Talk:Buffy Summers/Archive 1

message: Shouldn't more emphasis be made on Buffy's tendancy to return from the dead?  I know there's the section "Slayer Deaths", but I think we should acknowledge how it's kinda a running gag now.  As a latercomer to the Buffyverse, Buffy's resurrections were always something I associated with her.  I'm not the only one, I remember reading a mag which counted Buff in a list of people who came back from the dead, including ET and Michael Myers.  I could look it out if anyone's interested.  It's a character trait, and should be acknowledged as such. Paul730 07:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffy Death 

message: Where did that come from?  The article states that Buffy confided in her parents regarding the truth of her slaying monsters in the period between burning down the gym in L.A. and the start of the series.  I thought it was clear that Joyce had no direct knowledge of any vampire business.  Where did this idea that Buffy told her parents and was sent to a mental institute come from?  - Picklefork, March 12, 2006
: See the episode "Normal, Again".
According to the episode where buffy was in a mental institution she did confide in her parents and spend some time in a mental intitution for about two weeks and never spoke of it to them again afterwards, until she told her mother in season two.69.217.195.50 09:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speaking of "Normal Again", should anything be said about the "Saint Elsewhere" ending of that episode, in that it heavily implied that everything going on in the "Buffyverse" was actually an intricate hallucination of a schizophrenic Buffy Summers?  The episode ended in the "Buffy's Crazyverse", not the regular Buffyverse.  Make of that what you will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.19.246 (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Buffy confided in her parents?

message: Is the movie canon? I seem to recall the movie Buffy being a Senior while the TV series has Buffy just starting her sophomore year. And I think some of the flashbacks in the series contradict what happened into the movie to boot. Maybe the stuff from the movie should be in its own section to cover the movie Buffy Summer while the rest only covers what was presented in the series? Aexia 02:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (See Buffyverse canonical issues and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (film)) - Paxomen 10:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a note saying that the movie version isn't canon, but the romantic interest section lists a couple of people from the movie. Should be removed?--Nalvage 19:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, they're taken from the Origin comic, along with a bunch of pre-series material.  According to Joss it's "pretty much" canonical.  Others may disagree though, since canon's a tricky thing.  Is that reason enough to separate it out?  Decisions are hard. --Nalvage 19:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes all the info given before the move to Sunnydale is canon, it's all taken from various episode.--NeilEvans 13:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall Lothos being mentioned in the series. I think that section's from either the movie or the Origin comic.--Nalvage 14:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right Lothos was not in the series, but Whedon has stated that the Origin comic is pretty much canon.--NeilEvans 14:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah really it should say that other canon sources are includes as well as the series.--NeilEvans 21:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I changed it.  Riverbend 13:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The only boy from Hemery mentioned in the canon is Tyler, in the flashback scene in Becoming Part I.  (Ihatemyselfsoverymuch.)  -- Merope Talk 20:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, by "canon", I mean the TV series.  I haven't read the comics (other than The Origin and Tales of the Slayers).  -- Merope Talk 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canon

message: I wrote the article on Montague Summers, who was an expert on Restoration drama and the occult and the author of several books on vampires.  Does anyone know if Joss Whedon perhaps named Buffy in homage to him?  PedanticallySpeaking 18:01, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
:There's a lot of speculation.  Theories are Montague Summers, Ann Summers (the sex shop), Scott Summers (aka Cyclops the X-Men mutant).  Joss has never confirmed any of these, to my knowledge.
::-Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 01:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It easily could also be a "summer" reference. California, Sunnydale, summer. Things we usually associate with happy, beach blanket movies, not vampires, etc. Xanfan 21:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Namesake, Perhaps?

