Talk:Gargoyles (TV series)

External links

There are a number of links in the "External links" section which lead to various pages on the same sites, specifically, www.s8.org/gargoyles and www.gargoyles-fans.org. I'm not familiar enough with the sites in question to determine if all of those links are noteworthy enough to have linked here, though I think some pruning may be in order. Boxclocke - "!" 09:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone else can add this since mine would inevitably get deleted by some of you obsessive wiki-ers. Watch it free on Disney's site: http://video.disney.com/shows/gargoyles-4ba34a5545c1259e961b9666 — Preceding unsigned comment added by IraJacobs (talk • contribs) 17:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Separate pages for the main characters, entry expansion, and other things.

I posted this in Broadway's page in response to the merging question.

I believe these characters have more than enough material and personality individually to warrent making them their own pages...connected to the main page ofcourse.

Judging by this series' immense popularity that has stood the test of time...as well as the fact these characters go through quite a bit of character development, Much more than your average western animation character...I think if someone is willing to help me we should make profiles for the more prolific characters of this series and maybe one page to minor or one shot characters. Pictures, table of contents to connect all the pages together...the whole deal.

The page is already full of content..but by giving the major characters pages and organizing the more minor characters onto single pages..perhaps we can slowly get rid of some of these red links and maybe organize the page a little better.

I'll slowly start putting together some pages...uploading some pictures and accuratly um.."Remembering" the information about each character..but if someone is willing to help me out please say so on any of these discussion tables.

Also..there's a lot of mythology, artifacts, and more intricate plot details that could also possibly get a listing on their own sub page as well. There's a lot that can be done with this show in particular.

Gargoyles has an enormous following, and is a wonderfully crafted show that I think deserves a great multi layered entry on Wikipedia.

Agreed, the main page lacks the punch and intrigue that makes the show interesting. In depth plot, character, and thematic pages need to be put in for newcomers to the series and veterans. I'm fairly new to Wiki, but I'd be interested in helping put together these pages. Contact me if you have similar interest: --Jaws_Victim

---

Can anyone provide a reference to where it was stated that the new comic will have its "first issue released in December 2005 or January 2006"? I know the AskGreg site mentions the possibility of this happening, but I haven't run across anything this definite. --Matthew0028 10:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

appropiateness?

The unusual romantic subtext between Goliath (a gargoyle) and Elisa (a human) was fodder for quite a bit of discussion on the Internet, particularly about its appropriateness.

I don't recall their relationship ever being considered controversal or innapropiate. --DrBat 12:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't really seem indecent. I mean..they're just two different...races...:D I don't know but unless there's an episode where they act real dirty to eachother that I can't remember (In other words..there isn't one) it seems just romantic.--Kiyosuki 00:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It was very er, scandalous. Star Trek back in the 60's held the first interracial kiss, who knows, Gargoyles may have been the first Animated interracial kiss. The ammount of depth and thought that was put into their relationship is astonishing for an animated show. --Jaws_Victim

You can't compare a woman kissing a gargoyle to having an interracial kiss on the original series of Star Trek (although you should define if it was Nichelle Nichols kissing someone, or someone kissing an alien). The particular (human) races of the people involved on Star Trek are their real races and at the time it wasn't that many years after the riots for segregation. If gargoyles were real, then I think there'd be a case... but they're not.Kingpin1055 23:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and withdrawn.

title

Gargoyles is about to move from being primarily an animated series to a mixed-media franchise. Given that, I think it'd be more appropriate to give this article a title that didn't refer to a specific medium, but rather to the franchise as a whole. That having been said, I would hate an article title that read "Gargoyles (Disney franchise)". Would it be completely inappropriate to take over the page "Gargoyles" (which currently redirects to "Gargoyle" and use the name? skeeJay 17:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Using the page "Gargoyles" is probably unwise, though it would solve a lot of problems as you've mentioned. I would say "Gargoyles (Disney franchise)" is a bit long for an article title. Maybe "Gargoyles (Disney)" would be simpler? When the comic is released, it would be possible to create a new article for it, i.e. "Gargoyles (comic)". The two articles would be linked quite heavily, and that may not be preferable, but it is one possible solution. -- Supermorff 15:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the "Gargoyles (comic)" article isn't such a bad idea. That's my vote.

