Talk:List of Firefly (TV series) characters

Serenity characters

Neither the Operative or Mr. Universe belong in this category since neither existed in the television series.Shsilver 21:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Almost everyone will agree that Serenity is part of Firefly canon, so these characters belong here in the same way that characters that only appear in Star Trek movies are on List of Star Trek characters. --ADeveria 23:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the argument comes down to whether "Firefly" refers just to the TV series or to the story universe, just as "Star Trek" can refer to the original TV series, any of the other TV series, all of them, or the entire story universe. I suggest we accept the ambiguity for the foreseeable future and treat this "Firefly" as representing the entire story, rather than awkwardly splitting the article into two pieces or subsuming the Serenity parts into the film article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The page could be renamed Minor Characters in the Firefly verse, or something like that. JQF 17:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean "Minor characters in the Firefly verse" (capitalization per WP:MOS). I would instead recommend Minor characters in the Firefly universe, as the abbreviation "'verse" isn't well-known outside Firefly. We should always remember that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. Far too many TV-show articles are written for fans of the shows, not for general consumption. We need to write for the general audience, lest our material become delete-bait. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This is in regards to the Mr Universe discription and the statement that he is the second Jew seen in the Firefly Verse. I agree. The First Jew seen in the Verse is the mail clerk Amnor on the spacestation in "The Message". He delivers Tracey Smith's body to Mal. Guest:KV_Tinder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.44.140 (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit history from merged article Lawrence Dobson

• (cur) (last) 15:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC) Pentasyllabic (merge to Minor characters in Firefly)
• (cur) (last) 21:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Pentasyllabic m (sp)
• (cur) (last) 11:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC) ADeveria (Fleshed out article, removed stub tag and added trivia)
• (cur) (last) 22:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 68.220.40.230
• (cur) (last) 03:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC) Jeffq m (Fixed redirect.)
• (cur) (last) 23:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC) EurekaLott m
• (cur) (last) 11:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC) EurekaLott m (stub)
• (cur) (last) 14:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC) Shsilver
• (cur) (last) 14:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC) Shsilver
• (cur) (last) 14:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC) Shsilver

— Jeff Q (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The blue-hands men

I'm troubled by the current use of the moniker "Hands of Blue" for the blue-gloved men pursuing River and Simon. I am aware of no canonical source for this name. River's chant of "two by two, hands of blue" is obviously descriptive, but not obviously nominative. They might as well be referred to as the "Two by Twos" if we merely assume River's chant includes a proper name. Joss Whedon refers to them (in the "Train Job" DVD commentary) as "the men with blue hands" and "the blue-hands men", obviously not an actual name, unless the latter is assumed to be capitalized; i.e., the Blue-Hands Men, which I doubt. (There is no DVD commentary for "Ariel", the only other episode in which they appear. They don't appear in Serenity, and I don't believe they are named in the comics, either.) The only reliable source I've found so far for any name is IMDb, whose character listings for "The Train Job" and "Ariel" list them both as "Blue Glove", suggesting the appellation of "Blue Gloves" for the pair. Does anyone have any other canonical (i.e., non-fan) source for a name? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say River was pretty clearly referring to these men by "hands of blue", and even though it's a fanon, it's more canonical than IMDB giving a name that was never officially used even by Whedon. I'll clarify this in their entry though. --Pentasyllabic 15:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

To raise a question. In the Dark Horse graphic novel Serenity: Those Left Behind it is revealed that the blue material of their gloves actually covers the torso of the blue-gloved blue-hands men; isn't there a source that says that blue material is the shield that makes them immune to their sonic weapon that killed others by hemmorhage in Ariel? Naaman Brown (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Effect of Nandi's death on Inara

I'm sorry if my Firefly knowledge is getting rusty, but do we have a source for the following statement under Minor characters in Firefly#Nandi?

Nandi's death led to Inara's decision to return to Sihnon.

