Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Archive 3

message: I have merged most of the references from the "social issues" page, with great props to the contributors who actually found those sources. Also, did some editing to simplify the text, get topics under their proper headings, eliminate much redundancy, and remove some overly cumbersome asides-- especially in places where another article is linked and the extra info isn't needed here. BarkingDoc 01:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Refs 

message: I have archived previous discussion. 
The article is starting (finally) to have a good number of sources. Let's keep looking and getting those references in. 
Also, I've been spotting vandalism (or at least nasty POV comments) from an angry Buffy anti-fan, so regular contributors keep your eyes peeled. BarkingDoc 20:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving Forward 

message: I am concerned that the External links section is way too large.  Wikipedia policy is that "on articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate."  I also suspect there is a significant amount of overlapping content in many of the linked websites.  Finally, some links probably need to be removed and placed on the appropriate article (if not already there) such as the Joss Whedon links.  Discussion?  --ElKevbo 16:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I definetly agree. I'll will see if any of them might be good for footnotes, otherwise most of them can go. BarkingDoc 18:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links section too large? 

message: The intro or soon after makes no reference to who plays the title character..  fix?  --Joeblack982 08:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think either way is fine. BarkingDoc 19:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re do intro 

message: I think the character descriptions are getting bloated and fan-crufty. The descriptions should only have basic descriptions of the most major character details and their primary context in the series. They definetly should NOT include a synopsis of the characters' story on the show, which is firstly unnecessary and secondly will always be biased. Since every character has their own article, there is no reason to try and cram lots of minor details in here. BarkingDoc 00:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *WHen it talks about main characters, it links to the article on main characters, which repeates almost EXACTLY the same info as it had on the previous page.  This seems really redundant, I think that it should either have different, more extensive information on the second page, or no second page at all - I can't see how it is justifiable to have the same basic stuff twice.  Riverbend 16:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character descriptions 

message: Is this ever made clear in the show itself?  Buffy certainly has the odd prophetic dream, but is this some slayer power, or some Buffy power, or some result of living on the Hellmouth?  I don't believe that this is ever made explicit (or even theorised) in the show. Leeborkman 09:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: don't know about it being discussed on the show, but Buffy has had dreams in which she is reliving moments of previous Slayer's lives. This suggests to me that it must be linked to her Slayer abilities, kind of a way for her to learn from their past mistakes maybe??--NeilEvans 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's mentioned in the, supposedly canon, comic Fray.  There's talk of prophetic dreams as a slayer gift. Maybe someone with it to hand can rustle up a quote--Nalvage 19:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Angel episode Damage verifies it is a Slayer thing, that happens to imbue them with instinctive knowledge derived from that which their predecessors possessed. The seeing the future bit is also a gift to help them survive, yes. ~ZytheTalk to me! 15:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also backed up by the comic version of Whedon's script for the Buffy movie, The Origin (Whedon's comment on the comic: "The origin comic, though I have issues with it, CAN pretty much be accepted as canonical"). Merrick informs Buffy she is the Slayer, and tells her "Your dreams are merely your own self trying to remind you of who you are, and to warn you, perhaps, of the greatest evil rising there." -- Paxomen 15:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, didn't Giles say something like "Could be worse, you could be having the dreams" in the first episode?  Or am I delusional?  (Can it be both?)Le Messor 02:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffy clairvoyant? 

message: In particular: "This combination of empowerment and empathy has earned Buffy a passionate following among fans, giving the show a cult status."  I'm not sure that that is particularly what earned the show a passionate following.  You might also mention the show's wit, the combination of two great drama staples (the teen high-school soap and the action/horror genre), the pop-cultural references, etc.  Why not just state that BtVS has gained a passionate following.  And isn't "among fans" redundant?  ;-)  Anyway, I don't really want to edit the intro paragraph of such a popular page myself, but am I right about what is POV?.  Leeborkman 12:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should make the edit.  Wikipedia's maxim is "Be bold", the worst that can happen is that everyone'll hate you ;)  But I think you're right, it's certainly subjective and ripe for the chopping.--Nalvage 19:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro paragraph has elements of POV review/critique 

