Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Buffyverse task force/Archive 2

message: I'm kind of new at this so hopefully this is the right place to bring something regarding the Illyria comic book to the attention of Wikipedia users. I am currently in the process of figuring out how to edit things myself, but in the time being, could someone please take a look at the placement of the Angel Spotlight: Illyria comic book in the chronology chart? It is placed mid-Angel season five, before "A Hole in the World," which is the first appearance of Illyria in the Buffyverse. This constitutes a major continuity problem, whether or not the comic is considered canon, and should be corrected.
Update: Okay, I just moved the Illyria comic up after "Shells" (AS5) on the Chronology chart. Until the comic book has been released, there can only be speculation about where the comic should actually be placed. Nevertheless, the story in this comic definitely takes place after "A Hole in the World" and most likely after "Shells."
Mjerrett 02:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than a few telephone calls (The Freshman/City of, and Fred's call to Willow) what is there to make any two episodes "simultaneous" rather than independent (neither temporally constraining the other)?  —Tamfang 17:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some events are simultaneously happening, but we only watch one episode at a time in its entirety. So IMO it makes sense that the Buffyverse chronology is presented as a list which a fan could potentially follow item by item, with simulatenous things happening close to each other e.g. City of follows The Freshman (as explained above) - Buffyverse 22:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone's already done a lot of the work on figuring out "What happens when" already.Majin Gojira 02:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No pipe in external links.  —Tamfang 19:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand the use of the word "pipe" in this context, but I believe you mean to dismiss the link. What grounds do you have to do so? Majin Gojira 17:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Pipe" is the name (at least in Unix-land) of the vertical bar character, which you may notice I removed from your link to fortunecity.  The syntax does not expect a pipe there, and so my browser saw the url as "...htm|", which gave an error.  —Tamfang 01:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology Problems

message: READ THIS:  If I have to read the same canon / non-canon argument between project members on another page I'm going to chew my mouse arm off at the elbow.  This is why we have the project -- so we can centralize the discussion.  So here's what I'm doing:  I'm creating a page solely for the discussion of the canonicity of materials right here.  When there's a canon issue, start a new section in the canon subpage here and link your discussion to it.  Direct non-members to the canon subpage if they object with how you are dealing with canon / non-canon.  So here you are:
: /Canon!
Thanks. -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 12:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a valid point.  Noncanon material can be discussed, if someone is willing to take the time to write it up.  But the distinction has to be very sharp.  The main difference between canon and noncanon materials is that the canon materials are sanctioned and endorsed by the creator.  That's a huge difference, and yes, it means that canon materials take top shelf over noncanon.  Articles on strictly noncanon material should say very clearly, right off the bat, that they are about noncanon materials.  Noncanon information about a canon character/thing ought to be sectioned off from the canon information in a section such as "Xander in the extended Buffyverse" or something.  I originally created this project just to deal with the canon aspects of the 'verse because I honestly didn't want to deal with the mountains of noncanon material; if you want to write about it, go ahead.  But noncanon means exactly that: not official.  In order to consider ourselves "encyclopedic" we need to ensure that nonofficial information cannot be mistaken for official information. -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 18:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: StarWars.com contains what I think is an excellent structure: there is a main page for each character and details everything that happens with that character in each SW movie. There's an Extended Universe for non-movie stuff (so far as I can tell; I'm not an SW buff, tho I am a Buff buff). Still, everything has to be authorized. There could be a similar structure here: the TV series vs. other written-by-Whedon materials. The articles should be kept strictly separate, however, and clearly marked as such. Anything that contradicts the series should be highlighted, (I don't want to get into arguments about) other authorized stuff somewhere else and everything else definitely banned. Xiner 06:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canon