As best I recall, Nandi's death was not even explicitly connected to Inara's departure from Serenity, which seemed more a means to avoid complications with Mal. And I also don't recall her returning to Sihnon, just that she wound up at the Companion outpost shown in the film. Did I forget something in the comics, film, or film novelization? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

She most certainly did not return to Sihnon, you are right about that; I remember reading - though this may have been in a fan-written essay - that it seemed likely, ie implied, that she might have left Sihnon to avoid some sort of scandal. Indeed, it's often acknowledged that a Companion of her standing, to be traveling with someone like Mal and his crew, is decidedly odd; I think this was noted in both "Bushwhacked" and "The Train Job", but I'm not sure where else. Anyway, Nandi herself may have CONTRIBUTED to her leaving the ship, ie may have been a catalyst for her genuine realization that she simply could not deal with her feelings for Mal (after all, she cried after realizing Nandi had slept with him, no?) and that if she was going to remain a true professional of her feild, she should probably stay away from him, which may be said to have therefore LED to her leaving Serenity. Perhaps it should be noted like that? As in: "Nandi - especially the fact that she and Mal had slept together, and the emotional reaction this caused in Inara - was a major contributing factor in Inara's decision to leave Serenity." , perhaps? -Runa27 4.235.60.139 09:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

My point was to note that we have no evidence from the primary sources for this material to support the statement. The points 4.235.60.139 makes are highly speculative, and fan essays are not considered Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Therefore, I have removed this statement. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Merger: Saffron

Re: Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Fiction_in_Wikipedia

I believe a merger is in line with Wikipedia guidelines. -b 07:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

… with Saffron (Firefly), presumably. It's a good idea to provide a link when discussing an article, so readers can jump immediately to the subject. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, yes, Saffron (Firefly) into Minor_characters_in_Firefly#Saffron. -b 07:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading the cited policy, I find two problems with this, both of which can be surmounted.

1. The policy is written from the point of view of a gradual increase in the size of the main article, recommending the transfer of characters to a "List" article, and keeping minor characters in that one while linking to longer main-character articles as they become more substantial. We are working from the opposite direction, in that nearly all the current character articles existed without ever burdening the main Firefly article. The Saffron article is substantial enough to stand on its own. However, so was Lawrence Dobson, I believe, and there is a comforting symmetry to having the last remaining minor-character article completely in this list.
2. The policy also recommends that this article be titled List of characters in Firefly, and should include all the characters, not just the minor ones. Mal et al would have links to their individual articles. However, I'm not sure how we'd deal with having enough description of each character in the main article for it to make sense, have another one in the character-list article, and have a third in each individual one. (I'll leave it to others for now to find and review other examples of the recommended structure.) Or we could just ignore that part of the policy and leave this major/minor split as-is, possibly renaming this article to List of minor characters in Firefly. Or we could just leave both this and the Saffron article as is.

That's my 2¢ worth. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with either point. However, I don't see why her article couldn't be merged into the minor character article (perhaps as List of minor characters in Firefly, as you suggested). It would be more consistant, simpler and since neither article will be expanding (as our series was cancelled), I don't see size being a huge problem.

I imagine Firefly perfectly representated on Wikipedia. And since someone's suggesting it as a featured article, why not go all the way and make every Firefly article...perfect? I can only see simplifying the collective articles as a good thing. -b 16:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Eh, merged. Being teh bold. -b 05:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Name

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to move this page to List of minor characters in Firefly, as that is the suggested name on WP:FICT. The Wookieepedian 23:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Shiny. EVula 23:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I obviously agree (see above). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

'Tis done. Now time for me to fix the redirects. The Wookieepedian 06:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Suicide?

Okay, at the end of the Operative's section it claims that the movie implies he is planning to commit suicide. That, it seems to me, is pure speculation. True, his mission in life has been completely destroyed, and many people would commit suicide rather than face a world that they feel offers them nothing (And that they can offer nothing to), but merely being a possibility doesn't mean that the film suggests it. There needs to be something more concrete than just him being disillusioned with life. 67.85.165.48 00:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a recurring bit of speculation from overly enthusiastic editors. As Firefly-article readers are no doubt tired of hearing me say by now, but which I will repeat every time it comes up, Wikipedia is not the place for fan speculation or any material that comes from discussion boards or other non-reliable sources. If any primary source (i.e., the film or its novelization) says this, we can include it as a fact here. If any reliable secondary source (e.g., an article or review in a major publication) presents this claim, we can cite it as having been claimed by that source. But we must not engage in interpreting the events, especially to suit our own individual and highly diverse worldviews. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Gotta chime in on this one. It was not implicitly stated the Operative's plans for suicide. However with the movie opening in on the Operative's discussions of the Japanese tradition of seppoku in regards to the failure of the scientists to maintain control over River Tam, the notion that following the movie he would commit suicide, or at the very least contemplate it, isn't just a natural assumption. It has been established as his "natural course" based on the Operative's previous statements.User:Smokachu (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Operative(s)?

