Talk:Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

Faith

Please do not ignore WP:CONSENSUS, and the guidelines that govern pages (specifically WP:WAF). If you disagree with something, then please take it up on the talk page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You are NOT consensus. You and a few people who aren't even fans of the show have no idea about this character or the fandom. The Jossverse is not just shows, but a FRANCHISE.

Consensus would be going to a group of fandom members and asking if they are aware of faith's name and think it is important. I would be happy to send you to several fan communities to do research. Buffy Forums, Whedonesque and SlayAlive are a few places to start. A bunch of edit bots that have little care about the fandom aren't consensus.

Faith recently used "Hope Lyonne". Joss isn't rescinding the naming process; he's embracing it. Same with turning Cecily Adams/Underwood into the same character as Halfreck (not originally intended, but we got confirmation of it when Halfreck--also played by Kali Rocha--recognizes William). Same as the namings of William Pratt and Kendra Young. All are now canon and need to be treated as such.

Also, Buffy "Summers" was never named that until the show. In the movie, she didn't have a last name. Yet on the 1992 IMDB site, you will see characters named "Joyce Summers", "Hank Summers", etc... all of which were show information, yet are commonly used even when referring to the movie.

What you don't understand is how FRANCHISES work. Canon doesn't stop after the end of a show. Canon is whatever the creator says is canon. The Jossverse is a large franchise that encompasses many kinds of media. It goes beyond two shows (another reason why I reject "Buffyverse"--it's the "Jossverse". That is disrespectful to Angel: the Series as having its own identity and the same importance within the franchise.).

As for common knowledge within the fandom... you will find that Faith Lehane is very well-known and embraced. Faith Lehane has been embraced in canon material (Season 8 and ATF are 100% canon) outside of simple interviews. There is no difference in canon between the shows and Joss' comics. And frankly, he can name characters whatever he wants, same as the right he has to kill any character he feels like killing. That would be like a person who hates Angel: the Series demanding that Cordelia never died because she didn't die on Buffy.

Please stop edit warring AGAINST consensus in the fandom. YOU ≠ consensus. ~~NileQT87

First, you might want to read WP:CONSENSUS, it has nothing to do with whether you are a fan or not. As a matter of fact, being a fan puts you in a conflict of interest, because you are going to be biased in your opinion of what to include. Secondly, you'd probably be surprised as to how many "fans" actually agree that it's simply "Faith". Hence why the article's title is just "Faith". You cannot take recent information and attach importance to it, especially when it was merely created to develop the character, and not something that was given to her initially...or what she is well known for. We also do not use IMDb as a source for anything, as it contains fan submitted information. It doesn't matter if "Lehane" is considered "canon" or if it's embraced by the fandom. "Common usage" means that random readers, and critics refer to her as "Faith Lehane"...and they don't. Only die-hard fans refer to her by her last name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You're the one with the conflict of interest. This is why Wikipedia is getting obnoxious with all the little edit bots running around thinking they are rulers of content. Please listen to others. Obviously, from this page, a lot of people also DISAGREE with you. "Faith Lehane" is encyclopedic information on the canon name of this character. A lot of characters in this FRANCHISE had names, dates of birth, etc... change numerous times. Joss changes information quite a bit.

