Talk:Tara Maclay

message: Why exactly is Tara considered a minor character and not listed in the main credits? In most season 5 or season 6 episodes, she seems to have as much influence and screentime as Anya or Dawn.
*Because Amber Benson was only ever contracted for sixteen episodes in each season; she was never taken on as a main character. Kinitawowi 17:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "viscera versa" is where you have your heart on the right and your liver on the left?  —Tamfang 19:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ironic isn't quite the right word.  Joss had wanted to list Eric Balfour (Jesse) in the main titles of the pilot, to make the point that even regular characters can die, but the budget didn't then exist to make more than one title sequence for the season.  So he made the point with Tara instead. —Tamfang (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why a minor character? 

message: This was removed "Tara Maclay was seen in the third season in the episode "Doppelgangland". Her hair was stroked by Willow who was faking as the Doppelganger Willow. Willows hand got stuck while Tara's hair was stroked."
That was not Amber Benson and there is no indication that it was supposed to have been Tara.
:But you forgot to change the number of episodes she appeared in back to 47 and remove it from the list of Appearances. It's important to look at the history of edits to find out if anything else was changed at the same time. I got it for you this time. CovenantD 02:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 

message: I'm bothered by this section:
:Many fans have rejected this story since it does not seem to have existed prior to this point. No other former Buffy writers have confirmed this and Ms. Benson herself seemed unaware that such a storyline even existed.
The phrase "Ms. Benson herself seemed unaware that such a storyline even existed" is too vague and unsourced.  When did she seem unaware?  When was she asked?  Is there a link?
Have other Buffy writers denied it?  Have they been asked?
Does the phrase "...does not seem to have existed" simply mean that fans hadn't heard of it?
The subject may have been raised with Amber at Fedcon in 2004 and it appears she confirmed that Joss had mentioned the storyline to her.  There's a brief mention here.
Even with that aside, the section appears overly nonspecific to me.--Nalvage 13:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem biased towards the storyline having been a fib by Whedon, and presents no real evidence to support that. Noneofyourbusiness 15:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it.  "Others have speculated..." and "Many fans..." are examples of what Wikipedia terms "Weasel Words" and shouldn't be included.  If someone finds a reliable source to validate the fib-rumour then it can go back in, otherwise it's far too speculative.--Nalvage 16:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well a response to a letter in the Season 8 letter pages (duh) suggests that she may be involved in an upcoming issue. Mostly speculation and interpretation but I added it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.190.114 (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revival Storyline 

message: Her father said that demonhood ran in the women in his family. He never states that he married into the mother's side of the family and if he did then why would he believe so feverantly that Tara is a demon. I think that he and his wife were related some how. But I don't think that Tara is defective from the relationship so they could be cousins that married.
:That was just a family legend so the men could keep the women under their control. there were no demons in the family, it was all a lie.--NeilEvans 20:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think his/her point is not related to the truth or falsity of the legend, but the fact that Tara's father said she inherited demon from her mother and said "the women in our family have demon in them", which if taken literally would mean that he and his wife were part of the same family. It's not terribly important of course, nor can we find anything out about the subject. N.B. "Intermarriage" is when you marry unrelated people. Inter is between groups, In or Intra is within a group. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you marry someone, they become part of your family. --81.149.74.231 (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Tara's Family Intermarry? I seems like the episode "Family" hinted toward it. 

message: The part about her death seems rather informal. It should probably be cleaned up bit to look more professional. --OGoncho (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: Would someone please elaborate as to where Tara appears in issue 3!! I just went through every page and I don't see her. Maybe post a pic.
Is Tara in issue 3 or not?  Anybody?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megharrod (talk • contribs) 22:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dreamspace scene with all the boxes, if I recall correctly, that's where most of the season 1-4 character are glimpsed.~ZytheTalk to me! 13:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tara in Issue 3

message: The article mentions three times that A.B. is credited as main cast only in "Seeing Red".  Are they all necessary? —Tamfang (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  seeing black and white 

message: I removed the mention of Tara's singing voice, because it's really about Amber Benson rather than about Tara.  I'd bet money that Whedon would say, if asked, that Sweet gives everyone the ability to sing and dance, even if they otherwise have two left feet and the voice of a crow, and it was only the constraints of the casts abilities (rather than any attribute of the characters) that made him spotlight Tara and Giles as singers. —Tamfang (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  singing 

message: Why remove the Appearances section? It is useful, it remains on the pages for other characters, and it's not trivia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amie17 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How is listing all the episodes the character appears in not trivia? --Moni3 (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

text: How is it? The Wikipedia guide about trivia says, "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information". I believe that's true of a section listing the episodes in which a character was featured. It is useful for reference, it's organised, it has a clear theme, and I think that list form is the most appropriate way to present the information. - Amie17 (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What does it add to a reader's understanding about Tara's character? It's a list. The article already says she appears in episodes from the fourth season "Hush" to sixth season "Villains". Without cited discussions of the importance of these episodes regarding Tara's character, the list is trivial and unnecessary. --Moni3 (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Moni3's position as appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearances 

message: Found these in an old revision - they seemed to have been removed due to the rewrite? Benson's description of her character would be valid here, although Hannigan's description would be more appropriate for Willow's article. --Malkinann (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: * I added the third (thanks), but I can't really put the second one in any coherent context. I've read about the hands-on thing before, but without the rest of the article (do you have it?) the quote makes very little sense. Let me think about the first. Thanks again. I wish I had access to the magazines. --Moni3 (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry, I don't have the source articles myself.  --Malkinann (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found tidbits 

message: The biggest issue here as I see it is we have a new editor who has taken the time and effort to add to the knowledge of an article he/she feels passionate about, does the research, and then has all the material deleted and a bunch of policy thrown about. I find that very disappointing.  What happened to basic civility? Maybe offering to help?  How about Being Bold?  Well, we were all new here once and someone was nice enough enough to show me the ropes here and navigate all of this.  So I'll help out Dr. Lloyd. There is a lot of good material here, and even my quick research tells me there is something here that needs to be said. Either way, it is our jobs as editors to also foster other good editors. Web Warlock (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  offering help 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Tara Maclay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612174841/http://www.afterellen.com/people/2010/6/amber-benson to http://www.afterellen.com/people/2010/6/amber-benson
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716084029/http://www.slayageonline.com/PDF/locklin.pdf to http://www.slayageonline.com/PDF/locklin.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823080407/http://www.whedonsworld.co.uk/interviews/buffy/main/amber/gaywired.html to http://www.whedonsworld.co.uk/interviews/buffy/main/amber/gaywired.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified