Talk:List of Gargoyles characters

Merge Manhattan clan

It has been proposed that Manhattan Clan be merged with this article. See Talk:Manhattan Clan

Demona

Corrected some info on Demona's past. --Kevin Walter 18:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the previous edit. Though Demona did claim that she was frozen in stone at her own request during the episode Awakening, this was a lie. The true story was revealed in the episode City of Stone. She was not frozen, but rather survived due to a magical pact between herself, Macbeth, and the Weird Sisters. -- Supermorff 19:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, thanks. I'll have to get my hands on a copy of those DVDs. :-) --Kevin Walter 04:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems like the perfect opportunity to plug the DVDs (save the franchise!), but it's just not in me. Maybe later. -- Supermorff 18:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It is now, officially, later. So go and buy the DVDs! -- Supermorff 21:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The Gargoyles Saga

An anonymous user has repeatedly been adding characters to this list that have never appeared in any episode of the television series, and only appeared in the fanfiction continuation called "The Gargoyles Saga". Such characters do not belong in this list.-- Supermorff 20:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Also the use of "gargbeasts" needs to be removed. This is a fanfic term such as Immies for Immortals in the Highlander Sagas. This may be another change from the fanfiction author.68.47.170.239 (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hunters

Okay, we've got to sort out this Hunter descent thing. I've checked Ask Greg archives and it Greg has stated that modern Hunters were descended from "Donald Canmore". The particular question to which "Donald Canmore" was the answer was "which of Malcolm Canmore's children do the Hunter's descend from?" and Malcolm did have a son named Donald (although I can find precious little information on him), yet Donald Canmore is also an acceptable epithet of Donald III of Scotland, who succeeded Malcolm but was his brother not his son. This might be one of those sticky problems for which we just do not have enough information. The current situation, in which we have one fact stated on this page and a different one stated on the Hunter page is not acceptable. Does anyone have more information that might clear this up? -- Supermorff 11:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you misread the history and have things mixed up. The real Duncan I had two sons. One was a Bold textMalcom and another was a Donald Canmore (who was not illgitimate) of which Weisman is basing his "Donald" off of. Both were alive when Macbeth killed their father, both moved to England during his reign, and both reinvaded Scotland and became king (though not at the same time). Malcolm did not have a son called Donald, hence why you couldn't find anything on that. According to this Malcolm had a Duncan from a first wife and his second wife his children were given English names.

The only Malcolm in the Gargoyles series is Prince Malcolm, Katherine's father. There was never a Malcolm Canmore mentioned on Gargoyles that I know of.

Perhaps Greg is confused himself, or probably chose Donald because he felt that another Malcolm would get viewers confused with Katherine's Malcolm, who knows? But if Greg says its Donald, then Donald it is. Remember, he is loosely basing this off of Scottish history and taking liberties with it (which itself is foggy at best). Shakespeare did the same thing with Macbeth. Eman007 12:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is going to be a complicated reply. No I did not misread the history. In the show, only one person is called Malcolm, and that is Katharine's father, Prince Malcolm. Prince Malcolm is not Malcolm I of Scotland, but rather an entirely ficitional character created for the show (a brother of Kenneth II). Kenneth's son, also a Malcolm, was called Maol Chalvim on the show, having appeared in the episode "Avalon Part 1". Duncan's son, also a Malcolm, was called just Canmore on the show, having appeared in various parts of "City of Stone". These renames were made, as you say, so that viewers would not get confused with Prince Malcolm, Katharine's father.

Now, the show's character of Canmore was a fictionalised version of Malcolm III, as you know, and Malcolm III has been called Malcolm Canmore (not the only king of Scotland to be called that, but he was) so that's where that name originated. Malcolm III's brother was called Donald Canmore, but did not appear on the show, and was not mentioned. This Donald, who was not illigitimate I agree, became Donald III after Malcolm III's death. BUT, Malcolm did have a son named Donald also. If you'll check the article again, specifically under his first wife's section, you will find a brief mention of his son Domnall (that's Donald). Here's the appropriate quote: Máel Coluim's son Domnall, although not mentioned by the author of the Orkneyinga Saga, is assumed to have been born to Ingibiorg. The article further mentions that Máel Coluim's son Domnall is said to have died "unhappily", that is to say, by violence in the year 1085. There are references for both statements, if you want to check. Also, if you look up "Donald Canmore" for example on Google, you will find references to a Donald Canmore that was the son of Malcolm III. Clearly he is not the ONLY Donald Canmore, but he exists.

