Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Buffyverse task force/Archive 2011

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 2005

←

Archive 2009

Archive 2010

Archive 2011

Userbox broken now...

Looks like the headstone/bat image never had proper licensing, and has been deleted. Someone want to find an appropriate FREE (not fair use) image with which to replace it? Jclemens (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Low Quality Contributions

Could someone from tha project look at these recent contributions and see if they agree with me that they are of little value and consist mostly of trivia, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? Britmax (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

These additions may prove interesting to fans, but do perhaps belong on a specialist wiki like the Buffy/Angel wiki rather than here, maybe. --jayunderscorezero (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Largely junk, not all junk. —Tamfang (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Non Free Content Discussion

There is a discussion Here about the use of screens shots in character articles, we need more views, to see what the consensus is.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 15:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Stub type

Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature.

See discussion for Category:Buffyverse stubs Dawynn (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Buffy/Angel characters infobox

I wasn't too sure where to put this, but this seems like the best place. For characters that have appeared in both Buffy and Angel, shouldn't it have both Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel listed in the series parameter in the infobox? Currently it only lists Buffy the Vampire Slayer for characters that have appeared in both. I'm not aware of any guideline for this, if it should only list the series they were established in or include all the series' the character has appeared in. Wondering if anyone else could put some input on this. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, but is it always a case of the character migrating from Buffy to Angel?

And is it avoiding the crossover/cameo appearances?

- J Greb (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

With those limitations, that's just Angel, Cordelia, and Wesley. Jclemens (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

To answer the question (I believe this what you meant), no character was established on Angel and then appeared on Buffy, Angel was the only character to reappear on Buffy. And also, it would hard to define what the limitations of a crossover appearance would be, I would agree on the appearances of Buffy, Willow, Oz, Andrew, and the Master as crossover appearances. But characters like Darla (more appearances on Angel), Drusilla, Faith, Harmony, and Spike all appeared quite enough as recurring (or main) characters. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

L&S: Cross overs are generally for 1 or 2 episodes. Anything else would be, to my mind, establishing the character as part of the other show's cast.

In that light there are I think 7 characters that 1) should have bot shows listed and 2) should be in Buffy, Angel order.

Looking at how to get that info in since the articles use {{Infobox character}}... Try:

series = Buffy the Vampire Slayer'' and ''Angel

- J Greb (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What does "Angel was the only character to reappear on Buffy" mean? Drusilla and (to a lesser extent) Faith also became established as Angel characters before their last appearances on Buffy. —Tamfang (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops, yeah, no idea why I only said Angel returned to Buffy after leaving. Thanks for the correction! So, are we settled on what to do? Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox bloat

I think we have a problem on the project (as in many others) with how editors treat infoboxes. They attempt to use them exhaustively. See, for example, Rupert Giles. Editors want to include such listings as Significant other = Jenny Calendar, Profession = Shopkeeper, Librarian etc.. But no editor ever wishes to record such a thing for any reason other than that the fields exist. I think there is a larger problem with infoboxes insofar as they are blunt and useless. For example, what we learn of Giles (as someone who has never hears of him or Buffy, for argument's sake) is drastically over-stated by the infobox. Jenny was a character in the first two seasons; her significance is limited to those. Yet to list it so simply would suggest she was Giles' long-term partner, or at least, do an injustice to what was a tragedy in the show. In fact, it seems strangely biographical. "Giles" is not a real person. Editors, commonly IP editors, don't seem to get that the articles are not biographies of fictional characters. In the same physical space of the page, one could more easily write a short gloss of the storyline in the lead, but I would still lean towards saying that this would be overly-detailed, considered against the bigger picture of the character's 7-year TV arc, real-world information, etc.. Instead, the Jenny character and their storyline ought to be mentioned properly and in due context in sections like Appearances, Characterization, Development or Reception (ideally). The infobox I should hope would list some essential facts about the character. It should list their main actor(s), who created them, their first appearance (important real world stuff, not all of which might require mentioning in the lead itself). It should then provide the briefest and clearest of overviews: e.g., to say that Giles is British, maybe that he's Buffy's "Watcher" (as it describes his role in the show, not because it's what the fictional character mostly does). The picture of Anthony head, and that his name is Rupert, should tidily cover that he is male, etc. In the case of the Buffy article, one could probably argue the case for Dawn and Joyce's inclusion (as they are large storylines), although I'm sceptical, and it would be difficult to argue the significance of Hank. But you would want to list Sarah Michelle Gellar, Kirsty Swanson, perhaps even the Kazuis, the Buffy movie, etc.; to list Angel and Spike and Riley as 'significant others' also seems biographical. Though Angel and Spike probably deserve a write-up in the lead.

We ought to be more stringent with infoboxes (and categories). Because something is true doesn't demand its inclusion. We should be thinking of essentials, whe aesthetics of the page, whether you'd put in the Lead, whether actually it should go in the Lead instead, and whether the subject is actually more complicated than the simple, factual infobox format allows us to explain. The page on Giles has been locked because I don't think I was successful in convincing an IP editor that we don't need to overload infoboxes with facts. And in large part this is something being dealt with directly at the template page, too. But I thought I would consult the Project's POV on the matter.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the overuse of infoboxes. In my experience, editors add to infoboxes because it makes simple work of complex issues that should be explained by sources in the prose. (The issue of how to populate the religion line in the Harvey Milk infobox has arisen more than once; the infobox in Emmett Till is so useless it's unintentionally funny.) I dislike infoboxes very much, regardless of what kind of article they're in. So many other editors insist on them that unless something is outright inaccurate, I just ignore them. Seems pop culture articles like Buffy-related ones (a series! with characters!) invite folks to tinker with them even more. --Moni3 (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a means by which we can encourage editors not to abuse infoboxes this way? Perhaps an essay? It seems there is no ideology or firm reason behind the infobox. The infobox in articles about fiction is such a liberty that we're really in remiss for not having one. If it was written down, the people would eventually come to understand or anticipate my inevitable WikiNaziing.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've helped Zythe revert some of the bloat on Buffy boxes recently but I've run into the same problem elsewhere and come to the same conclusions as to why the problem exists. I doubt this would work at the TV project at large, but I'm wondering if it wouldn't behoove the individual projects, like this one, to adopt more specific guidelines and policies about infoboxes. For example, and to steal a concept from one of Zythe's recent edit summaries on the topic, why couldn't we flat out state that "items which fluctuate frequently in a series should not be included in the infobox, but addressed in prose instead," or something along those lines. That would solve the relationships bloat at least. Some of the things that get needlessly added I don't really have a guideline concept for in my head but I thought I'd toss the general idea out there. Millahnna (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea. How would we go about that? Do we have to message some project members to get a consensus? If the Buffy WP started it, I imagine some other WPs would follow.~Zythe^{Talk to me!}

That seems like a good way to go about it (which reminds me, I'm not sure I officially ever joined the project here). We could also drop a note at WT:TV (and I guess WT:FILM and WT:COMICS, as well) that we are considering some more specific guidelines for the infobox. Odds are there are more than a few people who watch related pages under those umbrellas but don't read here very often. And since you were talking at the character infobox template about some of this a few days back, it might not hurt to update there about any decisions we come to, eventually. I'm not sure if the folks watching there would want to participate in the conversation at large (they might I really have no idea) but they might like to know the ultimate results of your initial conversation. Millahnna (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the WP:COMICS {{Infobox comics character}} removed the "relatives" parameter years ago and this seems to have been a recurring theme at Template talk:Infobox character.

As for my 2¢... At Infobox character I agree with combining the parameters of {{{spouse}}}, {{{children}}}, and {{{relatives}}} into {{{family}}} and either sticking {{{significantother}}} either there or "romantic interest for plot" - and the more I think about that the more I prefer putting SO into family to cover "non-conventional marital like situations" and let the romantic plots be left to the body text.

Beyond that... and this probably would go over poorly with consolidationists... create or resurrect a Buffy centric 'box similar to {{Infobox Star Wars character}} that passes the information to Infobox character but limits and standardizes the IU fields.

- J Greb (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The series-specific ones were really good. When the Infobox was widened and cross-media standardized it made for this whole problem with bloating. If we had a "locked" {{Infobox Buffyverse character}} we could decide on significant traits. For Buffy I'd be so daring as to not actually include SO, or family members even. Where family is only ever notable it is for Dawn and Joyce and of course those characters will be mentioned as Buffy's sister/mother in their lead sections. Dawn wouldn't deserve a lead section mention a Buffy page but of course would be mentioned under the season five summary and if properly done, in Development/Reception. Which would people rather make: a Buffyverse infobox, or attempt to create a guideline? The problem with a guideline is it would have to be enforced in the same way as now.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Given what you and J Greb are saying I think perhaps a Buffy Box would be a better way to go. But creation of such templates is over my head so there may be some consideration there I'm not thinking of. But you're right about enforcement; no amount of reverts is deterring this anon editor we are dealing with right now. Based on his/her responses I don't think they understand why we find the material they are adding objectionable ("it needed to be added onto" and similar edit summaries). So I guess a guideline/policy isn't going to help much. Millahnna (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, naturally we can't expect casual editors to be well-versed in esoteric Wiki policies! I see J Greb has started the template. This is good. I'm currently in the middle of Finals, yearbook editing, and some other obligations, but I can certainly find time to discuss what to go in. And I can make changes to a template once it's all in place but I'd get lost were I to attempt anything from scratch.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

OK... I've put the infobox back up. It is using {{Infobox character}} as a meta-template and what it places matches the episode 'boxes. That said: feedback on what is and isn't there would be helpful. - J Greb (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

character lists

Why were List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters and List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters separated? —Tamfang (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

They've been that way for years. WP:SIZE, perhaps? Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Our Infobox content warrior

In my last revert of the infobox bloat on Rupert Giles, I did a simultaneous light clean up pass (corrected some spelling and killed some extraneous spaces). The anon editor is now reverting this edit wholesale instead of just readding his material as he has done in the past. I'm concerned about venturing into edit war territory and his edit summaries are getting more and more ridiculous. I'm really not sure what we should do about this guy at this point. I dropped a 3RR template on his talk page (I've noticed his IP changes periodically so I'm not sure how much good trying to report him would do). I added a note to the template asking him to respect the BRD cycle and project consensus and take the issue to the talk page. I'd be happy to discuss the rationale behind keeping or removing the material. I really have no idea what to do next about this issue. Suggestions? Millahnna (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Millhahnna! Glad I saw this. I dropped him/her a message on their talk page and got a reply very promptly! I think we can probably talk it out, explain the take on the Infobox the project seems to have come to, and hopefully solve the problem amicably. Join in the discussion! I've set the tone -- let's everyone be super polite, good faith, etc.! [I find this hard normally but I'm in a good mood! ;)] However, we can't all be expected to have a full dialogue whenever a disagreement comes about, so we should still consider some firmer policy-making or Infobox specialization: good has probably come of all this hotheadedness between us all.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw! I'm excited because I didn't expect it, with the way things had been going. I'm following the conversation on IP's talk page and yours. SO far I've nothing to add because you and I seem to be of a like mind on the issue. I'll pipe up if I think of something that's outside of what you're saying. Millahnna (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought! The main problem is that I can't seem to explain the purpose of the infobox. I guess that is in part down to its being a conceptually flawed design in the first place, in fiction articles at least. Because Giles can be demonstrated to have abilities in some episodes, should they be mentioned? I tried to explain that while he has difficulties, these are something which we saw as they grew out of the character's development; he wasn't introduced at point of conception as a "skilled hand-to-hand combatant librarian with minor magical abilities". A clear if not exactly analogous example of this would be Lois Lane, who has fighting skills in more recent stories due to the retcon which said she was an army brat. It also highlights a problem in a Buffyverse infobox: what would we do to stop people "standarizing"? If we had a "classification" field and a "powers field", would people not insist Giles' "powers" be listed, etc.?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that IP isn't getting the whole concept of how we are supposed to write about fiction on Wikipedia (from real world instead of in-universe perspective). I saw that at one point you brought up the idea of the Buffyverse wikias and how they talk about characters as though they were real live people; where I think IP's edits would be completely appropriate. I wonder if we can explain better by using those ideas a jumping off point. It's part of why I didn't remove the Trio from Warren's group affiliations when the IP added it; said affiliation deals with the major plot arc for the character (in the on screen stuff anyway, I haven't read the comics yet). There's potential to talk about that angle in a real work context.

