Talk:Shepherd Book

Book's First Name

Apparently in early versions of the film Serenity, Book's first name was shown as Meria, but by the time the film was released (and in the novelization, Visual Companion, and Role Playing Game), his name was finalized as Derrial Book.Shsilver 18:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

So that's why people keep changing his first name to Meria... Does anyone else think that this should go on the main page, maybe under a Trivia section? --Pentasyllabic 18:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Not without documentation. BTW, I froze and zoomed my DVD last night. The "D" and "l" are indistinct, but there's definitely a double "r" in the middle.--SarekOfVulcan 18:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

On a related issue, in one of the featurettes on the DVD, Gina Torres is designated as playing Zoë Warren, from before her name was altered to Zoë Alleyne Washburne. That would have been around the same time as Book's name change.Shsilver 18:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Since many people feel the need to change "Derrial" to "Meria" without examining the evidence, the article history, or the talk page, I have added a comment visible only to editors to come here first before making this erroneous change. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The special Serenity preview/behind-the-scenes disc that was included in the BestBuy version of the BattleStar Galactica Season 1 DVD listed Shepherd Book's first name as Meria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.15.255.227 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's see — this is a listing (format unspecified) in a supplemental program as part of a preview for an incomplete film presented on a special store-branded marketing production of a disc for a completely different film. I've heard rumors with more compelling sources than that. ☺ Still, as a commercial production, I suppose it could be considered a source for an early name which was subsequently changed. Can someone describe exactly how this supposed "Meria Book" was presented (spoken in dialog, seen in a script, printed as a credit on the box or as part of the special's opening or end credits, etc.)? And can anyone provide concrete information about this source, like an ISBN or UPC number? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely DERRIA

I'm watching Serenity at this moment and have paused the view of his tombstone: Shepherd Derria Book in plain letters. Unless we get dialogue contradicting this, I'm changing it to Derria. JBK405 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Never say definitely :-) There are good sources for both Derria (Serenity the film) and Derrial (Serenity the novel and The Visual Companion). Its even been noted that some screencaps of the tombstone appear to show an L at the end: here. At the least "Derria" and "Derrial" should be mentioned in the article with sources and its very unclear to me that moving the article without hearing other opinions was a good idea, since we are likely to get a move war going if we're not careful. Gwernol 02:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I regretted that immediately after I did it. I've always kinda laughed at people who said exactly what I just said, even if they eventually turned out to be right, and I've also said that peoples own perspective isn't enough to warrant signficant change. However, I paused my DVD and zoomed in on the tombstone (Even wearing my glasses), I don't see anything that could even closely resemble an "L" on the end of his name, and it's always been maintained that events witnessed on-screen supercede those in non-canon novls.

To be fair, though, if a move-war is started, it won't be started by me. If somebody moves it back to Derrial I'm not going to throw a hissy fit, since all I have is my own vision and Wikipedia doesn't really count me as a reliable source. Sorry again for the abrupt move, I was just kinda swept up in the "I see it, it must be right" feeling. JBK405 02:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

:-) No worries. I think the Visual Companion is canon even if the novel isn't. I'm actually less worried about the title of the article than the fact that the article itself doesn't allude to the fact that Book's first name simply isn't consistently given across the canon. Since there are reliable sources for both, we should mention that his name changes between them in the article. Best, Gwernol 02:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps an explanation would be good to have in the article, but we'd still need a ruling on the article itself, we can't have both. On that front, I'm pretty sure that the movie would outweigh the VC. While I am not personally aware of the VC's canonability, the standard rule is that on-screen events supercede even canon literature, though that is by no means a total ruling. Do we have anything by Whedon on whether the VC is of equal or lesser weight? JBK405 02:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

See my note above from December 22. It is clear that the name changed in Whedon's mind over time. Since he wrote both the Serenity Companion (in which the name is given as Derrial) and the Firefly companion (in which the name is given as Derrial) and those came later, I think it is safe to assume that Derrial is the name Whedon settled on.

