FANDOM


Can we delete this article? We generally go by the full names of principal human characters on this wiki. Josh Duhamel has said (IIRC) that his character's name is William Lennox, but until we get something more official... --FFN 08:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion hardly seems like the appropriate response. Putting the article on-notice that it's going to be moved as soon as we know his full name seems better. -Derik 09:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Oops, yeah, I meant moving it to whatever his full name will be. --FFN 10:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I wonder if there's a need for a standard "moving" template... this seems a rare occurrence, but since sequels are almost inevitable... if so, I demand the image in the box be Movor. Hmm, we could clip him out of this image... --M Sipher 14:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If we're doing a Move template, we probably want a Merge Into and a Merge 50/50 template. Any ideas for that?-Derik 18:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge 50/50 --ItsWalky 19:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Heh -Derik 19:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Military branch

Which military branch is Lennox from? In the credits his men are US Army Rangers, Epps is from the air force, and I noted an airborne patch on Lennox's BDU. Does he command some sort of mixed multi-force unit? Or am I missing something? --FFN 19:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think they're supposed to be an Army unit, with Epps as an embedded Air Force Combat Air Controller. --KilMichaelMcC 19:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
What Kil says makes sense. I don't know what Air Force BDUs look like, but I've been told by others after their repeat viewings of the movie that you can see an Army tape on Lennox's shirt. Keller definitely mentions "the Rangers" at one point, so if that's what Lennox's men are listed as in the credits... -Rotty 20:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't speak for Fig or the rest of the team, because their actual combat gear is tuned towards practicality over inter-service discrimination, but when wearing normal everyday fatigues, Lennox wears an Army uniform and Epps an Air Force uniform. Apparently the team is to an extent mixed-service. The Colonol of SOCCENT is an Army Colonol, also. --Sntint 03:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
On Colonel Sharp's BDU shirt, the name tape says Marines. You can go catch a matinee if you're not convinced. :) -Rotty 04:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I just forgot you'd told me that. I remember the conversation now; the lighting in the Ops room makes it difficult to determine the color of his BDUs. The majority of the services are switching over to that "digital" pattern (we start getting ours this fall!), and the only major differentiation aside from insignia is the color scheme. Not that I won't see the movie again anyway. --Sntint 04:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Donnelly

How should we handle his article name since he doesn't appear to have a first name? Does he have one? Sergeant Donnelly or First (or 1st) Sergeant Donnelly? --FFN 06:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Captain Lennox commands an Army Special forces team that may have ranger qualified members as well as an Air Force CCT (Combat Controller Technition) His patches are inconsistant in the movie, but the repeated patch is that of Army Special Forces which bosts the "AIRBORN" tab above it. There is also suggestions of British SAS (Secret Air Service) members present. Lennox's uniform is that of an Army ACU (Army Combat Uniform) BDUs (Battle Dress Uniforms) are now obsolete. His weapon is an M4 A1 with a standard RIS (Rail Interface System) on it bearing an AN/PEQ lazer sight, ACOG red dot scope with Kill Flash, Surefire tactical xenon light vertical foregrip, and a Night Vision scope. His webbing is an ACU pattern MOLLE vest and his side arm is a modified 1911A1 Colt pistol. Hope this helps. -Snake out

