Talk:List of Twilight characters/Archive 1

Ideas
I think we really need to fix up the sentence structure in this article... --Sophiakorichi 17:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I created the page, and just took all the articles that were created abou the people and added them to the page, but I think you're right. Definitly needs some cleanup. ~ Bella   Swan  18:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need to state that every character is a fictional character? Isn't that assumed?66.7.119.190 (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so we need to make it as if someone actually had a large encyclopedia in book form in front of their lap and if they randomly flipped to these pages that they would know these characters are fictional. Just if that makes any sense! :)  §ροττεδςταr (Talk 05:32, 30

No offense or anything, but that was hilarious! You guys were talking like vampires were real because you were saying "All vampires have supernatural abilities." But, yes, they DO all have supernatural talents in the books. Tweedle20 (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Tweedle20

November 2007 (UTC)

The "werewolves" aren't really werewolves. At the end of the fourth book, it is revealed that they are shape-shifters. As Aro says, it could f been an eagle or any other animal, it just happened to be a wolf. Changes should be made to reflect this. yes but then didn't edward also say that caius was lying because he was sacared of werewolves because of an encounter with one centuries ago. he had thought they were extinct. obviously not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.199.94 (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a part about esme cullen esme did not know carlisle until she became a vampire when she found out she was pregant she ran awy and gave birth but the baby was unable to surivie so she jumped off a cliff she broke several bones including he r spine because of a sudden burst of spanish influenza they took her to the morgue without knowing her heart was still beating their carlisle took her and changed her on the roof —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.88.231 (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Not Include
Shouldn't we include the fact that vampires can't sleep in the section about them? 17:44, 25 August 2008
 * Done. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

i think than you should add that they cant sleep but can lay still with there eyes closed and still be awake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.114.110 (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should the fact that "they can lay still with their eyes closed and still be awake" be added? Anyone can lay awake with their eyes closed; I can lay awake with my eyes closed. Adding that is completely pointless. ~Muri 75.223.8.95 (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Riley
Does he really need to be included in this article? He's hardly in the series at all, only appearing at the end of Eclipse for the battle with Victoria. I don't think he plays a big enough role to deserve his own section. Thoughts? Andrea (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since nobody seems to have any complaints, I'm taking him out. Andrea (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)ACTUALLY IF YOU READ THE SECOND LIFE OF BREE TANNER HE TURNS OUT TO BE A PRETTY MAIN CHARACTER SO PUT HIM BACK ON! RILEY!!RILEY!!!

Phil is not include!He is Bella's step-dad and Renee's husband! I beleive this should be added!!!!! hi you should put pic's of everyone with there profile and you should put bella's lullabye on a link with rennesmee's lullabye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.210.178 (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Billy Black and Harry Clearwater
Hi, I'm a it.wiki user, and while traducing this page into Italian, we realized that Billy Black and Harry Clearwater were missing. Why? if possible, could someone notice me at it.wiki when this question will be aswered? (forgive any grammar mistake)-- Austroungarika  scold or call  23:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Film actors
I think we should come to a consensus on whether or not the names of the actors portraying these characters should be included in the article. I know they were taken out a few times before, but they have been added again. In my opinion, they should be removed from here and kept only in the Twilight (2008 film) article where they more appropriately belong. It seems repetitive and unnecessary to list them all in this article. Thoughts? Andrea ( talk ) 19:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. This page is for describing the characters only, if someone wants to findd out who potrayed them, then they can look on the film's page. ~ Bella   Swan ? 20:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If nobody objects (with good reason) by the end of today, I'll take them out. Andrea ( talk ) 15:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And done. Andrea  ( talk ) 01:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This problem has popped up again. Does anyone have a good reason for why they should remain on this page? I think having them in the film-specific article is enough. Andrea ( talk ) 19:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I added them back because it adds out-of-universe information on them. Take Dumbledore's Army for example; it lists the people who play the characters. And Characters of Final Fantasy VII lists the English and Japanese voice cast. Obviously Dumbledore's army comes from Harry Potter, which has many films, and Final Fantasy VII Advent Children and Last Order: Final Fantasy VII, movies from the Final Fantasy VII compilation, list out the cast. Information on a character should provide important in-universe and out-of-universe information provided. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm sold. Thanks! Andrea  ( talk ) 00:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
The Volturi has no out-of-universe information and is not notable. It can be easily merged into this article, and may help it gain B-class or GA status. Though mentioned a few time, the Volturi are only encountered once and certainly don't warrant their own article. I doubt on concept and creation or reception information can be found, but if someone opposes (especially if they have information), please speak up! WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge Non-notable, no third party info. I don't know, however, what role the Volturi play in Breaking Dawn (or even if they appear), so I'm not completely sure. IceUnshattered (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Volturi appear in Breaking Dawn, but I just don't see any third party information coming out about them. We don't even get much reception on Edward or Bella, let alone side characters. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Volturi do play a fairly prominent role in Breaking Dawn, but it's still not notable enought for it's own article. ~ Bella   Swan ? 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Should I go along with the merge, then? We have had two people say to keep the page, but both reasons are because the Volturi are prominent in the books, and not because there is sufficient third-party sources out there. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I just renamed Minor characters in Twilight, and fixed it up a bit. Merging the Volturi article's going to take some work, but I'd say to go ahead and do it. ~ Bella   Swan ? 18:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I'll go ahead with it now. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have completed the merge; the section actually turned out shorter than I thought it would. Mainl, because so much of the information was reptitive and there was a list. But it is cleaner, and the Volturi might bring in a few references from the books. If there is any information that should be included, anyone can feel free to add it or suggest it. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Heck NO!
The Volturi are VERY PROMINENT in Breaking Dawn! Sheesh! They also are in New Moon! COME ON, PEOPLE!

Oceana Elemental (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * They appeared in a few books, but it does not make them notable by Wikipedia standards. They need reliable third-party information, and hopefully concept and creation notes as well. Just because they appear does not make them any more important than Seth or Billy Black or whoever else. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Through out the books the Volturi always pose a very real threat to the main characters. They are essentially the reason Bella's transformation is so necessary and really set the laws for all vampires. As an authoritative source I think they deserve their own page. Also Stephenie Meyer is releasing a guide to the series with more information December 30, 2008. I can only imagine it will explain in depth the Volturi and how they came to be. With that information there would be enough for their own Wiki page. It's a matter of waiting for that to see if the pages should be merged.

Novl10 (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How much they appear in a book series does not mean they are notable. Check WP:NOTE. I'm willing to wait for the guide's release, but I will merge if it provides no concept and creation or reception information. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if they're prominent in the books, do they have enough third-party info to qualify them as notable? IceUnshattered (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, no they don't. I doubt they ever will, either. In reviews, Bella is usually the one mentioned and sometimes Edward. I'm willing to wait for the guide to come out, but I can only think of it having concept/creation notes, and even that is doubtful. The guide will probably have mostly in-universe content and background information. As of now, I think all the character pages, save for Bella and maybe Edward and Jacob, will just be merged. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Volturi are a HUGE coven. They play a HUGE part in the story. They were talked about in Twilight, they made Edward promise to make Bella immortal in New Moon, they came to stop the newborn vampire army (but were too late, as the Cullens had already done so) in Eclipse, and have you noticed that they are the main threat through out the ENTIRE last half of Breaking Dawn?? Have you even read the books? It sounds like you're just reading the reviews. You might as well be basing your opinion on the movie, which is going to be terrible by the way. It will do the book no justice. Anyway, the Volturi are VERY VERY important. Whoever said that the GUIDE will explain the Volturi in depth, I would just like to remind you that the books already DO THAT! Read the books, please, don't just skim the reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.193.39 (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, not like I disagree with your point, but the Wikibeaurocracy is going to thwart you no matter what you do, because you're a rabid fangirl who's using personal opinion as an argument. They don't like that. Joey12345345 (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

BUT THE VOLTURI ARE THE PEOPLE WHO CARRY OUT THE LAWS AND MAKE SURE VAMPIRES ARE KEPT A SECRET AND IN BREAKING DAWN *SPOILER* THEY COME TO MAKE SURE NESSIE WILL NOT HARM OR EXPOSE VAMPIRES IN ANY WAY SO THEY SHOULD BE MENTIONED — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punksk8r99 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Crossed out?
I noticed that some of the character names have been formatted with strike-through. As I am not familiar with the characters (I assume they appear in Br'Dawn?), can someone please explain this? It really doesn't look nice, and it's confusing (at least, to me.)

-Thanks! IceUnshattered (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it means they are dead. Personally I think the entire Vampire coven section should just be erased; it's basically a copy of a page from Breaking Dawn. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed it a bit, but I think they should be organized by coven, but I'm not exactly sure how to do it. Any ideas? ~ Bella   Swan ? 18:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you are right. It means they are dead. You can tell because in Breaking Dawn Vampire Index (in the back) they crossed out Victoria, James, Laurent, and all the other vampires that died. If you haven't read Breaking Dawn yet, you wouldn't know that. It is really just a copy of the last page of Breaking Dawn, I never really thought about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.193.39 (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Charlie Swan Merge and page rename
Charlie Swan (Twilight) is not notable; he appears briefly compared to many other characters, has no concept/creation notes, and has no third-party sources. I have worked on fixing Bella Swan, but the Charlie Swan article is not even important to the series. Because of the merge, I also believe that the page should be renamed List of Twilight characters. Though people may not like it, the other pages (save for Bella, and maybe Edward and Jacob later on) are in the same boat. Bella and Edward are the only character really mentioned in most reviews, and because of this the rest of the pages will probably never recieve a GA status, or even a B-class. For more information, check WP:NOTE. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the name change and adding his page. I can do both as well. ~ Bella   Swan ? 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the page move! Assuming that other major character pages will be merged (really, there isn't much information for them except Bella, and maybe Edward and Jacob) should I create a Major Character section? Charlie Swan might be okay in the Human section, though; his importance is nothing compared to the Cullens and Jacob. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and made a Major Character section and adding links to the Cullen pages. I think Charlie's page should just be added to the Human section. I may merge him soon; if Renesmee somehow survives the deletion, I'll go ahead and merge that page as well. While I'm at it, should I add merge tags to the rest of the character pages, save for Bella, Edward, and Jacob? I think I'll get a bunch of negative feedback, but none of those articles have any third-party information or concept/creation notes. Maybe one day they'll have enough reliable sources for their own page, but I can't see that happened any time soon. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks excellent. We should probably merge Charlie's page, and I definitly think that we should merge Renesmee's page into this article, because she does have a fairly big influence in BD, and the article will almost positivly be deleted. As for the rest of the articles, I would suggest waiting for the cool down of BD, and then have a go at them. ~ Bella   Swan ? 16:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'll go ahead and merge Charlie's article. Good idea about waiting for the hype to settle...The Volturi got enough response against the merge (albeit only because of the prominent=notability thought); I can't imagine what would happen if I merged a Cullen article. For Renesmee, the deletion discussion would have to be closed first. In the mean time, I'll just convert the information over to the list and remove the link once the page is deleted. The only standing argument is that she plays a decent sized role in BD, so I doubt it'll make it. Oh, and any idea where I should merge Vampire (Twilight)? It could make for a nice paragraph underneath the Vampire section, like what was done with the Shape-shifters. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think adding that paragraph would be good, but it should be a fairly decent paragraph, if not two to cover everything. ~ Bella   Swan ? 18:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think two sounds good, unless the article is repetitive enough to warrant one, though that one would still be a good size. I'll be bold and merge that one next, I guess. After that, it'll just be collecting salvagable information from Nessie's article before it gets deleted. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Renesmee Merge
I've merged the Renesmee page, as it was not notable. It lacked third-party information and reception, and not reputable sources had reviewed the character. Promincence does not equal notability, and the article was made entirely of in-universe information See WP:NOTE for details. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Cullen page merge
I'm suggesting merging all the Cullen pages, save for Bella and Edward (and Jacob). They all lack notability, have no third party sources or concept/creation notes, and aren't even that important to the series, really. Prominence of a character does not equal notability; if it did, almost every character in every book/series would have a page. The pages will never make it to a GA in there current state, and no, or very few, reviews/book articles actually reference them. Not even Meyer seems to, except on a few occasions. If good enough concept/creation/reception sections can be added, then they can be saved. But I'm warning you now that there are very, very few out there. Bella and Edward have always been the focus, and there is a lot of information out there. See WP:NOTE for details. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. All Cullens except Edward are minor characters, do not need separate pages. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. There's also a lot of repeated info across each of those pages particularly the descriptions. Canez (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree, for the same reasons above. ~ Bella   Swan ? 18:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'll wait a week, and see what happens. If I have not recieved any rightful opposition, then I'll go ahead and merge. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, too; and Edward, Bella, and Jacob should have their own pages, seeing as they're the main characters and there's more information on their pages than on the other Cullens'. But when you merge the pages, make sure to include the pictures of Emmett, Jasper, Alice, and the others, will you? Amalik914 (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I do want pictures, but the problem is that many pictures end up being removed if there are multiple pictures of individual characters. Not to mention the layout of the page might be a little messy. How about taking the group photo from Twilight (2008 film)? It has all the Cullens and will fit in nicely. As for the main character articles, I won't be merging them unless completely and utterly necessary. Bella's article I have worked on a bit, and it has reception and such, though it still needs more working on. Edward's article will be next, as he should have some reception floating around. Jacob will be the most difficult; despite being a major character, not many reviews recognize him because the plot has always been Bella and Edward. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree that a group photo would be better, :) per Non-free content policy #3. Minor characters who don't have their own articles shouldn't have their own pictures, either. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've also added Vampire (Twilight) in the list to be merged, as we can do what we did with the shape-shifter section, and put a breif description of vampires in the vampire section on this page. ~ Bella   Swan ? 15:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been working on Jacob's article (editing and such), and I really think he should have his own; maybe reviews didn't recognize him, but atleast one fourth of Breaking Dawn is narrated by him- you can't get any more major than that. Also, his article is one of the longest of the characters, second only to Edward and Bella (and there's still much to add and edit to it as well). But yes, I agree that a group photo of the Cullens could also work; what about a whole page dedicated to the Cullens only? They're not exactly minor characters, more like secondary major characters. Amalik914 (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Promimence does not equal notability. Being a main/major character doesn't, either. Like I said, I am not going to merge his article anytime soon--I'm sure there must be something on him for reception. Besides, Jacob's article is only that long because of the long decriptions of him appearing (which shouldn't even be that long) and the abilities section, which is a list and should be turned in a section like Bella's. Good luck on that article, though; I do hope you find some reception/concept/creation notes. I'd join in, but I have a few more articles I'm working, including Bella Swan. As for making a page for Cullens, it isn't needed. It would probably turn into the old Volturi article. The list is for characters, not just minor ones, and each Cullen pulls up barely any usable sources, even combined.
 * Thank you for adding Vampire (Twilight) to the merge tag! WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree - All the characters play an important part in the series. I think we need to keep things the way they are. with each character having their own pages. The story isn't just about Edward, Bella, and Jacob. Otherwise it wouldn't have anyone else BUT them in it. The other cullens play an important part in the series, and it wouldn't be fair to them to treat them as if they didn't matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmett-Rosalie-Cullen (talk • contribs) 23:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The side characters are never fleshed out, Esme actually having less on-screen time than Seth. We get watered down backstories and that's about it. Alice appears the most, followed by Rosalie in BD. Emmett had a nice role in Twilight, but it has since declined, as Jasper's has. Carlisle and Esme are barely in the series. Edward and Bella are the main characters, with Jacob coming in second. They are fictional characters with little to no third-party notability; by Wikipedia standards, it's fair to not include them. Importance/prominence in a book/series does not equal notability, or else every book's main character would have their own main page. If you think the articles can be saved, then go ahead and improve the articles. I'm not going to merge them if they have a reasonable concept/creation section or a reception section. I'll wish you good luck, if you decide to try. I really have nothing against keeping them if they show good progress. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's okay delete them, but when no one comes here for twilight information because somewhere else has their biographie/histories/info etc, no one has anyone to blame but themselves. Not EVERYONE likes Edward and Bella. The only reason i even came here was because, at the time, this was the place for Emmett/Rosalie (who are my favorite characters) information. A lot of People like Alice and Jasper. So just becuase Steph Meyer made Edward, Bella, and Jacob primary characters, doesn't mean that the other are any less loved/important. So delete them, but i know ALOT of people that won't be coming here anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmett-Rosalie-Cullen (talk • contribs) 02:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Did everyone forget about the twilight official guide that is coming in a few months? it will have FULL CHARACTER BIOGRAPHIES, GENEOLIGCAL CHARTS, NEW INFORMATION AND MUCH MUCH MORE!!!!! Also, i don't think it's fair to delete someone ELSE'S work. people put a lot of time and energy into these articles and to delete that is not only rude and being an A**, but it's disrespectful. how would you like it if someone deleted all ur articles? --Emmett-Rosalie-Cullen (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, calm down and quit the name-calling. Merging is different; I just carry over information to the list, condensing everything repetitive and unneeded, and stick it on the list. Wikipedia follows notability (WP:NOTE and WP:IWANTIT), not because a character is loved. I dislike Bella, Edward, and Jacob (a lot), and like Carlisle, Emmett, the Volturi, and Seth. The important information will not be lost. Besides, if they gain that notability, the original articles will still be there. You just access the redirect history and the entire article is there. If they prove notable, than they can be readded. Also, check the Please Note section near the bottom of the page when editing. It says there If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. Second, my articles are all on little known series/books and a disambiguation page, so of course there won't be as much out-of-universe information. But for the ones I have, they provide media information and references. I will polish them up later. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not name calling i was just simply stating. am i am calm i just don't see how people can say that they don't play an important role in the series. I got 1 question. you say that you're not DELETING them, just merging. first of all, what is MERGING and second, are you going to keep their biographies and their pictures, and etc? someone told me that you guys were not keeping the pictures if you do the merging. i don't think that's fair. i have excellent movie pictures for the characters that i had posted. they were deleted but i still have them on my comp, and i have permission to use them. so you do the merging, the important stuff will stay, long with the pics? --Emmett-Rosalie-Cullen (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(<--) Merge I've concluded that there's not enough of a claim to notability. IceUnshattered (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE DOES NOT MERGE THE CULLENS TOGETHER! Every character is just as important as the next, because without Charlie and Renee there would be no Bella, without Carlisle, no Edward. Please please please do not merge them together. Jasper and Alice for example, have three fansites dedicated to them (not to mention loads of MySpace sites!) and Rosalie and Emmett also have an upcoming fansite. People also take ages to write these articles. And they're not exactly hurting anyone by being there, are they? It's like deleting an actor's profile because his role in the Harry Potter movie, in example, was only a small role like Lee Jordan for example. I think this is a terrible idea and I can't stress enough how much I, like many others, is against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.1.205 (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As much as I agree that the Cullens should not be merged, your reasons are a little bit strange. I mean, Bella's parents are really not that important, regardless of the fact that without them, there wouldn't be Bella. Their CHARACTERS have little imput in the story, and such. But I do agree with the article thing - articles take a lot of time to bring it from rock-bottom to satisfactory, and time is one thing that I, and other Wikipedians, consider very precious. ~ The Rebel's Gone   Pokeynuts   LOL  12:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebel Queen Pokeynut (talk • contribs)


