User talk:Paul730/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

It's Like Riding A Biker...

Hi Paul, welcome to Wikipedia. I've not read Go Ask Malice, but I hear great things about it, maybe I'll take a look. The whole question of canon is enough to make grown men cry, it's messy and everyone has an opinion. My preference is for info on Mutant Enemy-written works to be kept separate from info on other tie-ins. "Written by Joss & Co vs. Not Written by Joss & Co" seems to be the most common canon distinction fans make, so I think it's helpful to reflect that. And Whedon's choice to specifically call the new comics canon is probably going to make the distinction increasingly important. Having said that, keeping it in its own section doesn't mean dismissing it, the reader can respond to it how they like. The suggestion that tie-in material that doesn't contradict canon should be treated as canon seems to make sense... but I think there are situations where confusion can arise. In the "Pretty Maids All in a Row" book, Spike heads to Denmark in the 1940s, and kills Sophie Carstensen as his second Slayer victim. His killing her contradicts the show, but his travelling to Denmark doesn't, so... on his page do you say that in the 1940s he went to Denmark but don't say why? Or do you say he went to Denmark, and then add a little parenthetical note about the reasons not being canon, but the trip sort-of-maybe being canon because it doesn't directly contradict the show? Tricky, and potentially messy given the enormous amount of info in tie-ins, some contradictory, some not, some partially so...

It totally annoys me when people refer to Xin Rong as "Chinese Slayer"
Heh, you're gonna hate me, I'm totally one of those people ;)

Wikipedia's pretty strict when it comes to sticking to facts alone, with no personal opinion inserted no matter how informed or interesting it might be, and I'm a fairly anal editor when it comes to that kind of thing, hence my picky picky edits of the Willow section. The problem with the red hair comment is indicated by the "It may or may not be a coincidence" bit. Might be an intentional choice on Whedon's part, might not be, we don't know either way, so it's not a fact about the show so much as a bit of speculation. Did I mention the anal thing? --Nalvage 21:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Anya

It was a pretty abrupt death, wasn't it? I don't mind that too much, but it was then dubiously swept under the carpet rapidly in time for the "happy" ending. And I agree that she was more often than not just comic relief, either "Anya says something blunt about sex" or "Anya says something blunt about money". And now I'm resisting commenting further so as not to incur the wrath of Wikipedia, since we should be discussing improvements to the encyclopaedia rather than just chatting. And I *liked* Connor. I know, sacrilege. --Nalvage 18:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Dawn section

Looks excellent to me. I removed one tiny mention of fan opinion, since it's something that Wiki gets a bit huffy about (we should reference any opinion to a specific and notable source, so talking about how "fans" felt in a general sense isn't as verifiable as we need to be). The only real problem you might find with that section is that some people may feel it's overly detailed, but since many people believe the existence of Buffy pages at all constitutes too much detail, I'm not too sympathetic with that. --Nalvage 12:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Giles

Hi Paul. Again, some will object to the level of detail, but in terms of the content it looks excellent. Nice work. I fixed up some spelling and threw in the term "noncanon" just to spite you. --Nalvage 14:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Buffy articles

Thanks for asking, I'll go in and take a look! :) --Elonka 17:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, that real-world context is key.  :) Where there's very little real-world context, a plot summary of 500 words is usually sufficient. Where there's a lot of real-world context, then plot summaries can expand accordingly, to thousands of words. But the key questions are: (1) How is this character significant in a real-world context, aside from just to fans; and (2) where is the information coming from? In other words: Information that's coming just from the show itself, should be kept to a contextual minimum. But information that comes from mainstream sources can be much more extensive. See WP:N and WP:V for more. And definitely keep asking questions! I like that you're taking the effort to educate yourself on Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  :) If you'd like, we could also chat in IMs? --Elonka 21:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, always always always use real-world context. Where possible, say which episode that something happened in, or which book that a piece of the character's history came from. Try to use real-world dates, too. Like in a sci-fi setting, instead of saying "in 2653 CE, the character revisited her homeworld and was enraged by the injustices. She swore she'd never let something like that happen again." it would be better to say, "In the Season 2 episode, 'Farming and Charming,' the character was shown revisiting her homeworld at the age of 27 (2653 CE, in the story's timeline). Events there changed the character's perspective as regards homesteaders, which caused a shift in the character's demeanor for the rest of the series." That make sense? :) --Elonka 17:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In terms of links, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style guidelines are to generally only link a word once per page. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). As for the Willow article, on a quick glance it looks like it's coming along well, though I don't have time to read it in detail at the moment. If you want more detailed advice, you might want to consider submitting it for a peer review and gets lot of editors' eyes on it. Another possibility would be to mention it on the talkpage at Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffyverse (which you should definitely join!) :) --Elonka 16:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your account?

is the IP User talk:81.158.46.119 you? Because the IP has made several edits to your user page which would be improper if that IP were not that you. Perhaps the IP failed to login as you. In any case please leave a message on this, the IP's or my page. MrMacMan ^Talk 22:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's me. Sorry, sometimes I forget to log in. Paul730 23:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Just trying to spot some of the more tricky IP vandals out there. Have a gooday, MrMacMan ^Talk 08:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Willow quote

Hey, I felt the section was well constructed but the quote divided a good paragraph, and that elaborating beyond "confirmed in "Who Are You"" was a bit redundant and over detailed, but I could be wrong.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It definitely is. On an unrelated note, I also admire Andrew Van De Kamp and Cordelia Chase to an extent :P ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I nearly bought Runaways volume 1 the other day, to see if I could get into the Whedon run, but in the end I didn't! I would have done something about Andrew Wells' sexuality section, but I always fear that in a couple weeks a girl with a crush on Tom Lenk who doesn't realise Andrew is gay will come along and change it, and of course there's very little chance of their being a source out there confirming it either way. But the way you shaped the character history section is a major improvement! :) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