Serious Writing

Not to offend anyone, but I think that this Article would be better if the jokes were left out. Again, I don't mean to offend anyone, I just wanted to say that. Captain William Lennox Transformers 18:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to be unnecessarily blunt, but we disagree.
All you did was change the image captions. And you didn't even change them to good captions- 'Captain William Lennox attacks one of the Decepticons' is a sucky state-the-obvious caption. Which Decepticon? Where? Wait- isnt' this when he killed Blackout?
That caption does nothing but take up space under the photo. It provides no information not immediately obvious by looking at the photo. The original caption-- which went through several iterations before beign setttled on-- was chosen to capture the emotion of the moment.
Captain Lennox is almost killed by one of the Decepticons, unknown to his Soldiers. This inaccurately describes both this photo and the events around it. He is never 'almost killed' without his men knowing- they know right away when the attack happens! You didn't like the original caption Yeah, real good work watching your commander's back, all you guys standin' in the background, which accurately described the action of the photo as well as highlighting the reason it was chosen, so you rephrased that accurate caption into a half-assed serious caption that more-or-less said the same thing-- only it was completely wrong.
One of Lennox's Soldiers dies in a Deleted Scene from the Film. Which soldier? When? Why did the soldier die? Why is this in Lennox's article-- oh is he comforting him? Wait- I'm using rhetorical confusion because all this information is included in the text of the article right next to the image, and again all you did was substitute a boring nondescriptive caption in place of one that captured the emotional context of the scene.
And for reasons I can't begin to understand, you removed the link to the actor who played Lennox.
It comes down to this— the original version of the article was more informative. Thank about that-- sometimes funny captions can actually tell you things! --Derik 20:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
(gets out a fire extinguisher on Derik) Hey hey, calm down. He made a mistake by assuming this wiki is supposed to run in exactly the same manner as whatever wiki he frequents and arbitrarily decided that he should Change Everything, but no need to go overboard ;) --FFN 20:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I firmly maintain that a thorough case study explaining why the article was worse off after he bowdlerized it while counter-pointing the strengths of the system he was attempting to supplant is a more effective way of communicating the philosophies of this wiki as a genuine alternative solution instead of an arbitrary choice by sniggering joke-happy pot-heads. If successful in communicating this, it should create less long-term frustration for everyone.
(I'm not saying that every article's captions are this relevant- many or not- but in Lennox's article everything was there for a reason.) Also- removing the link to the actor and arbitrarily changing the name of the Fiction Section-- a section which appears on virtually every article on this Wiki, irritated me. -Derik 23:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you came off as unnecessarily hostile. Please don't be. Educating the member about policy is more helpful than the reprimanding lash you gave him. You may have had some good points, but your tone looked aimed to just scare the person off. --Sntint 06:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, if people do something wrong, we help them do things correctly, not freak them out and scare them away. --FFN 06:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hrm, I thought I was being friendlier than {{caption bastard}}, but then I had been up for 32 hours at the time, so my judgment may be a bit questionable.
To Me Lennox; My apologies if I came off as growly. Everything I said above remains valid, but please try to imagine I used a much friendlier tone in expressing it, as the intent was 'excessively blunt for the sake of efficiency' not 'mean.' Placing stickers of rainbows and unicorns on your computer monitor while reading mthe above statements may also approximate the tone I was going for— but since this would almost certainly damage your monitor, I cannot advise it. Please note I have just expressed a concern for your computer hardware and cautioned you against potential misfortune. This should be interpreted as a friendly gesture on my part, I look forward to working with you in the future. -Derik 06:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

About Military & Lennox

So I adjusted the opening just a tweak. Lennox is in the US Army, most starkly evidenced by his uniform, the new Army Combat Uniform (ACUs). He is not a Ranger, as his beret is black (Rangers now wear tan) and in the photo he clearly does not have a Ranger tab on his left sleeve. He was delpoyed to SOCCENT rather than stationed. Minor differentiation. Finally, his team, as someone accurately indicated earlier, was likely a JTF - Joint Task Force. Gibson was a USAF Pararescueman (red/maroon beret). When Keller referred to "Rangers", he was probably using the term in a slightly figurative manner, not to mean that everyone to which he referred was a Ranger, but that it was a Ranger group with others... if that makes sense. For the most part, actually, the movie was pretty accurate/true to US Military ops... at least moreso than the usual movie.--VigilancePrime 22:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, nitpicking uniforms in movies is pointless, as due to legal issues no movie is ever going to depict someone in an accurate uniform. There will always be something wrong with the uniform an actor wears, because they don't actually have the right to wear the real ones.--RosicrucianTalk 22:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The uniforms were made by a costume designer, not real uniforms provided by the military, so there's bound to be mistakes. His men (the other soldiers played by real Navy SEALs) are credited as Ranger Team (insert number), suggesting that the unit is a Ranger team with an embedded air force combat air controller. --FFN 07:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually Tyrese Gibson who plays Sgt. Epps is an Airforce Combat Controller. He is not a Pararescuemen which is apparent by his beret color. Combat Controllers wear a red beret and pararescuemen wear a maroon beret.

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.