Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Buffyverse task force/Archive 3

message: Hi everybody, I would like to "summon" the WikiProject Buffyvese community to participate in the Buffyverse Wiki, of which I'm one of the administrators.--Gonzalo84 21:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffyverse Wiki 

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)
thread_title:  Wolfram & Hart employees 

message: Supportspike.com has just started a brand new campaign to target Fox.
The aim is to send postcards in support of a Spike DVD-movie directed by Tim Minear, and to have all the postcards arrive at the same time, on June 23rd (Whedon's birthday).
The campaign is being discussed here:
http://whedonesque.com/comments/10372
- Paxomen 17:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://www.supportspike.com/camp9.htm Supportspike.com Campaign #9: NOT FADE AWAY]

message: I created the W&H employees article and merged Gavin Park and Linwood Murrow into it. I also took the tiny summaries from the lawyer list and put them in, but didn't add any new information because it's been ages since I saw any Angel other than season five. I thought about merging Knox into the article, because I believe that's where he belongs, but his current article is quite indepth -- possibly too indepth -- so I wanted to get a consensus here. His info would be shortened, but Knox, in my opinion, does not merit such a lengthy article. -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 12:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article: [[Wolfram and Hart employees]] 

message: I archived conversations 1-20, as they were all stale. -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 12:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team previously contacted you here to identify the quality articles in your WikiProject, and now we need a few more favors. We would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in offline releases of Wikipedia based on their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 1.0 (not yet open) and later versions.  Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please keep updating your Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WPArts#Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffyverse|Arts WikiProject article table]] for articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us.  Please feel free to post your suggestions right here.  Thanks! Walkerma 06:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 

message: I recently wrote a Firefox sidebar navigation bar for Wikipedia. There is also a WP:Buffyverse implementation in it with the community links replaced by important WP:BUFFY links. It's free for anyone to use; if you're interested, you can find both versions here. -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 10:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki/Buffy navbar 

message: Hi guys! Just thought I'd mention to fellow Whedonites that us Browncoats have started a WikiProject for Firefly/Serenity! Come join us! Project page is still bare bones because I just set it up tonight :-) -plange 04:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firefly project launched! 

message: Someone recently put a wikify tag on the Expanded Overview section of City of (Angel episode).  Via talk pages, I asked him why, and he said it was because there were few links and it was just a really long block of unadorned text.  I'm not sure what to do about it.  I don't think it needs much in the way of links, as the most linkable things are already linked in the summary.  So, should there be subheadings, or less plot detail, or what? --Jwwalker 06:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on Wikify Tag 

message: Buffyverse is up for deletion. Appreciated if people could have a look at the article, then read through the comments at the deletion forum. 
I think it could certainly do with some work, but can't see any appropiate reason in Wikipedia:Deletion policy to delete the article. I believe that the user who nominated the article for deletion (Lesqual) is essentially arguing that because the Buffyverse already has many detailed pages, that the article for 'Buffyverse' itself is not needed. However shouldn't that logic mean we don't need a generic Star Trek article since the films and TV series already have their own pages? -- Paxomen 16:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Buffyverse]]

message: Okay, I have no idea how to do this, but can someone please add the page for the Buffy CCG (Collectable Card Game) to the 'Buffyversenav' box under spin-offs? It should be up there with the toys, video games and RPGs.Jayunderscorezero 11:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added link to Buffy the Vampire Slayer Collectible Card Game, it's called 'Card Game' in the spinoffs section. -- Paxomen 12:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Thanks for that.Jayunderscorezero 12:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffy CCG 

message: Regarding "Hero" (Angel episode).
Twice -- in the description of the character Allen Francis Doyle, and in the description of the episode Hero -- the same mistake is made. Those descriptions are as follows:
"The two exchanged a passionate kiss; a blue ribbon of electricity passing between them as he gave her his visions, which changed the course of her life considerably." (Wiki, description of Allen Francis Doyle)
"Then he hauls back and hits Angel, knocking him into the cargo hold. Doyle grabs Cordelia and they kiss, a blue light passing between their lips." (Wiki, description of Angel episode "Hero")
If you watch the episode (as I just did again), you will note that the "light between the lips" of Doyle and Cordelia is the brightening lamp being used by the Scourge increasing in luminosity in the background. It's a nice thought, that there would be some visible sign of the transfer of seer abilities, but it would have risked giving the important plot moment away. Check the episode and you will see that there is no outward sign, though the light and camera angle may have intended to be symbolic. This should be changed a.s.a.p.. I did not do so because I am not a regular contributor to the Buffyverse wiki.
-- Freemount, October 15, 2006
:I disagree.  The blue light seems like an obvious special effect to me.  You can see that scene on youtube here (skip to the 2.45 mark).--Nalvage 15:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hero 

message: I recently created the article, Buffyverse Magazines (UK), but I'm lacking Buffy mag #44. Does anyone have this issue, and therefore could let me know the interviews/features it includes? I've seen a photograph of the cover on ebay (and therefore know it contains interviews with Emma Caulfield, & Elizabeth Anne Allen, and a set report on "Selfless"), but are there any other interviews/features, and what is reviewed in 'Grave Reviews' section?  -- Paxomen 16:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I got hold of #44 (completing collection), so filled in the details already -- Paxomen 15:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buffyverse Magazines (UK)

message: Can someone explain to me the significance of the individual chronology templates being used on Buffy episode pages? For example, Template:Buffychron2001b. I don't see how their inclusion is at all helpful in an encyclopedic way. If anything, it's just confusing and uses up too much space. I understand what they're trying to illustrate, but I think it fails at this and just adds confusion. scarecroe 15:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created them thinking it might be useful for some people using the episode articles, who might want to know where the episode fell in the greater scheme of the stories.. or else used as a navigation tool to get to a nearby episode or other story - say you want to skip ahead three episodes.. or find out what's happening in Buffy comics at that point in the story. Essentially it is a mini timeline showing surrounding stories. See below the example of how it appears in "Welcome to the Hellmouth" and every other article.
---------------
Timing
*Stories that take place around the same time in the Buffyverse:
-----------------
I tried to prevent it being confusing by only using it in a section called 'Timing' (sub-section of 'Continuity'). And also saying above the chart Stories that take place around the same time in the Buffyverse:. -- Paxomen 00:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology templates 