People always say that, but maybe I'm too immature to understand what maturity has to do with self-awareness :P~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Catty? Not intentionally! I didn't reply because I couldn't think of what to say :). Anyway, I think you're right. Wait till the end of "The Long Way Home", then there's a two month break and we can solidify what we know in the Post-Sunnydale section. After Season Eight is finished (which may be about 2 years from now), all these characters Season Eight sections will need compacting anyway. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The poster in her room... but it's a weak connection, I'll just remove it.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh right. Sorry, I figured since #4 wasn't out, and it was unspecifically sourced it was an oversight!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lynch canon

Are they canon? I'm saying no ;) Lynch recently posted some questions to his blog (?), one of which asked fans of his Angel comics which of his original characters they'd like to see turn up in Angel season six, and thus be canonised, so he obviously doesn't consider them to already be. And in response to an earlier question I never got round to answering, out-of-universe is the preferred method, but it's in the minority on Buffy articles because some people don't care for it, others don't consider it, and it's far easier to add in-universe material from your own recollection of the show than to gather relevant commentary, so over time the in-universe stuff gets the upper hand. --Nalvage 16:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Canon

You mentioned earlier to include the canon stories and comics to the Buffyverse charactors appearences list. But other than Season 8 i'm finding a hard time finding what's canon and what's not. The Wiki section for the Buffy/Angel comics say they are all canon which is not right, any help? --Smartjoe299

Related discussion

I understand that Tales of the Vampires is canon, as I mentioned in my edits on the Xander section. I understand what you two are starting to do... trying to make all the appearances section cohesive and informative :). But where's the source to say that say, the Willow/Tara stories or Ring of Fire are canon? We need to source them in every instance they appear, and if we're to list every story that's apparently canon (god help us, I'd rather just mention "some comics") then it should be done in-line and not by giving them all subheadings...~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

All sound good to me. Only concern is placing "Tales of the Vamps #5" - a single issue, on par with an entire series (Buffy, Angel, Season Eight etc.) Could we not reference the individual canon stories outside of a larger collection through prose... and then discuss non-canon appearances in a prose subsection which discusses the importance of the movie, The Origin comic etc.

As the main character in the franchise, Buffy has been adapted to the majority of stories set in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer universe. She has appeared in all the Buffy video games (Chaoes Bleeds, other game, other game) and...

Take a look at Jack Harkness#Appearances (TV series episodes listed, other appearances in prose) and Rose Tyler#Appearances (very long ugly lists). ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Any errors in my grammar are because I'm tired and I delete stuff as I write it and forget to read over it. So what you're getting is two sentences about two different things fused together in an ungodly mess! Sorry! Anyway, you're right about the canon appearances needing special attention, I'm just wondering if maybe in noting individual bits of canon like "The Origin"[1] and "Tales" like guest appearances or episodes... I'm just worried it looks wrong to place them like this:

Buffy (big series)

Angel (big series)

Comic (one shot)

Thoughts?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I would never write "big series" in the actual article. The parenthesis were just to make the comparison was making more obvious! Isn't Angel Vol. 2 a reinvention anyway to make Angel more superheroic? It's not in continuity with the series. So yeah, just offhandedly mention the crappy-written comics and cite a few major ones such as The Origin, Tales etc. as we would guest appearances in the TV series ("In canonical spin-off media, Buffy has made appearances in...") and mention a number of alternate continuity ones such as the movie, Angel vol. 2 etc.? Oh, the Spike series (Asylum, Shadow Puppets, vs. Dracula etc.) are "unconfirmed" but I was reading a discussion started by Brian Lynch in some forum and there's a chance that Angel Season Six will directly tie in and confirm them, but until then it's probably best to leave them with the others. As he's writing both, I guess it's a concern of his. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think "Into the Fray" was one of the ideas discussed on the forums that the editor said it definitely wasn't, and that the subtitle was apparently only one word long? As for the Buffy article, there's no point striving for chronology as a lot of the stories are set/published simultaneously. I think we should list Buffy, Angel, Season Eight and then the rest lumped together. I like your non canon section, however I'd like you to look at the edits I made to the canonical section. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, a preliminary template which can be expanded upon, I guess :P Oh and Conner... hmmm... if I hyphenate it... Boy-Dawn? I dunno, I thought he was kinda hot but the story was confusing and hasty. They shouldn't have made him so back-and-forth and then fucked him up with the Cordy stuff. If he appears in Season Six, I think it'll be alright cos they finally got his character in a nice place (through lazy writing, memory alterations etc.) at the end of Season Five.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I like Dawn too. Okay, Anya's death was tragic (favourite character) but it was so appropriate for her (sharp, blunt, hard-hitting etc.) and served Andrew's character well (him getting to glorify her end through Storytelling). Cordy's was sad, but I like to hope that death doesn't have to be final for her. I mean, it's not for Lilah. As the actress is not required, maybe we'll get to see scenes with her (in some form) in AS6.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there's this whole sexually-charged element behind all their (flashback) appearances together. I just imagine maybe it was a Spike/Drusilla/Angel thing? I dunno, I don't think they'll ever graphically describe it but I'd love oblique reference! In the Angel/Buffy/Spike picture in Season Eight #3, I was so hoping they'd casually suggest something by having Angel and Spike hold hands in it... but I guess that's not part of Buffy's fantasy at all! :P~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll watch "Destiny" again, it probably passed straight over my head when I was younger. And yes, I love ALL the imagery in issue #3 and that particular page... besides everything else, is beautifully drawn, and I felt the need to study it in quite a lot of detail! I mean, Whedon's notes for all the imagery he wanted must have been superb! I love the idea of a Spuffelsome, personally.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't even aware of that! Then again, when I was younger I could watch Xena and not pick up the lesbian vibe. I've become more acclimatised to subtext as I've gotten older. Spangel... it had to be a sort of sexual thing they did as vampires, probably little to no romantic attachment, but I sure as hell hold it up as canon! :) Bisexual British vampiric rapscallions! God, if AS6 gives us a stronger hint (although, Brian Lynch may not view it as a priority) then there could be warrant to add the LGBT categories one day... ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But it would mean so much for social progress / people's expectations if they were :P Not trying to get too political, but I think it's impossible for two straight men to have sex and I don't think "all guys think about it sometimes" - just the gayish ones. Anyway, yeah sure... I was just trying to explain how she's not like... in every bit of the franchise. Anyway, after I finish reading all this 52 that I'm catching up on, I'm gonna get some sleep. Good talk :) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Jamison-Smythe

As far as I recall, his surname isn't mentioned in The Origin, so you'd have to take it from the movie script alone, though it doesn't appear in the draft of the script available online either, so where imdb (not the most reliable of places at the best of times) got the name from is anyone's guess. --Nalvage 09:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Lol!

