Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Buffyverse task force/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

ARCHIVE AS OF 2 FEB 2006

Opening Notes

These are my thoughts on such a project. Anything you would like to contribute, whether in accord or disagreement, is absolutely welcome. Thanks!

- Che

Notes on Naming: (from the creator)
There is much discussion in online communities as to what name should be used to refer to the works I have chosen. Undoubtedly to most common is "Buffyverse". I find this term undesirable because it centers the universe around one particular show: Buffy. The term "Slayerverse" has been adopted by some to remove the emphasis from the character Buffy, but I find this undermines the great importance of the show Angel, which carries on almost completely without note or mention of slayers. Thus, I have taken the term "Whedonverse" to describe the following:

Buffy: the Vampire Slayer
Angel: the Series
Fray
related comics (eg Tales of the Vampires)

I am aware that Joss Whedon has other projects such as Firely/Serenity which are not set in the same universe as Buffy et al, but I wish to avoid the terms "Buffyverse" and "Slayerverse", so I feel "Whedonverse" is the best available term. (Some people use "Jossverse" -- it means the same.)

Any comments on this are, of course, welcome.

- Che Nuevara

Could you please clarify on the main page if Firefly should be considered as part of Project Buffy? --SarekOfVulcan 18:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the consensus is to use Whedonverse, why are there Buffyverse-stubs and is the category also called Buffyverse? --Allycat 12:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Because non-project members keep changing them. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 20:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer Buffyverse as it is the most commonly used/recognized and gives deference to the origin of the Universe. Plus I just find it more esthetically pleasing, but I will go with the majority. --Chesaguy 03:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Buffyverse should be used simply because it is most widely accepted if not the actual best suited?Paxomen 15:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Firefly isn't set on the Buffyverse. It is set on a different universe. And therefore it shouldn't be part of the Buffyverse WikiProject --Gonzalo84 18:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW I widely expanded on the Buffyverse#Terminology which considers this very debate. To do so I spent a while on the internet specifically just looking at what people meant when they spoke of 'Buffyverse' and 'Whedonverse'. It seems that generally speaking the lesser used 'Whedonverse' is usually interpreted as including Firefly by much of fandom. It also seems that despite limited use of 'Angelverse' and 'Buffy-Angelverse', the vast majority of sites interpret Buffyverse as including both Buffy/Angel and any further spinoffs.

Notes on Canon:

For purposes of this project, there exist four categories with respect to official "canon" status.

Canon: the work, character, fact, or other piece of information / trivia is specifically and explicitly stated within the official licensed universe. (Example: "Buffy Summers is the Vampire Slayer of her generation and is called to work under Watcher Rupert Giles.")
Second Canon: the fact or information is not explicitly stated by the licensed authors / creators, but is implicitly necessary given other canon facts. (Example: "The Slayer Line is continued by the most recently called slayer, even if more than one slayer is active." This is necessrily the case because Faith is called when Kendra dies, but no third slayer is called when Buffy dies a second time in season 5.)
Fanon: the piece of trivia is a widely accepted explanation or rule throughout much of fandom, but is neither supported nor denied by the official licensed material. (Example: "Giles continues his relationship with Olivia past the episode Hush." It is possible, and perhaps even likely, but there is nothing mentioned to support this claim.)
Personal Canon: the piece of trivia is strongly held by an individual or group that is neither necessarily true or false; very like fanon, but not as widespread. (Example: "The cyborg ninja from the Angel episode Lineage are a creation of the Initiative." This is but one of many interpretations of their origin.)

This project is concerned with canon and second canon. Fanon and personal canon are not applicable except as notes that "There is speculation that ...".

Think that that 'second canon' example is a bad one, as the events of season seven strongly indicate that the characters think that the next slayer will be called when Buffy dies, not Faith. Morwen - Talk 15:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but one interpretation of that case that I've read is that the point isn't that all of a sudden Buffy has to die for the new Slayer, but that the characters might actually be wrong as to the recent mess-up to the Slayer-line, and that indeed previous information points strongly enough to Faith as *the* Slayer for this to be taken as a rather plausible (though admitedly strange) explanation. Zeppocity 17:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Characters in the Buffyverse are given to thinking things that are very, very wrong. Buffy goes on a huge power trip in season 7 (trying to control Spike, telling off Giles, etc.), and this dominates her behavior and her beliefs throughout the episodes. If it were the case that killing Buffy would create a new slayer, there would be THREE slayers prior to "Chosen", not two. What Buffy believes doesn't really matter. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 13:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Canon, Comics

Afterthought: perhaps the comics would be more accurately described as being another type of "second canon"?

