Talk:List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters

Please remove the new ground link from William Stampers credit.

Although Stamper was an employee and animator for NewGrounds the Newgrounds article does not mention him. Having the link to newgrounds in his credit is pointless 67.242.142.206 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done SWinxy (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

"Elsie Lovelock" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Elsie Lovelock. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 10#Elsie Lovelock until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Asmodeus, goetial demon

I realized that Asmodeus is listed under hellborns when he should be listed under the goetial demons, because that's what he is. 2600:387:F:D18:0:0:0:C (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Separate characters by show

Since Hazbin Hotel is getting more episodes, I think the characters should be in separate pages, according to the shows they appear in. While it's true they appear to be in the same universe, I just feel it makes it simpler and easier. 208.92.185.195 (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, as the Helluva Boss series expanded beyond just its pilot, this article became more and more mashed together, and it could definitely stand to be separated. I myself don't really know the ins and outs of making a new page, but if one isn't made soon, I may find a way to split this page into two sections for each show. Blubewwy (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

We should rename this page to List of Hellaverse (franchise) characters. Just a thought. Make it more like this List of Alien (franchise) characters. I could really do this because all the notes are just excessive. Just a thought. MarqueesCalaway (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't really think "Hellaverse" should be the term used, because it's not very official outside of merch sales. In my own opinion, the article should be split into two. Blubewwy (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it should be split into two because of the same universe, but I see where you are coming from. I can wipp something up in drafts and see if you like it. MarqueesCalaway (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Adam

Adam is a recurring character. While Brightman voices him and Sir Pentious, it's pretty clear that Pentious is a main character, and Adam is only recurring. 208.92.185.195 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

That is not how cast credits work. Both receive a main credit for that exact reason, because Brightman the actor is part of the main cast, not the character. 77.92.145.214 (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Brightman is part of the main cast, but that doesn't mean both of his characters are. Sir Pentious is part of the main cast of characters, while Adam is a recurring character. 208.92.185.195 (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Except that is still not how cast credits work at all. Regards of how big or small a role his characters play, Brightman is credited as main for both characters. In the main credits of the first episode, in which Brightman plays Adam alone, Brightman is credited as main. In subsequent episodes with Sir Pentious, Brightman is credited as main. In the latest episode with them both, he is still credited as main. My third sentence, on him being credited as main for the first episode with Adam alone, should be enough to make this clear. 77.92.145.214 (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

In my own opinion, Adam is currently the main antagonist of the show, and therefore should be listed in the main character section. Blubewwy (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge of Lucifer's page into this page

So... this page already has an excessive content and notability tag, yeah? I don't really think throwing all of Lucifer's reception information into this page is a great idea, especially considering that no other character in this article has a description as detailed as that. I don't wanna go and just remove it, since whoever closed that deletion discussion said all that sourced content should go into this article, but this article is not the place for it. Honestly, I kinda feel like that discussion was closed prematurely, because not only were the majority of the votes for keep, the article was expanded to a point that I feel proved the character's notability. I don't really want to go and remove all that reception of Lucifer's character section because of what I stated above, but I also very strongly feel that this article is not the place for it. Blubewwy (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

On that: it was Nine for Keep, Two for Redirect, and Two for Drafting; why was it closed as Redirect? 2001:BB6:3A30:D700:FD06:828B:BC7E:3421 (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea. You'd have to ask the person who closed it. Blubewwy (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, a deletion discussion is meant to be decided not by head-count but by the merit of the arguments. While I don't follow the conclusion the closer has drawn, that's the outcome we've gotten by a non-involved editor. If someone wanted to challenge that, one could, as Blubewwy said, talk it through with the closer, and/or go to WP:Deletion review.

Let's please not remove the merged content! (I have no objection to anyone going through the sources and checking if they are all reliable, though, as some issues there have been indicated in the deletion discussion.) As long as the outcome of the deletion discussion is not overturned, we should adhere to it. While I would have preferred keeping this material in its own article, having it here is the next best solution in my view. I don't think it makes the tagged problems worse, rather to the contrary: While it is more content, it is also sourced content which is not purely plot summary, so it makes the list more encyclopedic rather than less. I agree that it is out of balance with the entries for other characters. But the solution in my view is not cutting the commentary/reception on Lucifer out again, but rather adding commentary/reception of other characters, such as it exists in secondary sources. And live with the imbalance until someone comes around to do that. (Or form a new consensus to split it out again, but I guess that would require that significant new information comes to light, i.e. even more commentary by secondary sources is found in order to make a more convincing case of stand-alone notability as compared to the status during the deletion discussion.) Daranios (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I think splitting Lucifer back into his own standalone article would be the best thing for these articles, and should be the ultimate goal for this, but yeah, for the moment, I think what was merged from his article into this one should remain. Blubewwy (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)