Talk:John Castaway

I've removed Castaway from Category:Aliases. Castaway and Canmore are really two different identities for the same person, not just two different names. He looks different as Castaway, acts different, and he has a different "role" in the Gargoyles universe than Jon Canmore did.

On that note, I have also removed this article from Category:Hunters. Castaway (as opposed to Jon Canmore) has never worn the mask of the Hunter in canon. We don't know that he ever will. I have added a description of his unique uniform and it's insignia with the three Hunter slashes, and I hope that's enough. -- Supermorff 16:13, 9 April 2008 (CDT)

He still wears the symbol of the Hunter. He still carries on the legacy. He is still the Hunter. The M.O. may differ slightly, but it's still very much who he is. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be wearing the scars. ---The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Greg Bishansky (talk).

The introduction we currently use at Category:Hunters states that it is for characters who have worn the Hunter's mask (not just symbol, and he doesn't wear the symbol straight either). In his identity as John Castaway, he has NOT worn that mask. Nor has he referred to himself as a Hunter. He may never wear the mask or call himself a Hunter again. If and when he does, I'd be happy to shove him back in the category, but he hasn't so far.

I think Castaway is very much affected by the fact that, as Jon Canmore, he was a Hunter. The scars on his chest are testament to that. And I agree that the Quarrymen organisation is a way for Castaway to preserve the Hunters' legacy as he sees it. But Castaway himself is a Quarryman, and NOT a Hunter.

So that's my opinion, and Greg has stated his. It would be nice to have a few more opinions as well.

In any case, there are ways of compromising. If we decide that he absolutely must go in that category, then at the very least we need to edit the category to explain why he is included despite being the only character in the category who has never referred to himself as a Hunter or worn the mask (which is the current requirement for inclusion). Or we could leave him out and add a comment that Castaway (and the Quarrymen in general) do follow the Hunter's legacy without being Hunters themselves. I'd be happier with the second option, myself.

Anyone else think that is acceptable? -- Supermorff 17:30, 10 April 2008 (CDT)

Just throwing in my opinion. I don't think Castaway should be classified as a Hunter. Hasn't Greg said that Jason, Robyn and Jon were the LAST Hunters? Even if not, there is a difference between the Hunters and the Quarrymen, subtle though it may be. The Hunters were anti-Demona and to a lesser extent gargoyles as a whole. The Quarrymen are totally anti-gargoyle. Their main objective isn't Demona specifically. They are also a joinable group, not a family tradition. -- Matt 17:39, 10 April 2008 (CDT)

Hopefully Greg will weigh in on this.

Okay, I'll weigh in by saying... John Castaway and Jon Canmore are the same guy. As I've mentioned before, I'm not sure why we have two full articles on Derek and Talon? Why not have the Derek article REDIRECT to Talon? Why not have Jon redirect to John (which, I believe, would render this entire argument moot)? But organization of the site isn't for me to dictate. --Gweisman 03:24, 12 April 2008 (CDT)

Okay, but supposing that Jon and John are distinct identities for the same guy, is John a Hunter? -- Supermorff 05:56, 12 April 2008 (CDT)

So I see we're merging all the alia pages. Should'nt the same be done for Dominique Destine, Salli, Coco and Amp? Should we get rid of the alia category completely?--PGFish 16:59, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

(apparently the letter "s" in "alias" eludes me, and for some reason I can't edit my last entry) Adding on to that, Lennox Macbeth and Lennox Macduff should be directed to macbeth, same for Sleeping King with King Arthur. (Also, would someone be willing to make my user page for me? I'm unable to make new pages.)--PGFish 17:19, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

Here's the thing about alias pages: If we're going to merge them all so that every alias just redirects to the main character page, we need to make absolutely certain that the alias in question is mentioned in the article. The more frequently used the alias, the sooner it should be mentioned. If a person is referred to equally often by his or her alias and his or her real name, the alias should be mentioned in the introductory sentence. I just don't want people getting confused about how a search for "Amp" got them an article about "Staghart". -- Demonskrye 20:40, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

I totally agree. Preferably all alias' should be mentioned in the opening paragraph to stop any confusion as to why a search ended on a given page. -- Matt 21:53, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

Relevance

Why exactly is Jon Weisman's blog linked to this page? How is that at all relevant? -- Matt 18:26, 23 May 2008 (CDT)

Because Castaway was named after him, and I thought it'd be a nice thing to do. Small tribute, in a way. GregX

I know that Castaway was named after Jon Weisman. That isn't the point. Yes, it is a nice thing to do, but is it a smart thing to do? You complained about a Fanfiction page because you were rightly worried about opening the floodgates to all sorts of bad stuff. I'm worried that this sort of thing will justify other irrelevant links on various pages. Where do we draw the line? It isn't a big deal, of course, and I don't much care if it remains, I just don't want to set a precedent that pages can link to websites that have almost no relevance to the GargWiki page. -- Matt 18:56, 23 May 2008 (CDT)

Well, I'm willing to discuss the issue. Let's see how everyone else feels. I won't fight for it, but he did link to and promote the Gargoyles DVDs when those came out, so I figured that since it's not all that out of place, why not? -- GregX

On other pages, we've linked names directly to pages at Wikipedia. Jon Weisman does have such a page, which links to his blog, so we could link to that instead. Suitable compromise? -- Supermorff 13:22, 24 May 2008 (CDT)