Boxclocke - "!" 09:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been a long time (six months) since I proposed it, but it's still my favorite idea: changing the title of the article to simply Gargoyles, eliminating that redirect but placing a prominent disambig at the top of the page leading to Gargoyle. Aside from this confusion about whether the plural of the word should lead to a different article, which may or may not be a good idea, we still need a plan. I see three options; 1) a main article for the franchise (e.g. Star Trek) linking to two separate articles, Gargoyles (TV series) and Gargoyles (comic); 2) just two articles, Gargoyles (TV series) and Gargoyles (comic); or a single article, like we have now (which is where removal of the [TV series] moniker from the article title would come in handy). Any thoughts? skeeJay 20:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it'd be very unwise to just use Gargoyles as the article title. Perhaps something along the lines of Gargoyles (Animated Series) would suit a bit better... either that, or the 2 articles idea would probably work best. NetStormer 01:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It just occurred to me, that if we do the 2 separate articles thing, then the Gargoyles page (for the statue) will have to have the one disambiguation added to it. Not much of a problem, but it'd still have to be done. NetStormer 01:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ohhhh-kaaaay...

The fact that one person from Gargoyles was involved in an episode of Buzz Lightyear means very little. Copies, clones, and offspring having reversed names is actually fairly common in fiction, and tiny robotic insects are not really anything to write home about. I removed the Buzz Lightyear reference, I think it's grasping at straws. Master Deusoma 12:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• And I understand that, but the particular bits refered to Gargoyles concept of DNA sampling. You could have simply asked for a citation. You acted as if I left spam. [71.115.212.229] 8:39 PM, 19 June 2006

• • On a related note, there were parodies on Futurama and Freakazoid! too ^_^

Futurama and Freakazoid? Don't suppose you could give us a description... or a screengrab? Kingpin1055 17:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• I saw the reference on Freakazoid once, but I don't remember details. Danny Lilithborne 23:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the connection being a bit tenuous. Many cartoon series' use the cloning storyline, and reversing the name is by no means exclusive to Gargoyles, nor is using small robots to harvest DNA. The same was done, for example, in the anime DragonballZ, just off the top of my head. I haven't seen the episode, so can't claim anything for certain, but there doesn't seem to be enough there to warrant this. Prophaniti 23:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

ATTN!: 24.60.35.187 and Master Deusoma

I notice you guys have been commenting negatively on my contributions. I don't see other people getting citation notice when they neglect to name their source. Is because my info is hard to believe or that because I'm a newbie? If so, you guys need to cut your almighty attitudes or you might alienate others off this page. [71.115.225.100/71.115.212.229] (for some reason this computer changesd my number) 8:57 PM, 19 June 2006

You are welcome to add citation notices to other contributions that need them, of course. I don't know why they tagged yours, but it's not an insult, or even a request for you personally to cite them -- they just want to see some citations, perhaps because it's that interesting. If it were too hard-to-believe, they probably would have just deleted it. :-) About the references though: Your references appear to be to a search page. What searches will take one to the pages that should be cited? -- JHunterJ 10:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fan sites

WP:EL has guidelines for fansites: Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.) -- JHunterJ 18:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Goliath's height

How tall is Goliath? What is his height?

Erm... I don't think his height was ever given in any of the media that's been created for this cartoon. If there's a recorded height, it's likely it's a fan designated one.Kingpin1055 14:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

How tall do you estimate him? Goliath looks 6'5" or 6'6" to me because Balrog from Street Fighter seems as tall as Goliath to me and Balrog is 198cm tall.

I believe there are stats on the trading cards. I'm too lazy to check mine out. --ClintJCL 68.167.161.178 00:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

VHS releases

Should the VHS releases of the first season be mentioned as well? 156.34.219.61 16:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Consider it mentioned. 71.115.242.120 06:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. 156.34.219.61 02:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Highlander Influence

I'm an old fan. I mean that in a lot of ways. Let me put it this way, the Avalon storyline was unfolding while I student taught my class of fourth graders who called me "Mr. Xanatos" because of my goatee and habit of wearing black suits. I'm sure most of you are better versed in the world of fan fiction and Gargs (as I call it) on the web, so I ask that you take all this into consideration when reading what I have to say.