Furthermore, this Donald Canmore, the son of Malcolm III, was never a king and little information about him exists. Even his parentage is in doubt, and from a response on Ask Greg that I can't find at the moment, Greg seems to have decided that he was illigitimate. This leads me to believe that the "Donald Canmore" that spawned the Hunter line is this son of Malcolm and not Donald III, but then I may be mistaken. Greg may have decided that Donald III was illigitimate, possibly on the back of some story he's concocted. I don't know. I have not seen enough evidence either way to convince me which Donald Canmore he was referring to.

And, incidentally, Princess Katharine's name is spelt with 2 'a's. Odd, but that's the way they wrote it. -- Supermorff 15:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You misread my reponse and the history. Once again:

• First off, Prince Malcolm is King Malcolm. How so? Because he had a son called Kenneth that also ruled as a king. If you remember, Katherine had an uncle King Kenneth that she took refuge with after the Wvern massarce that was assassinated by Constantine inadvertedly by Finnella. The real life Constatine became king after Kenneth's death just like the show. The real life Kenneth was murdered by Finnella's historic loose association Finnagula. Remember, like Shakepeare himself, Greg took liberties with history. He just turned King Malcolm to Prince Malcolm just to make a convinient story. Like Macbeth, its far from historical accuracy.

Greg may have decided that Donald III was illigitimate, possibly on the back of some story he's concocted.

• And hence my point once again. Greg like, Shakespeare, has taken liberties with history just to fashion an entertaining story. Both Greg and William left out people like Crinan who tried and failed to overthrow Macbeth during his reign. Or that the real Lulach was the son of Gillecoemágin and not Macbeth as it is on the show. So it doesn't matter if its accurate or not. If Greg says its Donald Canmore, the only Donald from the Canmore line to become king, then Donald Canmore it is. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Perhaps you ought to take this issue up with him instead by leaving him a question on that forum. Eman007

Clearly there is some confusion between us that needs to be addressed. I agree with a lot of the points you make, even if that's not clear. I know that Greg Weisman took some liberties with the source material in order to tell the story, although I do not think he took quite as many as you perhaps think he did. The reason that Crinan does not appear is because events involving his invasion occur between Macbeth's ascent to the throne and the invasion of Canmore, which occur off-screen. The matter of Lulach's parentage is addressed several times on the Ask Greg forums. The production staff were well aware that Lulach was born to Gruoch while she was still wed to Gillecomgain, although further research had indicated that rumour around the court suggested that she had had an affair with Macbeth outside of marriage and thus that Macbeth was the true father, and that Macbeth adopted Lulach shortly after his own marriage to Gruoch (which they considered evidence that Lulach was indeed Macbeth's son). Rather than deal with the issue of adultery on a children's television series, they left the matter vague, allowing the audience to believe that Lulach was Macbeth's son within wedlock unless viewers decided to research the matter on their own.

That said, there are still issues we need to deal with in this article: firstly, whether Prince Malcolm is a fictionalised version of Malcolm I, and secondly, we need to discuss the identity of Greg Weisman's so-called "Donald Canmore".

The first matter is simple. Sometime after the cancellation of the series (but before the comic book was launched), Greg Weisman wrote a story called Once Upon A Time There Were Three Brothers..., which is set some considerable time before the series began. Being the only official Weisman-penned story from this period, it is as close to Gargoyles canon as it is possible to get without actually being an episode of the series or an issue of the comic. In the story, Malcolm I (named Maol Chalvim I in the story) dies. Prince Malcolm is depicted as his third son, born after Maol Chalvim I's death. Also, were Prince Malcolm actually Kenneth II's father and not his brother, then that would make Princess Katharine Kenneth's sister and not his neice, as is claimed in the episode "Avalon Part 1".

