Jump to content

Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Pretty solid consensus that the TV show is the primary topic of this title by all evidence. Cúchullain t/c 16:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

– While there are a few other Buffy the Vampire Slayer titles, the television series remains the most popular and the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term. It is much more likely that someone searching for Buffy the Vampire Slayer is looking for the TV series and the series certainly has long-term significance.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Support: Totally agree. 100% the primary topic. Unreal7 (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think the media franchise is the primary topic for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", the media franchise article is located within the fictional universe article Buffyverse. So perhaps a disambiguation page is best, if not, then it should redirect to Buffyverse. Or someone could construct a separate franchise article separate from the fictional universe article. Same as how Star Wars and Star Trek are about the media franchises, not Episode IV or TOS respectively. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
    Not a good comparison. At least at the moment, there haven't been any Buffy reboots for another generation to know more than an older one. People know one Buffy - and that's the one that aired from 1997 to 2003. It's as simple as that.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose (TV series) (film) (comic) (novels) (musical) (Buffyverse)... Point to a disambiguation page. htom (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The franchise stems from the TV series, which is also the main outlet. The statistics also shows that the TV series is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: 181057 views last month, versus 22222 views last month. People are 8 times more likely to be looking for the TV series than the DAB page. Nymf talk to me 09:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Although I agree with your support I do need to point out that the franchise stems from the film. Zarcadia (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Although you are correct the continuity should not be a factor in deciding the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Zarcadia (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

[1] Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) has been viewed 155283 times in 201303. This article ranked 1393 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.

[2] Buffy the Vampire Slayer (film) has been viewed 18843 times in 201303.

[3] Buffy the Vampire Slayer (BFI TV Classics) has been viewed 170 times in 201303.

[4] Buffy the Vampire Slayer Magazine incorporating Angel Magazine has been viewed 269 times in 201303.

[5] Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight has been viewed 14694 times in 201303.

[6] Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Nine has been viewed 11497 times in 201303.

[7] Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Album has been viewed 1542 times in 201303.

[8] Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Score has been viewed 403 times in 201303.

[9] Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Radio Sunnydale – Music from the TV Series has been viewed 504 times in 201303.

[10] Buffy the Vampire Slayer (2000 video game) has been viewed 0 times in 201303.

[11] Buffy the Vampire Slayer (2002 video game) has been viewed 0 times in 201303.

[12] Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King has been viewed 430 times in 201303.

[13] Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Chaos Bleeds has been viewed 2153 times in 201303.

[14] Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Quest for Oz has been viewed 355 times in 201303.

[15] Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Sacrifice has been viewed 604 times in 201303.

[16] Buffy the Vampire Slayer Collectible Card Game has been viewed 329 times in 201303.

...and they overwhelmingly support Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Zarcadia (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for going through the tiresome page views stats. I honestly didn't think they were needed, I thought that it was pretty clear. Even if a franchise article was created (is anybody here even willing to do it, or are they just flying things around?), its clear that the TV series would still remain the primary topic.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
n.b. The video games show 0 views because I just renamed them earlier today, pursuant to WP:NCVG. They were formerly under the names Buffy the Vampire Slayer (handheld game) and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (video game). --BDD (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

[17] Buffy the Vampire Slayer (handheld game) has been viewed 292 times in 201303.

[18] Buffy the Vampire Slayer (video game) has been viewed 1107 times in 201303.

Okay, but they were never going to really affect the outcome. Zarcadia (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - It's a no brainer. The movie was horrible anyway and is disliked by critics and fans of the TV series alike. Ok, they may have been weasel words but you get the idea. AnimatedZebra (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Now that you've said "without qualifying", I think it refers to the character, Buffy Summers (Buffy Anne Summers); I didn't, however, think to list that in the possibilities in my opposition above. htom (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Nah, it's clearly the title of a work - it sounds titley!Zythe (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There are too many associations to make this the primary topic. For the same reason that The Dark Knight (film) is ambiguated with "Film". You can argue that the film is the primary topic, because it's the most recent, but there is a history established with the name being synonymous with the character. The same is true here. Since the original film, the name "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" has been just as much associated with the character as it has been with the film or the TV show (or anything else for that matter). There is nothing wrong with ambiguations, and the disambig page is sufficient for pointing a reader to the film, the tv series, etc. It isn't appropriate to have this page be the point of contact when every association of the name stems completely from the film. This show would not exist without the film, yet the name has grown beyond just film or TV, it's an entire culture based around this character...whether you choose to accept the film's existence or not, it's the foundation. Thus, keep the pages as they are.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
    According to the disambiguation page for Dark Knight, it reads that it is a "common nickname for the DC Comics superhero Batman". Buffy the Vampire Slayer commonly refers to the TV series. There are other ventures, of course, it is a highly successful franchise, but the TV series is clearly the primary topic, and the evidence is provided above. Nobody is ignoring that the film exists; it doesn't matter which founded what. Without the TV series, the franchise would not exist, anyway. The TV series is simply the primary term for the title.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: I alerted Bignole and Zythe to this discussion because they, along with me, were significant participants in the 2007 discussion(s) about the title that I linked above. I would have alerted the other two registered editors who are in the Survey section of that debate, but they are currently inactive on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Same goes for kingboyk, though kingboyk is less inactive than the others...since he or she has edited Wikipedia this year. Flyer22 (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Science Fiction

