Talk:The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

Misc messages

Please help complete the Angel/Buffy episode articles. See what needs to be done on this sub-page of WikiProject Buffy:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/Episodes

Also please help update any major changes made to episode articles on that page so that progress can be mapped.

Wikifying

This pretty much comes down to my own doubt as to how this goes, so I'll put it up for discussion; is there really any point in having every single reference to a character within the article wikified? Is this the way it's usually done? It just seems a somewhat weird form to me, even if pratical. Can someone clear this up for me? Zeds

• Hmmm I didn't read the "standard policy" on wikifying. I suppose I did overkill with the overreferencing. If someone changes it later, I won't revert it back. Just be sure to reply to this discussion and link to some policy page that states what is to be done about this. --Ted 18:00, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• I actually prepared the whole page using UltraEdit, and I did a find & replace search for all the character names. Every single one of them :\ --Ted 18:02, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, no need to stress about it, but... I don't know. Purely aesthetically, almost, it seems ilogical to link to each page every single time... I'll check the specific page on this when I have the time, or, of course, you may do so yourself and check back here, to figure out how this should be. Zeppocity 02:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for dewikifying yourself. :) Zeppocity 23:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, my common sense kicked in last night. --Ted 02:59, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Emotional or mental regression?

Zeppocity recently changed the "Band Candy" mention of Giles and Joyce's regression from "emotionally" to "mentally". I was going to revert it, as "mentally" implies (to me) that they believed they were teenagers and wouldn't recall anyone they knew since then, whereas "emotionally" implies that the memories are intact but their attitudes changed. But I'm not so sure about my facts. Can someone cite some evidence that would make one or the other more certain? (And perhaps, while they're at it, jot down a synopsis for "Band Candy", which is currently just a structure-only stub?) Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

They remain aware of who they are (Watcher, Parent, Schoolteacher, etc.), so I'd say "emotionally" is right. I switched it back.--Nalvage 20:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Act 1- not continuous shot

I just watched this episode and I can tell you it is not one long continuous shot... Though certain segments following Buffy ARE one shot, they are divided by many other shots, the most obvious being the Christmas memory and the fantasy of Joyce being revived. It's cited, but it's inaccurate.98.176.34.63 (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Separation into Acts?

Is there a reason for this? I mean, all the previous episode recaps are just a (fairly detailed) synopsis. And I'm assuming the acts are determined by when the commercial breaks are? Anyways, I was just curious if there was a legitimate reason for the change in format. It's not that I disapprove. I'm just... curious. =) Somuchbetter88 (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

repeated context formula

I'm gonna take out the passages about the premise and structure of the series, which our excellent collaborator User:Moni3 has added verbatim to this and two other episode articles. So much repeated content is contrary to the spirit of the Web and mostly irrelevant to this episode. We certainly ought not need to be told that, gosh, the series also includes some stuff about relations among the regular characters. —Tamfang (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. FAs must be stand alone. If it goes to the main page, readers unfamiliar with the series will not understand the context of the article.

If you think it should be rewritten not to be verbatim, fine, but taking it out is not a good decision. --Moni3 (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If FA requires not taking advantage of hypertext, than I say to hell with FA. Give the reader a link to Scooby Gang, for example, but don't explain it in every Buffy-related article just because you're shooting for FA. It's a disservice to the person most likely to read this article, who already knows the setting and characters (though perhaps not the history of season 5).

I'll paraphrase the sentence about the Big Bad further down, in the passage about a theme of the season. —Tamfang (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Links in FAs cannot be unexplained especially if they're in-universe terminology. "Scooby Gang" and "Big Bad" are jargon terms, that readers who are unfamiliar with the show won't inherently get. It makes perfect sense to explain the elements of the series that made it unique while tying it in to the relevant parts of the episode. I could understand not explaining all of this in the Buffypedia, or WikiBuffy or whatever that is, because that site is geared towards readers who already have background knowledge of the show. We cannot assume readers who come to Wikipedia know anything about the show at all. --Moni3 (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If I knew nothing of BtVS and found an article beginning "The Body is an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer", I'd probably click the link before reading further, FA or no FA. — Of the jargon terms, I have now hidden one and defined the other. —Tamfang (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought you had an issue with the first paragraph in the Background section, but you removed the entire section. Anya's abruptness is not explained. Joyce's previous illness isn't either, nor the odd family dynamics of Buffy, Joyce, and Dawn. I'm on the fence about the last point, but the other two I think should be included. Xander doesn't find a parking ticket; the camera shows an attendant putting one on his car. There has to be a better way to integrate the 1-sentence paragraph in the lead into the article. The lead is choppy and it doesn't flow well now.