I find it difficult to believe that no one has said anything about (from my point of view) the obvious influence of the movie Highlander on the series. When I saw the first episode, it was the first thing I thought. I'm an old Highlander and Queen fan. Just the first episode, the fact that the story is told in flashbacks to Scotland and carried by a storyline following characters who magically survived to live in modern day New York, was enough to hook me. But as the series progressed, the influence was hard to ignore. I know that Clancy Brown's involvement doesn't mean that the series was influenced by Highlander, but the appearance of the "Golden Cup" building was too much for me to ignore. (The finale of Highlander takes place on the roof of a building with an strikingly similar "Silvercup" sign.) An episode named "The Gathering" is another debatable similarity. MacBeth sure seems like Conner McCloed with the way he loses his family because of his immortal link to Demona. I also think the relationship between Goliath and Eliza could be made into a great AMV on Youtube to Queen's "Who Wants To Live Forever". There's more, if I remember correctly. So, if I'm alone on this, I'm sure it won't take much to talk my girlfriend into watching the series again and cataloging all the Highlander-esque moments. But let me know if I'm alone in my thinking here.

Haven13 11Dec06

I never thought about that before, although I see where you're coming from. So I did some checking on AskGreg (the first place to go for behind-the-scenes Gargoyles info), and did turn up some Highlander references. Much of it claims that the inspiration was subconscious at best - Macbeth and his immortality, the Gathering, Hunters... none directly influenced (although in a later ramble for Sanctuary written in 2002, Greg does refer to questions about Macbeth's thousand year history as "Highlander questions").

Even the use of the "Golden Cup" building is... unclear. Greg does say that it is modelled after the Silvercup Studios building, and mentions its appearance in Highlander, but doesn't say whether or not that was the reason for its use.

Despite that, there is one direct reference that I've found, once again from the last scene in the first movie. That is in the episode Eye of the Beholder, when the sign explodes in the background. That's one you hadn't even noticed.

It's all quite coincidental, but I don't know if it warrants inclusion in the article. If there were different pages for episodes, then yeah, maybe. But not like this. Just my opinion. -- Supermorff 09:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Conventions

This article is a little bit of a mess of information. Do we really need to list every convention and special guest? I mean this is an article about the series and not the convention. Cdscottie

Episodes

Someone should be writing episode summerys for each epsode. If you don't know when it's on, I'll tell you. It comes on the Jetx block on Toon Disney at 2:30 a.m. and 3:30 a.m. almost everyday. For Direct-tv it's channel 292.

Wording of second paragraph

graphic description or graphic DEPICTION? Somebody advise me on this. (I've never heard of this show until now, let alone seen it - I'm British and TV-less. That's why I'm asking for help.) Regards, Notreallydavid 20:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted, depiction is correct. The wounded individual is clearly shown on screen. I've made that change now. -- Supermorff 14:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Voice actor list

Due to the current discussion over the deletion of subcategories of "Category: Actors by series" (including "Category: Gargoyles voice actors"), I propose the creation of a List of Gargoyles voice actors. I am of the opinion that the series had an impressive voice talent, which deserves mention, and that incorporating a full list in the main article could only clutter the page. Also, regardless of the eventual outcome of the deletion discussions, listifying would allow us to clarify when actors appeared, who they played, and would also allow us to move the "Star Trek connection" section from this article to that one. What do other people think? -- Supermorff 11:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I support this category. Ya see, the voice actors are listed throughout Wikipedia, but aren't mentioned in the Gargoyles' characters main articles. Go ahead and create it. Power level (Dragon Ball) 17:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Marvel Comics Gargoyles

I will produce my source a bit later, but Greg Weisman's run for Marvel Comics wouldn't begin until after at least a few more issues. On that note, a solicitation for issue 6 of the current comic will incorporate Greg's story for Marvel Comics. 71.115.238.159 06:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki link?

Why can't I add a link to GargWiki? Caswin 00:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Because certain individuals added links to GargWiki when they weren't appropriate, and continued to do so despite repeated warnings that it was spam (and thus detrimental both to Wikipedia and GargWiki). Same problem with AskGreg. Sucks, doesn't it? -- Supermorff 09:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Should Gargoyles be deleted on Wikipedia?

