Talk:Robyn Canmore

I'm thinking a problem may be coming up concerning Robyn Canmore. In the Bad Guys comics, it seems Robyn is going to be refered to predominantly as "Hunter". If people new to Gargoyles or Bad Guys come to this site for information on her, they will naturally search for Hunter and they'll not be where they want. Can someone make a page for Hunter/Hunters where there are two directs, one to the actual Hunters and one to Robyn Canmore? Or am I just overreacting? --Matt 21:55, 3 December 2007 (CST)

Redirects are probably only going to confuse the issue (since most links to Hunter which refer to Hunters will redirect to Robyn Canmore), and I don't think you're overreacting. I will make a disambiguation page for them. -- Supermorff 05:35, 4 December 2007 (CST)

Hunter is now a disambiguation page. Check it out. -- Supermorff 05:47, 4 December 2007 (CST)

Actually, you know what might be better? We could keep Hunter redirecting to Hunters, but at the top of the page include a line like:

:For the character known as Hunter in Gargoyles: Bad Guys, see Robyn Canmore

In my mind, now, that's probably the best solution. -- Supermorff 06:01, 4 December 2007 (CST)

If nobody has an objection to this idea, I'll implement it in the next few days. -- Supermorff 20:11, 31 December 2007 (CST)

I've made that change now. Is it acceptable to everyone? -- Supermorff 08:26, 4 January 2008 (CST)

Works for me. I think i'll do some editing on Robyn's page however to make it clear that she WAS a Hunter and THEN became known as Hunter. -- Matt 08:34, 4 January 2008 (CST)

I thought the point was that all Hunters are known as "Hunter". The only difference is that, for a while, three were active at once and now she's on her own again. But I don't know. Eiter way some clarification would probably be useful. -- Supermorff 13:39, 4 January 2008 (CST)

It seems that Robyn is no longer a Hunter of the original mode, in that she's no longer actively hunting Demona and other gargoyles seeking their destruction. She's called "Hunter", but she's not still hunting gargoyles. -- Phil 13:47, 4 January 2008 (CST)

Technically, Robyn did hunt Yama. Griffinwyrm7 17:04, 14 May 2008 (CDT)

I get the impression from the series that a Camore trained to hunt gargoyles is known as The Hunter or The Hunters, to Robyn it is not a title anymore, it is a codename, thus she is simply Hunter. So Hunter was once The Hunter, but not anymore. I could be wrong here, I'd love if Greg W could drop in and calrify the matter. -- Matt 14:51, 4 January 2008 (CST)

Maybe it's a bit of both - something I noticed the first time I read through 2198 document was that Nick was refered to as Guardian, and Nokkar as Sentinel. Now they are both titles - in fact, it seems the titles aren't even unique to those characters - but they also seem to function as codenames.

And, Matt, some forces you just can't invoke. Except through Ask Greg. -- Supermorff 13:08, 5 January 2008 (CST)

I think this discussion is now resolved, by and large. The page Hunter redirects to Hunters, at the top of which there is a disambiguation tag leading to Robyn Canmore. I will now remove this discussion from the list of ongoing discussions at the Community Portal. -- Supermorff 13:12, 9 September 2008 (CDT)

Robyn's birthday

I think we're entering some kind of Canon/Canon-in-Training grey area. I say we let Greg weigh in on this if he's got the time. GregX 22:48, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

That is all well and good. I'd like to hear other's opinions as well. Keep in mind that this isn't Greg's website. Neither Greg Weisman's or Greg Bishansky's. This is a fan-run site. We have specific policies in place for this sort of thing and I don't think that this is as grey of an area as you do. We have a specific definition of canon and CiT, we were specifically told that covers are not canon and this piece of information has not appeared elsewhere in canon material. I don't see how you think this is canon at all. Lets say we keep the date listed as canon. What happens if down the road Greg W decides to change the date for some plot-driven reason? Then we have been innaccurate all that time and will basically be retconning ourselves. That is the whole purpose for having CiT listed at all. It is very, very likely to be correct, but it hasn't been canonized yet. With what you are proposing we may as well make every sentence on the Wiki canon. I don't want to be disrespectful, nor do I want this to cause some dramatic divide. I'm sorry if I've pissed you off, but I feel rather strongly about this. If I'm outvoted, so be it. -- Matt 22:58, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

