Talk:Redshirt (stock character)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Definitive Explanation

In at least one of the Trek memoirs (Nimoy's I Am Spock or one of Shatner's), someone in the costume department gave the definitive reason for the redshirt phenomenon. I no longer have my copy for reference, but if I recall, budget constraints limited the number of costumes available. The same amount of each color of cloth was ordered, and what was left over from producing uniforms for the main characters were used to make uniforms in a variety of sizes for extras and actors in minor roles. A few of every color were made, but there were significantly more sizes available in red than the other colors because fewer main characters needed red costumes. More often than not, the availability of costumes would dictate a minor character's field of expertise. If no blue uniform was available in the right size for a doomed medic, the actor would don a red shirt and become a security or engineering officer. As a result, at least for a while, it was somewhat more common for actors in minor roles (expendable characters) to wear red shirts than any other color. I hesitate to add this information to the main page until I have the reference available. Perhaps someone with access to the memoirs could look this up? -- 21:33, 13 January 2007‎ 74.192.49.12

2021

I'd like to know when the term originated. I was born in 1964, and watched the show when the original series was still on the air, and when it went into syndication. When I was a teenager, and when I was in college, I never heard anyone use the term. I remember standup comics who made jokes about the fact that the security guards were always the first to get killed in most episodes. Or to get "turned into a cube", as Franklin Ajaye put it in one of his routines. But no one focused on the shirt. I first heard the term used on "Robot Chicken". That makes me think that it came into use in the 80s, among those who were kids or teens at that time.TheBaron0530 (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Uses section

Looking at the "uses" section, this topic has gone beyond science fiction to a lot of other genres. Can we move this to maybe Redshirt (character)? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea. Stillnotelf 19:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The list of uses is becoming long and cluttered, and in my opinion it should be divided into categories. I propose a division into either science fiction/other or TV shows/comics/games or something like that. -Stefanf 19:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yellowshirts

I changed to the text in the article from "redshirts are known as yellowshirts" to "redshirts are sometimes known as yellowshirts". I've rarely heard the term yellowshirt, it's more common to refer to them as redshirts, despite the color discrepancy.--RLent 21:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Occurrences

I just got finished cleaning up the newly-added TOS redshirts list, and I'm not sure if this article really needs such a list. I'll leave it there, because they're good examples of just how the redshirt works, but I'm open to comments. That said, a few of the descriptions need a bit more description. -- Wwagner 20:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this list supposed to be of redshirt deaths in a general sense - meaning expendable crewmembers regardless of actual shirt color - or ONLY those literally wearing red shirts? "The Man Trap" is missing from the list, with crewmembers Darnell, Sturgeon, and Green all being killed off swiftly. Not all were in red shirts though. wikipediatrix 20:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Subsequent occurences

Is it verified that all (or even most) of the "Subsequent Occurences" are references to Star Trek redshirts? For some (esp. parody) it's obvious. But the others should be sourced or excluded. --JChap 00:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Zap Branigan?

I don't recall zap branigan ever saying "send in the redshirts", let alone something he said alot? Anyone have a link to a episode guide with this?

Don't remember either, he was known as someone in the series as a commander who would send in human wave attacks, that's the closest I can think of Alastairward 14:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirk

Didn't Kirk wear a redshirt for awhile in the series? I guess they must of changed that when they decided to start zapping the security personnel Lord Sephiroth03:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Allegedly because of lighting, the yellow shirt worn by command and control crew in Star Trek was more of a green-yellow colour. But Kirk's regular tunic was only ever yellow or green Alastairward 14:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Red Shirt Legostar Galactica

Wow. No mention of Red Shirt from the webcomic Legostar Galactica? Go look it up. -66.204.73.130

That's a rather rude way to suggest we include it. -- Zanimum 20:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Vol episode?

Page 47 of 'Evil Super-Villains Need Love, Too ... and Other Important Wisdom talks about a Vol episode. Any ideas? -- Zanimum 20:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Movie Boomerang

I believe the Family Guy reference may be picked up from Boomerang, where the characters played by Eddie Murphy and Halle Berry are watching "Elaan Of Troyius" and he makes reference to the inevitable death of the red shirt Ensign Ricky. I haven't seen the movie in a while, but I distinctly remember the Family Guy triggering memories of a similar observation in Boomerang, which may be one of the rare times in the early nineties that black characters admit more than a passing fascination with Star Trek.

urbanbohemian 21:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Boomerang, I remember reading somewhere that Eddie Murphy was in talks to star in a Trek movie right about that time. Paramount apparently killed the idea because they didn't want Murphy to be geek-ified. Wl219 15:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Test Page

I have gone ahead and created a test page in my user space in the hopes that we can clean up the article. You can access it at: User:EnsRedShirt/Redshirt (character) cleanup test. Feel free to add comment's there or here, or add to it or delete from it as we march toward a concensus. EnsRedShirt 07:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay barring any responce here I will copy edit the test page over to the main page Early Saturday morning.. EnsRedShirt 06:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Move over done.. EnsRedShirt 07:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

RedShirts in the '24' series.