message: Do we need to have both the  and  templates? Buffyversenav has all of the same links (and more) that Buffynav does, so why not only use Buffyversenav? Koweja 14:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I removed it -- Paxomen 12:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: Can something about trodgor go on this page? Kiran90 12:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trogdor 

message: Jason: Guys, where'd hte criticism section go? Last time i looked there was one right inside of the cultural impact section. There was talk about the lack of diversity of the show w/ some quotes from Whedon about that. Where'd that go? In fact, there's no criticism here at all. We gotta be impartial people! Just because we add what it is that people don't like about the show, doesn't mean it wasn't awesome!
 
I have been giving the article a bit of a structural overhaul. I have not deleted anything, except I really felt the list of pastiche was not necessary?:
* Adam (character) - parallels the Frankenstein monster and the Terminator cyborg
* “Amends” (episode) - similar to Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol”
* “Bad Eggs” (episode) - parallels Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Alien
* "Beauty and the Beasts” (episode) - parallels Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde
* "Beneath You" (episode) - influenced by the movie Tremors
* “Buffy vs. Dracula” (episode) - features Bram Stoker’s Dracula
* “Dead Man’s Party” (episode) - parallels Stephen King’s Pet Semetary, George Romero’s Night of the Living Dead, and the Greek myth concerning Medusa, the Gorgon who was able to turn men into stone with but a gaze.
* “The Wish” (episode) - parallels It’s a Wonderful Life
* “Gingerbread” (episode) - features a boy and a girl named Hansel and Gretel
* “Go Fish” (episode) - parallels Creature from the Black Lagoon
* "I Was Made To Love You" - similar to Ira Levin's The Stepford Wives
* Olaf the troll’s hammer (object) - Thor’s hammer, Mjolnir
* “Out of Sight, Out of Mind” (episode) - parallels H. G. Wells’ The Invisible Man
* “Some Assembly Required ” (episode) - parallels Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
* “Forever” (episode) - parallels W. W. Jacobs's "The Monkey's Paw"
My thinking is that this information does not all need to be given in this article. I shortened it to :
As the authors of Dusted point out, the series was, often pastiche, borrowing elements from previous horror novels, movies, and short stories and from such common literary stock as folklore and myths. many episodes put a postmodern spin on these elements. For example the Adam character parallels the Frankenstein monster, the episode “Bad Eggs” parallels Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and so on.
Is this OK? I don't like to see work go to waste, so would be willing to gradually insert the references into the individual episode articles over the next week. -- Paxomen 00:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: It'd be great if people could check out the article and provide comments on how it might be improved at the peer review forum. -- Paxomen 16:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer reviews 

message: It says in the character descrips that Oz is a brilliant student - I don't know if that is exactly right. He is crazy smart, but doesn't apply himself - so he tests well but barely gets around to graduating high school.  Is this worth changing?  Riverbend 19:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe minorly reworded Snoopydance 00:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oz as brilliant student 

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 - 10yrs 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. You can do this at the page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Thanks -- Paxomen 18:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the nomination of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer article for selection as a feature article on the date of its 10th anniversary. Starbuck-2 00:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I Support the nomination of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer article for selection as a feature article on March 10th 2007. Jacobshaven3 12:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buffy the Vampire Slayer|Featured article candidate review: ''Buffy'' article]] 

message: OK, it took the blood and tears of dozens of editors, a fair amount of that, over the last 6 weeks, but it was worth it because Buffy is finally at Wikipedia:Featured articles. You can see the evolution of the article in this chart below:
Buffy article
Buffy article (October 2002)
Buffy article (October 2003)
Buffy article (October 2004)
Buffy article (October 2005)
Buffy article (October 2006)
-- Paxomen 21:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congradulations to everyone! Koweja 22:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Great job to everyone!  The article is MUCH improved.  Congratulations!!!!!  Riverbend 18:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a featured article! 