I would like to add "science fiction" to the genre description of the show. I already did previously, but it was deleted. I assume this was because I am terribly new at this and didn't explain myself.. I'm Sorry. I'll be a better person/editor/textmonkey from now on. As such I took the time to explain myself.

While the show (Buffy TVS) primarily deals with the occult and supernatural the show also features several episodes in every single season that deal with "sci-fi" concepts. In season 1 there are the episodes featuring a naturally occurring giant bug-person, the transference of consciousness into a digital form, a very advanced robot avatar, a girl who goes invisible because of "quantum mechanics" rather than magic and the idea of cyber-terrorism. So while the show perhaps primarily revolves around fantasy concepts, simply ignoring the science-fiction in the show would be tantamount to removing "drama" from the genre description simply because the show contains a lot of humour. The concepts of fantasy and science-fiction are not necessarily opposing forces or mutually exclusive. And Buffy The Vampire Slayer certainly contains both. Season 4 with it's behaviour modifying microchips, stun-rifles, biotech experiments and cyborg big-bad could even be described as being more sci-fi than fantasy. A such I think it would be more accurate and perhaps helpful to the readers of this particular wiki-page if "Science Fiction" was added under the genre-description of course along with the other genres, who I do not wish to remove or modify.

As mentioned above I already did the edit but it was removed. I hope this will clear up why I made the edit and I imagine the person who deleted it previously will appreciate that I took the time to explain myself this time. I'm new to this whole process, sorry if I got ahead of myself. I hope this will clear up why I wish to make the edit. And I am of course sorry about any inconvenience I may have caused. Seriously ... sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.118.130 (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