- Che Nuevara

The comics greatly vary in their level of compatibility with the series, with the more recent ones being better in this regard. I'll do some research on this point, but there are some comics that are flatly incompatible with the series as it stands, and some that are virtually canon (mostly those written by series writers). In short - there should not be a blanket rule about the comics. Lokicarbis 04:03, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ack - Che

Yeah, I'm trying to find some determination from Joss, but at the current time, it appears that unless a comic was written by him, its canonicity is dubious... 12:26, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps on this note it is interesting to read the article on Star Wars canon, which provides with another possible way of dividing the cannon. --Allycat 11:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

While some of the material fits and works as an Expanded Buffyverse of sorts, there's some stuff that doesn't fit, like the appereance of vampires. Some artists even drew some vampires as bat-faced monsters with wings on their backs.--Gonzalo84 16:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion comics are only canon when stated. I believe but am not sure that Joss declared the Angel: Old Friends comics as canon for example, and we could use that, under a Expanded Buffyverse banner, similar to the Star Wars articles. Kusonaga 16:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a link to where Whedon said that? Mariotte, suggested although the story lines were approved by Whedon, that his Angel comics were not actual 'canon' in this interview -- Paxomen 10:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking for it, but can't seem to find it. Nonetheless, I think we should work with an Expanded Buffyverse style of work, and simply state that they are not canon. Kusonaga 17:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, about confronting the whole Buffyverse, and think that stuff should not be deleted just because it regards non-canonical work! Puzzled about the constant deletion of links to well presented articles of slayers from Tales of the Slayer, and the novels on the Slayer article

Canon, General

Will the new Angel comics (and there's a Spike one shot) count as canon? For example, the Spike one shot finally answers the "is Halfrek and Cecily the same character" question, so it's not just a random question. Thanks MosheZadka 16:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I've taken the position that the only comics even remotely linked to canon are those written by the writers of the series. However, having gone through all of them, one of them does not fit (Ring of Fire). The others have no reason to be excluded. So, the canonical comics are as follows:

Tales of the Slayers by Various

Tales of the Vampires by Various

Angel: Long Night's Journey by Joss Whedon and Brett Mathews

Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Haunted by Marti Noxon and Cliff Richards

Also, there are several Buffy Novels out there and Novelizations. Though, from what I have gathered, they are often far from canonical and provide little new information.

On that note, the I'm rather annoyed at the abscence of the RPG as a source of Information. It posits no solid alternate explinations for anything and is only a (frighteningly accurate) interpretation of the Buffyverse. It's not some grand re-write. I see no reason to exclude it as a source of information. If anyone can posit a logical reason for its exclusion when it CLEARLY DEMARKATES SPECULATION, I would like to see it. - Majin Gojira

Ring of Fire was written by Doug Petrie. Any reason it does not go into canon? (I kinda liked the story, personally). I'm also not sure why Viva Las Buffy is excluded.

Novels: Child of the Hunt (my copy is currently on a loan) adds information re: Lucy Hanover, mentioned IIRC in Tales of the Slayers.

As far as I'm concerned, I would like to suggest the following guidelines:

1. All officially sanctioned materials are considered canon-

2. But some are more canon than others

Meaning, if information is from outside the TV shows, then the specific source the information

is from should be cited.

Here is an example: "Angel was cursed by gypsies to have a soul. In the Angel IDW comic book, it is established that there is only a single surviving member of the gypsy family which cursed him."

The first sentence is from the series (e.g., in the Darla episode in Angel). The second sentence is attributed to a specific literary source.

The same style can be used to contrast different materials: "In the novel Child of the Hunt, such and such is claimed, but in the Tales of the Vampires series it is contradicted...".

Thanks MosheZadka 06:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Ring of Fire, as far as I can see, cannot be fit into the series as it is shown--there is simply no room for it. That, and there are several horrible problems with the story (namely, the portrayal of Drusilla and Kendra--totally different in terms of characterization).

