Talk:Will Graham (character)

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 October 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

although kid 8 predicted the collapse of the vampire race he arer abused by the books of blood

psychologist

Will, or William?

It seems that Hannibal use to call Will for William sometimes, while speaking from his cell. Is his name realy William, and he is just called Will as a nickname (as many other) or is just Hannibal Teasing him?

eideketor?

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

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

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

Notable in own right?

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

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

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

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

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

The guideline which I tend to follow on these issues is WP:FICTION. —Wh o uk (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Redirecting

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

Improperly classified

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Graham38.jpg

Image:Graham38.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Willgraham.jpg

Image:Willgraham.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Strong disagree here. Graham is hardly a "minor" character. He was the protagonist of the first novel.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But where is the real world content? It would fail Wikipedia notability, maybe "minor characters" is not the right place to merge, but the only characters that could possibly pass are, Hannibal Lecter, Clarice Starling, maybe Buffalo Bill. Dolarhyde and Graham are kind of a stretch, the only reason they can be considered is because two films were made, rather than one like the other books. Crawford, Krendler and others should be merged or deleted.--The Dominator (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think there a number of reviews critiquing Graham? Maybe he's not a cultural icon like Lecter is, but he is a fairly significant character. And like you said, he's been featured prominently in two major films. I don't know why you seem intent on decimating most of the Hannibal related articles either. If we were to remove every fictional character who hasn't become an icon there'd be barely anything left.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not intent on removing Hannibal articles, I'm sorry to seem like I'm harassing your work, what's the point of having this article? What does it do? Sum up the plot, the Red Dragon article does so too, I think it can be merged. Or if you find those articles than go ahead, establish notability. Find an essay on Graham's character, find a comparison on Norton vs. Petersen, right now the article recaps the plot. I'm not decimating the articles, I'm making them better, so they aren't redundant, I'm following Wikipedia policy, I've read the books, I've seen the movies and I know what you can say. As I said, this article does have a chance to be notable, some others don't, I used to create pointless character pages, now I know better, it doesn't help the project.--The Dominator (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for sounding snippy early. I'm not mad at you or anyone particular person, I'm just frustrated by a lot of Wikipedia's policies. Anyway, I searched up some interviews and reviews that discuss Graham. [1][2][3][4]--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't half bad, it just needs some reviews of the book. Personally I'll look through Red Dragon today and look for characters describing Graham, if we can get real world content, there is no reason why the article can't stay. Thomas Harris does like to go inside characters' heads so we know quite a bit about them.--The Dominator (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still for merging Mischa into the list, but I am convinced the others are notable, except...Jack Crawford (character), he was a major character in Red Dragon and Silence of the lambs, but I am doubtful we will find real-world content, I suggest that be merged into the respective articles, Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs (the books).--The Dominator (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Mischa and all the other supporting characters could be merged.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also strongly disagree. The character is notable in his own right, certainly much more than many other literary protagonists that have their own page. The character has a staring role in the first novel of an extremely culturally relevant series, as well as the starring role in the two subsequent films. Clearly there's enough information on the character to warrant an article, especially in order to keep the main article short. Perhaps I'm biased due to my dislike of the increasingly deletionist mood being cultivated by some on Wikipedia, but I believe this article has relevance. -Fearfulsymmetry (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Willgraham.jpg

Image:Willgraham.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) 03:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Graham38.jpg

Image:Graham38.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) 22:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will Graham → Will Graham (fictional character) – There is a real person named Will Graham with his own article, along with several people named William Graham. I suggest making the main Will Graham page an partial disambiguation page, listing all persons commonly known as Will Graham who have their own Wikipedia articles, along with a link to the full William Graham disambiguation page. 2600:1003:B02C:C7C7:0:4C:80C6:5401 (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as nominator: Any real person named Will Graham notable enough to have his own article is probably at least as important as a character in a fictional series written years ago. 2600:1003:B02C:C7C7:0:4C:80C6:5401 (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have much of an opinion right now (this may change) but a quick look at Google at least shows that the fictional character has received considerably more coverage than the evangelist (516,000 results for "Will Graham" "Hannibal", versus 31,800 or 135,000 results for the evangelist depending on if you add "Evangelist" or "Christian" with the results). In terms of similar situations I notice that Peter Parker redirects directly to Spider-Man even though Peter Parker (disambiguation) shows that there are numerous real people named as such.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename point the current title to William Graham and make that a unified dab page covering all versions of Will, William, Willie, etc -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but have a redir from the shorter Will Graham (fiction) (or use that name if "(fictional character)" isn't a full-on convention; I haven't checked lately). I support because the fictional character isn't really a single cohesive topic, but really a WP:CONCEPTDAB (even if not formatted that way) between four closely related topics that are not really identical: The Harris novel character, the William Peterson film character, the Edward Norton film character, and the Hugh Dancy TV character, all of which have significant differences (especially the fourth, which is widely divergent from the previous ones), even if we're covering them on the same page (which might not be true forever). Weakly support also on the common-sense principle that real people are arguably more important than make-believe, though that's not all that compelling. If someone changed their name to Bilbo Baggins and became barely notable somehow, I wouldn't support moving Bilbo Baggins to Bilbo Baggins (fictional character). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 12 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. A histmerge was also required. Jenks24 (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will Graham (fictional character) → Will Graham (character) – Unnecessary disambiguation. I know that this was just changed a couple weeks ago, but the word "(character)" is sufficient disambiguation, and Will Graham (character) already redirects to this article. The word "fictional" is unnecessary. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The word "character" by itself indicates that it is a fictional agent. bd2412 T 14:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Aren't articles for fictional characters usually disambiguated by the name of the work they appear in rather than the word "character"? Maybe Will Graham (Red Dragon) should be considered. Or is Will Graham (Hannibal) more accurate now? Or Will Graham (Hannibal Lecter)? —Flax5 15:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And that is why "character" is used for disambiguation: to prevent disputes over which work to be used. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 15:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - new title is more concise and sufficient disambiguation. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 15:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Spoilery Image

The main image spoils a major plot point in the show, is there no alternative? 85.64.199.191 (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]