Look I understand that some spammers messed up, hence why Gargwiki and Ask Greg are not allowed on the site. So it makes me wonder if keeping Gargoyles on the regular Wikipedia is pointless:

• A. Because most info from behind the scenes comes from Ask Greg (Such as the info on Macbeth, Coldstone, The Archmage, etc). What happens when eventually all kind of website links are used by spammers? Then pretty much any official source will be unusable.
• B. Gargoyles has a wikipedia style site which doesn't let the occasional spammers ruin things for decent contributors. While you have to log on to edit, they seem to exercise good faith and communications better than this site. 74.61.186.169 08:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd hardly say that the wikipedia article for Gargoyles is pointless. Just because a few main sources are now not useable doesn't mean that all of them are. We can still use the DVD commentary and information from other sources. We could also try and get sites like Ask Greg removed from the list of blocked sites. And while there is another wiki focused on Gargoyles out there it's still largely a fan site and not completely encyclopedic. In addition, Gargoyles deserves to have a page on Wikipedia just as much Batman: The Animated Series, Avatar: The Last Airbender, or many other cartoon series' simply for it's influence and impact on American culture. Its notability alone qualifies it having a wikipedia page. So removing the page entirely is a bit extreme. If we can't source everything, then we can simply cut down on the info that can't be sourced and add it back in once we have a source. --M m hawk 06:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against saying it shouldn't be without a wikipedia page, but if they're going to limit the pages you can use for source, it's a prime example of shooting oneself in the foot. You still didn't address my one comment. What happens when other sites used for source are spammed onto wikipedia. They'll keep blocking sites until nothing can be used for a source.

While Gargwiki is a fansite, that doesn't diminish it's reliability. And again, they show more Good Faith than the current wikipedia section for Gargoyles. Block a site just because someone messed up doesn't strike me as Good Faith afterall. 74.61.186.169 03:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the simple answer to your question is that we just have to make sure that whatever sources we use aren't also spammed onto Wikipedia, and there are other sources. I don't know why other users got carried away with GargWiki and Ask Greg, but as long we limit the usage of our sources, there shouldn't be a problem. I agree that blocking sites because a few users messed up doesn't sound like good faith to me either, but there must be a way to rectify that. Given that Greg Weisman is now publishing his responses at Ask Greg on the comic book, it seems silly to have that site blocked as spam. At the very least we should be able to unlist Ask Greg, although I don't have time to try and figure out how right now. Maybe someone else does. In the mean, just use different sources. --M m hawk 04:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"the English dubs of 3×3"?

This bit is pretty vague... I'm assuming it means 3x3 Eyes, but since I don't actually know for sure I'll leave it up to someone else to make the change. Luthwyhn 00:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what it means. Antiyonder (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Parodies/references

• Is this section really necessary? JuJube (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It could be taken as a representative of the impact Gargoyles has had that so many people parody/reference the show in their own work... although at least three of those examples had top-level input from the Gargoyles creators. -- Supermorff (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The section is dangerously close to being a 'trivia' section. Perhaps it can be distilled into a paragraph form? I think it is important to note the impact, especially on non American media ( such as Big O) AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call it dangerously close, but it could be presented better. Derekloffin (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledged. I propose the section name is changed from "Parody/Reference" to something like "References In Popular Culture." Some of the items listed under the parody heading aren't actual parodies. Example: Whistling a song in a dub of an anime is not parody. Seeing 'the trio' in Big O is more of a send off than a parody of Gargoyles. Propose to remove mention of The Batman. While there are character similarities it cannot be verified that Ellen Yin is actually a reference to Elisa Maza.I've also screen capped Episode 14 of Big O, and will upload for illustrative purposes sometime shortly. Any other ideas before I begin cleanup? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've uploaded a screen cap from episode 14. A reworked the Big O Section. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I can assure everyone reading this section that the W.I.T.C.H. reference is legit. Even more so as Weisman had a hand in the episode. Antiyonder (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Great. Just needs to be cited then. I wouldn't know where to begin to get that third party verification of this though. Maybe someone else can?AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And I usually cite my sources, but due to spamming activites, the source of most the info (Ask Greg) is blocked. If anything, blcoking a site because some have miss used it does go against the idea of Assume Good Faith.