As for the concept of "Layered" canon, that's mostly used in the Star Wars series to help demarcate different levels of Canon. It would be a good basis for what we are attempting. However, we have no official word on what canon is in the series as Star Wars does. Which is why the criteria for true Canon is so restricting: The Series as shown the comics written by the series writers/creators (taken on a case-by-case basis). If one basis Buffy's canon on the Star Wars method, it would likely flow as thus:

1. The Series as Shown.

2. The Scipts, Series Writer Written comics and the Offical Guides (Watchers Guides vol. I-III, Monster Book, possibly the Sunnydale High yearbook, Etc).

3. The Comics and RPG.

4. Everything Else: The Novels, Video Games, etc.

The CCG adds nothing as far as I know, so it is thuroughly ignored. The Novels are in a vary shakey position because it is hard to fit them into canon and events occur within them that occasionally contradict the series events, or even the vary nature of the Buffyverse itself. can see reviews and summaries for most of the novels here. My only questions of placement involve pure creator comments, as the usual treatment of them is "as the word of God" and I wonder if that is a good thing to do. Majin Gojira 09:20, 9 October 2005.

Let me explain my position: as there is nobody to arbitrate on canon, and as Joss has stated many times that he does not care about internal consistency (quick: how easy is it for a slayer to kill an ubervamp?) I believe we should simply take the wikipedia policy of citing our sources, making sure they are notable. I also believe nobody is disputing the notability of the novels, the RPG, the comic books, etc. What I'm proposing is merely to relax the policy of citing sources, in the sense that the TV series are considered one source, which is implicitly cited, unless said otherwise. Of course, ideally we would want each fact about each character attributed to a specific episode ("In Showtime, the ubervamp is shown as hard, though possible, for Buffy, an experienced slayer, to kill. In Chosen, ubervampires were presented as minor foes, dangerous only in large numbers, killed in one blow by relatively inexperienced slayers. In Chosen commentary, Joss has mentioned that he was aware of the inconsistency."). All three facts regarding ubervamp strength, in the above examples, come from reputable and easy to check sources (the transcripts/DVD shows/episode summaries for the first two, the DVD commentary for the last one). Such a treatment could be easily expanded to any notable (but with dubious canonicity) mention of ubervamp (not that I'm aware of any, but the IDW franchise seems to be ongoing). Of course, fanon would be excluded by its non-notability, so that's not a problem. MosheZadka 15:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Which is a common stance, the "Word of Joss" being the final say in many things, which brings me right back to my initial post. However, your example doesn't address the problem of the Novels. There are several direct contradictions within the series (and 2 Alternative Universes). IE: Leprechauns appear in one of the novels, when the series states, repeatedly, that they don't exist. One of the many reasosn I move to discount them entirely. Majin Gojira 12:41 EST October 2005.

As far as I understand, there are contradictions in the stories. I think that in an encyclopedia it might be better to use more points of view. Don't tell just about the point of view in the canon, but also non-canon information. The articles are not limited to a amount of tekst, so you can just add some more information, right? If you want to stay neutral, you can just explain in the article the contradiction, and maybe even explain whitch one is canon, whitch one not, but always tell about the other view. Otherwise the story is very onesighted. effeietsanders 14:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Canon, Christopher Golden and Nancy Holder

Due to their long history of writing both Buffyverse novels and comic books, I believe their works should be considered cannon events. The two of them have contributed more to the Buffyverse than many of the show's writers. This would include the character "India: The Vampire Slayer" who was Buffy's predecessor and has appeared in both Holder's books and her Tales of the Slayer story.

To bad for the occasional Direct Canon Contradiction that they publish. Their work must be taken with a heavy grain of salt, if taken at all. -- Majin Gojira

Separate articles on non-canon or sub-canon work would be fine, and if anyone here wants to undertake that, go right ahead. But as far as the actual universe is concerned, there are enough canon discrepancies in the two shows themselves. Joss has said that the two shows "count" and all the rest is suplementary. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 17:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you give a reference to Joss saying that? Thanks MosheZadka 05:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It was in a discussion on one of the forums that no longer exists, unfortunately. Joss used to lurk the old forums and comment once a month or so, but the forums got moved. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 16:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sub Categories

What subs did you have in mind - is the plan to keep the distinction between Angel and Buffy characters, for example? I suggest something along the lines the following:

Buffy Episodes
Angel Episodes
Whedonverse other media
Whedonverse characters
Whedonverse races
Whedonverse monsters
Whedonverse locations
Whedonverse cast and crew