That entry reminds me of a fanfic I read :P Oh, and I didn't blank my page, I just archived it :) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How is this???

I tried my best for the buffyverse canon and non-canon apperances.. Do you think that should be fine? or should we fix something?. ---Smartjoe299 Hello again I know this sounds stupid, but how do you get those userboxes, all i found were the buffy ones. Thanx.

Paul

Hey, I appreciate the work you do in the Spike article.

I have a question about an aspect of both Angel's article, as well as Spike's article: Don't you feel that Angel (whether called Angel or Angelus) should be in the section titled Other, as in concerns to Spike's romantic and or love interests? I mean, the both of them having had a one-night stand together while most likely being drunk and or in a sexual situation with either Darla or Drusilla doesn't strike me as something that should be in his romantic interests section, with heavy-hitters like Buffy.

If Spike and Angel had a torrid love affair, then sure I can see the Angel character needing to be mentioned in that section of Spike's article, but the two most likely having had a one-night stand, when they are more so rivals than anything romantic, and still being in each other's romantic interests section seems off. It doesn't seem to fit for either needing to be in Angel's romantic interests section or Spike's romantic interests section. I suppose that one can argue that a one-night stand is being romantically interested in someone, but still -- Angel and Spike as lovers isn't so significant in that it hasn't really been elaborated on within either the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer or the show Angel.

I noticed that Angel was in the section titled Other of Spike's article several days ago, but now he's back in the romantic section. Anyway, let me know your main thoughts on that. Oh, and by the way, since you've fixed up the Spike article significantly, shouldn't the tag about the article being in-universe be removed now? Flyer22 09:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What else?

Hi, we pretty much finished Buffyverse appearances together (thanks for the barnstar by the way), so what else inside Buffyverse do you think I could work on, cause it's summer and I have NOTHING to do. --Smartjoe299

issues/episodes

Ok well I will take down all of the x has x most appearances except for the top 4 or 5, and for Buffy season 8 appearances I will try to just list the ones they appear in so far, but for charactors that are in all of them up to know, Now see if you agree with me on this: under the Buffy season 8 section I will put a bullet for every arc that charactor appears in. If they appear in every issue of the arc it will be shown as this:

• The Long Way Home, Parts 1-4.

Now for charactors like Giles that only appeared in two issues of the arc, do you think I should list his appearances like this:

• The Long Way Home Part 2; The Long Way Home Part 3

or

• The Long Way Home Parts 2-3

which one would be better? ---Smartjoe299

Dates of appearances for Buffyverse

Paul730...I was wondering your opinioun on Buffyverse dates, as of now if they are in, for example: "Buffy" then before it lists there episodes it shows this

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997 - 2003)

Showing the date of the whole show. (1997 - 2003) do you think I should change that to just the years they appear in or keep it like that. ---Smartjoe299

UPDATE** I spoke recently to User: Zythe about the subject , and he prefers that we do not add the date like this

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997-2003)

but rather just have the titles alone like this

Buffy season 8

and include the years in the text below.

RE: Captain Jack

Aye! I agree. I'll go source hunting. I worked a little bit on Andrew Van De Kamp, which is in many ways an American version of a LGBT fictional character FA. The cultural impact section, when we get it ready, will probably be what takes the article to a whole new level of quality. We could even include how people tend to mistake John Barrowman as bisexual and not gay because of the character, if we can find a source. I'd appreciate your help, actually, especially since I don't think Dev920 (talk · contribs) is a Doctor Who fan and she's usually very good at these.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are the best sources I could find really quickly:

1. Captain Jack's back! - Commentary about excited return of the character
2. Parallel universe - Discusses the significance of a male LGBT action hero
   

   "I don't take risks deliberately, it's the way my mind works, I can't help it. But I do watch a lot of television science fiction, and it is a particularly sexless world. With a lot of the material from America, I think gay, lesbian and bisexual characters are massively underrepresented, especially in science fiction, and I'm just not prepared to put up with that. It's a very macho, testosterone-driven genre on the whole, very much written by straight men. I think Torchwood possibly has television's first bisexual male hero, with a very fluid sexuality for the rest of the cast as well. We're a beacon in the darkness."

3. BBC to screen 'Dr Who for adults' as new spin-off show - Refers to Jack as "first openly gay companion" and "hunky bisexual"
4. Dr Who scenes cut for being 'too horrible'
5. Channel4.com - LGB Teens - Boys - Me Too and Channel4.com - LGB Teens - Boys - Am I Gay or Bisexual? A help website aimed at questioning teenage boys refers to Jack as a culturally significant and positive role model for LGB youth.
   

   What about some sexy sci-fi with the gorgeous Captain Jack the buff bisexual leader of Torchwood. In the first season he snogged Gwen, but it’s the undeniably fit Ianto who seems to be stealing his heart. With a new series of Torchwood commissioned and Captain Jack set to return to Doctor Who let’s hope we see some more temptation in the TARDIS.

   It might not seem like a big deal that Captain Jack is bisexual in Torchwood or that John Paul’s kissing Craig in Hollyoaks. However, ten years ago the idea of openly gay and bisexual characters in television programmes aimed at teenagers was unthinkable.

~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey good news!

I Finally fixed the Mayors appearances, now it looks so much better ---User:Smartjoe299

Bullets

Okay i'm asking your opinioun on whether or not to have bullets before each season on apperances. Half of them look like this:

• Season 1-blahblahblha
• Season 2-jgklhags

and the other half just have no bullets:

Season 1

Season 2-jfdsl

which one do you prefer?