And I've considered other sites, but the other sources are fansites which recap Weisman's comments. Ask Greg is the only one to contain info from the man himself. The only two options are removing the article since the high majority is source by a blocked link or remove the block on the Ask Greg site and Assume Good Faith on those who use it. Antiyonder (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound rude, but it's just frustrating that the highers are trying to have their cake (demanding the source for Gargoyle info) and trying to eat it too (Blocking the site that supplies the source). Antiyonder (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So I gather "Ask Greg" was banned, because it was over linked? Is there a way to have somebody unblock it? Other such articles directly link to a creators site look at Kevin Smith with refs for both his online blog (silentbobspeaks.com) and his production company view askew.AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

While the link was used frequently, it's because it's the only reliable source available for most of the info provided. But that's not the case from what I hear. It's because some spammers used the site as means of vandalisim. As a result of blocking it out, most info that was provided was Ask Greg is being deleted because we no longer can prove the validity of the info. Antiyonder (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a shame. I'm sure there other sources that cite the same information. We'll have to pull from news stories, interviews, published works, etc. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that simple. Ask Greg is where pretty much all of the info comes from. Any other site that has it, doesn't present the info in a credible way as far a wikpedia standards go. So again, either the article needs to be deleted or they need to allow for linking to Ask Greg again. Antiyonder (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Explanation: Ask Greg was blacklisted not because it was over linked. It was blacklisted because a single user attempted to use Ask Greg to subvert a previous blacklisting. Maybe it's about time to ask for it to be taken off. I'd do it myself, but I'm gonna be a bit too busy for the next three weeks to check the discussion regularly enough to see it through. Someone else want to give it a go? -- Supermorff (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I registered not too long ago, so I don't believe I have the authority on here to make that decision. Antiyonder (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm also a new wikipedian, and unsure of the process. Can anyone point me in the right direction? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oberon on House Of Mouse

I removed mention of this from the mainpage just a few minutes ago. While Oberon does appear in House Of Mouse, it is the Shakespearean version, not the Gargoyle version of the character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiyonder (talk • contribs) 00:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP adding release dates for DVDs in article

An anonymous editor claiming to be an executive of Disney with inside information [1] has continually added release dates for Season 2 pt 2, and Season 3. However his IP tracks to the University of Connecticut. I've left the editor a friendly warning to stop repeatedly adding unsourced information. Editors should be aware that release dates for the last 2 DVDs sets must be verifiable and sourced AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

ReferenceParodies/References Revisited

This section - while useful, needs to be trimmed and sourced. Television episodes can be cited using the {{Cite episode}} template. Additionally, other works done by Greg Weisman that mention or show Gargoyles are considered self-referential and may not be appropriate for a section that speaks to illustrate cultural impact by way of parody or reference. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, how are we suppose to source something when the only reliable site is unusable (blocked for spam)? And links that would be acceptable are from fansites which are deemed unreliable. Besides, other articles on wikipedia contain Reference/Parody sections, so why should Gargoyles be any exception? Antiyonder (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I'm not saying to get rid of the section. I as I said, I think it belongs on the whole. You do have a point though regarding ask greg. I think it's time to ask the powers-that-be to reconsider the blacklist of that website. However, the fact that a serum in Spiderman has the same number as the year important events in the show - appears as WP:OR without any sources. If you have any secondary links, I'd like to see them despite them being fansites or blogs. It's good to evaluate each link as a WP:reliable source on an individual basis. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Fandom

• The fandom section, with the possible exception of the Gathering of the Gargoyles stuff, needs to go. JuJube (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? Not arguing, but why? -- Supermorff (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

JuJube if you could, maybe provide some reasoning? The fandom of the show is well established, there is even footage of the convention on the Gargoyles DVDs, and interviews with fans. I did tag some statements in "Fandom" though. I'd support the removal of

"Disney acknowledged that Weisman's fans would finally quit bugging them if they made their selection of Gargoyles as their first animated series released for DVD retail in a season collection format."