The second paragraph of the Operative's entry implies ("... an operative is an agent of the Alliance government.") that there are multiple Operatives. Is it explicitly stated anywhere that there is more than one, or only one Operative? --Pentasyllabic 05:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In Serenity, the doctor in the opening scene specifically says "an Operative", not "the Operative," meaning that the was only one of many. It's not definite evidence, but it's an implication, same as the entry. JBK405 05:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Purusuant to this, "The" is clearly not a first name or part of any sort of proper name. "Operative" is something like a proper noun because it serves to name him, but "the" does not do anything more than its usual function as a definite article. If anything, this conversation suggests that "the" is incorrect anyway. The better way to render his name is "the Operative", and I'm going to make that change. Croctotheface 22:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Also, Shepherd Book likewise refers to AN Operative, not THE Operative. And it is not his name, but rather a title, as he states, when asked his name and rank, "I have none."

76.179.230.4 (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger of FF main characters

Per Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09_List_of_characters_in_the_Firefly_universe and the lack of progress in most FF character articles (it's been more than four months), I'll trim&merge Hoban Washburne, Zoe Washburne, Jayne Cobb, Simon Tam and potentially Kaylee Frye (nine sources for three rather basic descriptions in the intro?) here as my time allows. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

For transparancy: As I'll continue to be a little busy in real-life until at least mid-April, I'll do the following: I'll "sloppy-merge" all characters but Mal, Book and River (see medcab case) here, which means I'll merge their whole articles here and then do the necessary trim, and not (what I usually do) trim first and then merge. I do realize this will temporarily make the article look gigantic, but this also makes it easier to edit for me as well as others. If someone really wants to merge Book and River here, too, he is free to start a merge proposal. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And done. For goodness sake's people, don't be morons. There's absolutely no reason to make such an inconsistent mess as 4 articles for 9 characters except the pedantic overapplication of Wikipedia rules. It makes us look bad to do something like this, because anyone who doesn't contribute to Wikipedia won't know the pedantic justification behind the setup and will just think we're being inconsistent idiots. Heck, we ARE being inconsistent idiots. Especially considering the fact that the justification is even more petty and moronic in the case of River Tam: her article is about as good as all the characters we just merged were before the merge. So why didn't we merge? Because some dude forgot to mention her FIVE MONTHS AGO. See? We're idiotic. Let's not be. Maratanos (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to see the others merged, feel free to take the appropriate actions (I see you/someone already did). I already have enough on my plate time-wise just dealing with 6 out of the 9 articles, especially if you count in all the time it takes negotiating the merge. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This merger is idiotic. As soon as I have the time, every article will be reverted back. If anyone tries to fuck up wikipedia by merging again, I'll report it as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.105.128 (talk • contribs)

Civility, please. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be appreciated certainly. As well as a grasop of the definition of vandalism. But I did warn you, Sgeureka, that people are gonna think we're morons... Also, I see no opposition to a merger for the remaining three characters and so I'm gonna join the proud tradition of shoving things together and hoping other people will make them look nice.Maratanos (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as they just think we are morons... Anyway, the redirect of Simon Tam is semi-protected now for vandalism for the next three weeks, so I'm pretty sure 130.184.xxx.xxx (and anyone else thinking of trying to copy his behavior) will get the message at some point. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

While the actions of that IP may be out of line, he has a point. Isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to provide information? What do we get by limiting it? I looked it over, and it seems like the Malcom Reynolds article had enough real world info to stand on it's own. I reverted it, but I won't remove the tags until a complete consensus is met. BtVSFan (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of wikipedia is to provide encyclopedic information, and I agree with you that certain FF characters' articles did indeed do that in a sufficient manner (in my eyes) to support their own article - that's why I left them out in my merge. However, I will neither campaign for nor against the merger of Book and Mal at this point - I believe my time will be spent much better elsewhere. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, that's why I'm not indiscriminately restoring every FF character article. While I think Wikipedia could benefit by loosening up on the Fictional Notability guidelines, I'm willing to comply with the current policy.BtVSFan (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This merger is ridiculous... instead of having a group of good articles about the main characters, we have a humongous article made for the sake of mergist zealots who target every article related to quality popular culture.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

'Ident' v Identification Card

The commanding officer, after tersely dismissing Mal, changes his attitude once one of his officers shows him Book's "ident" card.

Need some consensus about this, so we don't keep changing it back and forth. In the episode, they do indeed say 'ident card'. However, this is slang for 'identification card'. For an encyclopaedic entry, my opinion is to have 'identification card'. I think this is the same as choosing to use 'universe over " 'verse" in the articles. We shouldn't use in-universe slang, even though by putting it in quotations it is made more acceptable and correct as opposed to having no quotations. Zybthranger (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Some in-universe slang may be appropriate if it is significant to the story, explained in the first occurrence in any article that uses it, and includes a citation from a reliable source. "Browncoat" is a good example of a significant slang term for Firefly. But "ident card" isn't especially significant to the overall story. (I can think offhand of 2, maybe 3 instances where ident cards were even mentioned, and only as minor elements. The hint about Book is independent of the term itself; i.e., it doesn't matter what they called the cards, unlike the term "Browncoat", which impacts story elements.)

On the other hand, "ident card" isn't too hard to deduce from context for native-English speakers. For non-native speakers and other readers who may not make the connection, we can include a link to Identity document, which defines what's meant and whose lead section even includes the term "identity card", an appropriate expansion. If we choose to use "ident card" with a link, we should still put "ident" in quotes because it is not a common usage, at least according to Cambridge Dictionaries Online and Merriam-Webster Online (although the latter apparently includes something on this term in its for-fee service). Wiktionary has an entry, but that appears to be due to our technology-heavy contributors' awareness of the ident protocol, i.e., a term not in common use outside of computer networking. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

While "ident card" isn't to hard to figure out, I can see people reading it also mistaking it for a misspelling. And like Jeff Q said, using "ident" over "identification" does not add anything to it. I think that using "identity" would be the most clear way to phrase the sentence, and it remains as correct as the, in my opinion, less clear alternative. Zybthranger (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As the entire phrase isn't a quote, why do we just make it "...changes his attitude once one of his officers shows him Book's identification"? It's still a valid descriptor of what happens in the episode, doesn't use the in-universe phrasing, and bypasses the (in my opinion) clumsy phrase "identification card". EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of that. Maratanos (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps make it "... shows him Book's ID". I think that may sound better than "identification card" and "identification". Zybthranger (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd shy away from that, mainly because I don't want to use an abbreviation in the article (and, practically speaking, someone's likely to just come along, oblivious to this discussion, and change it to "identification"). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I wasn't sure if abbreviations were a good idea, so I brought it up.

And it looks like most people agree that "...once one of his officers shows him Book's identification" would be a good change, so I'm going to change it to that now. Zybthranger (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Count me in for EVula's excellent suggestion, too. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Derrial Book

I cannot see any merger discussion for this article, it appears to contain the fabled "real-world information" that those who hang around talking about notability dream about, so I'm not sure why it has been merged. I restored the article but Eusebeus had a short-lived attack of the TTN-itis, before changing his mind. Catchpole (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

...Whatever. Be a freakin' bureaucracy. I give up. Nobody seems to care about any sort of consistency, so I guess it's our official policy to enslave ourselves to the details of the rules. Besides, reliable secondary sources do not make a distinction that Mal and Book are more important than anyone else. They also discuss Zoe, Wash, Inara, Kaylee, River, and Simon at around the same level. It's not my fault nobody seems willing to recognize this fact. Just look at the tables of contents for these two books. I know some people have copies. I don't have the ability to get some myself or this whole charade would be over by now. It's not like anyone even needs to have the contents of these articles apparently, because neither Book nor Mal makes use of them. So don't try to tell me that Book and Mal are any more notable than anything else. The very sources that are being used for establishing notability are the very same sources that could be used to establish notability for every single other character: The Firefly Companion, interviews, commentaries, even primary source material. But there's not a lot I can do at this point. Do what you want. Shamelessly ignore the facts. See if I care anymore. Maratanos (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's enough information for one of the main character's to get their own article, there should be enough information for all of the main characters. Somebody with the books go and fix this. 129.105.19.107 (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather unrelated to this other discussion, but that's twice now someone's been trying to insert speculation into Book's summary section. If anyone is reading this and thinking about doing the same, find some freakin' sources. Maratanos (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability (again)

I hope I don't get anybody mad, but I removed the notability tag on this article. We already went over this quite recently and this article is, in fact, the result of a process of examining the notability of the subject. Any further cuts seem mighty dubious to me, since we would be left with no choice but to push all this information into the main article, which is already too long. Maratanos (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Characters

The entry for Mr. Universe says he is the second jewish character. Who is the first? --Phoenix Hacker (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The guy that runs the mail/package center in 'The Message'. I believe he's wearing a yamaka, and Alan definitely points it out in the commentary. Zybthranger (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The First Jewish character is the Mailclerk in "The Message" who's name is Amnor Guest:KV_Tinder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.44.140 (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is stupid as there is nothing to say that for instance most of the Chinese (aka everyone) are or are not Jewish or that jews even exist in this alternate future. Otherwise why not start a list of the Christians and Muslims and most importantly the Pastafarians or single out a particular character and examine what religion they are or are not. I think the religions of the Brown-coat universe would correlate to the Buffy-verse and that the bible (or Torah or Koran) is mythology except even more-so as this is the future aka startrek or starwars. tymes (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Jubal Early

Re [1]

It's rather ambiguous as to what happened. Sure, she was on his ship, but we do know she's psychic, and there's only so much information one can deduce from another's living quarters. It'd be hard to be terribly accurate. Is there any official word on this one in the commentary or anything? Maratanos (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no specific commentary on how she gathered her information. But.. nothing she says necessarily needs mind-reading to explain. When River says, "You hurt people.. Crawl inside me uninvited and you hurt my crew" is after she talks to members of the crew. "Your mother knew. Sadness in her when she waved goodbye. She's relieved. Big golden retriever sitting on the lawn" -- in the beginning of the episode there's a shot of a picture of (presumably) Jubal's mother and the dog. "Smell on you. Neighbors pets. You did things to 'em. Cleaned up after. Shined and polished. Everything in here gleams." -- She recognizes how tidy he is with his ship and (perhaps) makes an inference to his personal life. These things are explainable by her psychic abilities, yes, but the specific clues inserted into the episode (photo, certain phrases, the order of who she talks to) definitely allow her to know these things without having to read Jubal's mind. She's a very smart girl, and there's no need to assume the more complicated of scenarios when a simpler one will do. Also, the current phrasing in the article (I think) doesn't preclude her having read his mind either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.130.225 (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Re [2]

Needs a source. Sorry. Maratanos (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Fancruft

This article is packed with fancruft. I love the show but this is a bit much even for me. Do we really need the tidbit about Niska cutting off Mal's ear?? I think you could reconstruct the plot of every gorram episode with the amount of detail in this article.

Just sayin'. 99.154.3.177 (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Be bold. Just sayin'. Maratanos (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Just sayin' as well... I think you picked the wrong example there. Niska cutting off Mal's ear is a quick and effective way just to show how malicious and amoral the man is. So I feel that point in particular to be relevant. However I do agree that far too much of these articles (and the individual character articles that once existed as well) is dedicated towards telling the entire plot of the show, ignoring Wikipedia's MO of a quick easy to read source of basic information. Smokachu (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Inara as a 'courtesan'

Shouldn't we mention that Inara frequently participates in a form of state-sanctioned prostitution? Calling her merely a courtesan and entertainer might be misleading. 59.92.54.117 (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Shan Yu

Why is Xiang Yu linked (and disclaimed)? The script of "War Stories" has Shan Yu and describes him as a 'dictator', not an ancient military commander. I assumed he's in our future. —Tamfang (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

removed alias sections

Saffron is known by multiple aliases, but they didn't each need their own section, and the circular loop they were put in was unnecessary. I've removed the extra sections. Both extra names are available with explanations in the Saffron section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanBrockest (talk • contribs) 15:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Wash's description

"occasionally laconic sense of humor." I see what you did there... Thank you, whomever added that line! RandomLurker (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if some sort of acknowledgement ought to be made that Inara's choice to be aboard Serenity is unusual. If I recall correctly, at at least one point she's questioned about why she's on such a ship. Jennadorf (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)