Talk:Gargoyles (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gargoyles (TV series) article.
Article policies
TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-Importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Disney Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Disney on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.[citation needed]"

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

"Out of displeasure [citation needed] 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)