Any of the Whedonverse categories could potentially be subdivided into Buffy and Angel cats. Lokicarbis 03:30, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of maybe sub'ing some of them, like "Whedonverse characters < Buffy characters, Angel characters" (and some of them would be crosslisted). Does that sound logical? - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 19:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's largely what I had in mind, too. Lokicarbis 12:22, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Buffy and Angel should be divided in any place other then the episodes; after all, it is one collective universe. Of course, you could indeed crosslist, but I suppose it depends on how much you on a psychologic level seperate Buffy and Angel. --Allycat (Talk - Contribs) 11:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Character Formats I

Any suggestions on formats for character articles? I was thinking something like ...

X is a fictional character on (BtVS/Ats). S/he is played by Y.
spoiler warning
character run (first, last ep)
major plot arcs (by season)
notes and trivia
list of eps (main characters do not list their seasons as mains)

Possibly note episodes that particularly focus on a particular character, such as The Zeppo for Xander, Fool For Love for Spike, etc? Lokicarbis 12:24, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Would that be its own category, or just notes in the plot arc section? - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 01:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: I think I misunderstood your intent. Under the category episodes, maybe?: "XYZ episode(s) specifically focused on characters development" - Che

Maybe you ought to crosslist episodes specifically focussing on one character; both mentioning it on the character's page, as well as on the episode's page. --Allycat 11:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I built what I think is a reasonable character template. What do you think? - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 02:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

How about Most Memorable Moments for each character? Or most memorable quotes? --Allycat 08:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

And how is that not almost completely subjective? Are the editors (is anyone) really qualified to come out and say "oh, this stands out", taking in consideration it might hit a viewer's wrong spot? I don't really think so... rather, and maybe this is what you mean, putting in some distintinctive quotes/moments (with some title that I just can't come up with) might be logical, stuff that sums up the characters' traits (which I think is rather more objective); Buffy talking about her inability to feel loved in season seven, to a vampire, Dawn saying no-one knows what she is (which is foreshadowing in and of itself), Anya saying something, well, about bunnies or money, really, in her literal, strange way, and stuff along these lines, is more specifically revealing (regardless of quality), and as such, might be a good idea to put in indeed...Zeppocity 09:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, for instance, but for a character as Buffy, I think it's not exactly subjective to say her last lines in the Gift were memorable to a lot of people. I don't think it's competely subjective, but it's certainly somewhere in the grey area; this does not mean, however, that it's not worth including, just have to be very careful to develop a standard by which to measure whether inclusion of a scene/quote as an MMM (Most Memorable Moment) is nescessary. --Allycat 16:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know. See, again, you speak of "lot of people" and... I'm not sure how to pinpoint a majority, since those who ever even heard those words were most likely Buffy fans in the first place, know what I mean? Still, in terms of actual plot significance that would have been wonderful and highly appropriate for the simple fact that they are the character's last words, which validates the quote in and of itself. Yet... they weren't, and much of what she said didn't lead to much, since her friends didn't really so much live on and be happy and believe she'd be fine as messily pull her out of heaven, if you get my meaning.

So I'm actually thinking that quoting should come down to two criteria:

Significance. Meaning, plot significance. If something actually defines the series, or is actually reflective of what it envolves or will envolve, I for one see that as an important point - something as to the morality of vampires, for instance, or, I don't know. I'm actually having a hard time remembering anything at all. But if something is both a fan-favourite and says something about the series itself, I'm all for it being included.
Character ilustration. Which I think should be the main point of concern: quotes that actually say something about the person who speaks them. Buffy going on about the way she feels superior to her friends (Conversations With Dead People), Willow being silly and hesitant when speaking (anywhere, damn), Xander in one of his frightful moments, Anya being disturbingly literal, and so on. I've actually gone ahead and included a number of quotes in Anya's article, precisely according to this - the point being not that it's funny, or moving, or whatnot, but that, I hope, shows potential readers how she is; her views on men, money, sex and death; her strange way of speaking; the way that she's rather literal about everything, and so on... (actually, if anyone wants to go ahead and trim that down, go ahead, if not too murderously, as I admit it might be a tad too big... don't know) (Oh, and heck, the same logic applies to quotes of other people on the character, meaning, Anya telling Buffy off for feeling superior might make sense in that it ilustrates Buffy's way of seeing things as well as someone's specific reaction to this)