As far as the standardizing issue you mention, I think we could work with that in the Buffy box by including a guideline to recommend that most of the time, temporary powers probably shouldn't be included (there might be an exception once in a while but I can't think of one right now). Millahnna (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I explained everything to the guy nicely and he fully understood but he won't stop. He now doesn't reply when you remind him of the rules. What's the process here?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to take it to WP:ANI; he's got some problems with some edits on BLPs, as well. His edits aren't vandalism so ARV wouldn't be appropriate and the variety of his problems sort of spans across multiple reporting venues (edit warring, blp problems, pov, etc.). Honestly, I'm kind of at a loss myself. But ANI will at least tell us where to go if they aren't the right place (I think). Millahnna (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

We could ask Ckatz what the best next course is... since he was the admin who blocked the editor before he might be able to give us some tip for how to proceed. The thing is that while the Buffy articles may have been what brought this up, this anon editor's problems branch across other articles outside our purview. So seeking guidance might be the way to go. Millahnna (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger Proposal - Joyce Summers

Interested folks may want to check this out. An editor has proposed that Joyce Summers be merged in with a rather large list of minor Buffy characters. Note that apparently the relevant projects have not been notified of this proposal. BTW, do folks know the main page for this project lists it as inactive? Doniago (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

173... reported

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with an IP hopping editor starting with 173.... 71.234.215.133 (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Buffy and Angel episodes tagged for notability

A whole bunch of Buffy and Angel episode articles have been mass tagged for notability, references, plot only, and other problems, by one user (see Anne). These pages need to be expanded into more complete articles, otherwise they could end up deleted. I don't have the materials necessary to create Production and other sections, but if someone does and wants to save these articles, it would be helpful. I've been cleaning up plot summaries, shortening them and improving the prose, but that's really all I can do. Just wanted to give everyone a heads up.--TEHodson 22:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Improvements

I'm going to attempt to improve some of the episode articles, especially the ones that have been flagged up for not meeting guidelines, but I'm no Wikipedia expert so I expect I'll foul up some stuff too (I'll try to follow the precedents set by "The Body" and "Once More, With Feeling" articles). I'm surprised how poor-quality some of the articles are, considering the number of cultural studies-type things that have been written about the show. Guess it's just a case of most of the interest having dissipated before Wikipedia was set up. 019893KenNic (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to work with others, I'd be happy to help. Leave a note on my Talk page and tell me which one you wish to start on, preferably before you start. If you've already started, leave a note telling me where to find what you've done. "The Body" was a Featured Article so it's quality is exceptionally high. They don't all have to be that excellent, and in fact probably can't be due to lack of resources, but certainly we can make the writing the as good (that's my specialty). I'm well-versed in Buffy, but don't have the books the others who have written these pages do, so I don't have the sources. Do you have books? What do you do well?--TEHodson 00:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A huge number of rewrites are being done by an anonymouse user, 86.26.130.136 (talk · contribs), including some with an online citation that has caused spamming. How do we deal with this? Is there a way to stop someone who has no User Name or Talk Page?--TEHodson 01:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's a true spam issue (or at least a link that violates the EL policies) we can warn them for spamming and report to ARV once they've been warned enough times. Hopefully, though, the editor will engage in conversation. They still have a talk page, even though it's an IP.

As for sources, some of the scholarly stuff that we don't have access to we might be able to get our hands on at the reliable sources notice board. I've gotten some stuff I need for a novel article I will finish revamping (eventually) that way. They're super helpful there.

A lot of the articles have been hit with a lot of fancruft that would be great for the in-universe wikias and that's why they've been tagged. I wouldn't worry about rushing as you're making improvements though. Many of the articles will likely get turned into redirects instead of being flat out deleted. This means that it will be really easy to restore the articles when enough material is gathered to do a full rewrite of something.

I watch a lot of the Buffy related articles (not all because I havne't hit them all to star them yet) and, my schedule permitting, I'd be happy to help where I can. I've tried to at least watch out for excessive fancruft and vandalism but I've been off and on the site the last few months. Millahnna (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm copying this here to explain the situation:

Hi. Are you also the anonymous user 86.26.130.136 who has made hundreds of edits to Buffy episodes? The website Popmatters is a blacklisted site--it is creating problems every time you use it as a reference (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buffyverse Improvements section. I've removed two such links and now need to go through everything you've done to deal with them. Please stop! You need to get advice on how to work here. You are also adding sections to the episodes that are entirely original research WP:OR, which will also need to be removed or rewritten. It is a good idea to learn the basics before rewriting huge sections of dozens of episodes. Please stop and get some advice. Thanks.--TEHodson 01:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not that person but I think I know who that person is cos they asked me to help them and told me how to edit. Obviously they've misled me and we've caused problems - very sorry, as far as I know we both genuinely thought we were helping the articles and were simply trying to follow the standard set by the starred articles about "The Body" and "Once More, with Feeling". I won't edit any more, and feel free to undo the things I've changed. I'll tell the other guy as well. 019893KenNic (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Very sorry again. 019893KenNic (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, don't worry, this'll be my last comment on the matter. Just wanted to say that I feel like I'm being accused of things I haven't done on my talk page. I personally have only edited the pages for two articles, "The Harvest" and "The Freshman", and for the second one I greatly shortened the "plot summary", which I thought was the kind of thing we were supposed to be doing to improve the articles. I also removed the "acting list" from it - fair enough if this was against policy, but again I was only following the example of "The Body" which doesn't have an acting list (apart from the "guest starring" one in the top right-hand corner, which I didn't touch on "The Freshman" either), and simply mentions the actors within the text. Instead I'm being accused of adding trivia (all I did was move the existing trivia box, and I was intending to go through it and delete things which were clearly unnecessary tomorrow) and increasing plot summaries - these are things that other users have done, and I don't much appreciate being blamed for them when I was in fact trying to make things better. Perfectly willing to accept responsibility for errors I've made, but when they're not even mine I take offence, especially when I deliberately announced my intentions on the discussion page so people would know what I was doing and let me know if I made any errors. Anyway, I won't edit any more articles - I'm not trying to cause trouble and I realise that it must be difficult keeping track of articles when lots of people come on and mess them up, so I'll just leave you to it. Sorry again. 019893KenNic (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything. You said you knew the anonymous user and would relay the messages to him, too, so I wrote the message with both of you in mind. Don't quit just because of getting off to a rocky start. We need good editors on the Buffy pages. People lost interest after awhile and the pages have suffered. I only just started working on them because until recently I didn't have hi-speed internet, and doing anything on dial-up was a nightmare. If your interest level is high, try to form a partnership with an established Buffy editor and work together. The Body and Hush were co-written, not solo efforts. If you do know the anon. editor, please tell him to stop editing without making himself available with a Talk page, or to initiate discussion on Talk pages before re-writing an entire article, which he did on The Harvest--dozens of edits, re-casting the whole episode page, without even opening up a discussion beforehand. That usually causes problems. Also, there need to be edit summaries--you can't just edit and run. Explain your thinking (both of you). Most of what was just written is called "fancruft" meaning meaningless stuff that should be on a fan site, not an encyclopedic site. For those of us who love the show it can be hard to keep that stuff off, but it needs to be eliminated. Don't quit, just get better. We all started someplace.--TEHodson 03:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

While I don't have much time to help actively clean up Buffy episode articles, if someone needs a mentor or guide in cleaning 'em up, feel free to drop me specific questions on my talk page. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Merging of characters to List of Buffy characters?

Why is this being done? --Moni3 (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

They don't meet seperate article standards. Major parts of it are plot points from the episodes they were in that were written by fans. Very minimal sources as well. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:16 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I should think it depends on the character. Who do you think should be merged/deleted? Please start with that first, all important, step. And generally, it's a good idea to start the discussion before you wipe an article, not wait for someone to ask you what the heck you're up to. Such a decision should be made with other editors close to the project, and consensus reached. And it may just be me, but your signature is really, shall we say, assertive. I feel shouted at.--TEHodson 06:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. As an overall guideline I think the amount of third-party sourcing and real-world coverage should play a role. Andrew Wells for example, seems to merit his own article based on the fact that there is a degree of real world discussion, IMO...or at least a discussion rather than a summary merger. Doniago (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Doniago, with whom are you agreeing, and about what, precisely? Not clear.--TEHodson 08:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I'm dealing with a case of con crud right now, so maybe I wasn't as clear as I intended. I'd support the summary merger of a character page if said character page was purely or almost exclusively in-universe and had no significant third-party coverage. In the case of Andrew Wells at least, and possibly others (I'm not aware of all the articles that were impacted), that doesn't seem to be the case, and therefore I think there should have at least been a discussion before the merger was executed. In this particular case, given the coverage provided, I would have opposed a merger. Doniago (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. So it seems a list is in order, first of all, and then discussion of those on the list. Yes? And certainly no executive decisions?--TEHodson 08:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally, I think so. If a character article is purely in-universe with no 3rd party discussion I have no problem with a summary merger, but it's not as though there's any harm in bringing it up here first in any case. Possibly bringing the article up here might encourage editors to look for worthwhile discussion that can be added to the article as well. Doniago (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at Rusted Auto Parts' talk page, where Moni informed him that this has been discussed multiple times, each time concluding that it should not happen. I've asked her to come here and tell us about that.--TEHodson 09:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have been remiss. When no one replied I just went on my way and let this discussion sit. Then I went to bed. So--sorry about that. I ended up reverting Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs)' redirects myself, based on a poll initially started on the Joyce Summers article talk page, then moved to Talk:List_of_minor_Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_characters#Merger_proposal. And the fact that Rusted Auto Parts had not discussed these redirects with anyone, or reconciled the duplicate links on the List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters caused by the multiple redirects.

