Talk:Grif

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Machinima, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to machinima on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the main project page and join or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as being of Low importance within machinima on the importance scale.
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance, but no comments have yet been left.

I decided to finally get this page going and write stuff out, but I can tell it'll need some clean-up. Go ahead and go through it, pick out the things that need editing, I'll see if I can get an image. Dac 13:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Removed content 2 Recent Changes 3 Grif's Sister 4 Grifs state as drafted 5 Intellegence and Initative

[edit] Removed content

Having reviewed the content you removed and your rationale, I agree with it, with the exception of the following text which was removed:

"Although Sarge and Simmons regard Grif as unintelligent, the likelihood is that Grif simply has a bad habit of speaking or acting before thinking. In fact, Grif is capable of being more responsible than he lets on; when Simmons defected and began to wage a one-man war against his former teammates, Grif was the only member of Red Team who tried to actually solve the problem."

I left that in because it was a large point in his section on the List page. I am confused as to why this was excluded. Dac 05:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Likelihood" is one of those words that tips off original research. The whole point with Grif is that he's lazy and inept. (Paul Marino goes so far as to mention this as an example of good character design in his book on machinima). It's an interpretation, one that needs some sourced support. A primary source example isn't enough when you're giving an interpretation. — TKD::Talk 06:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes

Lately, I've made some changes to this page. I had been removing the vulgarity, because I don't beleive that it is necessary to get the point across. Yet, it has been pointed out to me that it is needed to prove certain character traits. I still disagree, but that's fair enough and I won't fight anyone over it. However, on the section on Grif's intelegence, I added a a comment about how Church stated that Grif is smart, and yet that was removed. So, I put it back, because it is completely relevent, since a section on Grif's intellegence should contain things about how smart he is, which I put in. Now, in the 'relationships with other characters' part, it was stated that Tucker overheard Grif and Simmons talking, and he thinks that their in love. That, however is not true. Tucker overhears two members of the red team talking, but does not specifically state who, so that comment is irrelevent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.125.172.252 (talk • contribs).

The reason the comment with Tucker is left in is because it matches the relationship Grif and Simmons has, no others. Though you're right and it isn't explicitly stated that those are the two, Rooster Teeth were working to make it an obvious hint. Hence, we leave it in. BUT, as for the comment by Church, that was to mess with Simmons's head, nothing more. Church knew perfectly well what would annoy Simmons so he exploited him for his own amusement. There's nothing to suggest that Church really sees Grif as such. Dac 00:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point on Tucker's comment, at least until I have a chance to review the surrounding DVD audio commentary. I'm pretty sure somewhere along the way the "old married couple" comparison is made by Rooster Teeth. Not a bad call to remove it until it's proven, however, as these articles already have enough problems with original research. Not a big deal, I don't think, as we need some source than the plot/dialogue itself to eventually prove that comparison solidly. In a similar vein, though, it's been the consensus not to include Church's perception of Grif because one interpretation is that he's at least partially messing with Simmons' head at that point. It'd be original research for us to take a position on that, so we've just avoided it altogether. — TKD::Talk 00:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, please keep in mind the three-revert rule, which states that you cannot revert a page more than three times in any 24-hour period. It's much better to discuss these things first, rather than to edit war. — TKD::Talk 01:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted. For the record, I'm almost entirely certain that they do reference the married couple thing on the commentary. Dac 01:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

In the Season 2 DVD comentary, Matt Hullun specifically says, and I quote, "There's actually more than one tandem over there in red team that you could figure is the 'old married couple' that Tucker is talking about."

Thanks. I've been in the long process of actually taking notes from the commentaries and haven't gotten that far. — TKD::Talk 01:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I just wanted to help clean up the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.125.172.252 (talk • contribs).

That's fair, but we've just had that part in there since before the page split into eight, so when I made the Grif and Simmons pages I added that in. My mistake. Dac 01:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Not your fault. It's probably been there since I joined (December 2005). I've only cleaned up some of the worst of the original research and copyedited for some clarity. Articles on fiction have been getting more scrunity across the board lately, though. — TKD::Talk 01:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That's cool. Oh, now about the whole Church said that Grif was smart' deal, are we just going to leave that out since we don't know what he meant? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.125.172.252 (talk • contribs).

