Gargoyles Canon

One problem Gargoyles is going to have, as a wiki, is what canon do we follow after Season 2. Greg Weisman, the creator the series, has disavowed involvement with the Goliath Chronicles with the exception of the first episode, The Journey.

He's actually started a separate comic book following after Season 2 that he is directly involved with, as opposed to the original comic books by Marvel which would not be considered canonical. So we have to choose which one to follow.

I'm in favor of including both, myself. And if only one, I'd definitely go with the comics. --Gamehiker 16:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I say we include both but give preferential treatment to Greg Weisman's canon. For example, information from the Goliath Chronicles should be included, however information from that show that contradicts Weisman's canon should be listed in italics, identified as non-canon, and provide a link to the canon info that invalidates it. Entire articles that are non-canon should be placed in the Category:Non Canon Articles. The article for the Goliath Chronicles should mention the fact that it is not considered canon by Weisman. --BoneGnawer 18:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Thailog 18:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In order to record non-canonical, published information (such as Marvel's Gargoyles and Gargoyles video game), should we include that information under notes, or create "Article (non-canon)" pages? -Mule 04:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Multi-Part Episodes

In Gargoyles, there were several multi-part episodes: Awakening, City of Stone, Avalon, Hunter's Moon. I'm for having a single article for each of these, but the only one I feel strongly about is Awakening. I honestly don't recall how it was aired, hoewever, it looks "chopped up" when its aired in individual parts. --BoneGnawer 13:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Awakening aired in five different days in a row. But I won't oppose to multi-parts in one article, ever since we separate the data inside the article.--Thailog 14:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a great idea. --BoneGnawer 14:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Images Source and Licensing Format

I propose we set up a standard format to credit pictures. Since this is only one show, it's easier... Maybe a template is in order? Or is it too much? Anyway, I propose the one I've been using. I'm open to suggestions. --Thailog 14:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Keep in mind though, we'll have to cover comics too. --BoneGnawer 14:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Then we need to come up with a name easy enough to remember and that applies to screenshots only. The Fair use template for screenshots is... "screenshots". So, what do you suggest? "credit-screenshot"? Then we could have a "credit-comics" too. --Thailog 15:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good --BoneGnawer 15:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
On a second thought, the Screenshot Fair Use template is already exclusive to screenshots, and I can't see any other license being used for them, so what if I simply add this Credit bit to this existing template? It's like a 2 in 1, and we avoid complicating things by adding two templates to pictures... --Thailog 15:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I assume your "Even better" comment was directed to me. In any case, all done. --Thailog 17:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Right. Too much multitasking. --BoneGnawer 19:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comic Book

On the subject of images,first - do either of you have the first comic issue? I plan to pick it up soon (I only recently found out about it) and second - how do we handle scanning it and putting it up? Do we just use individual frames or whole pages?--Gamehiker 14:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess whole pages are ok. But that depents on how we will be using them... If we wanna show how Goliath looks like in the comics, then a frame would be better. And no, I don't own any issue.... yet. --Thailog 15:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think cover scans should be used for articles about an issue; "splash" or title pages for articles about a story; and individual panels for characters, objects, etc. --BoneGnawer 15:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Even better. ---BoneGnawer 15:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

GargWiki <- So apparently there's at least one other Gargoyles wiki on the Internet? I'd like to see someone create a page here explaining what the deal is, even though it doesn't make much of a difference to me as a non-fandom-member. Who came first, why was the second one created, and has there been any attempt at trying to combine the projects?

Wiki duplication is apparently a common problem in Internet fandoms. I've noticed duplicate wikis existing for Stargate, Marathon, His Dark Materials, Harry Potter and Futurama as well; in each case one on Wikia and at least one off it.

Also, I considered asking this question on GargWiki as well, except I can't seem to edit any pages there (it always says the page is protected). --Andrew Nagy 22:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikia actually encourages this. They have a page (here) that specifically says it is worth setting up a wikia wiki even if another of the same sort already exists.
There have also been concerns raised over how GargWiki is run, although it seems to have the weight of the fandom behind it. Top of the list is the wiki-wide protection that's been put in place, which you already noted.
I'm almost entirely certain that GargWiki came first. -- 13:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That's pretty much it. ― Thailog 14:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm a contributor on the other wiki, and I asked them if they would like to help. No one has yet responded in the affirmative, but one user suggested some ideas. Here they are.

Okay, if you like, here are some ideas for Grimorum. Assuming that GargWiki remains as is, it seems to me that the best way to distinguish Grimorum as a separate and worthwhile entity would be to either restrict the scope of the site or expand it.

In the first case, you'd have to make a conscious choice to just ignore some elements of Gargoyles that we include here at GargWiki. Obvious choices would include canon-in-training information (which on its own that probably wouldn't be enough), or apocryphal information of any kind, or even anything outside the television series. The problem with this idea is that the wiki with the narrower scope would need to be a lot more detailed (or there would be no reason for the wider, more detailed wiki to link back to it), and at the moment GargWiki is a lot more detailed that Grimorum. Also, it might require the deletion of some articles that you've already created, which might not be nice for the editors of those articles.

In the second case, you'd want to start including things at Grimorum that GargWiki has consciously chosen to ignore. The only thing that I can think of which fits this description is fan-made information. You could possibly allow editors to just make up their own characters or situations, and add them to the wiki. Although this may seem bizarre, it has many advantages. The template structure that Grimorum already uses would make it easy to add fanon characters, and other fanon wikis work quite happily alongside canon counterparts (see for a list). And, hey, there's a huge collection of fan-made characters out there. The problem with this suggestion, though, is that it vastly changes the direction and purpose of the wiki. The current staff of Grimorum just may not like the idea.

Anyway, those are just two ideas. Do with them what you will.

Or you could just continue distinguishing yourselves by being what it says on the cover: the Gargoyles Wiki that anyone can edit. -- 03:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If that was enough to attract new members, it probably would have worked by now. Just saying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Supermorff (talkcontribs) 19:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC).
If it is any consolation... I added GargCode article here at Grimorum but not at GargWiki .. because GargWiki is LoginToEdit and I didn't feel up to getting yet another account (I already had a wikia account). --EarthFurst 23:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiki User I.P. Adress:

Some idiot keeps graffitiing pages with info about a character they've made up called Daralynn Fox Xanatos. I keep removing it but they just keep coming back and putting it up again. I think either the administrators need to black the I.P. adress, or up the security to prevent unregistered users from editing on here.

Ok they are now up to six fan-fiction characters: Layla, Kuna, Rushville, apparently voiced by Freddie Highmore, Louisville, voiced by Macaulay Culkin, Kayla, voiced by Liesel Matthews, Kokoro, voiced by Jamia Simone Nash, and Daralynn which has three pages: Daralynn Fox Xanatos, Daralynn Xanatos, and Daralynn, all claiming she was voiced by Keke Palmer, and a fictional episode called Attack of the 50ft Daughter. I keep removing the information but I can't detlete the pages, and they keep reposting it. This has to stop!

publicity for Grimorum

Article about this wiki started at . --EarthFurst 05:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)