I reminded Rusted Auto Parts that articles are not deleted or redirected based on poor or nonexistent sourcing. But the articles should be sourced. There is enough information in academic texts to do it. I've already done Willow and Tara... --Moni3 (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, Willow and Tara are main characters, the people that i redirected were recurring or minor characters. Caleb, for instance appeared in 5 of the 144 episodes of the series. That to me doesn't make him notable for a seperate article. The main characters i understand, they are the central characters, the ones that the story revolves around for the whole series, but these secondary characters need more than three sources to bind together an article. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:54 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a lot easier to make a unilateral decision to delete articles than read sources to make the articles better. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is very often about what is easier than what improves content. There is excellent academic information about Buffy characters and that info should be added to the articles. Because it has not yet been added does not give you cause to remove material without consulting interested projects and editors. Don't just do what seems easy. Improve content. Wikipedia would not exist without it. --Moni3 (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

And it's really not "easier" to just delete articles that have so many other articles linked to them. What I often see is someone doing what AutoParts did, but failing to go through all the places where there is now a dead wikilink. Again, can we see a list of those you think should be deleted? We have to at least have some idea of what you're complaining about, and what needs improving. If there is a list someplace else, please direct us to it. And Moni is right--there's plenty of scholarship out there. If what you want is improvement, AutoParts, it might be an idea to go to the Talk pages of other regular Buffy editors and see if any of them want to get back in the saddle. I don't have any sources myself, but will happily work on prose, grammar, and structure of articles that need help, in partnership with someone who has the appropriate books or articles.--TEHodson 19:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The articles I overturned redirects on were:

Thanks. Are there any you're in favor of merging, or do you think they should all get expansion? I could live without Jenny (probably because she always irritated me anyway!); certainly Faith must have her own page. I do feel it could do to have a well-researched page of just the Big Brewin' Evils, all in one place so that references to one another could allow a reader to simply go back and forth within the article, rather than linking to other articles. But that would mean a major structure job and still, plenty of research. It is easier to just leave it all as it is. I'm feeling lazy today, so maybe it's not a good day for this discussion.--TEHodson 20:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have much of an opinion on merging any of these, although I know there is quite a bit of literature on Faith. There's enough literature to warrant an article on the rest of these characters, probably around the quality of the article for Tara Maclay: short and succinct. It just has to be read and summarized. I've got a few of these books, but I don't think I should be the sole editor responsible for shaping information about Buffy characters. My point about my writing two character articles is that others should jump in an take on other character articles. If the source material is exhausted and the only information left in a character article are the tidbits that individual editors have inserted and mostly WP:OR, then that's the time to consider deleting the article and leaving a brief description of the character on the List. --Moni3 (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it appears that Rusted Auto Parts, who started this, has lost interest, so let's leave it be for now.--TEHodson 00:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Late to the discussion here, but it looks like most of the characters proposed for merger have been commented upon sufficiently in RS to meet the GNG, even if the articles currently suck. For example, in the discussion of the "Series 8" comic books, Jenny Calendar's death is references in the finale--and the artist is on record as saying that. Buffy and associated works have been studied to death: if an article currently doesn't demonstrate notability, it's far more likely that all the appropriate sources have not been used, rather than that the sources don't exist. Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see the status quo has been restored. 86.144.219.50 (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The things that are sourced on the articles are of interviews by Whedon describing the characters. All the other content is unsourced and basically a plot summary of the episodes. FYI, i redirected Robin Wood, Kennedy and Amy Madison like two weeks ago. IMO, these secondary characters simply don't meet requirements to sustain seperate articles. Yes, they meet GNG, but agan, they suffer from lack of sourcing. Isn't that what the Buffy wiki is for? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:16 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There are 3.5 million articles on Wikipedia and most of them truly suck. Most of them are barely coherent lists of things people saw on television a few years ago and can't fully remember accurately. That doesn't mean that all unsourced articles or articles with poor sourcing should be deleted. All these articles are waiting for someone to come by and add actual valid academic sources. Buffy characters are no different. There is an Online Journal of Buffy Studies and more than a dozen scholarly texts about the series written by honest-to-god professors and authors.

There is no connection between Wikipedia and the various Buffy wikis. Just the wiki format. So passing off some information to be taken on by Buffy wikis is like removing articles about Star Wars because there's another site somewhere on the Internet that takes care of that info.

Once more, the best thing to do in this case is start a discussion. On an article talk page, at the WikiProject talk pages associated with the article. Even if no one ever replies to you, at least you then have some evidence that no one cared enough to reply.

I've now restored the articles for Robin Wood, Kennedy, and Amy Madison. --Moni3 (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What a mess! Are there more? I looked through his contribs, but didn't go back as far as maybe I should have.--TEHodson 23:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If these articles are looking for someone to add more sources, they've been waiting far too long. Glory, for example had her article created in 2003, 8 years ago. That just shows her article isn't a high priority to keep maintained. Also, am i under investigation or something? Why are you looking through my contribution history? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:07 25 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I support consolidating articles that have been tagged for needing sourcing for that long without the underlying problem being addressed. If they haven't been tagged previously, then as a courtesy I would do so, and give editors a few additional months to clean the articles up before taking action. I haven't reviewed your contribution history nor do I think it should be pertinent to this situation beyond possibly establishing what article redirects are considered contentious and pertinent to this discussion. Andrew Wells was on my watchlist and I noticed your redirect, which I found confusing since that article does appear to have significant third-party sourcing; it seemed reasonable to be concerned at that point that other articles that may be worthy of stand-alone status may also have been redirected. Doniago (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Waiting far too long, eh? Why won't someone help the person who fell down in the busy street right in front of me? Why won't someone come along and do that? This person is suffering and bleeding. Someone should help that person out. I'm going to sit here and watch until someone does that. --Moni3 (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want these articles around, why don't you do something too rather than wait for other people to come and assist, which could be a long time. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 18:17 25 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOEFFORT is the link you're looking for, I believe. Jclemens (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Slacktivism also applies. --Moni3 (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, the articles were redirected, not deleted. If someone wishes to go in and add third-party context (or otherwise clean up problems), there's nothing stopping them from doing so and removing the redirect if they feel it's appropriate...and they could always ask for other editors' opinions before removing the redirect. As I said, I'm not averse to seeing articles lacking context redirected or (possibly) deleted, but I think it's appropriate and courteous to tag them as a heads-up to editors before taking any precipitous action. I don't believe that was done in this case? Doniago (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It was not. --Moni3 (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

NOTE TO RUSTED AUTO PARTS: The only way for me or anyone else to see which articles you've re-directed is by going through your contribs. I don't have all those pages on my watchlist (can't speak for Moni). There's nothing sinister about it; you're not "under investigation"!--TEHodson 21:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I support a lot (but not all) of the redirects that Rusted made; some of these characters were only critical to one season and just don't have as much material to pull from for sourcing. I'm on a painfully slow computer right now so I can't get specific about all of the articles, but, for example, I think Amy Madison is appropriate as a redirect to the list article. I may be missing something about her because I haven't gone through the entirety of the Buffy studies material and am unfamiliar with the comics (I believe she reappears there after her de-ratting in season 7, yes?). But based on what I have looked for for her, her article is never going to be much more than plot summary. There are not extensive interviews about casting, character depiction, acting choices, cultural impact, etc. Faith, however, likely warrants her own article. While I haven't read much of it, I do know there is a metric crapload of material about her available to pull from. Again, those are just the two examples I cna think of off the top of my head. I'd have to be on a much better PC to pull up all of the article redirects and get an impression. Millahnna (talk) 07:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the only ones worth keeping are Warren Mears, Faith and maybe Drusilla. Everyone else can be redirected, including Amy Madison, Kennedy and Robin Wood. Now with that settled, this has been discussed for 5 days, we should start gouging a consensus. Currently, i see 4 against 2, but others can comment in favor. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:14 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me, as long as we make sure that whatever real world info we have in each article makes it to the character list in the migration. Most of those articles are currently entirely (or nearly so) in-universe plot descriptions so at the very least they need refocusing. For example, we have a small amount of real-world stuff on the Jonathan article pertaining to the actor's casting and frequent use as essentially an extra throughout the series. I think Jenny and the Mayor might be worth looking at for possibly keeping as standalone articles. I seem to recall (but could totally be wrong) that there was actually a fair amount of material out there about both even though they were in so little of the series. I'd wager they'd likely have less material out there than the three you listed, but there might be enough. Millahnna (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've redirected Master (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Not one source was added to it. Buffy, unfortunately, isn't at the standard of Star Trek to have all characters be given an article. Especially if there's advocates for them to stay while they have no intentions of helping to make the article Wikipedia eligable. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:37 26 October 2011 (UTC)

And I've reverted it. Is there something you don't understand about starting a discussion about blanking articles? --Moni3 (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you point us to some sources to help establish notability via real world info on some of these characters then?Millahnna (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Go to Google Scholar and search for Master Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I have about a dozen books about the series. Three are official episode guides, which are for fans, and can be used at the barest minimum to cite what happens in episodes, but they also have interviews with the actors and writers, which are more useful. Others are essays on gender and other themes pervasive throughout the series. Many libraries carry these books. Amazon sells them used for very cheap sometimes.

If no one is willing to access any sources to avoid this kind of article butchering, and this is a case where I have to basically save an article by citing it because I'm the only person on Wikipedia who has these sources, it would be perfectly fine to change the same of this WikiProject to WikiProject Moniverse, right? That would fit right in with my megalomania. Plus, no doubt someone soon is going to come along and complain about the articles despite not having read the sources. Above all else: love, money, and world peace, I live for that. It's what gets me up in the morning. --Moni3 (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That is all WP:INUNIVERSE. Nothing about the casting, actor's opinion or nothing. Just plot summaries of his appearances. Nothing that has or probably will ever suggest he's eligable for a seperate article. I have discussed it. And with a current consensus of 4/2, it's evident these articles aren't working. No matter how much fans look for it. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 19:08 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have difficulty understanding that articles can be changed, although that's exactly what you're doing by blanking pages and making redirects. I don't quite know how you can have this disconnect at all. But this is often how things get done on Wikipedia. Someone who has no idea what he's doing mucks up a bunch of stuff, refuses to realize what a cockup he's created, then promises to continue mucking things up, forcing editors who actually care about the material to fix it. Job well done. --Moni3 (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at the scholar links for Buffy related to the Master and most of what is actually useful (i.e. not just more plot summary) it isn't really about his character so much as referencing him in passing to support some larger theme related to other characters. I'm not certain that would be enough for his character, specifically, but I'm open to discussing the merits. The same seems to be true of Amy and Jenny (which kind of surprises me, actually, seemed like there might be some feminism or parental dominance themes to mine there). Jonathan is also showing a surprising (to me) lack of usable material. Is it possible the scholar search just isn't turning up some valuable stuff? Millahnna (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for resolution

As there is no deadline by which articles must be sourced, and nothing has been deleted, I propose the following resolution to the current deadlock:

For articles with no third-party sourcing - leave them redirected until such time as third-party sourced information can and has been incorporated and there is a consensus here to de-redirect the article.
For articles that currently have third-party sourcing - Remove any current redirects. If an editor feels that a merger is appropriate, they should follow procedure as laid-out at Help:Merging so that a formal consensus can be reached.