message: Hi, I recently managed to get this image :Image:Buffy The Vampire Slayer cast.jpg to be released under a free license. Unfortunately it doesn't has Sarah Michelle Gellar on it. (to make it more complete). Perhaps it also could be used to replace some fair use images of the actors in it. Since I am not much into Buffyverse or photoshop I was hoping I could delegate the work of placing it in article space and or photoshopping to this project. :) Garion96 (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It very much -does- have SMG in it. Far right, in Joss' arm. I know it's hard to see her now that she weighs 47 pounds, but she's there. - CheNuevara 02:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work though! - CheNuevara 02:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As the image label says, that's not SMG next to Joss, it's Michelle Trachtenberg. --Jwwalker 16:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume Che was making a funny. Kusonaga 16:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me? Never! :) - CheNuevara 16:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And some more. I put them in this category on commons. Commons:Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Garion96 (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffy cast image 

message: Hi
Just letting people know that the article 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' is undergoing review to be a featured article. It might even be possible to get the article on the front page on March 10th 2007, (10th anniversary of Buffy - 10 years since "Welcome to the Hellmouth" was first seen).
Any feedback you can offer to improve the article and/or to either object or support the nomination, would be wonderful. Thanks -- Paxomen 18:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Buffy nomination restarted: A huge amount of editing has gone into this article over the past few weeks, but you can still help improve it by improving the use of language and eliminating any bad grammar you find. Have a look at the article Buffy article and you might be interested in voting to object/support to the page becoming a Featured article. -- Buffyverse 23:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buffy the Vampire Slayer|Featured article candidate review: ''Buffy'' article]]

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages: 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
*User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. 
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory 

message: Just FYI, there's a discussion of the category  and the term Buffyverse here. Cheers, Pegship 19:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category rename discussion 

message: I've created a new wiki for Buffyverse content at wikiasite:buffy. It is not for encyclopedic content and doesn't aim to duplicate Wikipedia. Instead, the articles are mostly made up of trivia and quotes sections which can be expanded to include unverifiable material and original research, which wouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia. At the moment, the site doesn't have much original content since I basically took a cut down version of 700 Wikipedia articles to get it started - usually cutting out the extended episode summaries and most non-trivia sections. See the About page for more details. I hope some people from this WikiProject will join the new wiki and help to ensure it develops into a useful resource by and for fans for everything that Wikipedia can't provide. We also need some new admins there, so let me know if you'd like to volunteer for that. Angela. 15:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffyverse wiki 

message: ( [Moved discussion to Episode naming dispute, so that all discussion on the same topic in one place ) - Paxomen 12:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of episode articles 

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: I think now might be a good time to discuss how we want to structure the episode articles. There have been some recent changes to Buffy Season 1 by User:Redsignal. 
E.g. Welcome to the Hellmouth, The Witch, and most of Buffy Season 1 episodes
In brief, Redsignal is making them much shorter. This involes deleting and removing certain sections & content including 'Cut dialogue' (from Watcher's Guides or published shooting scripts), 'Arc significance', 'Writing', 'Cultural references' and 'Production details'. I think we we should try to cite and/or improve rather than delete. 
I think we should make an effort to comment on these matters and reach a consensus, because there is no point in people working on episode articles, then seeing their work deleted.
Do we want to try to create, maintain and cite sections like 'Writing', 'Production details', 'Arc significance'? (Also structurally, do we want 'Music' and 'Translations' to appear as subsections within 'Production details'?) Or do we want simple short articles? -- Buffyverse 10:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we should keep the information in there as there is more to an episode than simply the plot and actors, which is essentially what alot of these are becoming.  As far as the structure of the article, I prefer the individual sections as the stand out easier when scanning through an article, but either way is fine with me. Gatorsong 04:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added a note on Redsignal's Talk page to let them know that the issue has been raised here.--Nalvage 15:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that (if properly sourced) those topics would add needed out-of-universe context, no? I think they should be there, and we should have a task list of what needs to be done to improve them. Riverbend 15:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode articles

message: Take the The Curse (Angel comic) page. That's just WAY too many images. They serve no encyclopedic use. We really need someone to go through those articles and take out the redundant images and get them deleted. It's A) not pretty and B) not necessary. Kusonaga 10:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then change it: either re-arrange it or delete the excess images. But make sure you go through all the Angel comics to make sure it's uniform with the others. -- Majin Gojira 16:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover images 

message: In the info boxes on the character pages there's a "Created by" line, but  there isn't total consistency.  Most just say Joss Whedon, but some say Joss and the writer of the episode the character first appeared in.  So, should they all have that extra writer's name?  Or none?  And if Joss is there by virtue of being the creator, then I guess Greenwalt should be credited on all the Angel character pages.  But if Joss is there as the Exec. Producer, then Noxon and Minear should probably make appearances too.--Nalvage 17:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Do you want every character's page to have the name of the writer of his first episode? - NP Chilla 18:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently some do already.  What I'm suggesting is that there should be consistency on that score.  There doesn't seem to have been a decision made as to whether they should or shouldn't, or why Whedon's name is there but not Greenwalt's or Noxon's or Minear's. Thought I'd ask people's opinions on which names should be present--Nalvage 05:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see what you mean now. Hmm... I honestly don't know what would be the right thing to do; but I would say it's worth mentioning somewhere in a character;s article. - NP Chilla 13:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the writer of a character's first episode is not neccessarily hugely involved in the original conception of a character , that character may have been conceived by the group of writers (see Buffy the Vampire Slayer#Writing, the plot is very much constructed by the group rather than the individual) or by someone else (likely Whedon in most cases for important characters). E.g. I recently read that Whedon had thought up the character of "Fred" a long time before she was used on Angel (Havens, Candace, Joss Whedon: The Genius Behind Buffy Benbella Books (May 1, 2003), page 113.) . She first appeared in "Belonging", but the episode writer, Shawn Ryan may not have had that much input into Fred's character, and he arguably would not deserve a "Created by" credit on "Fred". The safest thing we could put in the "Created by" line IMO would be "Mutant Enemy", unless we know from a reliable source specifically who deserves to be credited with the characters creation. -- Paxomen 12:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created by 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: User:KnightLago seems to be putting most of the fictional locations in the Buffyverse up for deletion as fancruft, including The White Room (Buffyverse), Hellmouth (Buffyverse), Hellmouth (Buffyverse), The Magic Box, and Caritas (Buffyverse).   Thought the project might like to know.  Static Universe 23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion below. KnightLago 20:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffyverse fictional locations up for deletion 