So. Hum. Yes. That's my two cents on the matter at least; that quotes (or moments) come down to significance within the show or ilustration of what the show is, rather than simply fan-favorites. Went rambly, I realize, but this is a feature that I'm actually rather interested in, as long as we're careful about it. Should we break this off into its own section of discussion?Zeppocity 18:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

(and wow, not only did I manage to get rambly like a... rambly thing there, but I actually repeated myself as well. Sorry.)Zeppocity 18:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Hum, seems ok by me, but, shouldn't "appearances" be incorporated into the introductory text? It just seems kind of pointless to repeatedly include a section which will have only somewhere between two and four sentences, no? Zeppocity 09:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I've taken this issue to the template's own discussion page, and would be glad to know everyone's thoughts on this, either to move into something a bit better or for me to be shut down. Either way, I'd like to see it discussed. Please come along :)Zeppocity 19:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, I pointed it out and no oppositions were raised - I really think that appearances are a pointless section. Doc's article being a perfect example, as it comes down to three sentences which, as they are, also end up seeming clumsy. Since no-one expressed their opinions on this, I'll start reworking

Hello, sorry I don't have much to offer off of the top of my head but I would be very interested in contributing to this aspect of the project. Just tell me what to do and I'm there! -Devon

--afraidofpop 11:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Character formats II

Is anyone working on character formats? A number of objections were raised to my suggested format (as seen on Doc), which is fine, but we definitely need one. The format currently used on articles such as Xander's seems to me to be somewhat lacking: half of his article is taken up by the "relationships" section. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 17:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Character template

I used the character template on Doc. Any comments? - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 23:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah.. "Character Run" and "Major Plot Arcs" are somewhat confusing section headers. They don't translate well to casual readers or non-English speakers. How about "Appearances" and "Story"? Also section headers should follow normal capitalization rules for sentences. Rhobite 08:06, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Ack - Che

I just checked it out and the picture does not look like Joel Grey as he appeared in the episodes. Also, and quite tangentally, can anyone identify the tune he whistles in his first appearance? It's been driving me crazy and might make a nice addition to the Trivia section. --Chesaguy 03:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

IIRC it is "Peter and the Wolf" Majin Gojira

Character articles

See the /Characters page for my suggested character strategy. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 08:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Per TFD consensus (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005), the Buffy character template was moved to WikiProject Buffy/Template. R adiant _>|< 14:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Character Infoboxes

I have made a new infobox template for Buffyverse characters, as previously each page had loads and loads of code on it, this makes it much easier to edit the infobox later. To add the infobox to a character article use the code, but replacing all the Buffy info with the info on that character:

{{Infobox Buffyverse Character|
 Image=[[Image:Buffy Summers.jpg]]<br>[[Sarah Michelle Gellar]] as '''Buffy Summers'''|
 Title=Buffy Summers|
 First=[[Buffy the Vampire Slayer (film)|Buffy the Vampire Slayer]]|
 Last=[[Chosen (Buffy episode)|Chosen]]|
 Creator=Joss Whedon|
 Name=Buffy Anne Summers|
 Status=Alive|
 Kind=Human|
 Affiliation=[[Scooby Gang]], [[Sunnydale High|Sunnydale High Faculty]], [[The Initiative]]|
 Powers=Buffy is the [[slayer]] and thus has the usual powers of a slayer. She has enhanced strength, stamina and speed as well as a natural fighting ability augmented by her years of training in combat. She requires half the amount of sleep as a normal human, has accelerated healing and recieves vivid, prophetic dreams. She also possesses a vague psychic link to the slayers who came before her; she also has the ability to identify vampires through a preternatural sense, though this requires concentration.|
 Actor=[[Kristy Swanson]], [[Sarah Michelle Gellar]]|
}}

I'm going to replace all the horrible coding on the character pages with this as well. --Cooksey 15:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the Box, but could we add a heading to the Box similar to what we have on the Episode infobox? Also, I'm not sure I like "Kind" as a field name, could we use a different word there? --Chesaguy 22:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone should really replace "kind" with something a little more...officious, if it is kept at all. Species would be a general enough status. - Majin Gojira