This seems like a fair deal to me. Editors who want to see the articles not redirected know what they have to do and have as much time as they need to make it happen. Editors who feel redirects are appropriate have the opportunity to make their case in a fashion that will ensure there is a fair hearing. Doniago (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It does sound fair, except it's not a deadlock. It's currently 4 against 2. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 19:24 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Just name the articles you think you want to delete. I'm rolling my eyes right out of my head. --Moni3 (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Moni...a less abrasive tone might be more productive? Just a thought.

RAP - I was referring to the conversational deadlock...from where I was standing, we seemed to be going around in circles without having (at the point I pitched my proposal) reached a course of action that was generally considered satisfactory. Doniago (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Moni, your arrogant, sarcastic and overall jackass of a tone is not at all WP:CIVIL. I'm going to assume you didn't read the guideline about INUNIVERSE articles, since your claws are still very sharp. These articles you want kept have been around since Wikipedia's early days. And they still retain either no sources or very little. Please understand my POV while i understand yours, and please, drop the atitude. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 19:40 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) No, someone willing to do these articles would be more productive. Not just a thought, but reality. And perhaps not having to do them under the gun of a 17-year-old newbie who has an appalling lack of experience in editing yet somehow calls the shots around here for what should exist and what should not. Much more productive.

Look, this is me cranky, but it's a genuine dislike I have for this site and a glaring flaw in Wikipedia. The majority of quality articles are written by about 150-200 editors. Everyone else limits themselves to inserting less than a paragraph at a time or doesn't address content at all (or removes it, for God's sake, despite it not violating BLP). That leaves lone editors like me to write something then have to defend it against dozens of editors over years who refuse to read the sources and complain about the way the article is constructed. I don't want to have to do this anymore. I've stopped writing articles because I just can't defend more than the 40 articles or so that I've written when the rest of this community refuses to engage on a meaningful level. So I can choose to not do anything and watch these articles get deleted by someone who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, or I can construct a dozen more articles so a dozen more editors who won't read the sources can "clean it up" or do something else that will cause me to create swear words I've never heard before. Not only is it unfair to me, but I will be filtering this content consistently through my own views, despite how hard I try to be neutral. So it will essentially be a whole bunch of articles created by me. I will be shaping what readers see about these characters. I should not have that responsibility by myself. That is not what a collaborative encyclopedia is.

Also, fuck civility. --Moni3 (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Moni, honestly, I totally understand where you're coming from, but if you're so put-out that you're going to say things like "fuck civility", and can't or won't address editors you have disagreements with in a respectful manner, I'm concerned that you'll be doing more harm than good with regards to your arguments. How you say things is often as important as what you're saying, and it doesn't matter how good a point you make if you couch it in offensive language. If you're genuinely as put-out as it sounds like you are, maybe you should consider taking a break for a few days until you feel a bit recharged. I'm in no manner trying to threaten you or even make a strong recommendation, I just get really concerned when I see editors who seem like they have a lot to contribute getting as burned out as you sound...and if you continue on the path you're on it sounds like you'll just end up getting into trouble for attacking other editors, which doesn't help anyone.

If you'd like to talk about this off-the-record, let me know and we can find other avenues in which to communicate. Otherwise, I welcome your constructive feedback here and anywhere else where we might have mutual interests. Doniago (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Fuck civility? Fuck you. Your bitching isn't helping in the slightest. Your little lacky is clogging my talk page defending your ass and you're busy running your mouth off, calling me a newb when me and the others are the only ones trying to gouge a consensus. Your "fuck civility" tactic just made me lose any respect you could of had from me. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 19:52 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That proposal seems like a reasonable compromise to me, Doniago. And as you and others have stated, since any articles that get redirected are still there (and aren't actually deleted), it is super easy to switch back to add some sourcing. I do think that several of the articles that DO have some real world (and therefore wouldn't get redirected) info could use more. While several do have some, they are still primarily focused on plot summary of each character's arc at the moment. Millahnna (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that it may be appropriate for articles with minimal third-party sourcing to still be redirected, but for the purposes of my proposal I didn't want to muddy the waters with a debate of what minimal sourcing entailed. I'd rather have editors recommend mergers for articles that they think lack sufficient sourcing and handle them based on consensus at that point. Doniago (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh absolutely. In my mind, your proposal seems like a good starting point. Then from there we can look at the articles that aren't being turned into redirects, yet. If they have enough material to be kept as individual articles, they'll need the least amount of work. Then from there it's move on to the ones that were redirected, to see if they can be refocused and sourced enough to be brought back as individual articles. Like I said though, that's just what I envisioned. Moni is right that it's a LOT to do so my brain immediately broke it up into chunks. And in case my earlier thought has gotten lost in the chaos, we definitely need to make sure that ANY real world info is brought over to the list article(s) for any article that does eventually get redirected. The in-universe problem on list of character articles is a bit of a peeve, though I'll admit that my efforts to fix it on articles I watch have been minimal for much the same reasons that Moni notes; it's just an overwhelming task. Millahnna (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

RAP, you didn't start out by acting with much respect, so you didn't have far to fall. And Moni, please keep it together. Really!

I'm not sure where the "2 to 4" count came from, but I don't actually have an opinion yet, as I haven't had a chance to review each and every article RAP's concernced about. What I do care about is protocol, and it has been violated here. RAP has not followed any of the necessary steps before blanking or re-directing, and won't understand that these are necessary: The protocol, as I understand it is:

tag the article with your concerns
start a discussion on the Talk page
allow people time to deal with the problem
announce, if nothing's been done, that you are about to re-direct in x number of days
if still there's no response, then you may re-direct and no one will call you out as you will have taken each step.

The tag on The Master article is dated October 2011, which means it should be allowed to sit for a while so that others can deal with the problems, which should be noted in detail on the Talk page. There is nothing on the article's Talk page from RAP, who does not appear willing to come to any sort of agreement in the conversation that has gone on on the Buffyverse page, a conversation which was not started by him, but in response to his sudden appearance and mysterious, unannounced actions. Follow the rules and no one will get any argument.

I also asked RAP to provide a full list of articles he was concerned about, but he didn't do it. Moni listed those she'd had to revert, and I had to page through his contribs to find the others. It takes time to go through them all. Much more time than the re-directs, which create other problems of which RAP seems ignorant. He's throwing a lot of weight around for a newbie, which is never a good idea. His attitude is what's driving me into this argument, as it's demonstrating a complete lack of interest in doing things in a collaborative way. There are also no deadlines for article improvement so time shouldn't be a factor in any of these discussions. And I don't like the dismissal of Moni (an FA editor of note) and myself (a GA editor of minor note) as rabid fans, when we've done a lot of work on Buffy articles. Some of this work has been very recent, and there are other editors who have worked with me to upgrade articles within the last few months, which shows that we're still hard at it. Some understanding of who edits the Buffy pages would help, and some recognition that it is an ongoing process would help. Instead what we're dealing with here is someone who has made a bunch of unilateral decisions and set a random deadline that we're now supposed to meet in order to satisfy him. That's not how things are done on WP, or it shouldn't be.--TEHodson 20:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

And it's spelt "lackey," RAP.--TEHodson 20:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

First off, in no document did i ever call you a rabid fan, i said your actions are twisting that way, considering the fact you refuse to read the guidelines that bind my concerns to the site. And Hodson, it also concerns me the only job you have here is having Moni's back. Nothing wrong with that, but you and him/her should take time to see my POV, unlike Moni, who's decided to forsake civility. No personal attack intended, but it aggravated me that Moni is here not to help the articles, but to make sure they stay, claiming people will come. I love the film, but this isn't Field of Dreams. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 20:23 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming heated; users are reminded to remain civil,
assume good faith, and avoid personal attacks while working towards consensus.

I don't suppose that there's any chance we could focus on the current issues and how best to resolve them going forward (personally I like my proposal, oddly enough) rather than focusing on what's in the past? I'd especially like it if the incivility and disrespect and personal comments went away from this point forward. I'd be quite happy to just get "Support" and "Oppose" responses personally, though if you're going to oppose an alternate suggestion would be nice. Thanks all. Doniago (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 20:48 26 October 2011 (UTC)

RAP, my "job" here is contained in my post about protocol. It would help if you would read and understand that what I wrote there is important, beyond the resolution of this situation, which has become suddenly URGENT because you skipped every single step of that process. I have Moni's back only in the sense that she has had legitimate concerns: this discussion began when she asked why you had neglected protocol and you refused to deal with that, and protocol is everything here, since without it we end up in messes like this one. And maybe part of your confusion stems from the fact that this is not a place where we're discussing the Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie, which I think we can all agree isn't "Field of Dreams" (you can tell by the title), but rather the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV show, which has many, many pages currently being upgraded and worked on by many editors, Moni being one of the best. As I think I have made clear here and on your talk page, had you followed protocol, no one could have argued with you. It would have taken more time and work than just blanking the articles, but it is a necessary thing to do. If an issue is important enough to take action on, it's important enough to discuss properly beforehand.

Doniago, I'm not sure I understand exactly how your plan would work, but it sounds okay to me. Some of these character articles are very long--wouldn't that make the article they're all re-directed to enormous? Is that a consideration? What about all the wikilinks? Will they be broken on every page that refers to any of these characters? Can we start with what I've been asking for since this began: a list of all the characters being suggested for re-directs so we can take them one by one? And are they all to be treated on equal footing? The Jenny Calender page shouldn't, in my opionion, be treated as equal to the Faith page, given the stature of the characters within the show. And in the meantime, there should be NO ACTION taken on any of them while we have time to review them. And I would appreciate a seconding of my note about proper protocol as I really feel that if this issue isn't understood by RAP, he's going to make the same mess on another show's pages. We are only aggravated and arguing (as opposed to discussing this calmly) because all of the proper groundwork wasn't laid and no one knew what was going on or why. I don't want this to happen again someplace else.--TEHodson 20:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I just realized that if RAP thinks we're dealing with the movie, he may not even know who these characters are let alone why they are important.--TEHodson 20:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

When individual character articles comprised mostly of lengthy plot summary are transferred to a list article, the plot is culled down to a much smaller summary (many of these already have sufficient summary in the list of article). Ideally, the real world info (if any) is brought over and reworked into that text, as well, to avoid perpetuating the in-universe problem in the list (this happens less than it should as list of character articles are plagued with this problem). But if we go forward with Doniago's plan, we wouldn't have to worry about that part for a bit yet, since the idea is only to redirect any articles with NO real world info and/or sourcing for the moment. Millahnna (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

My comment was referring to the speech James Earl Jones gave in Field of Dreams, his "People will Come" speech. Apologies for the confusion. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:03 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone's gotta let me know what you think you're going to merge or delete or whatever. That's the article I need to start on. So please discuss and give me a shout once you've decided what article to rid Wikipedia of. --Moni3 (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion cont.; List of possible articles to re-direct

I started a new section as it was getting too hard to read that one when replying.