Don't believe me? Realize that depending on which episode you watch, Angelus was sired in 1757 (according to numerous early Buffy episodes and stated by Angel, himself), 1753 (canon--used in flashbacks), 1783 (one hilarious early season blooper). Angel wasn't even given the name "Liam" until Angel: the Series. William also stated he was 126 when he was only 119. William's mother's name comes not from an episode, but from a script--something that your holy magazine articles are not likely to know, but it is standardly known that William Pratt's mother is "Anne Pratt". Joss is free to do whatever he wants to the characters and changes information frequently. Season 8 has shown that Joss has "Faith Lehane" on his mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NileQT87 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC)"You and a few people who aren't even fans of the show have no idea about this character or the fandom." Excuse me, mate, I'm a huge Buffy fan and completely understand the character of Faith, don't ever question that, thank you very much. :P However, I try to maintain a level of professionalism on Wikipedia by not letting my love of the show and it's fictional universe cloud my judegement as to the real world perspective that this site strives for. Bignole is right in saying that fandom is not relevant to consensus on Wikipedia; please read WP:NPOV, articles must remain neutral, not be written for the fans. Also, please understand that we do not write from an in-universe perspective, so what is canon is also irrelevant. We're not debating the canonicity of "Lehane", Season 8, or anything... I know fine well they're canon and embrace them completely as such, so don't lecture us on canon and how franchises work. Wikipedia should focus on real-world perspective and notability; the opinions of some random fans on a forum really don't provide that. Just because "Lehane" is canon and popular amongst fans doesn't change the fact that this character was known simply as "Faith" for the majority of her existence and appearances. The article doesn't deny the canonicity of "Lehane", it just doesn't treat it with the bias and undue weight that fans do because it's a minor part of Faith's development as a character.  Paul  730 03:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:INUNIVERSE. While you're at it, please read WP:CONSENSUS thoroughly. Fictional characters are not real, so they do not have "dates of birth". Also, fiction often gets retconned, and updated from time to time. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fandom. If you want "the most accurate fictional biography", then go to another website. These pages are supposed to be written as if they were going to appear in a print encyclopedia, not some Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan guide. That means information is presented as historical significance, not most recent changes. We mention where the last name first came from, and the fact that it is currently being used. That doesn't change the fact that the character was created, and is most well known by the non-fan community, as simply "Faith" (no last name). It's the same reason why Jabba the Hutt is Jabba the Hutt and not Jabba Desilijic Tiure. The latter is his "real" name, but "Jabba the Hutt" is the name his most commonly known by, and the name he was originally given. There isn't anything else to argue. You keep talking about turning the page into a character biography, and that is not what Wikipedia is here to do. If that's what you want, I'm sure there are plenty Buffy and Angel fansites out there that do that kind of stuff.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Then should we also delete, say... "Summers" from the Buffy article? Fans in 1992 never got that piece of information until 1997. Nor the names of Joyce and Hank. You'll even find occasional fans come into forums arguing that Spike was sired by Angelus rather than Drusilla. In 1997, that was canon. In 2000, it wasn't. You can find plenty of articles, I'm sure, that will refer to Angelus as Spike's sire pre-Fool For Love. That was canon at one time, until canon was changed and fanwanked to reflect what was shown.

And my opinion on Jabba, being that I was once a big Star Wars fan? His name should be written officially Jabba "the Hutt" Desilijic Tiure. There's a reason those little "" marks are used in names. Same with William "the Bloody" Pratt. Both are examples of encyclopedic information. Just the facts. Those are their actual canon names.

Same with Buffy Anne Summers, Alexander "Xander" LaVelle Harris, Willow Danielle Rosenberg, Faith Lehane, William Pratt, Kendra Young, Rupert Giles, Janna "Jenny/Jennifer Calendar", Cecily Adams/Underwood a.k.a. Halfreck, Aud a.k.a. Anyanka a.k.a. Anya Christina Emmanuella Jenkins, etc... Many of those things were even stated in the shows or in scripts, but to you might seem "trivial".

This universe isn't a closed, dead story yet. Information is going to keep changing, regardless if the only people paying attention are die-hard fans. Joss can flip the entire fandom on its head and say Buffy is still in the asylum, even if the media could care less that the continuation is happening. If he does that in a way that isn't vague and left open to interpretation, we could very well have to state that this universe all takes place in a crazy girl's imagination. Joss isn't afraid of big gestures like that (although that particular idea is unlikely to go past Normal Again) and he's not done with the story. Information WILL change even if the media and general viewers don't care anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NileQT87 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Buffy was only known as simply "Buffy" in the film; throughtout the significantly more notable television series she was known as Buffy Summers, and "Summers" is commonly used by reliable sources outside the fandom. Lehane was more of an afterthought, Joss Whedon going "Hey, I forgot to give her a surname, so here you go" and is only really known by fans. At the risk of repeating myself (I've made this argument repeatedly on this talk page), Faith Lehane didn't appear in the TV show because that name hadn't been created at that time. She only became known as that afterwards, and by a limited amount of people. Buffy Summers, however, did appear in the TV show because she was referred to as such all through the show's run and by third parties such as the media. This isn't about canon, it's about what's notable. Please read this policy on undue weight. (BTW, I find it strange that someone who's so concerned about canon keeps using the name "Pratt", which as far as I know, isn't canon. I might be wrong though...)  Paul  730 04:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"Pratt" is canon. It's from the same source as "Lehane" and "Young" = Joss. Those three names were given at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NileQT87 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Because I thought "Pratt" was created by Peter David for a non-canon comic. Whatever, we're getting kind of off-topic anyway. Like I said, canon isn't the issue here.  Paul  730 04:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Various comics, both non-canon and canonically written with Joss' influence have used names like "Lehane" and "Pratt". The Old Times comic got the name "Pratt" from the same RPG source where Joss created 3 new last names. Thus, apparently that author thought it was relevant enough to include Joss' new information.

