Talk:List of characters in Red vs. Blue
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Requested move
We should make a separate page for each section in the characters page because it is very long. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by O'Malley II (talk • contribs).
[edit] Survey
- 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)
- Strong oppose. (This isn't a "requested move"; it's a requested split, by the way.) (a) List articles are given more leeway with respect to length. (b) Minor characters do njot enough out-of-universe information to support a separate page, and would most likely end up re-merged in the end. — TKD::Talk 01:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, though I've been wanting to bring up the possibility of an article for, say, O'Malley. -- Viewdrix 02:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
- Add any additional comments
[edit] DOC
first, shouldn't doc, be considerd part of blue team as off season 5, since he spends most of the time as a blue team person or alteaST acts like one? and dosn't he deserve a page? also, should the fact that he seems to becoming extremly demented, look aT season 5, part one, that proves he has gone more and more insane?--Cody6 02:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that all of that is original research.--Drat (Talk) 03:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Officially, Doc straddles the line between the two sides; to claim otherwise without objective proof from reliable primary or secondary sources would be original research, which is not allowed. As for the issue of the separate page, characters should have separate pages only if there is enough out-of-universe (essentially non-plot and non-original-research) information for them to sustain an article about them. — TKD::Talk 03:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, in one of the episodes early in season 5, when Church is freaking out about how poorly defended the blues are, Doc states that he is a neutral party in this.
- As for the so called "insanity", I haven't really noticed anything about him being insane. He is definately weird though, but I think he's always been weird. I mean, for the majority of his apperances, we only see him coming in and interupting O'Malley at random points (and those times he had that same weird-ness to him). He wasn't much of a chracter, so we never really knew him, we only knew him as the host of O'Malley. But now with O'Malley gone, he's become his real self. Basically, he reverted to that nerdy guy we met back in early season two. Voicingmaster 06:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sister's last name.
Would it be wrong to assume that the sister to Dexter Grif would share his last name? -- Viewdrix 20:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Shouldn't be. Where were you thinking of placing it? Dac 06:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
how can sister be appart of the rvb characters? if they are in the future and the only way they got there was by the bomb how could she have joined? she wasnt present at the explosion
- 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)
-
- 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)