None of these episodes/incidents was even remotely science-fictional in the way they were handled; they involved mere waving of hands and use of buzzwords. The show, however deeply beloved by some science fiction fans, was never regarded as science fiction, since its very premise and reason for being were fantasy/horror-based. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with Orange Mike; science fiction has treated some of the events you've listed, but in very different ways than Buffy did. This is not to excuse the foolishness perpetuated and called science fiction on television ... I love Buffy, it's gothic, fantasy, horror, and teen angst, but not science fiction, not sci-fi, and not SF. htom (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I never meant to say that the show was primarily science fiction or even "hard sci-fi", but it would be inaccurate and a disservice to the viewers of the page not to classify it as sci-fi if we go by wikipedia's own definition of the genre. While I respect your opinions (The both of you) I cannot follow your logic, are you implying that perhaps Frankenstein isn't science fiction as well? Once again the fantasy and horror elements do not make it less sci-fi in the same way that the jokes do not negate the drama. I hope I'm explaining myself well, sometimes I babble just a bit. And thanks for the feedback (Am I also replying correctly?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.118.130 (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Within the scientific knowledge of the time, Frankenstein the novel was certainly science fiction; that does not make Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein a science fiction film. (And yes, you've got the right idea on replying; but you should indent by using one semicolon more than what you're replying to; and you should sign your posts. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Frankenstein even in it's own period was not "hard sci-fi" in the slightest. Therefore by your definition it is apparently not science fiction at all. And I think it's wrong of us to use our personal interpretation of what constitutes science fiction and not the definition found in wikipedia itself (Which includes soft sci-fi). I appreciate your high-standard of the required science in sci-fi. But within science fiction there exist a spectrum that stretches all the way from the childlike wackyness of Doctor Who and the hand-wavy pulp of Edgar Rice Burroughs, to the hard sci-fi of Arthur C. Clark and Vernor Vinge. The episodes "Some Assembly Required", "Ted" and "I Was Made To Love You" are hardly equivalent to "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" and honestly the latter episode is more plausibly scientifically speaking than the actual Frankenstein ever was. Frankly I feel as though we are stuck now because you have a personal interpretation of sci-fi which you will adhere to no matter what... So far that you will pretend Frankenstein falls within it's parameters because you know it would be ridiculous not to call Frankenstein science fiction. I hope I don't come off as confrontational or overly aggressive, but I just don't think you could look at a TV show with several episodes each and every season featuring the existence of several highly advanced artificial intelligences (created solely by scientific means), perfectly human-like androids (constructed without magic), man made time-distortion technology, extra-terrestrial life and completely scientific reanimation and NOT call it sci-fi. I'm not sure we are being objective here. Is it that you think the existence of magic in the show excludes it's possibility of being science fiction? Because if that is the case I will have to reiterate a similar point; comedy does not preclude horror and Buffy is already listed as both. As another example; the occult, religious or fantasy element in a show like the X-Files does not mean the speculative sci-fi in the show suddenly stops being exactly that.. scientific fiction. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is an American TV Show which includes numerous episodes centred solely around scientific speculation.
The show is a fiction that often deals with the scientific, speculatively or as metaphor.
This very simply and plainly (by definition) makes it science fiction...alongside it being horror, comedy and supernatural-fantasy.
And it would be incorrect not to state that in the genre description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.118.130 (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
"Supernatural drama" is a sub-genre of "science fiction", making inclusion of the latter superfluous and redundant. Nymf talk to me 18:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia defines supernatural drama as a sub-genre of fantasy and as unrelated to science fiction.
"This genre deals with ghosts and other paranormal topics".
"They (Supernatural dramas) may be combined with OTHER genres, including comedy, action, SCIENCE FICTION,
It is therefore hardly redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.118.130 (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
At the time of its publication, Frankenstein was (as far as a layperson like Shelley could tell) perfectly legitimate speculative science fiction. X-Files, like most of what comes out of Hollywood, made no more than token pretense of scientific plausibility or accuracy; so that's an appallingly unconvincing example to use. Buffy is a fantasy/horror series, and is not science fiction in the way that a Babylon 5 or Firefly is; the use of superficially science-fictional tropes like robots and time travel does not change that. (And I won't even address your persistence in the use of the pejorative "sci-fi" while attempting to make a case about taking something seriously as science fiction.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

How about using the term science-fantasy? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.118.130 (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The use of the term science fantasy is pretty much exclusive to literature; it is not applied, as far as I can tell, to visual media, comics, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Why do you want to hang one of these categories onto the article? Maybe if we knew that we'd be more helpful. There are a -lot- of categories, but these two don't seem to me to fit well. htom (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I want to "hang" the sci-fi label on it, because without it a good 1/5 of the show's episodes are unaccounted for. Soviet fish-man gene-therapy experimentation doesn't exactly rhyme with fantasy. This is wikipedia, this is the kind of information one would want on a TV show. Can we stop pigeon-holing and just add sci-fi when it's applicable to so many damn episodes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.118.130 (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I've missed some comments/questions I'd like to address. If I can quote Orangemike.. >>X-Files, like most of what comes out of Hollywood, made no more than token pretense of scientific plausibility or accuracy; so that's an appallingly unconvincing example to use. That's why I used it, because it's still called sci-fi despite it's "appalling implausibility". >>Frankenstein was (as far as a layperson like Shelley could tell) perfectly legitimate speculative science fiction You forgot to add "Despite it's appalling implausibility." >>And I won't even address your persistence in the use of the pejorative "sci-fi" while attempting to make a case about taking something seriously as science fiction Since around 1980 sci-fi has become less of a pejorative and more of a just a abbreviation. I'll call it SF if it makes you feel better. Having said that, bad sci-fi is still science fiction. Quality does not enter into genre-labelling.We shouldn't mistake the vessel for it's content whether we are talking medium, genre or otherwise. Wikipedia doesn't distinguish it just redirects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.118.130 (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the OP's choice of examples, there are episodes in which the threat is primarily stfnal ("Some Assembly Required", "Ted", "Go Fish", "Beauty and the Beasts", "I Was Made to Love You", "Gone"). We can classify the threats four ways: demons, magic-users (Catherine/Amy, Ethan, Jonathan), mad science (those episodes I listed above), and spontaneous ("Nightmares", "Out of Mind, Out of Sight", "I Only Have Eyes For You", "Wild at Heart"). Part of the premise of the show is that all of these events, including mad science, occur in Sunnyvale because weirdness is encouraged by the Hellmouth leakage; Warren's experiments would (probably) fail without it. —Tamfang (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

a sign that will live in infamy

The main exterior set of the town of Sunnydale, including the infamous "sun sign," ...