Issues listing 2

I know we already agreed to have the listing of each arcs issues like this:

• The Long Way Home Part 2, The Long Way Home Part Three.

But it kinda bugs me, I know though that you mententioned by doing this:

• The Long Way Home, Parts 2-3.

it might confuse people for say if they only appeared in issue 1 and 4. but what if we did this.

• The Long Way Home, Parts 1 and 4

hows that, or even replace the "and" with a "&".

Woo

What do you think of the new section for Captain Jack's article? Should I apply for GA at some point?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Agatha stuff probably doesn't belong there, no. We could probably create a "conception" section with enough DVD/DWC citations, and that would be the place for it (as the Jones/Tyler stuff was handled in the Martha/Rose articles). The Dead Ringers stuff could definitely also be mentioned in the critical reception section (as well as under "appearances") underneath the quote, which goes to show Jack's place in pop culture to show he's instantly recognisable/mockable. And yay, thanks :) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! :D Privileged. Looking at your userpage... no favourite DC characters? :-( Not even the squealishly awesome Birds of Prey? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why people need to pick one or the other. And people always say that but if you look at the Marvel characters, a whole bunch of them are infinitely powerful unstoppable cosmic mutants with big long trenchcoats and "dark pasts". DC has some fantastic mainstream characters, and a lot more of them are non-powered than the Marvel guys! There are some awesome ones, like Barbara Gordon and Green Arrow, Huntress, Nightwing... and the mythology is incredibly rich, too, with all the legacies and ... families, you know? And if might interest you, but quite a lot of the heroes have gay sons and daughters. Green Lantern's son is Obsidian, Black Lightning's daughter is Thunder. There's a whole level of philosophy and psychology with some of the really strong Superman-types, that makes them really fascinating (like Martian Manhunter and Black Adam). Do me a favour, then, and watch the JLU episode "Question Authority" (and the rest of that arc) and see if you like it at all.

Those whole staunch "I only read Marvel!!!!" and "I only read DC!!!!" and "I don't read Dark Horse!!!" attitudes kinda irk me a bit :P. What team could be more bloated with power than the Mighty Avengers, anyway?

Marvel is much more political, which can be very interesting. The whole franchise is in a whole new, almost totalitarian post-Civil War world now, which is really fascinating to read. And you're right, they have more teenage gays, even though DC has more sort of "big" gays. Even saying that, DC's biggest gays are John Constantine (bi), Batwoman (who doesn't appear much), Renee Montoya (the new Question! I love the Question), Apollo & Midnighter (who are now MAINSTREAM post-52 :D), the new Catwoman. As for Iceman, didn't he have sex with Mystique real recently? I read scans_daily, it's a great site and it keeps me all up to date on all the publishers. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I found it really hard to care as much as some fans either way. I'm divided. If it was a real thing, I'd certainly be anti-reg, that's just generally because of how my political leanings go. In terms of storytelling, however, pro-reg winning sets the template for a whole new style of books to be launched (like The Initiative), so in that sense I was kind of hoping for the result that we got.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

JackyBoe?

Haven't watched it yet, I was at work. Don't wanna spoil the season finale for myself too soon. Virgin Media should have it up on "Catch up TV" within the hour for me to watch, though.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I've finished my edits to the article I believe. Was the word Jack used "Boeshane Peninsula", because I've seen it written as "Boe System Peninsula" (which makes no sense). I need that Doctor Who Magazine citation, though. I'm getting very annoyed with the edits to the lead which change the word from bisexual to pansexual. Yes, he's pansexual, which is discussed in the "characterisation" section but bisexual is a much simpler and equally accurate, clearer-defined word to use in the lead section >.<~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I noticed the editors' notes! Thanks. With the Torchwood Four stuff on the Torchwood Institute page, people just ignore it and add "IT'S BELFAST!!" anyway though. Anyway, I treat "characterization" as a section to discuss personality (or 'characteristics'), appearance, conception if relevant... basically a cache-all section for "what the character is like". As for appearances, I think "every episode" would suffice but Doctor Who fans do seem to add everything they can think of, don't they?

As for LotTL, I thought it was good. I think all-in-all it was better than AoG/D because of the excellent Sound of Drums lead-up, although I found myself too detached by the strange (not too slow, not too fast :s) pace of the episode that made Martha's twist seem silly. Maybe if they'd put more focus on the gun( which I thought I was a cool idea)? Anyway, I sort-of-liked the Doctor's super-sequence, and the end left me hoping Torchwood might follow up the Face of Boe thing, even if they only say it was just a joke.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It was weird. The Buffy characterization section looks good to me, too, well-sourced! Yeah, but if anyone with a superpower is registered (whether vigilante or civilian) then you get a whole, nearly Nazi Germany "register all the Jews and gays" thing. If it was more like registering a handgun or a black belt in karate, then that's no problem. Still, I would probably feel safer as a human being to know there was an Initiative program in my universe. And you're right about LotTL, being "super fans" we were aware that "Invasion of the Bane" was set in January 2009 and therefore they had to push that big reset button in the sky. I was just stumped working out how they'd press it.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, mention of the episode isn't enough, {{cite episode}} citations are also needed. The Time Lord, TARDIS and Dalek articles were threatened with having their GAs removed if they didn't comply by adding both. The episodes are named in text only where it contributes towards the flow or structure of the paragraph, or where an out-of-world context is needed in the prose itself to establish what the hell it's on about.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think so. Last year (or the year before?), everyone who regularly edits the various Charmed episodes did the same.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What I normally do is cite the executive producer, writers and directors as they're the only people who affect the product. Cite the network (e.g. WB or UPN) as that is a major influence on the content (e.g. no lesbisex before UPN move, or not too much gay stuff in Doctor Who but do what you like in Torchwood etc.). City isn't too relevant, I always leave that out. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Buffy status

Nothing acutely serious, but okay. Just so long as you know.--The Scourge 01:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What is it with users and "pretty shots"? It can be the ugliest picture of Buffy on the internet and still had to be used because the fact of the matter is, the main image I provided has a source and fair use for the Buffy Summers article. The shot you replaced it with doesn't and should've been deleted a long time ago.--The Scourge 01:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you misinterpreted my tone, but offended? No, but you're quick to judge me with such assumption. Have a look at the image I provided. It's given a source and it's given fair use. An image with no source or fair use cannot be used in Wikipedia articles. Once a moderator gets a hold of such image, it will be tagged for speedy deletion. I refer you to Help:Image page--The Scourge 01:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries. It's understandable since it isn't easy to read someones tone via written text alone.--The Scourge 01:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll drop you a note when they're up.--The Scourge 03:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Images up for Doyle and Anya--The Scourge 04:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Though I'm fairly busy, let me know which Buffyverse articles need fair use images and I'll get to them ASAP.--The Scourge 07:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I figured since he now sports a permanent eyepatch (which in my opinion makes him look badass), the picture would fit right in. Maybe a better looking shot of him with the patch would make up for the current one, considering that it does look a bit dull.--The Scourge 05:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Spike

I'll give it a look over later. It's good to be consistent, so we'll do cite episode the whole way through. The more thorough you are, the more likely to get GA you are I believe. The characterization section looks pretty damn fine! You sure found a lot of citations! ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Spike/Angel appearances

Hi, so I was lookin Angel and Spike apparances, and there Season 8 cameo is not mentioned. Do you think I should just mention it perhaps, at the bottom, or add it as one of there appearances. They are included in the list of charactors for The Long Way Home, anyway. We don't have to mention it at all, I'm just looking for more things to do...---Smartjoe299 P.S: Do you know what else I could fix in Buffyverse, or assist someone in?

Pics of comic

I'll start citing for Buffy, but for the pictures: that's what I'm going to start doing. I was looking at User: The Scourge, and that's what he did. Said how he scanned them and cropped them. I don't think I'm gonna add Angel and Spike's cameo to their appearances, it's just a one-shot and not important...I might make a note about it though....---User:Smartjoe299 P.S, I just realized I don't know how to cite....help please?

RE: New Pic

Sure, but Spike's giving the bowfinger, not middle.--The Scourge 04:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it has very little meaning in the US; it is the equivalent to the middle finger, though. Here's the image: link--The Scourge 05:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's up. You can change the caption and/or scale it down some more if you like.--The Scourge 05:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna..

I am gonna write the cast credits for the episodes right now, instead of citing episodes. I'm about halfway through the 4rth season. If theres something else for me to do...(that's not citing...I'll do that later) then tell me later.---User:Smartjoe299

Re:Jason

1. I haven't written the "Lead" up yet, not officially that is. I've added the fact that he gets the hockey mask in Part 3 to the film section. Although I know it's a pillow case in Part 2, no one calls it that in the books I have. They just talk about "the bag" that Dask had to wear.
2. The script for Part VIII called for him to kick Toby, the dog in that movie. I'll need to clarify that.
3. I'll go through the ABC source some more.
4. I haven't read the novels either, and the brief descriptions I have for them are based on other sites who don't go into details. I believe all of the are out of print, so they are really hard to come by (minus those ones just released by Black Flame in the past couple years).
5. It would be OR to compare his movements personally. You would need a source detailing it, and discussing why this is important, otherwise it's just trivial.
6. Changed to simply "Jason's death is retconned", to be more specific to your concerns.

No problem. I would like the sandbox to be as perfect as possible before proposing the switch. You should click on some of the images that are hidden in there (I personally find them to be better, but that's biased..lol). I'm glad you looked it over, but I think we'll need someone who isn't familiar with the series, as it needs to be understandable to the random reader.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Images have to have fair use reasoning, and a lot of the later films didn't have details on what they did for the character. I also prefer behind the scenes types of images, because it adds more real world context to it, as opposed to simple screenshots. The Jason X image I have is the concept drawings, which i think are cooler. I don't know if you ever visited the JasonX film site, when they were first making the movie, but they had a bunch of concept drawings on there at one point. This image is one they had there, but have since removed. It was in the book and I scanned it, so it's actually really good quality. I'm waiting to upload it because, since it isn't on the mainspace, it would be subject to immediate deletion. I'm already getting away with the Savini-Lehman image that isn't on the mainspace, and I dont' want to temp my luck by uploading another. I'll try and find some good images of Ted White in Savini's make-up. My only problem is that Savini didn't go into detail about what he did for Part 4, just that he copied his previous work and just adjusted it for the adult sized head.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