From Firefly: The Official Companion, Volume One, written by Joss Whedon (and therefore as canonical as you can get), Titan Press, September 2006, p.166. "...Ron Glass hadn't explored in his career - until he was approached to play Shepherd Derrial Book." Shsilver 03:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Another apparently counterintuitive reason to go with the book citations of "Derrial", rather than an apparent "Derria" on the screen, is that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary sources. (See text at Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Some definitions.) The rationale is that primary sources are somewhat raw and may require interpretation by skilled professionals (e.g., reliability of sources, accuracy of accounts, etc.). Wikipedia strives to compile well-vetted information. Although not specifically mentioned, studying on-screen material skirts dangerously close to amateur interpretation of a primary source. (I'm not especially happy about this, as I work more on Wikiquote, and WQ is uncomfortably reliant on primary sources for TV shows.) The fact that there is disagreement on the actual name practically requires us to use a professionally vetted source of information, like a book whose author is canonicity itself, whose own writing has been vetted by professional editors. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How can we have his first name as Derrial when in the article it says with a link that it is not Derrial. Look at note #9. Sithyeti (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Book leaving Serenity

Can anyone care to elaborate on why he leaves? The article simply states the fact, but gives no information as to why. I would do it myself, but, unforunately, I have yet to read the comics that bridge the series to the film. --Bacteria 00:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the comic, but according to the summary at the Serenity (comic) page, it's essentially because he's worried that living on the ship is corrupting him. - Dharmabum420 05:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The specific spark which drives him away, shown in the comic, is when Book hits Mal. Mal says he doesn't mind but it clearly bothers Book that he's failing so badly to live up to the moral code of his faith. He's afraid that it's becoming too easy for him to take the violent route and justify it. So he winds up leaving. - AM2783 12:29, 28 March 2006

Fan speculation

I've removed the "Fan speculation" because it violates a basic principle of Wikipedia: that information be verfiable by reliable sources. Fan speculation is an especially pernicious factor, as it is typically added by people who merely claim to know the "mood" of the fan community. Such information almost never includes sources, and the rare citations are almost always dicussion forums on fan sites, which are explicitly not considered reliable sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've once again removed fan speculation, this time from within the "Past" section. Until we have reliable sources for such information, it's not acceptable in a Wikipedia article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems a bit silly to me to avoid discussing a pivotal part of the character. I mean come on, Book displays an abnormal awareness of Alliance military procedure, law enforcement procedure, covert operations, and what are presumably black operations. And that's on top of an awareness of the black market and some superb martial arts training. Sure we can't say with certainty but I think it's worth making mention of the obvious, but unstated, conclusion. There is similar conjecture in never used Inara sub-plot on that character's page, Alan Tudyk's speculative comments on Wash are treated as fact, and some obvious but still speculative commentary on River. Making no mention of the obvious for Book does something of a disservce to those looking for information. Couldn't we label it some how to at least include it? - AM2783 12:29, 28 March 2006

I agree that we should have this kind of interesting information in the article. The problem is that, so far, no one has provided a source outside of fan discussions. If Book is an interesting character (he is), and if this aspect of him incites reader interest (it does), there should be respectable publications or other media that have addressed it. I know it's more work than simply spreading fan speculation, but Wikipedia works to rise above the global speculative information glut by demanding sources to back up our prose. I must admit I'm very much behind on my own contributions to Firely articles; I've had Serenty: The Official Visual Companion and Finding Serenity for months now and haven't gone through them to find such information. But that's the kind of source we're looking for. Other solid sources would be DVD commentary, published interviews with the cast and crew, etc. A little bit of effort goes a long way toward building the respectability of these articles. (And it's kind of fun, too.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't propose we start labeling Book based on fan speculation. But the deliberate similarities between Book and Jubal Early and The Operative, which Joss Whedon has mentioned in the commentaries, is worth including because it does shed some light on Book's past. Granted it's an allusion to it, not a direct statement (which we will probably never get) but it's certainly of some value. It's certainly not pure fan speculation. - AM2783 9:09, 29 March 2006

With what we know now from Serenity about River's powers, it's clear now that he was an operative of the Alliance. In Objects in Space, River reads the mind of every crew member and when it's Book's turn he is coldly torturing someone for information.