message: When Raul654 added the featured article template, he removed a bunch of them. Two of them were  and . Was there a reason for this? Both of them are quite useful since we have a)new editors coming in all the time, and b)a lot of templates on the top. While I re-added them, I don't want to start a revert war, so if there is a reason to get rid of them, please do so and I won't put them back. Thanks Koweja 22:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page headers 

message: Could someone please add an entry to Ascension (disambiguation)? Thanks. Xiner 15:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ascension / Day 

message: Howdy! Paxomen and I are doing a trade, as we are trying to get Firefly (TV series) to FA and needed a copyedit, and so he's lending a hand there, and I did some here. I have a couple of observations that I wanted to share and didn't feel like I should do them myself as that might be too bold, so I'll leave it up to you:
* I noticed you guys are using  for your quotes, and the WP:MOS suggests instead that we use HTML block quotes. The ones you are using are generally used for "pull quotes", where, like images, they are outside the flow of the prose and are used to draw attention to that section and give a good summation - like magazines do when they use a quote and blow it up big and put it outside the flow of the article. How you're using them, though are in cases where they are inline quotations, i.e. someone said: and then the quote. In this article, this quote "The very first mission statement of the show, was the joy of female power: having it, using it, sharing it" could be an excellent pull quote and maybe you could move it to the top or use the blue ones like on Pericles so that you can keep the cquote template and the look of it but have it outside the flow of the prose. The others do seem better as inline quotations though and should have the regular  code
* I noticed repeat wikilinks throughout. Once Sarah Michelle Gellar is linked, you shouldn't wikilink her again, etc.
* "Spike (James Marsters), a vampire, is an old companion of Angelus and one of Buffy's major enemies in early seasons" who is Angelus? Is that Angel?
Reading this made me want to get it on Netflicks and watch it! Great job! If anyone here, wants to lend a hand in copyediting Firefly, that would be shiny! --plange 00:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: I added Action to the genre section of the side box. It seemed silly that it wasn't there, considering the amount of fighting in the show.
Courtnificus 17:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre description 

message: Please see the proposal here regarding buffyverse locations, ie places, and the future of them. KnightLago 21:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffyverse location proposal 

message: I think the analysis is a good one, but I'm not convinced that it goes beyond one person's take.  It was hosted on what appears to be a fansite, and the link is now a 404.  Does a similar analysis appear anywhere that has some sort of review process for what is published?  Croctotheface 03:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SlayageOnline.com is an academic peer-reviewed online journal (edited by published acdemics Lavery and Wilcox), that only features selected essays every issue. We do have to be very careful about using possible analysis that would actually reflect controversial opinions, but the quotes used from Halfyard's essay are primarily descriptive and I can't imagine anyone disputing her words describing the opening sequence and its connection with the horror genre. The link went dead because Slayge moved web sites (from Slayge.tv to SlayageOnline.com), but I have repaired the appropiate links) - Paxomen 15:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Works for me. Croctotheface 08:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Halfyard essay a reliable source? 

message: Why are there three spoiler warnings on this page? I'm going to fix it so that only one is needed (although I'm sure you all know I wish they just did not exist :) ). — Deckiller 13:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably for anyone who uses the table of contents and skips to a section that has spoilers, but the spoiler warning is not visible because it is located in the section above. If anyone clicks on Plot summary in the table of contents, they'll skip to the Plot summary section where there is no spoiler warning there anymore. --Silver Edge 16:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really agree with so few spoiler warnings - people who haven't seen the show could be potentially very spoiled now IMO if they don't notice the warning in the 'Settings' section (and is it just me or does it appear now that 'Settings' is the only subsection which might contain major spoilers). This is especially important as its possible the article might be on the front page of Wikipedia on March 10 (Buffy 10th anniversary), and exposed to many non-Buffy-watchers. -- Buffyverse 17:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhap a spoiler warning right below the lead then? — Deckiller 17:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, one warning is certainly more then ample. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler warnings 