Dude, you haven't pissed me off. Believe me. If I'm pissed, you'll know it ;) Moving along, I tend to think that when it comes to "Gargoyles", Greg is the boss. Is this his wiki? Technically no. Hell, technically, it's JEB's wiki, since he gives us the server space. But, I tend to think Greg's word carries more weight here than any of ours'. Personally, I am of the opinion that information like that, even if on a cover, is canon. It just seems different than Angela's outfit on the cover of "Reunion" to me. Either way, I think we've entered a grey area here. -GregX 23:12, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

I'd like to know why it "seems different" to you. And your varying perceptions on certain pieces of information would be awfully hard to codify as policy on the Wiki. We need to be organized and consistent or what is the point? Look, I'd place my money on June 19th being her birthday also, of course I would. CiT is the best bet, naturally. But it isn't fact yet. We can't just decide something is canon just because we want it to be or feel that it "seems different" from other CiT information. -- Matt 23:21, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

Well, Greg had the date on the Wanted poster corrected for a reason. Plus, that is his sister's actual birthday. I'm just saying that grey areas such as this exist, and while from a technical standpoint, I see where you're coming from, sometimes you just need to make a call, and I made that call. -GregX 23:25, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

AGAIN, I'm not disputing that the date was chosen for a reason, nor am I disputing that it is very likely to be correct. I'm juse saying that according to current policy on this site and from Greg W's own admission, that piece of information is CiT. Sometimes you do need to make a call and we try to have policies in place to aid in the call. In this case, our policies clearly indicate that the date is CiT as it DOES NOT APPEAR IN ANY CANON MATERIAL. By your argument we should edit Matrix's page to say that there are wanted posters on bulletin boards for him and edit Fang's page to say that he appeared on the cover of the Daily Tattler. Greg chose these images on the covers for a reason, but he also specifically stated that the covers are not canon. The birthdate ONLY appears on the cover. So thats that. I really feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, which is especially tragic since I think this sort of thing is fairly conclusive and should go without saying. I'd like to know why it is so important to you that the date is canonized. Perhaps you should ask Greg W to mention it inside the next comic so we can all agree that is canon... (thats a joke)  : ) -- Matt 23:33, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

Hey, as I said, just made a call, and explained myself. Honestly, this one is not worth arguing about, I don't think. I'll concede it for the time being. -GregX 23:41, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

It seems this discussion is more or less over for now, but for the record I tend to agree that Robyn's birthday is still CIT as yet. But then, just because I think the information is still (technically) CIT, doesn't mean I think it's any less accurate within the Gargoyles universe. I can't imagine Merlin's father being anyone other than Oberon in Gargoyles, but that's CIT too, and rightly so.

Then again, the argument could be made that since this is information on a comic page and not, for example, something happening, that it could still count as canon. That's pretty much the justification I used for not getting involved on this matter sooner, but now I'm not sure how convincing it is. -- Supermorff 11:38, 31 May 2008 (CDT)

This information has never appeared on a comic page, it has only appeared on a comic cover and covers are not canon. Did you mean "on a comic cover"? Either way, covers are not canon, whether they are displaying facts, wardrobe changes, scenes, etc. unless those same things also occur in canon material.

And again, for the record, I also think Robyn's birthdate is accurate, but our lack of doubt does not canonize the information. -- Matt 11:44, 31 May 2008 (CDT)

Yeah, I did mean on a cover, not a page. What I said makes no sense, does it? Probably I got a crossed wire: "comic cover", "front page"... Anyway, yeah. -- Supermorff 11:48, 31 May 2008 (CDT)

New Pic

Hey, I like the new pic a lot. It is cool. But does anyone else feel weird about having a non-canon piece of art on a canon page? I mean, Karine is the artist for Bad Guys, but this piece is not for Bad Guys, so it is essentially fan-art. If we keep this pic on the page, arn't we opening the floodgates to any fan-art of canon characters that anyone wants to put on a page? Just putting that out there. -- Matt 17:45, 8 July 2008 (CDT)

This is an exception because she is the official artist. Plus, it depicts her new look in color. It's art done by one of the pros. I think the distinction is easy to make. Plus, if you look at wikipedia entries for mainstream Marvel and DC characters, even if it is non-canon art, it is still done by the official artists. -- GregX 17:57, 8 July 2008 (CDT)

I like the new pic very much and would like it to stay. But is there any way we could label it to at least explain that it's Karine's work which makes it legit even though it's unpublished? The easiest thing would probably be to add some info to the caption under the picture, but that might look a little odd since none of the other pics on the site mention the artists or the source. -- Demonskrye 21:06, 8 July 2008 (CDT)