Canonical nature of the 'Serenity' novelisation

On the details of the novelisation, I do not believe that enough criticism is given to how canonical the novelisation is. On a Q&A session with Joss Whedon on:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/feature.asp?f=67

Joss Whedon says about the 'Serenity' novelisation: "I don't have much involvement. I just don't have time. If I started to read them I'd just get frustrated and have to write them myself. This would cause fewer movies and shows. I just whistle and look the other way. Hope ya like 'em!"

Wouldn't this mean that the novelisation is of less canonical importance then the series 'Firefly' or the film 'Serenity'?

Yes, Yes it would. ZODtheReaper (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Good to be home"

In the article:

"The only other identitiy card apearing in the series belongs to the Alliance mole and is used during his attempt to sign on to the Cortex, which may be a sign of past Alliance ties. After seeing the information on Book's card the commander immediately halts his admonishing of the Serenity crew. Upon return, Book states "It is good to be home.""

Maybe it's just me, but I get the feeling, the way this is written, that the last line sort of implies Book feeling at home on the Alliance ship, when it was actually about him being back on Serenity (I'm fairly certain at least). Anyone else think this should be made more clear in the article? Merc 2k 22:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made it clear in the article that Book was on board Serenity when saying that line. I've also cleaned up some of the wording and reordered a couple of the sentences in that paragrapg to improve the flow and make it seem less disjointed. Merc 2k 05:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Note to self for use in near future

"Pastor" is Latin for "shepherd." --Kizor 08:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is. I think the first document to compare the role of a Christian minister to that of a shepherd was Gregory's Pastoralis, which dates back to the sixth century AD and was very influential. It's why pastors are called pastors, the congregation is called the flock, bishops carry a shepherd's crook, etc., etc..

Anyway - in English, the Pastoralis has been called "Pastoral Care"... or, less commonly, "The Shepherd Book". Coincidence? I presume (but have no evidence to prove) that Joss Whedon knew about (and was intending an obscure reference to) the influential treatise when he named his shepherd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.75.4 (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

References.

The following is completely unreferenced: the lead, "Production details" lead, last 2 paragraphs of "Character background", and "Character biography" except for bit from the script. Also, are the companion books (the only things footnoted) reliable, third-party publications, the way Serenity found is? -- Jeandré, 2007-12-09t19:06z

I've done the refs you requested accept for the lead, since it's a summary of the article. The VCs are not 3rd party... I took a stab at Mal and Book in cleaning up what was there and adding what refs I had on hand to demonstrate it is possible for these articles to be notable and not fan-crufty. They do need more 3rd party sources, and more out-of-universe info, but it's definitely not a question of there not being any, but rather editor time in inserting them in here. I do not have a copy of Serenity Found so will have to leave it up to another editor to insert relevant material. --plange (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that I did add 1 3rdparty source --plange (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming comic series

Ron Glass has revealed that there will be a comic series coming out focussing on Book's past. [1] I've used the link to cite the info about Book's name from the Browncoat Cruise; I wasn't sure where to put the info about the comic. Anyone else wanna tackle it? --Sqrnookle (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ShepherdBook.JPG

Image:ShepherdBook.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 ensure 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) 05:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Operative

On TVtropes.org it is stated that Book used to be an operative, "according to supplementary material". Has anyone seen this, whatever it is? Leushenko (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

His Own Page

Why is this the only character with his own page? Does he need one if the others don't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZODtheReaper (talk • contribs) 06:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Reynolds has his own page. kingdom2 (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting to List of characters in the Firefly universe

Doctorfluffy redirected this page to Book's section on the List of characters page. I changed it back because it was removing an entire page worth of info and redirecting to a single paragraph without any discussion. Zybthranger (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