Tell me what your major objections are to the background section the way it was. There is a way to compromise, but I'm not sure your edit accomplishes it the best way. It doesn't bother me that information is verbatim or similar in Hush and Once More, With Feeling. At this point, I don't really plan to do any more of the episodes. Either way, I don't mind rewriting the background section, but I feel like a significant part of introducing the reader to the issues in the article, why the show was so unique and groundbreaking, and why it defied conventions for television aimed at adolescents and young adults, are adequately explained. --Moni3 (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point about Anya. That can be brought up at her outburst; elsewhere its relevance is obscure. — By now everyone has learned the truth about Dawn, accepted it and her, and moved on; why bring it up? Have I overlooked a scene in which it matters? — Did I kill the only passage about Joyce's past illness? Sorry, it was caught in the blast when I zapped the previous sentence about Buffy's earlier suspicion of Dawn. I'll look for an organic place for it.

My major objection is that almost all of it is irrelevant to this episode and/or violates the "show, don't tell" principle. "[E]xhibited a writing style unique", for example, is puffery made redundant by the passages about critical acclaim. (And BtVS was hardly the first show to mix a seasonal 'arc' with 'threat of the week' episodes; Babylon 5 did that, for example.) That the characters have ongoing personal bonds and interactions is evident from the plot summary. Willow's talents and Xander's lack have no role in "The Body"; we can discuss elsewhere whether it's necessary to say that Willow and Tara are witches before mentioning witchcraft in the plot of "Hush" and "OMWF".

Feel free to suspect that the real trigger of my destructo-ray was that I didn't feel like correcting "mutli" a third time. —Tamfang (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that Anya's abruptness is not explained by her history: she was odd before she met D'Hoffryn, and plenty of other demons have no trouble carrying on a polite conversation, even showing or feigning empathy. Oh well. What's my excuse? —Tamfang (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not puffery at all (and hey! shut up for insinuating I puff in what I write). It's cited by several sources. Kaveney's book is one. An excellent article on how Buffy stood out among some of the best shows of the 90s, including Babylon 5 and X-Files actually expresses it quite nicely.

At any rate, I rearranged the lead a bit. I thought it needed more of a punch. Information about Joyce's past illness I removed because the sentence was laborious. --Moni3 (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Denying that it's OR (which I did not suggest) does not refute that it's fluff. —Tamfang (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

groping for a phrase

The episode also _____________ another theme of the season: ...

Miro3 had "brings forth", which isn't right, because the theme had already appeared in Buffy's first encounter with Glory and in the first signs of Joyce's illness. I tried "puts into relief", a metaphor of a carving whose appearance varies according to the angle of light; but I prefer to avoid a word whose other common meaning is so inappropriate! At this moment I have "emphasizes", which may be the best I can do. Another possibility is "counterpoint". —Tamfang (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Am I Miro3? I'm up for an alter ego...

"touches on", "relates to", "embiggens"!, emphasizes is ok. I was trying for something like "makes more prominent". I couldn't think of anything better either, so it kind of came out like it did. --Moni3 (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Four characters correct out of five, but only half credit for the 'i' and 'o' because they're out of order; I guess that's 3/5. Ugh. I could write "M3"; which is worse, hazy or lazy? —Tamfang (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"Underlines"; "stresses"; "accentuates"? Personally, I reckon "affirms" conveys the intended meaning best. Steve ^T • C 11:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

How about "restates"? —Tamfang (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"plays a variation upon"? —Tamfang (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

in the beginning

Joyce's death marked the beginning of a pattern with Joss Whedon's story arcs exhibiting unexpected twists and turns that often provoked vehement fan reactions.

If this were the first unexpected twist, it wouldn't be a cult favorite. The first would be "Innocence", I guess. Do unexpected twists happen more often in the last three seasons than in the first four? Can there be such a thing as a pattern of the unexpected?

