Talk:Will Graham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters 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. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

Contents 1 eideketor? 2 Notable in own right? 3 Redirecting 4 Improperly classified

[edit] eideketor?

There are no other google hits for this word other than this article. I would be interested to know more... --PaulWicks 23:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Being a bit of a word nut, I just ran the same search. I'm going to be bold and just drop the reference. It might be a word Harris made up, it might be a typo; either way, while I know Google isn't the arbiter of ALL knowledge, ZERO hits (especially considering how popular psychopathy is as a general-interest topic and how many fans Harris has), it's not a "real word."

Good call.--PaulWicks 19:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable in own right?

Is there a case for merging this content into the article for the book (and film where appropriate)? As the character only appears in one book, it would seem sensible for his history, which is entirely based on that book, to appears in Red Dragon rather than here, unless the book article is too long (which it doesn't seem to be). —Whouk (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No, he's still an important character and deserves his own article. There are several Hannibal characters who have only appeared in one book and still have their own article, such as Jame Gumb and Francis Dolarhyde. --CyberGhostface 17:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at those articles, I'm not convinced they have a strong case for their own articles either. Most of the content in each case appears plot content from the novel. —Whouk (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Then should we get rid of every character article that refers to characters that only appears in one book? They are all important and significant characters in their own series. Appears to plot content from the novel? Where else would it be from? We're not talking about minor cameo characters. These are all significant protagonists and antagonists from their respective novels.--CyberGhostface 19:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be information on the characters, but that it should be part of the article on the novel. There is a case for characters from one book having their own article - either because there is various different information from adaptations, or because the book article has grown too large to hold it. It was the note on this article that specifically states that the character background is derived from the novel only that made me think about whether it should be a separate article.

The guideline which I tend to follow on these issues is WP:FICTION. —Whouk (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice. It would become way too long. Each character is too complex to be defined in one article, at least the major ones. You'd be better off trying to get Freddy Lounds or Reba McLane merged rather than Graham or Dolarhyde. Are you going to move the Harry Potter articles or Lord of the Rings articles into one big article as well?

If they were all 'stub' articles you'd have a point, but as of now, the articles are all rather lengthy and focus on different aspects of the book.

All this would do is make the Red Dragon article much more cluttered.--CyberGhostface 19:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I only posted it here as I was passing. As there's no evidence of consensus for my suggestion, I'm happy to head off back to other articles... —Whouk (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirecting

1. You didn't ask the rest of the people here before making the page. 2. A little known evangelist isn't worth moving the main article to a different page. At most, you put a blurb at the top, which I just did.--CyberGhostface 02:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improperly classified

I don't know why, but i keep seeing the character of Will Graham being called a "Fbi Profiler" or "Criminal Profiler". Which of course is false, because he's a forensics expert.