What's infamous about it? Did it bring bad luck? —Tamfang (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to link to the wikia wiki about buffy here. It seems to me that things like in-depth bios of minor characters or whatever are more appropriately covered on a dedicated single-topic wiki than on wikipedia. It seems like the dedicated single-topic wiki is a good resource to link to here. Yet my edit was reverted by a bot and then by a person, so it seems that my opinion is not the consensus opinion. I'd like to find out why. Certainly, other articles link to the dedicated wikis for their topics. For example, Star Trek, Kingdom of Loathing, and Homestar Runner. Gnebulon (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Genre

Please do not remove or add genres unless they are cited specifically. Otherwise, they fail WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SUBJECTIVE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

They are cited, and it seems to me that you are edit warring now. Be careful of that WP:3RR. Nymf (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see them. Can you point them out to me? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh right. It does say "Supernatural drama" but it lists it as a sub-genre. So I don't think it's fair to list all the sub-genres in the infobox on the problem of over cluttering it up. So why did you only pick and choose that one? The source specficially seperated "Genre" from "Sub-genre" as well, so i think it would be best to stick to the ones that match the infobox term. Do you agree? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't particularly agree. If you look at Template:Infobox television, it refers to List of genres#Film and television genres (as a list of acceptable examples) which is full of subgenres. Nymf (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
For one, AllMovie isn't the end-all-be-all for genre definitions, we don't have to list everything they have. It should be a consensus between editors for this article. None of the other sub-genres listed there would really be appropriate to list in the infobox other than "supernatural drama", as all the others are mainly redundant or genres that are rarely ever used in infoboxes. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "we don't have to list everything they have", probably not, but we shouldn't pick and choose. That's not giving the user the full story. If you are going to use the sub-genres, you should use all, or none.
  • "None of the other sub-genres listed there would really be appropriate to list in the infobox other than "supernatural drama"", that's against WP:OR, we don't get to choose what genres we do or do not. Just because it's not used in other infoboxes or not doesn't mean you get to choose.
  • You have not addressed my point that since the article says "Genre" and ours says "Genre", choosing "Sub-genre" is inappropriate here. Can you at least comment on that? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Just because AllMovie lists it as a "sub-genre" doesn't mean we can't include it. If there's a consensus between editors, we should list it. Listing "none or all" is also just an opinion. I don't get your hesitance though, are you somehow claiming Buffy is not a supernatural series? It deals with vampires and demons, which are supernatural beings. More sources for "supernatural drama"—[19] [20] [21] [22]. Regardless, it should say somewhere that it's a drama, whether it's supernatural drama or fantasy drama (even though I think supernatural is a better genre description than fantasy for this series). Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
We don't get to choose what's "more appropriate" based on our decisions. Finding a consensus is more for when things disagree with each other. I don't necissarily agree or disagree with Allmovie's genres, as that's not how wikipedia works. What I'm more upset is that we are picking and choosing what we think is right, which is not how wikipedia works. As for your other sources, I'm more partial to more specific descriptions of genre through Allmovie as these other sources say drama, but TV series are often referred to as "dramsa" whether they fit the genre or not. As mine is more specific and written by a published author who has written entire books on genre in television, I'd lean towards him as a stronger source than a blogger from Huffington Post. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
You do disagree though, otherwise you wouldn't have removed the genre in the first place. If "supernatural drama" wasn't in the source (or if there wasn't a source anywhere), then you'd be right, but it's right there (might I add, in your source) which means we can list it because it's sourced. You're contradicting your own source by removing it. As Nymf pointed out, sub-genres are fine to list. Since "supernatural drama" is properly sourced, we can, as collaborative editors, come to a consensus because we're discussing something that is sourced and not something we're just making up. Also, note, that you've been reverted by three different editors about this (myself, Nymf, and Flyer22), which shows you're against consensus. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I add things which are sourced, even if I don't 100% agree. I don't even agree with fantasy, but I've added it because we have a source. Please don't assume I have an agenda on something when I do not, that is against the rules as you have to assume good faith. I'm more curious why you are adding some sub-genres, but not all. There is no consensus without discussion I'm afraid, and I have yet to revert it again. There was no discussion, so I was removing what I assumed was vandalism. So, could you answer me what rules we are following by only selecting a couple things but not others? That sounds very against wikipedia policy if you ask me. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Calling something that is sourced vandalism is wrong and detrimental to Wikipedia as a whole. You might want to read up on the definition of vandalism at WP:VANDALISM. And for whatever it is worth, there is such a thing as consensus through editing. Nymf (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that applies here. I just stumbled upon the article now and did change it, so there clearly was no consensus or discussion about it. I still don't think it's appropriate to only pick and choose sources from a citation. If there is no further things you want to bring up (as you still have yet to address my points with rules, or status or even further citations, I'll assume that there is consensus to my previous edit. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC))
It's been over a week. No one has stepped forward to address what I suggested so I'll remove it tomorrow if there is no one going to address what my problem with it was. (i.e: users are cherry picking what to use in the source, etc.) Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Why are you the sole one that gets to decide what's in the infobox or not? It's sourced and several editors disagree with you. Just leave it and move on. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not the sole person. But if no one is addressing my problems (which you aren't, you are telling me to just 'go away!'). That makes it sound like you own the infobox. If you can actually address the problem (which no one has), then I'll assume no one can explain what I'm doing is wrong. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen anyone else interested in removing a valid cited genre from the infobox. I don't know what "problem" you're referring to. I supplied you with extra citations for "supernatural drama", so again, I have no idea what you're referring to. You're against consensus and you're contradicting yourself by going against your own source. You have no right to remove something that is sourced from this article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. It is starting to sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are 3 people who agrees that "Supernatural drama" is fine and perfectly cited. I don't see the problem. Nymf (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you don't agree with me, but it's not down to consensus, it's down to cherry picking what you are citing. If you want to add a citation that says Supernatural drama go ahead, apply it to the page, you have not so I don't think it's fair to use the allmovie citation to claim it for Supernatural drama when you aren't applying the other genres as well. You can't cherry pick what you want to say from citations. I don't care what the genre says itself, but if you are going to be specific, use what the source says, not your gut instincts. If you just add those other sources mentioned I will have no major issue. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
So we'll just use one of the other 3 sources that only mentions the genre in question. Happy? Nymf (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not that we are using the 3 I put in, it's we're using the 3 that say "genre" and not "sub-genre". Then i'm more than content. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
So is someone going to add one of their sources found? Either you don't think it's strong enough, and since no one is addressing my points and just saying "well this-and-that", I'll remove it tomorrow. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Why not add the source(s) yourself? Nymf (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Location, location, location and IMDB-based statements

I've removed the trivial and off-topic locations used by the show also used elsewhere list-like sentence. Not surprisingly, lots of places in L.A. get used as locations many, many times. It's not relevant to the article. I've taken out a few statements based solely on IMDB, which is not a WP:RS for Wikipedia (it's unreliable because it's based on user inputs). I hope someone has the time to go through the whole article (which is too long for me to do right now) to remove any more such references. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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:

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) 06:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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:

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) 20:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Critical Reception

Why is there no critical reception section? Was this settled before? Thoughts about how we'd go about making it? Byelf2007 (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2018‎ (UTC)

Byelf2007, the reception material is in the Cultural impact section. I see no need to separate the content out of that section. But some Wikipedia articles do have both a Critical reception section and a Cultural impact section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Images

@Musicfan122: Infobox images are preferred to be of the intertitle from the opening credits. The image in this article has been that for as long I've been editing here (10 years). Per MOS:TV regarding image use in the infobox, "For a show's main article, an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself should be used." Plus like I said, the logo is already being used List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes. I've been editing TV article for as long as I've been here, and 99% of articles I see use the intertitles for the infobox. As for the image of Whedon, it makes more sense to use an image from a time that was closer to when he was making this show (the section is about the origins of the show), instead of an image from today. I don't see an issue with him facing slightly sideways; it looks fine and has been used in the article for years. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Musicfan122: You asked me to start a discussion and I did but you're simply ignoring the discussion, which isn't helpful. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello again Drovethrughosts. Thank you for your patience, I've been busy the last few days and completely forgot about this. The show's official logo does qualify as the latter part of the quote you cited, "... a promotional poster used to represent the show itself should be used". Friends, not just a vital and high importance article but also a good article, uses the logo in both its show and list of episodes articles.
As for the image, there is no policy or guideline which states that an image of a show/film's creator/director should be closer to the time period the show/film premiered, thus this is completely irrelevant. Musicfan122 (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer/Archive_5&oldid=1145994733"