At first glance of "Spike" the biggest problem I see is the "Character history" section. It might as well be called "Biography" which shouldn't be there, per the manual of style. I would just refer to it as "Appearances", with "Television" and "Literature" as subsections. Canon isn't important in an encyclopedia. The television appearances should be summarized. Those things are rather descriptive of almost every appearance he has on the show, and written as if it really happens. They should be summaries of the basic elemtents that occurred to his character. Television characters are really hard, in my opinion, because they appear so many times...also, Jason's real easy to summarize (he kills everybody each time he shows up, not hard to say...lol). I'd suggest looking at the links at the top of my sandbox (Jabba, Palpatine, and Amidala) and read over how they handle it. Also, Link (The Legend of Zelda) would be a good example, since it's a character that has been in existence for 20+ years, and they break down his appearances kind of well. The relationships section is really fannish. I would assume that any relevant relationships would be summarized in the appearances section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll be able to pick up a few more books that will help with the characterization section. Wes Craven: The Art of Horror and Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film, 1978 to 1986, I think should be good. As a matter of fact, I just remembered that I own Clive Barker's A-Z of Horror, and I think there was something on Jason in there. I'll have to check when I get home...that would be nice it there was.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've read your message. I have to go do some volunteer work for the next couple hours, so I'll respond in detail when I return. Happy Editing! (oh, I looked at Jack Harkness...he's having a peer review. I'll be curious to find out how an actual FAC turns out. I base all my opinions on character pages on the Star Wars characters, because in my opinion, those are some of the most well written fictional character pages. Also, I think another good example is Superman. That's a character with 60+ years of history (fictional and non-fictional), so that's kind of a good idea of how to address a lot of fictional coverage.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'll take a look at them later. Today's just been a really long day and I'm exhausted. Oh, sadly, the only mention of Jason in Clive Barker's A-Z of Horror is when it discusses Freddy's domination of the late 80s.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, where there the titles of those documentaries for the characteristics information you provide?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll make a note that it was Region 2 DVDs. It doesn't matter if it was the actual magazine article, since you technically got it from the DVD. Thanks for clarifying what it was though (and for adjusting it in the sandbox talk page).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope the Jason article does turn out well. Freddy's being handled by someone else, who appears to have abandoned the project, so it will probably fall on me if I'm still working on the films. I found a couple "Making of" books for the Nightmare on Elm Street film series, so they should helpful (at least for the film articles). As for Iron Mike, too many characters too little time is all I can say. That page is even worse, in my opinion, than Jason and Freddy right now. To me, Jason was the easiest and the hardest at the same time. He was the easiest because it's a character that didn't talk, didn't have relationships with other characters. He did one thing, that was kill anyone that walked onto the screen, quite simple. Yet hard because he's had 10 films devoted to him (whether as a vengeance or as a copycatting killer) and a cross over with another legend. He has so much that the article is just going to be huge (which it already is). Plus, the Friday films have always been one notch above the Nightmare films in my book....with the exception of 3 (the original nightmare, dream warriors, and new nightmare - all the Craven films), which rank next to the best Fridays. As for a CCL article, pop culture references can be put in the original film article, since that is the place that first introduced the camp. I could envision a way in which the article could survive on its own, but I don't know how possible it actually would be to attain such a thing, not without it degenerating into a X-Mansion-type of article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hence why I choose to work in the solitude of my sandbox, until the time comes that I will show it to the mainspace talk page with the proposal to merge. I actually instituted a new page earlier today. I find it easier to work in a sandbox, because you aren't boggled by time, you dont' have to worry about people vandalizing while you're away, and generally anyone that knows about the sandbox, and edits the sandbox, usually knows what they are doing anyway. I've had people come into some of my other sandboxes and tweak things. It's good to have a separate pair of eyes look at things, but I find it also good to work on things out of the mainspace and impliment them later. That was how Jabba the Hutt became featured. An editor worked on that in their sandbox and then dumped it all in. After lots of copyediting and word tweaking it went up for FA review.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly how you make a sandbox. The only rule I know of is always make sure it says "User:___" before anything else, otherwise it will assume you want it to be an article and put it in the mainspace. Oh, non-free images cannot show up in your sandbox, only in the mainspace. So, just put a ":" in front of the word "image" in the image link so that it doesn't show up (like how I did with the images). Otherwise, a bot will come in and replace the image with a copyright tag and then send you a message on your talk page. To save the hassle of having to change images, it's easier to just hide it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've finished the pop culture section for Jason. I only wanted to mention some of the more prolific references in each medium (e.g. MAD magazine, Scream, The Simpson, etc), as a lot of the other stuff is simply "associated with" Jason. Plus, I don't think most people know half those bands in the music references. BTW, "Fridaythe13thfilms.com" is back on-line. They got a new co-owner, so hopefully they will be set for awhile with no more trouble. I'm going to turn the Pop culture section into prose and then work on the characterization section. Then it will all be done (minus a good copyedit and having someone come in to smooth the wording for better flow...it's kind of choppy right now).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's no problem. I'm always working on something, so it seems, so it isn't a bid deal. I'm just happy the Jason article is almost finished.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Movie. I don't know if I'd list a "last appearance" since it's a character that is still present in the comics, isn't she? First appearance is what is more important anyway. I'll read over the article when I get back from my class.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

For me, the only important one is the first one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded those two images, [2] [3], so you can check them out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm off to bed. 5 min. till midnight, and I got work in the morning. Happy Editing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not over yet. Still have to get through GAC and FAC. Got to let it stew for a bit before I nominate it for anything. Can't have people constantly reverting on it. I'm going to post an announcement on WP:FILMS and Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror to try and bring in some editors to smooth the flow the article, maybe trim some wordiness to it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

How's it now? The problem is that the image is not square and this bleeds into the next section. I may try and find a better image, but to me, the first figure created for the character seems more appropriate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big problem. Did you plan on skipping straight to Jason Lives to find out if he killed some people in that film? The way I see it, if someone really plans to read the film section as a means to find out where the character appeared, then they are probably going to be reading it top to bottom anyway. Anyone else that reads it probably already has seen the films. Plus, this way takes up less space.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a brief opinion of the seires in the order of their release.

1. - Always great, but stands alone since it's about Pamela and not Jason
2. - Not bad, but nothing real special
3. - No true fan can diss the film that sparked a revolution, the attainment of the mask is a quintessential moment of the films
4. - By far my favorite of the series
5. - Not my favorite for the very reason that Jason was just a hallucination, and I personally didn't like the up and down emotions of Tommy. Is he going to be the killer, or what?
6. - My second favorite of the series. There wasn't obligatory nudity, the movie seemed to poke fun at itself but in a serious way
7. - A good effort. Kane's performance as Jason is a highlight.
8. - Not crazy about the majority of this film. I like the look of Jason, but I would have preferred more Manhattan time, and the ending was horrible. It didn't make a lick of sense.
9. - Again, more of Jason himself. Concept wasn't bad, but he's killed in the first 10 minutes, and is resurrected and killed again in the last 10 minutes. People pay to see this guy. Plus there was that whole worm looking thing that was totally stolen from The Hidden.
10. - I want to kill Jim Isaac for this film. It's shot like a bad made-for-television movie. I hate the look of the "regular" jason in this film. The characters were much more cheesy and annoying than usual, and the puns were horrible ("He's screwed Sarg."???). UberJason is awesome, and I wish there was more of that. Plus, did anyone on that crew see Star Wars? Hello, try and make some minature models for space or something. The CGI in that film are horrendous. Also, when you venture to space, your film is generally sunk already. These types of movies that go to space rarely succeed. Look at Leprechaun. Heck, even when Critters returned to space the movie wasn't as good as the first two.
11. - The cross-over was a welcomed improvement to the franchise. In my opinion, it's one of the best for both series. I liked how they managed to connect the two characters without actually needing to do any retconning (e.g. original drafts were going to make Freddy a counselor that allowed Jason to drown, or one was going to make him have rapped Jason as young boy...stupid stuff).