message: An encyclopedia should consider all points of view not just the dominant ones. A good encyclopedia should try to remain neutral or deal with all points of view without rubbishing any of them.
Wikipedia should capable of dealing with the whole Buffyverse not just the canon Buffyverse. Wikipedia's policy is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I hope I have recently been dealing with 'canonical issues' in a reasonable and neutral way based on actual cited sources. I personally do not see the problem with using information from uncanonical sources as long as it is clearly referenced as such. For example the article on India Cohen in my opinion deserves to be linked from Slayer (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)#Known Slayers page?
Thanks -- original comment, 4 January (edited -- Paxomen 22:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a valid point.  Noncanon material can be discussed, if someone is willing to take the time to write it up.  But the distinction has to be very sharp.  The main difference between canon and noncanon materials is that the canon materials are sanctioned and endorsed by the creator.  That's a huge difference, and yes, it means that canon materials take top shelf over noncanon.  Articles on strictly noncanon material should say very clearly, right off the bat, that they are about noncanon materials.  Noncanon information about a canon character/thing ought to be sectioned off from the canon information in a section such as "Xander in the extended Buffyverse" or something.  I originally created this project just to deal with the canon aspects of the 'verse because I honestly didn't want to deal with the mountains of noncanon material; if you want to write about it, go ahead.  But noncanon means exactly that: not official.  In order to consider ourselves "encyclopedic" we need to ensure that nonofficial information cannot be mistaken for official information. -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 18:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: StarWars.com contains what I think is an excellent structure: there is a main page for each character and details everything that happens with that character in each SW movie. There's an Extended Universe for non-movie stuff (so far as I can tell; I'm not an SW buff, tho I am a Buff buff). Still, everything has to be authorized. There could be a similar structure here: the TV series vs. other written-by-Whedon materials. The articles should be kept strictly separate, however, and clearly marked as such. Anything that contradicts the series should be highlighted, (I don't want to get into arguments about) other authorized stuff somewhere else and everything else definitely banned. Xiner 06:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canon and all points of view

message: Is the goal of this project going to be exclusively to organize the fictional universe, or will it also include an attempt to research/organize/standardize topics such as cultural influence, production information, academic analysis. I already think the primary article includes too much hyperbole/unnecessary expansion on cultural issues with very little supported reference (I know am responsible for some of that myself, so I'm not bashing any of the contributors), but this project might be the perfect area for such information to be streamlined and, more importantly, made consistantly accurate and referenced. The number of "many claim" and "some believe" references on the main page starts to be dauntlying unencyclopedic. It seems that the primary goal so far is to canonize the fiction, but I think this could be an important aspect, IF others in addition to me are interested in such an endeavour. BarkingDoc
: Good call, and I like the idea.  I'm not sure I'd know where to start, though; although I know there is critical theory and the like written on BtVS, I wouldn't know where to find it. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 04:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Refference is not always possible. For me personally, my primary sources for critical social/culture issues on Buffy/Angel are messages board discussions, you can't link to every single relevant post. Perhaps it's better to create a seperate article on the us internet fora by fans of the show, providing some links, so that people, who're interested dig into that themselves. Then we could link to such a page as "source." --Allycat 11:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beyond The Verse 

message: ===Intro===
Hiya, I have started a number of new articles contributing to this project. I hope that these articles can come into completion within the next year with others help. The outlines are pretty much ready. The details of novels, comics, and video games just needs to be filled in, help is completly welcome.
Although most of the novels and comics do not fit into 'first canon'. They might be seen as stories in parallel Universes. The novels often even contradict each other! (Although Christopher Golden seems to have successfully managed to largely have an internal solid continuity (his books don't contrdict each other hardly at all). Anyway the 'continuity' section of each article could deal with how close the book/comic are to canon, and where they venture away from it (see below)
I think it would be good to have full database of articles of books and comics, and i know that with a few helping hands this could be done:
Buffyverse chronology - As best as i can tell, this is the best order to watch and read Buffyverse stuff (& I spent 2 years reading the books and writing notes about the timeline) this is the best that the stories fall into the respective timelines, though you have to take the comics/novels as secondary canon that sometimes largely exist unto themselves rather than take place in the canon Buffyverse
Buffyverse comics, Buffy comics, Angel comics, Buffyverse novels, Buffy novels, Angel novels, Buffy/Angel novels, Buffy video games
Also this article was created to put some perspective on the canonical issues that need to be considered when dealing with the books and comics.. (Buffyverse canon 
-- Paxomen 12:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that the article I made is about the novels collectively, and not about the definition of a 'Buffy novel'? Also it is a parallel article to 'Buffy episodes', 'Buffy comics', Buffy video games', 'Angel comics', 'Angel novels', 'Buffyverse novels', 'Buffyverse comics', each one collects together the group of its subject, rather than defines the singular. Wouldn't a redirect from 'Buffy novel' to 'Buffy novels' be more appropiate and consistent with all the other articles? -- Paxomen 21:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it made more sense, i felt, but if there are arguments to switch it back to Buffy novels, i will not oppose the change back. Kingturtle 22:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's not about the concept, it's about the collection. Plural is appropriate. Dave 06:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 17:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm on this and gradually ploughing through adding infoboxes and improving grammar on books/comics (for examples of the novel infobox and the comic infobox see Spark and Burn and  Old Friends (Angel comic) respectively) though I can't expand further on the synopses on Old Friends until the TPB comes out in England and I get my hands on it. What I like about the novel infobox is that it has Preceded by and Followed by so that you can put clear links to the previous and next story in that format (just like the episode infoboxes have links to the previous and following episodes). Does any one how I could add these options to the comic infobox.? -- Paxomen 12:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done -- Paxomen 01:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Buffyverse chronology has had a major updating into a stylish chart system format and a split onto three pages. -- 00:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Extended Buffyverse