message: This article will be on the front page of Wikipedia on March 10, which is exactly 10 years after the premiere Buffy episode was first aired on March 10, 1997. So it will be worth keeping the article in top-notch condition, and engaging in any discussion before making any major changes. -- Paxomen 18:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol... is it just me or was this page featured before?--Xallium (talk • contribs) 01:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it has. o_o LonelyPker 01:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been a "featured article" (reviewed as high quality) for a few  months but it has never been "Today's featured article" before, it is on the Wikipedia Main Page for the whole of today. This means it will experience much higher traffic then usual, but it will also get more attacks from vandalism. -- Paxomen 02:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not wrong there. The KLF attracted just under 200 edits yesterday. I dare say you'll get even more. Congrats on the front page and good luck! --kingboyk 12:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Congrats, Paxomen. I remember voting in the FAC back in October, warning you crazy bunch that if you were to wait for the anniversary, you'd have to maintain the article for five months. And that's what you did. Xiner (talk, email) 16:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's featured article, March 10 2007 

message: I contributed nothing to the article, but nice work at getting this to Featured Article status, those of you that did! Paul Haymon 05:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good job, editors! 

message: Someone please fix those "Buffy the Butt Slayer" links..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.153.247.195 (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been fixed. Try bypassing your cache with Ctrl+F5.—M_C_Y_1008 (talk/contribs) 12:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Butt Slayer? 

message: There does not seem to be any information in Wikipedia about the different languages the series was translated into and the various countries in which it has been shown. I know it was shown on Sky in the UK and was translated into German, French, and Italian, but does anyone have more information? I believe detailing where the series was shown would help to expand the scope of the article and reflect the tremendous success and popularity of this show. All the best, Wachholder0 15:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations 

message: In the casting section this sentence appears: "He landed his Xander Harris role following only four days of auditioning." This might mean exactly what it says, but I thought the intent might be something like ""He landed his Xander Harris role only four days after auditioning" (quite a different meaning). Can't check the source myself and not familiar enough with the subject matter to easily check independently.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm familiar with source, changed to less ambiguous text: "He landed his Xander Harris role only four days after first auditioning." -- Paxomen 22:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. It seemed odd to me that we would see the word "only" if he had auditioned four times.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well he likely did multiple auditions in front of various people during that four day period, I don't know how many auditions he did and this particular source does not reveal that information. However since Brendon refers to "auditioning" there was at least two auditions. Four auditions would be very few for a 'series regular' role, the norm for such a big role is many many callbacks before getting a part. -- Paxomen 23:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible error 

message: Apart from Doctor Who, references are to television in the USA. If the title is to be impact on television globally, I think some more non-US examples are required. --mgaved 10:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact on Television 

message: I was under the impression Buffy came to its natural end, and was not cancelled by the network? Matthew 15:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was not cancelled.. IIRC, the producers ended it because Sarah Michelle Gellar would not do a series eight.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 16:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it was not cancelled -- Buffyverse 22:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancelled? 

message: Anthropomorphic: Having the form of a man
In reverting the category, NeilEvans mentioned that "werewolves, demons, and that shark guy" are anthropomorphic.  Werewolves are "lycanthropic", not anthropomorphic, as they switch between forms.  And that shark guy can not seriously be considered "featured".  So that leaves demons - are they anthropomorphic?  My opinion is no, but I'm open to discussion... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not all that convinced demons are anthropomorphic - they are men, not just "in the shape of a man".  They're men without souls. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthropomorphism says this: the attribution of uniquely human characteristics and qualities to nonhuman beings, inanimate objects, or natural or supernatural phenomena. Demons are non-human beings and therefore anthropomorphic. To say that demons are just men without souls is untrue. Not all demons in the Buffyverse are devoid of souls. Most of the demons depicted in Buffyverse are anthropomorhic as they do possess characteristics or qualities that one would associate with human.--NeilEvans 18:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Television programs featuring anthropomorphic characters]]? 

