Thread:BeholderofStuff/@comment-30053419-20190804051334/@comment-30053419-20190804054238

I understand that, but usually there's something a bit more substantial to the character we're speculating about.

For example: over on the heroes wiki, the article on Lorraine Maillard contains a lot of speculation, but that's because the events of The Park are made deliberately ambiguous due to a combinatiion of magical activity, psychic assault and mental illness blurring the lines between reality and illusion. There's speculation there, but it's based on evidence that the game and its sequel provides.

With the Priest, by contrast, there's almost nothing.

I mean, if the Priest was Infected like everyone else in London, behaves like all the other infected, and plays such a minor role, wouldn't it be better if he was just mentioned in the main article - under a heading of "notable encounters" for example?

I'm just saying that the Priest doesn't seem noteworthy or prominent enough to have his own article.

Take a look at the following Infected villains: Dr. Warren, who was a villain prior to infection and started the Infection experiments (plus, definitely has more right to an article than the monkeys); Clifton , who was a rapist and a scumbag prior to infection and serves as a major threat alongside Mailer after getting infected; Mailer , who has a known past and even seems to exhibit a desire for revenge; Donald Harris, who not only has a known past, but also serves as a consistent threat throughout the latter half of the story. All of these are worthy of articles, because they play a role.

Compare and contrast the likes of The Priest and The Kid, who turn up for one scene, get smashed in the face with something heavy and do nothing else. They have no role.