 * Merging is taking a page's important information and transferring it to another page. The summaries will be shorter, of course, but I'm not just deleting everything. I can assure you that the important information will stay, especially for articles like Emmett Cullen, where they are shorter. The problem with using multiple pictures is policy number three with Non-free content. The images were deleted, apparently, because they were a copyright violation. However, I feel that keeping an image is a good idea, and that's why I suggested using the picture from Twilight (2008 film). It has all the Cullens, but it won't affect Jacob or Bella because they still have their own articles. As for 82.21.1.205--fansites are not legit reasons for keeping a page. They also aren't supposed to be used, which is why I have to go through a remove Lexicon links (Meyer may support Lexicon, but I've seen incorrect information already on the site). It's hurting in the sense that those articles can never become a GA (Good Article), like Aerith Gainsborough or Harry Potter (character) for example, unless some huge mass third-party sources come out. Plus, once they are added here, they can help this article with the little references they have. Also, Renee and Charlie don't have articles. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * AGREE 207.102.163.198 (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're not deleting everything, just shortening it? and you are going to place character pictures? i don't think you should use the first pictures we got. they in no means look like the characters pictures that we got recently. there are several new cullen pictures that we have gotten recently. The calendar for example.--Emmett-Rosalie-Cullen (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, please don't. They are all equally important to teh story and they deserve their own pages and I'm quite p!ssed at this. Edward and Bella and Jacob aren't the only characters in this series that matter. Does it really p!ss you off that much to have them have their own page? (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.123.170 (talk)


 * Merge for reasons stated originally by WhiteArcticWolf. Andrea  ( talk ) 03:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have pictures that you personally own then by all means upload them so they can be used in articles. Canez (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup. No deleting, just shortening, and all the information they have now is saved in the database. I could bring the article back a year from now if the character suddenly got notable enough. Individual pictures for lists are a problem, but group photos are fine. If you have any, feel free to upload them! As for Edward and Bella, they retain their pictures. Jacob would, too, if he had one. And for the IP, 86.42.123.170--no, I'm not angry at the fact they have their own page. It's just this list can be improved with their information and they aren't notable. I'm going by Wikipedia guidelines. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week and I have recieved no significant reason not to merge. I'll start merging later today. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * An IP removed PeaceNT's information, so I reverted it. The IP says:
 * Disagree: I believe that the Cullens can have their own pages as well as Jacob. It should not matter wheter or not they are merged so just leave it as it is. If they are all merged it will be too large of a page and you won't be able to fit as much info as you can when they have their own pages. It is also much more organized because one page would make it much too cluttered.
 * The list is far from being complete, and it will look much better when it finally is. As for looking too cluttered; check out Dumbledore's Army and Characters of Final Fantasy VII. Both are very large, but look fine. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nooooo plz do not merga all the cullens onto the same page, you have sooo much information on them that they do deserve their own pages. They all are major characters or atleast Alice is mostly with Bella and Edward. So if u merge them, atleast let Alice keep her page cause she is a very important and major character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplegumdrop17 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I will be merging Alice. Sorry to be a broken record, but prominence does not equal notability. Bella and Edward stay merely because there is enough third-party information that can be found. I've already merged Carlisle and Emmett; though Emmett's is shorter, mostly because of lack of information and the outtakes aren't canon. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

DISAGREE. The pages are of significant importance to us Twilight fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.15.174 (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:IWANTIT. Just because you think it's significant to a group of fans does not mean it should stay. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I STRONLY DISAGREE. The Cullens have a VERY VERY VERY (did I mention very?) important part in Twilight. Well, we could get rid of Emmett's page, and Esme's, because they aren't really break-my-heart important, but WAAAH, the other Cullens need their own seperate pages. Or maybe a Cullen Page, or Rosalie+Emmett together, Jasper+Alice together, and Carlisle+Esme together. Renesmee - I'm debating with myself whether she deserves her own page. ~ The Rebel's Gone   Pokeynuts   LOL  12:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * They do not have proper coverage as characters, meaning no third-party sources, reception, etc. WP:NOTE. They have recieved no significant coverage and therefore are being merged. Bella Swan's article has reception and I know there are concept and creation notes out there and I just haven't taken the time to look. After that, it's just shortening up the descriptions a little and adding references. Edward Cullen (Twilight) is the same way and even Jacob Black is going to be hard. People seem to be pulling out the prominence in the series bit instead of actually providing proof that they have coverage. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I bet you're finding it a little frustrating having to constantly repeat yourself everytime someone makes a statement against. Maybe we could put up a short list for people to refer to if they disagree with the merge given that most of the statements say the same thing? Save having to constantly explain prominence to people. I dunno. Canez (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not a bad idea, Canez. It is pretty frustrating and I feel like a broken record. In Talk:Aerith Gainsborough, a section was placed on the top explaining why the the article is the way it is. Because I doubt people will ever stop wanting to add back the pages, it might be a good idea to have it here as well, and we can link to WP:NOTE and WP:IWANTIT, among others. It may not stop everyone, but it will help or end up sending people on the hunt for coverage. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it's finally done. The article will still need some cleanup, as well as those character sections, but at least it will be easier now that they are on one page. Emmett's section is quite small--mostly because the outtakes aren't actually canon and as far as we know are not in any upcoming book, so they couldn't be kept. Some expanding will be needed for that, but the rest seem to be a nice, moderate size. Thank you for your support, everyone. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Eleaz er...
I'm pretty sure it's spelt Eleazar, but can someone double check that? And can someone verify the Volturi thing? I must have missed that. ~ The Rebel's Gone   Pokeynuts   LOL  02:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is spelled Eleazar; I'll fix it. Not sure about the Volturi thing, though. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Volturi thing has been verified. By the way, seeing as you seem so into the Twilight articles, the Twilight Saga Wiki REALLY needs work done (I mean big time - it's kind of bad grammar, spelling mistakes, wrong information and vandalism galore). ~ The Rebel's Gone   Pokeynuts   LOL  10:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebel Queen Pokeynut (talk • contribs)