It's been unsourced for a while. I'd also support the removal of

"Out of displeasure with the third season deviation from Weisman's plan, fans created a virtual season fan fiction series, The Gargoyles Saga,

to continue the franchise expanding its stories and creating a series of spin-offs. Fan fiction has also attempted to realize the Timedancer, Pendragon, and Dark Ages series."

until a good source is found. I'd then put it back into the article. The Gathering of the Gargoyles should stay, as mentioned the convention was filmed by Disney and appears on the Season 1 DVD [2] AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing that would leave the Fandom to have only one sentence other than the "Gathering of the Gargoyles" section. As you pointed out, the statements are unsourced and generally constitute original research. It's also, in the former case, extremely unencyclopedic. JuJube (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the section should be changed to The Gathering of the Gargoyles, which can adequately encompass the fandom. Thoughts? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. JuJube (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've condensed, reworded, and added a reference. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

An alternative solution to the lack of source

As of currently, the higher us of the site have made no attempt to unblock Ask Greg or GargWiki. As a result, much of the contributed info is now being questioned on reliability and are being given citations. So for the moment, I'm suggesting that any info given from Ask Greg be marked with those invisible messages (seen only when editing a page). Antiyonder (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I support using a source from Ask Greg that is commented out until the source is unblacklisted. Using another wiki as a source though is a little more sticky. I've been meaning to try to get Askgreg unblacklisted. It was a unfortunate result of some spamming. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that there are no other sites with the kind of info that are being cited on here, and since links from Ask Greg are blacklisted, how am I suppose to "use a source from Ask Greg" as you put it? Antiyonder (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying comment the source out. Put it in the brackets so that it is not visible in article. Then when the site is no longer black listed, we can un-comment the source and remove the cite tag. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Gargoyles Comic page

I was thinking that with the current series ending at issue 12 if it would be okay to retitle Gargoyles (SLG comic) to Gargoyles (comic)? I figure it would tidy up the main page a little better, plus expanding the page for the comic. Antiyonder (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, if I get the okay to do so, I might even transfer the Gargoyles parody as well. Antiyonder (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gargoyles Coverart.png

The image Image:Gargoyles Coverart.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Gargoyles01Cvr.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Third Season

"Except for the first episode of the season, "The Journey," these episodes were produced without the involvement of series creator Greg Weisman, and are not considered canonical within the context of Weisman's continuation." Not considered canonical by who? The person who wrote this entry? Fans of the series? Weisman himself? Is there a source for this supposition? CPitt76 (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• The website Station 8 has a multitude of quotes from Weisman himself stating as such. It's not something I myself am willing to go through the trouble of tracking down, though. JuJube (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Say please? http://www.s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?qid=9004 -- Supermorff (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a better answer: Who controls the rights to the story/universe at this point? As much as the series creator does not like, and wants to toss, the bulk of season three, if that person does not have the artistic control (Disney is notable for requiring that it owns the rights to anything it does), then they do not have a say. In the realm of the Disney version of the Gargoyle story, season three *is* canonical.

Keybounce (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Greg is currently putting out a comic using the Gargoyle name and story as a continuation, so unless Disney's legal department is seriously asleep at the switch, I would say he still has control of it. Derekloffin (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Backstory and timeline

When Gargoyles started airing on Disney a few months ago, I started putting in some stuff on the timeline and backstory, or, the "What happened in-universe before "Awakening" and how it affects the current events". I fell behind, and had to stop, waiting for the next time around on the DVR.

Now I've got a bunch of episodes, and I'm ready to get back to it, but I find that the section has been removed, with no explanation as to why.

Is this a case of "It does not belong", or is it something else? Should I resume this, or forget about it? Keybounce (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Skeejay seems to be the one who did the removal, and his comment was "level of in-universe detail not appropriate for encyclopedia entry". Beyond that, it kinda qualifies as OR too. Derekloffin (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Would this content be better suited to a specialized wiki? I see GargWiki mentioned above, but I have no experience with it. Flatscan (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Original Research? I thought I was very careful to track and report only that which actually happened on-screen in the episodes. As for the level of in-universe detail, I'd like better clarification on what is appropriate. I actually asked that back in February -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)/Archive_10#.22The_problem_with_in-universe_perspective.22 -- and didn't get any real clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keybounce (talk • contribs) 05:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

World Trade Center

Should it be noted that the now-destroyed World Trade Center appears in some episodes? (The Mirror, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.1.149 (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't see why it should be. It is set in New York before 9/11 so it's only natural that the WTC would show up now and then. It's not exactly important. Derekloffin (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words?