message: I just wrote the page Recurring themes in the Buffyverse. I would like both recurring gags and serious issues mentioned/discussed/linked. Take a peek, see what you can do. Thanks, samwaltz 00:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recurring themes 

message: A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard]] 

message: Why is she no longer listed in the "Starring" section? Missjessica254 15:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably because she was never a member of the central cast - or was she, in year three? Vashti 22:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically she was never became a 'series regular' (she never appeared in the opening credits). -- Paxomen 22:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eliza Dushku 

message: What does this refer to? Without context it is a bit puzzling and a google search doesn't bring any illumination. Catchpole 18:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  What kind of context were you looking for?  I've added a comment to clarify that this Rhonda idea was never produced, though that may not be what you found puzzling.  I believe there's an IGN interview in which Whedon mentions "Martha the Immortal Waitress", though I don't have the reference right now. --Nalvage 02:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I didn't know if Rhonda the Immortal Waitress existed (as a short story, script, student film or whatever) and was then expanded upon or if it was just an idea. Your clarification is helpful. Catchpole 07:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhonda the Immortal Waitress 

message: I believe Bignole was wrong to move "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)". In his/her edit summary Bignole states "sorry, but because it shares a name it has to be specific per naming conventions" but I don't think they do state anything of the sort. I've looked at Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) and the example they give is "School" which has a main article entitled "School" and a disambiguation page for other meanings of the term. I think the TV show is by far the most notable use of the term "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" so should therefore not need to be disambiguated. At any rate the current situation where "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)" refers to the TV and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (disambiguation)" is the disambiguation page but "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" redirects "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)" is not something that should happen. Either the TV should at "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" with the disambiguation page at "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (disambiguation)", or else the disambiguation page should be at "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" with the TV series at "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)" 81.153.116.72 07:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per naming conventions, saying something is "more notable" is subjective. Can you prove more people know the television series over the film that came before it? The film has "(film)" attached to it, and thus the television series should follow naming conventions and have "(TV series)" attached to the edit. If you feel the generic title should not be redirected to the television series, then redirect it to the disambiguous page. Notice the examples given for the reasoning "most common usage", they are "The Apprentice" and "Guiding Light". Notice how The Apprentice goes to the disambiguous page, and not to any specific version of the show. "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" was more commonly known for the film before the television series. The television series got the last laugh, as it ran for many years after the film. Because of the subjective nature of saying "this one is more notable than that one," and per naming conventions on the grounds that they share the same name, one is delegated "film" and the other "TV series".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 04:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of this particular example what were the viewing figures for the TV show and the film? That would be one way to objectively establish a comparison of notability. Or check the sources used in the articles/do a search to see which has more secondary sources talking about it.--Opark 77 08:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what happens if another show comes along with the same title, but lasts for 9 seasons? Do we change this title, so that the new show gets to have the one without any descriptor? Both the film and the show were viewed by millions. You cannot compare numbers because the film is shown for 8 weeks, and a television show is shown for 22 weeks. Even if the film was viewed by more people as a whole, the show would eventually catch it in cummulative size. It would also be almost impossible, because you'd have to find out the number of viewers for every time the film was played on television.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I have to agree with Bignole on this one. I can only assume the page was moved back without further discussion? GLKeeney 18:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it to (TV series) a few weeks ago, per my understanding of naming conventions. Then it was reverted back to this title, and afterward the reverting user started the discussion to explain their reverting. Better than just reverting and not discussing anything at all.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So are you comfortable with leaving it as is or should it be moved back to (TV series) (that would be my choice, with the main link to a disambiguation)? Or is it one of those things where the change causes more trouble than it is worth? GLKeeney 20:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where it's linked, but the only problem would be that any links not changed would simply be directed to the disambig page and would simply need correcting when noticed. I think the page needs TV series in the title, because we've have a debate (which we are already having) about what is more notable, the popular television series, or the movie that brought it to life. There's almost no way to objectively tell, there are too many variables to account for. Technically, the movie, the television show, and the character all share the same name. We can say that her name is "Buffy Summers", but popular culture simply knows her as "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". I'd say make the disambig page "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and put the appropriate descriptors on each of the shared titles.