message: The following below 4 articles have been nominated for deletion. As these articles stand now they are un-referenced (making verifiability difficult) and full of what is arguably original research. After a discussion on the varied AFD pages, we are now talking about making a single page where they may better be looked after under one roof. This would enable important locations in the Buffy world to be added and cited properly. 
The proposal includes the above text, and the following:
We hereby propose redirecting the old below articles to a new single central Buffy location article, and starting anew. The new article, with a title suggested by NeilEvans of Locations in the Buffyverse, would be a new article detailing the central locations in the Buffyverse. It is our hope that by consolidating the important locations of the Buffy world we can start anew with references and proper citations. We would then redirect the articles old individual names to the new article dealing with Buffy locations.
* Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caritas (Buffyverse)
* Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellmouth (Buffyverse) 
* Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperion Hotel
* Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Magic Box
This is a compromise proposal and a work in progress at that. It was brought here for the people who know the subject matter. Hopefully we can shape a proposal and then move forward with a consensus. I would ask for Support, Oppose, or Comment. KnightLago 21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added notes to each article's discussion page about this proposal. KnightLago 21:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the articles such as Hellmouth, or Sunnydale are an integral part of the plot, and not something that could be covered in a central article I would be ok with keeping them as stand alone articles. If, and only if, they can be re-written with sourced and cited material. If we want to go with this proposal I will withdraw my AFD for Hellmouth and add the appropriate unreferenced and cleanup tags and see how the article develops from there. KnightLago 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Buffy location proposal

message: See Talk:Anthony Stewart Head. Please add your thoughts. Whatever they maybe. 205.157.110.11 04:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffy related page move for Anthony Stewart Head 

message: If people would care to assist in replacing  with the parent template , I would be very grateful. The "List of Angel episodes" link needs to be added to almost all of them btw. I also notice several articles with more then one image in the Infobox. General MoStyle rules apply just as much in these articles. One image in the infobox, the rest dispersed throughout the articles. Please make minimal use of these Fair Use images. This is part of an effort to condense the amount of "Infobox show episode" templates. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angel Infoboxes 

message: Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also note Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 20 for a review of the decision regarding :Category:Actors by series. Tim! 08:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD notice 

message: The page for Ben (who may be related to Glory in some way) gives his last name as "Wilkinson."  What is the source for this?  He is only refered to by his first name during season 5.
There was a Dr. Wilkinson in season 2's 'Killed by Death' but she is clearly not Ben.
In 'Weight of the World' we see his name tag, but it isn't clear enough to actually read.  His signature on the tag clearly does begin with a 'W' but the rest of it looks like a squiggle with only one character with a full height ascender.  The printed name is nearly completely illegible, but looks closer to "Williams" to me: Screen capture of name tag Don Sample 01:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh.  Just did a quick Google search, see if that turned up anything, and the most relevant results were instances of you asking the same question elsewhere.  Looks like a bit of fanfic that sneaked in long enough ago for everyone to assume it must have a source. --Nalvage 02:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked the editor who added the surname, and apparently it comes from that source of all wisdom, IMDb. I'll remove it if no-one has any objections. --Nalvage 21:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ben Wilkinson? 

message: There is a special wiki-page (at 'Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests') to request for a specific featured article to be on the front page of Wikipedia, and requests can be made for specific dates. I have requested that the Buffy article be 'Today's featured article' on March 10, 2007. If it succeeds then it will be on the main page of Wikipedia on that date, which is the 10th anniversary since Buffy first aired. The anniversary has been mentioned by Whedonesquers (e.g. regarding the 10th anniversary trading cards, and here), and I think it would be great if the article does get slotted into this date. If anyone agrees that the article Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a very high-quality article that deserves to be shown on the front page on that date, then they can write Support (in bold) and a comment under the nomination, about why the article deserves to be featured - this can be done at the page, 'Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests'. E.g. the Firefly request there (for any date) currently has 5 'supports'. If some people support the nomination it will be more likely that the very busy "Featured Article Director", Raul654 takes it into account and fits the Buffy article into his 'Today's featured article' schedule for March 10.
The Angel article had some considerable improvement between the November 24 version and December 31 version, including the new images, and many completely new sections (Origins, Executive producers, Writing, Music, Setting, Format, Themes, Plot Summary, Characters, DVDs), and has continued to improve since. For that reason I have nominated it for 'Good article' status. Anyone who has not contributed to the article can read the the criteria and review it at 'Wikipedia:Good article candidates' if they wish. -- Paxomen 16:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:King Bee kindly reviewed the Angel article at Talk:Angel (TV series)#Failed "good article" nomination. King Bee gave it B class, it failed the GA status for reasons that be seen in his review. In summary there are some unreferenced/missing quotes, too many brackets, and too many long sentences. With some work in the coming weeks the article may be improved enough to rise to GA status. - Paxomen 14:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '[[Buffy the Vampire Slayer]]' article as 'Today's featured article' on March 10 (10th anniversary)? & '[[Angel (TV series)]]' article for GA status? 