My judgement on this point may be impaired because I never saw a full episode until December 2003, so I had plenty of opportunity to read spoilers – and less opportunity than the original audience had to become accustomed to the rhythms (if that's the word I want) of seasons 1–4. —Tamfang (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This is another one of those awful pestering things that I encounter every time I read a whole bunch of material for an article. I found it when I was reading for Once More, With Feeling, and again for Hush, and it was a passage about how Whedon pulled the rug out from under viewers and they became worried that their favorite characters would die to the point of anxiety. I didn't need that passage for those articles, and now I can't find it for this one. I'm going to keep looking for it, but I can hide it until I find it again if you wish. --Moni3 (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

unheard dialogue

About Dawn's reaction to the news, Moni3 wrote: will check, but as memory serves only "no" can be discerned from Trachtenberg's lines

For whatever it's worth, here's the relevant part of a purported script that I downloaded from somewhere-or-other.

DAWN: What's going on. Something's going on.

BUFFY: Let's go outside...

DAWN: No. Tell me what's going on.

BUFFY: It's... bad. News.

DAWN: What is it? What happened?

BUFFY: Dawn, it's bad, I think we should --

DAWN: Where's Mom?

• Buffy pauses.

BUFFY: Mom had an accident, or a, something went wrong from the tumor...

DAWN: Is she okay? Is she -- but she's okay... but it's serious but...

BUFFY: Dawn, Mom died this morning. While we were both at school, she --

DAWN: No...

BUFFY: I don't know exactly what happened, but, she's dead...

DAWN: No. NO NO No No you're lying you're lying she's fine she's FINE and you're lying oh no no please please no you're lying she's fine, she's fine...

• Dawn is sobbing uncontrollably, none of her screams or pleading or anything making a dent in the wave of grief crushing her, she half falls, half sits right there on the ground, Buffy coming down after her but Dawn not ready to be held, not able to do anything but deny, deny...

BUFFY (crying anew): Dawnie...

DAWN: It's not true it's not real it's not real ohhhhh noooooo....... no.....

Presumably they had some scripted lines so that the conversation would look right even if inaudible. Or perhaps inaudibility was an idea adopted late in the process. —Tamfang (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The lines are actually printed in one of the episode guides I have, but my thought here was presenting only what viewers can see and hear. I thought discussion of the actual lines or words Dawn was saying was more appropriate for Themes or Production, but there's nothing really to say about them. --Moni3 (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

changing four period ellipses to three

When I was a lad, ellipses had four dots when the omitted matter included the end of a sentence. Perhaps this nicety is considered passé, like alternating single and double quotation marks! —Tamfang (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Article ownership

You guys have really got to cut it out. What you are doing is not in the spirit of WP and you both know it. See WP:OWN if you really don't understand what I mean. Make a serious case for not allowing the slight reworking of two sentences. Please.--TEHodson 04:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've called in a mediator. This is ridiculous.--TEHodson 05:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I corrected the sentence which you keep insisting is correct because right now it reads: "In art class, she talks with him and they share a moment of understanding about being troubled while they sketch." The meaning of this sentence as it stands is that they're talking about being troubled while they sketch. They're not troubled about sketching, they're talking about being troubled, and just happen to be sketching at the time. It should read, "While sketching, they share a moment of understanding about being troubled." What they're doing has to come first otherwise it implies they're troubled about what they're doing. Which is what I keep trying to change it to. Grammar. See? --TEHodson 05:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Read the last section of WP:OWN. Bring in a mediator with experience writing and maintaining Featured Articles. I suggest User:Iridescent, User:Malleus Fatuorum, User:Casliber, User:Ealdgyth, User:Yllosubmarine, or ask for someone with experience on User:SandyGeorgia's talk page or the talk page at WT:FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have. A FA can still have a grammar error that needs to be corrected; I corrected one. I did not re-write the entire article or do anything to endanger its status. And if we go to mediation, it shouldn't be with one of your buddies, thanks anyway. I've brought the matter of this page and the Hush page to the attention to the person who helped last time, and who incidentally told me I was wrong but through his explanation I understood my misunderstanding, if that makes sense. WP:EARWorm^TT · (talk) has been alerted, and has let me know he is busy but will get back to us in a couple of days. The world won't end if things stay as they are in the meantime. If he's not the best person, we can look elsewhere. I suggest none of us do anything in the meantime except wait, and chill. We're both adult women; I think we can manage to let it be for a few days, don't you?--TEHodson 13:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, but I have concerns here, and I think they're valid, that you do not seem to understand the kind of scrutiny that is present in the writing for an FA and the process of honing an article for FA status. The editors I mentioned will certainly tell me if my shit stinks. I would not respect them if they didn't. Two of them are sitting ArbCom members (another is User:David Fuchs, who also has extensive experience in FA issues). I've not often always agreed with User:Wehwalt, another FA veteran. I've gone to mediation before and it's rather a crap shoot as to if the mediator understands the issues at hand. And, you know, my buddies, your buddies... is not a consistent approach there. I'll be glad to ask one of these aforementioned editors to take this on before Worm That Turned. Wouldn't that be helpful? Natch. --Moni3 (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:OWN is one of the most overcited documents on Wikipedia, and TEHodson, you're demonstrating why it is so. The bottom section, explaining the differences between ownership and stewardship is actually the more relevant one here. I think I see the problem, and it's a common problem to several of the articles you've edited lately -- you've watched the episode, and started making edits. While this may sound intuitive, it's actually a serious error. Watch the episode, edit the plot section leads you to inadvertently introduce original research into the article, because you are feeding the episode through your own perceptions, and applying your own analysis as to what is important, and what is not. A plot section does not typically require citations itself, but a proper one can only be written with a strong guiding hand from reliable sources -- what do the various sources pause on and consider important? It may not, and often is not, the longest scenes, or the most obvious. A plot section is designed to provide context for the analysis provided in reliable sources later in the article, not to provide a substitute for watching the episode. The former is what it does, the later is what you appear to be trying to turn it into. Courcelles 20:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I edited a sentence for grammar. That has nothing to do with the episode or my "perceptions," but rather with the English language. I think you guys are seriously unbalanced about this and are doing nothing but tag-team harrasment of anyone who touches your articles. I will leave the rest of the second sentence alone, but I am correcting the grammar on the first sentence. Moni and I had agreed to wait for help. You have not only interfered with our truce, but are using the exact sort of condescending language with me that WP:OWN cites as inappropriate.--TEHodson 21:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

WTT appearance

Hey folks. Apologies for the delay, have been off enjoying myself. First, TEHodson, I can understand why you'd be wary of Moni bringing in a "buddy" to offer an opinion, but at least 4 of the editors mentioned are much better at writing than me and would be neutral especially in matters such as grammar. You'll note that I do not yet have an FA to my name. Perhaps, you should have a read of their work or even their talk page before judging them?

Next, I'm seeing a lack of Bold, revert, discuss. I know it's an essay, but in my opinion it's one of the finest on Wikipedia, TEHodson, when you made your changes (which are perfectly acceptable per WP:BOLD - even on an FA), they were reverted. This means that they were contentious, and a discussion should have happened. That would have allowed a consensus to have developed without the article being reverted over an over again. As it happens, the recent lack of edits shows to me that some sort of compromise has been found, so this note is more for the future.

As for ownership, it's not easy to get an article to featured status, and it's perfectly natural to want to keep it there. This doesn't mean that edits shouldn't be made to the article, just that they will be under much more scrutiny. That's not exactly OWN, even if it does make things more difficult for new editors to the article. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that you spent time writing this...I don't have a problem with the way the article reads now. I appreciate your efforts nonetheless. If TEHodson is fine with it, I'm fine with it. If TEHodson wishes to see something different. there's always room for discussion. --Moni3 (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks good to me.--TEHodson 21:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. It's always good when two contributors can settle their differences without outside help. Also, I read the talk page of Hush and was impressed at how you both compromised to find an amicable agreement. I wish all disputants on wikipedia were quite so collaborative. I'm -><- this close to giving you both a barnstar. Ah hell... why not. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Body (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/20100612174841/http://www.afterellen.com/people/2010/6/amber-benson to http://www.afterellen.com/people/2010/6/amber-benson

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Body (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/20150410000334/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Nebula2002.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Nebula2002.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 notes

Unsure about three sources used in here - The Futon Critic is an abridged version of a transcript. If it were the straight transcript, that would be fine, but given that it's some random blog's edited version, I don't see how it's RS. TangoTV looks a little dubious, although it's just citing a time slot. SpoilerTV also looks bloggish, but the text that it supports is just an attribution to the random dude on the internet, so it could be removed if need be. Marking as satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020 because the questionable sources are only used lightly and I don't think a featured article review would be helpful here. Hog Farm _Talk 03:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)