Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Gay Now

I find it sort of suspect and exclusionary that any mentions of the genesis of Willow's homosexualtiy is completely lacking from this entry. I'll be changing that shortly.

You find it suspect? As though it was mischeviously done on purpose? One could argue that, since it is only one of several hundred different story lines, that including it would be more discriminatory than leaving it out. BarkingDoc

I think the paragraph on Willow's sexual orientation is good, but some of it sounds like rumor rather than real fact. Was it really "decided" in season 2 that a character would become gay? Were those characters really designed specifically to allow their change to homosexuality (which would have been fairly prejudiced, if it is true). As a pretty avid follower of the series and its social context, I would love to know where some of that specific information comes from. BarkingDoc

I'd like to know the answer to this, too. The way it's written, it sounds like rumor. The way the show progressed, it was sort of implied that Willow's social context made her orientation uncertain; maybe she was gay all along, but Oz was something special. The first clear indication I remember of a gay Willow was season three's "The Wish", in which Vampire-Willow was pretty obviously gay. Anyhow, I'd vote to remove the rumor if it can't be confirmed with some statements from interviews with Whedon or the like. -- Wapcaplet 01:21, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's made all the more dodgy by stuff I've read that Tara's fate was originally planned for Oz. Evercat

From my memory, I believe that if we check through interviews or articles by Joss we would find:

He planned to have a gay character from the beginning of the conception of the show, or at least by the first season
He decided who would be gay, Xander or Willow, in the second season.
In reference to "The Wish", Vampire-Willow is not only gay or bisexual, but Angel confirms that this means non-Vampire-Willow is. Hyacinth 19:51, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As I recall from "The Wish," Buffy tells Willow that the vampire's personality (i.e., VampWillow's sexuality and sadism) has nothing to do with the person it once was, and Angel sort of weakly disputes it before pretending to agree (to make Willow feel better). As it's sort of implied that all vampires are by nature bisexual (since vampiric reproduction is asexual), it's not a confirmation of Willow's bisexuality at all. --70.156.16.155 20:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The exchange about VampWillow's sexuality is in the season 3 episode "Dopplegängland". Angel's hesitant assent is a clear indication that there is at least some kernel of similarity between VampWillow's personality and Willow's. (User:The Bearded One)

Got to admit that I was surprised by the absence of sexuality discussion (I expected to see a gay vs bisexual edit war ;-), but surely it belongs on Willow Rosenberg's own page rather than in here? Kinitawowi 15:16, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

I am going out on a limb and pruning the homosexuality section, which has grown to include a large number of unreferenced opinions and trivial asides. I believe there may be a place for all the information, but it isn't in the main article, which should be of service to someone who isn't a fan of the show. Also, the shocking number of "some have said" instances in this article has become very daunting to me--- those aren't references, they aren't informational, and I am not sure how important it is to recount the many discussions which have taken place on fan posting boards. (of which I am a proud and far too active member, so I am not being eliteist.) Anyway, I'm hitting this article again today, so please give my streamlining efforts a chance, or bring a discussion here if you disagree with me. BarkingDoc

I agree that an entire section devoted to one character's sexuality seems like over-kill. If Willow's sexuality is going to be discussed in such depth, it seems like Buffy's abandonment issues, or Xander's lack of ambition are getting the short shrift. I think the homosexuality discussion should be relegated to Willow Rosenberg's page.--70.156.16.155 20:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The section isn't devoted exclusively to the one character--- more to the idea of sexuality in the show. I think the criteria for inclusion should be the likelihood that someone will be looking for that information if they come to this page: since the homosexual plot line was a subject of media discussion, I can imagine folks might come to the article looking for information on that specific topic, and I think the section as it stands provides a nice compact overview. If someone could craft sections that weren't just speculation and opinion, I would be all for there being paragraphs on some of the other major ongoing themes in the show. But it seems difficult to do and remain simply factual. BarkingDoc

I have "broken out" a lot of this discussion into a separate article, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Social Issues. The main article is getting rather long (it is over the recommended 32 k), but I think the discussion is great and encyclopedic, and should stay. Sdedeo 17:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I feel very strongly that information regarding social issues should not be set aside in a seperate article--- it should be a part of the main article. First of all, I disagree that Buffy took on "a number of social issues." Aside from overt feminism, any other interpretation of social issues is entirely POV, at best academic, but not factual. The homosexuality issue is the only one for which I believe there was any notable public attention. A seperate article is harder to find, and I believe that if someone came to this article looking for information on the issue (which they are likely to do, because it has been widely discussed) the info should be easily available. Even if there is another article (which I don't think is necessary) it doesn't require stripping the information from this main page. Yes, the article is a tad over the recommended 32k, but also is not growing, only being worked internally. BarkingDoc 01:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Barkingdoc. Please take a look at (and contribute to!) the social issues article, which I and others are working on. It covers feminism, homosexuality, class and race in Buffy to an extent that would be impossible if it was contained in the main article. This "breakout" is standard practice for long articles.

Gay Willow certainly attracted a lot of attention, but for most of the show's early life it was the feminist angle that garnered the most press. It is certain that any "interpretation" of Buffy is -- by definition -- POV, but we have tried to cover multiple viewpoints that exist in the literature (academic and otherwise.) The section still needs a lot of work -- I am trying to get more sources from the critical literature, which takes a while.

In general, when a section of a larger article is "broken out", there is a brief summary of the points raised on the main article. We haven't done that (yet) -- why not go ahead and do it yourself? I think in general two paragraphs is standard. Yours, Sdedeo 02:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Jesse Recurring?

He was only in the first two-hour episode. Even when split into 1.1 and 1.2, is that recurring? Are there others in the recurring section who were only in two eps? - Laszlo Panaflex 07:13, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

That seems like a hard call. "Recurring" as a television industry term does refer to any player in two or more episodes (which affects the amount of royalties they receive), so that seems like a fair standard to apply here. And the two hour premiere, though only one story, is technically two episodes with two different titles. Off the top of my head, Whistler appears only in "Becoming Part 1" and "Becoming Part 2", and Cassie Newton appears in only two episodes in season 7. The same would be true for the three actors who play the council "retrieval team" in back to back episodes in season 4 ("This Year's Girl" and "Who Am I?"), though they aren't currently listed. BarkingDoc

To quote Tom, "fair enough." Cheers, Laszlo Panaflex 09:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Gender Roles

I'm thinking of maybe writing up about something which is already refered to in passing in 1 Genesis, plot and format: the general subversion of gender roles in Buffy. I think that if, thematically speaking, we're considering homossexuality an important enough issue to devote such an extention of text to it, it seems rather unbalanced not to give the shows general play with gender role (starting with, as refered, the young blonde cheerleader as heroine, through to her very own watcher's doubts as to the efficiency of the established watcher (male) - slayer (female) hierarchy, or even, most explicitly, the final episode's intensely feminist content) some more attention.

So, sometime soon I might introduce a (sub)section on the subject (maybe we could put this, along with Buffy And Homossexuality, in a specific section for ongoing themes?), detailing the general characteristics of the show genderwise and also giving specific, clearer instances where this is examplified (possibly with passing reference to Whedon's intense personal background as to feminist thought, as well).

I'm posting this to figure out if some of the more active editors on the page have a problem with the concept, or if indeed this is acceptable, and in case of silence, I will, when I find the free time, introduce said section.

Also: Would a specific thematical study of the show's analogy of High School = Hell (or better put, possibly: Adolescence's Personal Demons = Literal, Murderous Demons) be justifiable (an obvious example being, for instance, the demon faced and defeated on Graduation Day itself)? Is this, again, going too far into the show just for this page? Again, the possibility of a specific "Themes" category? Or would that make the article much too bloated...?

Both are also already approached (the second admitedly in greater detail) in Genesis, Plot And Format, but again: if homosexuality deserves such attention, why not the shows most important underlying themes?

I'd appreciate some responses... Thoughts on this? Zeppocity 22:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I think these are both good ideas, if you can keep the content to referenced discussions and not just POV trains of thought. I have tried to pare down the homosexuality section to make it enyclopedic, and we would want the same to be true in new sections--- information, not just rumination. Other than that, I do think it is worth exploring. BarkingDoc 06:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Well then, I think I might get to it soon. Haven't started collecting sources yet (for info backing up claims on Whedon's intant, mostly), but I think I can pinpoint specific enough points throughout the show to build the texts properly, if their fundamental nature isn't to essayish for the Wiki. (Might first post up the new sections in my own talk page, and link to it here, before actually putting them up, if a previous analysis of the material is desired?... I'll say something if this comes to be, I guess).

No objections, then. :) Again: When possible, I starty start.Zeppocity 20:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

"HS=Hell"? Joss is quoted saying as much, as I recall... Trekphiler 15:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

60 minutes

When has an episode of Buffy lasted 60 minutes? Even Once More, With Feeling lasts only 48 minutes (the approx. time given on the DVD of said episode). Don't we mean that the run-time is 44 minutes?

Yes, we certainly do, at least approximately so... maybe the editor wanted to round it up to fit into the hourly rather than half-hourly category (distinguishing the show from sitcoms)...? No point. Changy change. Zeppocity 15:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

As to the show's format

Someone recently added Fantasy for it only to be removed, which confuses in and of itself, but... mostly: is it really properly categorized as it is? Arguably, the balance between drama and comedy is much more significant to the show than "horror", since a good part of the B-movie-ish villains are treated as such, and more for pummeling than actual. Well. Horror. I'm thinking "teen dramedy"|"fantasy"|"horror" or somesuch would be more fitting, non? I think I might edit it already; any problems with it, please comment hither. Zeppocity 15:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Is "genre" the same thing as "format"? I don't think it is. "Format" is a TV industry term which divides shows based on how they are produced and presented on air. The format for Buffy is "drama," which applies to any 44 minute fiction show, no matter what the writing style. BarkingDoc

Thank you. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Not gonna bother with it further.Zeppocity 04:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Though how you can, according to that same logic, leave Fantasy, which is itself defined at wiki as "Fantasy is a genre of art, literature, film, television, and music", is somewhat beyond me.Zeppocity 04:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed I did that too--- doesn't make a lot of sense. :) Actually, I was browsing through the other show articles, and they don't use the "industry" standard for format, they lean more toward genre. The issue of genre seems like a subjective one to me, so I'm not sure how to decide "objectively". Since Buffy is characterized particularly by its frequent crossing of genres, "fantasy" seemed to me to be the only universal factor. It seems like a minor point, though. I am very open to other ideas. BarkingDoc

I get what you mean... Well, look, since it's pointless to go back and forth editing: I'll put dramedy back ("Teen dramedy" might be messy, but it manages to mention both without actually saying "Teen drama/Dramedy/etc", which seems sort of redundant to me) since the show's comedic content is about as important as its fantasy content. I mean, The Body is just about the only episode where they don't "make with the funny", and ironically, there's not much fantasy in that one either. And I'd actually think that most fans are enjoy the comedic content more than sit in awe at the supernatural elements, though this is, I guess, subjective. So, anyway, back on track - what'd you think of at least reintroducing "dramedy"? Zeppocity 08:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Not trying to be difficult, but I think "dramedy" is not a great term--- I wouldn't object if it was just me that disliked it, but others have a problem as well: even the dramedy page on wiki was changed to "comedy-drama" because there was a consensus that dramedy wasn't a proper word. I won't make a fuss about it, though, if you still think it works. BarkingDoc 20:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm very sorry about that, my English comes from classes and general contact with Anglo culture, meaning, there's a lot of weird flaws, and in this case in particular, I was totally convinced that "dramedy" was an acceptable term; sorry. Anyway, personally, I think the current "Teen comedy-drama/Fantasy" works just about perfectly. ;) Zeppocity 20:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Format, if we're using the industry term, would be "comedy-drama" or "action-adventure" (more likely). If we mean "genre", "horror" or "horror-comedy" (& I lean to"horror-comedy"). Trekphiler 15:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I lean for Dramatic Comedy. Drama can have funny moments too.--Gonzalo84 19:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor details

I am trying to steer this article away from including a large number of minor details about plot and individual events. There may be some cases where examples are a good idea, but even then, when an example is used, we don't have to give all of the details and context involved. We want this article to be of service to a general reader, and we have to remember that, expecially in fantasy stories, things that seem self-explanatory to a fan are actually somewhat complex ideas which should just be dropped in parenthetically. Just a reminder--- keep it simple. BarkingDoc 22:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Certainly agreed, specially taking in consideration the sheer size it's reaching. Anyway, I'm actually trying to work on this now and then; trimming and making some stuff a tad more concise. Whether it's working or not is beyond me, but I'll keep trying to contribute to a tighter, clearer article when possible. Zeppocity 23:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's looking pretty good. BarkingDoc

