Talk:Mason Verger

message: I'm not a fan of the gruesome pic right on the top of the page. KellaghKellywatchthestars
:Me neither.  Any chance that someone who knows how could change the page link to a 'disturbing picture warning' linking to it?  I mean, who wants to get a face full of faceless-ness? --Anoma lee 05:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not Censored --MasterA113 03:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the picture is perfect.
-G
Anyway, the new picture depicts the actor in a situation completely unrelated to the character and the movie, which is certainly no solution Viktor Crowford (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Picture is now completely unrelated to article. Fix please. -24.131.168.209 (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: In the article says he ate his own nose, but in the book it says the nose was found in one of his dog's stomach.  --elandy 02:24, 19 April 2008
The article states that Verger is one of two surviving Lecter victims. It also say that the other is unknown. Is the 2nd victim not Will Graham?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.120.234 (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: About his nose

message: The image :Image:Han2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Han2.jpg

message: This article (Mason Verger) is unsourced and lacks any indication that the character is notable in its own right. Because of that, I redirected it to the novel in which this character appeared (Hannibal (novel)) with this edit. That was reverted with this edit and an edit summary noting "Didn't see any consensus". I'm not sure whether that editor actually disagreed with the redirect or thinks the character is itself notable, or just thought a notation and, if any disagreement, a discussion should appear here. In any case, I am now proposing the merger. However, since the entire article is unsourced and is almost entirely written  in-universe and violates WP:PLOT, I do not think much, if anything, can actually be merged into the book's or film's article. I propose redirecting to the book (Hannibal (novel)) instead of the film (Hannibal (film)) because that is where the character was first and best developed. Anyone actually seeking info about the character's portrayal in the film can quickly click to the film from the book's article. That said, I don't have strong feelings about which of the two to redirect this to, though. Novaseminary (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless somebody objects, in the next few days I will redirect Mason Verger to Hannibal (novel). I don't think there is anything in the character's article worth pasting into the article on the book or film, especially since it is entirely unsourced, but the history will be there is anyone else would like to. Novaseminary (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, a reader is one link from the movie (the movie is linked in the first paragraph of the book). And now the book article is in much better shape than it had been when this was first redirected. And it seems odd to do a disamb for a fictional, non-notable character that would point to two articles, neither of which is a varient of the name neing disambiguated. Deletion would make more sense to me. Novaseminary (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion