Talk:Becoming (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

Television: Buffyverse / Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Buffyverse task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:Buffy221-1.jpg

Image:Buffy221-1.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 14:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Buffy221.jpg

Image:Buffy221.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with constituent episodes

The only information not included on this article which is currently presented by the articles corresponding to the two individual episodes is unsourced trivia and plot summary. As such, they do not present sufficient appropriate information to stand individually and should be merged into this article. Neelix (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you challenged or something? This is perhaps the single dumbest thing I have every seen anyone try to do on Wikipedia, and that is saying a whole damn lot. I was unaware that this page even exists, and now that I know it does, I am going to try and have it deleted. "Becoming, Part One" and "Becoming, Part Two" are two separate episodes. They have different production numbers, separate cast listings, they are separate on the DVDs, each have separate external links, and they are each introduced with the opening sequence. They are inherently different episodes and you cannot rightly state that they deserved to be merged. To give a two-part episode a single page is to give it in-universe treatment. In the real world, they are two separate episodes, so that is how their articles should be. As for the unsourced trivia, while some of it may be excessive, they were all taken from the episode itself and can be loosely considered as acceptable use of a primary source, not to mention the fact that cast listings and plot summaries without argument fall under the umbrella of acceptable use.

I mean, really, this is incredibly stupid. kingdom2 (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment may not have been entirely civil, but I just felt really strongly about this. kingdom2 (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depite the above comments, I do believe this to be an appropriate merge. Employing a singular article to discuss a two-part episode does not constitute an "in-universe treatment"; none of the problems of in-universe perspective are incurred by doing so. In fact, combining two-part episodes is a standard practice among television series with more developped episode articles (ex. "Pilot" (Lost), "Mother and Child Reunion" (Degrassi: The Next Generation), "Children of the Gods" (Stargate SG-1), etc.). I recommend that this merge go ahead, and that the other two-part Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes be similarly merged. Neelix (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Neelix that a merger makes sense. Apart from the simple fact that one article makes notability easier to establish, this two-parter (as most two-parters) is written, directed and (likely) produced by the same person and crew, and the plot and the characters form an obvious unity. Since the articles are extremely bad (three times the amount of plot as recommended per MOS, no production info, no reception info), these episodes technically don't even deserve one article at the present - if I was a fan of this series, I'd take a merger before these articles get nuked at AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that merging makes sense, particularly given they culminate in the season finale (and not spread across seasons), and have the same name outside of "Part 1" and "Part 2". This likely will help reduce the plot section since you don't have the artificial barrier of the cliffhanger to hold in place. --MASEM 23:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hold that same-titled double-episodes should be on one article, and that seems to be the practice as far as I can see (ie. The Eclipse, Kobol's Last Gleaming, Resurrection Ship, etc.) However, it should be moved to Becoming (Buffy the Vampire Slayer); 'episode' is unnecessary disambiguation. — Edokter • Talk • 00:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since this article has no history to speak of (only one edit, which is basically a copy-paste move), this should simply be deleted and discussion moved to Talk:Becoming, Part One. — Edokter • Talk • 00:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer if the article was moved rather than deleted and recreated. That way, this discussion can be maintained for future reference (such as in the case that the merge is questioned). Neelix (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages can be moved seperately. — Edokter • Talk • 19:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Buffy222-1.jpg

The caption now says "The climax of the season finale..." but it looks to me like a publicity still rather than a frame of the actual episode; can someone say when (according to your DVD clock) they were in that position? —Tamfang (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the frame is not in either episode. I've trimmed the caption. TwoTwoHello (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

The Plot section is much too long; a shorter account of "Fool for Love" was recently chopped as copyvio. We should give the key points of the plot, not a blow-by-blow. —Tamfang (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you like my chainsaw job? It needs some work for flow. —Tamfang (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"us"

According to a script that I downloaded from somewhere-or-other, the name Angelus is mentioned only once in this episode, by Kendra. It isn't used consistently until the spinoff. In "Passions" Spike makes a crack about "the old Buffy-whipped Angelus".

The usage here amounts to a retcon, which I think is inappropriate (and not only because the sound of Angélus makes me wince). —Tamfang (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity

It says that there is no way buffy would know that Drussila killed Kendra, however she did know that it couldn't have been angel cause she was fighting him at the time and that spike couldn't because at that time she thought spike was still crippled (and he said himself he had nothing to do with it) so isn't it possible that she figured out that Drussila was the only one capable of killing drussila and should be put into the continuity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.192.238 (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "error" from the article. It's possible that since Drusilla was shown to have painted fingernails moments before she killed the Slayer, the police could have found certain substances on the wound that made them believe Buffy did it. Then Buffy would know a femaled killed Kendra. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]