That's the basic jist of my opinions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a stickler for the mask. If you screw that up, I'm going to hate you for it. 3, 4, 6, 8 great masks...11 isn't too bad, but there are some problems with it, but it was good to be back to normal. I by god hate 10's mask. Make-up wise, UberJason is the only redeeming factor. It was so cool, but so underused. To me, it seems like they just slacked off with the regular Jason make-up wise. It's like, "oh, he can regenerate..so we can show more of Kane's actual flesh." What was up with that matted looking hair. Ok, I'll give you the regeneration thing, but, aside from the ending in Part 2 (which wasn't considered canon), the character never had hair. Where'd this hair come from?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

They angles. It wasn't smooth, it was angular. I hated that. I mean, it's one thing to forget to put a triangle on his face, or something, but that was just too much change. Kane and Ken were two different Jasons, meaning that who they played was meant to be to kinds of the character. Kane was supposed to be furocious, and mean. I used to love that heavy breathing he would do, it always made me feel like Jason was really pissed off by that point. Ken didn't do a damn thing the whole movie, but that was because Yu didn't want that "mean" Jason from before. The only real problem I had with Ken's performance, which can't be attributed so much to Ken, as the first death scene, with the boy in the bed. Jason doesn't do the "hold the machete with the butt at the top of the hand and the blade going out the bottom, and then slice vertically down repeatedly". That's a Michael Myers style of killing. Jason holds a machete like one should hold a machete and whacks away with it. (off to class and then the doctors, so won't respond right away)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That would probably be a good idea.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Because white blends with the background and doesn't appear to be an actual top to the infobox. I like being able to distinguish the infobox from the whole page. If you have a better color, that's cool. I just don't like the blending of the background with the infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, hey, hey....don't diss Supes. lol. How about now?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Superman would kick everyone's ass in Marvel..............at the same time. This is character who doesn't condone killing and thus constantly pulls his punches against even the mightiest of foes. If he were to use his full potential, as our friend Jigsaw would say, oh there would be blood. ;)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not a DC guy. I'm really a Marvel guy. Generally speaking, I like unevenly more characters from Marvel than I do from DC. But I'm a huge Superman fan. No one can touch Supes. You assume Rogue's leeching abilities would work on the Man of Steel. First, he's the second fastest man alive, so unless you co-opted the Flash into your scheme, you'd never catch him. Plus there's the idea that he probably holds his speed ability back as much as his strength, because god knows what might happen if he starting breaking every law of physics out there. The whole planet might collapse, and then where would we be? Well, Superman would probably survive, so long as the yellow Sun didn't collapse as well. Plus, you assume you could even get close to him. You forget his heat vision. The man can create nuclear blast levels of heat from his eyes. The cockroaches would be picking their insect mandibles with those Marvel pansies' bones. Since Superman's brain is also above that of a human's, Dark Phoenix would have a tough time trying to control such a powerful organ (no innuendo intended). Not to mention the fact that the man lives in the Fortress of Solitude, which contains the entire knowledge of the 28 known galaxies. Couple that with his super powered brain, and one couldn't possibly fathom an attack on The Man of Steel that he couldn't counterattack.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix isn't Superman's life incarnate. Plus, she is easily killed. If we are taking all forms of media into consideration, I believe Wolverine killed her with a simply gut shot of his claws. Seriously, The Man of Steel lifted (to my own dismay) an entire kryptonite island, with a piece in front of his face and one stuck in his back, into space and away from Earth. This is his only poison, and he still managed to beat it. Then he falls back to Earth, dies and is ressurected. Come on, isn't it obvious? The Man of Steel is really the Son of God. And you can't beat that. :P  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

He isn't perfect. You have to remember that the "boy scout" image came in a time when DC was trying to change their image. Superman used to rough people up. There was the homosexual controversy of Batman and Robin by the ultraconservatives. Plus, the man lies for a living. He lies to the woman he loves, and to the world about who he really is. That's hardly perfect. The character has had is darker moments. If you check out the personality section of the article, it talks about the previous version of the character compared to now. I have to quote somethin from that section, as it seems to be the most appropriate analogy of the character, which is why I like him so much. -

In Superman/Batman #3, Batman thinks, "It is a remarkable dichotomy. In many ways, Clark is the most human of us all. Then...he shoots fire from the skies, and it is difficult not to think of him as a god. And how fortunate we all are that it does not occur to him

 BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's generally why I like Marvel more than DC, just not more than Superman himself. Marvel characters are much easier to relate to personally.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Relationships

Well, I'd argue it's incredibly relevant to Jack, but I get your point. The Buffy ones all list things "Willow thought Fred was gay" and "Willow said Dracula was hot even though she's gay", which could at most be handled in prose. As for Bebo, I deleted mine ages ago but I still get emails saying I have 50 unaccepted friend requests. Myspace and Facebook are enough for me.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll proseify them. Together we can set a standard for the Buffy pages :D. Have you seen the Australian Torchwood trailers? They're excellent lol.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am Butters because I am sweet and innocent, of course. Of course at the same time I'm definitely Andrew lol. Complicated. Anyway, this is my Jack "proseified" version but I feel it's too... long? Bullet points shows them more as parallel relationships and also shows how many people at the same time Jack seems to love.

Jack is incredibly flirtatious and has had many relationships and sexual encounters across his lifetime, although occasionally he has had real romantic interests and displayed more profound affections with both men and women.