Probably best to. If I could, I wouldn't mind stubbing some of these articles and starting over, but, given the scrutiny that articles on fiction have been given and the need to avoid articles that could never hope to be decent for lack of anything but plot summary, that probably wouldn't look too good. — TKD::Talk 01:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I watched the Season Four commentary and I swear to god, it is near-impossible to get character info from those. I got about four notes. Are there any articles you know of that you haven't checked yet which might have info? It'd probably be easier. Dac 09:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Grif gets an ancillary mention in Paul Marino's book, The Art of Machinima. Other than that, there are bits here and there. I've probably read about 25 articles at one point or another, and they all blur together, unfortunately. Simmons and Grif are going to be weakest in terms of third-party mentions, though. — TKD::Talk 11:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I know, but I was looking for general overall notes to use for any character and got very little. Dac 21:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The character-specific commentary does tend to be sparse. As for commentary from Rooster Teeth, you basically havre to pick and choose through the long commentaries of each season. Which is why I had hoped to have my note-taking process done by now (but that's a pain, and I'm not even out of season 1). — TKD::Talk 09:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grif's Sister

It has just been revealed in Episode 81, Grif has a sister. She wears yellow armor and talks like a very cute, girly girl. I like her already!

I know this info was deleted, which I completly understand, since it was starting to look like an article on Grif's sister. But, I do think mention of her is relevent, so I put in a short statement to simply acknwoledge his family. Ultimahero

I still think that until her character develops further, it's still more or less irrelevant. She has a section in the character page, and until more expansion is made on her character, ie. which side she's on, what her name is, etc, we should just leave as is. While I agree that she should be acknowledged, a single sentence at the bottom of a section looks extremely redundant. That's my opinion on the matter. Dac 05:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Redundant? Is she mentioned elsewhere that I didn't see? If so, then my apologies. But, if not, then I do think it's relevant. Ultimahero

I think you missed my point. No, she is not anywhere else on this page, because as yet there's not enough information about her that relates to Grif. Until more information of that type is released, any sentence saying something to the effect of "Grif has a sister." at the bottom of a section just seems too throw-away. As such, we will wait for info about Grif in relation to his sister, before putting anything more on. Dac 05:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how a simple mention can really hurt the article. I do think that it deserves to be there. But, since it would include changing the article, I won't make any changes if I'm the only one who feels that way. Still, though, if others agree with me then I certainly think that it should be done. Ultimahero

You're still missing my point. I also agree that it should be there. Sadly, there's just not enough information for it. Dac 05:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

How is there not enough info? If we know she's there, then it is can be added in. And I'm not missing you'r point. You don't thinks it belongs in there right now. I do. If he has family that is known, then they should be mentioned. We update as each new episode comes out. Besides, you made the point that she has her own article. That is where the majority of the info belongs, which will be updated as it comes out. But, on Grif's page, a mention of his sister is definitely relevent. Ultimahero

Hmm. It's always tough to deal with in-season things because Rooster Teeth loves to hold off on revealing things. A simple sentence might not be optimal, but I'm not sure that "redundant" is the right word. Odd-looking or incomplete perhaps. But I'd be in favor of leaving it in, just a one-sentence paragraph for now, with the understanding that how it relates to Grif will be developed later. It was a major plot twist to reveal her. How she's significant has yet to be revealed, of course, but her appearance was a major part of the season so far. If it turns out that the sentence doesn't fit at all, we can always ditch it later. But, as of now, I think a brief mention might be worthwhile. — TKD::Talk 05:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank. That's exactly how I feel. We don't know much about her, but it was a big event that merrits mention. Ultimahero

By the way, if we're going to mention her, let's do so from an out-of-universe perspective — e.g., "In episode 81, Rooster Teeth reveals a new character, a sister of Grif."... etc. This makes it clearer that her introduction is done as a deliberate measure by Rooster Teeth then and there. — TKD::Talk 05:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I put it in as 'In Episode 81, we learn that Grif has a sister, who joins him in the canyon.' I think that it works. What does anyone else think? Ultimahero

Probably best to avoid the first person (even the "formal" collective use). — TKD::Talk 05:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I took your advice and put it in as 'In Episode 81, Rooster Teeth reveals a new character in Grif's sister, who joins him in the canyon.' Ultimahero

Fine for now, in my opinion. Just as a little bit more of an explanation for CapDac: I know I crusade against short, stubby paragraphs and trivial connections, so perhaps I should explain why I took the inclusionist stnce here. I'd absolutely object to anyone trying to explain the role of Grif's sister in relation to Grif, but the fact that a new character is introduced is pretty significant. I'm not etirely happy that that's all hat we can say, and I do appreciate the concern about the lack of info for now. However, it's the usual one-off or tenuous connection or joke that we usually revert; this was being built up for a couple of episodes and is factually part of the plot. Whereas humor, style, and themes require some sourced analysis, it's not original research to state her introduction. To go much beyond is tenuous, I agree. — TKD::Talk 06:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grifs state as drafted

I noticed an inconsistancy: grift was apparently drafted, but in the first episode he talks about signing up.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.42.103.171 (talk • contribs) .