message: I've done a re-write of the powers section; previously it was very ungrammatical and contained a fair bit of superfluous information.
Somebody went back and added a bunch of that stuff back in so I have re-edited it. It's not my intention to get into a "it must be written my way" edit war or anything, so here's why I changed it :
There was stuff about other slayers in there. Since this is a "Buffy" rather than a "Slayer" page I thought it should focus on Buffy alone, with one or two Faith references in there just so we know that Buffy isn't exceptional compared to others of her kind.
I took out a few of the references because they seemed unnecessary. We don't need to list every example of Buffy displaying great strength, in fact I'm wondering if it isn't too much as it is now. Just a few examples to make the point that she shows such strength regularly, rather than as a one off, is enough I think.
I also removed the dodging bullets thing. It's not clear at all that Buffy can actually dodge bullets, she would have to be able to move at a good 500 miles per hour or more for that. Rather she seems to duck out of the way just before the person fires.
I also cleaned up the language a bit. Phrases like "So, yeah..." shouldn't be in an encyclopedia entry.
If you want to reverse these changes let's talk it out here first please, or it will just flip-flop back and forth. Bob the Pirate 11:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "She also possesses ... a preternatural sense that can identify vampires, with concentration."  Giles (WTTH) said she ought to be able to do that, but when did she?  —Tamfang 07:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  First episode she identified a vampire immediately after Giles said that phrase. In "Faith, Hope, and Trick", she identified another vampire that was dancing with Faith. Ekarderif 07:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  She recognized that first vamp by his "carbon-dated" wardrobe: "only someone living underground for ten years would think that was the look."  As for Faith's playmate ("I don't think that guy thrives on sunshine"), ambiguous: maybe she sensed it, maybe again it was his fashion sense or his dancing technique (Cordelia: "Check out ... Disco Dave. What was the last thing that guy danced to, K.C. and the Sunshine Band?")  —Tamfang 20:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  In the teaser of Pangs she stakes a vampire who apparently had been simply strolling about campus minding his own business.  —Tamfang 05:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Powers 

message: "Knowing the Slayer's life would be brutal and most likely short, the Elders used a second spell, guaranteeing that should the first Slayer would come to be, and so on, throughout the years, as Slayers died."
This doesn't look like correct English to me. I'm not a native English speaker, so I won't edit it. Could someone else take a look at it? --80.60.100.235 23:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a metaphor, from Buffy's parting speech to Angel in the series finale: Okay, I’m cookie dough. I’m not done baking. I’m not finished becoming whoever the hell it is I’m gonna turn out to be. I make it through this, and the next thing, and the next thing, and maybe one day I turn around and realize I’m ready. I’m cookies. And then, you know, if I want someone to eat m—Or enjoy warm, delicious cookie me, then ... that’s fine. That’ll be then. When I’m done.  I agree it doesn't belong here!  —Tamfang 06:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this even English? 

message: The article starts out ok, but then it gets funky - odd sentences and syntax, fragments, etc., as the above contributor points out. I'm guessing that a lot of editing has left it a bit incoherent. There's also a lot of redundancy with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but I hesitate to suggest a merge if the article focuses tightly on the character.
I'll get to it myself some day, but perhaps someone who knows the series well would be better suited. I've only seen it once or twice. Some of the sentences are so choppy, I don't know what the meaning is and without domain knowledge, I'd be guessing. We don't want that. Catbar (Brian Rock) 03:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited a number of the worst sentences/paragraphs. If others are specifically pointed out, I'll go over those as well. --Xinoph 17:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done some work on this page in the last few weeks, if people point out more things that need to be done, post ideas and I will be happy to work on them.  Riverbend 13:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Besides buffy, who has appeared in the most episodes? CrazyAussie 22:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Buffy and Willow are in every episode.  Xander missed one (CWDP).  Tamfang 06:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, Buffy (Sarah Michelle Gellar) appeared in every episode. She appeared in "Prophecy Girl", where she died and came back quickly; she appeared in "Nightmares", where she was a vampire for a short while; she appeared in "Bargaining, Part 1", as BuffyBot (if you want to get technical), but also briefly as herself, resurrected in her coffin at the end; and she appeared, quite live, in every other episode. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Most Episodes

message: Mystical enhancement is not a marker of a species. Species is a biological term. Mystical enhancement is not a biological property. Buffy's parents are human, and if she had a child, s/he would be human. Biologically, Buffy is no more or less than a person. The rest of it is just extra. And besides, the line right below Species clarifies who and what Buffy is rather well. Dave 01:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  species 

