Talk:Joss Whedon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reason For Leaving TV Production?

After Dollhouse (2009), haven't seen Whedon doing any TV series. No reason was explained in this article about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.168.178 (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Influenced by William Shakespeare?

I think the 'Influenced by' sections needs some cleaning up. My understanding of this section is that it is for people whose style is at least correlated with the person under question, so for writers, they write like each other; for directors, they direct like each other; and in general the former inherited stylistic points from the latter. But it is not simply a 'made references to' section. Yet the link supporting the Shakespeare reference is just an interview where Whedon talks about studying Shakespeare; but, honestly, what writer working in the English language in the last 300 years has not studied Shakespeare? Unless Whedon were actually writing verse dramas, sonnets, or even just using rhyming couplets, I fail to see how this translates to 'significantly influenced by.' Same thing with Jean-Paul Sartre. Whedon may have used something he read in a Sartre book in one episode of Firefly, but Whedon is not an existentialist philosopher, he has not made any advances to the field of existential philosophy, and I doubt anyone who is an actual existentialist philosopher will have heard of Joss Whedon. These references either need more support, or otherwise they detract from the article by indulging in fanboy adulation. CountRazumovsky (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

At that point, you really might as well state that he was influenced by Homer. Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Too many "recurring collaborators" templates...

• I feel that when I read this article, an abundance of templates about recurring collaborators related to Whedon's work render the page too long and confusing. I have also read the pages of Tim Burton and James Cameron, which has only exposed the frequent actors they've worked with. I want to express my wish to only have the template with the actors involved to stay on the page.AnonymousAnimus (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

REFERENCES IN CAREER SECTION?

• Is there a specific reason for there not to be prolific amounts of references in the Career section? Because if there isn't... there should be references in the Career section. AnonymousAnimus (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Goners

Under 'Unrealised Projects' is a film titled "Goners". This is simply a previous title for the now-released "Cabin In The Woods". For example, under "Goners" there is a quote from an interview in which Whedon describes the film as an "antidote" to "torture porn" horror films. On the wikipedia page for "Cabin in the Woods" is an interview with Whedon where he describes "Cabin" as a "critique" of "torture porn." So unless someone can come up with a really good counter-argument, I'm gonna remove the "Goners" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.138.22 (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Goners and The Cabin in the Woods were most certainly not the same project. This article should prove that. --DocNox (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Frequent casting

There are many actors listed in the "Frequent casting" section.

However, in some cases, i.e. Riki Lindhome, I would not really call it frequent, as she only appeared in one Buffy episode. IMO these actors should be removed from the list or at least a note should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.12.190 (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the very minor ones should be removed. The newest addition, Stacey Scowley, played the woman whom Spike bit at the end of Conversations with Dead People (and technically in the next episode, since this scene was re-used as a flashback). It was a non-speaking role. Does anyone seriously think that Joss Whedon was involved in her casting? (Especially since he was focused almost entirely on Firefly during the first half of Buffy S7 and Angel S4.) Assuming the existence of the Frequent casting section is justified at all, its justification must stem from some connection between the actors in this section and Joss Whedon. Remember, this is Whedon's personal article, not an article on the Whedonverse or Mutant Enemy Productions! If there is no reason to suppose that Joss even knows who this person is, why is she on his page? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 18:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Influenced by

Can we moved 'influenced by' and 'influenced' out of the infobox and into the main article somewhere? It's a lot of text and it clutters up the infobox when an infobox is just for a summary of the article. Lady Lotus (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing the first paragraph in the political section due to blatant copyright infringement, as most of it is simply copy/pasted from theWrap article referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.208.143 (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Frequent casting tweak

Hey, I've trimmed some of the "frequent casting" list; specifically, I've removed actors that he hasn't actually cast more than once. There were a lot of actors (like Sarah Michelle Gellar and Charisma Carpenter) that, while they've appeared on two separate Whedon shows, they played the exact same character; that's not quite "frequent casting" like, say, Nathan Fillion or Amy Acker (who have both appeared as four entirely separate characters).

I'm totally expecting to be reverted on this (but hey, that's what WP:BRD is for), but I really do think that including them detracts from the point we're trying to make with that section. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I've re-trimmed it. This section isn't a customary feature of Wikipedia articles and editors who want to keep it should be mindful of justifying its inclusion by sticking to notable (and preferably sourced) examples. The fact that Christina Hendricks once appeared as an "unnamed barmaid" on Angel clearly doesn't fall under that category.

chocolateboy (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can count

According to WP:CALC, "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations."