message: Hiya, I have started a number of new articles contributing to this project. I hope that these articles can come into completion within the next year with others help. The outlines are pretty much ready. The details of novels, comics, and video games just needs to be filled in, help is completly welcome.
Although most of the novels and comics do not fit into 'first canon'. They might be seen as stories in parallel Universes. The novels often even contradict each other! (Although Christopher Golden seems to have successfully managed to largely have an internal solid continuity (his books don't contrdict each other hardly at all). Anyway the 'continuity' section of each article could deal with how close the book/comic are to canon, and where they venture away from it (see below)
I think it would be good to have full database of articles of books and comics, and i know that with a few helping hands this could be done:
Buffyverse chronology - As best as i can tell, this is the best order to watch and read Buffyverse stuff (& I spent 2 years reading the books and writing notes about the timeline) this is the best that the stories fall into the respective timelines, though you have to take the comics/novels as secondary canon that sometimes largely exist unto themselves rather than take place in the canon Buffyverse
Buffyverse comics, Buffy comics, Angel comics, Buffyverse novels, Buffy novels, Angel novels, Buffy/Angel novels, Buffy video games
Also this article was created to put some perspective on the canonical issues that need to be considered when dealing with the books and comics.. (Buffyverse canon 
-- Paxomen 12:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: The spinoffs should be in the spirit of the naming for episodes, all of the novels/comics have already been prepared for the creation of articles, see the many red links at Buffyverse chronology:
The video games are all on one page (see: Buffy video games)
The comics and novels have been renamed to bring them in closer line with how episodes are named. Here are just a few to give an example of the spinoffs have been named:
The Origin (Buffy comic), Oz: Into the Wild (Buffy comic), Halloween Rain (Buffy novel), Spike and Dru: Pretty Maids All in a Row (Buffy novel), Old Friends (Angel comic), Redemption (Angel novel), Past Lives (Buffy/Angel comic), Reunion (Buffy/Angel comic), Heat (Buffy/Angel novel), Seven Crows (Buffy/Angel novel), Monster Island (Buffy/Angel novel), Unseen (Buffy/Angel novel)
If anyone spots links anywhere using capitals in the brackets for the second word e.g. (Buffy Novel), (Buffy Comic), (Angel Novel)... then preferably needs correcting to (Buffy novel), (Buffy comic), (Angel novel)... 
-- Paxomen 05:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spinoffs: Articles for Novels, Comics, Naming Issues

message: Buffy novels has been renamed to Buffy novel, and Buffyverse novels to Buffyverse novel by Kingturtle. Please take a quick look at the whole article, and decide which article title is more appropiate, singular or plural, then give your opinion below to decide the fates of potentially other articles. This was what I posted on Kingturtle's user dicussion page:
::My opinion is that the article I made is about the novels collectively, and not about the definition of a 'Buffy novel'? Also it is a parallel article to 'Buffy episodes', 'Buffy comics', Buffy video games', 'Angel comics', 'Angel novels', 'Buffyverse novels', 'Buffyverse comics', each one collects together the group of its subject, rather than defines the singular. Wouldn't a redirect from 'Buffy novel' to 'Buffy novels' be more appropiate and consistent with all the other articles? -- Paxomen 21:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it made more sense, i felt, but if there are arguments to switch it back to Buffy novels, i will not oppose the change back. Kingturtle 22:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's not about the concept, it's about the collection. Plural is appropriate. Dave 06:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 17:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spinoffs: Articles for Novels, Comics, Article headings 