Species seems like a good name for it, I'll change it now. It will show up as species but when entering info it will have to stay as kind, so the re-editing of already converted articles isn't neccessary. Also if there are any other field names that you think would be good say so here, or add it yourself, but make it a voluntary one so it doesn't break the rest. --Cooksey 23:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That works. Thanks. --Chesaguy 01:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been trying to classify the powers in the infobox by source of the power/ability whether they are natural or supernatural. Personally, I think the infoboxes should also include character affilitation (Scooby Gang, Angel Investigations, The Initiative, Wolfram & Hart, Order of Aurelius, etc(--Gonzalo84 21:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought about including affiliation, but I thought it would get very complicated, what with people constantly switching allegiances, so I didn't bother. --Cooksey 22:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention all the trouble we'd have to name those groups without official names (like Angel's team in Season 5, or Adam's followers), specially considering we already debate over official names.--Gonzalo84 17:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Added character affiliation to the Character Infobox Template. In case the character is a minion/lackey we can just place the name of the character they work for. For example, The Beast's affiliation could be listed simply as "Jasmine" or "minion of Jasmine".--Gonzalo84 17:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

VFD

There is a stub article Gingerbread (Buffy episode) which is listed on Vfd and may require rescuing..., although the consensus is currently keep --TimPope 18:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks -Che

--Allycat 11:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Episodes

I've pulled the list of episodes and listed it under "/Episodes" from the main project page. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 23:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Would you like each episode to be done like Lessons including "Arc Significance" "Production Details" "Trivia" and so on? It'd be nice to use the same template for each. --jenlight 07:10, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am looking for. I took the template from WikiProject Television Episodes. If the need arises, it can be modified slightly, but this looks like it will work. I don't feel the need to make a complete list of characters per episode because we will list main characters by season on their own page. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 18:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

That template should also include villain(s) of the week as well as mysthical beings (regardless of their allegiance: good/evil/neutral) introduced in each episode. For instance, the Lessons article would include a section about the Manifest Spirits that attack Dawn. For information on the First we ould just include a link to the First's article.--Gonzalo84 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Episodes, Angel I

Angel episodes are up on the /Episodes page. My personal feeling is that Angel episodes are probably secondary to Buffy episodes, but feel free to work on any episode you like. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 22:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could interpret the Buffyverse (or Whedonverse) without Angel. I say they're just as important. I think Angel deserves special attention even, as only very few of its episodes have pages, whereas most of Buffy's important episodes are done. --Allycat 11:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Tbe only reason I would say "secondary" is that they are, over all, less well known than Buffy episodes. They aren't less significant, by any means; just less popular. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 20:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, by no means should an encyclopedia be based on popularity, should it? Significance should matter more, if you ask me. Besides, I would like to argue that significant Angel episodes like 5.22 are more popular then certain "lesser" Buffy episodes. --Allycat 09:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Episodes, Angel II

Most of the Angel episodes don't have pages, I was going to add stubs for some of them at least; should I use the whedon-stub marker, so that they go into the Buffyverse stub list? Also the episodes that do exist could do with cleaning up a lot, especially the infoboxes, which seem to be horribly broken.--Cooksey 11:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

EDIT - I've fixed the first 8 episodes and added stub markers, I'll do the same for the rest of the episodes, hopefully being finished by the new year or just after. If you can finish the article for an episode then please do so, all the sections which should be included are there, but blank.--Cooksey 14:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Episodes, Naming issue

Hi there! I've put both Cat:Buffy and Cat:Buffy episodes up for renaming (see WP:CFD), hope you don't mind. I also have a question about the naming of individual episodes... presently, they're all named "Killed by Death (Buffy episode)" etc. However, generally on Wikipedia, we don't put clarification-parentheses after a name unless it's actually necessary, for instance see Category:Simpsons_episodes and Category:Babylon 5 episodes. Thus, would you agree if I renamed the episodes to reflect that? R adiant _>|< 08:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Many episodes are named after a famous saying, a play on words, etc. It's my estimation that that most of the episodes would need to be disambiguated. Some are clearly going to be unique (like "Welcome to the Hellmouth"), but my suggestion would, when in doubt, disambiguate to avoid having to move the page later. Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 21:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The other issue is that, if pages are moved/renamed, someone will have to go about the business of finding all the broken links. I believe that, currently, all Buffy episodes are clarify-appended.