I've been watching season 5 of the '24' TV series - all of their security officers wear red shirts with black cuffs and collars - just as in Trek, they are bit characters who die soon after their first appearance, have one-liners, no name - and are mourned by nobody when they are blown up, shot or poisoned.

This can't be an accident. Red is an odd choice for a 'rent-a-cop' uniform - they must have done this deliberately.

Anyway - I think this needs to be added to the article because unlike the other references, it's not just another StarTrek parody and it's a perfect example of the phenomenon - that they also wear red shirts is just a bonus!

SteveBaker 19:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy?

"Appearances of redshirt characters" and "References to redshirts" are pretty much the same thing, aren't they? In fact, a few examples are duplicated on both lists. Maybe these should be merged? Or a better distinction drawn between the two, as there seems to be no difference. I'm guessing the second list is meant to refer to the shirts themselves, while the first list is supposed to refer to the characters wearing them, but it doesn't seem clear that there's any such division. --Lurlock 05:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the first section is actual examples from Star Trek, while the second is places that the concept has been referenced. Powers ^T 23:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Take a look. There's some Star Trek references in there, but since that's where the concept originates, it's not surprising. The majority of those are just assorted references to red shirts or characters wearing them and meeting their doom (or not). There's not really much difference between the sections. You may be referring to the stuff above "Subsequent Uses". I'm talking about the two sections below that, which are pretty much equivalent. --Lurlock 03:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it'd been a while since I looked at the article as a whole. You're right, there's not much difference. The first section should be actual examples from outside of Star Trek, while the second should be places that the concept is referenced. =) Powers ^T 14:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That section needs a big clean-up effort. "Appearances" should list notably expendable characters and "References" should list the comical jabs at the concept.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.252.30.189 (talk • contribs) .

I also like how there's a spoiler warning at the BOTTOM of the section, which just makes no sense at all. Think I'll move it. --Lurlock 13:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I just edited this before reading the talk page. I've added a new References subsection to the Subsequent uses section, and moved references which weren't literal appearances of the redshirt to there. An alternative would be to keep them merged and remove the subsection header, so that it isn't saying they are supposed to be actual appearances of the character type in TV shows or movies. --70.143.43.245 16:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Starfleet Security AfD/Merge

Most of the real-world material from Starfleet Security as it relates to this article was already here; there wasn't much to merge. Here is an archived copy of that article if someone would like to see whether I missed anything that should be here. --EEMeltonIV 19:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Killteam Redshirt

The reference to a Redshirt in Kill-team was removed as a "weak example" - in actual fact it's a blatant nod of the head, but was written weakly. I've added it with a different wording. Slavedriver 18:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also completely lacking in a source. Where is this "variant" covered in reliable sources? -- nae'blis 18:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The "variant" takes up a section of the rulebook itself - it's part of the official optional rules. Would say that's fairly reliable and non-lacking, myself. Slavedriver 22:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please add that it's an official variant then, because to the uninitiated it looks like it could be a fan mod. -- nae'blis 02:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, reworded it slightly, had it changed right back. I'll step away from this now, other people can argue semantics. Slavedriver 20:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Autobot Jazz

I think Jazz was probably the biggest, if not the only, redshirt in the Transformers movie. Can he be included here? He wasn't featured that much and was quickly dispatched by Megatron. Nintenboy01 00:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The original Transformers comic had a tradition that any named character who was not based on a toy, but invented for the comic, got killed. This was particularly prominent in the UK comic. This is more like redshirts, not Autobot Jazz, who is basically Jazz only renamed because Hasbro no longer own the trademark "Jazz". JIP | Talk 18:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Redshirt Lives

There was a Robot Chicken episode where a redshirt is one of the few to make it off a doomed Enterprise. Everyone attempts to eat him first but he's the only one to actually bring a gun so he kills and eats the rest. Lots42 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Eureka

Don't most tv pizza delivery guys -wear- red shirts? I'm not sure the Eureka example counts. Lots42 01:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sixth Man Syndrome

Sixth Man Syndrome redirects here, but there is no specific use of this term in the article (there is a mention that Guy Fleegman says "...I'm just 'Crewman Number Six.' I'm expendable..." in Galaxy Quest. If there is to be a redirect here, then some explanation is in order, perhaps including the observation that there are typically six transporter pads in a transporter room. --203.6.205.22 23:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how Galaxy Quest is simply a parody of Star Trek, I imagine the info would be terribly redundant. Lots42 02:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

TOS redshirts

What happened to the list of TOS redshirts? I think it should be re-integrated, though for the sake of simplicity, strictly kept to security officers wearing red shirts at the time of their demise. Thoughts? Mdiamante 16:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, a list of redshirts who croaked and from what would be very culturally relevant; it's well known in many, many social circles that if Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Ensign Smith go on a mission, Smith is not returning. Lots42 02:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Subsequent Uses Section Problems

This section does not cite any references or sources. Okay, for SOME of the entries. But many of the other entries reference the episode in question and the characters themselves talk about redshirts and being expendable. I don't see how it can get more referenced then that. In other words, mentioning 'redshirt' and 'expendable'...much more then a coincidence. Maybe it's the template that needs changing (also). Lots42 (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wedge character

As an semi-antonym to this, what about including a "Wedge-type character" article, named for Wedge Antilles from the original Star Wars trilogy. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the series, he is a minor character with very little screen time, however, he survived through all three movies and both attacks on the Death Stars. This is notable because, as previously mentioned, he had no major role in any of the movies and is not a mahor secondary, just a minor. So include or no? --WTRiker 00:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, Somewhere in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Stock_characters is a section dealing with characters just like Wedge. Lots42 (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wedge-type_character --EEMIV (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Not the article I was thinking about though... Stupid non-recalling brain of mine. Lots42 (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Amusing

This article made me laugh so hard I thought a tooth would fly out. Corvus 06:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll bet that Santa does not find it amusing :) HoorayForMe (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

---

In the Star Wars series, Obi Wan Kenobi's R4 astrodoids keep getting destroyed, at least once in each of the two newest movies (as I recall); Obi Wan's astrodroids are always red. Also, in "A new Hope", the old R2 unit that explodes is also painted red. Can someone check these informations so they can added to the article?

Conflict

There seems to be a conflict over the inclusion of the parodies section. I say, have a few of the 'big-name' references, like Robot Chicken, Kim Possible and Family Guy. What's Sev-Trek anyway? Lots42 (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Father Goose (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As in the history

What's this mean? entire "examples" section is tripe and part of origins section is unsubstantiated.. No worries, I respect dissenting opinions. Lots42 (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just that: the references and examples, while improved over previous versions of the article, remain mostly "I like it" or "isn't that neat?!" examples but without any citations to reliable sources substantiating editors' original research that these are uses of or references to the "redshirt" character. And there's a generalization about the Star Trek landing parties that is similarly uncited. --EEMIV (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to say that "original research" is being declared in this case a little too readily. My view of OR is that it applies to stuff that is strictly unverifiable, namely, personal experience and/or judgment. If multiple people check a primary source and agree that a given description of it is correct, I consider such information not just verifiable, but actively verified -- and definitely not OR.

That said, we could probably find a secondary source to back up the "Star Trek origins" section. Have you tried looking for one yet, or are you just condemning it for not having a good citation yet?--Father Goose (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Parodies Section One More Time

It's getting HUGE again. Homeboys in Outer Space? Come on. Lots42 (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that show is crap, of course, but the parody itself is an interesting (dare I say notable) one: Scotty was the most prominent red-shirt-wearing character on the show (but not an actual "redshirt"), and in the Homeboys episode, Scotty himself (Doohan) mocks that fact. I'll prune the list a bit though.--Father Goose (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Doohan appeared on the show? I must have gotten confused...that adds a tad bit of notability. Lots42 (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

TAG: needs additional citations for verification

I think this tag no longer applies? Jimwelch (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In the current form, i agree. Makes onlyone claim, that this is a star Trek stock character, and that is cited.Yobmod (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Invariably?

I take issue with 'Invariably'. This seems to be saying -all- redshirts that went with Kirk/on a mission died. IIRC, this is not true. I remember one episdoe where Spock and McCoy were stranded with redshirts and some died. And another where Sulu saved some redshirt lives by blasting a rock. Lots42 (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I axed it. --EEMIV (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it OR?

This bit seems very much like analysis OR to me, :

In the 2009 Star Trek movie, the party of three who dive onto an orbital drilling platform includes one member in a red suit, Chief Engineer Olsen, who recklessly waits until the last second to deploy his chute and falls into the drilling beam. In addition, the cadets at Starfleet academy commonly dress in red uniforms, and when they are called to man the ships heading to Vulcan they are all killed when the ships are destroyed; those boarding the Enterprise avoid that fate.

I am sure it only seems that way because someone simply forgot to add citations to the statements. I will wait until the end of the day before purging it, in the off-chance that someone will be able to cite it immediately. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The cadets one I removed for violating WP:THAT'SJUSTSTUPID. The one about Olsen, I've seen reviews and all refer to him being the obligatory red-shirt; there's a cite-able source or eight out there. --EEMIV (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture references

While Trivialist [he line has entered popular culture as a general metaphor removed most of the references to redshirts, I was thinking that a lot of that information could be crafted into a Pop Culture section. The term redshirt has somewhat has entered popular culture as a general metaphor for someone either inconsequential or marked for death. I think things like this, which I'd equate with the McCoy's catch-phrases or Spock's evil alternate sporting chin-whiskers. Thoughts? I am thinking that some of the ones that Trivialist removed are directly related to the phenomena. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

TVTropes

I've noticed a lot of activity on this page where people are trying to hammer out what belongs on a Wikipedia page or not. I am of the opinion that this kind of information is better handled by the TVTropes article on Redshirt; TVTropes, just like the Wiki, can be edited by anyone.

In particular, "cultural references" here can be handled by TVTropes far better than it can be handled by the Wikipedia.