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I fixed the disambiguous "Buffy" page, that sent the television link to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm a little late to the discussion here, but I feel that this article should be at Buffy the Vampire Slayer, not Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series). I also don't feel that it's subjective that the television series is more notable, but that's been debated in this discussion enough. Mainly I feel that when people think of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, they think of this critically-acclaimed show (its Buffy) first, and whatever else -- whether it is its first movie, its comics, etc. -- comes after that. I believe that this article is better fit at Buffy the Vampire Slayer, as plenty of articles go with what has been cited as more notable (and this show has been cited as more notable countless times) than its (first, and only still, at this time) movie, video game, etc., as the main destination, and then has a link to other disambiguation topics of the same name listed at the top of the article. Having the title Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a disambiguation page means that there are a lot of Buffy the Vampire Slayer links that need to be specified to this new name of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) right now. And while with time, those disambiguation links will be fixed, I feel that having this article be any other name than Buffy the Vampire Slayer truly does not help. Bignole, you're a great editor, as plenty here at Wikipedia know, but I cannot agree with you on this one. Flyer22 09:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But this television show is not the only thing that carries this name. Looking at the disambiguous page, it's more than just the television show and movie that carry this name. You cannot judget other people's opinions like that. To me, the first thing I think of is Kristy Swanson, because that was how I was first introduced to the character. I have not see "more notable" citations anywhere. Fixing a link is not a reason not to have a character page title. I'm following the naming conventions manual of style. The only instance it talks about "which is more well known", is when you have a title shared among like mediums, for instance The Apprentice. You'll notice that The Apprentice is the disambiguous page, while the other versions (and we know Donald Trump's version is the most famous) are distinguished with specific titles. That's a clear case where Donald Trump's show was easily more recognizable than any other version of that show, but it is distinguished with "US TV series" and does not simply retain the generic "The Apprentice" title. If links need to be fixed, then that should be happening. Worst thing that will happen is they will go to a disambiguous page where the television show is listed in plain sight.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bignole, I was not truly judging your opinion. I apologize for making you feel that way. I was more so giving my thoughts. And as more notable, yes, this show has been cited as more notable than its movie that "gave it life", in that it has been called more brilliant and more well-crafted than its movie countless times, and though I don't usually go around stating how I think other people feel, I'm sure that Joss Whedon feels that way as well, considering that his true vision of the movie did not play out how he wanted it to. Having to fix links is surely not the only reason that I don't feel that the name Buffy the Vampire Slayer should not be at a disambiguation page. I don't feel that just because the television show and movie are not the only ones that carry this name means that it should be a disambiguation page. To me, that's like asking which one is more notable, Veronica Mars or Veronica Mars (character)? Or Shrek or Shrek (character)? And since there's no way to surely tell, the names Shrek and Veronica Mars should be disambiguation pages. Okay, okay, Veronica Mars only has two links (at this time) of the same name on Wikipedia, but Shrek has several titles of the same name, and yet it is not a disambiguation page, not by those five letters only. It could easily be debated that the Shrek character is more notable than the first Shrek film or its sequels (I know plenty of people, including myself, think of the Shrek character first when we think of Shrek, not its films) and yet the Shrek film has the main destination on Wikipedia. Better yet, the name Shrek has a main destination, and it's not a disambiguation page, but rather provides a link to its disambiguation page at the top of the article, which is what I feel should be done in that case anyway. Sure, Shrek does not have as many articles of the same or similar name as Buffy, but that does not take away my point, and the title Buffy is more well-known for either its film, show, or the Buffy character herself, not for all of those other titles of the same or similar name to it. With Buffy, even the Buffy Summers article is based on the Buffy from the show...Buffy the Vampire Slayer...not its film (which remains its only film still at this time), which is also why I cited the show as being more notable. But that is not my sole reason, of course, for feeling that the title Buffy the Vampire Slayer should not be at a disambiguation page, even if most newbie Wikipedian editors, when they link Buffy the Vampire Slayer, they most likely are not going to type Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), which will just lead to so many more Buffy the Vampire Slayer disambiguation links. Flyer22 19:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I don't feel that this issue is all that different from the Star Wars subject in this context. I don't feel that by having Buffy the Vampire Slayer be at its show is giving it preferential treatment either. My reason for it not being a disambiguation page is explained above. As for the disambiguation links being fixed, from this move, with the rate that they will be made and continue to be made, I doubt that problem being taken care of adequately. And, yes, the Buffy Summers article here at Wikipedia should not just be about the character from the show. I see the comic book material concerning this character thrown in there as well. The film in which "it spawned from"...however, doesn't leave much to expand on concerning Buffy's character. Flyer22 19:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at Star Wars. The original film was always known as simply "Star Wars", and it wasn't until the sequels and prequels came out that it became known as "A New Hope" or "Episode IV" (whichever you prefer), even though the name explicitly called it "Episode IV: A New Hope". You are looking at it in the light of continuity, but that isn't how it's done on Wikipedia. Naming conventions have their style for a reason. If I say "Jaws" you'll probably think of the film before you think of the book, but the link to the film is Jaws (film), and not simply "Jaws". No one can deny the fact that the movie is more popular than the book, but naming conventions state that when you share the same name you get distinguished with specific titles. I'm sorry, but by your definition, if another "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" medium arrives in the culture, and it's "more popular" than the show, then we'll have to revert the name "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to the new article, and this will be changed to "TV series", because it will be less popular.