Thanks for the info re the consolidated article. So, the redirects mean rewrites, too. Who is going to do all of that? It seems that it should be RAP, whose bright idea it was in the first place, and I'd be happy to do some copyediting and rewriting for prose and grammar and whatnot, but I still say, let's start with a list. It isn't a hard thing to do, write a list, but the boy just won't do it!--TEHodson 21:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

- Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:15 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the list. Now, which one are you start with by tagging it appropriately, going to its Talk page, enumerating the reasons you want to re-direct it, the things you think need fixing if it is to remain a stand-alone article, and listing those things you're willing to take on yourself, as it's you who thinks it's important? And I assume you are going to do the re-writing if the decision is to re-direct it, as per the above.--TEHodson 22:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You no longer wish to re-direct Faith's article, or Drusilla's? What about Andrew's and the Mayor's? And it appears the Joyce's article has been left re-directed. Have you changed your mind about those, or forgotten about them? Please revise the list to exclude those already re-directed and include every single one you have a problem with. Thank you.--TEHodson 22:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Per conversation above, it was metioned those articles are possibly the only ones that can stand. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 22:55 26 October 2011 (UTC)

And I just removed the redirect at Joyce Summers. It might be a great idea to stop making redirects until this is resolved. --Moni3 (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I kinda forgot i redirected that one, actually. Sorries. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:01 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe I asked some years ago (it feels) that all action stop until this has been resolved; the tangle is tangled enough. Are you now saying, RAP, that you have taken Faith, Dru, Andrew, and the Mayor off your re-direct wishlist? Is the above list complete, therefore? Are you going to do any of the rewriting involved in this project you have insisted we all take on right this second, or are you expecting others to do it? And please, please tell me you have learnt that such projects have protocol in place for a reason, and that you will never, ever do a bunch of re-directs without proper notice again.--TEHodson 23:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I need to know which article to start on. --Moni3 (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

RAP, she's talking to you. She's apparently willing to do what you've stated is critical, so please tell her which one you'll re-re-direct if she doesn't fix it double-quick.

Moni, it is valiant of you to take this on, but be sure you want to do so, and do so at your own pace. Despite this flurry of nonsense, it isn't in any way urgent. I will help with copy-editing, etc., if you want me to--just leave a note on my Talk page. I have the Buffy Philosophy book which mentions some characters in interesting ways, so once I know who you're doing, I'll check to see if there's anything that would be of interest. I also have Slayer Slang, which is fun but not necessarily useful. Let me know what you need.--TEHodson 23:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Geez, i went offline for a moment. Joyce Summers could be saved, considering she was a vital part of Buffy's life. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:50 26 October 2011 (UTC)

So Joyce Summers is where I shall start? She is not on the list you posted. I just want to be clear about this. Please agree in the meantime, RAP, not to create more redirects. Can you state that you will stop creating redirects associated with this project? --Moni3 (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

RAP: Do you not understand that Moni has said she'll do the work you've insisted must be done, but she's asking you which article to start on so that she can avoid another round of re-directs? Please tell her which one you consider most urgent. This was your idea, remember? It's going to be a huge project, and may I say, had it been my idea to re-direct all these articles, I not only would have started with discussion, but would have expected to do the work myself. Apparently you're okay with others doing the work you consider so important, but when we ask you direct questions, you don't answer them. I don't usually write messages in all bold, but I don't know how else to get your attention. Tell her which article you want her to start with. And please state that you agree to not do any more re-directs while this is being undertaken. Thank you. (Crikey!)--TEHodson 23:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:SHOUT and refrain from cluttering talk pages with excess markup, caps, bolding, etc-- it makes them harder to read and is rude. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

She just posted a reply! I just got to it now! Yes, Joyce is where she can start. Hodson, stop with the harassment, Moni can fend for herself. (Crikey!) Rusted AutoParts (talk) 00:03 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Now both of us have asked you point blank to please agree to not re-direct any more articles (and that request was made above by another editor). You still have not even acknowledged our question, let alone answered it. Please answer it now. Thank you.--TEHodson 00:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I already agreed to. As a matter of fact, i haven't attempted to redirect for the longest of times now. Stop being so confrontational, this isn't the fucking budget cuts meeting. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 00:27 27 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, my input into any redirect discussions is "none of them merit redirecting". While they may not cite sources appropriately or at all, there's no real dispute that the vast majority of them are factual, nor that they can be sourced to reliable sources given adequate time and effort. Oh... and Rusted AutoParts, consider yourself on notice for your conduct and language. If you want to bulldoze other people's work, you should be impeccably polite about it, because you have nothing invested in the articles, and should extend appropriate courtesies to those who do. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Right...given the rampant incivility of this discussion and the fact that I'm just not especially invested in the outcome, I think I'll be backing out of this entirely; I think my talents can be better utilized elsewhere. If anyone wants my opinion, contact me on my Talk page and, depending on the state of things, I'll either reply there or maybe try wading back in here. Good luck, folks. Doniago (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm out. I'll help with the text merging if I can (and if anyone wants to bother getting back on track to addressing the process Doniago proposed to simplify things). I tried really hard to keep the focus on the content and get away from the personality conflicts but seeing RAP "go on notice" (please) while "fuck civility" is allowed to ride? Absolute bullshit. Especially when the bulk of the articles under discussion absolutely warrant redirects in the long run since they 1) are nothing but plot summary (has anyone here bothered to read the in universe guidelines) and 2) there is NOT enough real world material to expand them into actually valuable articles. As has been discussed, a handful of them easily have enough stuff out there (Faith, Drucilla, Warren, Joyce). But to see such attitude defending articles that are nothing but in-universe cruft? And then to see an obviously well intentioned but overzealous editor chastised when he gets understandably defense because he was attacked for his efforts? I mean RAP is given warnings about personal attacks while he's being openly mocked and ridiculed in another discussion about this same material? Yeah screw this, y'all can sort it out yourselves. Millahnna (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, i've apologized to the editors for my ass-like behaviour, but honestly, my confidence is quite shot. My intentions at first was to sort out the character articles and redirect the ones that are inuniverse and unsourced. The thing spiraled way out of control. I'll aid with the articles that can be kept and redirect the ones that can't, but i'm out as well. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:20 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Character page re-directs, deletions

I don't see much point in keeping Jenny Calendar's page, and have expanded her paragraph on the List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters page and made notes on the JC talk page saying it's okay with me for it to go. I don't know how to re-direct and delete, however, and do not want to make a mess, so if someone wants to do it, please do so. There really isn't much to say about her, so this one was easy. Others will be harder, however.--TEHodson 00:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This is confusing. What really escapes me is the functional breakdown of logic:

These articles are unsourced or poorly sourced, which appeared to be the impetus for the rash of deletions.
There are sources out there that discuss each one of these characters.
No one but me, apparently, is willing to access these sources.
Pages are being redirected on the basis of editors not seeing any point to keeping a particular page. If only one, two, or no sources are consulted in making this decision, this is pretty much the definition of original research.
These editors are not willing to find sources for these articles.
What other criteria are being used to determine why an article should exist?

I'm obviously willing to write all these articles, albeit resentfully. Again, the effort should come from multiple editors. I'm not a community. It's going to take me some time to do it. I can work faster on weekends. I can only write one at a time.

If you're going ahead and deleting articles and creating redirects before I write the articles, why and ... why? No one here seems to be making any sense. --Moni3 (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Moni, I'm not doing any re-directing or deleting, but have laid the groundwork for one article, the Jenny Calendar article, if the consensus is that it should go--it seemed that that one was not of any interest to anyone. I read it, and there's really nothing there that can't be summed up in one paragraph. She didn't have much of a role, so I thought that one was a no-brainer, and said so (I thought) back before we all ended up in the mess above. If you disagree, then please say so. If you think the article is worth saving, then go to its Talk page and say so there. I started there, and asked for comments if people had them. I certainly have no intention of doing it myself since I don't know how to (and said so), and have repeatedly said there must be consensus. All I did so far was expand the paragraph on the List page. I think there are a couple more than we could do without, but I would never make a move without consensus.--TEHodson 01:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a reply from a friend out of state who has access to many of the scholarly articles that I can't get to on google scholar so I may be missing something. But when I was looking at sources yesterday (I picked Jenny because I thought there would be a larger amount of real-world info about her despite her brief run on the show) I really didn't find a lot. I mean I found tons of hits but most of the material was either episode summary (which we already have an excessive amount of) or a passing reference to her in conjunction with the main characters. There were only one or two lines of real world info that we could really use. Like I said, I was kind of surprised by this. But unless there's something in the books you have physical access to that I'm unaware of, there just doesn't seem to be enough material to expand the real world info enough for a full article based on the project (Wiki, TV, and Buffy) policies. Millahnna (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Are Moni3 and JClemens the only editors participating in this discussion who understand that we don't decide whether to keep or redirect an article based on who the character was, how interesting the character was, or what the character's relationship to Buffy was? You make that decision based on consulting sources-- as in, you know, go to a library, not look for ghits on the internet. I'm astounded that this discussion is still going on, and that Moni3 is expected to do all the work, while others put forward logic that has nothing to do with notability, rather whether they like or know the character or find them interesting. Please, folks, read our policies or your time would be better spent working on writing a blog rather than a reference encyclopedia. If you're not going to help Moni3, then stop hindering her work at minimum. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No one is expecting Moni to do anything! Whatever she chooses to do is up to her; I've offered support and assistance with what I am capable of doing, but whatever she is doing is what she volunteered to do. The discussion is still going on because not every character has the sort of encyclopedic information that is required to warrant notability, Jenny Calendar being the most obviously so, and that is the character currently under discussion, with notability the only factor being examined. No one has mentioned anything about Jenny's relationship to Buffy, or anything else on your list. I have expanded her paragraph on the List page so that no one else has to rewrite it should we conclude that the character's individual article should go (proof that no one expects Moni to "do everything"). There is simply very little to say about the character, in my opinion; Millahnna is checking to see what scholarship may exist on the character (more evidence that others besides Moni are stepping up). I'm afraid I don't see how any of this is hindering Moni's work, which last I knew was on the Joyce Summers article. (And who is JClemens? I don't remember that person being part of the discussion so far.)--TEHodson 06:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I just read JClemens' very brief comment; I see only a couple of sentences saying that his opinion is that they should be left alone. He doesn't touch on any of what you've brought up, at least not here, so I have no idea of what he does or doesn't understand. We all want the Buffy pages to be better, so let's just try to reach that goal one step at a time.--TEHodson 06:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion that there is nothing to say about the character of Jenny Calendar is mistaken. If there were nothing to say then we shouldn't include her in the list either. As there is something to say, the article should remain and not be redirected. Having the information under the character's name is the most natural way of enabling readers to navigate to it, as the name is not a common one, and our article is the top hit on Google for this topic. We are here to assist readers, not obstruct them. Warden (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No one has made the suggestion that there is "nothing" to say about the character, but rather that there may be insufficient scholarship to justify a stand-alone article. If you have access to the kinds of sources that would improve the article to notability standards, please use them and and bring the article up to that standard. No article will be touched until people have had a chance to do more research and work on it. Your help would be welcomed. By the way, there are plenty of characters on that list who do not have their own articles. Simply having appeared in the series gets one onto the list (and lists do not exist simply to as gateways to stand-alone articles). Expansion beyond that is what we're trying to justify for a few characters who, in the opinion of many, do not justify them. Others disagree and so the discussion has been going on for a few days now. I am against most of the re-directs proposed by Rusted AutoParts, but have no problem with Jenny Calendar. I don't speak for anyone else in this matter, only myself.--TEHodson 08:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