The rules for putting something in a Wiki article are clear: We shouldn't include it unless it is mentioned and discussed by WP:RS. Even if it's bloody obvious something is a clear reference to a Redshirt, we can only say "such-and-such is a redshirt" if a third-party reliable source says "such-and-such is a redshirt". Otherwise, we violoate WP:NOR.

So, I encourage editors to find references where secondary sources say "such-and-such was an example of a redshirt" (reviews for the movie or TV show in question is a good source; blog entries are not, again read WP:RS). One you do this, add something like <ref>http://www.reviewsite.foo/review/foobar-program.html</ref> where the third party (secondary source) describes how such-and-such person dying is a redshirt dying.

If people can't find references to support this, unfortunately the Wikipedia frowns on that kind of thing being here. This is why there is TVTropes; there is value to this information but unfortunately it's not the sort of thing the Wikipedia does best. Again, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Redshirt is the relevant TVTropes page. Samboy (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the "cultural references" section for the above reasons. Please do not restore it without addressing the issues on the talk page here. Samboy (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

TVtropes link

There is no reason in Wikipedia WP:EL to delete the TVtropes link. To wit, TVtropes is best described as a link worth considering as per "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". There is nothing in the page that justifies deleting this link (it's not a "Fan site"; it's an informal Wiki describing common "tropes").

This in mind, I wonder why the link was removed in this edit. The edit summary stating "rm wiki ref: wikis are inadmissible refs in wikipedia" confuses WP:RS and WP:EL; no, we can't use another wiki as a reference, but, yes, we can link to another wiki as an external link. Indeed, the link to the Memory Alpha article is a link to another wiki.

I think it's a very good idea to link to the TVtropes article because it is an article that has "information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources", and, more to the point, it directs editors who enjoy adding this kind of unreferenced detail to a Wiki article to a Wiki that will more welcome their edits. Samboy (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to a TVTropes EL. It looks like another reasonably widely-edited wiki along the lines of Wookieepedia or Memory Alpha, meeting the requirement in WP:EL for including wikis in that section. If I'm wrong -- if it's just six guys with their own domain doing a lot of copy-and-paste from e.g. Wikipedia's edit history, then I might reconsider. But, nah, looks okay for an EL for now. --EEMIV (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The latest edit war here

Again, we’ve been going back and forth about whether or not to have that Family Guy reference in this article. We’ve discussed this before, and the defense has been, in so many words, “Well, yeah we know we shouldn’t have this content here because it isn’t referenced in secondary sources, but we want to ignore Wikipedia policy for this content”.

For something to be included in the Wikipedia, it has to follow WP:N; this means we really need a secondary source to back it up. Several editors have tried adding this content over and over again, but none of the editors have been able to come up with secondary sources discussing this scene in the Family Guy episode.

Again, we’re not TVTropes nor are we Memory Alpha; notability really needs to be established. Can someone please come up with a secondary source instead of justifications why we should have this information without a secondary source? Samboy (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I share a disinclination to including this content, but WP:GNG isn't germaine here -- the notability guideline is for topics as a whole (e.g. the redshirt character), not information in an article. GNG would be an appropriate stick if e.g. someone created Redshits in Family Guy. WP:WAF and WP:IINFO seem most relevant here.

I object to this content being here because it's only description from a primary source, i.e. a snippet of WP:PLOT. This blurb doesn't answer the, "So what?" question that WP:WAF calls for in addressing elements of fiction: redshirts appear in Family Guy -- okay, so what? What's the point? What were the producers trying to do? Is it a spoof of hammy acting? The predictability of putting a bullseye on an expendable character? The repetition of a simple plot gimmick? Did they discuss the ramifications of giving this redshirt dialog (most of Trek's didn't have any beyond a yelp!), etc. Simply saying, "Hey, here's a redshirt in this show" is accurate, and an obvious interpretation that we don't need to dwell on whether this is sourced beyond the episode itself (after all, primary sources are appropriate references for reasonable interpretations/descriptions of content; I think we can all reasonably agree this is a redshirt spoof). The issue is that there's no commentary/explanation of why the producers used this vehicle and style for spoofing the topic of this article. There's no connection back to the article topic itself. Without a source (perhaps the commentary track from the DVD?) offering this real-world perspective, this is just plot; an interpretation absent citation to a third party would be, obviously, WP:OR. Amassing other obvious redshirt appearances becomes problematic per WP:IINFO.