message: Hi. I notice a lot of the Buffy/Angel comic articles (eg. Old Friends (Angel comic))have been tagged for copyedit.  Is there someone in the project that can do this? I would help out, but I really don't know enough about the subject to do a good job.  It would be far better if someone with a knowledge and interest in the subject could dive in and improve the language of the articles. Kcordina 09:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on this and gradually ploughing through adding infoboxes and improving grammar on books/comics (for examples of the novel infobox and the comic infobox see Spark and Burn and  Old Friends (Angel comic) respectively) though I can't expand further on the synopses on Old Friends until the TPB comes out in England and I get my hands on it. What I like about the novel infobox is that it has Preceded by and Followed by so that you can put clear links to the previous and next story in that format (just like the episode infoboxes have links to the previous and following episodes). Does any one how I could add these options to the comic infobox.? -- Paxomen 12:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done -- Paxomen 01:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit & infoboxes

message: Buffyverse chronology has finally come into completion, that is to say there is now an article for every episode, novel, comic and video game. Furthermore all the comics and novels (unless any have been missed) have their own infoboxes. 
The small comic covers that appear next to the comic synopses can be clicked on for a larger images, some of the best cover art (in my opinion) came late in the run of the Buffy comics and can be seen in trades like Viva Las Buffy (Buffy comic), Slayer Interrupted (Buffy comic), and A Stake to the Heart .
There's also articles for books/comics upcoming, though obviously the details for such articles can't be fleshed out until they are released:
Spike: Lost and Found, 
Illyria: Spotlight, 
Gunn: Spotlight, 
Wesley: Spotlight, Spike: Old Wounds, Spike vs Dracula, Carnival of Souls, and Blackout -- Paxomen 01:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Buffyverse chronology has had a major updating into a stylish chart system format and a split onto three pages. -- 00:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buffyverse chronology completed

message: Wouldn't it be nice if a picutre appeared next to the "This Buffyverse-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."-text. Maybe a stake or that BtVS logo-thing. --Allycat 12:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was there until someone extra-project edited the stub.  I'll put it back. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 04:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Buffyverse stub and pictures 

message: As the amount of articles in the 'Buffyverse stubs' category is getting quite large, and the article names are quite long; I was thinking of making two subcategorised for Angel and Buffy episodes, and then transferring the relevant articles to these instead of leaving them in the main category. I'm just looking for a quick consensus before I make the change later. --Cooksey 16:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sub-categorising

message: There is now a to-do box for WikiProject Buffy at .  See the Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/Pending tasks page for information. -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 16:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-do box for WikiProject Buffy 

message: Could someone create some kind of alternate "This user is a member of the Buffyverse WikiProject" icon?. That photo of David Boreanaz in the tub isn't even a promo photo.--Gonzalo84 04:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buffyverse Wikiproject icon

message: I have now fixed all the Angel episodes which already had pages, by adding infoboxes etc. Next I'll start all the episodes which don't have articles already, but those will be little more than the infobox and a very small description. Somebody with a good knowledge of the episodes should turn them into articles from stubs. The only non-stub episodes is Not Fade Away, but apart from that all the rest need more info. --Cooksey 14:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angel episodes 

message: Please vote at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Actors by series and its sub-categories as this category is one of a number of categories nominated for deletion. --TimPope 23:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer cast and crew]] 

message: I have taken the liberty to collect the three slayers documented and made their old pages referrals. I took this action because I felt that it was unnecessary to have these three slayers have their own seperate pages while their on-screen/on-panel time has been so little. Of course, the work can be reverted, and the subject is open to discussion, I just felt this was the right course to take. Kusonaga 14:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the slayers on Buffyverse Slayer timeline may warrant space on this page.  Then again, maybe not; the two pages could become redundant.  Someone whose familiar with the slayers in the article could check it out -- if there's enough to say about the Slayer (without breaking copyright laws) to build a stub-sized blurb like on the OVS page, then they can go there. -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 13:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Other Vampire Slayers]] 

message: I've put detailed information of the Buffyverse vamps on the article. Named the source as well --Gonzalo84 00:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffyverse Vampires 

message: There's now an article for Demons in Charmed. If Charmed has its own demon article, I believe its our duty to create an article for Buffyverse Demons, as the Buffyverse is way more complex than Charmed.--Gonzalo84 04:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffyverse Demons 

message: The project subpages (/Characters, /General, etc.) have fallen out of use, and that's fine by me.  Recently User:Xiner decided he wanted to use them.  That's also fine with me.  We need to decide as a group if we're going to use them.  So let's have a quick vote, shall we?  Use or Don't use.  Qualify.
* I say we use them as a place to archive stale discussions that are nonetheless still important.  This appears to be what Xiner intended, but some of the discussions being moved are still live. -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 17:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree with use for stale discussions, since there are presently only about 40 members this talk page maybe adequate for much of the live dicussions regarding the project. -- Paxomen 19:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Subpages (SEEKING CONSENSUS!) 