We have reliable sources which point out that Whedon tends to reuse the same actors. This means that noticing this pattern is not original research. Actually counting up appearances is a routine calculation where there is not room for controversy or error.

On this basis, we should leave the table in place. MilesMoney (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

When I restored the table earlier today, I left a comment suggesting that we talk this over, and I opened this section. Despite this, Bink just removed the table without discussion. He did leave an edit comment, but it was false. In it, he claims: "Removing table which puts forward the unsupported assertion that Whedon has a limited set of colleagues". The table suggests no such thing. Whedon can cast actors unknown to him; he just shows a preference for casting those who he knows he can get a good performance from. This is a simple fact and in no way insulting. MilesMoney (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's where CALC would be appropriate: some reliable source says Whedon has a limited set of colleagues. The source does not say how many times Whedon has worked with this or that colleague. CALC can be used to tell the reader how many times a colleague has worked with Whedon. Until the first assertion is stated by a reliable source we have nothing to calculate. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. We would also need a reliable source for each and every actor that is referred to in the table, which is not provided.--NK (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the table had links to this and that. The first is full of examples of how he uses the same actors for various roles. The latter speaks of how he "spins recurring actors and themes through an orbital system of TV shows, films and comic books that all share similar traits".

This does not say that Whedon has a "limited set of colleagues" and neither does the table; I have no idea where you get that from. Trivially, everyone has a limited set of colleagues, in the sense that they will only ever work with a small fraction of all the people they possibly could have worked with. Having said that, directors who choose to reuse some actors are not limited to them; they can and do hire those who they haven't worked with previously. Often, these new actors go on to recur in other roles, as well.

To be clear, this is not a limitation, it's a tendency and a preference, and there is absolutely no WP:BLP violation in saying that a director does this, especially given that we have citations, just as there is no WP:NOR violation in charting the occurrences. Choosing to reuse actors is notable but not unusual for directors, and it's normal for us to include a chart. A good example is Christopher Guest, whose bio contains this chart. Somehow, it is not the subject of accusations of WP:BLP, WP:NOR, or WP:SYNTH, much less edit wars. We can learn from this.

As for what shows a particular actor appears in, IMDB is sufficient. MilesMoney (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I've waited to see if there are still any objections. As there don't seem to be any, I'll restore the chart now. MilesMoney (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no good reason to introduce this sub-par material into the biography of a living person. You need a better reason than the 'no' arguments are getting old. Binksternet (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If it were sub-par, perhaps you'd have a point, but you haven't shown any such thing. Nor did you respond to my request for objections; general disapproval is not an objection.

The chart improves the value of this article, there are absolutely no WP:BLP violations possible, and it's better sourced than similar charts in similar articles. If you want to address these points, I am entirely willing to listen. However, your disapproval without explanation is not going to be persuasive. MilesMoney (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The chart is original research and must be removed. You need to come up with a much stronger reason to insert this material into the biography of a living person.

Note that you are opposed by me and NazariyKaminski. No editor has yet supported your position. The history of this kind of material is that it is generally added by IPs and removed by registered editors, for instance in 2009 by User:A Man In Black, who used the edit summary "rm OR" (removed per WP:NOR). Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The history is that such charts are a useful part of articles such as Guest's and nobody gets too excited about them because there are plenty of reliable sources to point out the tendency to reuse actors as well as to confirm which actors appeared in which shows. There's no question of slander, and merely counting appearances is explicitly excluded from the rules against original research. It's uncontroversial.

Given this, I have to say that your constantly-changing list of objections are as counterproductive as your tag-team editwarring, but both are just bizarre. If you actually believed that these charts were a violation of so many different policies, I would expect you to be equally up in arms about them on other articles, but this appears not to be the case. How do you explain your peculiar focus? Do you have some principled basis for opposing the chart here but not there? MilesMoney (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

What other article are you talking about? Binksternet (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? MilesMoney (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If you point me to the other article(s) with charts such as the one under discussion here, I will be able to go to those articles and see whether they are supported by reliable sources, whether they contain SYNTH problems. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you agree that someone who's barely paying attention to an article content discussion and hasn't done their homework should just exit the discussion? MilesMoney (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The result of my pointed question was that Bink finally noticed how I kept comparing this article to others. In response, he went to Christopher Guest and Quentin Tarantino, both of which had similar charts of recurring actors, and removed those charts. This led to a visit to WP:ORN, as indicated below, and finally to the restoration of those charts. Based on this precedent, I think it's time to do the same here. MilesMoney (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You found reliable sources to back up the charts you restored. This one does not have that foundation. Binksternet (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it had that foundation all along. The sources which confirm that Whedon's reuse of actors is notable are http://www.digitalspy.ca/movies/at-the-movies/a464250/joss-whedons-much-ado-actors-where-you-know-them-from.html and http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/joss-whedon-whedonverse-cult-hero-avengers-buffy-firefly-314554. MilesMoney (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's disingenuous to say that those two sources were there "all along" when my removal of the table on November 4 was a removal based on having no sources at all. The next day you brought sources but you put them down at the bottom where I missed them, and where others who reverted you might also have missed them. I think the table could come back below a couple of sentences that talk about the so-called "Whedonverse" of recurring actors, these sentences carrying the cites. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved the sources to the top, appending them to the Whedonverse quote and also adding an intro sentence to explain the contents of the chart. I also checked over the contents for accuracy and wound up removing Gregg because he's only played two characters so far. As final cleanup, I removed two empty columns for now; we can always put them back when we have reason to. MilesMoney (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Good eye. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:ORN

This article is being mentioned here. MilesMoney (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joss Whedon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RL0919 (talk · contribs) 23:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take this one. It's longish, with lots of tables and references, so I expect it will take a few days before I post my notes. --RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Mostly organizational issues. More in notes below.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Because this is a BLP, I proactively removed some material from non-reliable sources. Other items detailed in notes below.

   C. No original research:

   Not clear. Some poorly sourced items may be OR, or perhaps alternative sources can be found. More in notes below.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Lots of material about projects, but the themes of his work (for which there is significant popular and academic material) are only lightly touched. More in notes below.

   B. Focused:

   Too many seemingly trivial details. More in notes below.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Fair-use rationale for Fray cover image doesn't currently mention its use in this article, so that would need to be updated. Other images (and one sound file) are fine.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Overall this is a page with a lot of information but poor organization and weighting. The biographical portion is confusingly organized and sometimes overly detailed, while the section on style and themes is unorganized and undersized. Details on both in specific notes below, but as an example: Based on the weight given in the text, Whedon's relationship to feminism is of approximately the same importance as the details of exactly what camera models were used in filming The Avengers.

Specific points to address for GA:

• The section division between "Career" and "Other work" doesn't make sense. Is the other work not part of his career? As currently written, readers would think his first project was the Buffy TV series, until they get down to the "Other work" section and discover he had been working for years before that, including writing the Buffy movie that preceded the series!
• At a lower level, the organization of sentences seems almost random at times. Here's the description of the production of the Buffy series:

Most of Buffy the Vampire Slayer was shot on locations in and around Los Angeles, California. Whedon worked primarily with composers like Christophe Beck (seasons 2–4), Thomas Wander (seasons 5–6) and Douglas Romayne (season 7). The writing process came together from conversations about the emotional issues facing Buffy Summers, and how she would confront them in terms of her battle against supernatural forces. Whedon, Steven S. DeKnight, Jane Espenson, David Fury, Drew Goddard, Drew Z. Greenberg, David Greenwalt, Rebecca Rand Kirshner, Marti Noxon and Doug Petrie had the most writing credits. Whedon usually directed episodes from his own scripts that held the most cathartic moments in Buffy's story.

So, it was shot, then he worked with composers, then it was written (with lots of writers). That's not my understanding of either the chronology of TV production or the importance of the elements. If there is any intentional organization here, I'm missing it. And how is the list of what other writers had credits important to an article about Whedon?

