Talk:Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Behind The Scene

I just read on a Buffy Magazine that on the UK Six Season DVD's there's a behind the scene of the musical by David Fury. So I've modified the page accordingly. But I'm not in the UK, and I'll wait for the Italian edition of the DVD's in August, so I can't check now, can anyone else? I also wonder if it's the same behind the scene that was on the official site some time ago. If so, it's a bit too short to summarize 40 hours of shooting. Lazarus Long 17:22 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ok, time has passed, Italian DVD's are out, and I was able to buy them and check. It's much longer than that, so it's the right one. Lazarus Long 18:53, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Plot Summary

I've gone ahead and reworked the plot summary to include the songs, but personally, at least, I still think it could be much better... first of all, not enough emphasis is put on the songs as it is, and secondly, the text quality sometimes doesn't seem quite... Wiki-level. It's also a bit unclear in terms of plot. So, I'm thinking of rewriting the thing, when I have the time, to a) be just, well, a tad better and cleared and b) make the songs stand out in the episode structure, and I have in mind something like

Yada yada, x and y are doing a and b, as blabla, and z breaks into

• Song title, where he, she, they sing about this and this and that.

As the song ends, etc. etc. The group finally meets up and starts singing

• Song title, about this and this and that

Followed by

• Song title, about this and that and thus.

and so on, to put it, admitedly, rather crudely, but well, those interested will at least get the point. Any thoughts on this? If not, when I have the time, I'll go ahead and rework it into this structure. A frowning Zed

Something to Sing About

I just added a sentence about Sarah Michelle Gellar taking on the challenge of "Something to Sing About" after Joss Whedon had originally planned to have Jewel dub it. I tried to make the text sound interesting, but I'm troubled that it might be a bit breathless. Also, I can't recall the source for this information offhand, and I don't have an "OMwF" DVD handy to check its commentary. Could someone look this over and tweak it if needed? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Trivia/References

Some of the things in the trivia section seem like they should be in the Cultural References section - ie. the Magnolia reference.Satchfan 13:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Influences on songs

It would be interesting to mention some of the influences on the various songs written for this episode. For instance, "Standing," seems to have very obvious allusions both stylistically and lyrically to "Free Bird." I know Whedon has commented on inspirations for the music, although I can't remember what he said. Theshibboleth 10:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll Be Mrs?

Should we mention Anya's 'lost' song?

Sound effect notability

Why is it "notable" that the sound effects included in the TV version are not on the CD? I would have thought this is a norm with soundtracks, as the musical performance is recorded first and then the action and FX added later on. I'll consider this section of text moot; unless anyone challenges its deletion I will remove it in 24 hours. Michaelyoung83 01:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Buffy607.jpg

Image:Buffy607.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Buffy607.jpg

Image:Buffy607.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Buffy607.jpg

Image:Buffy607.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Arc Signifigance

I can't get the 'All the way' link to work and the comment about Spike and Buffy's relationship seems to be original research. Lots42 (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

SMG doesn't sing, I'm sure

Sorry, but I remember a Sky One interview with her and Richard Whateverhisnameis (the black guy who used to present [MTV], I forgot his name) and she says "definitely not me" and "lipsinging is easy" etc.

I'm sure.

Someone who's seen this come up with a better quote, please.

even if that is SMG, her voice is so overly warbley that it sounds as though it's undergone considerable digital manipulation. --82.21.200.31 11:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, there's no such thing as "lipsinging" - it's lip SYNCHING. As in, your lips are in synch with the audio? :P 63.21.81.221 07:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm speaking here not from first hand knowledge, certainly, but from listening to a *lot* of singers with distinctive voices. She could have had a stunt singer, but if she did, the voice casting is 100.0% perfect. Which is very unusual; SMG has a *decidedly* distincitve voice.

And, speaking as an audio engineer: "overly warbley"? Huh?

On another point: we have a first-run off-air VHS tape recorded from the Tampa affil. So clearly *some* of the East coast got it cleanly; how shall we re-write that graf? --Baylink 18:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like SMG, but very autotuned. Of course, it'd be best if we dug up a verifiable source, rather than analysing and remembering. — Matt Crypto 18:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the question can resolved if someone would check the DVD commentary for the episode, as I suggested above. (I'd do it myself if I had the DVD, but I don't.) Matt Crypto is correct that we need sources, not speculation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I sounds like SMG on the audio (she DOES have a fairly disctinctive voice) - really, all you'd need to do is check the CREDITS. If she had a "stunt singer" to sing for her, surely it would be in the credits, right? Really, though, she's off-key during the "I think I was in heaven" line. Or maybe not necessarily off KEY, literally, but it sounds BAAAAD, like, painfully bad... parts of the song do sound sort of... badly-sung. I doubt they'd sound that way if SMG herself had not sung them, they'd have gotten a better singer, not a bad to mediocre one! I have no doubt that she sings the closing numbers she's supposed to be in. However, credit-checking would be a good way to check it (I can't check it myself because don't have an actual copy of the episode; I do have the soundtrack, as well as a couple of copies of songs from it that somebody had recorded straight from the episode for me). 63.21.81.221 07:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. This is called dissonance, a musical tool often used, as in this case, to express painful emotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.234.225 (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is SMG singing. It's her real singing. The "Heeaaven" line is intentionally in a strange note and not 'off key'. This strange note is repeated exactly by Spike when he sings, "you have to go on Liiiiving". It's done for stylistic reasons. Lastly, the article on this is highly screwed up, repeating itself in many places and featuring all sorts of ridiculous extraneous things - some of them not even pertaining to the episode. --Daniel 15:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In this video you can see everybody singing. FANSTAR (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Lord of the Dance

This is my first attempt at joining in with a wiki page, so I hope I am doing this right.

In a converstaion between Tara and Dawn, Tara says 'Willow said they have a lead on the whole musical extravaganza evil. This demon that can be summoned, some sort of Lord of the Dance. Oh, but not the scary one. Just a demon.'

When watching this I was fairly sure it was a reference to Michael Flatley's Irish dancing extravanganza 'Lord of the Dance'. It was a joke that could be easily missed. Is it something we could add to the 'Cultural References' section?Calindreams (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Track List

Ummm.... The list of tracks presented here doesn't match my copy of the soundtrack cd. "Main Title," listed here as Track 1 is actually Track 19, which bumps all of the intervening tracks up one in the list. Perhaps, my copy was pressed differently from others. However, this is how the tracks are listed at cduniverse.com Could someone please check this and adjust the list if necessary?