All the other supporting characters were merged long ago. This guy is no more notable than any of them. Anyone who cares can pull content from the page history. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please stop mindlessly redirecting the page and wait until there's some consensus. Just because you think it is the right course of action does not mean that it actually is. Zybthranger (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus obviously already exists as every other supporting character has been merged. What about this is unclear to you? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What am I unclear about? The fact that you say there is a consensus. If you look at some of the discussion of the merge, there is not obvious consensus to merge this article. Perhaps merging would be the best plan, but we need to talk about it first. So please stop making these major changes without talking about it. Zybthranger (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Every other character was merged long ago. This character is no more notable than them. It follows that this article should also be merged. It's that simple. Please explain why this article shouldn't be merged when all of its counterparts have been? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the other ones were in error. In any case, I believe this one meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This one was clearly missed after consensus was determined to merge the other character articles. There is no reason to start a discussion about the notability of any of them because that discussion has already taken place and completed with the consolidation into the list. My redirect is the result of the formed consensus. This is obvious to me. I don't see how it isn't to you. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

@Hobit - The other character merges were not in error.

@Doctorfluffy - The consensus was not to merge of all of the character pages. I think that was pretty clear in the links I posted above, but I should have time tomorrow (when I'm not running late for an appointment) to type more. Zybthranger (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have time to read through a 36k wall of text from mediation. This character specifically was singled out to be left as a stand alone article while all the others aside from Mal were considered acceptable to merge? That's a strange outcome to say the least. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That's unfortunate that you're too busy to read through the previous discussion of whether or not this article should be merged. Especially since you are citing that past consensus, which it seems you haven't even read, as the reasoning behind your actions. But I will now try to summarize that wall of text. Eventually, a sort of shaky consensus was reached {shaky because there was still a person or two vocally opposed even after that}. The articles in question started as just the main characters besides Mal and River, and then they were also included in later discussions. Because most of the character pages were simply character histories, it was decided that they should be merged, but if more real world info was added, then it could return to separate articles. The pages for Mal and Book both focused on character development as opposed to fictional character history, and so it was decided they didn't need to be merged. And like you said, having only two of the nine characters with separate pages was weird, and some people tried arguing that it should be all or none, but the current set up emerged as the consensus.

In short - "Unfortunately, I don't have time to read through a 36k wall of text from mediation." - If you did, you'd see your 'consensus' does not appear to be correct.

"This character specifically was singled out to be left as a stand alone article while all the others aside from Mal were considered acceptable to merge?" - Yeah, that's basically what happened. Mal and Book had good pages, the others were not good, the not good pages got merged.

"That's a strange outcome to say the least." - Yes it is. There were some people opposed to this inconsistency. Discussion of that can be found on the Firefly Character List's talk page.

You would have all of this info is you read the discussions. There was not any clear consensus for a while, and a lot of talking went on to reach something. Of course, perhaps a new consensus will emerge to merge the article, but (in my opinion) grossly misstating previous discussion is not a good enough answer by itself. Zybthranger (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Really Short Answer"This character specifically was singled out to be left as a stand alone article while all the others aside from Mal were considered acceptable to merge?" - Yeah, that's basically what happened. Mal and Book had good pages, the others were not good, the not good pages got merged. Zybthranger (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I was actually just typing "Even your reply is bordering on too long for a volunteer project". Thanks for the shorthand. Anyway, I still think this article should still be redirected since all the others have been. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No reply in a month... we're all cool with the merge then? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going with no - this page has great info, in depth - the paragraph on the list of characters page where it has been merged with is useless. Contributions/199.126.152.28 (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just merge data from the page history. No biggie. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No reply in a couple days... we're cool with the deletion then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.120.179.226 (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The last reply was "no". Nothing changed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see your point. The consensus is delete. Silence does not mean opposition. 65.120.179.226 (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There was never a consensus to delete or merge Book's article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Every other character, minus the main dude, from this series has been merged to the list. I still don't see why this guy is any different. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