"The series is credited for its relatively dark tone, complex story arcs and melodrama; character arcs were heavily employed throughout the series, as were Shakespearean themes" - anything to back this statement up? The "reception" section currently consists of three links, of which only one (IGN) has any real substance. This cartoon has a vocal cult following, I know, but hardly any serious critical attention. 194.83.56.158 (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Broadway (disambiguation): What is RV?

The Broadway disambiguation page says Broadway is "a fictional gargoyle from the RV series Gargoyles and member of the Manhattan Clan".

What is RV?

70.17.202.6 (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

DVD Release Dates and Season Three Information

I added the images and release dates to some of the new seasons of the Disney Store and WalMart exclusive for Season 2 Volume 2 of the Gargoyles DVD sets. I was wondering if anyone has any information in regards to the release date for Season 3 as there's no update yet for that specific set. - Zarbon (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The information you've added seems odd. If S2V2 was already released previously (and not just as any sort of exclusive; I bought it off Amazon), then why is the Wal-Mart exclusive in any way a big deal? The article should either discuss that or IMO the information should be removed. DonIago (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not our decision to decipher if something is a big deal or not. It's important to add all the release information and that's what we do as an encyclopedic resource. The season 2 variation for Walmart features a different cover than the version made exclusive to the disney store. It's imperative that we maintain all releases on the dvd section. Additionally, I added the images and info to correspond to the previous season 1 and 2 images and made sure to source all the information so as to avoid having any other problems with sourcing. - Zarbon (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we do have policies regarding undue weight and trivia. Wikipedia articles should not include indiscriminate information. If all you can say about the new release is that it has a different cover, that IMO is not significant enough for inclusion. If there is a policy regarding this implying that we should cover all releases, even what's essentially a duplicate one, please link me to it. In the meantime please do not add this information while there is no consensus to do so. It is also highly inappropriate to describe edits as vandalism when that is not the case. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

But we don't decide what to publish in Wikipedia articles based on whether it will benefit the fans. I don't think the fact that it's the only in-store release is especially significant...have any third-party sources taken note of that or anything else with regards to this release beyond announcing it? It might be best to get a third opinion on this or perhaps ask for additional opinions from any relevant WikiProjects. DonIago (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

i agree with u! Lets forget about all da vandalism 4 now & focus on our issue @ hand. Thank u — Preceding unsigned comment added by I agree with u! (talk • contribs) 01:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I am going to avoid the comment said by another sockpuppet, I agree with u. One thing is certain, it is imperative we cover all releases, especially limited editions. If it's going to take me to present reliable sources, WP:RS, I will do so, but show me where it is against the rules to present all the credible information possible. Like I said, this isn't about decisions, it isn't about what viewers want, it is what makes this site encyclopedic. I will be on watch for more different cover editions in the near future. Zarbon

WP:IINFO is where it is established that merely being true and/or verifiable does not automatically make content appropriate for inclusion. A limited edition with no third-party discussion or notable features is not, to my mind, particularly significant, especially when it is not the first release (as I said, I bought it on Amazon last year). Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Doniago brings up valid points. The thing is, Zardon, that the content is trivial and excess fluff (definitely NOT ok for a reference site, take my word for it). All we're eying is an alternative cover. Limited edition? Maybe. Helpful? Not the slightest. And BTW this entire thread here is bordering irrelevancy. Let's move on from here gents, show's over. 172.56.26.93 (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gargoyles (TV series)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

There is unsourced information and some OR, but there is plenty here to work with to bring the article up to snuff. Article length, and consistency in prose and sections needs to be addressed. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gargoyles (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.fastcase.com/Google/Start.aspx?C=e4139934ed671b5164f6d09e9a835a0adeaec5bcd2c52601&D=b10c1f739b40eb140422c27dac77bfd242ba4c0c7098885f
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203230810/http://www.ugo.com/tv/fantasy-medieval-tv-gargoyles to http://www.ugo.com/tv/fantasy-medieval-tv-gargoyles

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gargoyles (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bcdb.com/Walt_Disney_Studios/Television/Gargoyles/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150529053923/http://www.eskimo.com/~vecna/garg_merchandise_list.html to http://www.eskimo.com/~vecna/garg_merchandise_list.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151106215417/http://www.mindspring.com/~dmalderman/gargoyles/ to http://www.mindspring.com/~dmalderman/gargoyles/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)