I'm not sure, but I believe that there are two different pressings of this. I remember GraceNote seems to get confused when you add this CD onto iTunes. Either that, or the prevailing digital information does not match the actual CDs. -- Jayunderscorezero 22:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Main Title" is definitely track 19 on the CD. I own it and listed on the back of the physical copy, and when inserted into a computer, it is track 19. I don't know what this page said back in 2007 when you asked the question, but if it listed "Main Title" as track #1 on the CD, it was wrong. Sure, "Main Title" is the first song in the episode (albeit, an instrumental one), but it does not feature first on the CD pressing. 58.110.193.14 (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Songs in other languages

I'd like to know if for other countries they translated the songs, because they did so for the spanish version. The same person who always made their voices in spanish, also sang for this episode. The narrator also said the title right before the song started, so I'd like to know if this was only for Latin America.

in Spain they didn't translate the songs, just put subtitles, normally musicals are not translated. and each character has their own voice dubber (not just one for all of them), so for example you can recognize the spanish woman who dubbs Sarah Michelle Gellar in an advert or dubbing another actress —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.215.112 (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 23:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

What a great article, I really enjoyed reading it; it's a long time since I watched this!

A couple of minor issues:

• "After trying to escape by dancing with Sweet's minions in a nightclub called The Bronze ("Dawn's Ballet"), Sweet (Hinton Battle) makes his appearance as a color-changing zoot suit-wearing, tap dancing, singing demon who tells Dawn that, by the (stolen) charm necklace she wears, she has called him to Sunnydale and he will take her to his dimension to make her his bride ("What You Feel")." - does this sentence make sense? It reads to me like Sweet's the one trying to escape his minions.
• "Although Salon.com writer Stephanie Zacharek states "The songs were only half-memorable at best,..." - is the capital "T" at the beginning of the quote intentional? Because it appears that you have changed letters lower case in other quotes, when the quote starts in the middle of a sentence.
• External link #5 appears to be dead.

Apart from that, the two concerns I have are criterion #1b and criterion #3b. At the moment, I don't feel that the lead summariss the whole article (per WP:LEAD). I'm also a little concerned about whether or not the article's focused enough. I picked a few FA class articles about TV episodes at random, and none of them went into much background detail about the series as a whole. Of course, just because that's how they are, doesn't mean it's set in stone, but this article does seem to go into a lot of detail about the background and I'm not sure it's all necessary. I'm open to persuasion on it though and would be interested to know what you think. The plot section's also quite long, per MOS:TV. I know it's over an hour long, but at 831 words, it's longer even than what's recommended for film plot sections. It is a more complicated story than usual though, and I couldn't see any obvious bits to cut, so I'm not too bothered about that.

So, if you could expand the lead & let me know what you think about it being focused, or not, that would be great. I'll put it on hold in the meantime.--BelovedFreak 23:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Belovedfreak. Thanks for the review (really quick, too!). I just saw this episode for the first time last month. Actually, I just started watching Buffy in March.

• I think the show itself deserves some discussion as several sources made pretty strong points about multi-episode and -season story arcs, and this episode takes some background to explain because everyone's secrets that they've been hiding for weeks or months come out. If there are specific sentences or paragraphs you think are extraneous and add nothing at all, let me know which ones. I admit I tend to add as much as I can and then it gets hard to cut it down. There's a lot of Buffy info and I still have a book on the way about music from the series. Let's discuss them and see if we can compromise.
• I also read some other episode FAs like for The Simpsons and such, but this one simply is so unlike any other TV show FA that I had to stop trying to compare them. If it didn't have the musical element to it, maybe it would be more appropriate to compare to another TV show episode. I really think I have to compare this episode to a film article.
• I know the plot is not as concise as I like, but to explain how each of the songs fits into the episode...there are 14 songs...Either not all the songs need to be included in the Plot section, but that info should be shifted elsewhere making another section larger. I'm not sure.
• The lead is perhaps too concise, but I didn't know what to add without going nuts. I'll add a bit. Let me know what you think.

• I fixed the other things. Thanks again! --Moni3 (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, I've read this through a few more times, and to be honest I'm at a loss as to what to cut, where. I agree that the background is important. The episode does involve ongoing stories, so it's necessary to explain the background. It's actually something I've thought about other episode articles, that they sometimes need a bit more background, so that the story means something to the reader who hasn't seen the episode. Not always necessary of course, depending on the show, many have more "stand alone" episodes. Anyway, My concern is that there's quite a large amount of text that's not actually about this episode. I wondered if maybe the information should be somewhere else and that we could link to it, summary style, but looking around, I don't know where that would be. I see there's no article discussing the story arc for that season, for example. So, I think that it's ok as it is for now. I would like to see some of the background moved elsewhere, but I agree with you that it's important to help the understanding of the reader, and at the moment, there isn't really a better place for it. Sorry to bring up a complaint and then completely fail to offer a solution!
• I looked again at the plot section, and couldn't see anything really to cut out of it, so I'm happy with that as it is.
• I like what you added to the lead, perhaps you could give examples of the musical styles used? Also, perhaps you could mention a bit more about themes; that's a pretty big section that hasn't really made it to the lead. Maybe just emphasise how it was a turning point in the various characters' stories, and Buffy having to face responsibility etc. Also, you could mention the Emmy situation.
• Again, sorry - I don't feel I've been much help here. I think it's a great article, but was just immediately struck by how much extraneous background there was. Now, I've recovered (!) I pretty much agree that it should be there. Maybe it's something to look at again, with a view to tightening it up a bit, if & when you take it to FA.--BelovedFreak 15:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I added some info about music styles and theme to the lead. I'm going to let it stew for a while before nominating it for FA. If anything occurs to you or if you take a chance to read it again soon, please let me know if you have any other suggestions.

I don't know if I'm thrilled or surprised at how much information has been written about this show. I understand about the summary style, and although each episode and major character has an article, and there are ones for the show itself and Buffy studies, there should probably be more. For instance, the amount of information produced on Willow and Tara's relationship probably warrants and article about their relationship instead of info being duplicated in both their articles. For sure, an article about the writing of the show including dialogue and story arcs should exist somewhere. Once the rest of Wikipedia writes that, I could happily link to it.

Thanks again, Belovedfreak. I appreciate the time you took to read and review the article. --Moni3 (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for adding to the lead, I'm happy to pass it now. I definitely think more could be written in general, since there's apparently so much written about the series. I had no idea about "Buffy Studies"! Anyway, good work. I'd been thinking lately of whipping a couple of TV episode articles into shape, thinking that'd be an easy job. You've given me something to aspire to! I'll let you know if anything more springs to mind on this.--BelovedFreak 17:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess I should let you know that I'll be working on "Hush" (already started it) and "The Body". I would love to get "Family" to GA/FA, but that's one of the ones I'm not sure I can do. The sandbox is at User:Moni3/BtVS if you have suggestions. Thanks again! --Moni3 (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll keep an eye on them, mostly out of interest to see their development, but I'll make suggestions if any come to mind!--BelovedFreak 17:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

reference format

• Author, Name (date). "Article Title", Periodical, p. 99.