• Another example of seemingly random organization is the subsection for The Cabin in the Woods, which moves from the release date backwards to MGM's financial difficulties, then to its MPAA rating, then to its budget, etc. This happens to some degree in several of these subsections.
• Also represented in the Buffy passage above is that the various project subsections often list what composers he worked with, who all the other writers on a show were, and/or exactly what kinds of cameras he used for filming, without giving any indication of why this information is significant for an article about Whedon (as opposed to belonging in articles about these shows/movies).
• "Following the completion of a total of 144 episodes, Buffy the Vampire Slayer became lauded worldwide" – wording suggests series was not lauded until it was over.
• "'The Gift' won in the Drama Category for Television's Most Memorable Moment at the 60th Primetime Emmy Awards." – This is written in a way that suggests the show won an Emmy award. In fact this was a online viewer poll conducted on an ABC website to drum up interest in the awards show broadcast.
• Regarding Much Ado about Nothing: "While influenced by the visual nature of film he decided to permeate a motif of sexuality into the script." – The first and last parts of this sentence don't have an obvious relation to one another.
• The section on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. reads like it was written before the show aired.
• The "Style, themes and influences" section has no apparent organization and starts with a series of block quotes on random topics.
• The article mentions feminism only briefly, despite the reams of material written about Whedon and feminism, some of it critical. This should probably have at least its own subsection under the "Style, themes and influences" section.
• LGBT themes aren't mentioned at all, even though the article is tagged for WikiProject LGBT studies on the Talk page.
• Why are there two separate tables of television credits?
• Sourcing issues:

• 13 dead links to resolve.
• IMDB is controversial as a source and is used four times. I didn't immediately strip it out the way I did some other poorly sourced material (remember, this is a WP:BLP), but alternative sources should be found.
• "Whedon usually directed episodes from his own scripts that held the most cathartic moments in Buffy's story." This is sourced to an IMDB episode list that doesn't state any interpretations. This either needs a better source or it should be dropped as original research.
• Footnote 219 does not seem to support anything in the sentence it is attached to.
• Due to the large number of sources and the other issues with the article, I didn't thoroughly check all sources.

Other thoughts and suggestions (not required for GA):

• Seven books are listed in "Further reading", but no books are cited at all in the article. Although this isn't a GA requirement, honestly I suspect this is near the heart of the article's problems. The article seems to be cobbled together from news items and primary sources, without using more comprehensive secondary sources to guide its narrative flow and weighting.
• There are some duplicate sources that could be consolidated using named references.
• The application of MOS:LQ seems to have been misunderstood. There are a number of cases where whole sentences, or even multiple sentences, are quoted, and the final period is placed outside the quote marks.
• Given the length of the article and the number of free images available, it should be possible to add a couple more images to the article.
• Alt text for the images would be helpful for some readers.

Putting on hold for a week to let editors work on the issues. --RL0919 (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment

I know I'm not done, but what are your thoughts and suggestions to what has been done so far? I re-organized most of the article, merging the Other work section with the Career section as best I could, and consolidated the Style, themes and influences material on feminism into its on section. I added more material to that, and also to the Style, themes and influences section. I have attempted to insert more flowing language to places that had none, and removed information that either was really random or not related directly to Joss Whedon. So yeah, I'm following the criteria, but would feel much better to know what we're on the same page on before the pause on your GA review expires. Thanks. RealGrayLogan 06:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

From a quick look it does seem to be headed in the right direction in terms of a consistent organization and more appropriate focus. Since you are still working on it, I only gave it a cursory look this time, so let me know when you think it it ready for another full (possibly "final") review. --RL0919 (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I have resolved the dead links (one of which I discovered was most alive), and replaced them with better ones, including those not dead but just really unreliable. It now reads like a good article, I think. However, the only things I'm not quite sure about are what to do with the Fray image (how to "update", specifically; I have a strong desire to keep it in the article), and are the "two separate tables of television credits" the Television credits and the one under Filmography? Should I just remove the former and if so why? It does take up much space, but it's also a nice overview of Whedon's work. With these issues settled, I do think it's ready for a full review, and whether it's a final one will of course be up to you. RealGrayLogan 07:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the length of the article and the number of credits he has, the best solution may be to create a separate Joss Whedon filmography article that would include what is in both the "Televisions credits" and "Filmography" sections. This article would just have a brief summary -- a sentence or two along the lines of, "Whedon has written, produced or directed numerous movies and television series, blah blah blah." Not sure why I didn't suggest that already.

For the image, I just added a second FUR template related to the use in this article with the information that I have. There is some information missing about exactly where the image came from, who the illustrator is, and how it is important to the article, that would help bolster the FUR. I'm not going to deny GA over a single marginal image, but just be aware that if anyone wanted to mount a challenge against using it here, you would probably need more to provide a good response. --RL0919 (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. I also put a template for it under the Filmography section. I initially tried to put it under the Career section, but it felt weird since it's trapped between many subsection titles so it might be difficult to find. Also it says Main article even though it wouldn't be, so I thought it best to put it in its own section. I hope what's in Joss Whedon filmography is sufficient. Thanks for the help with Fray. RealGrayLogan 20:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Round 2

Preliminary thoughts on the revised article now, and I will follow up with more details after I have a chance to thoroughly re-read and check the new sources. It's definitely looking better so I don't expect too much more unless I find something unexpected in the source review.

• One piece of good news for your GA effort is that the quality of the separate filmography article is a separate issue. That said, we should have some short summary here, not just a link. It could be a single sentence.
• The chronology of his career is still a little odd. The two major subjections, "1980s-2000s" and "2000s-2010s", overlap. Assuming we stick with ordering based on when the projects started (which is a reasonable approach), there are quite of few that began in the 2000s, so maybe it should be 1980s-1990s, 2000s, and 2010s?
• I tend to think the section on feminism should come before the one on frequent casting, just from a significance perspective. But that's just my thinking, not really driven from GA criteria, so YMMV.

More in a few days. --RL0919 (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I made a few minor edits for grammar and such, and I think it's ready to promote. Good work! --RL0919 (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Couldn't have done it without your notes. RealGrayLogan 10:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• @RealGrayLogan: DYK nom, so you know. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Feminism?

I feel the section on Whedon's support of feminism should note that several author's disagree with Whedon's assertion that he is a feminist. For example, Dee Amy-Chinn article's 'Tis Pity She's A Whore discusses in length Whedon's treatment of female minorities in Firefly. His TV show Dollhouse was another point of contention. Whedon's Equality Now Speech also faced sharp criticism. 69.43.88.2 (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Frequent Casting - Change ticks to characters

Proposal to change the frequent casting table to include the characters the actors play in place of the tick marks. For example, Alexis Denisof row would look like this:

Actor	Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997–2003)	Angel (1999–2004)	Firefly (2002)	Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog (2008)	Dollhouse (2009–2010)	The Cabin in the Woods (2012)	The Avengers (2012)	Much Ado About Nothing (2012)	Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (2013–)
Alexis Denisof	Wesley Wyndam-Pryce	Wesley Wyndam-Pryce			Senator Daniel Perrin		The Other	Benedick

Possibly include the number of episodes each character appears in to signal how significant the role was. 58.96.48.39 (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"In April 2015, Whedon commented on Twitter "

Do we need Twitter comments in the article? --87.78.47.40 (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It just about barely manages to be notable because of the mainstream news sources that made stories out of it. It should still have about three times as many sources.

It might take a few weeks for people to decide that it is undue emphasis for a biographical article to give that much weight to one particular publicity channel that Whedon chose to use. It might make some sense in the context of Whedon's style of interacting directly or closely with his audience. It isn't the first time he has been surprised by the way people have interpreted his comments, from articles and interviews. -- 109.76.169.161 (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You make some good points. If it's undue weight, and it does in retrospect look like it, I wouldn't be opposed to its removal. I have nominated the article for peer review, so any advice given here as well would be most helpful. Cognissonance (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I removed the two sections about Twitter. Thanks for your thoughts. Cognissonance (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Prima Nocta

Should the "feminism" section mention the hateful messages directed against Whedon because of the mention to Prima Nocta in Age of Ultron, and that he closed his twitter account as a result? Cambalachero (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source for why you believe Whedon closed his twitter account, you should feel free to include it in the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

request for safi ummar

hello sir please include next avagers project Indian super hero R one or Krissh and the robo tamil movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.152.125.127 (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

divorce

the references listed for this edit have no information on him being divorced. valid sources should be required for such a claim. 73.95.84.196 (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Stan Lee

Should Stan Lee really be in the "Frequent Casting" table? I understand he's been in 3 of Whedon's projects, but that's really a by-product of all three being Marvel properties rather than Whedon actively choosing to cast him again and again like the other actors in the table. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Fake info?

2009 Bradbury Award Outstanding Dramatic Presentation N/A Won [259] 259 isn't even about him? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Bradbury_Award doesn't even have him on there either.... So.. What is this mystery award he got? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.153.125 (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)