. I read it, and there's really nothing there that can't be summed up in one paragraph. She didn't have much of a role, ... .--TEHodson 00:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No one has made the suggestion that there is "nothing" to say about the character, ... .--TEHodson 08:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

And now we have an admin dispute over this, so I don't see much point in asking you to clarify the contradiction. Poor Moni3, trying to work from sources under these conditions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

A paragraph's worth isn't "nothing." It's little, but not nothing.--TEHodson 20:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of us are pretty busy and might take days or even weeks to find time to traipse off to some library - google and internet only represent the tip of the iceberg in secondary-source commentary. I hate being timed in these endeavours, I hate having the AfD or merge Sword of Damocles hanging over my head when I consider getting stuck into subjects like these too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

It's unclear precisely why this became so heated, but there seems to be a relatively straightforward roadmap at this point:

Redirect all of the entries including in RAP's most recent list due to the present lack of third-party reliable sources which demonstrate an obvious notability for the subject.
Note that there is nothing preventing any editor from picking one of these pages, attempting to add third-party reliable sources which demonstrate an obvious notability for the subject to it, and then deploying the improved version over the redirect.

If there isn't a clear (and preferably concise) argument as to why this isn't a good plan in the next couple of days (as it seems most interested parties are active right now, and this dispute has already been open for several days), I'll redirect the pages.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The simple, concise argument why this isn't a good plan is that there is no consensus for these redirections. For example, TEHodson states plainly above "I am against most of the re-directs proposed by Rusted AutoParts". This lack of consensus is what is generating the heat - an attempt to steamroll the matter without allowing proper time for further editing and discussion across numerous articles. A two day deadline for this is absurd and action of the sort proposed would just be edit warring. Warden (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that TEHodson hasn't elucidated in any concise manner why redirecting for now is unproductive here, especially in light of well-worn arguments such as those presented by Millahnna above (in the argument starting "When individual character articles comprised mostly of lengthy plot summary "). A redirect is a lightweight solution which allows for work to continue behind the scenes with little drama and for uncontroversial resurrection later on. One would presume the point would be to avoid the drama and predictable point-scoring that would have happened with a group AfD. If the only argument against that is "no consensus" (which is a non-argument when presented by itself) then that is precisely the time to suggest that an impartial admin sets a path forward, which is what I've done. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not impartial in this matter — not even close. You're routinely found supporting action to remove content relating to fictional topics and the speed with which you have moved in on this matter is just more of the same. Warden (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've never had a complaint over my handling of notability matters as an admin (indeed, the biggest drama was over closing an AfD on the Candadian Conservative Party as a keep). I'm certainly not involved as far as this situation goes, and my involvement was as a direct consequence of seeing an ANI request for admin help. I think what you're trying to say is I've got a lot of experience in matters related to fictional topics, which is a good thing as far as this matter is concerned. I've no iron in the fire here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I regard you as both involved and prejudiced. Moreover your supposed resolution would be nothing of the sort. Work upon articles threatened by redirection would be disrupted by the redirection itself because, as we see, some editors here are unfamiliar with the technicalities of this. For a disputed article such as Jenny Calendar, there are many potential sources — over a thousand on Google Books, for example. A topic with that amount of depth and detail requires an article page for its development and a corresponding talk page. Such work is best done in mainspace in accordance with our editing policy and there is no need of an arbitrary deadline, given the size of the task. Warden (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In my experience that'd be your reply to most every single instance of a merge of a character article to a list. My role as an administrator involves closing disputes in accordance with broader consensus on how our policies are interpreted, and I've given that above. If you feel I'm unable to act in that capacity then feel free to request that I be desysopped. For now, I'm waiting to see what the response of the other editors involved in this discussion is: obviously I won't be taking any action until such point as they've been given a reasonable time to respond. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Currently this matter is only about a week old. My impression is that editors such as RAP have withdrawn and so the matter is winding down naturally. If further discussion results in a clear proposition or alternatives then we should have an RfC. RfCs are open for 30 days as standard and this indicates the usual timescale we should expect. It is only when we reach the end of such a normal process of dispute resolution that we might want the services of an impartial admin. Warden (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Chris you're as "impartial" as I am (though at opposite ends), and I'd not be using admin tools here due to where I stand on these things. Sorry, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's bogus. I've been an admin for over a year (and an editor in good standing for four before that) and worked in disputes of all sorts during that period without any controversy. Or are you suggesting that only an admin who has not worked with fictional notability before (and thus has no experience of it) is capable of acting neutrally in a debate on it? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm suggesting you have a strong opinion on it, just like I do, and it might be more prudent to have someone with less of a strong opinion be using tools here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Should such an admin show up, I'd be happy to recuse. However, the last time I looked we didn't have a very long list of admins who were a) willing to step into difficult content disputes and move them forward who were b) sufficiently "neutral" on the subject of notability to get the seal of approval from Colonel Warden. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay then, there is no rush anyway, and I have a few chores on my plate for the moment, but will try to get into some sourcing here anon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I would support the proposal Chris outlined above or the one Doniago proposed earlier (which is less extreme) because I feel it makes it easier to break the work up into chunks so it's less overwhelming. If it's really contentious, I guess I don't mind so much leaving those articles in place until later since "no deadline" and all but I do have a slight preference for the redirects that will be (in several cases) temporary, as Chris notes. I'm still working through sources I can access online (and waiting for a reply from my homie) for Jenny specifically, since that's where Hodson started with expanding list text. Moni, I believe you're working on Joyce in a user draft space, right (an obvious keeper of an article as there is a ton of real world info about the character in even the sources I can get to at the moment)? I can switch to looking at Joyce stuff and communicate with you on the talk page of that draft if that's easier. I am about to go back to wiki light for a few weeks and won't be able to edit article space heavily. In the long run, the project as a group should look at expanding real world info on the list of characters article. As with many such articles for films and tv around the site, it has less real world info than is ideal and with Buffyverse being so well studied there's usually at least a line or two from Joss or an actor that could be incorporated. Millahnna (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Every time I wake up this thing has grown new horns, and new editors have shown up to make strong statements for or against re-directing! The one thing I don't see is much volunteering to actually upgrade the articles they want to keep. However, my position, since Chris asked, has gone like this:

Initial, strenuous opposition to Rusted AutoParts' sudden and unexplained re-directs, done without following any of the protocol that would have allowed others to comment or try to correct the problems with the character articles, or even know which ones they were without having to go through his contribs to find them.
Neutral, while I spent time trying to get him to cut it out long enough for us to read through them all, which I finally found time to do yesterday.
In favor of re-directing the Jenny Calendar article, which was pretty content-less as far as real-world stuff is concerned, which is supposed to be the standard. I have never read anything of note about her character, only seen more or less what Millahnna has seen, fan-based stuff. I therefore rewrote the paragraph about her on the List of Buffy characters (and included the one fact that does make her notable and which is barely touched on in the stand-alone, which is her death and its significance from the point of view of killing off prominent characters to emphasize the danger of Buffy's world--Joss has made statements about that and I am in the process of finding the ref. for it). But to be clear, I only want it re-directed if indeed there is nothing out there to make it a valid stand-alone article.
Opposition to most other re-directs, out of respect to Moni and her insistence that there is scholarly info available on most of these characters. I oppose re-directing them without allowing time for upgrades by anyone qualified to do so, to WP notability standards, not Buffy fan standards. The trivia that Colonel Warren added to JC's page, for example, makes the problem worse, not better.
In favor of tightening up all these articles, however well-sourced, so that anything that will get them tagged for any reason is gone, and I'm happy to help with that. What I mostly do on WP is write and edit for clarity, grammar, style; I do not have the time or the resources to undertake major overhauls, but I will gladly work on prose in the evenings. I also have the episodes on both DVD and streaming, so I can promptly fact-check an episode for anyone who needs it, or find something from a commentary.
Opposed to anything like a 2-day deadline! I would say give it a month, perhaps, to allow for tracking down sources and doing rewrites--and it would be a good idea for people to say precisely what they're willing to do, hit up other Buffy editors for assistance, and see if we can get this done in an organized fashion, and I'd also say, no crying Foul! if at the end of a month the articles haven't been improved.
In favor of allowing Chris to be the admin who oversees this, if he/she's willing. So far, everything he's written is level-headed and sound (except for the 2-day deadline).
Opposed to any more "poor Moni" statements. She, like the rest of us, is a volunteer who can choose to work or not work on any project. She is not a victim here, has been well-supported by me and others over the past few days and knows how to call for help if she needs it. If you don't want to work on these character articles, Moni, please say so. Or just stop. But no more hand-wringing over how we're all "hindering" her or poisoning her working atmosphere by discussing what else needs to be done.

The only other thing I have to say is that RAP did make one good point: no one has cared enough about these articles to improve them and they were left for a very long time to just sit and get worse as fans added random notes. The bottom line question is: How important are they, really? That is what this month I'm proposing we give the project is meant to reveal--how much real-world stuff is out there that can make the articles good enough to remain? Much of the scholarship re the Big Bads, for example, may already be in their particular season's overviews, in episode articles, etc. The other point is that this is a huge project and we need help. Moni certainly shouldn't do it all herself, I shouldn't be the only prose writer/copyeditor (and Moni has often resented my efforts on Buffy articles in the past, even the two which I helped bring up to GA status, so I'm only going to work if it means I'm welcome and won't get attacked for it). How many of us are there who are willing to work? I have stated above exactly what I'm able and willing to do.--TEHodson 20:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm getting involved in this again (he said in a tone of self-disbelief, not exasperation), but as there is no deadline for making any of these articles capable of standing on their own, I still feel it is more appropriate to leave the redirects in place unless and until third-party sourcing is in-place so that the redirects can be removed and quality articles will take their place. There's nothing stopping editors from working on the articles while the redirects are out there.