'Cause this is the other main dude. :-) Actually, you don't have to see anything different -- you just have to see that the AfD closed with no consensus to merge Book udiand Reynolds. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what discussion you're referring to, but I bet a goon squad of zealous fans came and obnoxiously swayed consensus to keep this article separate when any group of objective editors would have decided that every character page should have been merged. Also, from what I know of the show, Derrial is not the "other main dude" and is, in fact, one of the more minor characters who receives less focus/development than basically everyone else, aside from maybe Kaylee. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Good to know that you have an opinion on what should happen. Maybe if you actually tried to build some consensus for what you want to do, it would happen, as opposed to saying that everyone else has stupid arguments. Frankly, that only makes you look like an idiot. 65.120.179.226 (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say everyone else had stupid arguments. I said that the AfD didn't find those arguments compelling enough to delete the article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrial Book was the AfD. Later, there was a mediation case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 List of characters in the Firefly universe, which in part stated "Sceptre, I am not doubting that real-world content exists for these articles; the articles for Mal Reynolds and Derrial Book have already proven that. But what I am doubting is that these remaining articles will be "fixed" to meet WP:FICT any time soon..." If you want to nominate it for deletion again, I have no problem with that -- it's been over a year since the last discussion. But last time this was formally discussed, the consensus was NOT TO MERGE BOOK.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to value this content. Are you really saying that you'd prefer an AFD over a merge??? Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 00:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"Merge" is a valid AfD outcome.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I know that, but I was hoping to not have to go through an AFD. In fact, I tried encouraging a merge already with the redirect and it was repeatedly undone... and then you're here telling me that this should be merged?? You seem to be encouraging more process than is necessary to result in the same outcome. A redirect now will get the ball rolling and then interested editors can pull whatever they want from the page history. Isn't that valid compromise? Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 04:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. As I see it, there is no consensus to remove this article, either by deletion or merging. If you want to prove I'm wrong, then start an AfD -- otherwise, find another way to improve it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"otherwise, find another way to improve it." - that's precisely what the redirect is doing! It saves having to go through an AFD! I see you're an administrator, but are you being serious at this point? It's not about being right or wrong. We have differing opinions on what should be a done and a redirect/merge is the middle ground. Seemingly no else active cares about the article anyway, so why create more work for both of us with an AFD? Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 23:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing an article is not "middle ground". Nice try. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's concerns me that you appear to be adopting a you vs me mentality here. A redirect/merge is not "removing an article", as you well know. The content is being transplanted to better adhere to standards regarding topic notability and fictional element information. It's not like I'm trying to reinvent the wheel here; the other characters have already been merged to the list. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 17:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think what SarekOfVulcan is referring to is the fact that your 'redirect/merge' is simply redirecting this page and not actually moving the content of this article. Zybthranger (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

only 13 episodes

I would have sworn he was in all 14 episodes. Which wasn't he in? ~ 10nitro (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's Ariel. As it's only 1 episode, I've added the name to the infobox. "Could've gotten off with Shepherd Book at the Bathgate Abbey. You could be meditating over the wonders of your rock garden right about now." I don't know if it's mentioned in any of the behind the scenes sources why he's not in it, though my guess is because he didn't have a place in the story and having Inara already bookends it. Having two do that would be redundant. (I know I'm half a year late. Just answering for future readers.) Revelian (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Derrial Book → Shepherd Book – per WP:COMMONNAME. This is how he is commonly referred to in the TV series and film, and it is also the common name in reliable sources. A google books search gives only 5 results for "Derrial Book" -LLC, compared with 125 for "Shepherd Book" "Firefly" -LLC. In addition, it is common practice that WP:NCP does not apply to fictional characters. Jenks24 (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with this, assuming that the redirect and article are simply switching places. Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's what would happen. Jenks24 (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support: He is called "Shepherd" throughout the entirety of the series; "Derrial" only appears in the movie and (if I'm recalling correctly) is revealed in one of the in-canon comics to be a pseudonym anyway. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

character background/character biography

surely these can be merged to reduce the pronounced redundancy. chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.58.180 (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)