Infoboxes
Do we need infoboxes for all the characters? I've seen them used in some articles, but it would be a little messy if they didn't line up, but I don' know whether or not we need them to get a GA or FA. Any ideas? ~ Bella   Swan ? 01:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I did some digging. First off, according to this, list articles can't be GAs. I scanned through the current list FAs and the only character ones that I could find were these three. None of them have infoboxes for the characters, so I think it's safe to say that we don't necessarily need them. I'm not sure if it would hurt, so I guess the question is...do we want them? Andrea  ( talk ) 02:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My opinion? Unnecessary. I mean, what information would the infoboxes contain that wouldn't be easy to obtain elsewhere? If we don't need it, we don't want it. From what I've seen, excessive infoboxes would pretty much mess up the presentation, especially when there's not so much in the sections. I c eUnshattered  [ t ] 17:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WHY NOT?????
Why are there not an pictures in the main article? To get a picture you have to go to a sub article, and even hen you are lucky if you get even one picture. Put some more pictures in there people!! Look at the article for Wicked, that's a good example. There are so many pictures in that one. Pictures of the scnces, books, and characters would make the articl much more exciting.
 * Yeah, but it's difficult to get non-free images. If you want pictures of main characters (ie Edward, Bella), there are nonfree but usable pictures on their individual pages per the WP:IUP. Keep in mind, this page was a hell lot worse before, and we're still working. How do you propose that we get images which are either free or usable per IUP? And also, please sign your posts with four tildes ( ~), as it says every time you go into edit mode for a discussion page. Thank you, I c eUnshattered  [ t ] 16:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I keep forgetiing to sign. Tell me if this is right.68.41.193.39 (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Whatever.
 * It's fine. I c eUnshattered  [ t ] 16:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was a page for the characters of the novel series Twilight. Those characters are fictional and therefore no photographs of them exist. It should be enough to have the links to the actors from the movies. Photos do not belong on a page about a novel. Mrs. Grobe (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * -shrug- Whatever reason (free images too hard to obtain; photographs don't belong on page detailing a novel), images shouldn't be our primary concern here. There is plenty to improve prose-wise here, before one should start obsessing over images. If I may point out, the whole section was started by what appears to be an over-enthusiastic fan of the books. Icy  // ♫ 01:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

SPOILER WARNINGS??????
SPOILER WARNING?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.161.238.99 (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Have replied on IP's talk page. I c eUnshattered  [ t ] 21:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Since this is an encyclopedia, it is understood that it should give ALL information about the subject in an article. People should know already that there will be spoilers. Strobes13 (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Now my question is, how would you define a spoiler? And are the books about spoilers? See WP:SPOILER and Content disclaimer for more info. They clearly state that Wikipedia contains spoilers, and that Wikipedia does not contain spoiler warnings. Read at your own risk.) Icy  // ♫ 20:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Add a spoiler message!!
I am so disappointed--after reading only the first book, "Twilight"--this character summary has given away major events found in the rest of the series. I will not be reading them and feel like I've been deprived of that experience due to someone else's carelessness. For the sake of anyone else who trusts wikipedia to be a good online citizen--please add a spoiler alert at the top of the page. Cob &amp; Pen (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * According to WP:SPOIL, we don't include spoiler warnings on Wikipedia. It should be assumed that articles on works of fiction will include spoilers. Andrea  ( talk ) 23:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I do not see why wikipedia can't have spoiler warnings. Even for the reasons that you state, it still wouldn't hurt to have it. I read the page on spoiler warnings and it doesn't say that you CAN'T include spoiler warnings, it only says they are considered unnecessary. Given the popularity of this series currently, I would say there are probably a lot of people viewing this article that are not intimately familiar with how wikipedia works, and will not expect that the article contains spoilers. Perhaps a temporary spoiler warning would be appropriate. I also had some points of the story ruined for me while reading this page, because I did not "magically know" that wikipedia contains spoilers. And no - I did not read the disclaimer page until now (seriously, who reads disclaimers and T&C statements?) Also, I have become accustomed to the courtesy that most online articles have for their readers. I thought wikipedia would extend the same courtesy. Anyway -- If you can't add a spoiler warning, how about changing the article so that you can read the character summaries from the perspective of only having read the first book, then having read the first and second book, etc. etc. I think that would be a good compromise between having a fully detailed article and saving people from having an excellent book ruined by spoilers. --Abruen (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Anna

That's laziness on Wikipedia's behalf and shows their complete lack of responsibility and respect for it's reader. People randomly searching on goggle will enivitably come across this page and have it ruined for them because wikipedia cannot be bothered and doesn't see it as 'their problem.' There are many, many people who have complained and Wiki couldn't care less. What a terrible excuse for an online encyclopedia. We have many people complaining about spoilers but Wiki couldn't care less. 203.114.164.219 (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Alice "Cullen" and Rosalie "Hale"
Would it not be the other way?? Alice is married to jasper HALE, so she would be alice HALE. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~THE REASON TO THAT IS THEY TRY TO "BLEND IN". THEY INTREDUCED THEMSELVES AS TWINS (ROSALIE AND JASPER), SO THEY HAD TO HAVE THE SAME LASTNAME!!!!~ ~ ~ ~ ~They joined the cullens between the first time they lived in Forks, and the second. Alice saw a vision about the Cullens and knowing that her husband did not enjoy the feelings of his prey when he killed them, moved in with the cullens. The cullens ADOPTED alice and jasper which would mean that they [ alice and jasper ] would essentially be hales, not cullens. In Breaking Dawn, Bella realized that alice and japer were seperate from the rest of the cullens; Carlisle bit Edward, Edward bit Bella, Carlisle bit Esme and Rosalie and Emmett. They [ alice and jasper] joined them and were Hales, NOT Cullens. '''I DO realize that Alice has always been addressed as a Cullen, and Rosalie a Hale,no matter whom they married or was transformed by. I realize now that to change those two last names would be highly controversial.'''

As for Rosalie, she was bitten by Dr. Carlisle Cullen after she was left on the street to die. Though her mortal last name was hale, it should have been changed to cullen. Later, she brought her husband, after being mauled by a bear, to Carlisle to change him. She feared that she would end up killing Emmett rather than transforming him. Thus Carlisle made another CULLEN. She, refering to Alice, was not bit by a Cullen. Alice was bit by an old asylum keeper to protect her from James. Jasper was bitten by Maria. Neither of them were bitten by Cullens.