Is it normal to associate the date with the author rather than with the periodical? —Tamfang (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no preferred cite method on Wikipedia. Citations just have to be consistent throughout the article. I'm kind of stuck on my own system, so that's what I use. --Moni3 (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

recap

Should every episode's article summarize the premise and structure of the series, or only articles for critically-acclaimed episodes? —Tamfang (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know about this. I'm going to try to get this to FA and if it should appear on the main page, it must have a background section to explain what's going on and why. I don't think all the Buffy episodes can get this treatment. This one was the most obvious. I'm working on two others as well and would love to do a fourth, but I'm not sure I can. Ideally, all articles should be fully cited to reliable sources and yadda yadda, but that hasn't happened. I'm just plodding along, trying to do what I can. Maybe this might be a source of discussion for the Buffy wikiproject? I don't know. I'm not active there. Honestly, I just started watching the show in March. --Moni3 (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I went through five seasons in four months and then had to wait a month for S6. —Tamfang (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

truth or smoke

The consequences of hiding the truth in the episode, spontaneous combustion, ....

Huh? We don't see what the victims did before they burned. Buffy starts to smoke immediately after spilling her beans. Sweet says (as I understood him) that the burning is a mere by-product of the musical energy. What supports the penalty concept, other than Whedon's fanhood for Dickens? —Tamfang (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sweet's lyrics: "All these melodies They go on too long / Then that energy Starts to come on way too strong / All those hearts laid open—that must sting / Plus, some customers just start combusting / That’s the penalty When life is but a song" per Richard Albright's article and Rhonda Wilcox's chapter on the episode. --Moni3 (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The "penalty" is the price of the music, nothing more. (How typically Hellish to exact such a price for unsought or unwelcome 'gifts'.) If instead of "hearts laid open ... plus ... combusting" he said "or else ... combusting", and if not for Buffy's clearly contrary example (the only concrete evidence), you'd have a case. If anything ought to bring on the sizzling according to your theory, it's the words "I'll never tell!" —Tamfang (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the source material makes this connection. Personally, I don't know what to think of Sweet's lyrics. --Moni3 (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the source material"? —Tamfang (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not know this would be a point of contention, so I did not cite it solidly. Wilcox's chapter is the one I recall stating that the spontaneous combustion is a consequence of the characters stifling themselves. I vaguely recall it being confirmed a couple other places too, but because I read many sources in a very short amount of time, I do not recall where this information has been verified. I'll go through everything again to see how this is treated by the sources, both by scholars and Whedon. I appreciate the copy edits, btw. I thought this article might sit at GAN for a month or so, where I would spend some time distancing myself from the prose to return to it to get some perspective. --Moni3 (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's wise .... —Tamfang (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

An oblique point against the punishment theory is that no one appears able to resist at all. When Spike starts to sing, his manner shows annoyance but not struggle. (On re-watching I now understand that he thought he was immune because until that moment he had no appropriate audience; few other than Buffy would pay attention to any revelation of his.) If they can't resist, how can they be punished for resisting? —Tamfang (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Giles explains that he overheard the information about Sunnydale residents spontaneously combusting when they refused to admit their truths, in characteristic dry demeanor, as he was eavesdropping upon the police taking "witness arias".

Giles says no such thing. He says he examined a body while the police were distracted by witness arias, and learned only that it burned from within. Xander then asks whether the burning is definitely connected with the singing and dancing; Giles says "we're not sure of much." —Tamfang (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I can check this source tomorrow. --Moni3 (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I can watch the scene again now ;) —Tamfang (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I removed it. You know, it's odd. I did not make the connection of the spontaneous combustion when I saw the episode for the first several times, nor when I listened to the music. I thought the combustion thing was a disconnected facet of the episode not really made clear by the writers. But there were a few things I didn't catch the first few times I saw the episode, which is why I depended on external sources to assert that the combustion was an effect of the secrets. I can't remember when I read or heard that and went "Oh! Is that what that's all about?" I was probably in full Buffy info gluttony phase by then. But I will do my best to hunt it down, to find the sources that assert this. --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Soundtrack

What happened to the soundtrack information and track listing?--Jcvamp (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The titles were incorporated into the article prose. --Moni3 (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the overly long plot

Just to give you some examples. The entire first paragraph of "Background" should just be cut outright. What is the point of having character articles for every character if you're going to spend a paragraph explaining who all of them and and what has happened to them over 6 seasons? Why is Joyce even mentioned on this page? She died halfway through season 5 and has no bearing on this particular episode. She's not even mentioned anywhere else in the article.

Fix it yourself then :3

Now, when it comes to merging things here is just one example: "While patrolling a graveyard at night, Buffy suddenly breaks into a song about how unspired her life has become since she returned to life following her death at the end of season five." We don't need to know exactly how she was brought back to life, just acknowledging the basic fact of what happened. Wikipedia is not a substitute for watching the show. If the reader wants to know more then they should visit that particular page, or go watch the show. Later in the plot, it specificallys says that Buffy confesses to Willow and the others that they took her (Buffy) from Heaven, thus we don't need the background info explaining all of that. It's now redundant. Those are just two examples of merging that either can be done, or already exists.

Now, to talks about the general cleanup of the plot section. The first problem comes in just how it is written. It isn't written like a summary of the plot, but more like someone trying to explain what happens on Buffy. For example, "A normal day in Sunnydale starts in the Summers household where Buffy, Willow, Tara, and Dawn live...." - Who is the writer talking to? It should be no one. Now, this statement isn't intending to truly explain anything, but actually set up a scene for the reader. It's just poorly introduced. In reality, the entire thing can be cut because it has no bearing on the overall episode. Like I said, it's extraneous details about the show where the writer is literally telling the reader what the characters are doing, and not what is happening storywise. "Xander and Anya look over wedding magazines at the Magic Box, a store co-owned by Giles and Anya." - What does this have to do with the episode? Explaining this mundane detail is unnecessary. Knowing that Xander and Anya are looking at wedding magazines doesn't help me understand their mixed feelings about the wedding, and I don't need it later when the plot later talks about their upcoming marriage. Another example is, "When facing a new evil, Giles typically organizes the Scoobies to search his reference library for clues to its nature and how to defeat it. In the Magic Box, they follow this formula in a medley ("I've Got a Theory / Bunnies / If We're Together") expressing their individual ideas about what is causing the singing, although not seeing any immediate danger." - Why is the writer explaining this out? It's unnecessary. Just stick to the facts. You can cut the entire first sentence and just lead with "At the Magic Box, the group sings a medley expressing their individual ideas about what is causing everyone to sing." It's straight and to the point, which is how a plot should be written.

Then there is stuff like, "As they argue, they walk past a woman (series writer and producer Marti Noxon) protesting a parking ticket in song ("The Parking Ticket")." - This has nothing to do with the overall plot of the episode, and has no bearing on the primary characters in question. It's more ancillary than anything. Placed in there just to point out that the writer (and there is another for the producer) performed a skit in the episode. It's not mentioned anywhere else on the page, with exception to a brief passing mentioning where it is used unnecessarily again: "...she and Xander talk over each other while insisting to Giles that evil must be at play in a long single shot scene (while passing the woman protesting her parking ticket) Anya makes references to the audience..."