message: Should every character in every synopsis be wikified, even Buffy, Willow...? My own opinion is that only rarer characters, e.g. Gwendolyn Post should be linked to from the synopsis of Revelations... rather than the same characters again and again. -- Paxomen 23:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I've been trying to do. -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 19:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikifying characters in synopses 

message: :However I looked at the episodes subpage and thought that could be very useful if it was kept up to date, and may potentially act as motivation for project members to contribute to the overwhelming task of bringing theBuffy and Angel episode articles all up to scratch. Having a complete and good quality episode guide to the Buffyverse should be the top priority of this project but the task of completing hundreds of infoboxes, and synopses is daunting. If that sub-page was regularly updated so that the project could see its progress and see articles come into completion, that hopefully would encourage work to be done in this sphere.-- Paxomen 19:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like that very much.  It was for a while, then it kind of died. -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 21:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just updated to the best of my abilities episodes subpage, and hope that it might enthuse project members to see that progress can be made if gradually. Please have a look to review how much has been done but also how much needs to be done. The contributors who have already worked on the page tend to to have their own niche (e.g. Cooksey has focused on Angel infoboxes and images, maybe other project members might like to find their own niche (when I have time in a few months, I plan to focus work needing doing for on behind scenes information for Angel Season 5, for example. Also a list of the main contributors is on that page since it may be useful being able to contact people doing episodes so the whole episode guide can be coordinated. -- Paxomen 22:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing that page to our attention Paxomen. I'm going to be continuing to fill in infoboxes, add caps and "correct" the format of the Angel episodes over the next week, I haven't done anything for quite a while due to a number of reasons. --Cooksey 16:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode sub-page 

message: Some of the synopses are around 50 words, some are over 1000 words. I think Wikiproject should aim for some kind of middle ground here. In my opinion I think the synopses should be fairly brief unless they are landmark eps (e.g. synopsis for 'The Body' is divided into four acts). Wikipedia is supposed to give a basic idea rather than every detail. I say synopses should be 100-500 words. What are others opinions. -- Paxomen 23:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: plot synopsis seems too long to me... Am I the only one who keeps finding these to be consistently rather bloated? Again, to justify episode pages on wikipedia, we should focus on references and yada yada yada, and try and keep the episode descriptions themselves somewhat tighter than this, non? Though I do know how hard that can be. Anywho, I'll try to trim it a bit, I think, if I can. -- comment (Talk:Angel (Buffy episode)|originally posted here) -- Zeppocity 20:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been saying they should be no longer than 600 words, no shorter than 300. -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 03:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AnGeL X provided her synopses for the Project for Buffy Seasons 1-7, and Angel Seasons 1-4. Some are slightly longer than 600 words (some are more like 800 words), for that reason episode articles may contain two sub-sections within the 'Plot Synopsis' section; (1) 'Summary' preferably around 100-300 words (2) 'Expanded overview' preferably around 500-800 words. What do people think of this kind of organisation? It's most effective use seems to be in Angel Season 4 at the moment. It should come into effect across the whole episode guide in the next few days. My thoughts are that this kind of thing maybe useful because sometimes a reader only wants a brief description, sometimes a more detailed one. -- Paxomen 20:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks to the superb additions of User:AnGeL X & User:BuffyGuide the synopsis have now been up for a while (as stated above summaries of the episodes and expanded overviews). But at the moment Angel Season 5 is still the weakest link, most of its episodes don't have long enough summaries (many at the moment are only a single sentence) -- Buffyverse 03:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode synopses lengths 