message: Lines that establish Buffy's age:
* Joyce: "I know, you're sixteen, I've read all about the dangers of over-nurturing."  (Welcome to the Hellmouth)
* Joyce: "Everything is life or death when you're a sixteen year old girl."  (The Harvest)
* Joyce: "You're sixteen.  I think there's a biological imperative whereby I can't understand you because I'm not sixteen."  (The Witch)
* Giles: "It's devastating.  He's turned into a sixteen year old boy.  Of course, you'll have to kill him."  (referring to Xander, Buffy's classmate, in The Pack)
* Buffy: "Giles, I'm sixteen years old. I don't wanna die."  (Prophecy Girl)
* Willow: "And I know she's the Chosen One, but you're killing her with the pressure! She's sixteen going on forty!"  (Reptile Boy)
* and of course numerous lines in Surprise
(Thanks to Don Sample for his transcripts.)
Since these occur before as well as after I Robot You Jane, I removed the suggestion of a retcon.  The dates shown are examples either of Moloch's corruption or of JW's well-known arithmetic incompetence.
In other news, I've been tempted to write "on or about January 19" since I've heard that date bandied about by fans, but is there any authority for it?  —Tamfang 19:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Buffy once told Riley that her horoscope was "Capricorn on the cusp of Aquarius" (season 4, "Doomed"). I was under the impression that this would be the 20th of January, not the 19th, but I'm not an astrologer. --Sailor Coruscant 13:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither the IMDB, nor Joss are reliable sources.  Joss has a history of lying about his series. (For example, he said between seasons 2 and 3 that there would be no new Slayer called to replace Kendra.) Don Sample 03:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffy's birthdate 

message: Holy Christ!
How is this justifiable? The whole section reads to me as a big "you-go-girl" statement to the character, serving no-other purpose than that of complimenting her repeatedly as to her physical and moral traits, with personal value jugdments bandied about.
I mean, does this even need to be elaborated upon? Is it not fairly explicit to anyone beyond those who created the section itself?
If nothing is said, I'll remove it - or fully rewrite it into something workable - when I find the time.
Thoughts? Cheers, Zeppocity 22:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a lot of dietary fiber in that section, is there?  On another hand, at least it's brief.  —Tamfang 00:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character Analysis 

message: For those of us who haven't read the books, what's the canonical evidence for "Elizabeth"?  Why doesn't the school know that's her name?  What is "Buffy", then, if not a nickname?  —Tamfang 00:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I haven't seen "Buffy" (I prefer Angel), I know that Mr. Whedon has a tendency to overlook important storylooking details and insert them in after the fact (see Faith Lehane). Danny Lilithborne 01:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most supernatural characters, including Slayers, have no surname mentioned in the series – among other details never revealed to us (how did Angel and Faith pay their rent in Sunnydale?).  But we know Buffy's surname, middle name, month of birth, parents' names .... With all that, it's harder to believe her true forename is an afterthought.  —Tamfang 01:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Well, I'm not saying that this is in fact true, but if it is then the name should be included in the article as it would give full information seeing as how this is what this article is based on: giving full info on Buffy Summers. Still, the name should be considered 'non-canon' until there's legitimate proof that her name is Elisabeth --DBGFrost 12:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible that her full nameis Elisabeth/Elizabeth, the problem is though it is equally possible that Joyce & Hank decided to simply name their daughter 'Buffy', and perhaps that is what is on her birth certificate. Wiki does benefit from offering full info. But surely it does not benefit from including info that may or may not be completely wrong? -- Paxomen 16:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elisabeth 

message: The character analysis was all gushing complimentary POV text, as noted above in this talk page, so I removed it.  The Slayer Deaths section was long and full of pointless speculation, I removed that too.  This is an encylopedia article, not a fan webpage, so it's not a place for any possible thing anyone wants to write on this subject.--Xyzzyplugh 22:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Character Analysis and most of Slayer Deaths 

message: The last piece of trivia states that Carisma Carpenter auditioned for the Buffy role.  While I'm not sure of the factual basis for this comment, I do know that commentary on the first season DVDs has Joss Whedon stating that Sarah Michelle Gellar actually auditioned for the Cordelia role, and he was so impressed with her acting that he cast her as the lead.  Can anyone (hopefully with the dvds) re-affirm this? Vanessa kelly 19:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Carpenter for role of 'Buffy'

message: I know that Buffy died in Prophecy Girl (revived by Xander), the Wish (alternate universe), and the Gift (raised by Willow). But the article mentions another death that takes place in an alternate universe that I do not remember. Also, she died in Villains and was revived by Willow; her heart flatlined for a good while before the magic kicked in. Xander even told her that she needs to stop doing this. Ekarderif 13:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaths 

message: Alive, Dead, Alive, Dead, Alive
Honestly, is that necessary? The fact that she's alive is enough. I mean in the Angel article, it doesn't say "Alive, dead, undead" does it? No. So why does the Buffy article need to include this? Plus, it has an immature feel to it. --DBGFrost 14:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it is an encyclopedia, not a joke website. Regardless of its humorous nature, User:DBGFrost has a point. Keep it simple and keep it serious.--The Scourge 01:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffy's status 