Jack's first known love was Estelle Cole who he met in the 1940s when she was only 16, but he disappears from her life. They meet again when she is an old woman and living in Cardiff. He performs little odd jobs and keeps an eye on her, but she never realises he is the same man. He later mourns the loss of her life to supernatural enemies. Around this time, Jack is also involved in a relationship with gay soldier Algy. Days later, Jack meets Rose Tyler with whom he is instantly flirtatious. He becomes aware of her connection to the Doctor and this eventually dies down. In "The Parting of the Ways", Jack kisses Rose a final goodbye for fear he may never see her again. He notes in "Utopia" that after going back in time and reliving the 20th century, he kept an eye on Rose from a distance in the 90s.

Jack's relationship with the Doctor is slightly more complex. When Jack meets him and Rose, he and Jack do not get along at first, but become closer friends as the series progresses. In "Boom Town" the two jokingly flirt, and in "The Parting of the Ways" Jack kisses both him and Rose in what he thinks may be a final goodbye. In "Utopia", Jack flirts slightly with the Doctor, remarking that the Doctor's "new regeneration...[is] kind of cheeky." The Doctor, in turn, acknowledges the advance with a suggestive chuckle. Throughout Torchwood it is evident Jack longs greatly to see the Doctor again, comparing a hypothetical apparition of the Doctor to those of his friends' loved ones. Noting Martha's affections towards the Doctor in "The Sound of Drums", he asks "you too?" when seeing the Doctor unknowingly deflate her. While Jack has hinted that he has feelings for the Doctor, the Doctor has never indicated that they would be requited, and is very rarely depicted as having a romantic side whatsoever.

As a leader of the Torchwood Institute, Jack meets Gwen Cooper and from that time, takes an interest in her, recruiting her into Torchwood. He gives her a somewhat suggestive firing range session in gun training in "Ghost Machine", and has occasionally hinted attraction to her, as she has done to him. While there has been indication of some affection, it has never led anywhere. Also, he actively supports her standing relationship with her boyfriend, Rhys Williams. They have kissed in the second episode and first finale episode of Torchwood. Discussing the characters' connection, portrayer Eve Myles described the relationship as possessing a "palpable love", and states that despite the lack of physicality between the characters in series one, "with Jack and Gwen, it’s the real thing and they’re going to make you wait for that."

Around the same time as his burgeoning, slow-burning affections with Gwen, Jack and Ianto maintain flirty banter from "Everything Changes" onwards, with the first suggestions of the two being in a sexual relationship shown in "They Keep Killing Suzie". Despite conflicts in "Cyberwoman" and "Countrycide" and Ianto's mourning of Lisa, the progression of their relationship continues into "End of Days", where Ianto tearfully mourns a dead Jack, and immediately kisses him on instant of witnessing his resurrection. At the same time as these relationships with Gwen, trapped in the 1940s, Jack meets the man whose name he has adopted, the real Captain Jack Harkness. Under the assumed name James Harper, he forms a bond with the real Jack after realising Harkness is gay, and trapped in a closeted heterosexual relationship. Despite the era, the two men appear to fall in love and publicly and passionately kiss in a teary farewell before Jack returns to the present.

Aside from Jack's more notable pursuits and conquests, he references relationships and affairs in the past which vary from boyfriends and girlfriends to one-night stands, and is quoted to be willing to "shag anybody who's gorgeous enough". Jack flirts with various other characters throughout his appearances. In Doctor Who episode "The Empty Child", Jack is shown flirting with Algy, a gay soldier. In "The Parting of the Ways", he flirts with the male programmer, Lynda and two humanoid robots. In Torchwood episode "Day One", Jack flirts with and kisses Carys. In "Utopia", Jack flirts with Martha Jones, female blue humanoid/insectoid alien Chantho and an unnamed human male. Noting Jack's predilection for flirting, the Doctor notes that even saying "hello" counts as flirting for Jack, since Jack tends to introduce himself in a flirtatious manner.

~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The only thing is, the bullet points keep them parallel and well, plenty. I think we should create a sudpage (e.g. User:Zythe/Jack's romantic interests) on one of our user spaces to work on it for now. Oh, and I'm also Daria Morgendorffer, sometimes. Which fictional characters are you?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

By "plenty", I mean that part of the notability of Jack is that he's a bit of a Casanova.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The references are better, because it gives a meaning to what is going on. It seems to be a little too descriptive in some of the minor relationships, and comes off as "really happening" in some parts...mainly the beginning where you don't see a citation for like 3 paragraphs. It could probably be trimmed some, but that's something for later, after you've cited all that you plan to cite. I hate trying to do copy editing before a section is finished. All in all, it's a better format that what was previously that, that is for sure.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Instances like, Buffy has several romantic interests prior to her arrival in Sunnydale. She has a crush on Billy "Ford" Fordham in the fifth grade, and later dates Jeffery Kramer and boy named Tyler at Hemery High, come off and straight in-universe, as they are so minor they are only mentioned in passing. It's given a status as "real" with the opening of "interests prior to her arrival in Sunnydale". Things like that probably are not that important. When you've finished the section entirely, I'll read it more thoroughly and see how it can be trimmed. Don't worry about that until you are done.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Probably because anything relevant about the camp would be found on the film pages themselves.....er, the film pages if they were better written. lol. I'm also working on the Friday films as well, though I want to get Jason out of the sandbox before I focus on the films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's just delete them all? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't mind it myself but it seems to be a cause of "in-universe" complaints. With Captain Jack, I've sourced interviews and essays wherever I could, but I don't know if that makes it better.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Spend a little while trying to merge it all down into one paragraph about who Jack does and does not love (I don't want to loose some of the references like Gwen/Jack) (even though I hate Gwen) and also I think we can probably cite Channel4's website which goes on about Ianto stealing Jack's heart etc.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I did feel the need to proliferate the information across Wikipedia! The Buffy fangirl slashers are going to be hitting YouTube harrrrd.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive

Hi, Do you wish for me to archive this page properly? Thanks --The-G-Unit-Boss 16:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)