\

I would appreciate it if you would change the last names of Alice and Rosalie.I do not wish to critize your work, but to give facts. Thank you. Alicehalerox (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC) alicehalerox

24.47.46.209 (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)02:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)But they-Carlisle and Esme-did this for adoptional perposes. Rosalie is not known as being married to Emmett but to be Jasper's twin. And Alice is not known as Jasper's wife but to only be adopted by Carlisle and Esme, and Edward and Emmett's sister. And adopted sister of Jasper and Rosalie. I thought about it too for a long time but you have to think deep and know that they are all adopted but in groups.02:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)24.47.46.209 (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

****I do not own any of the information I used or any of the characters I have mentioned.****


 * Umm, what? From what I remember, Alice has always been addressed as a Cullen (forgive me if I'm wrong, I haven't read these books for a while) and Rosalie as a Hale, despite whom they marry or whatnot. If you can find a reference where Alice is called 'Alice Hale' and Rosalie as 'Rosalie Cullen', then that would be appreciated. Icy  // ♫ 18:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Rosalie and Jasper are pretending to be twins, thus they are Rosalie and Jasper Hale. Really, they are all Cullens and the entire family is addressed as "the Cullens" throughout the series. Alice and Rosalie are introduced with their last names being Cullen and Hale. Besides, just because two people are married doesn't mean they take on their spouse's name. There are women who kept their maiden name and men who take on their wife's last name. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why Rosalie and Jasper HALE? Why is their last name not Cullen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.66.117 (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually Rosalie's mortal surname was king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.152.165 (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes, which look like ~ - thank you. And no, I think Rosalie never did marry that King person, if my memory serve me. There was never a marriage, though they were engaged. Icy  // ♫ 21:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Rosalie and Jasper are called "Hale" so that the two pairs can keep up the appearance of not being related whilst obviously being romantically involved with eachother -- this is clearly stated in the first book. It has nothing to do with who bit whom or when or any of that.--Abruen (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Rosalie said in the third book when she tell her story to Bella that she was very happy to be Rosalie Lilian Hale and that she was engaged to a Royce King and Jasper said (in the same book) to Maria when she and her company met him that his name was Jasper Whitlock. Rosalie kept her lastname in public and Jasper took her name (in public) so that it would look like they were related. In reality they both have the lastname Cullen.

WHAT THE HECK! I always thought that Rosilise last name was Cullen i think it probly is I never knew that her last name was Hale if It is Hale or Cullen please tell me on my talk page. (Twilight578 (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)) ~edward cullen~

As said before by Abruen, it would be a little weird if Rosalie Cullen was dating Emmette Cullen, dont you think. They are not known to be married when they are in school. It would raise questions in a church if both of their last names were Cullen. Assyria hightower (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC) BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THEY ARE IN HIGH SCHOOL IT DOESNT LOOK GOOD IF THEY ARE MARRIED TO THERE ADOPTED BROTHER OR SISTER — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punksk8r99 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Embry Call
First of all, Krys Ivory is a girl. And a singer. Definately not a werewolf. Yes his name is Krys, but we don't know his last name. Someone should fix that sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.63.87 (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters
A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction). Ikip (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Jasper Hale twilight
Jasper is known as Rosalie's twin. But he is frozen at the age of 17, he lied to the officers of the war and said he was 20 which he is tall enough to be, so they let him in. He is the adopted son of Carlisle and Esme and adopted brother of Rosalie, Emmett, Edward, and later Bella. He is Alice's husband. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.46.209 (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your point is ...? (And pls sign your posts with four tildes, which look like ~ ). Icy  // ♫ 01:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My point is is that on the article page it says that he is frozen at the age of 20 but his real age is 17. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.46.209 (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * O.K., I'll try and look into it. Thanks for bringing it up. (Anyone else reading this who has access to the book in question, pls confirm, b/c I might not be able to look at the book in the foreseeable future.) Icy  // ♫ 20:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's true that he lied about being 20 when he was only 17, but that is not the year that he was changed into a vampire. He was in the Confederate Army for a few years before being turned. Stephenie Meyer confirmed in this Q&A session that he was 20 when that happened. Andrea  ( talk ) 17:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Gah. It certainly has been a long time since I've touched anything Twilight-related. Thanks (as always), Andrea. Icy  // ♫ 20:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Eh no problem, it's what I do! Andrea  ( talk ) 15:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Isabella Marie Swan = Bella Cullen
Bella change her name from Isabella Marie Swan to Bella Cullen when she marries Edward in Breaking Dawn and has not the name Marie left.

Bella still keeps her middle name, its just, when your calling somebody by their full names, you never say their middle name. (ex. John Leonardo Haris-John Haris) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.90.227 (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Esme
in the book esme did not fall out of a tree and break her leg. She was also not 16.She was in her 20's and she fell off of a cliff. she had broken major bones and lost alot of blood which is why carlisle changed her —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.94.12 (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you read all of Esme's section, you will see that it explains her jumping off the cliff as well. Carlisle first met her when she was 16 after she broke her leg, and he came across her again years later (yes, when she was in her 20s) after she had jumped off the cliff and was near death. Hope that clears things up. Andrea  ( talk ) 15:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Where in the book does it mention that Carlisle knew Esme before she jumped off the cliff?

97.126.111.57 (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not mentioned in the books, but Meyer elaborated more on Esme's back-story in an interview here. Andrea  ( talk ) 02:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In New Moon, Edward says that Carlisle's physical age is 30, and is pushing 33 as his actual age at the hospital and that is a contributing reason to the Cullens leaving Forkes. Furthermore, when Bella tries to convince Edward to change her as soon as posible due to her not wanting to be older than Edward, he states that Esme is 3 years Carlisle's senior, making her 33, not 26 and that they dont have a problem with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.122.243.186 (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In New Moon Edward does not say that Carlisle is actually 30, but that 30 is older than Carlisle looks. Here's the quote you're referring to: "Bella, it's time. How much longer could we stay in Forks, after all? Carlisle can barely pass for thirty, and he's claiming thirty-three now. We'd have to start over soon regardless." Edward actually says nothing about Carlisle's real age, but it is implied that he is younger than 30. This interview with Meyer confirms Carlisle and Esme's ages as 23 and 26, respectively. Andrea  ( talk ) 04:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Emmett Cullen Information
It should be noted that Stephanie Meyer has incorrect information about grizzly bears in Tennessee in the 1930's when Emmett was attacked. Grizzly bears locations in the early 30's The grizzly bears were never seen in Tennessee which means, Emmett's attack happened elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.162.21 (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, if you're trying to point out errors in the books you should be going directly to Meyer/the publisher. The goal of this page is to provide information on characters in the books. If Meyer had incorrect information, we cannot change what she already wrote in her books. In essence, we can't do anything. Hope this helped - Icy  // ♫ 18:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that when Emmett first met bella he was not wary of Bella at first but he simply didn't understand what Edward found appealing in her. 30 December 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MilBro (talk • contribs) 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Stregone Benefici ?
Uh? Italian? Stregone + benefici = no sense. It doesn't make any sense in Italian, since stregone is singular and benefici is plural. And the translation would be "(pl) beneficial sorcerer". Let's say its just an alias made it up, because its not real Italian.