Also, that "undue weight" thing has nothing to do with this topic of a writer's ability to assign names to his own fictional characters. "Undue weight" has nothing to do with names. For example, Elvis Presley's middle name is "Aron/Aaron". You would think that inconsequential, no? Not quite. Heck, there are forces that practically have turned him into a one-name celebrity like "Cher" and "Madonna", even if he did use his last name. It's consequential because 1) it's on his birth certificate as "Aron" and grave as "Aaron". 2) half of the 'Elvis is alive' garbage comes from the misunderstanding that Elvis changed his middle name in his later years to reflect the biblical spelling. Reason #1 alone is encyclopedic. It just so happens that occasionally these non-commonly known names do sometimes pop up as relevant to understanding a phenomenon like in Elvis' case or to understand part of the Jossverse's Anya character because Anya Christina Emmanuella Jenkins ("lame-ass-maiden-name Harris") represents a very specific part of who she is and her personality. See were I'm going with this? Faith's last name was even used as humor with her secret undercover identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NileQT87 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(Replying to Nile's fourth last comment). Joss could turn the universe down at a whim and make Buffy crazy, but that wouldn't change the fact that the televsion show depicted a teenager girl fighting vampires for seven years. You really need to understand the difference between the real world and the fictional Buffyverse; the two are different, and whether something is "canon" or "non-canon" in the Buffyverse isn't necessarily indicative of how notable it is in the real world. The Halloween series retconned three of it's films out of continuity. Does that mean we should delete their articles from Wikipedai because they "never happened"? No, because the films still exist regardless of their canonical status. Likewise, if Whedon decides to retcon the Buffyverse by Faith a surname, just because she has been known as "Lehane" her whole life in the Buffyverse doesn't mean she was actually known as "Lehane" back when she first appeared in 1998. It's about the article reflecting real-life events, and not fictional ones.  Paul  730 04:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and with that information, we should say Angelus is Spike's sire (it was true in 1997! It wasn't retconned until 2000!), Angel was 240 when he met Buffy--and vocally spoken in the early seasons of BtVS (which was retconned to 243 when the flashbacks started popping up), Spike was sired 200 years ago according to School Hard (1997) and in 1874 according to the Initiative (1999)--again, it wasn't retconned until late 2000 (to 1880).

Joss retcons. A lot.

If Buffy turns out to be in an asylum, you would need to state that the Jossverse is about a girl in an asylum who creates her fantasy world, and for many years this is the world that she created and was presented as the real universe within the fantasy franchise for most of its history, etc... Wasn't it Dallas that retconned out a whole season as a dream? Yes, you would have to write that... even if the media and casual viewer don't care. It is still Joss' canon and maybe the casual viewers and media will go to Wikipedia and learn what is the current information about characters within the franchise and base their information off of these encyclopedic entries. If you don't give them the current information, yes, they'll indeed keep on writing the old information.

That is why it is necessary to keep these entries (even on fictional characters) up-to-date. I would not be surprised if the media wrote a review about Season 6 of Buffy, they'd mention that Warren is dead. Well, not quite. Joss retconned him into Amy's skinless boyfriend (albeit a shaky retcon, due to his Season 7 appearances as the First). Still, if you didn't change that article (and not like anyone outside of the fandom cares--admit it, these articles on characters ARE for the fans to upkeep), it's not correct.

Wikipedia is not a current events site, nor is it a substitution for reading, watching, or listening to fiction. We write things from a historical context. We do not write fictionaly information as if they are real, from the standpoint of them just happening (not that we don't include information that recently happened, we just do not give it anymore precidence than stuff that happened years prior because, again, Wikipedia is not a substitution for reading, watching, or listening to fiction), or with a non-neutral POV that favors the fans over the casual readers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Then keep plugging away at giving "casual readers" their incorrect information that doesn't reflect the franchise as still growing and still current. ;) By doing so, you are ignoring a quintessential part of who the creator of this franchise is. Joss Whedon is a shameless big nerd who writes for shameless big nerds.

George Lucas is another who has no problem creating new names for old characters. Leia [Skywalker] Organa Solo, anyone? The character is popularly known as "Princess Leia", but information has changed since the original movies hit theaters. Casual readers probably don't care past what happened in the movies.

And BtVS Season 8/AtF are still plugging along as if the shows had never ended. Gunn becoming a vampire isn't relevant to people who only care about what happens until Not Fade Away, but I would DEFINITELY say it was relevant to his character. Same with Angel becoming human. Same with Faith going on an undercover mission as Hope Lyonne, with the viewers casually knowing her name is Faith Lehane--otherwise half the joke is lost without the casual reader understanding that information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NileQT87 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Please post new comments rather than editing old ones, it's confusing. Also, please indent your comments using * or : as it makes the conversation easier to follow.

You're not listening to me. Joss Whedon is not God, he can't rewrite history. He can rewrite the fictional history of a fictional universe, but a fictional universe is not the same as the real world. You really don't seem to grasp that. The Wikipedia article should be written from a real-world perspective, not a fictional one. If retcons occur and are notable enough to warrant mentioning at all (not something petty like Angel's age), they should be acknowledged as retcons, we shouldn't just pretend it was like that all along. Warren's article should acknowledge that he was killed off in an episode on the TV show, and brought back in the comic book with whatever explanation. That is how the article should cover that. We shouldn't say "Oh, he actually never died in the first place because Joss says so and his word negates actual factual events." Faith's article acknowledges that she was granted a surname after the show, because that is what happened. It shouldn't say she was called that all along because that's not what happened. Not in the real world. Wikipedia is not a guide to Buffyverse continuity, it's an encyclopedia. Significant stories and plot developments should be discussed, but with a real world context. I'm really not sure how much clearer I can make that.  Paul  730 05:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's say we are currently in the year 1999 and the show is still going on strongly. We have all this information about what we think we know about the history of a character. And whoops! It changes. Let's say something comes to light about an incident or a motivation. Yes, those changes can change something that happened earlier in the franchise. What was commonly believed to have happened, has new light shed on it. When telling about a character in a story, it's not meaningless because it's FICTION. Fiction does not have to be linear. That's why we have flashbacks AFTER the character is introduced in real time. You're just retelling the character's journey that has been patchworked into a linear format. For example: Angel lied when he said he hadn't killed anyone for 100 years. Retcon? Or the fact that it reflects on who the character is and his reluctance to talk about his past with Buffy? For example, he also lies when Buffy saw him with Drusilla at the playground. New information is revealed in a fictional context in storytelling. George Lucas, J.K. Rowling, etc... are no different. When you are writing a character's encyclopedic entry, you tell what has happened to the character using all of the information available, even if it is added later on and even if it throws a big hammer into what was thought to be the story of a character.

It shouldn't just be all look at how healthy we are, we aren't fans! We don't actually just tell you the character profile with the correct and current information. We understand what is fiction and non-fiction. I understand perfectly well what is fiction and non-fiction. Which is why I think you've overlooked that next to Faith's name, you see "(Buffy, the Vampire Slayer)", which used to read "(Buffyverse)" and should have read "(Jossverse)".

When you tell the story of Luke Skywalker, you don't say in the STORY part of his entry that Luke and Leia were supposed to get together romantically because that was what George Lucas intended back before he realized that he wasn't going to do episodes VII-IX. Encyclopedically, he's the brother of Leia and the son of Anakin and Padmé. Information changes. Again, a retcon that left some very amusing residue on Star Wars (later retitled A New Hope) and Empire Strikes Back. But in the part where you tell about the character, it's filled by information that tells the character's story. The other anecdotes are left for another section.

Faith Lehane belongs right at the top with the main part of the article, which chronicles the journey of the character. The anecdotes are in a different section, where one can talk all they want about historical changes coming from a real-world perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NileQT87 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're talking about retcons and fiction in general rather than how we write about fiction on Wikipedia. You don't need to explain the Buffyverse narrative to me, believe me, I get it. Wikipedia articles are written from a real-world perspective; we aren't here to chronicle a fictional character's life, but rather their appearances, with some summarised plot included to provide context. Look at pages like Jason Voorhees, Jabba the Hutt, Jack Harkness, these are the way fictional character articles should be written, not a detailed biography with a couple of "anecdotes" thrown in at the end. It isn't so much "we aren't fans" as it is "this is a fictional character, not a real person". If you can't understand that, then I really suggest you check out the Buffyverse Wiki, a Wikipedia-style site which covers the Buffyverse from an in-universe perspective. I edit that site myself, because I do enjoy writing character biographies, it just isn't appropiate for this website, regardless of how many articles do so. Oh , and just for the record, I hate the term "Jossverse" because I find it disgustingly sycophantic (what, did Whedon create the Buffyverse single-handedly with no help from other writers or cast & crewmembers?) not to mention inaccurate (what about Whedon's other fictional worlds like that of Firefly and Dollhouse?)  Paul  730 05:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly prefer "Jossverse" to "Buffyverse", which ignores half the canon and the idea that Buffy is the end-all be-all and center of the universe. AtS is just as important as BtVS. We could do "Bangelverse", but that's too 'shippy. Other options are "Buffy/Angel 'verse", "Buffy/Angelverse", "Slayerverse" (still too Buffy centric for my taste, but it certainly would fit better if, hypothetically, Fray got a series or if Eliza had done the Faith series) or just "Buffy/Angel" in parenthesis. One could do that for characters who just appear on both shows (as does Faith) or both anyways. Or you can list Buffy, Angel, Serenifly and Dollhouse all under the Jossverse(s) banner. Jossverse is used much more (in popular usage) to combine just Buffy/Angel, whereas Serenifly and Dollhouse don't have two shows that share the same universe equally and can be called under their show names. Buffy/Angel blurs a lot of lines between them while maintaining two equally important counterparts. "Jossverse" and possibly "Slayerverse" (which is inclusive of all the expanded universe and spin-offs like Fray) are the best options other than just "Buffy/Angel". NileQT87 (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)NileQT87

We're going off on a tangent again, which is my fault for bringing up the Jossverse thing. Buffy is the centre of the universe, the Buffyverse formed around her and her series continues to be it's flagship title. Angel and Fray may have their own identities, but they're still second fiddle to Buffy because that's the main series. That's just my opinion, call it what you want, it's not really important.

Getting back on track, do you now understand how we write about fiction on Wikipedia? Please read this guideline which I linked above, as it covers a lot of what we're been trying to explain.  Paul  730 17:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not see anything in the links posted on writing about fiction that support the lead being just "Faith". The name of the character is "Faith Lehane" (defined by the franchise), and the article's first sentence should start that way. The fact that the characters surname was only created/revealed later than the character's first appearance is notable and of course should be described later in the article, but that does not change that the article should start by describing the current version of the character. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The section notability and undue weight says "It is important that articles give due weight to all aspects of the subject, and to avoid placing undue emphasis on minor points." Faith's surname, canon or not, is a minor point since it is barely used in primary or secondary sources. Granting it such precedence in the article's title or first line would be giving it undue weight. Also, we shouldn't focus on the "current" version of the character but rather the character as a whole. Otherwise, the main image in the Dawn article should be of her as a centaur because that is her current appearance. Being "current" does not make something more important on Wikipedia.  Paul  730 18:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's the problem. This article is about "Faith" the television character, with the rest of the information from the comics and games being "secondary" to the actual television show. Hence why the first sentence is, "Faith is a fictional character created by Joss Whedon for the television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer". Now, "Faith Lehane" is not a character from that television series. That is why we mention "Lehane" later, instead of in the first sentence.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is not only about a television character, it is about a single character that has appeaered in multiple media. The name of that character is "Faith Lehane". The fact that we were only given a surname recently does not change its validity. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 06:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't, that's why it doesn't start off that way and why the title is so specific. This article's primary focus is on the television character. Most of the information is about the television character. The rest of the sources of fictional information are the secondary information that was created to further develop the television character. The fact that they were done in comic, novel and game format is irrelevant to the fact that they were created to develop the "television character". They came later in the character's history. You are trying to lump everything together like it's all the same thing, when it isn't. This article is about Faith the TV character, and her appearances outside of TV. Why do you think the Superman article is about the comic book character that has appeared in other media, and not simply the character in general? Notice how other FA character articles have a primary focus, and then they go on to discuss how the character appeared in other media and how that developed the character. They don't treat that information like it was the primary source of information. It's the same reason we don't start film sentences with "Film X is an Academy Award winning drama...", because first and foremost it was just a film. What happened later should be mentioned later. You are trying to pull things that were created much later to "develop" the character, and place them in front like they were always there. They weren't. We've had this conversation plenty of times. Faith is a fictional character, she is not real. The fact that they did not tell us a last name on the show means that we should not assume that she even had one. You are letting fanbias guide your decision. Joss can create whatever he wants, but he cannot dictate encyclopedic writing because of it. He can turn around tomorrow and add tons of backstory to the character and say that it was always present, even in the show, they just didn't say it. We wouldn't add that to the show section of the article. We would add that wherever he does--if he does the backstory in a comic and explains in an interview that it is something present in the show, then we mention it in the comic section of the article--and add a side note that Joss stated it was a backstory that was present in the show but never stated. 12:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There have been multiple different versions of Superman due to the fact that the franchise owners choose to make wholesale changes, essentially crating a new character from time to time. The original Superman is a different character than the John Byrne Superman, the various TV Supermans, and the film Superman. Faith Lehane is one character that appears in multiple media. As I understand it, most of the printed stories have been deemed secondary by the franchise holders; but that is not true for the character bios from the RPG and the entire Season 8 comic series. They are equally valid sources to the TV episodes. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 15:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to spell this out in a very straightforward way that all editors should be able to understand. On the Buffyverse Wiki, the article is and should always be Faith Lehane, but on Wikipedia is cannot ever be anything other than "Faith".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding lead sentence

Comment - I'd say that the Lehane should be shown, as this is the character's full name, from a notable, well-cited source. Just because her surname was not mentioned in the series, that does not mean it did not exist and as it does exist and is notable it should be included. By the way, I'd never heard the surname prior to today, and as such I agree with the article name staying as it is. --Worm | mroW 14:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I read the above discussion, and I support the usage of "Faith" without the surname in the first sentence. The fact that her surname is bolded later in the lead section seems to be an acceptable compromise. The majority of existing references seem to refer to the character exclusively as "Faith", so it seems a stretch to extrapolate the surname into the content provided by these references. With this in mind, the usage of the surname in the lead sentence seems like undue weight. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This article is about a character from a multimedia franchise, not just about any one episode, season, or media. Within that franchise the character's name has been established as Faith Lahane, and the article should lead with that. However, since the character's surname is less well known there should be a footnote giving the specific source. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 16:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the RfC is for outside input about this issue. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Regarding the Buffy article mentioned by MJBurrage - Buffy is actually called Buffy Anne Summers in the show. .Only from Season 3 Episode 1 so there is a parallel here to a name being added later on and it being in the lead sentence .Garda40 (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The quote you refer to is pointing out that Buffy's middle name appears in the television show whereas Faith's middle name appears in a spin-off roleplaying game, not making a point about chronology.Hobson (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment article title should remain as it is (as the single name is what she is most commonly known as). I think the introduction should include the last name though. Something to the effect of "Faith Lehane is a fictional character of the ... created by Joss Whedon. Originally called simply Faith the character's surname is not established until...". Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment The article title should remain the same but merge the sentence with her last name into the first sentence, removing how she got the last name as it is meaningless triva. Regarding the point about how relevant the last name is to non fans, well the majority of the article wouldn't be known by most non-fans. The source for her last name is the creator himself and including the last name in the article in a second sentence doesn't make sense when you can use just one. 122.104.165.13 (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please register if you are going to take part in RfCs. Being an unregistered user makes it difficult to make sure you have not comment on this in the past. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd simply like to object to the above request on the grounds that it's made inappropriately. There is no need to register in order to participate in RfC's and stating such is misleading. If you'd like to encourage the editor to register so they may enjoy all the benefits of editing WP that's fine, but the above comes close to a threat and that's uncalled for. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith yourself. I made no insinuation that there was any requirement that stated anything of the sort in regards to the fact an Anon MUST register. I was simply making a request for them to register so that it is easier to identify who is giving their opinion (as there is no assumption of bad faith with the simple fact that 1. People can fail to login; 2. Please can use different computers; 3. Multiple people can use the same computer, thus making it hard to identify a new opinion that appears on the same IP address. Now, I'm not going to get into a full blow argument over this, as it is the wrong place for such a thing. I just want you to realize that you took some liberaties assuming that I was biting the Anon, when that was hardly what I was doing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I would keep the intro as is. The fact that you ever only know Faith by her first name during the entire run of the Buffy TV series is a significant element of the character, who wanders into the series without a family or known background. That a role-playing game recently introduced a last name for the character is comparatively trivia, and despite being "canon" it doesn't mean that the character actually had that name in the television series. Fictional characters don't possess qualities or elements that exist independently of or prior to their depictions. They have no existence outside the works that portray them, so if it isn't portrayed, it doesn't exist. Information about fictional characters is not "revealed," it's introduced. To put it yet another way, don't confuse what would be significant about a real person with what is significant about a fictional character. A last name is a fundamental fact of a real person, but obviously not necessarily so for a fictional one. So don't give undue weight to recent additions or modifications to a long-standing character made in peripheral media. Postdlf (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment, as the primary work is the television series, and it is the most common name, both the article and the lead should only use the name "Faith." The addition of a last name in the RPG would be appropriate to mention, with source(s) in the "Appearances in other media" section, if/when the current "Appearances" section is modified to be that rather than being limited to the television and books. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Keep the introductory line as it is, without the mention of the last name. The character is knowns primarily from the television series. The surname was added after the television series ended. Keep it in the "Concept and Creation" section. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Omit the last name from the lead. It has not been used in the series itself, and thus it would clearly be undue to state it in the lead (or in the page title, for that matter). Kindly note that this is not a matter of taste, but of accuracy. user:Everyme 20:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

comment I'm a non-zealous buffy fan, and would consider the character to be commonly named Faith, hence the aticle title and lead sentence should use that. The surname should definiately mentioned later in the article, or even linked to a note in the lead, but "faith Lehane..." in the lead just makes article confusing to the vast majority of readers who will know the character as faith.Yobmod (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

omit as per above; "common usage" should override jargon right off the bat. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Surely the "commonly known as" also applies to Xander Harris, whose full name appears in the lead (albeit he was - I presume - fully named during the show). The logic not to include "Lehane" seems to hinge on it being a later addition, and an implicit suggestion that the Faith in the series was not called 'Faith Lehane'. That's interesting reasoning, but since the surname was devised by the character (and series) creator, it's not "undue weight" to list it initially, since it's a creator-approved addition. Equally it's bizarre logic to imply that "Faith Lehane" did not appear in the TV series - "Faith (Lehane)" clearly appeared in the TV series, just without her surname being clearly stated. A further example: The Batman villain Two-Face was created as "Harvey Kent," but "Kent" is unmentioned in the lead paragraph because his name was changed fairly swiftly to "Dent." If Faith's surname had changed, this would be a more controversial issue (although Two-Face's example might still make it easy to determine). Since, however, the character has only been added to, the parallels to "Summers" and "Anne" are surely well made regardless of whether the names arrived in the film, series, a comic or an RPG. "Faith" should be identified early and briefly as "Faith Lehane," and then the surname should be ignored until its specific creation is mentioned later. (Incidentally, it makes no difference to my thoughts but... a query: Is it not conceivable that the RPG information was formulated earlier, and that it has always been her full name? Or has it been deliberately stated as a later addition? For another example, The Prisoner's village guardian is known as "rover" despite the dubious origins of it being named in-show, thanks to the scripts and widespread acceptance.) ntnon (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Despite being a rabid Firefly fan, I'm not familiar with Buffy and I hope that tangential connection though doesn't make my input "coloured". That being said, using a character or person's full name in the first sentence of the lede seems more appropriate than the current compromise of elabourating later and bolding there as well. Thinking about it, and circumstances when I might need to, I would find myself expecting either the introductory sentence or the infobox to have the right-off-the-bat full and correctly sourced name. While there may be precedent for the current style, I've never seen it. On the other hand, Whedon's own Derrial Book was unnamed for 99.7% of the franchise but is named so in that article (indeed, possibly at the wrong article location as the character was better—possibly, only—known as "Shepard Book, but I digress), and despite an ambiguity as to its meaning or intention, Dukat (Star Trek) opens with Dukat, S.G. There's obviously tons more precedent with non-fiction biographies; see Douglas Adams (Douglas Noël Adams), Calvin Coolidge (John Calvin Coolidge, Jr.), Anne Frank (Annelies Marie "Anne" Frank), etc. While somebody's already mentioned that character articles aren't biographies in the same sense, I like the continuity. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I agree with the reasoning of Postdlf and AnmaFinotera above: use just "Faith" in the title and lead, and explain the "Lehane" elsewhere in the article. Full disclosure: I was a fan of the Buffyverse TV shows but am unacquainted with the spinoffs in other media, so I had never even heard the name Lehane associated with this character until now. Deor (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Faith (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/20100107064400/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=126514 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=126514

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) 19:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)