As I'm not sure of the scope of the tasks currently needed, I'm unable to comment on my ability or willingness to help out, especially given the bruising experience I had up above. I'm happy to copy-edit for the most part...digging up sources is not at all my strong suit, unfortunately. Frankly though, if any one editor has to, or even feels like they have to, do the work themselves then I think it might be worth asking whether the work is worth doing to begin with. Doniago (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, no more pity for me. It's unnecessary. As I'm sure folks here have noticed, if something displeases me, I'm fairly capable of expressing that.

On Doniago's points, and the way I see this very simply: it seems to me as if an entire project dedicated to maintaining articles about Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel just collectively decided that hunting for sources just wasn't worth the work and now think blanking the articles would be for the best. It's breathtaking. As if all the superfans got bored and quit. I don't get it at all.

These aren't BLPs. There are crap articles all over Wikipedia because the website started with the unrealistic but idealistic notion that people would freely add their knowledge about topics and no one would add complete bullshit, make stuff up, and plagiarize a bunch of other sources. A lot of the bad writing and adding of info has been allowed so that Wikipedia can grow. Now that the volume of articles is quite high--much higher than anyone anticipated it might be--the focus is shifting (very slowly) to rewriting the existing articles and getting rid of the crap to make them better.

So the articles about Buffy characters are now a collection of kinda accurate stuff that happened on the series. Not much is there based on analysts' views. The articles that exist now aren't offensively bad or plagiarized, just a lot of trivia. Blanking the articles and redirecting them before they can be rewritten...why? Less articles to maintain at a poor standard? Are we concerned that someone might be misled that Jenny Calendar something other than she was? They've sat pretty poorly so far. I can write Joyce Summers' article this weekend. I can start the next one after I finish that. What's this, eight or 12 articles I have to write? Some of them are going to be short, and after I see the source material, some of them I anticipate will probably be blanked and redirected anyway. But I won't know how much source material is dedicated to these characters until I get all the sources and see what there is to see. It may take me a month to write all these articles. If some tragedy befalls me, maybe two or three months. What's the harm in letting these articles sit until I can get to them one by one? --Moni3 (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there's precedent. The Warhammer 40,000 project pretty much left en masse in 2008 when they came to the decision that Wikipedia's particular emphasis on real-world content was a poor fit for their own goals (full exploration of the fictional universe covered in the articles they worked on). That worked out for the best for both parties: there are several (possibly dozens) of external wikis devoted to the content that the fans want to write, while there's far less drama here when a page is redirected for lack of secondary analysis. Not saying that it's the best thing for all fictional content, but it's certainly happened (I think the same applies to Star Trek, with Memory Alpha being so well-known, and of course Pokemon). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to convince someone that disassembling this project is the way to go? --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

@Chris - I think there'd be an order of magnitude more commentary on Buffy than Warhammer 40k. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

To the "How important?" question, the answer is pretty straightforward 100 hits per day, 2800+ pageviews last month (which didn't encompass any part of this dispute, I believe). Joyce's article is similarly traffic'ed, while Andrew Wells gets about 50% more traffic... probably because he's "still alive" and currently featured in the Buffy Season 9 comic books. The thing about fictional articles that don't discuss real world impacts... is that most of the people who use those articles don't care at all about those deficits--the ones who seem to are the Procrustean editors who think that there is a one-size-fits-all standard for every article. Still, the point that these articles should be improved is indisputable; the only thing in contention, which I agree with Moni on, is that deleting or redirecting the articles does more harm than simply leaving them as-is until upgrades can be made. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you please clarify how the re-directs are causing any harm? The original articles are still there, just waiting to be brought up to a standard at which point editors could generally agree that the re-directs are no longer needed. Nothing's stopping anyone from working on them, and in my opinion a redirect to a section of a larger article that's okay on its own terms is preferable to a standalone article that is clearly sub-par with no evidence that it will be improved anytime soon. Doniago (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Gosh I don't even know how to reply to this it's so baffling. Every part of it is baffling. I'm not saying that to be an asshole, either. You actually need a justification to keep a subpar article that I've already stated numerous times that I'll be rewriting (is that not evidence that it will be improved???) when it's been sitting there in its lackluster state for years? I can think of no logical reason you require a justification for any of these articles when you have no idea how much source material exists. (Neither do I yet.) What are you trying to accomplish?

At the very least, with the tiniest glimmer of hope, subpar articles indicate that someone needs to improve them. Some random reader somewhere who does care enough about the material to access what authors and critics have to say about the topic. When nothing exists, it may falsely indicate to a reader that the topic is unworthy of an article. It may cause someone to come along and duplicate the article, creating it because s/he thinks it doesn't exists.

I'm asking for this mystifying enthusiasm for blanking and redirecting to be put on hold for a few weeks, at least until at least one editor interested in Buffy can ascertain if there is enough source material to justify standalone articles. Now, in a more general sense, this entire experience with this WikiProject has to make me ask why people are even participating on Wikipedia if they're not inclined to add to content, but would rather not do the work to expand good content and collapse content they know could be expanded. I do not understand this. At all. --Moni3 (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Moni, as you can see I've stated above what I think, and made clear my willingness to help with the improving of articles by doing what I am best at, i.e. copyediting and structuring, etc. (you know what I do here), and fact-checking episodes and getting commentary for you or anyone else who is working on these articles. Please let me know that you saw that and will call on me for help if you want it.--TEHodson 18:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering that my question was well-meaning, I don't see why you're being so combative in your response...it almost sounds as though you want a confrontation, though I'd dearly like to believe that isn't the case.

From my perspective, you did not sufficiently address my question as to how the redirects are causing any harm. Any editor who looks up the articles will be redirected to the list of characters, and if they feel that the character merits a standalone article they can put in the effort to make it happen. How specifically is the redirect more or less harmful than keeping a subpar article?

It is my very lack of knowledge (and yours) as to how much source material exists that leads me to think the articles should be redirected unless and until they can stand on their own merits. My understanding is that you feel we should keep the articles out there indefinitely, I feel that articles with problems that everyone is acknowledging exists shouldn't stand on their own when there is an alternative...which, in this case, there is.

You claim that a reader may think that because "nothing exists" they will conclude that a topic is unworthy of an article. To me, this seems a faulty premise, because there won't be "nothing" out there. There will be a redirect that points to a section of a larger article. If someone tries to create an article under the same name, they will have access to the existing text beneath the redirect and have the opportunity to improve it. And to be brutally frank, if these articles existed for months/years without anyone putting in the effort to improve them, why should I believe now that a random reader will come along and decide to improve them out of the blue? In any event, I've already outlined why there's no reason they shouldn't be able to pick up where others have left off at this time.

Since, as you pointed out, we're talking about a matter of just "a few weeks", is there some reason the redirects are so incredibly horrifying that they can't exist for just a few weeks? If nothing else, if sourcing can't be located, then we would likely just end up reinstating the redirects in any case, which seems silly to me.

Lastly, I would really appreciate it if you could phrase any responses to my concerns in a tone that shows a bit less blatant disrespect for my concerns. I do not understand your perspective, obviously, but you do not see me belittling it as you belittle mine. Doniago (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Doniago, I suggested we take a month to see what's out there for Moni or anyone else to find in order to bring the articles up to WP standards--have you considered that suggestion? It seems to me to be a reasonable compromise between those who want the re-directs now and those who don't want them at all. It not only gives time for research and work to be accomplished, but to let everyone cool off and come back to the table with more level heads.--TEHodson 19:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm good with that. My understanding was that the redirects are currently in place...if they are I say leave them for that month, if they're not I say don't put them in for a month. I just don't want it to become a situation where we end up indefinitely extending a "deadline" and the original problem ends up unresolved. Doniago (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The re-directs are currently not in place, and the articles will remain, and one hopes, improve during the next month, at which point we'll all revisit the issue, see what condition those articles are in, and then discuss what articles, if any, still may warrant re-directs. Let's mark our calendars for a month from today and meet back here then.--TEHodson 19:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Doniago, consider that about 100 people a day hit each article (well, less bots, spiders and whatnot, which are probably half of them....) and are fine with the current content. Redirecting to a list of characters loses all the in-universe plot information that our readers like. WP:NOTPLOT should never have been allowed to exist by that name, when all it ever really said was NOTIFTHERESNOTHINGPOSSIBLYTODISCUSSEXCEPTPLOT. Even then, that ignores the fact that the viewers, readers, and fans who use Wikipedia as a general reference work about such fictional elements could mostly care less about real-world reception. So yes, those people, 50+ per day per article, conservatively, would be deprived of 90% of that content by redirecting from the articles to entries in a character list. I, for one, am trying to make a free resource people actually want to use. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have a fundamental difference of opinion in terms of what Wikipedia's scope should be, then. My understanding is that articles should not consist solely of in-universe material with no real-world context provided, and whether or not the project is entertaining or useful to people who are coming here for those purposes is immaterial. Isn't this what other wikis are for? Doniago (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So ask yourself: why would that be? Because a "real encyclopedia" doesn't have that? Many Wikipedians want Wikipedia to be something perfect and polished. It's not, and won't ever be. I want to see Wikipedia serve the needs and wants of our readers, who are a quite diverse lot. There's absolutely nothing wrong with an article that summarizes a fictional character's fictional life. It doesn't defame anyone, violate copyright, or do anything else legally or ethically unacceptable. It's entirely sourceable to primary sources (although in these cases, secondary sources abound), so there's no real question of accuracy. "Notability" and "Original Research" are both really good, fundamentally sound concepts... that are very, very hard to apply sensibly and equitably to the world of entertainment and fiction. There've been brouhahas over whether the fact that the sound of children's voices can be heard at the closing of Children of Men needed a secondary source, or whether a line from Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) that was a direct quote from a poem needed a secondary source to document what any reader could verify him or herself. But I digress: I have no problem with WP:NOTPLOT applied to an entire topic area, but it can get inappropriate when each article within a topic is expected to meet it. Fans of fiction write details that other fans love, that are for the most part verifiable and contain little or no original research. Yet some folks take a WP:NIME approach and want to crush the life out of such articles, for no other reason than devotion to rules, rather than the purpose of sharing information freely. Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, we appear to have a fundamental difference of opinion as to what Wikipedia is or should be. If you feel that articles of the nature you describe above are appropriate, perhaps you should work to change WP policies and guidelines so that those who oppose you will not have a "legal" leg to stand on...or focus efforts relating to such articles on a wiki-project that does not have WP's current limitations, as you perceive them. Doniago (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that all should have significant out-of-universe material. Thing is, if they don't, I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure which pages you people are talking about. I can't find any

{{Merge|OtherPage1 |OtherPage2 |OtherPage3 |target=<destination article> |discuss=Talk:<destination article>#Merger proposal |date=November 2024}} tags, so I assume this is still step I. of the process? DS Belgium (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to weigh in at this point in the discussion, you should probably read through the above sections, as this has gone on for more than a week and is a bit complicated. This is a copy-and-paste of the list as I understand it to be. There were other characters that Rusted AutoParts initially thought should be re-directed, but then he seems to have changed his mind. They included Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), Andrew Wells, and maybe one or two others.