I'm kind of with Radiant on this one. I'd rather have articles which comply with naming conventions. We can always disambiguate something later if we need to. Resolving broken links shouldn't be a problem, you can make use of the "What links here" feature to find out which articles need to change. Rhobite 04:36, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

If/when anything is moved, a redirect is automatically created from the original title. Thus, this would not create any broken links. R adiant _>|< 15:20, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I re-read the naming conventions. You're right, Radiant -- my requirements were erroneous. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 22:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Episodes, stubs cited for speedy deletion

User:Locke Cole has placed many Buffy episode stubs on notice for speedy deletion because they lack content. Here is a partial list of articles he has put on notice:

Just FYI. I am unable to contribute any content to these articles so I am calling upon the community here to fill in if possible. --Ted 15:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion about this in the talk page of Wrecked. Please feel free to add to it or bring the discussion here. I formatted many of those articles in the first place to make it easier on people filling in the blanks and homogeneize the structure of as many as possible. I'd like to hear your opinion. -Abaraibar 08:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice! I've added stubby synopsis to several eps. MosheZadka 12:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Two eps left:

Deletion disaster probably mostly averted, but if anyone could add a one-line summary to both of them, it would be nice. MosheZadka 11:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

All done :) MosheZadka 14:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

What is a spoiler?

Wikipedians seem to find it challenging to know what should or shouldn't be considered a spoiler when it comes to a long-running TV series. Perhaps project members might find it interesting to contribute their insights on this subject to Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Spoilers...66.167.253.58 07:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC).

Faith (character) v Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

I think we need a bit of discussion happening. These two pages now both exist and even have distinct content. Buffyverse people, please review these pages and let's reach consensus about what should be done, if anything.

I personally feel that having two pages on her is not warranted, even if one is specifically about her appearances in BtVS and the other is about her overall. I also don't have a problem with the page name tag (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), but I think the argument goes that she has also appeared in Angel so it's not accurate. Thoughts on that?

There may be other pages this applies to. If so, please list them here. --pfctdayelise 14:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, my feeling is that (character) should mergeto (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), rather than the other way around. pfctdayelise 14:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd disagree and suggest the opposite. The (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) version contains far to much fanwank about the Buffy/Faith relationship and does not conform to the standard character format being used for BtVS characters. Though the names should be changed, again, to fit with the standard. I'd do it myself, but A) Don't know how, B) don't have time. -- Majin Gojira

What standard character format are you referring to? Please link!

I didn't post this here so someone could "fix" it. I posted it so we could reach Wikipedia:consensus before doing whatever it is we decide needs doing (if anything). pfctdayelise 15:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

# Admin saves text of Faith (character) in notepad, then deletes article Faith (character)

# Move article Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) → Faith (character), preserving the edit history.

# Merge text from current Faith (character) into the moved page.

I think this would be the best solution.

Also I'm having a little argument with User:DrBat at the moment does anyone agree with me about this picture being better than this one?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zatanna&action=history

:/

--65.98.21.69 15:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with pfctdayelise that the (character) should be merged into (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Let's move whatever's not in (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) from (character), and then let's improve the older article. Also, I'm still a bit puzzled as to why an entirely new article was created when there already was one. I did give a reason for my reverts, by the way, directly after doing it. Wrong order of things, but still, there it is. Maver1ck 15:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The text of Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) is more relevant and closer to the formats of the other characters. However, I would suggest moving it to Faith Lehane, as First Last is the format of most of the other characters, and redirecting both "(character)" and "(BtVS)" there. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 17:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

But that in itself is a bit controversial, I think, since I don't think we found out her family name directly through the show. There are quite a few characters on BtVS & AtS that we have not known the family name of. Also keep in mind that any move will need about 30 pages to have links fixed (but that's neither here nor there). pfctdayelise 21:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"Faith Lehane" has been established by the man himself, so it is canon.--Gonzalo84 18:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Moves with redirects do not break links. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 14:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Just merge some content from (character) to (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). For bonus points, tell me why the duplicate article was made? I'm not sure why there's even a discussion about this, as it seems obvious what should be done. Maver1ck 06:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

So, any news regarding the two articles? Any information at all? Maver1ck 20:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Project Breadth