This isn't a sourcing or notability issue -- it's a treatment issue and, ancillary to that, an issue of preventing this article from again growing into a laundry list of people wearing red shirts. The *best* content here would be from third-party sources discussing the way redshirts have been spoofed, e.g. an academic paper about modern archetypes. --EEMIV (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but in the absence of such content, it does little harm to include a Family Guy reference that at least serves as a useful example. Powers ^T 16:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the question is whether it harms; it's whether it adds anything. It is probably sufficient to assert and easy to source that "redshirts have been spoofed in popular media." --EEMIV (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it adds something in that its a show that appeals to a general audience and a modern/younger generation, whereas the original Star Trek (the latter shows were rather absent of red shirts) is an occasionally airing show on the sci-fi channel that only appeals to a specific audience. Providing pop culture references is almost as good as including a photo (Which we don't and can't have on this article), as the uninformed reader who knows it can go "ahhhh, thats what it is". I'm sure there is a source on redshirts in the media, but I doubt there's a reliable source. Why is the star trek fan film relevant? It doesn't have an accompanying explanation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we can make the reference more brief then. We can have “A number of more recent television series and movies have had episodes referring to redshirts, including a Family guy episode, the 2009 Star Trek Movie, etc.” I personally thing lists like this have negative value; not only can’t people find discussion of the references in third party sources, but they are also spoilers. Samboy (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; explaining the reference illustrates how the concept is perceived in the popular culture; simply stating the existence of a reference provides no real information to the reader. Powers ^T 18:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I recently removed unsourced references (section has been tagged since December '09) only to have my changes reverted. When I then marked the section as trivia (IMO it's essentially a list of references with little to no explanation of how said references are notable) -that- edit was also reverted. I am hereby requesting consensus on whether it is appropriate to include unsourced references, particularly when those references do not include any explanation as to why they are pertinent beyond "well, they reference redshirts". Thanks. Doniago (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I wholly support removing the entire section. References to redshirt appearances "in popular culture" should be retained only substantiated by a citation to something beyond the artistic work -- a DVD commentary, TV review, anything would be fine. But this laundry list is trivia and an indiscrimainte list of people wearing red shirt-looking things. --EEMIV (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that two separate people reverted your edits indicates that people feel strongly both ways. I feel the list should remain, though left at items that directly joke at and/or parody the situation, where there is no doubt in anybodies mind that the joke or reference is towards redshirts. There are differing opinions on wikipedia on whether every piece of information needs a source, or if its unnecessary to source facts that make no extreme claim and which nobody doubts the authenticity of. Besides, what do these sources often prove, except that somebody that is in a position that is somehow authoritative notices the same thing that everybody else does and makes a comment about it. What is important about Redshirt Blues that it continually makes the cut, besides that some dick over at E! made a passing comment about it coming on that week? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm uncertain that either of the opinions you provided is intended to apply to a laundry list of references. In this case I feel sources would establish that the references actually are notable, as opposed to a given user thinking the reference was "cool" and thus merits inclusion. They also provide proof that the reference actually is what a user thinks it is, as opposed to coincidental. IMO a user shouldn't say "X is a reference to Y" unless they can provide evidence beyond their own beliefs. Doniago (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it adequate to rely upon consensus as to whether a description of a primary source is accurate (i.e., x is a parody of y). Whether a secondary source actually mentions a given pop-culture reference is more random than significant; it usually suggests to me that the writer of the source thought it was "cool".

Somewhere between "delete all" and "include all" is a group of people willing to agree upon a finite, representative group of instances.--Father Goose (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Boone one more time

The Boone quote was not unsourced, FYI. Lots42 (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the previous version, I see a source for Hurley but not for Boone, unless the one source applies to both pieces of information. If so that may need to be clarified. Doniago (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, the Boone quote mentioned the episode it was from. Shouldn't that be sufficent? Lots42 (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Galaxy Quest

I noticed what seemed to be a glaring omission on this page in the popular culture section. In the 1999 film Galaxy Quest, Guy Fleegman (aka "Crewman Number Six") is pretty much universally recognized as being the "redshirt" of the bunch and a send-up of this sort of character. I can't find a quote from any of the writers of the show that show that was their specific intent (and obviously they're not going to give interviews just to say, "Hey you guys over at Wikipedia, this character was the redshirt"), but since the film was an affectionate parody of Star Trek, it's rather obvious that he was. And pretty much any every review of the movie calls him that. Here are just a few (if you just do a Google search you can easily get several pages worth and they all say the same): BeyondHollywood.com CineScene.com IMDB Aint It Cool News Amazon.com DVDTalk. I think we should add a sentence in the pop culture section of the article that could read something like, "The character of Guy Fleegman in Galaxy Quest is universally recognized to be a redshirt reference..." and follow with one or more of the above refs to at least show that popular culture got the reference. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Only Star Trek

Are there any references that this term is used in SF generally? Or is it just in Star Trek commentary and parodies? I've tagged the lead, and will eventually delete "common in SF and other genres", if there is no proof.Yobmod (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

So, no citation was forthcoming, so i removed mention of genres, and left it as saying a Redshirt is a type of Star Trek character.Yobmod (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Radded that this ais a type of Trek character, as still no proof at all that this term is used for anything except Trek and parodies or comparisons.Yobmod (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a fairly common term in television (and in writing in general). One example, from the exclusive Lost-TV interview with Damon Lindelof (complete transcript here), in discussing the expendable characters on the show:

"Then of course there are the extras. The expendable people. Redshirts in Star Trek lingo. You know, the security guys in landing parties who were offed at frighteningly regular intervals."