message: I have removed the following text from the "Slayer deaths" section:
: Joss Whedon has confirmed this at various times, including a British science fiction convention in 2001.  The transcript of the question and answer period can be found at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/speculator/zine/0206intr.htm.
If you actually read the information provided, you will find that it does not actually claim to be a transcription of a question-and-answer session. Only rarely are the speakers identified, and far too much of the text refers to Whedon in third person, making it clear it isn't him speaking. Worse, the person transcribing this is unidentified, and the very convention itself and the date on which the "session" took place is not specified. (This is why we can't accept such sources; they care entirely about making statements and rarely if ever about showing provenance.) Furthermore, it is published in ORBzine, a web magazine whose editor-in-chief goes only by the name "Speculator", and the mag itself appears (based on the URL) to be a series of Speculator's personal webpages from the NTWorld content-hosting service. This has so many holes in it that it doesn't even make a reasonable secondary source. I have therefore re-added a  tag for the statements that this citation was supporting. Surely we can find a reliable source for answers to the prominent question of Slayer succession within the Buffyverse. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK convention "transcription" 

message: Should Dracula be added to this list, although people may argue that he was under her thrall, as was stated in the episode. I feel it is as worthy to note as Robin Wood.--NeilEvans 19:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't opine myself, but any time you find yourself saying "people may argue", you are wandering into original-research territory if you don't cite a published opinion from a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and consider that, if it's not good enough to say in the article, it's just as problematic to build a case on. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Romantic interests

message: I've tried three times to go through the article and copyedit it, but I'm afraid it needs a whole re-write.  The tenses are inconsistently used, and style switches from regarding Buffy as a real person and acknowledging that it is a TV show.  I think the high number of edits and insertions have muddled the flow of the article.  I don't know the proper WP etiquette for doing a rewrite, so I thought I would inquire here to see if there are any major objections.  I would like to write it referencing episodes (thus abandoning the real biography pretense the article has in places) and introducing links to the episode articles where appropriate.  Um.  Is that cool?  -- Merope 20:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I have no probs with that if the article will flow better. I feel that this should be treated as a fictional biography, just the same as a real person biography, but other than that, go ahead. If you want to make major edits for the page its probably best to use  at the top of the page so others know not to make any edits.--NeilEvans 23:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I removed it, if it still has that in-universe problem, maybe put it back or list specific aspects to fix.  Riverbend 17:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting - August 2006 

message: Should this article at least be suggested, so we can receive tips for improving it?~ZytheTalk to me! 21:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article? 

message: Should the Immortal be removed from the Romantic Interests section since it's been revealed that it's a decoy Buffy that's dating him? I just don't see the point in keeping him there since Buffy never met the guy.--The Scourge 18:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Immortal

message: Is Buffy's middle name a reference to Ann Summers, or is it just chance? --129.234.4.76 13:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coincidence.  I think I remember someone mentioning it to Joss at a convention, and he'd not heard of the stores before. --Nalvage 14:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ann Summers

message: I think the Season 8 section is a bit of a mess.  It mentons that the Scoobies moved to Rome and that Buffy shared an appartment with Dawn and Andrew, but is this actually true?  From what I can tell of Season 8, only Andrew lives in Rome, with Buffy never mentioning having been there.  I know Andrew says that it's Buffy's appartment, but he's lying about the Immortal, so can we trust what he says?  If Buffy never lived in Italy, it shouldn't be mentioned, becasuse this is her history, not Andrews.
On the other hand, he does say in "Damage" that the Summers live in Rome, with Dawn in school there.  He also says that Xander and Willow are in Africa and Brazil, and those are counted as canon, aren't they?  Since this was several months before the Immortal lie, it might be true.  Or was Andrew lying from the begining about everything because he doesn't trust W&H?  Also, is Fake Buffy actually dating the Immortal, or was that just a lie for Andrew's amusement?  (The barmaid in "The Girl In Question" says that the blonde girl is the Immortal's new... regazza?  Can't remember exactly.)
I think that the references in Angel: Season 5 should be made slightly separate from Buffy: Season 8.  Also, that "Tales of the Vampire" storyline should get a brief mention, if only to state that she was in Transylvania or wherever it was for a while.  I think I read somewhere that it took place in 2004, setting it before Season 8.  Since there's such a big gap between 7 and 8, it makes sense that it would happen there.
PS, should we make it abundantly clear that Buffy had NO relationships between Seasons 7 & 8, since she says it's been a slow year and misses that sex?
Paul730 22:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 8 