The second matter, over the identity of Donald Canmore, is rather more thorny. If I list the separate points of controversy, perhaps we can discuss them separately. On some we will agree, and on some probably we will not.

• Donald III existed, and was called Donald Canmore. He was the second son of Duncan I, brother Malcolm III, and became king after Malcolm's death.
• Donald III does not appear on the show Gargoyles - the only son of Duncan that is mentioned is Malcolm III, who is only ever referred to as Canmore. Despite that, he almost certainly exists in the "Gargoyles universe" and almost certainly occupies the same role as he did in the history.
• In history, Malcolm III had a son named Domnall, who never became king. All we know about this historical figure is that his parentage is uncertain, but presumably by Malcolm III's first wife, and he died in 1085.
• This Domnall has also been called Donald Canmore.
• While Greg did specify that the Hunters are descended from Donald Canmore, he never specified that Donald Canmore was ever a king. Thus, we have two historical figures named Donald Canmore to which he may have been referring. I would suggest that, lacking further evidence, it is not possible to determine which one he meant. I favour one opinion, you favour the other, but we can't actually know.

And yes, I would ask Greg a question on his site, although we likely would not receive an answer for three or four years, and in any case he might likely avoid giving a direct answer. For the intervening period, that's not any kind of solution to our problem.

I am willing, if you are, to leave the second matter as it stand now. That is, we state only that the Hunters are descended from Duncan I, which is true in both cases. -- Supermorff 20:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have for quite a while; leave Donald Canmore completely out and just refer to them as "descendants of Duncan I". Something I already went ahead and did if you haven't changed it.

the story, Malcolm I (named Maol Chalvim I in the story) dies. Prince Malcolm is depicted as his third son, born after Maol Chalvim I's death. Also, were Prince Malcolm actually Kenneth II's father and not his brother, then that would make Princess Katharine Kenneth's sister and not his neice, as is claimed in the episode "Avalon Part 1".

This all does not tie into, nor make any sense in regards to Constatine and Finnella who are historically tied to Kenneth and are in "Avalon part 1". Another question to ask Greg? Weisman probably took liberties with history and made another gaffe in the process. Eman007 21:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we sorted out the Donald issue, even if the solution was by-and-large to ignore it. And I'm glad you just changed your last statement, because I thought you meant that I had made the gaffe. As for Weisman's gaffe... clearly some mistakes were made. Lulach was renamed Luach because of a simple typo. But I personally don't consider this a mistake at all.

I know that Kenneth from Avalon Part One is essentially Kenneth II. I know that Constantine (it does have that third 'n' even in the series) is essentially Constantine III, and that Finella is essentially Finngualla (or however you spell that). These points we agree on. I know that some liberties were taken, namely that though Finella was in part responsible for Kenneth's death she did so unintentionally (unlike the historical Fingualla). These connections are so obviously true as to be irrelevant.

But you claim that Prince Malcolm is essentially Malcolm I, and that is not true. As you say, liberties were taken with the history, and one such liberty was that they created a fictional third son for Malcolm I and called him Prince Malcolm. If you read Weisman's story, to which I posted a link above, it is clearly shown that Malcolm I and Prince Malcolm are two different people, and it even demonstrates their relation as well as Prince Malcolm's relationship to Kenneth II (and even their relationship to Constantine as well). Further, the series goes some way to contradict your assertion as well. Prince Malcolm is never depicted as any sort of king, merely as a leige lord of Wyvern Castle (which is itself a fictional place). Malcolm I died in 954, but the earliest appearance in the series of Prince Malcolm (at his wedding, in Vows) is in the year 975. In Avalon Part One, Katharine is clearly Kenneth's neice, which would make her father Prince Malcolm the brother of Kenneth and not Kenneth's father (as was Malcolm I). I don't see any way in which Prince Malcolm could have been based on Malcolm I, save that they were both royally-born and both called Malcolm. -- Supermorff 09:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the story and completely agree with you on the Malcolm bit. I'm still just confused as to why he bothered to include Kenneth, Constantine and Finngualla despite all of this. They can't be irrelevant because they are so central to the story and to history. I suppose that can be another question to pose to Greg, or something he'll clarify later. Eman007 17:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's great. I'm really glad we could come to an agreement. Just so you know, I didn't mean that the characters were irrelevant in the series, only that arguing over whether they were based on historical figures was irrelevant to the conversation. The production staff just LIKED to include bits of pieces of Scottish history. The original concept (of a castle in medievel Scotland attacked by Vikings) happened to have some historical plausibility, so they wrote it into actual history. So why did he bother to include them? He just wanted to. -- Supermorff 09:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Magic objects