See also the reference in the body of this article itself, also from Lost. It seems obvious that the writers of the series recognized the term "redshirt" as universally referring to expendable characters. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

redshirt (computing)?

I remember the term "redshirt" being used in the 1980's in the university computing environment to refer to a user account which was being used as a sockpuppet or which had a compromised password. The idea, presumably, is that it would appear momentarily - it would soon be blown away by an evil sysadmin - and it would be no more in relatively short order. The reference presumably was to the semi-anonymous and short-lived front-line soldiers which would appear in red shirts in the original Star Trek series and (just as briefly) in gold shirts in ST:TNG episodes at the time, quickly meeting an untimely end. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability

It seems we're having a notability war here; one man's pop culture reference is another man's "not notable." I posted a couple of weeks back that a main character in the very popular webcomic Shlock Mercenary was named Der Trihs - red shirt spelled backwards, an obvious nod to the tradition - and was often the guy that got killed on away missions. Someone deleted that as trivial and "not even notable" (this from a comic nominated for two Hugo Awards?!) - yet I see similar and less "notable" examples that are somehow making the cut. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Opinion on this seems to go back and forth, never reaching consensus. Personally I don't think any "reference" that doesn't include third-party sourcing to establish notability is appropriate. Doniago (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a mis-use/misunderstanding of where notability matters -- "notability" is a criterion for a subject to have its own article; it is not a requirement or threshold for including a nugget of information about that subject. For those, relevant here are guidelines about trivia and verifiability. All that said, I agree with Doniago: off-license use of the character -- homages, satires, etc. -- should be included here solely if those homages etc. also receive some third-party commentary. This will help to avoid this become an arbitrary list with no clear inclusion criteria, and swat at WP:ORish "interpretations" of whether something is an allusion. Being subject of commentary can also help transform the crufty, unencyclopedic "in popular culture" section to, instead, a "critical reaction" section. --EEMIV (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal re. inclusion of third-party uses of redshirts

I propose that third-party (i.e. outside the Star Trek franchise) uses of "redshirts" be included/listed in this article only if this use is the subject of its own third-party commentary. This might include, e.g., a review by EW of a Robot Chicken sketch's use of a sacrificial redshirt, or an NYT review of Galaxy Quest commenting on the inclusion of a "redshirt" in the film. This is a higher threshold for inclusion than mere verifiability, which can help direct what is now an unencyclopedic, arbitrary and structure-less list of homages and satires toward, instead, something that can become an encyclopedic "critical commentary and response" section. Is there any opposition to this that can be substantiated by references to policy or guidelines? --EEMIV (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Last call for any pushback; I plan to excise much of the pop. culture section in a day or two. Looking at the material currently there, only the GalaxyQuest and Lost references to redshirt-edness seem to make the cut. The rest are uncited or cited merely to the primary source verifying plot. --EEMIV (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Every time I bloink this pop. culture section explodes. Lots42 (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is done. Did some other copyedits. Expansion (including citations) of course welcome. --EEMIV (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Penguin?

Is one episode of a two season cartoon from Spain really noteworthy enough for a mention?Lots42 (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Not without reliable third-party sourcing establishing its significance, no. Doniago (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOR guys

A lot of editors seem confused about the policies in WP:N, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Bottom line: A given episode of a TV show or movie having a redshirt only belongs in the Wikipedia if we can find a reliable and secondary source stating the that such-and-such in such-and-such a TV show is a redshirt. Otherwise, put it in TVTropes. Samboy (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

WELL, YESTERDAY I took the trouble to put in a sentence in line with wikipedia policy citing a well-known tv review website (a reliable secondary reference) which discussed the fact that the term "redshirt" (in the manner defined here) had been used in the Warehouse 13 episode "Implosion" (Season 1 Episode 7). There are other secondary sources for this same fact on Google as well if you bothered looking. It was not original research. Actually the source quote can be found on wikiquote if that would help. TODAY some anal retentive has removed my work! WHY? Did you dislike that show? How can removing adequately referenced data actually improve this article? It can't. I won't bother editing this again. 199.127.252.195 (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Because editors are too stupid to make the connection that a tv show, parodying what is unmistakingly Star Trek, where only one of the characters wears a red shirt, and he is the one that the joke foreshadows to die? Do we really need somebody else to say "Yep, that happened", or can we not use that object inside our heads? There's a difference between original research and just not having a secondary source. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

And I can provide plenty of references for you to tell me they aren't reliable enough sources. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What we need is references saying "such and such is a redshirt". Watching a given TV show and making an interpretation that such and such is a redshirt is original research, which goes against one of the fundamental pillars of the Wikipedia.

Please read WP:NOR, where it states "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.". To say that such-and-such in such-and-such a TV show is a redshirt is an interpretation. Which is OK for TVTropes, but not OK for the Wikipedia. What we need for this article is some commentary. While a primary source is not good as a secondary source, if you have an interview with the creator of a given TV show or what not where he talks about redshirts and how he used the joke in one of his TV shows, that is also an acceptable source for the Wikipedia.

