Talk:List of lycanthropic Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter characters

Alphabetical
Silverthorn, thanks for your edits. My inclination would be to put the "main characters" (probably just Richard and Micah) at the tops of their categories and alphabatize everyone else, but I'm curious what other people think. TheronJ 13:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a valid suggestion, and could be easily done. I merely collated them all alphabetically to start with as I thought it was an easier way of finding them. They had been a little all over the place before that. The alternative perhaps is to have a 'main lycanthrope characters' section at the top, and then the rest. I think something similar has been done to separate Anita and Edward out on the human characters page for this series. Silverthorn 15:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard Zeeman
The section on Richard would appear to be getting so long that it might be worth separating him off into a separate article and just providing a link to it on this page. Looking at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/CharacterArticleTemplate it would seem to me that we already have the information for several of the sections within it for that particular character. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this subject? Silverthorn 08:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Richard, Anita, and Jean-Claude all all probably long enough to merit their own pages. The only problem is that moving the pages will break the links on all of the 20 or so pages in the Anita Blake category.  If you're game to move Richard to his own page and fix the links, I say go for it.


 * Alternately, now that I think about it, if we have a two sentence description here, then the links will still work, and we can fix the links at our leisure. I'll take a look.  TheronJ 13:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Now all we have to do is fix the 50-70 links. ;-) TheronJ 13:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That looks much better, and I agree about Anita and Jean-Claude too. If Richard had sufficient information to justify a separate article then they do too. Something similar could be done for them. That would make all the link fixing a job lot. Silverthorn 16:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Vivian
I edited Vivian a little bit to try to get away from the "in universe" style of description. (A lot of this is my fault - when I started the whole spin-out of the Anita Blake universe, I hadn't read the style guide for Wikipedia articles about fiction, but the guide is clear that we should try to write from an "Out of universe" perspective when it's not awkward.) TheronJ 18:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the interspecies information seemed like a logic step to me. I suppose it would be more professional to keep a distanced voice, I thought more information about the characters would be nice. Apparently, that thought is "in universe" and since Wikipedia is an out-universe reference, I'll try to find the Narcissius In Chains references, perhaps (and read the Wiki manuals, eventually). Bekkie 18:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if that came off the wrong way, I thought your edit was great, and you've been doing great work in general - I just edited it so that we can say "In, explains that interspecies relationships . . ." instead of just "interspecies relationships." I'll try to look it up tonight.  All of your edits have been great, and that one is no exception. TheronJ 18:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for saying those kind words, I was curious how I was being perceived. With the topic in question, I was just expanding from Richard saying three sentences about "cross-species" dating, in chapter 10 (page 95, hard cover) of Narcissus In Chains.  I'm not sure if "cross-species" is better or the same as "interspecies" or if I could even use Richard as a reference, would he not be "in universe"? Is using "Richard says..." somehow better than "Anita feels..."? Bekkie 19:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I see someone else used Gwen as a reference, so Richard then should work. It's hard though, because the world is only seen through Anita's eyes, but I'll try to be better at staying out of the universe. (A fun challenge since I've only been reading the series lately.) Bekkie 20:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Gina & Violet
Gina and Violet are members of the Maneater Clan and should probably have at least a line entry.

Gina appears in Narcisus in Chains and provides Anita with some back history for the Maneater Clan under Chimera's rule.

Violet was mentioned in Narcisus in Chains but never actually makes a physical appearance.

Both characters are notable in how they were used by Chimera as a means of control.

List?
Maybe this should be moved to "List of lycanthrope characters in the Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter series"? Man, that's long. I was also going to suggest "List of lycanthropic characters in the Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter series", but that's one more character... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Lycanthrope=Werewolf
A Lycanthrope is, by definition, a human who changes into wolf form. Since these characters are not all wolves, the title of this article is not correct. The proper term is Therianthrope. Corvus cornix 22:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeh, but who (besides a were-crow) would know that word? :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't remember but weren't the first few books only about werewolves and vampires? it hasn't been to recently that there's been other weres in the Anitaverse, if I recall right. I think Anita has said a couple times "lycanthropy" vs therianthropy, so maybe if the next book uses latter term, the articles should reflect that, imo.
 * How about calling this Were characters of Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter? Corvus cornix 18:56, 27 April 2007 (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) 11:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)