And yes, its Benefici, as you can all read in the source of the statement. --Exephyo (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. Meyer has stated that she doesn't do much research, and I've seen the Spanish in her unedited manuscripts. Seems more like an online translator to me. But, even still, I don't remember it ever being translated like that in the book. If it was, then I honestly have no idea what to do. On one hand, that's what the book has written, but on the other, it's incorrect. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Meyer uses the term "Stregoni Benefici" (both plural?) in one of the books, but she never translates it. Looks like that part was just original research. Andrea  ( talk ) 14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

14:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)CARLISLE CREATED THAT MYTH, CHECK THE REFERENCES.14:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.158.116 (talk)

real Alice in Forks, WA
You can often find Alice working at Leppell's on Spartan Ave. across from the High School. She is also attending the Twilight Symposium Prom on June 27th. www.AliceOfForks.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.85.246 (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not sure if that's relevant to the content of the page. How does the information you provided relate to what Meyer wrote in the series? (And by the way, you should sign your posts with four tildes, which look like ~ ) Thanks – Icy  // ♫ 01:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

a little about alice Cullen
My favourite charector is Alice cullen. She is married to jasper hale and is closest to Edward Cullen in her adopted coven. in twilight Alice meets Bella and she has a vision that they will become gerat friends and imedietly begings to love her and care for her as a sister. Near the end of the book Jasper and Alice stay with bella to petect her from james the tracker who is hunting bellas blood. In new moon she has another vision of bella jumping of a clif and she asumes that she is trying to cumet suiside because Edward left her. knowing this she tells Rosile what she saw andd asuming that bella is dead rosilie tells edward who imedetly goes to see the voltiuri to try and convinve them to kill him seeing as he could not live on an earth without bella. But with Alices visions,Bella and alice are able to get to edward in time and they save him from his near deth expirens.In eclips alice forsees a army of newborn vampires(created by victoriea) coming to bring revenge on edward and kill bella so they would be even getting there mate for mate. Alice convinces her family that she is a worthy fighter and fights agansit the attack. In Breaking Dawn, alice plays the role of bellas maid of houner and compleats a wonderful wedding. Once Bella gives birth to a lovly baby renesemaee she sees the vouturi coming after her becay=uce they think she is an imortell child but is actually half-human half-vampire. alice then convinces everyone that her and jasper are leving the cullen family, but are actually just going to hunt for a half bread like renessmee. she find one and bring him back at just the riht time and renessme was saved and now the Culles will live hapily ever after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.148.47 (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Carlisle
I have begun of a draft for a possible Carlisle article at User:Scarce/Carlisle Cullen, any assistance would be appreciated ;)  • S • C  • A • R  • C • E •   21:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Carlisle had his own article up until about a year ago, but it was decided that the character was not notable enough to warrant his own. Bella, Edward, and Jacob are the only characters who have received enough coverage outside of the books or film to be considered notable (and even Jacob is pushing it). Andrea  ( talk ) 01:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Phil
He is NOT included!!!!he should be in there~!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilight-saga99 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 27 September 2009‎ (UTC)

Jasper Hale
Can anyone explain why Jasper's surname is Hale and not Cullen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemloubrown (talk • contribs)


 * He and Rosalie look similar, and so in Forks they pretend to be biological siblings. Rosalie insists on using her own surname (Hale), and so Jasper uses it as well. Andrea  ( talk ) 21:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

More info about Renesmee Cullen
I found Renesmee's Dairy and thought it could prove useful for future info on Nessie. I dont know who started the journal, but someone told me that it's being done by SM. True or not? I don't know for sure. The journal was only just started in October of 2009, but as time goes on, hopefully more info will be available on our favorite little half-vampire. Nessie's Diary:

97.126.111.57 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but there is no reason to believe that Meyer has anything to do with these writings. Andrea  ( talk ) 02:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Number of images
In my image-removing edit, I linked here as an explanation. The part I was referring to was this: "Images that show multiple elements of the list at the same time, such as a cast shot or montage for a television show, are strongly preferred over individual images. Such an image should be provided by the copyright holder or scanned/captured directly from the copyrighted work, instead of being created from multiple non-free images by the user directly (as the "extent" of use is determined by the number and resolution of non-free images, and not the number of files.)"

Following this policy, it is much more appropriate to use images like the one of the Cullens that was initially in the article, as it shows 7 of the most major characters from the series. If an argument is being made that individual images should also be included for other main characters, James would hardly qualify as he is only in one book out of the four in the series. As well, Charlie plays only a minor role in each of the books. Overall, we should be following the idea that "images that are used only to visually identify elements in the article should be used as sparingly as possible." Ideally, I would say that one group image per section (Major characters, Vampires, Werewolves, Humans) would be suitable for the article. We could probably find even better ones for the wolf pack and the Volturi that show a few more characters each (and a group shot of the Cullens that also includes Bella). Andrea ( talk ) 05:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an image of James, Victoria and Laurent as a group would be better, as they are together the major "bad guys" throughout the series? I think if we are doing one per section that Charlie is the best one for the humans, as he is by far the most important human (aside from Bella) and as Bella's father, is a fairly significant character. I wonder if we couldn't find one of the werewolves that included Jacob.. and also one of the Volturi that included more characters? ETA: Maybe we could also use one of the promo images from New Moon that has Jacob, Bella, and Edward in one shot to put in the "main characters" section? I think those three are very important. --Zoeydahling (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think for the humans it would make more sense to use image of Bella's high school friends (Mike, Angela, Jessica, and Eric) than to have one of Charlie. Like perhaps this one. Also, the three posters seen here are nice because they include all of the most important characters from each the Cullens, the Volturi, and the wolf pack. Though if we used those I would be in favour of cropping off the words at the bottom, so every image doesn't just look like a movie poster. Andrea  ( talk ) 03:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Even though that picture includes more characters, I still think Charlie is a way bigger part of all the novels than all of those characters combined and therefore his picture is more important. I also still think that the three "evil" vampires are pretty important since they are the enemies throughout the entire series, so something like this (although perhaps a different specific image, but that idea) would work well. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I disagree that Charlie has four times the role of each of the human friends, but I don't care much either way. One if my main concerns is that adding individual images like that one will encourage others to think that including a picture of every character is acceptable.
 * I like that image of the evil vamps, if we can find one from a proper source. Do you mean to replace the Volturi with that one? Andrea  ( talk ) 05:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Definition of the word "Volturi"
After, researching the name myself, I have found that many Twilight fans are having trouble finding the meaning of this word. I've seen many blogs and discussion boards answering the question of what "Volturi" is in the Twilight saga, not the actual definition. The literal definition of the word "Volturi" comes from Latin origin meaning "vulture." The masculine singular form is "volturius," and the masculine plural form is "volturi." Please add this somewhere in the description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicataylor07 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that sounds like original research to me. Andrea  ( talk ) 04:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not original research at all. That's exactly what the word "volturi" means. Just look up in any dictionary. 201.81.161.207 (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