My citation referred to above - a critical review of a Warehouse 13 episode which discussed the fact that the term redshirt was used - met these criteria and YET HAS BEEN REMOVED.199.127.252.195 (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

From the URL, it looked like a link to just some random self-published blog. I took a look at it, and it looks like reasonable, if fleeting, commentary. I'm restoring it. Reeeeeelax. --EEMIV (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

We're not TVtropes. We are trying to be a serious encyclopedia. Please read the AFD (article for deletion) discussion linked at the top of this page; the consensus there was that this article needed a lot of cleanup and I am here to make sure this article is one that is well-referenced.

I'm not saying this stuff isn't useful nor fun to read. But I'm encouraging people who like making these contributions to make them on TVtropes, where this type of content is more welcome. Samboy (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

We're not TVtropes, but I don't see why we can't link to TVtropes... AnonMoos (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I completely agree. ;-) Samboy (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

To follow up, I don't understand why the link was removed in this edit. Samboy (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

We should always keep in mind, however, that cultural references are one of the best ways to establish points. For example, I had no idea what Shepard tone meant a few years back. I read the article, was confused, and then hit the cultural references section which mentioned that it was the same thing as the sound at the end of the game Super Mario 64. Suddenly everything made sense and I understood what the article was talking about. Prominent and direct cultural references should be included, as you mentioned, preferably fit with reference. To that extent, the latest edit that removed that piece from the article without explanation has been reverted as vandalism. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As you said: prominent cultural references with references are worth including. I removed the Family Guy thing because (besides being shitty English) it didn't have a reference; "vandalism" is an inapt description. Furthermore, a quick 30-second punchline in an episode of Family Guy is hardly a significant cultural reference. --EEMIV (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Preferably fit with reference". Not everything on wikipedia needs a reference on inclusion (Unless it's BLP, which this is not). If you don't agree with the English, fix it up to EEMIV English standards. A direct reference to the situation, as it occured on Star Trek, is certainly relevant to this article. Many people have seen one but not the other, and Star Trek is not the only show that uses the situation. In short, your "consensus" is your own. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, deleting something without explanation is an equally inapt description. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

While it's true that we need references for claims made in an article, there seem to be a couple of fallacies at work here. First of all, non-controversial non-biographical material only needs to be sourced eventually. There is no deadline and as long as the information is obvious or otherwise widely accepted, there's no need to remove it just for lack of sourcing. Second of all, primary sources are perfectly legitimate for some purposes; they are not sufficient for establishing notability, for instance, but they are perfectly acceptable for simple statements of fact. Powers ^T 14:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability is a big issue with the Wikipedia. Which is why it's a lot better to find secondary sources; yes such-and-such in such-and-such a TV show can very well be notable enough to put in the Wiki, but I would like to see a better metric than "I think it's notable, so it belongs in the Wikipedia". For example, that Family Guy episode; is there a reliable secondary source talking about that redshirt joke? If there is, then there is no doubt the material in question is notable. Another issue I have is whether we are engaging in original research when we say such-and-such is a redshirt. To say a given situation in a given TV show is an example of a redshirt is original research until we get a notable source saying "yeah, that was a redshirt". Samboy (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's OR of the mildest sort. For instances such as the Family Guy episode for which there can be no reasonable doubt that it is a reference to redshirts, deletion need not be immediate in the absence of a citation. It's the sort of thing {{fact}} was made for. Powers ^T 15:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Anybody who has seen the skit would immediately know it is referencing Red Shirts. While that certainly is not a reference, I believe it is such a direct parody of the situation in Star Trek (Using the characters of Star Trek albeit) that it should be kept with a fact tag until such a reference can be found. Perhaps someone with the Season 1 DVD can listen through the episode commentary. If in that, the producer/creator says "This is a parody of a redshirt from Star Trek," would that be an admissible reference? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it would be. WP:NOR doesn't apply; it's the director's (or actor's) comment, not the idea some random Wikipedia editor comes up with. WP:N and WP:RS apply; Family Guy is a very notable series and the makers of the series are reliable sources when discussing the series. Samboy (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I will try to get that as a reliable source. However, there are plenty of unreliable sources that agree on the family guy joke being about a redshirt. I see it on tvtropes, family guy wiki, star trek wiki, tv.com, etc. These are not reliable, but sure indicate that it is not original research. This article is not a biography, and unsourced information can remain when nobody would really question the claim (Except those wiki editors who question any claim without a citation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's nice that editors just ignore everything. Google search, clearly shows that it is well referenced, just not by a source reliable enough for wikipedia. Hence, the information should be included and a source located when possible. I'm tired of this ideal that we should include the bare minimum unless it can be reliably sourced. This is simply not the case with non-BLP articles. If it weren't, half of this website would be deleted. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing special or noteworthy about being mentioned in a Family Guy episode, which is why i've removed this mention again. You need to stop edit-warring over this. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I will stop as the consensus is clearly against it. However, if I find the dvd commentary or another reliable source, I feel it should be added not because Family Guy is special, but because it satirizing the Star Trek application of the character. Its also a familiar and widespread pop culture reference that many people would understand if they had never watched the original Star Trek. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Floydian; the purpose of including the reference is not to say "here's a joke that Family Guy did" but rather to say "this is a typical example of how the phenomenon is parodied in popular culture." Powers ^T 12:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Which doesn't change the fact that a reliable secondary reference should be provided establishing that the Family Guy reference is in fact to a Redshirt. Which we all "know" it is, but "knowing" something is true isn't sufficient grounds for stating it in Wikipedia. Doniago (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, the director/producer commentary for that episode more than likely will say something about it. When I get it I'll check, or if someone else has it, check it out. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but since we all know it is, it can stay in the article with a fact tag until someone finds the reference. Powers ^T 21:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My feelings exactly, since this is not a biography of a living person. I will not make the edit anymore without a source myself. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Picture - Lt. Leslie