message: Some storylines (eg the amulet in Buffy's final battle) in both shows reappear on the other. I argue strongly that they should not be placed in a section of their own, as they are usually one or two sentences long. They also do not bear much importance, as whatever importance an Angel storyline may have on Buffy is nearly completely reflected on whatever happens on Buffy itself. I think they belong in Arc significance as that is what the section is for; to discuss storylines that last longer than an episode.
:I forgot to mention that we could create a page listing all crossover plots. That'd be useful for anyone looking for such info, not buried within individual eps, which should have shorter explanations. Xiner 06:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 23:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope you're not saying a crossover ought not to be (also) mentioned in the episode entry.  —Tamfang 01:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no. "I think they belong in Arc significance as that is what the section is for; to discuss storylines that last longer than an episode." Please see Chosen to see the formatting within that section for what I have in mind. Xiner 02:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No quarrel with that.  By the way, is <nowiki> the only way to get square brackets as in "There is another one [Hellmouth] in Cleveland"?  —Tamfang 03:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 19:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossover plots btwn Buffy and Angel 

message: hello, Category: Wikipedians who like Buffy has been unlinked from the userbox buffyfan, by this edit. This removed I really don't know how many users from the category, inluded myself. Just though to let you all know, not sure If it is the best place. Posted the same comment on the talk page of the userbox. Thanks --A/B 'Shipper 女 (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  userbox buffyfan 

message: I have created a new infobox for species/character kind, special to be used on demon species articles. --Gonzalo84 00:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species Infobox 

message: ( [Moved discussion to Episode naming dispute, so that all discussion on the same topic in one place ) - Paxomen 12:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ... (Buffy episode)

message: Hiya, peeps maybe interested in an article I just added to the wikiproject: Unaired pilot (Buffy episode) -- Paxomen 22:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! It's about time. I've always wanted to do so, but never bothered to. I've added a link to List of episodes to improve exposure. Xiner 02:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Good idea, but I think it should be moved to Unaired Buffy pilot or Buffy the Vampire Slayer pilot episode or somesuch. -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 13:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does make sense to rename; It has been moved to Unaired Buffy pilot since thats how most fans know it and also it's not a real episode else fans would talk bout 145 episodes, rather than 'Chosen' being the final and 144th. -- Paxomen 03:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unaired pilot

message: I don't think Principal Flutie deserves his own page. It can easily fit in on the Sunnydale High page. And if someone tidies up the pages of Principal Woods and Principal Snyder then they can also fit nicely. Yes, they're all important characters, but their infoboxes and everything can be incorporated into one consistent page. Xiner 01:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunnydale High principals 

message: Can I just ask - do we put "Welcome to the Hellmouth", or Welcome to the Hellmouth? Is the "T" in "The Master" a capital T? Do we have a system for this? NP Chilla 20:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you mean when referring to things like this in an article, at the moment, I think for the episodes at the moment both systems are used, though it might be better for the project to pick one and stick with it. I don't mind either way... My Watcher's Guides are at home so can't check them but The Monster Book (which is official) uses 'the Master' (small 't') when referring to him. -- Paxomen 15:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I'm glad. I think I prefer the "" option. -- "Paxomen 05:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniformity 

message: I recently went over the characters list. Wouldn't people like Gavin Park and Linwood Murrow, characters who really don't deserve their own page, best be served to be merged into a single article? Lindsey, Lilah and Holland are important enough to have their own pages, but these other two were really just as minimally recurrent as Forrest and Graham (from the Initiave). Kusonaga 20:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, maybe. Perhaps it would be wisest to merge these characters into the Wolfram & Hart page itself, as opposed to going to the (relatively strenuous) effort of creating a "Wolfram & Hart employees" page. NP Chilla 17:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with NP Chilla here. This seems a more logical approach. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We actually started doing this a while ago.  I would like to see a Wolfram & Hart employees article, much like the articles Initiative members and Sunnydale High School students. -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 16:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I just ask - how come Gavin Park has materialised on the Great Big Buffyverse Box of Death, when his article itself says that he is "one of the most marginal recurring characters"? Why do something like this when he might not be around for much longer... if you don't mind me asking. NP Chilla 22:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.  He doesn't belong there.  But hey, neither do half the people on there, if you ask me. -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 12:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Done (see below) -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 12:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolfram & Hart employees 

message: Spike (film) is up for deletion, please could peeps have a quick read of the article, and then give opinions in the deletion forum about whether it should be: 
#kept
#merged (with something else (e.g. maybe an Undeveloped Buffyverse projects page that could also include the content from Buffy the Animated Series and Ripper (television)?) 
#deleted 
::RESULT: SURVIVAL.
Thanks -- Buffyverse 01:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Spike (film)]]