Hmm. I've restored some of the deleted details. I like the new headings, but I'm not convinced that paragraphs such as the following are "tighter" and "clearer" than they were before:

Exemplifying this preference of the search for dramatic tension and moral consequence over the happy resolution of all matters, are for instance the effects of Buffy's ressurection in season six, which accidentally conjures a demon as a side-effect for the sake of balance, as magic functions according to this principle. Besides this, Buffy ends up emotionally unstable throughout the season, due to actually having been pulled out of heaven, rather the hell dimension her friends expected. In the long term, and graver than these, there is the fact that it is precisely the spell performed by the Scooby Gang to bring their friend back into a happy, peaceful existence that enables The First Evil to strike in the next season.

How does this improve on:

While fans may joke about characters being punished for sex, Whedon has insisted that the show must earn its emotional moments; to this end, his characters are generally — often painfully — obliged to answer for their actions. For instance, when Buffy's friends resurrect her in season six, after her death at the end of season five, they accidentally conjure a demon as a sort of cosmic debt. In the long run, as a result of being torn from heaven, Buffy spends most of season six depressed (and enmeshed in a sadomasochistic sexual relationship with the vampire Spike). Worse, because of the magical mojo wrought on the Slayer by Willow in the sixth season, The First Evil is able to wage war on the slayer lineage in season seven.

I don't know a polite way of saying this, and apologies for that, but tweakage such as this strikes me as a tad clumsy. I'm also not convinced that the article's "sheer size" is a problem (Wikipedia is not paper). Half of the article is reference material. The prose half is actually quite svelte. I'm especially not convinced that Buffy's feminism is a detail that needs to be excised on the grounds that it's only of interest to fanboys, or that Whedon's exegesis of his Buffy MO should be terminated mid-flow.

chocolateboy 12:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

We're all playing with the language in the article. The "clearer" rewrites are several versions ago, when the article was made up entirely of long run-on sentances with multiple parentheticals. The more recent rewrites are tweaking between a few editors. I hope you will include whatever you think is worthwhile. What I am talking about is unnecessary and confusing detail: fans (like me) will tend to want to write "Buffy's sister, Dawn Summers, who was created by a group of magically empowered Monks and given to Buffy, including a full set of false memories of their life together, in an effort to hide her from the powerful God "Glory," who could not guess the girl's true, pure energy form" instead of just writing "Dawn, introduced by magical means in season five." That is the kind of thing we are trying to avoid.

I think we can probably come up with a more concise example of cause and consequence in Buffy than the one above-- again, one which doesn't require an understanding of the internal mythology--- though I do not myself believe than an example is necessary. I think Joss' quote is clear enough on its own. BarkingDoc 19:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to raise an issue as to what's "tighter" and "clearer", please, try harder than pulling out a single example; see the other work done on the article's general organization and excess text and think better about it (- heck, even in that specific section as well.

And if your issue is, specifically, with this re-write (of my own): the point for the most part to achieve a somewhat more appropriate style for the article, leaving out the anedoctal "fans may joke" (somewhat pointless) and a reference to Spike and Buffy's relationship, which really isn't appropriately summarized as "S&M".

If I failed in aiming for a better style of text, I apologize; go ahead and edit, but please try and understand the point of the edit in the first place. Sorry if I'm not being very clear on this and adressing the discussion properly; I'm in a rush, not my own pc. Be back eventually. Zeppocity 20:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Elaborating a tad; the point was to aim for, as said, better style of the article, as far as some of the changes go. Specifically, if something is written in a certain tone, what follows should as well, among other things.

Gah, I'm not even sure what to adress by now; exactly how long did you wait before going about reverting people's work? Is it just me that's gone out of the loop?

Again, stuff like

Writer Joss Whedon created the show as an intentional departure from the typical horror film formula. Traditional horror films included countless scenes of young blonde girls either portrayed as hysterical victims or being rescued by handsome well-armed male heroes. By reversing the cliché of the helpless female victim, Buffy presented an alternative paradigm which has been embraced by popular culture as an emblem of female power - in Whedon's narrative, Buffy's male friend Xander is more likely to need rescuing, while Buffy is more than capable of looking after herself and those surrounding her. However, her personal life is as painful and confusing as any teenage girl's. This combination of empowerment and empathy has earned Buffy a passionate following among fans.

Buffy is credited (alongside the teen drama Dawson's Creek) with playing a key role in the success of the Warner Brothers television network in its early years. After Buffy's fifth season, UPN outbid The WB for the rights to air Buffy.

Is indeed appropriate info, but whereas as it were it immediately went into an explanation of the show's, well, genesis, plot and format, which is the whole point, this way, it jumps from passingly (and not very effectively) touching on the feminist issue to a remark on what distinguishes it from other shows, to a comment on its influence, history and success... I mean, do you honestly believe that this sort of thing is focused enough? All the information here is good; it should, however, go into different places and be properly adressed.

More stuff. Hum, see how I'd stuck in Joss Whedon into the initial statement? The point was to avoid the somewhat repetitive way the initial section is now; "The show...", "The series". And "In part as a result of this, the show is notable " was an attempt at giving it some sort of flow and, again, avoiding repetition...

And we could go on, and on, but there's not really much of a point of justifying my edits to you (a good part of what you reversed was content I'd worked on, yes).

God, seriously, would it really have hurt that much to actually try and achieve a better article by editing yourself rather than just reverting away, regardless of the previous editors' intentions and attention given to it before you...? Zeppocity 02:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are addressing, Zeppo. As far as I know, there has only been one wholesale revert in the past few weeks (not by me) and people have been working together to do exactly what you are suggesting: format the article in a clear, easy to read, and relevant way. I do agree with you that editors should make a very strong effort to do a thoughtful copyedit which includes their own ideas and the previous author's. Reverts should only be used in the case of intentional vandalism or outright error. Otherwise, I think we are doing a good job of working together. BarkingDoc 20:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Zeppocity.

I did edit and merge. I apologise if you were on the receiving end of most of my edits, but I assuredly merged some of your edits and took pains to merge the other edits that weren't related to our discussion. As for "would it really have hurt that much to actually try and achieve a better article by editing yourself rather than just reverting away" - being bold works both ways. You did actually delete a lot of stuff (feminism, the WB, empathy/empowerment, "Things have to go wrong. Bad things have to happen" &c.) despite conceding that it's "appropriate info" and that "all the information here is good". I "restored" the bulk of those deletions for reasons I'll try to explain:

"see the other work done on the article's general organization". I did. I mentioned it ("I like the new headings"). It's excellent.
"fans may joke" may make more sense if you consider the history of the article. See the comments here and here on Buffy and puritanism (and the related article). That line is a part of the give and take between criticism and appreciation of the tradeoffs involved in the show's use of metaphor. Having said that, I agree with BarkingDoc that the whole para retreads ground covered by the Whedon quote and its preamble.
"it jumps from passingly (and not very effectively) touching on the feminist issue". Passingly, perhaps, but it's surely more effective than excising it from the article altogether? [1]
"All the information here is good; it should, however, go into different places and be properly adressed." I agree that the Dawson's Creek/WB para could be moved (e.g. to a Trivia section), but, again, your edit removed it without explanation. [2]
"Hum, see how I'd stuck in Joss Whedon into the initial statement?" There's no need to encumber the opening sentence, which, as the style guide counsels, should be snappy and to the point, with the name of the show's creator. Neither Angel nor Firefly do that. What's the rush? There's also no reason not to. I restored the older version because it's less clunky than "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer is a U.S. television series, created by Joss Whedon. It was based on the original script for the 1992 movie of the same name, of his own authorship..." Why squirm like that in the first paragraph when there's a much more natural alternative to hand? "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer is a U.S. television series based on the original script for the 1992 movie of the same name ... The series was created by Joss Whedon, who also wrote the movie". I don't see how "of his own authorship" is better than taking a breather for a sentence or two, and introducing Whedon properly (rather than parenthetically).
"In part as a result of this, the show is notable..." Again, I don't see how this is better than plain old "The show is notable for attracting the interest of scholars of popular culture", particularly given your comments about making the article "a tad more concise", "tighter" and "clearer".

Because both lead to a string of, as I said, "The show" and "The series" sentences; I thought it'd be better trying to connect them. Sorry if I failed.Zeppocity 14:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

chocolateboy 23:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've been both and unfair and really rambly in expressing my issues with what was done... But I do think that you went about incorrectly with some of the stuff you did, as, admitedly, did I. So, isntead of keeping this up much longer (I am both currently computer-less and am generally crap at discussing execution, it seems), I'll try and re-edit the article soon, trying to achieve some consensus and justifying changes made here. I understand that you may be concerned with this leading to a bizarre pseudo-edit-war confusion, but there's too much to adress and I don't have much time, and I haven't managed to pay as much attention to the article as I would like to. So, again, soon, I'll check how it was and how it is and try and reapproach some stuff, yes? Again with the sorry. Zeppocity 14:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Not that much done, actually. Anyway, to those it may interest, since these are things that had previously been rev'ed away:

On Works inspired by Buffy: A good part of the stuff present in this section isn't about works "inspired by" Buffy, but rather actively about the show. Hence changing the title to a wider "Related works" and making the distinction between the different categories, since I reckon they're different enough types of work and because in purely pratical terms, someone specifically interested in any one of them in particular will be able to skip to it when reading the article.
On Origins: As it was, and as it is now once again, with some previous stuff incorporated, the Origins section establishes the show's creative frameset; it indicates its two main concepts, from the start, as stated by Whedon, points which are further ilustrated in other sections. If there is something in particular of the previous section that is lost, please go ahead and tweak it; I don't really see anything much lost. Also moved the bit on the show's history up into the introduction because... Well, it has nothing to do with genesis, plot and format.

I still think there's something somewhat off about the way "Metaphorical nature and etc" is currently written, but I won't bother with edits and revs and edits and etc. Sorry if there's been ramblyness of my part; things have been messy, hence not much of the proper focus. Zeppocity 12:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Intro section length

The introductory section of this article is current 7 paragraphs long, which is more than twice the maximum recommended length (1-3). It's so long that, together with the infobox, it pushes the table of contents well below useful positioning. We should move a good bit of the current "intro" material into other sections (or in its own section) and/or tersely summarize its content if already expanded upon in the main article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Season 8

(Originally there was to be 8 seasons instead of 7. The first evil & Caleb were to be in season 8 along with every other monster that was in season 7 were to be moved to season 8. The plot for the would be season 7 was for the hellmouth to completely open and release EVERYTHING the scoobies gang have ever killed, defeated or destroyed. Including Mr. Trick, Glory, Adam, Vampire Willow & Every thing else ever slayed by Just the scoobies gang or a fried of the scoobies gang. Every monster that was in a thousand mile radius of the Sunnydale hell mouth was to be magically inclined to head right to Sunnydale.)

I went ahead and removed this as it seems very suspect and something of this nature definitely needs to cite a source. If someone can and add the link to the article, feel free to add it and reintegrate this back into the article. --Bacteria 08:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I recall reading the same thing about "every single monster" back then, but I have no idea where. Some quick Googling only gave me info on this book which seems to have a wholy different story. Retodon8 09:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yep, and as one of my friends on a BtVS board so eloquently put it, "every character, monster, villain and third demon from the left" will be appearing in the 100th Episode. Cruft. Bin it. (Even though it would have been about 635,000 times better than what actually happened...) Kinitawowi 09:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh huh. Complete fancruft, unless there's an actual quote to back it up from Whedon et al. Rhobite 01:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Canon

This topic needs an entry under Canon (fiction). what is considered buffy canon? angel? comics? books? games? movie? --Quiddity 01:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Buffyverse canon there you go quiddy :) -- Paxomen 18:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Landmark Episodes

Should there be a section about episodes like "Hush", "The Body", and "Conversations with Dead People"? I don't know how to edit an article really.

"Hush", "The Body" and "Once More, With Feeling" are all explicitly mentioned both as critically acclaimed, risk-taking episodes and as "fan favorites".

If you know how to find an article's talk page, then you know more than most Wikipedia contributors. Welcome aboard!

chocolateboy 18:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree about "Hush". Also there was a lot of humour in that episode. Particularly Buffy getting upset with how Giles drew the stick figure that is supposed to represent her. Giles would be no good at Pictionary.

About "once more with feeling" it is too bad the theatre production that was being put together is not going forward. It would have been interesting to see that episode performed on stage. Anyone have any updates about what happen.--Tjkphilosofe 11:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I have seen OMWF performed in Rocky Horror Picture Show style on stage at Dragon Con 2005. Twas very good. The Bearded One 05:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

How long ago did see it performed. I heard that because of question of ownership rights of the episode the organizers were forced to cancel the performances.--Tjkphilosofe 07:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The date of the performance I saw was 02 September 2005 in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. The Bearded One 07:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that when he says Rocky Horror Picture Show style he probably means that the episode was played on a screen while people who dressed up acted along with it, as opposed to the aborted original stage adaptation. - Dharmabum420 07:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that is not quite the same as the live action production planned. It is too bad couldn't precede with that.--Tjkphilosofe 09:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

More details needed

I was having a discussion on a buffy message board, and it was called into question how know Kendra last name being Young. There is a link next to her name in the list of recurring characters but there is no mention of the publication of the interview the quote was taken from. The source is nothing more than second hand information and not evidence.

By the way everyone at buffy-boards.com loves how thorough the Buffy and Angel articles are on wikipedia. Both have become the preferred resource. I added an external link to the message boards. --Tjkphilosofe 07:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Change of heart

I was reading the summary for Robia La Morte and was surprised that she is very much against witchcraft. I wonder what disturbs her about the occult and witchcraft. I figure she did research in preparation for being Jenny Calendar.

I don't believe she has done much after Buffy. I remember seeing her on CSI. You could barely recognize her, and the part wasn't all that extensive. Has anyone seen her in any other productions recently ?

--Tjkphilosofe 14:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

She's became a born-again Christian after a near tragic experience that made her reconsider her life. And as you know, they are against the occult (Harry Potter for instance). That's why she only appeared once playing the First Evil.--Gonzalo84 04:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

2 things. The Sunnydale HS football squad was the Razorbacks (...). And does anybody know if The Judge's hand was at all inspired by the artificial hand of Götz von Berlichingen? Trekphiler 15:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Farfetched; was G.'s hand ever said to come alive on its own? —Tamfang 04:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Quotable

Wondering if a "quotes" subsection is appropriate. I'd nom funniest thing Buffy heard since she came to Sunnydale: "Harmony has minions." Wannabeenangel 05:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Quotes can be included at Wikiquote. Buffy's are at q:Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and the particular episode, "Real Me", is at q:Buffy the Vampire Slayer#Real Me.

There are two major problems with quotes on Wikipedia. First, and especially true for a 144-episode TV series, is how can one possibly provide a selection of only a few quotes to avoid overwhelming the article itself? From considerable experience at Wikiquote, I can assure you that it is impossible for a large editing audience to be so selective. One solution to this problem is to provide a "Quotes" section in each Buffy episode article, which we've done. Then the problem is merely to pick 1-3 quotes from each episode. That still duplicates the content of Wikiquote, but the latter can hold more (though not a lot more per episode, given copyright concerns).

The second problem is the desire for fans (myself included!) to quote passages that don't mean much to anyone who hasn't seen the show. I agree that the "Harmony has minions?!" scene is hilarious, but when you read the transcription of the scene with an objective eye, the phrase is not particularly impressive as a quote. (Consider how much of the humor is in the knowledge of how inept Harmony is, the priceless expression of Buffy's face, and her gales of laughter, none of which are easily conveyed in terse, formatted text.) This may explain why the "minions" quote isn't even on Wikiquote right now. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

A few things

Well, I do think that the article is very good, in terms of information that is provided as well as relevant citations, I felt it was a little cluttered, so, going by the "be bold" motto, I changed a few things. Binthemix 10:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

natural deaths

Previously someone objected to counting Tara as a "natural death"; now the girls killed in traffic in Some Assembly Required have been added. What's the standard? — Someone said during that episode that the girls died by natural causes (i.e. not vampire attack); it reminded me of a line in the MAD parody of some gangster movie, "Around here, that's natural causes." —Tamfang 04:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like we're confusing the real-world term "natural death" with the opposite of "supernatural death", which in the Buffyverse includes pretty much every kind of death in the real world. "Natural death" makes a logical opposite, but the term is already too well-established to avoid this confusion. We need a different term. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Are any traffic deaths mentioned other than in Some Assembly Required? —Tamfang 17:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

How about mortal deaths as opposed to natural deaths, i'm not sure but i think i remeber Osiris reffering to Tara's death as a mortal death when willow tried to revive her.69.217.195.50 09:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

He says "natural passing" and "human death, by human means". [3] "mortal death" is a pleonasm (the death of something capable of dying).

chocolateboy 02:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"pervasive"

Uucp (Mar.1) changed pervasive to traditional in the phrase "an intentional departure from the pervasive horror film formula," commenting, "pervasive doesn't mean what you seem to think it means." Barkingdoc (Feb.8) wrote pervasive to replace typical. I take pervasive to mean extremely widespread; does Uucp find that inappropriate, or think Barkingdoc meant something else by it? —Tamfang 23:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Per Merriam-Webster Online, "pervasive" means "tends to pervade", or "tends to be diffused throughout". I think the reason this term is unsatisfying in the above phrase is that no medium is clearly identified throughout which the formula diffuses. Implicitly, it's "the horror film genre", but I don't see a way to add this without sounding redundant or otherwise awkward. It's a neat word, but it just doesn't work in this phrase. "Typical" refers more to the item and its collective brethren than to it within its medium, and so doesn't demand the latter to be explicit. Nor do "common", "trite", "stereotypical", "usual", "popular", "hackneyed", or other potentially appropriate terms. ("Widespread" strikes me as needing that medium, though perhaps less so than "pervasive".) Replacing a simple but useful word with a more sophisticated one requires a bit of caution in its appropriate use. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Normally I have no interest in preserving any particular word or phrase, but I am amused at the suggestion that I was somehow reckless in changing the term. I'm not able to follow the above argument. I don't see how "pervasive horror film formula" would be interpreted in any other way than "a formula widespread thoughout horror films." The word "pervasive" does have a connotation of being widespread beyond what would be considered normal and natural, which I think is correct and appropriate in this case. I certainly don't think that the practice can fairly be called "traditional." It could be argued that to fully explain the idea, the phrase should read "the overwhelmingly common and violently misogynistic practice in the great majority of horror films of celebrating violence against women by depicting their helpless, highly eroticized slaughter, usually in multiple scenes per film." However, I think that the word "pervasive" indicates the simple and correct idea. BarkingDoc

Website links

Since both of the listed official websites are dead is it worth removing the links? --Brother William 20th April 2006

I agree, removing the dead links is desirable. 14:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Other languages

I have deleted this section from the main article. This is English section of Wikipedia. XPeeple 04:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Moral Connotations

This section has existed for a very long time (somewhat abitrarily paired with "metaphorical nature") without really coming together with references, except the one to an opinion article, which actually says the opposite of what it is being used to support. The quotes are discussions of Joss Whedon's writing process, not moral issues. I have been a Buffy fan (I dare say scholar) for many years, and while even the creators joke about how characters are not allowed to be happy for more than a few moments, I have never encountered a serious discussion of Buffy having a puritanical bent. Since there is an entire article on Buffy and social issues (which is itself comprised entirely of original research) I think I am soon going to delete this section, unless someone can provide some reference or a reason why this original research/opinion deserves to be kept.

I think (in a shorter version of what I just wrote at the "social issues" talk page) that to even suggest that Buffy HAS any moral connotations is already to have steered into the realm of opinion, or at best academic analysis. I am looking into developing something like "Academic Discussions Of Buffy The Vampire Slayer" in order to use the good references in a format that is more encylopedic. Ideas? BarkingDoc 21:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Buffy Stuff

Wikipedia contains entirely too much Buffy stuff. The show was all right, but it's been off the air for years now, and, even when it was still broadcast, it never deserved all the attention it is given in Wikipedia. Other hit TV shows do not have anything near the coverage that this show receives. Is Joss Whedon secretly paying off the Wikipedia staff or has he hired an army of Wikiwriters to publicize his work? Ninety-five percent of the "articles" concerning Buffy deserve to be deleted, and, yes, I was (and remain) a fan of the show. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.9 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly -- there are plenty of articles on television shows far less popular, and older than Buffy. Tobyink 22:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't Delete Buffy Stuff

The show does air on FX in the morning dummy!

Wow, that was fast. Was gonna remove it myself, saw I wasn't logged in, logged in, template was gone. The Taped Crusader 22:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No need for name calling. This is an old discussion, in any event. BarkingDoc 01:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers Under Main Characters Subheading

The subheading 'Main Characters' could do with having a spoiler warning just below it as it details character's deaths. While there is one futher up the page under 'Format and Themes', it might not hurt to have another under the 'Main Characters' heading.

Kat 02:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)