These are just examples. The plot section could be easily trimmed and any relevant background info can be merged into the plot section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, for a person such as myself who has never seen a single episode of the show, the background section is extremely valuable. I've tried to review a few TV show FACs but am always frustrated when I don't understand the premise of the show and the background, so I've stopped. Assuming the reader will click out of the article to read another article about the background, and then click back is too large of an assumption. It might not be a bad idea to consider changing WP:MOSTV to include background sections. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If a reader comes here just for a plot summary, then they're coming for the wrong reasons. These articles are supposed to be able encyclopedic information regarding the episodes, not recaps where people can catch up on what they missed. Anything relevant to the episode should be in the plot section, and the rest should be removed. Could you imagine 22 episodes of a season reciting the exact same thing, over and over again under the assumption that we need to educate a reader about the entire series thus far so they can understand something in season 6? It's unnecessarily redundant. Do we recap everything that happened in Harry Potter 1 - 6 before we write up the plot summary for Deathly Hallows? No, we assume that people either know what happened in those other films, or that they'll go back and read that to catch up themselves. TV is not much different than film, and we don't do that for film series. Could you imagine doing something like that for say Friday the 13th or Halloween, which have upwards of 10 films?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Quibble: "Parking Ticket" is relevant as an illustration that the episode includes silly little songs as well as big important ones. —Tamfang (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Not relevant to the overall plot of the episode. It doesn't help you understand the story any better. It's a trivial song, and doesn't need to be mentioned in the plot. If it's important in anyway, then relevant, real world context is how you talk about it. Including such minor details in the plot section to bogs it down with extraneous fluff. If removed, it doesn't change the readers' understanding of what happened in the episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

From reading the article, my understanding is that the episode is notable because it's a musical. I've had a look at a few musical articles, because it seems that the context has to be provided for the song, which indeed is the case. Whether a song is trivial is irrelevant: the song exists in the episode, and for a comprehensive treatment should be mentioned and context provided. I seem to be missing something, because this is the first really good treatment of a TV episode I've read. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

To be comprehensive means to cover all major aspects of a topic. It does not mean to cover every bit of minutia. Those songs were barely 30 seconds long, and even Joss Whedon admits that they were not that important and is why there were quickly dispensed with during the episode to make way for the songs that were used to develop the characters of the show. All that is needed is to say that everyone in town was also singing. Pointing out random, 30 second songs in detail is not necessary to any degree. If they were removed you don't lose any value to the article, because they have nothing to do with the overall storyline, which centers on Buffy and her friends and the secrets they have all been hiding (hell, the songs they sing don't even match up to the same theme as the main character songs).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The show is presented as musical, correct? If so, and the whole town is singing as you say, which in musical theatre term would be a chorus, then the song that sparks the chorus is important. The problem seems to be that this show is atypical. Is that correct, or not? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Question: Is Wikipedia a substitute for watching the show? Is the non-mentioning of "The Mustard" and "Parking Ticket" detrimental to understanding what is happening in the episode? Is there some overt critical commentary about those two songs in the body of the article that would require the plot section to go into detail about those songs, or would it be easier to just say "a man singing about" and "a woman singing about" in the body of the article wherever they are mentioned? There seems to be an insistence that these two songs are someone major plot points, and when writing plot summaries were merely supposed to be summarizing major plot points. Operative word being "summarize". We are not supposed to be doing play-by-plays, and anything that needs serious detail must need it because there is something in the body of the article that talks about it in-depth. As such, it's probably better to provide the detail nearest the real world commentary, so that the reader doesn't have to go back to the plot section and find and reread those details.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, sometimes life has a bad habit of interfering with Wikipedia. My view is that because the episode is a musical, the musical numbers have to be addressed in some fashion and after reading over the plot section a few times, I don't see a way of eliminating much without removing the context in which the songs are sung. In a musical, and I'm coming at this as a musical, something happens to cause a character or the chorus to sing a song, in most instances the song is paired with some type of action, and then transitions to the next scene. Music paired with action is important to the audience's understanding, in my view. If this is the only Buffy episode to be presented as a musical, then the songs must be included in a fashion other than a list. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the important numbers are discussed. They are discussed both in the plot and later in the real world commentary. The little 18 second numbers are not important to the plot, thus we don't have to cover them. "Mustard" and "Parking" do not shape the plot of the episode. They are ancillary. That's all. Not mentioning them in the plot section doesn't change anything. What context are you removing? By simply saying "the entire town sings" then you explain that it isn't just Buffy and her friends. What these two random, 20 second songs talk about have no bearing on the episode and thus do not need to be mentioned in the plot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm off to see what this huge encyclopedia has to offer in the way of articles about musicals and how those things are handled. However, in musical theatre, it's not uncommon for a short song to act as a segue into a long dance number. It appears "Mustard" does just that. The critical commentary about "Mustard" in the music section doesn't make sense if the song hasn't already been introduced. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure explains the reasons for longer plot sections for musicals, and advises incorporating the songs into the plot section, as has been done with this article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It also very clearly says, "The film project suggests a 400-700 word plot, but a complex plot could require slightly more, and our musicals articles for full-length works often are longer". Now, that's for films. Clearly they are not trying to disagree with the MOS for various medias. This page has about 1300 words (I think it's come down since my last count of closer to 1500). That's twice as much as what the film project wants for a 2 hour film. As I've said before, there are unnecessary details that can be better summarized, and almost all of the background info is repeated in the plot section with whatever isn't easily merged to the plot section in a more concise manner.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I ran the page size script on the plot section. It's 742 words. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Which doesn't include all of the plot info from the Background section, which acts as plot for the entire series and could easily be merged with the episode plot. That one, as I pointed out above, can easily be trimmed and merged. The character stuff is unnecessary, because all of the characters have their own page. We don't explain who Abraham Lincoln is wherever he is mentioned when we have an entire page that chronicles his life. Some of the other background stuff is repeated in the plot section already. It wouldn't be that hard to put the two together in such a way that blended them so that when you discuss an event from the episode you explain its impact in the season.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a lot of respect for your work on TV-related articles, Bignole, but simply disagree with your views on the need to trim the background and plot sections here. I just spent four hours copyediting this article, and — as always — I had a fierce eye open for things to cut (and as you can see, I cut plenty).

Perhaps this comes down to our general approach to articles? Moni3 and I both come to Wikipedia from a perspective of literature and history — in those worlds, background context is absolutely crucial. So perhaps we consider them essential also in writing about television. Maybe you don't; perhaps the standard is different among other TV articles. But I would suggest that there's room to leave it in, when it can help the reader (as I think it does here). I can only really speak to writing about literature (and obviously only for myself, not for anyone else), but it's a tricky thing to try and identify only those things that must be included.