message: Could the plot summary section please be condensed down, to about 500-1000 words?  Remember that on Wikipedia, we're here to provide encyclopedic content, which means only a brief summary to give context, and then the rest of the article should be about the cultural impact of the character.  For examples, of what a "good" character article should be like, please see the "Media" sections at WP:GA and WP:FA, thanks. --Elonka 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Elonka.  Where does the 500-1000 word figure come from?  The pages Cyberman, Pauline Fowler, and Darth Vader, listed as good articles at the page you point to, all have plot summaries larger than 1000 words.  Cyberman = One and a half thousand words.  Darth Vader = Almost three thousand words.  Pauline Fowler = Five and a half thousand words. --Nalvage 20:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair question, which has come up in multiple other areas on Wikipedia.  The "500-1000" is a summary of guidelines from multiple places, such as: Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot.  See also WP:FICTION, WP:PLOT and WP:CRUFT.  As for the examples that you cited, I think they're exceptions rather than the rule.  I'm not extremely familiar with the article histories, but: Though Pauline Fowler is at Good status, a lot of plot information seems to have been added to the article after it reached that level, and the reviewer may not have been aware of WP:FICTION guidelines.  I personally think the article could do with some cleanup and trimming. One thing that it does have going for it though, is that the plot summary is pretty thoroughly referenced, which is a mitigating factor. In Cyberman, the plot summary seems to be pretty well intertwined with real-world context, which again gives it some leeway.  And for Darth Vader, well, he's Darth Vader. ;) The plot summary section of an article can generally be looked at in relative comparison to all the other information that's being written about the topic. In other words, think of it percentage-wise.  If there are 4000 words on a character, and 3000 are plot summary, that's excessive.  If there are 30,000 words about a character because of how many real-world references there are to that character's cultural significance, then a 3000-word plot summary makes more sense. ;) --Elonka 20:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot needs condensing

message: :Image:Buffylongwayhome.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 04:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Buffylongwayhome.jpg

message: :Image:Buffy Season seven.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 11:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Buffy Season seven.JPG

message: I'm watching S05E05 of Smallville (season 5). Ep 5 is the Halloween ep entitled "Thirst", and features a sorority house full of vampiresses. The leader of the group is a blonde named ... "Buffy Saunders". Smallville Season 5 ran the season after Angel went off the air, and the season's Big Bad is ... James Marsters. Thoughts on how best to incorporate this? samwaltz 13:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds kind of like original research at the moment unless you have a source saying it was a reference to the Buffster.  There's a character in Scary Movie called Buffy too, who's a parody of Sarah Michelle Gellar's character in I Know What You Did....  I think the James Marsters thing is probably coincidence.  Paul730 13:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just finished the episode. Turns out, one of the closing lines is "But we're the Daily Planet and tall tales about slaying Buffy the vampire don't make it to the pages of a real newspaper." It seems like a fairly obvious homage. samwaltz 13:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is fairly obvious, but we still have to have a reliable source that explicitely states it was their intention to do that. I'm sure the Season 5 companion will mention it when it becomes available in November. Come see me then, as I already have it on pre-order. Most of the time they mention these little cite gags. There is a commentary for that episode, if you are watching the DVD, so they could mention it there. You could use Template:Cite video if it is. If you aren't, then I'll be working on that too, about the time the companion gets out.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look in the trivia section of Smallville (season 5) at the end of the page. Sweetbitchness 21:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No offense, but... who cares?--The Scourge 19:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other references to Buffy

message: I can't believe Mr. Gordo, Buffy's security plushie, has no mention here or in the entirety of Wikipedia. Lots42 07:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Gordo 

message: The trivia section says that Buffy has 210 confirmed kills.  My count, based on info from my Buffy Body Count has her total at 248, including 127 vampires, 103 demons, 2 robots, 14 people, and 2 others. Don Sample 07:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since they're both based on Original Research, neither should be included (and the trivia should be integrated into the article). Pairadox 07:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffy's "confirmed" kills 

message: :Image:Buffy Season seven.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 13:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Buffy Season seven.JPG