message: In dealing with Buffy the Vampire Slayer season eight, to make sure this article comes out a very high quality, collaboration with WP:COMIC members will be necessary. The article has only just been created and will require expansion as new information presents itself.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:COMIC crossover (season eight) 

message: Hello, good Buffy people.  You probably noticed that the category formerly known as :Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer cast and crew has been renamed :Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer cast members.  As you might guess, this left a number of people like Jane Espenson miscategorized.  I took the liberty of creating :Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer writers and :Category: Buffy the Vampire Slayer producers, and put people in the appropriate place.  Those two accounted for most of the "crew" — Christophe Beck and Adam Shankman ended up in the parent category :Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which I suppose is OK.
Anyway, in doing this cleanup I noticed that there's no category for Angel actors.  Is this a deliberate omission by you folks?  If it's not, someone can create it for folks like Amy Acker (who doesn't have any Angel-related categories on her page at the moment).  You could also create categories for Angel writers and producers, on the model of the ones I created for Buffy.  I just figured I'd let you know what I'd done and why. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_16#Category:Television_producers_by_series for a category deletion nomination of :Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer producers. Tim! 07:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep — that would be the category I created earlier tonight.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD notice 

message: The articles Buffyverse chronology, Buffyverse chronology (2), and Buffyverse chronology (2) are up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffyverse chronology.  If anyone can add clarifying comments as to the purpose of the lists, their relation to the Buffyverse article, or possibly address the concerns raised in the nomination, please do so.  A massive amount of effort seems to have gone into these three articles and although I am familiar with the canon Buffyverse, I may not be entirely qualified to make a judgment on the article, as it seems to go beyond the canon.  Any clarifications at the AfD would help.  Thank you, Black Falcon 05:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On referencing - Do people think that the bulk of referencing can be done by some brief notes at the end of the articles with specific references citing sources only for selected entries on the list? Or is it necessary to give a reference for every item on the list? -- Paxomen 14:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD of [[Buffyverse chronology]] 

message: Since he's appeared quite a few times now in comics, would it be feasible to make a Dracula (Buffyverse) article? He's quite a notable character.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is enough information about his character to warrant an article then go ahead and make it.--NeilEvans 16:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear that given his own article, it may become a target for deletion. Maybe better to merge into 'Minor characters of Buffy the Vampire Slayer'. Although he appears in the IDW Angel comics, he is better known from "Buffy vs. Dracula". However there might be a case for unifying Buffy and Angel character articles somewhere down the line because there is so much overlap, but this is unlikely to be done any time soon. On Dracula, by chance I started this a while back but have since been sidetracked. Here's a solid starting point if anyone wishes to continue on this, but it needs to be fleshed out: -- Paxomen 22:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's excellent!, only I would probably start it "Dracula is a fictional character in .... based upon Bram Stoker's..." Still, I feel like we know more about him than The Immortal and could probably find a decent fair use picture, too!~ZytheTalk to me! 15:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to chop and change however you feel appropiate. The image for Buffy episode 5x01 already features the Drac: :Image:Buffy501.jpg -- Paxomen 16:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dracula 

message: There are two articles Glorificus and The Beast (Buffyverse). I don't know much about the series (I patrol Beast (disambiguation)). Are these two the same character. Are there two "The Beast"s in the buffyverse? Someone made a link to Glorificus from Beast (disambiguation), and I've changed it to The Beast (Buffyverse). So, that should be resolved there I think, either with a hatnote or something else. I won't be watching this page, but if you have any questions, let me know on my talk page or on the beast dab page. McKay 15:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are two seperate entities. One is only known as "The Beast" and the other is called that by a group of her enemies. -- Majin Gojira 18:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ==Two beasts?== 

message: Now that the first issue of Season Eight has come out, "The Long Way Home, Part 1," what do we do regarding the pages of characters appearing in said issue when it comes to "last appearances"? For example, does the "Last appearance" section on Buffy's page go from "Chosen" to "The Long Way Home, Part 1"?
Considering the comic is canon, I think this is something to consider, but I wanted to ask before doing so.
If we do agree to do so, this should be done for Buffy, Xander, Dawn, and Amy. - Whedonite 17:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. The Serenity people have Objects in Space leading into Serenity: Those Left Behind leading into Serenity (film). It's all one canonical story. Although I can imagine some people who wish not to consider the comic "real" will occasionally come along and remove stuff.~ZytheTalk to me! 13:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. They will have little justifiation if they do, however, considering that the main 'canon' of the Buffyverse is decided by Joss. If he says it's canon, it's canon. -- Majin Gojira 15:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But do we need to say what part, I'd say just the story arc would be preferable, as in The Long Way Home (rather than "The Long Way Home part 1")? -- Paxomen 03:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  An Arc is roughly equivalent to an episode in terms of covering a story. There's no way it would be practical to have individual articles covering single issues of a comic that did not contain a singel story. Hell, most comics don't get their own articles to be truthfull about it. By Arc (or by collection) is probably the best method to handle it, minimizing the number of articles. -- Majin Gojira 05:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding characters in Season Eight 

message: Please edit User:Zythe/Template:Buffychrons8 until we get something final. Add anything you think of to the bottom as a new potential template. Obviously we can't use anything yet because only s8 #1 is out, but still.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Play around 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. NOTE: The intention is not to fully delete, but to substitute in on the pages. — --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 03:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Infobox Angel Television episode}} 

message: Hello all, I recently made my first venture into Wikipedia editing after trying and failing to find information on Buffy's Scythe.
In short, I edited the Slayer (Buffyverse) article to include a section on Weapons and Equipment. After a quick overview of stakes and the like, I added information on the Scythe based on information from the S7 episodes in which it appears and the Fray comic.  After that, I decided that Nikki Wood's "Slayer Emergency Kit" was noteworthy, and included it as well.
Lastly, I decided that the entire article was rather messy, so I decided to "be bold" and make some rather drastic edits. I pared the information in the article down to just what I thought was relevant to the Slayer mythos, removing some of the more Buffy-centric facts and generally clearing out what I felt was unnecessary or redundant information.
I'm pretty happy with the result, but wanted to make those of you who aren't newbies aware of the changes, in case there's anything you wanted to add. --Jeff-El 21:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems good to me. This article really could beneft from more attention. In particular the introduction of a 'Notes and references' section, and the removal of any original research (especialy in 'Strength' section) - Buffyverse 00:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since the original research is mostly mine, I've edited the powers and abilities section, removing most "exact" references, numbers and added many episode citations. It's a start. -- Majin Gojira 01:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's great to see some good progress on this article. -- Buffyverse 16:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Slayer (Buffyverse)" changes 

message: I have no idea if this is the actual discussion page to ask this question, but how do I go on about joining WP:Buffy? I've been contributing with images and as much info as I know to many Buffyverse articles, helping with vandalism, etc. for a while now, so I figured I might be a good addition to the team.--The Scourge 14:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To join go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffyverse#Participants and add your username onto the alphabetical list of particpants. It's always great to see new members help edit the articles and continue in the ongoing efforts to improve the quality of the key articles. Does anyone else think that we should do what the Star Wars Wikiproject does and have a "Roll Call" every few months to find out which project members are still active on Wikipedia and which could be added to a "past members" list? -- Paxomen 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Joining/Should we have Roll Call to find active members?

message: Should the articles feature scans of what the characters look like now in Season Eight? I imagine Amy, Dawn, Buffy, Xander, Willow etc. are all candidates. Should we treat the Post-Sunnydale section as we would a comics article? ~ZytheTalk to me! 17:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think the articles are better-served with the actors' photos whenever possible - with the possible exception of Xander, the characters look more or less the same anyway, and it seems more fitting since the comics are essentially (canonical) spinoffs of the TV show. --Jeff-El 01:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, I certainly wouldn't disapprove of scans from the comics that illustrate important (lasting) events in the characters' lives or appearance...I suppose I just don't see the need at this time. --Jeff-El 01:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comic scans questions 

message: I dug out my DVDs and grabbed captures of Angel's "Van-Tal" face on Pylea, as well as a vampire being "dusted" (Angel, as a matter of fact) for the Vampire entry. I also used the existing server pictures of Spike's vamp face and The Master to illustrate a traditional vampire and an old vampire, respectively.
I feel that these are all the pictures necessary to the understanding of the Vampire article.
Please let me know if I did anything inappropriate with the pictures, I'm not too familiar with usage rules and would rather not get into trouble. --Jeff-El 01:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can read up on the topic at 'Wikipedia:Fair use'. Some of the best justified ones are on the Buffy the Vampire Slayer article, because that article is a 'featured' one which demands that it's images are adequately justified. It's best to add not only a summary but also source information and a section entitled "Fair use rationale for use in '...' article" with bullet-pointed justfications. That will reduce the chances of the image police tagging/deleting images uploaded. -- Paxomen 12:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vampire pics 

message: I know it's been suggested before, but I'd like to propose that the articles for "Watcher" and "Watchers' Council" be merged.
I just finished cleaning up the Council page considerably, and when I did so I added the information from the "Watcher" article. It seems pretty redundant to me to maintain both articles, and I think that adding information on what a Watcher is into the Council article is the way to go.
I'm really not sure how to formally suggest this, but please let me know what you think. --Jeff-El 03:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work on the article.  But I'd suggest that if the pages are merged it should be under the banner of Watcher (Buffyverse) with a section on the council, rather than Watcher's Council with a section on what a Watcher is. --Nalvage 11:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice cleaning the article Jeff-El. It's a tough call choosing which way to merge. But perhaps having 'Watcher (Buffyverse)' would be better since it would be a counterpoint article to the 'Slayer' article. Also the idea of some kind of 'Watcher' is far older than the Watchers' Council. The Shadowmen were probably 'watching' at least centuries before the English Watcher's Council existed in the form it appears in Buffy. -- Buffyverse 16:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have merged Shadow Men and Watcher's Council into the Watcher (Buffyverse) as decided above. -- Paxomen 11:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great but I think it would be better if Shadow Men and Watcher were merged into Watchers' Council as the council is the main topic of the page. What do you think.--NeilEvans 23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, now that the merger's been done, I'm pretty happy with everything being under "Watcher." It makes sense to discuss what a Watcher is, then go into their origins and the Council, especially in light of the fact that the current status/organization of the Council is up in the air. Jeff-El 23:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Watcher" article 

message: Our list of participants has over 80 names on it, however not everyone on the list is still an active member. Following the example of some of the other effective WikiProjects I feel it maybe useful for this Project to have a "Roll Call" (e.g. see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Wars#November/December Roll call). If anyone objects to this, then the idea can be abandoned.
Everyone who wishes to continue to be an active member of WikiProject Buffyverse could list their names below and optionally mention any special interests they have for the project (e.g. images, episode articles..), or if they are a more general editor. They can also optionally mention anything they have recently been up to.
In mid-April I will put a message on the talk pages of those who have not yet signed on. Those who still have not signed by the end of April could be put on a past members list, they can rejoin if/whenever they wish. I think those inactive members who made big contributions could perhap be awarded with the Buffyverse Barnstar. 
After this we will have a more useful list of active members and maybe some info on their special interests. This could help for editors to work together and motivate each other on relevant tasks. E.g. if a newer member of the project was looking for assistance on improving episode articles, they would know who might be interested in helping/collaborating. I'll get the ball rolling by starting the list. -- Paxomen 13:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: March/April Roll Call

message: I am petitioning to have this page altered to rmeove the restriction against using succession boxes for fictional characters. I think this group has an interest since several related pages for fictional characters are already using these boxes. Please Vote Here.--Dr who1975 18:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Infoboxes and succession boxes|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)]]

message: I was thinking of documenting the species of demons, doing sub-articles (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_%28Buffyverse%29/*species name*). Is this a good idea? Emperor Jackal 18:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What sort of content do you propose for it? Would it be significantly different from Demon (Buffyverse) or List of Buffyverse villains and supernatural beings? --Jeff-El 23:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As a note. In en.wikipedia.org we do not normally use subpages for articles. subpages are only used within Template, Wikipedia and Talk spaces. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species 

message: For reference, someone has been blanking the synopsis of After Life (Buffy episode). I restored it and posted the following note on its talk page.
:While it is an interesting point that tv show synopses may or may not be copyright violations, the solution is not simply to blank one episode. The blanking would have to be discussed either on the series' WikiProject page or at a higher Wikipedia-wide level regarding copyright violations, and applied across the board. I believe the latter is true. samwaltz 18:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis blanking

message: It looks like we should be going through all the synopses wikifying them. I have seen darned few internal links. samwaltz 23:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Synonpses

message: There is talk of merging Dawn's page into a list of characters page.  I think this is pretty ridiculous, when you think how many minor Buffy characters have their own page, but the problem seems to be that she hasn't had enough of a cultural impact to be relevant.  If anyone knows any websites or magazine articles which mention Dawn, please put them on the page to save her!  Paul730 21:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Save Dawn

message: I recently made lots of edits to Willow's page.  Anyone want to take a look and check if they're any good?  I'd like to submit this page for a review, but thought I'd see what you all thought first.  Paul730 21:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Willow

message: In Season Eight, Giles comments would indicate that Buffy and Xander's organisation seems to be the next stage of evolution of the Watcher's Council, now under their command... or at least, based upon the remnants of it. How would we incorporate that into Watcher (Buffyverse)?~ZytheTalk to me! 11:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the Scooby Gang even exist anymore?  All of it's members are either dead or scattered across the world, so it's not really the close-knit group it used to be.  I think the organisation is just like a big Scooby/Council hybridy thing, so I'm not really sure what to call it anymore. Paul730 06:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the Scoobies are essentially Buffy, Willow, Xander and Giles, they are still very mcuh together. Kusonaga 17:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slayer Central 

message: The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles.  There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements.  Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Wikipedia:Television episodes.  We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page.  After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles.  See: Wikipedia:Television article review process.  We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage.  Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode coverage

message: Not really sure where to ask about this, so I figured here might be a good starting point.  If somebody knows a better place, I'll happily move.  Anyhow, this is in regards to the timeline that appears at the bottom of pages for each of the season 1 episodes.  It begins with "Welcome to the Hellmouth" taking place in the fall of 1996.  I was under the impression that Buffy was a mid-year transfer student, arriving at Sunnydale High at the beginning of the second semester, which would be Spring 1997.  This would fall in line with the show running only half a season, beginning with the first episode also airing in the Spring of 1997.  Not to mention that there's no cold weather episodes, like there are during the subsequent (full) seasons (which would denote Winter), and would also fit with the appearance that school was already underway when she got there (included in such elements as Buffy being the only student who didn't know where her classes were, or that needed textbooks, etc.).  Is there something somewhere that instead denotes Buffy having put in a full year at Sunnydale High for her sophomore year, or do others agree with me that Buffy was a mid-year transfer student? And if others agree that the timeline needs to be corrected, is there a simple way to make the changes across the board, or is the best way still to make the changes to one episode and then copy and paste it into the other 12? Nolefan32 01:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any changes to that timeline are made on this page, Template:Buffchron96-97, and will be reflected on all the pages that feature that template. --Nalvage 01:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of Buffy being a spring transfer student is intriguing, but I can't really say I have an opinion without actually re-watching the first season. I'm curious to see what the opinions of others are on this one. --Jeff-El 01:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, considering that Xander is complaining about having trouble with his math (presumably homework) in his very first scene, I'd say your belief that it is not the first day of school checks out. I'm not sure there's going to be any indication of what time of year it actually is, though.--Jeff-El 01:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Giles says that the Harvest takes place "From out of the crescent moon, the first past the solstice." That places the start of the show sometime in the lunar month following the winter solstice (not the summer solstice because they wouldn't be in school anymore) The latest possible date for it would be January 20th.  It must be close to the end of that month, since Buffy is already sixteen. Don Sample 19:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using Giles' phrase about the crescent moon, I did some searching and found this gem of a web site that attempts to timeline the series based on various statements, etc., in the show (http://members.fortunecity.com/lost_giant/buffy/seas1.htm).  This guy guesses, based on various information, that the night of the Harvest was Jan. 10 (you're welcome to read the page yourself to understand why), though that puts it nine days before Buffy's 16th birthday and Joyce does mention in the episode that Buffy is 16 at the time of the Harvest.  However, if Buffy's birthday was only a little more than a week away, she could have been accepting her as 16 - not an uncommon practice, especially considering that the 16th birthday is one of the significant ones.  Another theory could be that Giles' mumbo-jumbo about the timing of the Harvest could just be a bunch of gobbledegook the writers thought sounded good (which they do a lot - and don't even try to figure out how old Angel or Spike are based on statements in the show, because that constantly changes), and this all actually happens later on, closer to early Spring.  After all, I would note that it seemed especially warm for January, even for Sunnydale (except for Amends, when they discuss how unseasonably warm it is, Sunnydale does seem to have rather cool winters based on the coats everyone wears for part of the season every other season).  Still, I do think that we can only go on what is said in the episode, and since Giles was good enough to narrow down the timeline in this case, early January 1997 is when Buffy Summers matriculated to Sunnydale High. Nolefan32 04:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Season 1 Timeline

message: I want to propose that the infoboxes on Circle of the Black Thorn, Initiative and Wolfram and Hart be changed to the  template. This would just make the articles match others dealing with the Buffyverse.--NeilEvans 15:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me.Jeff-El 15:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will wait a while to see if there is any objection, if not, then I will change them over.--NeilEvans 16:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone went ahead and deleted the Wolfram & Hart infobox on us, so I replaced it with the Buffyverse one. Jeff-El 22:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal of infobox change 

message: I'm new here. I'm not sure if this is where I should be posting this. I apologize if I'm posting in the wrong place. 
I notice that in Doctor Who articles it is noted in the articles when the canonicity of something is debated. In the case of the Buffy stuff I think the Buffyverse Canon and Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight articles should note that many people don't feel the season 8 comics are canon and don't feel anything that's not onscreen is canon. This is a major area of fan opinion and I think it should be noted. I am not saying the articles shouldn't say the comic is canon, only that I think the differing opinion should be mentioned as well, seeing as so many people hold it. Certainly I think an article discussing what's considered canon in the Buffyverse should note a viewpoint a large quantity of fans hold on that. It is after all the rule so many Buffyverse fans go by. There are obviously different definitions of canon and I think that should be noted, with reference to the widely held only-onscreen-is-canon view.
(I have also put notes on the talk pages of the relevant articles, so as to put the info where it's relevant. I hope that doesn't count as spamming.)Skynowmore 21:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the Doctor Who articles refer to canon being unclear because that show has no central authority that's made a definitive statement on the canonicity of the various spin-off media.  In the case of Buffy season eight, Whedon's made it clear.  Fandom's full of arguments and disagreements, we'd need good sources to demonstrate this one's notable. --Nalvage 21:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Skynomore, welcome aboard. Can I assume you've seen the Buffyverse canon article? It's linked from virtually all of the comic and novel pages. I personally think it could use a little cleanup or clarification, i.e. definitively stating which products are considered canon in a simple list, but it's a good starting point nonetheless. Jeff-El 21:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canon viewpoints 

message: This has been raised on the Children of the Senior Partners talk page, but I think it needs to be seen by a few more eyeballs. The article as it is is rather short an pointless...let's face it, we've only seen two of them before and information on them is scarce at best. I certainly don't think they qualify as "key terminology" in the navigation template.In my opinion, the whole thing could/should be merged into the existing Senior Partners article. Jeff-El 23:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children of the Senior Partners 

message: There is a Lois and Clark Episode called That Old Gang of Mine, and everytime I try and connect to that page directly, I get the Angel page.  Could the That Old Gang of Mine page be renamed so that at least it is ambigous and the user can chose to go to Angel or to LnC?
Thanks.D8a 01:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey...I think I did it! Jeff-El 01:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 3 Episode 3 of Angel (That Old Gang Of Mine):  This page needs to be renamed. 

message: I'm starting to get annoyed with the ever-growing list of relationships on the Buffyverse pages.  As someone who's guilty of contributing to them, they're too fannish to have any real encyclopedic value and are a breeding ground for pointless trivia and OR.  Also, it's not made clear what constitutes a notable relationship.  After all; Spike and Anya's one night stand should be included in romantic/sexual relationships.  But really, Spike has more of a relationship with Dawn, albeit a platonic one.  But then, he also has a strong relationship with Xander, even if is based on hate, so shouldn't that be in there as well?  What purpose do they actually serve?
I propose that all "Other relationships" be deleted completely, and "romantic/sexual" sections be drastically reduced.  Rather than list every moment of two characters' relationship, briefly state their feelings for each other, and cite any crucial episodes.  For example:
* Harmony Kendall — Spike and Harmony are involved from Season Four through early Season Five of Buffy.  Despite Harmony's obvious adoration of him, Spike frequently ignores and mistreats her.  Although he tolerates her annoying habits in return for sex, his constant abuse, endless broken promises, and growing obsession with Buffy eventually bring about their break-up.  Spike celebrates his re-corporealisation in Angel Season Five by having sex with Harmony, largely because she was the nearest female available, but she becomes possessed and attacks him, marking the end of their relationship.  Harmony's embarrassing nickname for Spike, "Blondie Bear", is later picked up and used at Spike's expense by Angel and Gunn.  James Marsters explains that Spike's abusive behaviour towards Harmony stems from his bitterness at all females after being dumped by Drusilla, stating, "It's beyond rebound at that point, it's really revenge."
should become
* Harmony Kendall — Spike and Harmony are involved from Season Four through early Season Five of Buffy.  Despite Harmony's obvious adoration of him, Spike frequently ignores and mistreats her, merely tolerating her annoying habits in return for sex.  James Marsters attributed Spike's abuse of Harmony to his break-up with Drusilla, claiming "It's beyond rebound at that point, it's really revenge."
Also, do people like Jeffery, Tyler, Owen, Tom, and Scott even deserve a mention on Buffy's page?  She dated them for like two seconds!  I think her list should be limited to Angel, Riley and Spike, with brief mention of Pike and Xander.  How do other people think these sections should be handled?  Paul730 17:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently rewrote Buffy's relationships entirely in prose.  It's far from perfect, but I think its a step in the right direction.  If anyone has any thoughts, please tell me. Paul730 15:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationships

message: I just added this to Spin (House episode):
: This is the first of several episodes where a member of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer acts in House. In this episode, Tom Lenk who plays Andrew Wells in BTVS plays a clinic patient. In the episode Safe later in the season, Michelle Trachtenberg, who plays Dawn Summers, plays the main patient. Marc Blucas who plays Riley  Finn in BTVS, played in the third season House episode Top Secret. 
Could someone else keep their eyes open?samwaltz 20:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Appearances on [[House M.D.]]

message: At the moment  the template:Buffyversenav has only 2 rows for each category (at least on my screen - is that the case for everyone else?). IMO it should stay that way, rather than get bigger going into three rows and making the whole box bigger. IMO if we add another character, we could remove one already there? What are peeps thoughts. -- Paxomen 17:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On my screen, it's already 4 rows, with the 4th row only having a few names on it.  Different people will have their monitors set to different resolutions, and they can also set their text size differently.  There's no point in trying to make the template look perfect for your particular screen setup, as others' will be different.  --Xyzzyplugh 05:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed you have also said elsewhere "I understand that an attempt has been made to make the infobox look perfect for one particular editor's monitor." Maybe I didn't make it clear but I wasn't trying to craft Wikipedia for my own personal use by specifically making the box specifically for my screen, that's why I asked the question above "is that the case for everyone else?.. What are peeps thoughts." so that others could say if it wasn't the case that every section had two rows.. Also if you are also referring to the addition/removal of certain characters - that is about drawing a line somewhere after attempts to add minor recurring characters like Gavin, Forrest and Graham. IMO this is necessary, and other users also felt that a line had to be drawn somewhere (see subsection above) . -- Paxomen 12:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the infobox clearly shouldn't have every character who has ever appeared on the show.  As to the 2 line thing - try changing your monitor's resolution to 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x960, 1280x1024, 1600x1200, these are all common resolutions, and see what it does to the infobox.  Then try changing the text size(in version 7 of internet explorer, it's in the Page menu at the top of the screen), this also changes the layout of the infobox.  The infobox is going to look different for different people based on their own personal setup.  --Xyzzyplugh 00:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It's two rows for me too. I like it that way. Kusonaga 12:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Assuming you mean on the Template:Buffyversenav? -- Paxomen 17:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you would be correct in your assumption.  Incorportating previous arguments into my own, I'd say Amy is one of the most influential minor characters in the show.  First appearing in season one, Amy helped define what a witch is/can do.  Further, she set the precedent of witches abusing power.  She was present, be it as her human self or as a rat, for most of the series.  I find it easy to infer that Amy helped Willow develop as a character by helping Willow find the worst side of herself.  By doing this, she affected every member of the cast.  Also, Amy accidentally showed Xander (in the first of many incidents) that magic doesn't always make things easier when she botched a love spell.  I understand that the box doesn't need to be cluttered, so if it's an absolutely not situation I get that, but I just kind of think she should be there.  She seems as important to the series as Eve or Professor Walsh...  But then again, she's not technicly an enemy or one of the main characters, so I'm probably wrong.--MaskedScissorDoll 20:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah I'd agree Amy probably deserves to go there rather than Eve. I removed Eve and added Amy, so that the character section is still only 2 rows. -- Paxomen 22:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keeping the characters to 2 rows

message: I noticed that Amy is listed in the main character directory as a reccuring character, but not on the bar at the bottom of the page.  Is there a reason for this, or is it an oversight?  She has her own article, it just takes a while to get there.  I reccomend she be added to the people directory, because by standard of comparison she's probably been in more episodes than Eve.  If I've overlooked something I appologize in advance, I just had trouble finding her today. -- Unsigned comment from: User:MaskedScissorDoll 16:51, 1 August 2006
:Assuming you mean on the Template:Buffyversenav? -- Paxomen 17:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you would be correct in your assumption.  Incorportating previous arguments into my own, I'd say Amy is one of the most influential minor characters in the show.  First appearing in season one, Amy helped define what a witch is/can do.  Further, she set the precedent of witches abusing power.  She was present, be it as her human self or as a rat, for most of the series.  I find it easy to infer that Amy helped Willow develop as a character by helping Willow find the worst side of herself.  By doing this, she affected every member of the cast.  Also, Amy accidentally showed Xander (in the first of many incidents) that magic doesn't always make things easier when she botched a love spell.  I understand that the box doesn't need to be cluttered, so if it's an absolutely not situation I get that, but I just kind of think she should be there.  She seems as important to the series as Eve or Professor Walsh...  But then again, she's not technicly an enemy or one of the main characters, so I'm probably wrong.--MaskedScissorDoll 20:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah I'd agree Amy probably deserves to go there rather than Eve. I removed Eve and added Amy, so that the character section is still only 2 rows. -- Paxomen 22:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the subject of Amy Madison 

message: Someone without a user account is consistently editing the "People" section of the Navigation template to include a highly irrelevant character, namely Scott Hope. Discussion on the talk page has so far reached a consensus that this character shouldn't be in the template, but this individual either hasn't read it, or isn't interested. I'd rather not get into a revert war over this, but am unsure as to the proper course of action. Jeff-El 00:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This has been discussed before (see text above). I suggest that the users are directed to the discussion on this page. If they continue to edit, engage on their talk page. If they show no interest in listening to consensus, and continue to add minor characters, their actions maybe considered vandalism and could be treated as such (see Wikipedia:Vandalism). -- Paxomen 01:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits: Navigation template 

message: Hi, I felt I should move these here so that they might get some attention.  Fair use images on wikipedia need to have a detailed fair use rationale that complies with the non-free content criteria policy.  I hope that the Buffyverse wikiproject can get on to fixing this issue up.  Thanks. -Malkinann 05:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image fair use rationales

message: Thanks for uploading or contributing to :Image:Angel Hotel.jpg. 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 Wikipedia articles 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found  here.
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 ensure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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. Malkinann 09:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for [[:Image:Angel Hotel.jpg]]

message: Thanks for uploading or contributing to :Image:Hotel Demon.jpg. 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 Wikipedia articles 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found  here.
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 ensure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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. Malkinann 09:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for [[:Image:Hotel Demon.jpg]]

message: Thanks for uploading or contributing to :Image:Angel_Worried.jpg. 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 Wikipedia articles 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found  here.
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 ensure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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. Videmus Omnia  Talk  19:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for [[:Image:Angel_Worried.jpg]]

message: Thanks for uploading or contributing to :Image:Angel Bed.jpg. 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 Wikipedia articles 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found  here.
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 ensure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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. Malkinann 05:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for [[:Image:Angel Bed.jpg]]

message: Thanks for uploading or contributing to :Image:Angel Sunbathe.jpg. 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 Wikipedia articles 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found  here.
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 ensure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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. Malkinann 05:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for [[:Image:Angel Sunbathe.jpg]]

message: Thanks for uploading or contributing to :Image:Angel Bed3.jpg. 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 Wikipedia articles 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found  here.
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 ensure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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. Malkinann 05:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for [[:Image:Angel Bed3.jpg]]

message: Anyone interested may want to have a good look at Buffyverse chronology, and decide whether it should be kept or deleted, and vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffyverse chronology (2nd nomination)
Currently:
Delete 5
Keep 2
-- Paxomen 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Buffyverse chronology in "Articles for Deletion"

message: Over the last few weeks I've been quietly overhauling the Wolfram & Hart article. I think it now contains a comprehensive, well-referenced, but brief(ish), description of the company and its role in the series. I've also added a couple of real-world production details, but I think this is the section that needs expanding now. With a little more work, I hope it can be seen as an example of how more of the organization articles should look. --Jeff-El 19:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolfram & Hart 

message: It is time to move this article to List of minor Angel characters, which is more in-line with the Buffy character articles. Beyond that, in its current state, most of the characters on the list are already mentioned in List of Angel characters, which is why those characters need to go and the article needs to be renamed to properly reflect the purpose of the article. Kusonaga 19:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited the above title, since it is more appropriate.Kusonaga 10:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, the change is made, but what I can't seem to understand is still all those pages that still link to Recurring Angel guest stars. I already fixed the buffyversenav template. Kusonaga 11:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move [[Recurring Angel guest stars]] 

message: It's recently come to my attention that a lot of characters don't fit notability guidelines, and should just be integrated into lists. Really, characters like Cyvus Vail, who have appeared in just three episodes, really don't deserve their own article, and this applies to A LOT of characters that currently have articles. Kusonaga 21:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability guidelines 

message: I've already begun the work of integrating some characters into the List of Angel characters, in tune with what I've mentioned above. The Angel series is currently what I'm focusing on. I'm not going to redirect the articles right now, but I will start doing so in about a week, which I think is enough time for people to read this. If people are opposed to this, please state so under the comments section, with clear and pertinent arguments. Thank you. Kusonaga 12:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Listing of characters that should be redirected to a list

message: I actually just want to say that I support you completely. It needs to be done. --Jeff-El 13:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments