Talk:Church (Red vs. Blue)

Captain Church

When Sister came, she said one soldier was supposed to be promoted. so didn't church get Promoted to captain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.214.243 (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, we've been over this and over this. There was no official confirmation on this and so we're leaving it out unless the RT staff shed some light on it. Dac (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

GFDL notice

On 20:24, July 7, 2006 (UTC), this was split from List of main characters in Red vs Blue#Church. Prior edit history can be found in the edit history of that article. — TKD::Talk 01:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Move proposal

Please see Talk:Red vs Blue#Requested move for discussion. — TKD::Talk 17:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Tubby?

In episode 82 and 85 Caboose and Tucker tease Church about snaking a lot, curiusly, Burnie Burns (voice of Chruch) has been accused of doing the same, dosent that count as trivia?[[1]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.211.157.123 (talk • contribs)

Well, it's not only trivia (which should actually be avoid), it's also original research, because there's no firm evidence that Rooster Teeth meant to make that parallel, or that a reliable source noticed it. — TKD::Talk 03:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Times as a ghost

Here's why I don't think the list of appearances as a ghost is useful:

• Some of the appearances are trivial and brief — for example, the latest one.
• Where it's important to the plot, it's already mentioned elsewhere, so as to give context. If you can cite a source that the appearance is significant for production reasons, mention it in the Filming section.
• Thus, items on a separate list is either trivial or redundant.
• To list these appearances separately is to imply that they are more important than the times in which he appears in armor, which isn't necessarily true. It's not a causal relationship.

I'm removing the section again; let's discuss this further before adding a list that seems to have limited benefit and exaggerates the notability of some appearances. — TKD::Talk 11:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination, maybe

hey has anyone thought of nominating this artile for good article, it's getting pretty close to the Donut quality, and it's looking pretty good. Also the worst that can happen is we get some insight on what to fix/improve. Any thoughts????

peace-Threewaysround 00:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

any thoughts at all anyone?!?!?-Threewaysround 20:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhm...I concur? Dac 01:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

awesome, i'll wait for a few more days to see if anyone else wants to speak, then i'll nominate.-Threewaysround 14:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

it's done-Threewaysround 20:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nomination Passed

Hi folks, I read over your article this morning, and I'm passing it for GA status. Here's the basic summary of what I looked at:

1. The article was well written.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable (nice job with sources).
3. It is broad in its coverage (covers briefly who Church is, what the show is, behind the scenes dev., interractions with other characters, etc.)
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. (Article was dry - in a good way - and had no personally invested tone)
5. Article seems stable, and has many edits from many different parties, which is good.
6. Article contains appropriate images.

As far as future improvements: the article was generally well-written, as I mentioned. The ending seemed abrupt, though, as a person reads through for the first time. It might be helpful to re-organize some of the ending content and have some kind of a summarizing sentence/paragraph at the end so that the reader has a sense of finality as they come to it. Not a huge deal at all, though.

Nice job, and congratulations. Have a great day! Nswinton 16:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I"m changing the rating on the page to GA, good job everyone!! :D

peace out_Threewaysround 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

good article userbox

Hey now that this article is a Good article. I would like to put this userbox here for anyone who made significant edits to this article, before it became a good article. I'll be takeing it down in about 1 or 2 weeks, i just want to give everyone a chance to get it. {{User Good Article|Church (Red vs. Blue)}}

-Threewaysround 23:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

spoilers?

Shouldn't the role in the plot section have spoiler warnings?--124.185.70.46 15:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:Spoiler, it's been deemed redundant to put spoiler warnings in plot sections, as it should be clear that a plot section will reveal spoilers. -- Viewdrix 15:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Character Trivia

I think we should add some Trivia for some of the character. Or at least on the Season page. I have one that points out in both Episode 8 "Don't Ph34r the Reaper" and in Episode 43 "Make Your Time" Church's last words before being blown up were, "Oh son of a...". --Mr. S.C. Shadow (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I even have a template that points it out.

RvBThis user's last words were "son of a bitch".

--Mr. S.C. Shadow (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The last thing the article needs is a section full of trivial information. This isn't a fansite.--Drat (Talk) 01:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines state trivia sections should not be added to articles. Dac (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rvbchurchhalo1.jpg

Image:Rvbchurchhalo1.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rvbchurchhalo2.jpg

Image:Rvbchurchhalo2.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

sniper

I think it should be put into here that he is a terrible shot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not G. Ivingname (talk • contribs) 05:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It was. It's been removed before on the grounds that it is trivial and unnecessary. Dac (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Alpha AI

Should we categorise Church as a fictional AI or something now it is revealed he is an AI? For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to.--Drat (Talk) 09:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Themes

Could we please add a themes section for Church like we have for Caboose and Simmons? For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Not necessary. Anything we could put in there has already been covered underother subheadings. This is working fine. No need to change it. Dac (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Intelligence as he seems smarter than everyone else except Wash hasn't been covered. Bad aim and sniper rifle haven't been covered either. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Intelligence is superfluous. Already established that he plays the straight man, and by your own admission he "seems" it, thus constituting original research if we expand on it. Bad aim was debated before, but removed on the grounds that it is largely trivial in the face of other information. Dac (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

¿Playing the straight man? I doubt someone so neurotic, angry and antisocial like Church could play the straight man. In fact I don't think there's any straight man in Red vs Blue. All the characters are either lazy, rageous, cowardly, stupid, insane, narcissistic, promiscuous or mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.12.156.120 (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Church was for the bulk of the series, as he was the character that was grounded in reality and focused on his tasks. Granted, he was incessantly angry but that trait wasn't as exaggerated as the other characters. Later Washington took over the role, but Church was still the de facto straight man during the Blood Gulch Chronicles. Dac (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but still he was funny as hell, right behind Caboose.

Ghost

dude, i know Wash stated it, but that doesn't mean for a fact that Church is an AI. nothings confirmed, so that is just an assumtion. Wash could possibly be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.58.225 (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

With the revelation that he was based on the director, who has the same name, there's little room for doubt any more. We may have jumped the gun a few episodes ago but it's confirmed now. Dac (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr.

would it be Dr. Private Leonard Church or Private Dr. Leonard Church? Anon(LVPoW) 21:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither. The AI was classified as a Private, the human was Doctor, there is no crossing over. Dac (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)