~Chimeric

It's not the only time that Rooster Teeth have contradicted themselves. For example, episode 6 suggests that Church was already in Blood Gulch when Tucker was transferred there, while episode 50 established that Church was stationed there after Tucker.--Drat (Talk)

Yup, season 3 retconned much of the first two seasons. — TKD::Talk 11:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intellegence and Initative

I know that there was some descrepency as to whether or not Church was messing with Simmons when he said Grif was smart, but Episode 85 proves that he meant it. He say that Grif is pretty crafty, just like himself. Unless he is calling himself dumb, which would be very uncharacteristic of Church, then he does consider Grif smart. I suppose that he could have been trying to mess with Simmons's head as well, but he still meant it. You know, the truth hurts, that kind of thing.

I think not. Knowing Church, there could easily be a discrepancy between "smart" and "crafty". The way he said it left me with an impression that what he means is Grif has his streaks of good ideas; not many, but he does have them, when the need arises. If another instance appears in which he labels Grif as intelligent I'll stake a claim to say I'll be eating my words but the wording does not leave me with a full impression that Church believes Grif really is smart.
However, I'm not willing to start a revert war over this so I'll leave it as is for now and wait for the other guys to have their say. Dac 11:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I know what you're saying, but Church said "He's pretty crafty, like me." If what you said was true, then he is claiming that he, too, only has the occasional good idea and is usually unintelligent. Church is certainly not the type to purposely insult himself. Besides, this is two instances, which is more than enough.

That's true enough that he said that, but he wasn't necessarily insulting himself. Sounds more like he was saying Grif every so often has his moments that can rival that of Church himself; he was talking himself up, not putting himself down.
Sadly, I'm going to remove that paragraph at the moment anyway because for a two-instance occurrence, it has ballooned into something way too in-depth and the verbiage relies heavily on original research. Until we can sort out a suitable statement we should probably just leave it out, temporarily.
By the way, don't forget to sign your posts with four of these things: ~ . Dac 22:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Feel free to do so. But, if you do, I'll delete the whole section. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not being petty. I'm simply following your guidelines. You said we need more than two instances for proof. Well, the whole argument about Grif being unintellegint because he mispronounces words is based on only two instances, as well. Margain and both. That's two occurences, which, by your own admitance, is not enough. Therefore, the whole section is flawed.

The whole page has been flawed since day one, we all acknowledge that. It's just no one's gotten around to cleaning up the character articles to the same level as Church or Donut's. Dac 00:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I know. Look, I personally don't think that the section really belongs due to the fact that Grif's intellegence has never been a 'theme', like that of Caboose. I suppose that it seems more like fan opinion. I know he mispronounces words, but I don't think that makes hims any less intellegent. And he claims to not know what jogging is, but that would fit more into his charateristic of being lazy, not dumb. And, even if he's serious, that's just ignorance, which in no way reflects opinion. But, in any case, if you and the majority of fans feel that it belongs, then fine. But, we can't edit out things just because they contradict what's already there. We have to include all of the evidence. I guess that one could interprete what Church said to mean different things, but one could interprete things however they want, and that would be opinion. I'm trying to go off of what he said, and it was, quote, "That's the orange one. He's pretty crafty. He's a lot like me."

By all means go ahead. I'm trying to be as unbiased here as possible; although one thing I will disagree on is whether or not Grif's intelligence is not a theme. It is; Sarge and Simmons have been decrying it since Season One, it's another area for them to attack him on. It is a theme. It's just we've been removing the whole "Church thinks Grif is smart" thing for months, so much to the point where we get suspicious when it happens again. But note, I am leaving it in. I'll only modify it if the wording gets out of hand, as it did before. The whole "seems to" and "probably" is a big fault in an article as it pretty much always says "This bit is original research".
Don't forget to sign your posts. Dac 00:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)