Talk:Caboose (Red vs. Blue)

Season 4 plot

The astute Wikipedian will note that, in my recent condensation of the plot, I left out season 4 entirely for the moment. The reason for this is that Caboose's role in season 4 is pretty minor, since the focus shifts to Simmons' exile, Tucker, and the Alien. If someone wants to add bits back in, feel free, but don't make it too long. I just felt that it was getting out of hand. I'll work on the Themes section eventually, but at least there's not as much redundancy now. — TKD::Talk 07:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A.I.

the spontaneous ejection of A.I. can be catastrophic the the psyche —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.65.64 (talk • contribs)

Yes, that's already mentioned in Sarge's quote about O'Malley taking the furniture when he left. — TKD::Talk 22:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Text dump

I just removed the following from the article on Joel Heyman, as the article should be about the person and not redundant info on the characters he voices. Here it is in case there is useful content.--Drat (Talk) 03:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private Michael J. Caboose

In the early episodes of Red vs. Blue, Caboose was not originally intended to be "the stupid one". According to DVD commentary, he was originally supposed to be designed with only a hint of smarminess or chauvinism. As time went on, many fans would comment on how they loved Caboose's "stupid" antics, Joel Heyman began toying with the voice, which became slower and began to put emphasis more and more in unusual places. Caboose's IQ began to decline, at first being simply regarded as unintelligent, he eventually became childish with the IQ and behavior of a 6 year old. Lately his intelligence has dropped even further, to the point where he appears to be almost completely oblivious to the world around him and lacking any sense of reason or common sense, following broken logic instead. Fans have attributed his severe decline of intelligence to O'Malley's time spent inside Caboose, possibly leaving him with brain damage. This view might also be supported by Rooster Teeth, such as in Season 3 when Sarge is talking to Caboose about the location of O'Malley: "Sounds like he [O'Malley] took some of the furniture when he left. And the carpet. And the drapes. And I wouldn't expect to get that deposit back, if you know what I mean." It was also stated in the Season One DVD Commentary that his decline in intelligence was at least partially attributed to the bombing and consequent deactivation of Sheila. His character profile in the Season Three DVD reveals that Church taught him most of what he knows about the military, and when O'Malley destroyed Caboose's mental image of Church and caused Caboose to forget him, Caboose also lost all the knowledge Church had given him, leaving him with what little there was before.

O'Malley while possessing Caboose

While possessing Caboose, O'Malley had surprisingly limited amount of control (considering how well he was able to handle Doc), he would appear (mostly to Tucker) for only a few seconds every so often to deliver a threatening line to whomever was close by (such as, "Don't. Ever. Be. Alone."), giving him a demented personality. When O'Malley became present, Caboose's voice would drop very low. In Episode 40, after O'Malley has made the jump to Doc, Caboose is somehow able to summon incredible anger that parallels how O'Malley acted, albeit with his own inner thoughts such as certain objects that make him angry, like Red Bull and "kittens covered in spikes". In this same moment, Caboose's voice dropped in the same way it did with O'Malley. As of the fourth season, Caboose has yet to summon any outburst quite like this.

Halo 2 Pic

I believe that an image of his back is not that good of a picture for showing how he looks in the future. --Rabin 21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, can anything be done about it????-Three waysround 21:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was taken from the Season Four profile. While I agree that it isn't helpful, it's more than likely that it will stay like that until someone can be bothered taking a picture of him in an episode in that setting. Dac 06:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks a bit good as to his ignorance and his knowledge of 'photographs' is inaccurate.

OR tag

I beleive that we really don't need the OR tag in the intelligence section anymore, because for the sise of that section we have 3 inline citations, and a few other refrences so i'm pretty sure that's sufficient. We would have to keep a watch on it to make sure OR isn't added to it, but for now i think it's fine. Any thoughts????

peace_Three waysround 19:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't see the need for that any more —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CapDac (talk • contribs) 21:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well, theoretically, everything that requires nontrivial interpretation should be sourced. As it is, there's some analysis that isn't — the entire "Relationship with other characters" section, for example; as well as the last paragraph of the "Intelligence" section: Who described the interruptions as a running gag? We can verifiably say that these interruptions occur, but to call them a running gag is to add additional non-trivial analysis. — TKD::Talk 04:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So basically we need a bit more refrences, but it's almost there right? also maybe we should consider moving the rating up to B class it's looking a better than a start class article. Just something to consider.

peace -Three waysround 00:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Rvbcaboosehalo1.jpg

Image:Rvbcaboosehalo1.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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Rvbcaboosehalo2.jpg

Image:Rvbcaboosehalo2.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)[reply]

quotes?

should we/someone add some? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.35.146 (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Trivial info, not relevant. Dac (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]