentially solely with the Blue team for the better part of the main five seasons, I think that's one exception we can make - the other option being linking to her from both Blue team and the Freelancer section.  But in answer to your original question, yes, I think reclassifying the Freelancer program as a separate affiliation is a valid step.  Dac (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright then, I can do a simple move real quickly, and then decide whether we still need the separate subsections for Freelancer Agents and AIs. Ccs4ever (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  Should we add a minor blurb at the start of the section, before the Counsellor, summing up the Freelancer project and what is known about it?  (Example, the naming system, the history with the AIs, etc.)  Just very briefly.  Would that work?  Dac (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good, it would match up better with the Red and Blue Team sections to have something of a summary of information about the group. Would just be a matter of formulating all the details and keeping the original research out. Ccs4ever (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added...I double-checked, it's all facts and no OR or speculation, but it's a bit long.  It could probably stand a condense, but I wasn't sure what to withdraw.  What do you think?  Dac (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks good, a bit longer than the blurbs for the two teams, but that is to be expected as there is a lot more history to the project, and still a lot of uncertainty. There could be areas where pruning is necessary, so I'll give it a few more lookovers. I just wish we could retire the Nevada codename as Texas has been used everywhere since, and we could say something about that apparent overriding mission to "win the war," that went beyond Tex and Wyoming's apparent gun's for hire existence, but that would be injecting opinion to a certain extent. The quote from the first sponsor episode especially got me thinking that Tex as a "freelancer" was just a ruse to scatter agents to look for that preferable alternative to extinction, but these thoughts have no place on an article talk page. Ccs4ever (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, it's all speculation at this point...and I'm afraid that using Agent Nevada is going to have to stay.  I'm not sure what the deal is with the references to Agent Texas, but the Character Profile on the S5 DVD clearly stated "Codename: Nevada", and the driving argument behind many of the changes to Agent Texas are that she was talking to Caboose (which she wasn't, she was talking to Tucker and Donut).  I'm aware of Delta and Washington referring to her as Texas, but until RT gives a statement I feel it's better to run with what was grounded, not with idle speculation.  Dac (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freelancers and their AIs 

message: Does Washington still work for Project Freelancer or does he now count as rogue due to the fact he lead Caboose, Church and the red team minus Donut to attack Command? For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still unclear at this point.  We'll just have to wait for more details.  Dac (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington's affiliation 

message: Just wondering, but having gone through transcripts for R1 and Reconstruction, I can find no mention of Epsilon being a "he". In fact, it seems to me that it's gender has been avoided, only being referenced to as "it". Without some kind of citation, I would advise a change of the "he's" to "it's" etc in Epsilons section, especially as it seems it will become more relevant following the release of Chapter 15 of Reconstruction. 86.146.114.54 (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fair point, but we don't know if AIs even have genders in the literal sense; every one we've come across has been "male", but for all we know they were all made unisex.  I'm not sure about this one...any other thoughts? Dac (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epsilon's Gender 

message: I think Wash now counts as rogue due to the fact he has killed at least three people from command's forces and destroyed a few of their vehicles. Should this be put? For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Original research.  Sorry.  Dac (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

text: And?  He was still a member of the now-defunct program.  York is listed under the same section despite the fact that throughout his entire appearance he wasn't working with the program.  There's no need to move Washington.  If we did, we'd have to move South as well.  Dac (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington's affiliation continued 

message: Because of evidence in reconstruction episode 16, I believe Church should also be included in the list of AI as the Alfa.The Ashen (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He has his own article.  A wikilink can be placed there if so desired but there's no need for a full biography. Dac (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include Church/Alfa AI to list of AI 

message: As the Director has been added, could we please add the Chairman? For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 06:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so much we can cover in that section.  All we know about him is what he and the Director have said in their memos to each other, which, at this point, is that his full title is the Chairman of the Oversight Sub-Committee, and that he's placed the Director under criminal investigation.  That's it.  Since we can't even cover basics with this character I'd adivse leaving him out until something more substantial comes along. Dac (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chairman 

message: These are not necessary as they have little relevance to the content of this article.  It has already been well-established that the codenames of the agents are named so for the states, and likewise that the AIs are named for Greek letters.  Beyond this, there is no relevance and no need to link to those articles.  The articles being linked to contain no information whatsoever about the characters or anything relevant to the series beyond a fact which has already been noted on this page.  Furthermore, by linking to those articles in prose by using the name of the character to do so, it is disrupting continuity in the article; by implication, it is saying that the state or Greek letter is the one the article is about, which it is not; this is an article focused on the characters.
Please do not re-add those links.  They are largely trivial in regards to this article. Dac (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't make any sense at all! Having links to the States and Greek letters doesn't disrupt anything at all, all it sounds like is you're just making stuff up as an excuse to not use the links. There is nothing wrong with having the links there so why not just leave them? 146.85.235.181 (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I just explained, we can't simply leave them because they are not relevant.  They link to articles that have nothing to do with this one beyond a fact we already covered on this same page, and they disrupt the flow of the prose.  How is this in any way hard to understand? Dac (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well perhaps the viewer might want to learn more about the Greek Letters and States that each are named after. And what about the links to articles about the Alpha's personality (like creativity for Sigma, anger for Omega and logic for Delta), those also seem significant. 146.85.235.181 (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the event that the viewer does wish that, that's what the search tool is for.  Internal links are designed so that articles can link to other closely-specific articles, such as how this article has links to the main character articles.  They are not generally intended to link to an article that is only vaguely relevant in some minor way, which is what the states and Greek letters are, because as I have said, the only relevance is in name only.  As for those other links, they're just as irrelevant, if not more so, since they're about a broad topic and still has little relevance.  You describe them as "articles about the Alpha's personality" but that is incorrect.  They are broad articles about the fundamental basics of their topics.  I'm sorry, but there is still not enough need to constitute linking to them.  Dac (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to states and Greek letters

message: I don't recall Epsilon ever appearing in the series, so how is it that the information about its appearance is included here? Where did the info come from? 146.85.235.181 (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At the start of Recovery One chapter four, the production crew continued the theme of starting each chapter with the image of a dead body.  In this case they used a holographic blue Spartan, which was confirmed in the sponsor commentary of that episode to be Epsilon. Dac (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the sponsor commentary now? I only just downloaded the sponsor hi-res versions of the Recovery One files, but I can't see any commentary versions, unlike with Reconstruction. That said, I only registered as a Sponsor a couple months ago.--Drat (Talk) 08:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They were released in the sponsor forum as viewing-only (not download) a short while after Recovery One wrapped up.  Should still be there. Dac (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I was able to find the posts, albeit indirectly, yet the embedding didn't work. I don't know if it's just me. The video links were still present in the page source, so I was able to download them. Sponsor forum post links: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4.--Drat (Talk) 09:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Info about Episilon

message: Shouldn't it be included that Doc appeared in the sponser's cut of Chapter 12 of Reconstrution, as we did the same for Lopez.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.157.40 (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doc appearing in Reconstrution