I am not one to nitpick, because I understand that the top photo for this page, showing Mr. Leslie, serves the purpose. However, it should be noted that Lt. Leslie didn't actually die in this episode, so the caption is somewhat misleading.

Ed Paskey, who played Leslie, said that his character had been revived in a scene ultimately cut from the episode in question, a scene in which the doctor had somehow devised a potion or some other remedy to save them. Even mention of his survival was excluded. The confirmation of his survival is made by the fact that the character returned and was acknowledged by name in several later episodes (meaning that Ed was playing the same character). So despite the weird discrepancy, Lt. Leslie, in fact, did not die.

Does this affect the page at all? Probably not, at least not much, but I just thought I'd mention it. You might want to reword that caption a slight bit, perhaps change the word "dead" to, say, "fallen" and/or remove the name "Lt. Leslie," since his name isn't relevant anyway.

By the way, I can provide links to support my claims if you wish.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoppamatic (talk • contribs) 20:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. A couple of things come to mind. For one, Star Trekiness (in terms of story) doesn't pay much heed to cut scenes. In so far as the series is concerned, the character "Leslie" died. A resurrection scene may have been cut precisely to reinforce the loss/death of the character. (As an aside, Wikipedia itself generally doesn't pay much heed to scenes cut from film and televison; unless the cut is subject to third-party commentary, it's kind of trivial. This is less relevant to your particular suggestion, but I'll still pop it out here.) Given the information broadcast, and Wikipedia's general inclination toward specificity in its writing, I think the caption as-is is okay. --EEMIV (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This is confusing. Leslie the character survived. So to use his image in a Wikipedia article focuses on -death- doesn't make sense. Surely there's another good image of a different dead redshirt. Lots42 (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Relation to previous comment

We should use the following image, it best represents the entire article. http://www.sitelogicmarketing.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/red-shirt-down.jpg. Lots42 (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd be okay with that. I like that is shows the series stars alive and well, the newbies-of-the-week (nearly) dead. Would you mind doing the upload, FUR, caption, etc.? --EEMIV (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if I knew how ... sure. Lots42 (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I know how. I'll do that. Gratimax (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"redshirted" vs "red-shirted" in second sentence

I've changed "redshirted" to "red-shirted" in the second sentence of the lead paragraph. Using "redshirt" as an adjective to describe the defining characteristic of the concept represented by the noun "redshirt" when defining the term as a noun isn't helpful. Especially as that defining characteristic is simply that they wear redshirts, not that they die early and die often. (noted here as it is too long for the edit summary). Thryduulf (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Auto-archiving?

Any objections to my setting up auto-archiving on this page, say for threads over ten years old? If there are no objections for at least a week, I'll set it up. DonIago (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Anton Yelchin

As Chekov was ordered by Kirk to wear the red shirt in the reboot movie "Star Trek Beyond". Kirk Says "time to put on the red shirt". He and the bridge crew react with looks of foreboding. Surely that was an in universe reference to the red shirt trope. Notable also that the actor was accidentally killed prior to the release of the following Star Trek film, and that the character of Chekov was retired fro the franchise even though the original actor who played Chekov is still alive. 98.164.64.98 (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It may be, perhaps even likely is, a reference, but without a source stating such, adding that to the article would be original research. I'm not sure what the rest of your comment has to do with the Redshirt concept. DonIago (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. It is not an example of the trope. Chekov doesn't die. The film is a secondary source of referance to the trope. It has an in universe source referring to the trope. The comment, when Kirk orders Chekov to engineering, "time to put on the red shirt" is not necessarily a reference to the trope. But the looks of foreboding by the crew, and the trepidatious way Chekov acknowledges the order makes it a non textual reference. The wiki policy says the source of reference doesn't have to be text. It can be auditory or visual. In this case it's both. It's like a character said "Uh oh. He's putting on the red shirt. He's doomed". If a character said that specifically would you say that's still not an acceptable reference to the trope? What if it was just a finger drawn across the throat in the "he's gonna die" gesture? What if the character was on a different show? What if a news show?

98.164.64.98 (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

We need proof that it's an intentional reference, not merely evidence. Otherwise you're leaving it to viewer interpretation, as you just did in your message above. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)