Happy reading!--TEHodson 20:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at Jenny Calendar- there is sufficient out-of-universe material on google books (and probably more offline), but I'm not too familiar with Buffy, having only watched one or two episodes in my life. The Master is tricky to search, but given his role there should be plenty to keep him as standalone too. I haven't looked at others yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just posted the rewrite of Joyce Summers. If any of you find problems with it and think it wise to place improvement templates or citation needed tags ~~I WILL CUT YOU WITH A CHAINSA~~...feel free to bring those problems to the talk page.

Just another reminder to say that this system, where one person only accesses the sources, and therefore must watch the article to keep out utter bullshit, makes me the owner. I know of WP:OWN and all, but when no one else reads the sources and it's just li'l ol' me, that's a breakdown in this system. You're forcing me to own it. I don't like doing this and this should be a burden and responsibility shared by others interested in the series. You can't protect the integrity of material if you don't have the sources.

So...what's the next article you all would like to set on fire? Jenny Calendar? Shall that be my next one? --Moni3 (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - that rewrite is looking good. Casliber and I have been making a start on Jenny Calendar so, if you're feeling possessive, you should perhaps leave that to us and take a different one from the pile. Warden (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Moni, perhaps you could take a quick look through your sources and let us know how much there really is about Jenny Calendar so we can decide whether that one should be re-done or re-directed. I would prefer someone with the ability to genuinely judge what there is to say to make that decision, and you have the books. So far nothing that has been added to the Jenny article is particularly scholarly; in my opinion it is just a long-winded version of the paragraph I expanded on the List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters page, and remains more appropriate to a fan wiki. Otherwise, I'd say the next one to be done should be of more importance to the show, like Adam or The First Evil. And I know Andrew was taken off the list of pages of concern, but maybe we should be looking at it, too. I will be copyediting Joyce tonight, and in the future will help you to protect the articles you're working on. And I'm in the process of checking my local library system to see if there are any books here so that you're not working alone. I will do what I can.--TEHodson 20:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Err, I should take this over the daughter page? Nah, I don't think so. Surely there'd be stuff on the Master too. Fan wikis are irrelevant - wikipedia mainly thrives as it is an intersection of birdwatchers, gamers, military history buffs, fans of various TV shows and comics, etc. and we all cross-fertilise. Hiving off any group too aggressively is not good for the community as a whole. Plus I resent the arbitrary lines-in-the-sand on what is and isn't encyclopedic. Moni, adding stuff to Jenny Calendar would be good as a benchmark I guess. I can help a bit but I think I need to go watch a few DVD box sets in the meantime...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

These aren't "arbitrary lines in the sand." WP has standards and guidelines. I didn't make them up, neither did you, but they exist for a purpose, and I don't understand your assertion that ignoring that purpose is a good idea because fans would like us to do so. We're supposed to be different, an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivial articles that put odd bits of character detail on the same plane as genuine insights by scholars on why Buffy the Vampire Slayer was an extraordinary show. And I am about to put into that article the one piece of information about Jenny Calendar that marks her role as meaningful beyond the scope of the show itself, which is the fact and manner of her death--the fact that this information isn't already there is a sign of its fan cruft-ness, rather than a genuine grasp of what is important and what isn't. If there's other such stuff to put into the article, it'll be found in the books Moni has, but it isn't there now. There's not one piece of information on that page that is meaningful beyond the scope of the Buffyverse, and nothing that is not in that paragraph, albeit in briefer form. Are you defending the article on the basis of length alone? Tell me one thing in that article as it stands now that you consider important, and why. --TEHodson 18:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I wrote Joyce Summers in a sandbox and I intend to blank the sandbox and start again with Jenny Calendar. I will probably do most of the work later in the week. I don't have electricity at my house yet--bad snowstorm--but it should be up later in the week. If I go through every last thing I have and still can write no more than two paragraphs or so about Jenny Calendar, then I'll bring what I have here and the masses can rejoice at finally ridding the site of these pesky things. --Moni3 (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

@TEHodson - regarding "arbitrary lines in the sand", if you look over the past four years in discussion pages on Wikipedia_talk:Notability, note the 49 pages of archives there, there have been several attempts to chisel out consensus on notability and how detailed wikipedia is supposed to be. We've had arbitration cases on TV episodes and all sorts of huffing and puffing by both sides, with the result that there is a rough 'tidal zone' that if an article goes to AfD, generally two independent sources discussing it is the rough need for it to be not deleted or merged (ok more of a 'tidal zone' than 'line in the sand' but it is as a result of grudging ceasefire not some naive idea of concordance). I'm not defending it on length but detail, and yes the other insights you have from the summary should be there as well. Certainly I agree about structure of an article, which is why I haven't really tried writing it as I don't know the character. The word "scholarly" is tricky too, I am a doctor and have read plenty of material in peer-reviewed journals of lower quality than non-peer-reviewed books. This is one reason why our sourcing notes are guidelines and not policy as exceptions arise and material needs to be interpreted as to its origin and relevancy.Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I want the Buffy articles to be much better than the average TV show article for the simple reason that the show was groundbreaking and I'd like what WP says about it to reflect that. I don't know if you've seen the section on Jenny's death that I wrote, but that is the sort of thing that is interesting beyond fandom--how Whedon and co. broke the rules and took us places TV isn't even supposed to think about going. That section will be in the new article, which Moni is currently working on (but as she has no power, it could be a few days). In the context of TV shows, "scholarly" means (to me) that someone recognizes and has written about its contribution to the culture, its impact on how television shows are made (from the writing to the editing), its uniqueness; in other words, something that a person who has never seen Buffy the Vampire Slayer would find noteworthy. In another context, such as medicine, the standard would of course be very different. That's my goal here, and if an article can't reach a decent level of notability it should, in my opinion, be re-directed to a short summing-up of the subject. But even just the section about her death justifies the existence of an individual article (and I'm not saying it because I put it there, but because it was an incredible thing for a series creator to do), so with a re-write it should shape up to be a brief, but much better, article than it is now.--TEHodson 02:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, well-said. Doniago (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Doniago, but I'm not sure what to make of the fact that someone finally agreed with something I said!--TEHodson 03:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a Halloween miracle! But seriously, I don't think you actually said anything I hadn't been saying previously in principle... that's not a bad thing! Doniago (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A gift from the Great Pumpkin. Wow. I'd love to see that again.--TEHodson 04:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

365 days and counting. (sets up a big bomb clock) Doniago (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It's still 31 October here, baby (and only 9.39 pm). The Great Pumpkin may still fly over my house tonight. Do you guys get to watch Charlie Brown specials over there (I assume you're in England? I've been there.)--TEHodson 04:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Over here in New England (though I visited Old England in '07) we do indeed get to watch Peanuts fare, though it's been awhile for me. Also, we're so far off-topic now we should probably relocate or discontinue this chat, since WP:NOTFORUM and all... Doniago (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course. It's just nice to talk, not quarrel. Watching "Fear, Itself" in honor of the day. Bye!--TEHodson 05:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Since others are watching to see if this is worked out satisfactorily, could y'all please chat among yourselves on your user talk pages? Watchlists are going off under the heading "Resolution", when this isn't resolved at all== status quo is still Moni3 doing all the work in spite of record snow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandy: 1) The word Bye! means the conversation has ended. 2) Moni is not doing "all the work", which you'd know if you read the edit histories of Joyce Summers and the in-the-making Jenny Calendar article (User talk:Moni3/Buffy rewrites‎, or check the one that's still there for improvements - Jenny Calendar). I have spent quite a bit of time on both myself. Now please stop with the "poor Moni" stuff. It's out-of-date and inappropriate (and no one is expected to work if they have no power--or at all, even; again, we're all volunteers). And as for a resolution, we're working on improving the articles, a decision was made to revisit the issue in a month to see if some can't be improved enough to warrant standing alone, so I'm not sure what else you need at this point. Maybe you'd like to do some writing or some researching? We could use the help.--TEHodson 05:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Progress update

This is the original list of characters redirected without accessing source material, and this is the list I'm working from. I have just posted the rewrite of Jenny Calandar.

Warren Mears
Caleb (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
~~Mayor (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)~~ rewrite posted (Copy-editing done)
Drusilla (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
Glory (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
~~Master (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)~~ rewrite posted (Copy-editing done)
~~Jenny Calendar~~ rewrite posted (Copy-editing done)
~~Adam (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)~~ rewrite posted
First Evil
Jonathan Levinson
Andrew Wells
Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
~~Joyce Summers~~ rewrite posted (Copy-editing done)

I would like to concentrate next on the Mayor, the Master, Adam, Andrew Wells, Drusilla, Warren Mears, Jonathan Levinson, Glory, then Caleb. The redirect for Faith (well, all of these) was baffling. I anticipate the amount of information dedicated to Faith may make her article longer than the current state of Buffy's. That's the last one I'm going to do because it's going to be the longest. --Moni3 (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice work :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I promised to deal with the copy-editing, but then disappeared after Joyce Summers. I got injured and have been out of commission (meaning on pain killers) and will be out for a while. I'll get to it as soon as I can guarantee coherence. Good work, Moni.--TEHodson 19:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hm. One of the issues I'm most upset about is that this much writing requires so much sobriety. It sucks and I want my non-sobriety back. Anyways, feel better (which I'm sure you do with the pills...) --Moni3 (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, darling, but nice as the pills are, I'd prefer to be able to walk (I smashed up my foot). I've been updating Kate Bush's newest album page (50 Words for Snow), which only requires copying and pasting and a bit of prose to tie things together, but I've still had to go back and forth about 100 times just to make sure I'm keeping sources straight and I am struggling with the most basic English! I don't dare do anything significant for a few more days. Sorry to leave you on your own in the meantime. But as Arnold said, "I'll be back."--TEHodson 23:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just returned Maggie Walsh from a redirect to List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters back to a full article, and added a few new quotes/sources, however other project members may wish to have a look at some point to see if further improvements would be useful. - Paxomen (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Copy-editing/re-writing of Joyce Summers and Jenny Calendar pretty much done. Will take further looks at them later.--TEHodson 05:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey everyone. There's a problem with the Mayor's article, and I don't know how to fix it. If you type in Mayor Richard Wilkins III, you get redirected to the list of Buffy characters. Moni's rewrite is under the name "Mayor" without the rest of his name. I think the character's page should have his full name on it, not just the word "Mayor", but clearly some straightening out needs to occur. I'm about to start editing the rewrite, meanwhile. Hope this is an easy fix (sorry I can't do it myself).--TEHodson 07:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirect, retargeted. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Good-night!--TEHodson 10:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to start on the Master copy-edit, and am adding some info from Pateman. I hope to be done by the end of the day, tomorrow at the latest.--TEHodson 21:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The first pass of the Master copy-editing is done.--TEHodson 10:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Relevant AfD

Interested parties may want to opine at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel episodes. Note that each show has its own separate list, which forms part of the deletion rationale for the combined list. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)