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My reasoning is not "if another 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' medium arrives in the culture, and it's 'more popular' than the show, then we'll have to revert the name 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' to the new article, and this will be changed to 'TV series', because it will be less popular"...and that is not what I really mean, though I doubt that any other Buffy genre will be more popular than its show. The naming conventions  of Wikipedia stating that when you share the same name, you get distinguished with specific titles is not the case for all or most articles on Wikipedia. Shrek is a great example of that. And, again, my reason for Buffy the Vampire Slayer not being a disambiguation page is not necessarily due to which one is more popular, but the fact remains that when people type in or link the title Buffy the Vampire Slayer, they are most likely trying to link to the show, or the character from the show, but now what will pop up instead is a disambiguation page, which I feel is not necessary and really is not beneficial to anything, when the title...Buffy the Vampire Slayer...can simply be its show, and then have a disambiguation link at the top, for other titles of the same name. Shrek, for instance, is not called Shrek (film), although many could argue that maybe it should be titled that since the Shrek character is what most people think of when they think of that big green fellow, not his films. Shrek is not the only example of this on Wikipedia either, of course. I really don't have much more to state on this matter that is too distinct from what I have already stated on this matter. I basically feel that this move of Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) is not for the best. But if consensus here at Wikipedia is to keep it at Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), then it's not like I'm going to go and  move this article back to its original name, especially when that move will just end up being reverted. Furthermore, it could remain titled as Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) without being a disambiguation page, while providing a disambiguation link at the top of the article, which is what I feel is better than the title of Buffy the Vampire Slayer being a disambiguation page itself. You have stated your thoughts on this matter, Bignole, of course, and I have stated mine. I just don't agree with a lot of your thoughts concerning this specific matter. I always like to "here" your insight though. Flyer22 20:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the Star Wars analogy, I meant that all the "Star Wars" films are kind of "mainstream" so to speak, and the expanded universe is really only for fans.  Whereas both the Buffy film and TV series are "mainstream", despite the film's inferior quality.  Jaws is a better example to use for naming conventions, and Jurassic Park comes to mind as well.  Whether we, Joss Whedon, or the critics like the Buffy movie or not, it is certainly notable.  I don't see the problem with the disambiguation links; worst comes to worst the readers have to click on Buffy (TV series) when they get there.  Angel has (TV series) in the title (although I realise that's an entirely different situation due to angels being separate subjects, but still) and people still manage to link to that correctly.  Paul730 20:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you meant, Paul. I still don't feel that this move is for the best. I understand both your and Bignole's reasoning on this matter, of course. Flyer22 20:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Flyer, that isn't how naming conventions work. You don't keep renaming the same topic because a new branch of that topic becomes more popular than the last. The reasoning for the "most commonly known by" is when you are dealing with two completely different subjects, like in the "Shrek" instance you cited. The other versions of "Shrek", were not connected to the movie, and were not well known to begin with. Should they be renamed? Maybe, I don't know. But you cannot go, "oh, the movie is no longer the most popular, so we'll call it 'film' and give the title of 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' to the new, popular version of the character". Naming conventions state, that when the same topic shares its name that it becomes distinguished with specific titles. The television series "Lost" is probably most commonly known when the name "Lost" is mentioned, but it's still got a specific title. That is why we don't use subjectivity in these cases, because it's extremely difficult to prove what is the most common usage, and if that common usage won't change in the next couple of years.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Bignole, I know how naming conventions work. I stated above that my reason is not necessarily about "renaming the same topic because a new branch of that topic becomes more popular than the last"... I'm against this move for several reasons, and that really won't change. I don't feel that it's all too difficult to prove that the title Buffy the Vampire Slayer is more so used in regards to the show than its movie, but again, we've debated that enough. Flyer22 21:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Even so, this isn't a popularity contest. They share a name. As a matter of fact Buffy the Vampire Slayer
shares its name with 5 distinct topics, and a whole slew of books. It encompasses more than just a television show. 21:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Popularity contest or not, I doubt that those other topics are usually the first to come to mind when one thinks of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Flyer22 21:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you don't know for sure. I think of the film first, because that was my first association with the character. Some other person may think of the comics, as they may have never watched the show. Or someone may love the games, but again, never saw the show.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not know for sure, but I have hung in the Buffyverse a lot, just as you may have, both on the internet and off of it, and the most common usage has always been the show or the show's Buffy character, from my experience. Not to mention...that they are the most famous, but, again, I see your point. And for the record, I don't have anything against the original Buffy film, in case anyone here feels that I do. Mainly just stating my thoughts on this matter. Flyer22 21:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As I've said, there tends to be widespread disregard for non-canon material, so things that happen in "Buffyverse" are not representative, as not everyone that is a fan of the show, film, comics, books, etc etc hang out in online chats for Buffyverse, on the WikiProject Buffyverse, or the like. What you can say is that the people that are hung up over the canon issue of the universe tend to prize the show over everything else. But Wiki isn't built for the fans, it's built for everyone.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I get that Wiki is supposed to be for everyone. But as I've stated before, it is also about what is common usage out of titles of the same name. From my experience, that has not been the movie. You may argue that my experience doesn't count on this matter, but from what I have seen, I feel that it does. Anyway, I surely know what you mean. No worries on that front. Flyer22 22:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: Rewatching some old episodes on video for lack of anything to do, I noticed that characters quite often mouthed or even half-pronounced the word fuck, sometimes several times per episode (especially noticeable with "Evil Willow"). How did that ever dodge scandal and/or mention??? 128.195.186.27 14:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early use of profanity on US television 