Can we please move the magic objects section to a new article? One that doesn't have "characters" in the title? I don't know what to call it. Maybe "Magic in Gargoyles" or, to keep in line with the recent "places" article, "Magic in Disney's Gargoyles"? Something. And does anyone have a picture of the Eye of Odin on its own, not being worn as a necklace? The Grimorum too, for that matter. -- Supermorff 21:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Or (still thinking about this) "List of Gargoyles items", "List of Gargoyles objects/artefacts/magic items", etc. I just don't think that the magic objects should be a part of this article. It would be nice to have a general title which we could then use to discuss the peculiarities of magic itself in the Gargoyles universe, too. -- Supermorff 11:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've done it now. Anyone is free to discuss name changes at the new page's talk page. -- Supermorff 18:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tomandkatherine.jpg

Image:Tomandkatherine.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ishimura Clan.JPG

Image:Ishimura Clan.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Guatemclan1.jpg

Image:Guatemclan1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of merger

Several of the articles on the principal characters have been suggested for merger. I think this is contrary to the way practice at Wikipedia seems to be developing--the principal characters should have separate articles. It would, however, be a good idea to improve them. At the very least, sources to where the descriptive information is taken from the appearances in the work is necessary. 01:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)DGG (talk)

• I could see some of the major characters like Goliath, Eliza, and Xanatos retaining articles, and maybe Demona as well. The rest could probably be merged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• No merger should be attempeted I think even the smallest character should be as indepth as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.79.42.6 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • TenPound is right. That'd be best. The Flash ^{talk} 16:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• If Coldstone is really deemed unimportant enough to keep his own page, I suggest that now would be a good time to merge the page with the Manhattan Clan page as the recently released trade shows that he now rejoined the clan. Antiyonder (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Infact if anyone apporves, I would be willing to tranfer the info on Coldstone to the aforementioned page. So give me a response on the my talkpage if that's the case. Antiyonder (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Since no action has been taken, I moved the Coldstone info to the Manhattan Clan page and my reasons are explained further here, Talk:Manhattan Clan Antiyonder (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Section for Alexander Xanatos.

What's missing is a note of Alexander Xanatos. Also, I believe there should be an entry for Puck's illusion of the future from Goliath's perspective, including an adult Alexander.

Newwjakk (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Working on that, but first I figure that I should source the existing material first. Antiyonder (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

Merge Proposal and / or Redirect. Please do not modify it.
The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of Gargoyle universe character articles into this talk page's article was:

Consensus Reached–Awaiting Merge NOTE: Closing a long standing / stale proposal whose consensus is to merge due to notability issues. (Those against the merge cite little policy to support position and promises to add additional third party sources have not happened.) Should be done based on a case-by-case basis. I re-installed the old merge request tags so the articles are back in their rightful place in the backlogged que. In the meantime, bold merger(s) (based on the above) would be allowed.
— — — — —

I come with this proposal to merge all individual articles into this list. This is primarily because none of the characters, including the main ones, have managed to prove notability outside the Gargoyles series. With this, I mean that none of them have received deep coverage by reliable secondary sources, discussing the characters independently from the series itself. Also, none of them have impact in popular culture nor have become cultural icons like Darth Vader, Homer Simpson or Mickey Mouse. --LoЯd ۞pεth 19:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the added info provided by the comic book, I think The Illuminati would merit their own page at this point. The mutates page was taken down for being a minor, but I think a page dedicated to the entire Labyrinth Clan (Clones and Mutates) might work out better.