I would prefer that we follow the example of Futurama, Lost and the like. Reduce all these episode articles to summaries split by season. Wikipedia is not a Buffy Wiki, and in this case, less is more because episode summaries are far more easy to read, being grouped in time- and plotline order. -- Netoholic @ 05:23, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that there is a far more complete Buffyverse Wiki out there called WhedonWiki. It's not as well-organized as I'd like, but it's pretty good. -- Monsieur Poutine 17 Jul 2005

Or we could follow the Mystery Science Theater 3000 example by having a single list page with very terse summaries (or 7 season pages) and also have links for each episode for details. (The analogy isn't precise, as MST3K links are more for the films they lambaste, but you get the idea.) And I don't think we're in any danger of turning Wikipedia into a BuffyWiki — the 144 Buffy episodes would comprise less than 0.024% of the 601,000+ current articles. ☺ — Jeff Q (talk) 09:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm of the belief that very few individual TV episodes are encyclopedic on their own, and creating them puts us more in the realm of being a bad TV Tome or IMDB. On the whole, I can think of less than a dozen individual episodes across all of TV history which deserve encyclopedic entries because they had lasting cultural influence -- think on the scale of Who shot J.R.? episode arc or perhaps the M*A*S*H finale.

I disagree with your conclusion that 144 episode articles is OK just because Wikipedia has 600,000+ articles. At some point, it will become too much, as we get people putting out episode articles for every Seinfeld, Cheers, M*A*S*H, Star Trek, 24, Dr. Who, The Sopranos, South Park, Futurama, etc. -- all of which have an even bigger following than Buffy.

Truthfully, I am a big fan of this and other shows, but we need to temper that with the goal of this project. Use the other outlets, like topic-specific Wikis. -- Netoholic @ 14:55, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

I doubt 24 or Futurama have as big a following as Buffy, but otherwise, you make some good points. But my secret hope is that Wikipedia is the merest beginning of a "Final Encyclopedia", as imagined by Gordon R. Dickson in his Childe Cycle works. So I guess you could call me an inclusionist. — Jeff Q (talk)

Given that Buffywiki exists, I can see the merit in the above arguments. However, if we were to curb the project, I would say that every Whedon-related page ought to have an external link to Buffywiki. If we're not going to make the information available, we might as well let people know who will. I'm an inclusionist myself, and would say that, even in the project is streamlined, it should still maintain some breadth.

@Netoholic - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who

- Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 06:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the above. Iff someone is going to take the trouble to write a good article about an episode, let the episode have its own article (see Category:Star_Trek:_TNG_episodes for instance). If not, merge by season. There's no reason why we should outsource material to a buffywiki; the criterion should be the length and quality of episode articles. R adiant _>|< 15:23, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm with you, Radiant. I was just saying I'm prepared to bow to the majority opinion. Buffywiki is not very strong right now -- the Buffy info on Wiki far surpasses the information on Buffywiki. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 22:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe that the majority supports WP:FICT, which basically calls for including all useful information here. R adiant _>|< 08:05, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Reasonable assumption. Characters, concepts, places, etc. ought to be categorized so we don't wind up having to do countless merges. Make suggestions here or on the relevant subpages. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 06:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Episode articles can include encyclopedic information. As an example, a single episode article could include information on production notes, the origin of mythological references, the origin of pop-culture references, and the episode's place in the context of the series--- more than just a summary of the episode's fictional details. If someone can think of a reason to do an academic analysis on a Sienfeld episode, then they should, but I think Buffy is a different kind of show and will inspire (and deserves) a different kind of attention. I agree that just a summary of an episode is not useful and probably shouldn't be left just as that, but there is more potential if you think of Buffy the same way you would another bona fide literary work BarkingDoc

Buffywiki is not only nearly empty, it's also not licensed as open content [1]. I recommend against linking to them. Rhobite 09:14, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Every single episode of The Simpsons has its own article, why should we give a different treatment to Buffy/Angel episodes?--Gonzalo84 17:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Whedon-spoiler on TFD

{{Whedon-spoiler}} was put up for deletion several days ago, and as far as I can see, no one bothered to mention it you guys. It may already be too late to save it, but if you want to have your say, please visit Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Whedon-spoiler. Dragons flight 05:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm indifferent. I don't think Whedonverse articles need a special spoiler tag. Rhobite 06:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Whedon-spoiler has been deleted. We will be using Template:spoiler-about. Fill in the UD field as appropriate. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 30 June 2005 20:26 (UTC)