message: Why are these mentioned in the plot summary?  They're not part of the show, which is what this article is about.  Obviously they should be mentioned somewhere, but not here IMO.  Paul730 03:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted the section. Paul730 02:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 8 comics 

message: 42 (now 43, I suppose) sections is pretty huge. Just a thought GLKeeney 17:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest Archive 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose -   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
*My vote is per WP:NC-TV. It's almost completely unverifiable to say "this is the most common usage." You'd have to take an empirically supported poll to even justify such a charge. Of course it is the most common usage to fans of the show, but it isn't the only usage. There seems to be an issue with things about this show taking precedence over all related articles. For instance, the Buffy Summers article pretty much ignores the fact that the character appeared in a film, and I believe it tends to ignore comics that are classified as "non-canon". Look at Jaws (film), Jurassic Park (film) (or the book Jurassic Park), or Star Wars. When you say "Jaws", the first thing that comes to mind is the movie, not your mouth, or even the book. The same goes for "Jurassic Park". The movie is throught about before the book. Originallly, "Star Wars" was how "A New Hope" was known, but we don't redirect "Star Wars" to "A New Hope" (but if you look at the page you'll see that there is a direction for people looking for "A New Hope" who have put "Star Wars" into the search and gotten the generic page).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
P.S. I've just noticed that I accidentaly closed this prematurely (before scheduled 5 days). Either way, admin intervention is not necessarily required should the consensus be gained. I'll unlist it from the RM, with no prejudice against reopening. Duja► 10:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion