From GargWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Is this page really here just because Greg called her a "Gargoyles character in the making"? That doesn't seem like a very good reason. From the link, it looks like he's just riffing on the name "Tamara, Queen of the Goths", not saying that he actually has/had any plans to put her in the Gargoyles universe. -- Supermorff 04:42, 8 April 2013 (PDT)

Pretty much. I definitely don't see it as riffing... that was her title, and we know Greg likes to think of any excuse to adapt Shakespeare. Not to mention Greg's "eventually we'd get to everything" sentiments in the past. Besides, we have Madame Serena on here. Isn't this what canon-in-training is for? --GregX 08:23, 8 April 2013 (PDT)
In Madame Serena's case, Greg said that she was a character that probably existed in the Gargoyles universe. In Tamora's case, it seemed to me as though he liked the idea of it, but it was only an idea. The big difference is that we know nothing about how Tamora would have been presented in the Gargoyles universe. In the end, it comes down to us interpreting the comment differently; I don't think there's enough there to warrant a page, but I can see how someone might disagree. -- Supermorff 08:13, 9 April 2013 (PDT)
Just wanted to chime in to say that I am following this conversation, but I feel kind of neutral on the subject. My first thought when Greg created the page was, "Okay, but whats the point?" On the one hand, the page isn't causing problems, there is a Gargoyles link (though it is weak) and it certainly is a lot better than some ideas for pages that have been tossed around over the years (like for characters of totally seperate fictional universes). But still, what does the page contribute? It is maybe just barely CiT. Maybe. -- Matt 09:30, 9 April 2013 (PDT)
Chiming in again to say that this isn't something I'm going to fight for. If it comes down to a vote, I will vote to keep it. But if not, no big. As for why. I always wanted this wiki to be all encompassing as far as canon and CiT goes. Yeah, I agree, it's CiT by a hair at best, but the question is, does it fall into "all encompassing." I'm not going to fight for it, if the consensus is that it's not appropriate, I won't mind. --GregX 10:41, 9 April 2013 (PDT)
I agree with both of you... in that I'm not all that bothered either way and don't intend to put up a fight. If it came to a vote, I'd vote against... but I'm not going to call for a vote myself. -- Supermorff 12:34, 9 April 2013 (PDT)