To use a personal example: When summarizing the plot of Balzac's novelette Z. Marcas, is it really necessary to mention that "the students find themselves lacking the funds for tobacco"? Why not just say "the students run out of tobacco"? Well, it gives a more fully-developed understanding of the story, which is useful for many readers. I think the same is true here. (I share Truthkeeper's occasional frustration with pop-culture articles that leave out significant background info.) Scartol • Tok 15:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think there are some things that can go, but at most a line here, a sentence here, not an entire section. For instance, ""Once More, with Feeling" starts in the Summers household as Buffy, Willow, Tara, and Dawn prepare for school and work. Xander and Anya look over wedding magazines at the Magic Box, a store co-owned by Giles and Anya." That's 37 words for about 20 seconds of screen-time, the Xander and Anya part might be important enough to keep to tie in with 'I'll Never Tell', but the morning ritual sentence has much less significance. I think, however, the 'background' section is more appropriate in this article than it would be in some others, as it enhances the article's ability to stand alone- there is a tendency at times to assume that because someone has the ability to read one article, they have the ability/desire to read other articles to understand the context. This article's plot section, even this episode itself, doesn't make a lot of sense without at least a minimal grounding in the series continuity/mythology, which the background section here provides without having to run over the encyclopaedia. There are always times when the MoS has exceptions- it says so right in the header of the document- and an entirely reasonable case can be made that this is one of them. (Further, the Lost episode articles might benefit from the addition of such sections.) Courcelles (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the catch, what I'm saying is that some of it is already in the plot section, and thus doesn't need to be repeated. The first paragraph describing all of the characters is unnecessary because we have character articles. All people need to know is that Buffy is a slayer, and the rest of them are her friend/family. Even Anya's ex-demon heritage and Dawn's magial existence are not important enough to this episode that they need mentioning. If someone wants to know what Buffy was doing in season 2, then they should read her article. It has no bearing on this episode. It's about removing redundancies. We don't need to say that Anya and Xander are looking at wedding magazines, when we can just say that when they sing "I'll Never Tell" it's in response to their upcoming wedding. The magazine reading is extraneous, and if things were worded just right you could remove quite a bit without losing actual context. Here's another example taken from the Background section: "In the episodes preceding "Once More, with Feeling", Xander and Anya struggle with disclosing their engagement to the rest of the group and individually question the impending marriage." - They do that in this episode, and it's covered by "I'll Never Tell", thus we don't need to repeat it because we're already going to cover that they have been questioning their upcoming marriage. As long as it's worded to infer that this has been on-going, you don't need to lead in with the above statement. If you give me some time, I'll rework the background and plot sections into one cohesive section and post it on here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I've got. You'll notice some of the explanatory info was removed completely, and that is because some of it was borderline original research (e.g., "When facing a new threat, Giles typically organizes the Scoobies to search his reference library for clues about how to defeat it."). By correlating such things to how their songs are recited, it unintentionally becomes original research because you're attributing a hidden meaning to the song to the way things are done on the show (and without commentary directly assessing such, it's OR). Anyway, here is what I came up with, which took 1300 words and condensed it into just under 700 words. Now, this could tweaked a bit more in either direction (probably trimming of wordiness in some areas, with maybe some extra details in others when necessary). I also cut things that had no real bearing on the episode itself.

One night, while patrolling in a graveyard, Buffy Summers (Sarah Michelle Gellar) begins singing "Going Through the Motions", a song about how uninspired her life has become since she was brought back from the dead in the season six premiere. The next morning, Buffy learns that all of her friends and family—Xander Harris (Nicholas Brendon), Willow Rosenberg (Alyson Hannigan), Rupert Giles (Anthony Stewart Head), Dawn (Michelle Trachtenberg), Anya Jenkins (Emma Caulfield)—spontaneously broke into song as well.

While at the Magic Box, everyone begins singing "I've Got a Theory / Bunnies / If We're Together", which expresses their individual ideas about what is causing everyone in town to spontaneously sing and dance, and that if they just continue to work together they will overcome any obstacle. Unaware of any serious side effects to the singing, the group spends much of the day singing to themselves or each other. Tara sings "Under Your Spell" to Willow, a song about how much Willow has improved her life. Xander and Anya perform a duet of "I'll Never Tell", which chronicles their pet peeves with each other, and their doubts about their upcoming marriage. Realizing that the songs are bringing out hidden truths, Xander and Anya insist to Giles that something evil is causing the singing. Buffy visits Spike, a vampire who fights alongside her and has recently fallen in love with her. Spike breaks into "Rest in Peace", telling Buffy to leave him alone if she will not love him in return.

After Dawn comments on Tara and Willow's relationship, Tara beings to suspect that Willow used magic on her to alter Tara's memory. Meanwhile, Dawn sings "Dawn's Lament", a song describing her feelings of being unnoticed by the rest of the group. Dawn is seized by the minions of a demon known as Sweet (Hinton Battle), who is revealed to be the cause of all the singing in town. Dawn attempts to escape, which becomes a dance with the minions ("Dawn's Ballet"), before she meets Sweet. He sings "What You Feel" to Dawn, explaining that the stolen charm necklace she wears summoned him to Sunnydale, and he plans to take her to his dimension to make her his bride.

Back at the Magic Box, Giles sings "Standing", where he realizes that Buffy will not face her responsibilities to Dawn so long as she relies on him, and decides he must leave so she can grow up. Tara and Giles then perform a duet of "Under Your Spell / Standing—Reprise", where they sing about leaving Willow and Buffy, respectively. Meanwhile, Spike captures one of Sweet's minions and brings him to the store, where he delivers Sweet's challenge for Buffy to come to The Bronze and rescue Dawn. Giles forbids anyone to assist Buffy, so she goes alone, singing "Walk Through the Fire", a song describing her empty feelings; the rest of the group and Sweet join in a chorus as Giles and the gang acquiesce and go to help Buffy. Spike also joins, and sings that, though he would be better off if Buffy were dead, he will help her; Sweet sings that Buffy is drawn to danger.

Meeting Sweet at The Bronze, Buffy defiantly sings "Something to Sing About", describing her life as a happy song, but as her friends arrive she reveals that when Willow resurrected her she took her from Heaven. Unsatisfied with singing the truth, Buffy dances so frenetically that she begins to smoke, until Spike stops her and sings that life is just life and Buffy must recover by living. Dawn insists she did not summon Sweet, and when Xander admits that he did Sweet decides to leave Sunnydale without his bride. Sweet sings "What You Feel—Reprise", explaining how much fun everyone has been as he goes back to his dimension. Afterward, everyone realizes all of their relationships have been changed ("Where Do We Go from Here?") by the secrets told through song. Spike leaves while the others continue singing; Buffy catches up with him and they kiss.