How about some damn spoiler warnings!
I came onto this page to learn about the characters, not have their fate spoiled for me before I've finished reading the books! Who was the genius who thought it was appropriate to spoil what happens to everybody without so much as a spoiler warning? What a truly, incredibly idiotic thing to do. Wikipedia should know better! This article states 'Character descriptions' not 'The lives and fates of the characters.' That is intentionally misleading readers. Many, MANY online sources show their readers courtesy by posting spoiler warnings, I'm absoulutely disgusted that Wikipedia couldn't care less because it feels their readers do not deserve this courtesy. Honestly, it's the eptiome of stupidity and it's unfortunate that due to Wikipedia's laziness countless people will stumble across this page only hoping for a brief character summary and have the whole series spoiled for them. 203.114.164.219 (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored by any means, please see WP:SPOILER for a more specific guideline ~ ς ح   д r   خ є  ~ 08:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I too am horrified because I have only read and seen Twilight and New Moon and have just had the rest of the books spoiled! I was watching a talk show featuring an actor from Twilight and couldn't remember which character she played in the film so I googled her name which lead me to this listing. The issue here for me is that there should be a listing specifically for the films with details of story line/actors etc. and then a separate one for the books. I would NEVER have thought that clicking on an actor's name would lead me to a page where the major details of a book's storyline was revealed. Please, please, PLEASE, someone, anyone, do whatever you have to do to ensure the series isn't ruined for another person. Not everyone has read the whole series- some of us have only recently been introduced to the books (shock, horror)! The spolier warnings won't necessarily work because the google link took me directly to the actor and not the start of the article. Thanks, Karen 121.219.116.219 (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's Wikipedia. If you guys don't want to know about it, then don't read it.  It's as as simple as that. AhnSoonKyung (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

James' Coven?
It's actually Laurent's, according to the book Twilight (ch. 18). Should we change it?AhnSoonKyung (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While Laurent acts as their leader in Chapter 18, in 19 it is explained that the coven is actually James':
 * Laurent: "'You can't bring him down. I've never seen anything like him in my three hundred years. He's absolutely lethal. That's why I joined his coven."
 * His coven, I thought, of course. The show of leadership in the clearing was merely that, a show.' Andrea  ( talk ) 23:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

NO THERE ISA SPECIFIC PARAGRAPH WHERE CARLISLE SAYS SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF BALH BLAH BLAH SO THIS IS NOT YOUR COVEN AND LAURENT AGREES WITH HIM Punksk8r99 (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Would the task force welcome historical context for the characters?
Hi, I noticed that the box at the top of the article asked for more non-fictional information or analysis, and I wanted to offer some additional material for the page here. But since this is a semi-protected page (and it's your collective creation, anyway!) I wanted to ask if my additions would be appropriate or welcome for this particular article.

I'm the editor of a collection that analyzes the Twilight characters against the backdrop of real history; the book is called "Twilight and History" and it's been recently published by a trade press. A team of historians who were also fans wrote different chapters on various Twilight characters (e.g., we had a British historian who wrote about Carlisle's background). So, the information I could add to this article wouldn't be original research, but rather drawn from the research that different historians did for the book I edited.

If you all thought this would be a good idea, I could add information on the following to this article: an expanded discussion of how the vampires in Twilight differ from those in European folklore and literature; more information about how Carlisle's historical setting; more information on the ways in which Edward does and doesn't resemble men of the culture of his birth (and the same for Jasper, too); and more analysis about how the Volturi resemble other ruling groups in Italian culture and history.

I thought this might add to the non-fictional information here, and also be a good expansion of the discussion. What do you think? FanHistorian (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Jacob Black?
Am I looking in the wrong place ? I noticed Jacob Black is missing from the Werewolves section of the page yet as far as I know (I dont read Twilight) he's the leader of the werewolves. If I'm right then I'll leave it up to someone who knows what they're talking about to write the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123dylan456 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Jacob is already listed in the first section, "Major characters". Andrea  ( talk ) 03:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I don't know what I was looking at xD Didn't see that. 123dylan456 (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Vampires - citation required.
Quoting from the text of the article:

Vampires In Twilight, vampires deviate from traditional myth in many ways, a fact often alluded to in the series, usually for humor.

I think we need a "citation required" ref tag at the end of this sentence. I have doubts as to whether such deviations were a deliberate attempt at humour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.156.157.2 (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.231.232.105, 17 July 2010
Please change:

After Carlisle changed Emmett, Carlisle and his family moved to Hoquiam, Washington

TO

After Carlisle changed Emmett, Carlisle and his family moved to Forks, Washington

Because Hoquiam is 104 miles south of Forks. Also, just a couple of sentences later the entries states: Between the Cullens' first and second stay in Forks, Alice…

71.231.232.105 (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.89.180.202, 28 July 2010
Bella is 18 when she becomes a vampire not 19. She misses he 19th birthday by 3 days. She makes a big deal about that in Breaking Dawn when the Cullens decide to celebrate her 19th birthday by giving her the cottage even though she is already a vampire and has stopped aging!

74.89.180.202 (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  07:27, 30


 * ✅. Book confirms this change. Andrea  ( talk ) 19:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)