I support a merger since there is a lack of independent third person information to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Against, same arguments than in the discussion above. Moreover, in my opinion the article is already very long.--Crazy runner (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Support, for the proposed reasons. If the article is too long, there is a fair amount of fancruft that could be excised. There's already an excellent fan site out there... And it seems to be nearly the only citation available on the topic, which doesn't bode well for the notability of this article. If this article is on shaky ground, the others are really in trouble. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Against, I could see merging characters who've barely appeared, but since we're talking about characters/groups who appeared frequently, I think merging them here is hasty. Besides, a good portion of citations have been sourced to episodes of the show and the comic. So insisting that the fan site is the only source of info is a bit of an exaggeration. Antiyonder (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Against. I simply don't see how merging this article will be of any logical help nor would I support a deletion, for that matter, if it comes up. I say leave well enough alone and I don't see a reason to merge.18-Till-I-Die (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the stuff is unsupported by third person information and non of the people have provided any information to justify the way the way things are. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Case-by-case decision IMHO. Goliath, Eliza, Demona, and Xanatos are main characters, and main characters often have their own articles, the rest of the stuff can be merged. -- Imladros (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I also need to add that the info comes from the cartoon, the comic and the person who had a heavy creative hand in the series as a whole. I'd think that an official supervising producer would be credible without question. Antiyonder (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I support the person above me, also Elisa now has 1 reception (and needs more, but I'm not sure where it could be found - besides the books, of course). --Barry Sandwich (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Against. --DrBat (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? Wikipedia doesn't use votes, so just saying "for" or "against" won't really affect things. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 07:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Support. I can't see these characters being independently notable. I suggest that each article be considered on a case-by-case basis, and that if no proof of notability be found we go ahead with the merge. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 07:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Goliath (Gargoyles), Manhattan Clan, David Xanatos, Demona, Hunter (Gargoyles), Macbeth (Gargoyles), Oberon's children, Pack (Gargoyles). Wikipedia is not a place for plot summaries and "powers and abilities". Articles must satisfy the notability guideline by being significantly covered in reliable sources. If the subject isn't covered in reliable sources, move it to Wikia or something. Merge these articles after cutting most of it. Articles should be able to be read by people who don't know anything about the series and are trying to get and overall perspective. On the fence Elisa Maza. They have some good sources, and just need a few more. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Against.I am working on showing coverage in news and other sources for the different articles but a lot of the newspaper articles etc arent easily available online as the height of the series was pre a lot of newspapers having websites.RafikiSykes (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I am adding a good bit more showing Goliath's outside notability. EG his use in library posters encouraging reading related to his being portrayed as a gentle giant/ well read character. Also notable enough to be mentioned on the UN website when talking keith davids main claim to fame so added that as well.RafikiSykes (talk)

• Merge - Lack of sources to confirm notability. But like others have stated, we should go by a case by case basis. The list itself needs trimming as well--GroovySandwich 19:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we look at each article individually on their talk pages as they are in varying states and would be better discussed in each one in turn? Also that way it will be quicker and easier to add in improvements. The Elisa article is improving and a little more sourcing for example.RafikiSykes (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Elisa Maza I shall remove as it has got sources to justify a solo article although I feel she needs a character inbox rather than a comic book inbox. I still believe the likes of Oberon's children and Gargoyle clan should be merged. Dwanyewest (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

David Xanatos and Goliath (Gargoyles) I now agree shouldn't be merged as they now have good sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Macbeth has [1] and [2] for example, as well as some merchandise. Manhattan Clan has lots of merch. I rewrote just Goliath and Demona, but it's still incomplete. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

— — — — —
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a WP:PM.

Please do not modify it.

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 17:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A copy of this template can be found here.

New Merger proposal

Manhattan Clan, Hunter (Gargoyles), Pack (Gargoyles), Macbeth (Gargoyles), Oberon's children should be merged to this page any thoughts?Dwanyewest (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)