Obviously, I'm not saying what's above is perfect, just that you can merge a lot into a single section that explains situations where they need explaining and removes redundacies when they don't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the energy or interest to continue my part of this conversation, so I'll step away after saying this: I think this suggested revision reads more like a list of events best suited for those who already watch the show. The current structure in the article is more welcoming to me as someone who's never seen it. Good luck to all involved! Scartol • Tok 12:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It reads like a summarization of the major plot points of the episode, which is how it's supposed to read according to multiple MOSs. It isn't supposed to be a play-by-play (ala "Anya and Xander look at wedding magazines" or "Dawn is at the Magic Box") that includes needless details that can be better summarized into more concise wording. But thanks for proving my point that some people appear to be fighting tooth and nail to keep any real movement to align this as close as possible to the MOS so that it both serves the reader and follows our guidelines, simply because people are a little too fanish about this topic. I've seen the whole series myself, it's great, but you have to look at this more objectively than I think many of you actually are.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As I stated at the beginning of this thread, I've not watched a single episode of the series, so I think I am very objective and not fanish (difficult to be fanish about a TV show never even watched). What I do like about the article as written, is that it serves readers who are not familiar with the topic by presenting a background with the series concept, followed by an episode plot overview that includes the songs. As such the article can stand alone without navigating to various other articles. This is simply an observation; no tooth and nail fight. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If this was the only episode with an article for the show, then I could understand such a thing. Unfortunately, it isn't. I find it completely unnecessary to have these "background" sections that recap the entire series up-to-date for every episode page (though I'm sure they're not currently on every page, just what you're proposing would make it so). There is a reason Buffy has her own page, as the rest of the characters of the show. That's the place to chronicle her journey as a character, not every individual episode article. What does her relationship with Angel have to do with this episode? Nothing. The reason she doesn't love Spike has more to do with who Spike is/was, and not about Angel. Why do I need to know about Joyce, when she isn't brought up in this episode at all. Buffy relies on Giles because he's the only true father figure she's ever had, regardless of Joyce being around. My problem is that the "background" section is that it can be easily merged with the overall plot so that you get a seamless present and past summary, and thus don't have to flip back and forth between two plot related sections just to understand what's happened on the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Citing the singalongs

Tamfang (or anyone else), do you know of any source to cite the Houston sing along where Amber Benson appeared? I checked the Houston Chronicle, but they don't mention it. An alternative weekly named the Houston Press announces it beforehand but does not say it took place. How about a source that mentions the fan convention sing alongs? I found a blog post, but I don't think that's going to hold up at FAC. I think it's worth mentioning, but I might have to hide it or remove it to take it to FAC if it's not cited. --Moni3 (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• The Chronicle mentions it here, [1], but with the same problem, it's an announcement, not a report of the event. Here is the same thing in Tucson, and again. Courcelles (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• San-Diego Comic-Con 2009- [2] (and dozens more links), but same problem, announcements, not reports. Courcelles (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Editing for length in syndication

Is it worth mentioning which scenes are excised when the show airs in syndication, as it is a long episode? I just watched the episode on Logo, and am pretty sure Dawn's Ballet was cut out. 68.44.112.108 (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

See #2 in Notes. --Moni3 (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Willow/Tara relationship

The article describes their relationship as "the first show in U.S. television history to portray a long-term lesbian relationship among the core cast of characters." Predating Willow/Tara by over a decade was Marilyn/Patty from the series HeartBeat. If this series is to be discounted then there needs to be some reliable source indicating why. Orrin Knox (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Heartbeat lasted a single season, so nothing there was truly long-term, anyway. At that, I would not have classified both partners in that show as part of the core cast, and am aware of no sources that describe them as such. In BtVS, both Willow and Tara are regulars. Courcelles 01:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

ETA: According to IMDb, (Not a RS, I know) Patty's character was only in five episodes. Courcelles 01:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

p. 392 --Moni3 (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is why I'm suggesting that clarification is needed. Patty was in 28% of her series' episodes. Tara was in 32% of hers. That's pretty similar from a strict percentage standpoint. How long HeartBeat lasted isn't the point; Patty and Marilyn were in-universe in a long-term relationship, the first such couple on American network TV. Maybe a footnote would be appropriate? The following sentence about previous lesbian depictions is not factually accurate and reads like it's the personal opinion of the writer who decided whether or not previously appearing lesbians were sufficiently erotic to qualify. Orrin Knox (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen HeartBeat. Can you provide a reliable source to discuss the nature of the relationship? First, it would add to my education of depictions of lesbian relationships, and second, it can't be added to the article without a source. --Moni3 (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Followup: Stephen Tropiano, whose book I used for the Lesbian article and the one for The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) addresses Heartbeat (p. 44 -- and now I see that Tropiano is cited in the Heartbeat article). Though he recognizes there was a relationship, he doesn't address it as long term or even a substantial one. It seems to have been nominal only, according to Tropiano. The characters weren't allowed to touch. Neither does he state that it was the first long term lesbian relationship. I'll continue looking and hope Orrin Knox will as well. --Moni3 (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

From The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader p. 177: "[Marilyn] is depicted as likable, attractive, fun, good at her job, as well as being a happy lesbian in a long-term stable relationship." And pp. 180-81 discuss Patty and Marilyn's relationship in the context of Marilyn's relationship with another woman who's dying of cancer. Capsuto's Alternate Channels has a little about the creation of the characters and their portrayal. There are essays in some other books but they're in the dense academic style that makes my eyes glaze over after a few sentences. But they do establish that Marilyn is the first lesbian series regular on American TV and that she's in a long-term relationship. I watched the series back in the day but that was twenty years ago and I really don't have very clear memories of it (although I remain a Gail Strickland fan). Orrin Knox (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well, I'm not quite sure how to resolve this yet. It's not clear that the descriptor "first long-term lesbian relationship in U.S. television history" applies to both Willow and Tara and the couple on Heartbeat. It's both the "first" and "long-term lesbian relationship" issues, separately.

Buffy showed Willow and Tara fully engaged in a romantic, sexual, and complex relationship. They were affectionate on screen and although the series was restricted in the fourth and fifth seasons in what they could show, this gradually eroded until it was abandoned completely when the series skipped to UPN. It's not clear from the, say, maybe three sources I've read about Heartbeat if the attention toward the lesbians characters is because they were self-identified lesbians who were assigned a relationship. The distinction is that the characters portray themselves as being in a relationship, but the relationship itself is rarely a focus of storylines, is one-dimensional, and not fully explored or examined as the other relationships are in the series. If they are never shown as affectionate or even allowed to touch, then this might mean that the sources painting Willow and Tara as a first indicate that the treatment of their relationship on the series is a first in television history.

I'd like that clarification tag resolved. I'm proposing a footnote at the end of the cited sentence about the "first" statement that can address a previously aired relationship between the characters on Heartbeat, but that sources assert Willow and Tara's relationship is equally and fully explored as the other relationships on the show, accounting for the superlative designation. Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a footnote (along with a rewording of the main text) would resolve this. The following sentence about previous representations really should be reworked too. Hill Street Blues, L.A. Law, Tales of the City, NYPD Blue, Roseanne and Friends all had lesbian or bisexual characters who appeared beyond either coming out or lesbian kiss episodes and of course Ellen explored Ellen Morgan's developing relationship with her girlfriend Laurie; admittedly none of them (except Tales) showed the women being particularly physical or romantic with each other (although I seem to recall Nancy and Marla getting handsy in Marla's single appearance on Roseanne; I haven't seen the last season of Ellen so I don't know how physical Ellen and Laurie got on-screen). Not sure where the US Queer as Folk fits the timeline with Willow/Tara but Lindsey and Melanie were certainly in a long-term romantic and sexual relationship (albeit not one on broadcast television). I realize there's only so much detail that can be included but what's there now just isn't accurate. Orrin Knox (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the text in the article should remain as it is because at least one source has printed it to confirm it and no sources have been provided to state that scholars consider the couple on Heartbeat to be as significant, for whatever reasons, as Willow and Tara. It is not necessarily demonstrably untrue that Willow and Tara are not the first long term lesbian relationship, although there seems to be a distinction missing about comparing the two couples that a source has not made. As for the other examples, neither Willow nor Tara are the first lesbians on television, but the article does not say that. However, the other examples of lesbian characters are, like the Heartbeat couple, chaste, asexual, platonic, or not partnered at all. --Moni3 (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

But the article says Previous televised depictions of lesbian relations were limited to single "coming out" or "lesbian kiss" episodes, showing lesbian-identified characters as affectionate but not erotic. This isn't accurate. Kate McBride from Hill Street Blues appeared in several episodes both before and after coming out. NYPD Blue included a multi-episode arc with a lesbian couple who have a child with one of the lead detectives. Friends had a lesbian couple who raised a child together and had a wedding ceremony in one episode. Ellen traced the progression of the relationship from first meeting to discussing commitment ceremonies. Sources for all of these are available and contradict the uncited statement from the article, that lesbians only appeared in the context of single coming out episodes or lesbian kiss episodes. In fact almost none of the pre-OMWF episodes featuring lesbians followed the classic "coming out" formula (friend of series regular comes out, series regular initially can't deal with it but comes to accept it by the end of the episode, gay character never seen again). The two clauses don't really go together anyway. Perhaps rather than a footnote, the text could read something like "Although a handful of other series included recurring lesbian characters and couples, Buffy the Vampire Slayer was the first show in U.S. television history to portray a long-term lesbian relationship among the core cast of characters" and cut the second sentence entirely. Orrin Knox (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

My patience with this discussion is wearing very thin. You provide examples (Friends? the long running gay joke of Ross' past? a character in "several episodes" of Hill Street Blues that, what? appeared sometimes? a dropped storyline on NYPD Blue that went nowhere? Ellen's painful awkward whatever that was that led to the cancellation of the series? These are not comparable by any measure, and it's precisely this distinction that sources are making about Willow and Tara. You provide no sources and you bring in details about issues that are not relevant. The statements in the article Buffy the Vampire Slayer was the first show in U.S. television history to portray a long-term lesbian relationship among the core cast of characters. Previous televised depictions of lesbian relations were limited to single "coming out" or "lesbian kiss" episodes, showing lesbian-identified characters as affectionate but not erotic. are accurate. Stephen Tropiano not only disagrees with your almost none of the pre-OMWF episodes featuring lesbians followed the classic "coming out" formula, but in fact categorizes a significant portion of television episodes featuring homosexuality in the late 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s as "coming out" episodes. As I read this again, actually the only thing that should be changed is perhaps inserting the word "primarily" before "...limited to single "coming out" or "lesbian kiss" episodes. Otherwise, please stop making me do all the work here with the sources. Get some, bring them, quote them. Particularly ones that address Willow and Tara's relationship. If not, this discussion should be had in Media portrayal of lesbianism. --Moni3 (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• <outdent> I'm not sure why you're feeling the need to start getting nasty. I think I've expressed myself politely but if you want to start in with the snark I can sling it just as well as you can.
• I know nothing about a "gay joke of Ross' past" on Friends. I was referring to the characters of Carol (who appears in 17 episodes) and Susan (who appears in 13 episodes) who are in a long-term commited relationship which pre-dates the series and who get married in "The One With the Lesbian Wedding". They are not core characters (and I didn't claim that they were) but they are in a committed long-term relationship and their appearances can certainly not be characterized either as coming out or lesbian kiss episodes. Kate McBride came out in "Look Homeward Ninja" but it was not the typical coming out episode, as she only came out during the course of defending herself from a prostitute's sexual harassment charges. Nor did she have a lesbian kiss episode. NYPD Blue's Abby Sullivan is described as "a well-developed recurring role" in a stable relationship with her partner Kathy. (Capsuto, p. 372) Abby appeared in 10 episodes and Kathy in two. Their storyline was not "dropped". It ended tragically when Kathy was murdered by Abby's ex-girlfriend. Your personal opinion on how Ellen Morgan's relationship with Laurie was portrayed and what role it played in the demise of the series doesn't change the fact that it follows the relationship from first meeting to serious discussion of marriage and does so a dozen years before Willow/Tara was a gleam in Joss Whedon's eye.
• I did not suggest that any of these relationships were "comparable" in scope or explicitness or importance to Willow/Tara. All I said was that they, and Marilyn/Patty, came decades before Willow/Tara did and that they warrant acknowledgment in this article.
• I've read Tropiano. I've read Capsuto. I've read Gross. I've read Alwood. I've read big chunks of Castañeda/Campbell not to mention countless Google Books excerpts of countless other books on the subject and when it gets here tomorrow I'll be reading Becker. If you can point me toward where in any of those sources the assertion that Previous televised depictions of lesbian relations were limited to single "coming out" or "lesbian kiss" episodes is supported then add it to the article because I'm not seeing it. From my review of the sources the depictions seem to deal mostly with women defending themselves from accusations of sexually molesting other women or cops investigating lesbians who have either been murdered or are themselves murderers. Lesbians occasionally come out in the course of the episode but it's almost always within the context of the broader story and almost never the focus of the episode, unlike with gay male characters who more often than not appear in episodes that precisely follow the formula.
• You're the one defending the currently unsourced assertion of how lesbians were portrayed on TV before Willow/Tara. It's on you, not me, to back up that assertion with reliable sourcing. I could have just removed it as an unsourced controversial statement. Instead of doing that I tried to initiate a discussion. I guess that was a mistake on my part.
• We are talking about two separate issues here. The first is placing Willow/Tara into proper historical context in light of the several America TV shows which depicted long-term stable lesbian relationships well before BTVS did. The second is the characterization of lesbian representation being limited to coming out and lesbian kiss episodes. I renew my suggestion that the first sentence be modified to note the several lesbian relationships that came before it while still highlighting the greater significance of Willow/Tara and that the second sentence be removed entirely as factually inaccurate, unsupported by reliable sources, speculation and quite frankly poorly and confusingly written. Orrin Knox (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There's low patience, such as I am still having with this discussion, and there's nasty. We haven't entered that territory, so settle down. I take issue with the approach on Wikipedia where an editor disputes something in an article and is unable or unwilling to bring a source to the discussion, dragging out an argument on a talk page far, far longer than it should be when the problem can be resolved with presenting sources. Where more serious actions consist of an editor placing a NPOV template or some such on the article and refusing to explain intelligently why s/he thinks so--backed up with sources, this session is not as significant, but still has the potential to drag out way too long. It's not an academic exercise, where we sit in our comfy chairs with tweed jackets and leather elbow patches to play devil's advocate. It's quite simple: summarize what sources have written about the topic. At issue are two sentences in this article. The conversation is straying far beyond these two sentences. Clearly there is no way the article will mention Friends, Ellen, or any other television show irrelevant to OMwF, so unless a source has something to say about the relationship between these shows and Buffy, Willow and Tara, or OMwF, the discussion about these other series do not belong on this page. I suggest Media portrayal of lesbianism, an article that needs to be overhauled very badly.

To keep this simple, find a source that disputes what the article says about Willow and Tara. Not one to discuss other series. Quote it here and we can figure out a compromise. --Moni3 (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I shouldn't be doing this. It makes me feel like enabling: "Buffy became the first prime time series since to feature a lead lesbian character in an open an committed relationship since ABC's Ellen." [3]
• "Willow's 2.5 season relationship with the character of Tara was the longest running lesbian relationship on network television..." [4]
• A page that juxtaposes the portrayals of Willow and Tara with Susan and Carol on Friends. [5]
• "The longest standing teenage lesbian relationship and historically the first on prime time was between Willow...and Tara..." [6]

Thus, I added a footnote.

• (Something completley unrelated to this discussion but fully relevant to the article: I need to read this book) --Moni3 (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image

Given Courcelles' latest edits, would a different image be better for the infobox? I just uploaded this image:

Would this more be suitable? Given that it's unique that it's the only episode to display its episode title in such a manner ("Conversations with Dead People" as well, but just in normal text). Thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Edited post to prevent display on talk page, per policy. Steve ^T • C 22:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And to echo something I said elsewhere, I think once a full image review is done, the lineup image from "Where Do We Go From Here?" won't pass muster, being redundant with the video. The best bet for any kind of image in the infobox is the title card coupled with the boilerplate "identification" rationale or similar, which has precedent in its favour. Long story short, I support the inclusion of this image. Steve ^T • C 22:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

NFCC 8-how does this image greatly enhance reader understanding? --Courcelles (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't pretend to be an image expert and know why; I'm just going by precedent and current project consensus that non-free "identification of the subject" images in media article infoboxes are acceptable. For example, File:American Beauty 1999 film poster.jpg or File:The Revolution will not be Televised.gif. I also won't pretend this image will not be challenged; I'll only say that it's the best bet for something there. Steve ^T • C 07:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey does anyone think this might be a better image for the infobox? Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is it discussed anywhere in the article? I mean, I'm not totally convinced the infobox image we have now meets the NFCC... I know it is common practice for films to use their teaser poster as an infobox image, but a strict interpretation of NFCC 8 would put some of those at jeopardy. At any rate, it would have to be put into context in the prose before it would be permissible. Courcelles 18:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been awhile, but I just thought of this again, and would love to see the poster as the main image. The Production and writing section mentions the use of a poster that promoted the episode, but I believe it's referring to this one. Anyway, it could be added to the section that the artwork poster was used to promote the episode, was put on display at the theatrical premiere, was designed by Joss, along with Jeph Loeb and Adam Hughes, and also was adapted as the cover for the CD, script book, and the individual DVD release of the episode. It's quite notable. I'm just wondering can that info simply be added, or does it need a reference along with it and would that site I linked to be suitable? Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If you load it, I'll do my best to write a fair use rationale that is painfully overkill. That's pretty much the only talent I admit I have. --Moni3 (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit to add: I mean the purple one with Buffy's eyes. The CD cover image was removed for poor reasons. It's almost worth considering re-adding the unnecessary tracklist to the soundtrack in the article to justify the CD cover (tan poster with Buffy, Xander, and Willow). --Moni3 (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You think the purple poster should be used instead of artwork one, really? Both images were used to promote the episode, but the artwork one is much more associated and identifiable with the musical episode–and come on, looks 100% better. And info regarding the artwork poster could be added to the article with it. Plus, the other poster is just the original Buffy UPN promo poster, with musical notes layered over top. What do you think then? Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that I can write fair use rationale for the purple poster because it's cited in the prose and it was the first time UPN promoted a show like this. The CD cover doesn't have anything written about it by sources--that I could locate--to make it remarkable in any way. (And Willow looks kind of weird.) To justify loading it, the article would have to have the track listing for the soundtrack in its own section. I removed that when I rewrote the article because the songs were integrated into the prose. But even if we decide to re-add the track listing for the CD image it might be a stretch. Can you find a source that discusses the aesthetics of the CD cover and how it ties into the retro feel, or extraordinary visuals (letterbox format, lighting, costumes, etc.) of the episode? I vaguely remember coming across a statement like that somewhere, but that's now a needle in a haystack. You may have seen it somewhere. --Moni3 (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I did some searching and all that really comes up is Buffy fansites, but I did a search on Google Books and I came across something that might help, but there's no preview for the page. The except reads, "These images reflect the artwork created for the episode poster, DVD, CD and script book by comic-book legend Adam Hughes." It's from Music, Sound, and Silence in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which I noticed is used as a reference for this article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have that book. Did you get a page number? --Moni3 (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Page 194. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think I can hang that. It has to be the promo poster, not the CD cover. Do you want to load it or shall I? --Moni3 (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

File:OnceMoreWithFeelingPoster.jpg Done, just need you to write the painfully overkill fair use rationale. ;) –Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well, there it is. Although, a word of caution. Once I wrote the hell out of a fair use rationale for a historical use image, apparently so well it was highlighted in a Wikipedia Signpost about how to justify a non-free image. Not two weeks later it was nominated for deletion because someone else didn't think the justification was good enough. It pretty much depends on who reads it and and what mood they're in that day. Then you have to show up at the right time and argue a lot. So...yay... --Moni3 (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha, pretty much how it goes. Although...I actually meant this to replace the image in the infobox. –Drovethrughosts (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://offline.buffy.cd/www.slayage.tv/PDF/albright.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090815001743/http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2002-hugo-awards/ to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2002-hugo-awards/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://asap.ap.org/stories/1159257.s

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). 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/20040217104357/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Nebula2003.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Nebula2003.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). 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/20110404043203/http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/feature/2011/03/29/television_musical_shark_jumping/index.html to http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/feature/2011/03/29/television_musical_shark_jumping/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). 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/20100526090854/http://weblogs.variety.com/on_the_air/2007/06/buffy-the-vampi.html to http://weblogs.variety.com/on_the_air/2007/06/buffy-the-vampi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)