Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Buffyverse task force/Archive 3

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Buffyverse Wiki

Hi everybody, I would like to "summon" the WikiProject Buffyvese community to participate in the Buffyverse Wiki, of which I'm one of the administrators.--Gonzalo84 21:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete Buffy Stuff

Wikipedia contains entirely too much Buffy stuff. The show was all right, but it's been off the air for years now, and, even when it was still broadcast, it never deserved all the attention it is given in Wikipedia. Other hit TV shows do not have anything near the coverage that this show receives. Is Joss Whedon secretly paying off the Wikipedia staff or has he hired an army of Wikiwriters to publicize his work? Ninety-five percent of the "articles" concerning Buffy deserve to be deleted, and, yes, I was (and remain) a fan of the show. -- This unsigned comment was left by User:207.200.116.202 14:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability is not an official policy, the term Notability is often very subjective and it is not mentioned in any of the official policy about deletion. Generally speaking Wikipedia official policy dictates that we only delete things when:

) Articles break and cannot fix some of these four rules: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, or the copyright policy (Copyrights).

OR

) They are very much included with the detailed descriptions of What Wikipedia is not. This includes in summary not a dictionary, not a publisher of original thought, not a soapbox, not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site. The section that is often abused is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which at first sight might seem a useful phrase to delete whatever we don't like. However that section actually offers details to how such a directive should be used, offering eight specific examples: Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, Travel guides, Memorials, News reports, Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries, Directories, directory entries, or a resource for conducting business, Instruction manuals.

Some of the Buffyverse articles need deletion or work. E.g. The 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer and social issues' article has extensive original research (it looks like this article will soon be deleted), the article 'Big and little bad' is at the moment a glorified definition (but could be made into a proper article with work).

However the majority of Buffyverse articles generally don't break copyright, are verifiable (often from the episodes themselves), are reasonably non POV, are not based around original research, not dictionary definitions, not political, not advertisements, not lists of links/images/media, not blogs/free hosts/webspace/social networking, not Frequently Asked Questions, not Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, not Travel guides, not Memorials, not News reports, not Genealogical entries, not phonebook entries, not Directories, not directory entries, not a resource for conducting business, not Instruction manuals.

Therefore the vast majority of Buffyverse articles deserve a place on Wikipedia as long as they continue to maintain such standards, and wikipedia contributors are willing to continue to write them. People who are concerned that other TV shows do not get enough relative attention, have nothing preventing them writing wikipedian material about those other shows. Wikipedia is not an academic encyclopedia limited to academic topics, and it is not a paper encyclopedia with practical limits to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points described in WP:Not -- Paxomen 16:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think User:207.200.116.202 is being at all fair - Buffy, Angel and all the spin-offs are part of one fictional universe which is both treated with the exact same respect and tarred with the same brush as Doctor Who, Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5 etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. It goes wothout saying that there are many articles based around the Buffyverse, as it a subject that many are passionate about and enthused by. So long as all the pages are relevant, well-written and interesting, I see no problem whatsoever with the amount of entires this topic inspires. NP Chilla 18:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedian who has recently been using the joint wiki-addresses below may want to review deletion policies before using up so much of their efforts.

User talk:207.200.116.5 , User talk:207.200.116.9, User talk:207.200.116.11, User talk:207.200.116.12, User talk:207.200.116.69, User talk:207.200.116.70 User talk:207.200.116.72, User talk:207.200.116.131, User talk:207.200.116.132, User talk:207.200.116.134, User talk:207.200.116.135, User talk:207.200.116.136, User talk:207.200.116.138, User talk:207.200.116.196, User talk:207.200.116.198, User talk:207.200.116.199, User talk:207.200.116.201, User talk:207.200.116.202.

-- Paxomen 02:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC) ________________________________________

Amen to that. Although there are a couple of articles that could be merged (Ben & Glory? Those two Wolfram & Hart dudes mentioned above?), and some which, as Paxomen rightly states, need work, there is no need whatsoever to go on a mass culling spree. NP Chilla 15:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there does NOT need to be a mass culling of Buffyverse info on Wikipedia. I only began watching Buffy/Angel within the last few months, and Wikipedia has been a great resource for learning about the series, examining relevant issues, and keeping track of episodes and plotlines. Thanks to everyone who has put so much effort into creating such a comprehensive reference system. Tambourineman 20:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Tambourineman.

I realize this might be revisiting an old topic, but now that the first five episodes of Buffy have been tagged for deletion for notability does this mean all the individual episode information is going to be lost? Who decides what is notable? Wouldn't the first episode of the entire series qualify? QuinnZadok 02:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

ignore me, I found the notability guidelines... QuinnZadok 02:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wolfram & Hart employees

I recently went over the characters list. Wouldn't people like Gavin Park and Linwood Murrow, characters who really don't deserve their own page, best be served to be merged into a single article? Lindsey, Lilah and Holland are important enough to have their own pages, but these other two were really just as minimally recurrent as Forrest and Graham (from the Initiave). Kusonaga 20:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe. Perhaps it would be wisest to merge these characters into the Wolfram & Hart page itself, as opposed to going to the (relatively strenuous) effort of creating a "Wolfram & Hart employees" page. NP Chilla 17:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with NP Chilla here. This seems a more logical approach. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 17:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

We actually started doing this a while ago. I would like to see a Wolfram & Hart employees article, much like the articles Initiative members and Sunnydale High School students. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 16:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Could I just ask - how come Gavin Park has materialised on the Great Big Buffyverse Box of Death, when his article itself says that he is "one of the most marginal recurring characters"? Why do something like this when he might not be around for much longer... if you don't mind me asking. NP Chilla 22:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Supportspike.com Campaign #9: NOT FADE AWAY

Supportspike.com has just started a brand new campaign to target Fox.

The aim is to send postcards in support of a Spike DVD-movie directed by Tim Minear, and to have all the postcards arrive at the same time, on June 23rd (Whedon's birthday).

The campaign is being discussed here:

http://whedonesque.com/comments/10372

- Paxomen 17:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I systematically link to my website?

I created the Buffyology website. http://buffyology.com/ I was trying to add a link from each episode page here to my episode page, but someone thought I was a bot and deleted all the links. Or nearly all of them.

Can I link to my website from each page? If not, why not? There seems to be a completely random pattern -- some pages have no External Links section, some do, and some sites which have a page for each ep are linked pretty much at random. I think it would be logical to link to some sites like the Buffy Trivia site, http://restlessbtvs.com and the Buffyverse Dialog database too, from every page.

I have transcripts of every episode and a database of all characters, actors, writers and directors.

New article: Wolfram and Hart employees

I created the W&H employees article and merged Gavin Park and Linwood Murrow into it. I also took the tiny summaries from the lawyer list and put them in, but didn't add any new information because it's been ages since I saw any Angel other than season five. I thought about merging Knox into the article, because I believe that's where he belongs, but his current article is quite indepth -- possibly too indepth -- so I wanted to get a consensus here. His info would be shortened, but Knox, in my opinion, does not merit such a lengthy article. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 12:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Archived

I archived conversations 1-20, as they were all stale. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 12:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team previously contacted you here to identify the quality articles in your WikiProject, and now we need a few more favors. We would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in offline releases of Wikipedia based on their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 1.0 (not yet open) and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please keep updating your Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WPArts#Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffyverse|Arts WikiProject article table]] for articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 06:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to find out the results of this discussion, is this your official list of key articles? Thanks, Walkerma 01:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for the rest of the project, but I understand there was no real consensus. I'll try to find what I think are the key articles and get back to you. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 09:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki/Buffy navbar

I recently wrote a Firefox sidebar navigation bar for Wikipedia. There is also a WP:Buffyverse implementation in it with the community links replaced by important WP:BUFFY links. It's free for anyone to use; if you're interested, you can find both versions here. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 10:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Firefly project launched!

Hi guys! Just thought I'd mention to fellow Whedonites that us Browncoats have started a WikiProject for Firefly/Serenity! Come join us! Project page is still bare bones because I just set it up tonight :-) -plange 04:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Question on Wikify Tag

Someone recently put a wikify tag on the Expanded Overview section of City of (Angel episode). Via talk pages, I asked him why, and he said it was because there were few links and it was just a really long block of unadorned text. I'm not sure what to do about it. I don't think it needs much in the way of links, as the most linkable things are already linked in the summary. So, should there be subheadings, or less plot detail, or what? --Jwwalker 06:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Buffyverse

Buffyverse is up for deletion. Appreciated if people could have a look at the article, then read through the comments at the deletion forum.

I think it could certainly do with some work, but can't see any appropiate reason in Wikipedia:Deletion policy to delete the article. I believe that the user who nominated the article for deletion (Lesqual) is essentially arguing that because the Buffyverse already has many detailed pages, that the article for 'Buffyverse' itself is not needed. However shouldn't that logic mean we don't need a generic Star Trek article since the films and TV series already have their own pages? -- Paxomen 16:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not up for deletion any more, the result was keep. --Jwwalker 17:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Buffy CCG

Okay, I have no idea how to do this, but can someone please add the page for the Buffy CCG (Collectable Card Game) to the 'Buffyversenav' box under spin-offs? It should be up there with the toys, video games and RPGs.Jayunderscorezero 11:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Added link to Buffy the Vampire Slayer Collectible Card Game, it's called 'Card Game' in the spinoffs section. -- Paxomen 12:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for that.Jayunderscorezero 12:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing Red

With regard to Seeing Red (Buffy episode):

A stray bullet takes a wicked through the upstairs window and kills Tara almost instantly, her blood splattered all over Willow.

This should be ... ? — Mike (talk • contribs) 04:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to A stray bullet takes a route through the upstairs window ..". If you spot more grammar issues.. remember the Wikipedia guideline: Be bold in updating pages. -- Paxomen 10:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with WP:BOLD. But if you don't know what was originally meant to be said, you can't really update it yourself. — Mike (talk • contribs)

That's true :) -- Paxomen 01:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hero

Regarding "Hero" (Angel episode).

Twice -- in the description of the character Allen Francis Doyle, and in the description of the episode Hero -- the same mistake is made. Those descriptions are as follows:

"The two exchanged a passionate kiss; a blue ribbon of electricity passing between them as he gave her his visions, which changed the course of her life considerably." (Wiki, description of Allen Francis Doyle)

"Then he hauls back and hits Angel, knocking him into the cargo hold. Doyle grabs Cordelia and they kiss, a blue light passing between their lips." (Wiki, description of Angel episode "Hero")

If you watch the episode (as I just did again), you will note that the "light between the lips" of Doyle and Cordelia is the brightening lamp being used by the Scourge increasing in luminosity in the background. It's a nice thought, that there would be some visible sign of the transfer of seer abilities, but it would have risked giving the important plot moment away. Check the episode and you will see that there is no outward sign, though the light and camera angle may have intended to be symbolic. This should be changed a.s.a.p.. I did not do so because I am not a regular contributor to the Buffyverse wiki.

-- Freemount, October 15, 2006

I disagree. The blue light seems like an obvious special effect to me. You can see that scene on youtube here (skip to the 2.45 mark).--Nalvage 15:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Buffyverse Magazines (UK)

I recently created the article, Buffyverse Magazines (UK), but I'm lacking Buffy mag #44. Does anyone have this issue, and therefore could let me know the interviews/features it includes? I've seen a photograph of the cover on ebay (and therefore know it contains interviews with Emma Caulfield, & Elizabeth Anne Allen, and a set report on "Selfless"), but are there any other interviews/features, and what is reviewed in 'Grave Reviews' section? -- Paxomen 16:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I got hold of #44 (completing collection), so filled in the details already -- Paxomen 15:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Fluffy the English Vampire Slayer

Fluffy the English Vampire Slayer is up for deletion. Appreciated if people could have a look at the article, then read through the comments at the deletion forum, before voting.

-- Paxomen 12:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

RESULT: SURVIVAL.

Template:Buffycanon

Template:Buffycanon is up for deletion. It's generally used at the top of articles of uncanon materials such as unused scripts, novels, video games, most of the comics.. Appreciated if people could have a look at the use of the template (e.g. see top of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (film)), then read through the comments at the deletion forum, before voting. -- Paxomen 16:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

RESULT: DELETION.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer adult parodies

One for just the grown-ups here, but Buffy the Vampire Slayer adult parodies is up for deletion. Appreciated if those people who won't be offended by such an article (it's about the 4 pornographic spoofs of Buffy) could have a look at the article, Buffy the Vampire Slayer adult parodies then read through the comments at the deletion forum, before voting.

-- Buffyverse 20:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

RESULT: SURVIVAL.

Buffyverse studies

Buffyverse studies is up for deletion. Appreciated if people could have a look at the article, then read through the comments at the deletion forum, before voting. -- Paxomen 07:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

RESULT: SURVIAL (but renamed to Buffy studies by consensus)

Chronology templates

Can someone explain to me the significance of the individual chronology templates being used on Buffy episode pages? For example, Template:Buffychron2001b. I don't see how their inclusion is at all helpful in an encyclopedic way. If anything, it's just confusing and uses up too much space. I understand what they're trying to illustrate, but I think it fails at this and just adds confusion. scarecroe 15:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I created them thinking it might be useful for some people using the episode articles, who might want to know where the episode fell in the greater scheme of the stories.. or else used as a navigation tool to get to a nearby episode or other story - say you want to skip ahead three episodes.. or find out what's happening in Buffy comics at that point in the story. Essentially it is a mini timeline showing surrounding stories. See below the example of how it appears in "Welcome to the Hellmouth" and every other article.

Timing

Stories that take place around the same time in the Buffyverse:

I tried to prevent it being confusing by only using it in a section called 'Timing' (sub-section of 'Continuity'). And also saying above the chart Stories that take place around the same time in the Buffyverse:. -- Paxomen 00:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I find this to be a useful tool and I hope that it stays - having a comprehensive reference of how all the buffyverse sources and stories fit together is highly helpful and, I believe, appropriate. Tambourineman 20:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)tambourineman

If we have suggestions to change the chronology, where do we bring them? For instance, I'd suggest that Buffy 4x01 (The Freshman) come before rather than after Angel 1x01 (City of) because of the phone call that takes place between them (Buffy answering "Hello? Hello?" which is near the end of 4x01 but the beginning of 1x01). For this and other suggestions, where do I bring them? Kimpire 19:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Buffy cast image

Hi, I recently managed to get this image Image:Buffy The Vampire Slayer cast.jpg to be released under a free license. Unfortunately it doesn't has Sarah Michelle Gellar on it. (to make it more complete). Perhaps it also could be used to replace some fair use images of the actors in it. Since I am not much into Buffyverse or photoshop I was hoping I could delegate the work of placing it in article space and or photoshopping to this project. :) Garion96 (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It very much -does- have SMG in it. Far right, in Joss' arm. I know it's hard to see her now that she weighs 47 pounds, but she's there. - CheNuevara 02:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work though! - CheNuevara 02:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As the image label says, that's not SMG next to Joss, it's Michelle Trachtenberg. --Jwwalker 16:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume Che was making a funny. Kusonaga 16:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Me? Never! :) - CheNuevara 16:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And some more. I put them in this category on commons. Commons:Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Garion96 (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer cast and crew

This category has been listed for deletion (AGAIN) at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 29. Please participate in the "discussion". Tim! 22:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that the result was not delete, but still feel that only using categories here has limitations. So I have created a fairly basic List of Buffyverse cast and crew article which could benefit from further expansion (e.g. a brief description of a sentence or two on the role of each cast/crew member)

Featured article candidate review: Buffy article

Hi

Just letting people know that the article 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' is undergoing review to be a featured article. It might even be possible to get the article on the front page on March 10th 2007, (10th anniversary of Buffy - 10 years since "Welcome to the Hellmouth" was first seen).

Any feedback you can offer to improve the article and/or to either object or support the nomination, would be wonderful. Thanks -- Paxomen 18:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Buffy nomination restarted: A huge amount of editing has gone into this article over the past few weeks, but you can still help improve it by improving the use of language and eliminating any bad grammar you find. Have a look at the article Buffy article and you might be interested in voting to object/support to the page becoming a Featured article. -- Buffyverse 23:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Category rename discussion

Just FYI, there's a discussion of the category Category:Vampire Slayers and the term Buffyverse here. Cheers, Pegship 19:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

stubs for deletion

This is just to let you know that the following stubs related to WP:BUFFY are being proposed for deletion. I can see that the only official stub you have listed is {{Buffyverse-stub}} and that stub is not in danger. Feel free to voice your opinion on the appropriate SFD page. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The list seems to be missing somehow (probably a copy-paste error). Anyway, the templates and categories Amalas was referring to are:

{{Angel-episode-stub}} / Category:Angel episode stubs
{{Buffy-episode-stub}} / Category:Buffy episode stubs
{{Whedon-stub}}

Please note that stub templates are used on articles less than 10 sentences long. By the definition of some editors, the standard is three sentences in length. Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 12:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Buffyverse wiki

I've created a new wiki for Buffyverse content at wikiasite:buffy. It is not for encyclopedic content and doesn't aim to duplicate Wikipedia. Instead, the articles are mostly made up of trivia and quotes sections which can be expanded to include unverifiable material and original research, which wouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia. At the moment, the site doesn't have much original content since I basically took a cut down version of 700 Wikipedia articles to get it started - usually cutting out the extended episode summaries and most non-trivia sections. See the About page for more details. I hope some people from this WikiProject will join the new wiki and help to ensure it develops into a useful resource by and for fans for everything that Wikipedia can't provide. We also need some new admins there, so let me know if you'd like to volunteer for that. Angela . 15:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

- I have already begun contributing to the wikia. I believe the site should follow the model of Memory Alpha and Wookipedia, balancing encyclopedic knowledge and original research.--Gonzalo84 02:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Naming of episode articles

( [Moved discussion to Episode naming dispute, so that all discussion on the same topic in one place ) - Paxomen 12:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Episode Guide Copyright

Much of the text appearing on Buffy episode descriptions appears identical to text appearing on various fan sites. Can someone verify for me whether or not we actually have permission to use this material? Dragons flight 05:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The users AnGeL X & BuffyGuide gave permission for the use of synopses from their sites (also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffyverse/Episodes#Contributors and their contributions) -- Buffyverse 14:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, AnGeL X's angelicslayer.com seems to cover the material that caught my eye. Since this material often appears as large, unwikified blocks it obviously looks suspicious, but it was hard to tell where it was coming from because the same text often seems to appear on a variety of websites, and there is nothing in the history or talk of the pages I looked at to explain where it was coming from. Dragons flight 15:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this section down to the end of this talk page since this is a current issue. User:BuffyGuide did not have permission to copy text from BuffyGuide.com. See user talk:BuffyGuide. I expect the same might be true of AnGeL X's contributions. This means almost of episode guides are copyright violations dating back to March 2006. Angela . 01:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of these articles are now on deletion review. Angela . 07:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm extremely puzzled and disappointed by this whole situation. I contacted BuffyGuide through http://www.buffyguide.com/mail/contact.shtml to ask whether they were interested in sharing the short summaries on Wikipedia. I offered to create a ghost account called 'BuffyGuide.com' which would represent the site and the respect work (since this was not allowed I created 'BuffyGuide'). I did this with premission and agreement because I told the web master that I did not deserve credit for adding these summaries to Wikipdeia when the much harder work was their creation. My workplace blocks access to email right now, but I'm sure I will still have those emails detailing our correspondence over this issue. I have explained the situation to the user, Actual BuffyGuide here, hopefully this whole situation will be cleared up, because to be honest I am very confused as to why I was told that using the summaries was fine after contacting the site through http://www.buffyguide.com/mail/contact.shtml, and now Actual BuffyGuide are stating that material has been used without permission? I will find those emails later when I have access to my email, and also email the web master again to find out what is going on?

Similarly, I contacted AnGeL X through her email at http://www.angelicslayer.com/angelsoul/main.html, about the use of synopses, and she generously allowed their use on Wikipedia. Once again I offered to setup an account, AnGeL X to make it clear I had not written these synopses, but they had come from the web site, angelicslayer.com. - Paxomen 10:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please can you forward those emails to permissions@wikimedia.org so the Foundation has a record of this? Angela . 12:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to chime in with a very short paraphrase of what I've posted elsewhere - Paxomen did believe that he had my permission, but it wasn't actually me who granted that permission (not his fault). And the GFDL is indeed the reason why I'm not granting it now - I'm just not prepared to offer my work up to the whole world. -- Actual BuffyGuide 07:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I just removed every single piece of text added by the user Buffyguide. AnGeL X is another matter (do we know for certain that's a copyright violation yet?), but Buffyguide is dealt with.--Nalvage 05:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to 'Actual BuffyGuide' for explaining what happened at your discussion page by showing the email you just sent me there. For those not in the know, the whole sitch so far:

1: In March this year, I emailed BuffyGuide.com web master, and asked if Wikipedia could use the summaries under a 'BuffyGuide' account. I received emails (plural) back from the web master's email account confirming this. In these emails the person who sent the emails back to me, even signed their name as her.

2: Believeing I had the permission to do this, and never even thinking there would be a possibility of any problem, I created the 'BuffyGuide' account and used it only to create brief summaries for episode articles.

3: In past few days, the web master created the wiki account, User:Actual BuffyGuide, and said that material was taken without permission.

4: User:Centrx became aware of 'Actual BuffyGuide' and deleted many Buffy episode articles

5: I emailed the web master in a state of confusion (Actual BuffyGuide), she has since emailed me back after finding emails in her own inbox giving permission to me. She has said she was unaware of the emails and that it is most likely that over the period of a few days a family member repeatedly hacked into her email account and pretended to be her, (see User talk:Actual BuffyGuide).

6: Nalvage sensibly deleted the additions made by the 'BuffyGuide' account as copyvios.

7: I have emailed her back and asked if she could appeal directly to User:Centrx to return the deleted Buffy episode articles at least the versions before March 2006, and preferably the most recent versions simply with the 'Summary' section removed. IMO those Buffy Season 1 articles were all done really well, much better than most buffyverse episode articles.

On AnGeL X: Unless someone also hacked into "AnGeL X"s email account without her knowing, and emailed me back pretending to be AnGeL X, we have her permission and support to use her synopses. In fact I re-read the emails we sent to each other yesterday, and found out after I had emailed asking for use of synopses, she suggested setting up an account called 'AnGeL X' for me to add the synopses. Nonetheless, under the current circumstances it's best I email her tonight and ask if she would be kind enough to also send an email to permissions@wikimedia.org, and/or maybe even put a brief note on her web site somewhere stating that the synopses can be used at Wikipedia, and so hopefully I will hear back from her within a few days. -- Paxomen 10:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Asking if the "synopses can be used at Wikipedia" is not enough. People need to understand that they will be releasing their text under the GFDL and all that entails. It is not simply a matter of us using their text here on Wikipedia. It will be used on numerous mirrors, forks etc and may even be used commercially. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That's true, & I've emailed her about GFDL, and the synopses, and shall await a response. - Paxomen 12:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Lists of Slayers

As well as the basic list of Slayers on the Slayer (Buffyverse) page, and the list on the Potential and new Slayers page, we've also got:
1. Other vampire slayers
2. Buffyverse Slayer timeline, and
3. Buffyverse Slayer timeline (canon)
..with number 1. on that list being kinda like a half-complete version of number 2., for instance having some Slayers from Tales of the Slayers but not all. Is having all these lists too confusing? --Nalvage 12:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. There really is no need for the other vampire slayers page, if most of that info would be incorporated into the timeline articles. It's a rather redundant article, since the timeline articles are much more complete. Kusonaga 12:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ditto on 'Other vampire slayers' being merged where needed to timelines. Not sure what we should do with 'Potential and new Slayers'? - Paxomen 12:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding that article in too. Kusonaga 13:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just shifted the list on Slayer (Buffyverse) onto the timeline page, and also added some info from Other vampire slayers. So the Other vampire slayers page is now redundant, and can probably be deleted. I'll go chase up any links to it and make them link to the timeline page instead. The Potential and new Slayers page has a lot of info, perhaps too much to simply add to the timeline without serious editing. I'll leave that for others ;)--Nalvage 15:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Other vampire slayers page is still sat there kinda uselessly. Someone more au fait with the deletion or redirection process might want to deal with it. Also, I just found the page Princess Amirah. An incredibly minor character, appearing only once in one comic, with barely anything else mentioned on the page, and, oh yeah, the name Princess Amirah comes from someone's fanfic. Kill it?--Nalvage 00:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For the moment it's a redirect unless anyone wants to do something else with the page. What worries me, is that if/when non-Buffy people see articles about very minor characters like that, whole articles with only a few lines of uncited content, it damages the reputation of Buffyverse wikipedia articles as a whole, because it makes them seem more pointless. So IMO if I see articles like this spring up, I am happy to nip them in the bud, by merging, and not waste the time of professional editors devoting time to AfD when those editors could be improving the encyclopedia.

Here is all the content I removed:

Princess Amirah is a Vampire Slayer from the Buffyverse. She was a Slayer during the 1870s. She is first seen in Joss Whedon's Fray No. 3.

I'm guessing Fray is the only place (in canon & officially licensed stories) that we can be sure she appears? I presently don't have access to Fray, what do we know is confirmed by Whedon's comic about this character, the (1870s) date? If not, then there may not even be enough to need to merge content elsewhere? - Paxomen 02:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's all a bit sketchy. In The Origin, Merrick mentions an "Indian princess" being a previous Slayer, but says nothing else about her. In Fray, there's one panel with an Indian Slayer in it, who looks like she could possibly be a princess. And that's it. No date or any other info mentioned. Could be from novels/short stories though.--Nalvage 03:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, there's no Princess Amirah in Tales of the Slayer (the prose short stories). I have a feeling she's only in Fray, and the "Indian princess" Merrick mentions might be the same character but could potentially be a completely different character. If any one can cite another source she appears in (uncanon but officially licensed literature), then we could mention her. IMO since we can't confirm any information like a name or date we don't need to include this information, but if anyone feels different then the information could be included somewhere on an appropiate page. What I might try to do later is scan in the Fray comic panel which includes many slayers and include it on the few appropiate pages like the slayer timelines and Slayer (Buffyverse). - Paxomen 12:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 23:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Episode articles

I think now might be a good time to discuss how we want to structure the episode articles. There have been some recent changes to Buffy Season 1 by User:Redsignal.

E.g. Welcome to the Hellmouth, The Witch, and most of Buffy Season 1 episodes

In brief, Redsignal is making them much shorter. This involes deleting and removing certain sections & content including 'Cut dialogue' (from Watcher's Guides or published shooting scripts), 'Arc significance', 'Writing', 'Cultural references' and 'Production details'. I think we we should try to cite and/or improve rather than delete.

I think we should make an effort to comment on these matters and reach a consensus, because there is no point in people working on episode articles, then seeing their work deleted.

Do we want to try to create, maintain and cite sections like 'Writing', 'Production details', 'Arc significance'? (Also structurally, do we want 'Music' and 'Translations' to appear as subsections within 'Production details'?) Or do we want simple short articles? -- Buffyverse 10:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should keep the information in there as there is more to an episode than simply the plot and actors, which is essentially what alot of these are becoming. As far as the structure of the article, I prefer the individual sections as the stand out easier when scanning through an article, but either way is fine with me. Gatorsong 04:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There are problems with a lot of the episode articles; the summaries are, by and large, too long. There is a lot of (at least potential) copyright issue in there. Things do definitely need to be sourced. But relevant and verifiable information should stay in. - Che Nuevara 20:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gatorsong. I prefered the layout and the summaries before the most recent edits. In fact, the only reason I made a Wiki account was to comment on the recent changes because I couldn't find information that had been recently deleted. I'm very new to Wiki and appreciate all the hardwork that goes into creating these articles. I hate seeing it disappear. QuinnZadok 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added a note on Redsignal's Talk page to let them know that the issue has been raised here.--Nalvage 15:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would think that (if properly sourced) those topics would add needed out-of-universe context, no? I think they should be there, and we should have a task list of what needs to be done to improve them. Riverbend 15:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Fluffy the English Vampire Slayer

Fluffy the English Vampire Slayer is up for deletion. Appreciated if people could have a look at the article, then read through the comments at the deletion forum, before voting.

-- Paxomen 12:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

RESULT: SURVIVAL.

Template:Buffycanon

Template:Buffycanon is up for deletion. It's generally used at the top of articles of uncanon materials such as unused scripts, novels, video games, most of the comics.. Appreciated if people could have a look at the use of the template (e.g. see top of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (film)), then read through the comments at the deletion forum, before voting. -- Paxomen 16:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

RESULT: DELETION.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer adult parodies

One for just the grown-ups here, but Buffy the Vampire Slayer adult parodies is up for deletion. Appreciated if those people who won't be offended by such an article (it's about the 4 pornographic spoofs of Buffy) could have a look at the article, Buffy the Vampire Slayer adult parodies then read through the comments at the deletion forum, before voting.

-- Buffyverse 20:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

RESULT: SURVIVAL.

Buffyverse fanfilms

Buffyverse (Fan made productions) is up for deletion.

In addition,related articles are also nominated for deletion, the Buffyverse fan films: Forgotten Memories, Consanguinity, and Cherub.

Would be hugely appreciated if people are willing to have a look at these articles, and get involved in the discussions to either Keep, Merge, or Delete. -- Paxomen 12:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

-- Buffyverse 20:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

RESULT: UNDETERMINED (as of now Delete 5, Keep 1)

Cover images

Take the The Curse (Angel comic) page. That's just WAY too many images. They serve no encyclopedic use. We really need someone to go through those articles and take out the redundant images and get them deleted. It's A) not pretty and B) not necessary. Kusonaga 10:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Then change it: either re-arrange it or delete the excess images. But make sure you go through all the Angel comics to make sure it's uniform with the others. -- Majin Gojira 16:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Created by

In the info boxes on the character pages there's a "Created by" line, but there isn't total consistency. Most just say Joss Whedon, but some say Joss and the writer of the episode the character first appeared in. So, should they all have that extra writer's name? Or none? And if Joss is there by virtue of being the creator, then I guess Greenwalt should be credited on all the Angel character pages. But if Joss is there as the Exec. Producer, then Noxon and Minear should probably make appearances too.--Nalvage 17:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Do you want every character's page to have the name of the writer of his first episode? - NP Chilla 18:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently some do already. What I'm suggesting is that there should be consistency on that score. There doesn't seem to have been a decision made as to whether they should or shouldn't, or why Whedon's name is there but not Greenwalt's or Noxon's or Minear's. Thought I'd ask people's opinions on which names should be present--Nalvage 05:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean now. Hmm... I honestly don't know what would be the right thing to do; but I would say it's worth mentioning somewhere in a character;s article. - NP Chilla 13:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the writer of a character's first episode is not neccessarily hugely involved in the original conception of a character , that character may have been conceived by the group of writers (see Buffy the Vampire Slayer#Writing, the plot is very much constructed by the group rather than the individual) or by someone else (likely Whedon in most cases for important characters). E.g. I recently read that Whedon had thought up the character of "Fred" a long time before she was used on Angel (Havens, Candace, Joss Whedon: The Genius Behind Buffy Benbella Books (May 1, 2003), page 113.) . She first appeared in "Belonging", but the episode writer, Shawn Ryan may not have had that much input into Fred's character, and he arguably would not deserve a "Created by" credit on "Fred". The safest thing we could put in the "Created by" line IMO would be "Mutant Enemy", unless we know from a reliable source specifically who deserves to be credited with the characters creation. -- Paxomen 12:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Buffyverse fictional locations up for deletion

User:KnightLago seems to be putting most of the fictional locations in the Buffyverse up for deletion as fancruft, including The White Room (Buffyverse), Hellmouth (Buffyverse), Hellmouth (Buffyverse), The Magic Box, and Caritas (Buffyverse). Thought the project might like to know. Static Universe 23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

See discussion below. KnightLago 20:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Buffy location proposal

The following below 4 articles have been nominated for deletion. As these articles stand now they are un-referenced (making verifiability difficult) and full of what is arguably original research. After a discussion on the varied AFD pages, we are now talking about making a single page where they may better be looked after under one roof. This would enable important locations in the Buffy world to be added and cited properly.

The proposal includes the above text, and the following:

We hereby propose redirecting the old below articles to a new single central Buffy location article, and starting anew. The new article, with a title suggested by NeilEvans of Locations in the Buffyverse, would be a new article detailing the central locations in the Buffyverse. It is our hope that by consolidating the important locations of the Buffy world we can start anew with references and proper citations. We would then redirect the articles old individual names to the new article dealing with Buffy locations.

This is a compromise proposal and a work in progress at that. It was brought here for the people who know the subject matter. Hopefully we can shape a proposal and then move forward with a consensus. I would ask for Support, Oppose, or Comment. KnightLago 21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I added notes to each article's discussion page about this proposal. KnightLago 21:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Support KnightLago 21:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - If the article cannot be added to and improved then they should be redirected to the suggested page. If however the locations are significant to the plot of the series as a whole, such as Hellmouth or Sunnydale High, then those pages should be kept, as they play key roles in all, if not most episodes of the series.--NeilEvans 21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If the articles such as Hellmouth, or Sunnydale are an integral part of the plot, and not something that could be covered in a central article I would be ok with keeping them as stand alone articles. If, and only if, they can be re-written with sourced and cited material. If we want to go with this proposal I will withdraw my AFD for Hellmouth and add the appropriate unreferenced and cleanup tags and see how the article develops from there. KnightLago 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Makes sense to me. Zahir13 17:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I copied/moved the proposal over to the Village pump here. It is my hope that by putting it there more people will see it and comment on it. I think it best if the discussion continue over there. KnightLago 03:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Buffy related page move for Anthony Stewart Head

See Talk:Anthony Stewart Head. Please add your thoughts. Whatever they maybe. 205.157.110.11 04:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Angel Infoboxes

If people would care to assist in replacing {{Infobox Angel Television episode}} with the parent template {{Infobox Television episode}}, I would be very grateful. The "List of Angel episodes" link needs to be added to almost all of them btw. I also notice several articles with more then one image in the Infobox. General MoStyle rules apply just as much in these articles. One image in the infobox, the rest dispersed throughout the articles. Please make minimal use of these Fair Use images. This is part of an effort to condense the amount of "Infobox show episode" templates. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

CFD notice

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please also note Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 20 for a review of the decision regarding Category:Actors by series. Tim! 08:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ben Wilkinson?

The page for Ben (who may be related to Glory in some way) gives his last name as "Wilkinson." What is the source for this? He is only refered to by his first name during season 5.

There was a Dr. Wilkinson in season 2's 'Killed by Death' but she is clearly not Ben.

In 'Weight of the World' we see his name tag, but it isn't clear enough to actually read. His signature on the tag clearly does begin with a 'W' but the rest of it looks like a squiggle with only one character with a full height ascender. The printed name is nearly completely illegible, but looks closer to "Williams" to me: Screen capture of name tag Don Sample 01:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Just did a quick Google search, see if that turned up anything, and the most relevant results were instances of you asking the same question elsewhere. Looks like a bit of fanfic that sneaked in long enough ago for everyone to assume it must have a source. --Nalvage 02:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked the editor who added the surname, and apparently it comes from that source of all wisdom, IMDb. I'll remove it if no-one has any objections. --Nalvage 21:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' article as 'Today's featured article' on March 10 (10th anniversary)? & 'Angel (TV series)' article for GA status?

There is a special wiki-page (at 'Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests') to request for a specific featured article to be on the front page of Wikipedia, and requests can be made for specific dates. I have requested that the Buffy article be 'Today's featured article' on March 10, 2007. If it succeeds then it will be on the main page of Wikipedia on that date, which is the 10th anniversary since Buffy first aired. The anniversary has been mentioned by Whedonesquers (e.g. regarding the 10th anniversary trading cards, and here), and I think it would be great if the article does get slotted into this date. If anyone agrees that the article Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a very high-quality article that deserves to be shown on the front page on that date, then they can write Support (in bold) and a comment under the nomination, about why the article deserves to be featured - this can be done at the page, 'Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests'. E.g. the Firefly request there (for any date) currently has 5 'supports'. If some people support the nomination it will be more likely that the very busy "Featured Article Director", Raul654 takes it into account and fits the Buffy article into his 'Today's featured article' schedule for March 10.

The Angel article had some considerable improvement between the November 24 version and December 31 version, including the new images, and many completely new sections (Origins, Executive producers, Writing, Music, Setting, Format, Themes, Plot Summary, Characters, DVDs), and has continued to improve since. For that reason I have nominated it for 'Good article' status. Anyone who has not contributed to the article can read the the criteria and review it at 'Wikipedia:Good article candidates' if they wish. -- Paxomen 16:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:King Bee kindly reviewed the Angel article at Talk:Angel (TV series)#Failed "good article" nomination. King Bee gave it B class, it failed the GA status for reasons that be seen in his review. In summary there are some unreferenced/missing quotes, too many brackets, and too many long sentences. With some work in the coming weeks the article may be improved enough to rise to GA status. - Paxomen 14:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:COMIC crossover (season eight)

In dealing with Buffy the Vampire Slayer season eight, to make sure this article comes out a very high quality, collaboration with WP:COMIC members will be necessary. The article has only just been created and will require expansion as new information presents itself.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

CFD notice

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_16#Category:Television_producers_by_series for a category deletion nomination of Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer producers. Tim! 07:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep — that would be the category I created earlier tonight. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please also note Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_16#TV_writers_by_series Tim! 08:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD of Buffyverse chronology

The articles Buffyverse chronology, Buffyverse chronology (2), and Buffyverse chronology (2) are up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffyverse chronology. If anyone can add clarifying comments as to the purpose of the lists, their relation to the Buffyverse article, or possibly address the concerns raised in the nomination, please do so. A massive amount of effort seems to have gone into these three articles and although I am familiar with the canon Buffyverse, I may not be entirely qualified to make a judgment on the article, as it seems to go beyond the canon. Any clarifications at the AfD would help. Thank you, Black Falcon 05:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

On referencing - Do people think that the bulk of referencing can be done by some brief notes at the end of the articles with specific references citing sources only for selected entries on the list? Or is it necessary to give a reference for every item on the list? -- Paxomen 14:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dracula

Since he's appeared quite a few times now in comics, would it be feasible to make a Dracula (Buffyverse) article? He's quite a notable character.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is enough information about his character to warrant an article then go ahead and make it.--NeilEvans 16:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I fear that given his own article, it may become a target for deletion. Maybe better to merge into 'Minor characters of Buffy the Vampire Slayer'. Although he appears in the IDW Angel comics, he is better known from "Buffy vs. Dracula". However there might be a case for unifying Buffy and Angel character articles somewhere down the line because there is so much overlap, but this is unlikely to be done any time soon. On Dracula, by chance I started this a while back but have since been sidetracked. Here's a solid starting point if anyone wishes to continue on this, but it needs to be fleshed out: -- Paxomen 22:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC) :

{{Infobox Buffyverse Character|
 Image=<!--[[Image:Dracula (Buffyverse).jpg|140px]]-->|
 Title=Dracula|
 First=[[Buffy vs. Dracula (Buffy episode)|Buffy vs. Dracula]]|
 Last=[[Buffy vs. Dracula (Buffy episode)|Buffy vs. Dracula]]|
 Creator=|
 Name=Dracula|
 Status=Undead|
 Affiliation= Romanov clan|
 Kind=Vampire |
 Powers=Immortality, bat/wolf transformation, and mind control.|
 Actor=Rudolf Martin|
}}

Dracula is a vampire character, best known as the title character of Bram Stoker's 1897 novel. The character also is widely used within popular culture and is used in the Buffyverse^[1], and been adopted by Joss Whedon, the creator of the fictional universe. He first appears in this regards in the Buffy episode, "Buffy vs. Dracula", and later in comics Tales of the Vampires (specifically, in "Antique"), and Spike vs. Dracula. He is also referenced in the comic, Old Times, and the novel, Blackout.

In the (uncanon) comic, Spike vs. Dracula, it is revealed that Dracula has connections to the gypsy clan that cursed Angel with a soul. He is an acquaintance of Anya Jenkins, and Spike claims he is a sell-out of the vampire world, fond of magic and Hollywood. The vampire popularised by Bram Stoker in the Dracula novel is also used as a basis for the ideas in the show, primarily the methods in which vampires are killed. In an episode called "Buffy vs. Dracula". Buffy Summers, having "seen his movies", waits after first killing him, noting that he "always comes back".

That's excellent!, only I would probably start it "Dracula is a fictional character in .... based upon Bram Stoker's..." Still, I feel like we know more about him than The Immortal and could probably find a decent fair use picture, too!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to chop and change however you feel appropiate. The image for Buffy episode 5x01 already features the Drac: Image:Buffy501.jpg -- Paxomen 16:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

'Buffy' article is on Wikipedia front page on March 10

It has been mentioned on the appropiate talk page already but I felt it is also worth alerting the WikProBuff. The featured article, Buffy the Vampire Slayer will be on the front page of Wikipedia on March 10, which is exactly 10 years after the premiere Buffy episode was first aired on March 10, 1997. It will be worth keeping this article in top-notch condition and vandalism-free. Howver it may also be good to make sure all of our articles as good as possible around this time, as traffic on Buffy articles maybe significantly higher than usual as newbies read the Buffy article and click on related wikilinks. I'd guess that related articles with highest traffic might include:

The article which I believe would benefit most in the next few days from some work is the 'Joss Whedon' one, which has been rated only 'Start-Class' on the talk page. It also has been given the tag "contains original research or unattributed claims". It'd be great if this article received some more attention and was brought up to a higher standard by project members before March 10. For examples of good (featured) articles of TV/film execitives, potential templated that the 'Whedon' article could follow, see James T. Aubrey, Jr., Kroger Babb, Anthony Michael Hall, Peter Jennings, and Abbas Kiarostami. -- Paxomen 16:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's on front page of Wikipedia for the whole of today!

On the not so good side, it has already had one attempt at vandalism, here's hoping any more gets reverted quickly. -- Paxomen 00:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

i just wanted to say that i'm aware of the various garbage you guys have dealt with in the past and wanted to congratulate you on getting your main article featured! Way to go! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 03:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

==Two beasts?==

There are two articles Glorificus and The Beast (Buffyverse). I don't know much about the series (I patrol Beast (disambiguation)). Are these two the same character. Are there two "The Beast"s in the buffyverse? Someone made a link to Glorificus from Beast (disambiguation), and I've changed it to The Beast (Buffyverse). So, that should be resolved there I think, either with a hatnote or something else. I won't be watching this page, but if you have any questions, let me know on my talk page or on the beast dab page. McKay 15:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

They are two seperate entities. One is only known as "The Beast" and the other is called that by a group of her enemies. -- Majin Gojira 18:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding characters in Season Eight

Now that the first issue of Season Eight has come out, "The Long Way Home, Part 1," what do we do regarding the pages of characters appearing in said issue when it comes to "last appearances"? For example, does the "Last appearance" section on Buffy's page go from "Chosen" to "The Long Way Home, Part 1"?

Considering the comic is canon, I think this is something to consider, but I wanted to ask before doing so.

If we do agree to do so, this should be done for Buffy, Xander, Dawn, and Amy. - Whedonite 17:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. The Serenity people have Objects in Space leading into Serenity: Those Left Behind leading into Serenity (film). It's all one canonical story. Although I can imagine some people who wish not to consider the comic "real" will occasionally come along and remove stuff.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. They will have little justifiation if they do, however, considering that the main 'canon' of the Buffyverse is decided by Joss. If he says it's canon, it's canon. -- Majin Gojira 15:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

But do we need to say what part, I'd say just the story arc would be preferable, as in The Long Way Home (rather than "The Long Way Home part 1")? -- Paxomen 03:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

An Arc is roughly equivalent to an episode in terms of covering a story. There's no way it would be practical to have individual articles covering single issues of a comic that did not contain a singel story. Hell, most comics don't get their own articles to be truthfull about it. By Arc (or by collection) is probably the best method to handle it, minimizing the number of articles. -- Majin Gojira 05:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

what about the one-offs then? after TLWH, whedon will write one issue that will be a one-off before the new arc starts... should we have a one-off page to put all of those instead of making their own pages?! -Xornok 19:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Split needed

Potential and new Slayers needs splitting into Potential Slayers and New Slayers since they're too different things and the various characters like Rowenna and Leah may eventually require coverage. I think that explaining what a Potential is and who the new Slayers are on one page is very, very confusing. They'd work better as two separate articles, one describing what a Potential is and ending with how "Chosen" changed the rules, and another about what a new Slayer is, why they're there, briefly mentioning the old Potential system and moving onto list the new Slayers...~Zythe^{Talk to me!}

Up at the #Lists of Slayers section there was discussion about having too many Slayer pages. We cut them down a bit, but as more Slayers are introduced in the comic, they're still gonna be added to three pages; Potential and new Slayers, Buffyverse Slayer timeline, and Buffyverse Slayer timeline (canon). Splitting off another Slayer page, in addition to Slayer (Buffyverse) makes sense for the reasons you mention, but it perhaps leaves us with Slayer overkill. --Nalvage 20:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the idea of covering "Potential and new Slayers" may not be the best way to cover the information. The problem is that since they don't become real slayers until the finale of TV Buffy, many fans still think of them as potentials, when really they are not anymore. However I agree with Nalvage, and others in the earlier discussions, we need to streamline all this information about slayers, not create more articles at this point. Here's an idea, we expand the subsection at Slayer (Buffyverse)#Potential Slayers - so that it contains all the information needed to know about what a 'Potential Slayer' is (e.g. the Watchers look for them, they train them in order to prepare in case they are called...). This would involve moving the complete subsection Potential and new Slayers#Character history. That section is not excessively big, and could comfortably be moved.

And these 'Potential slayers' are not really potentials following "Chosen" and going into the comics. So I think we should merge information about the newest slayers into the timelines. Finally we won't need the article "Potential and new Slayers" at all, it can be turned into a redirect to Slayer (Buffyverse)? When we need to we can still direct people to the section with all the new slayers by directing them to 'Buffyverse Slayer timeline#21st century AD. We could even have a little sub-section in this section of the timelines mentioning what Willow did to make so many new slayers. What do people think of doing this? -- Paxomen 03:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, from everyone's inputs my thoughts are delete the "canon" article and list uncanon ones in italics on the other article. Redirect Potential and new to Slayer (Buffyverse)#Potential Slayer etc. Could Slayer timeline just be turned into a tiny little expand-downwards template anyway, a couple of the Slayer names being linked? I think as season eight continues, I think we may have to include more on Leah, who Buffy seems to reference as a friend to Dawn, and that one Xander was flirting with etc. We could also merge in Dana (Buffyverse), too.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is just my personal opinion, but I'm still not convinced we have a need for the page 'New Slayers' in its current state, it leads to doubling of information, and splits editing about the same thing, since it overlaps with Buffyverse Slayer timeline#21st century AD. The content ends up similar but slightly different to information in the subsection of the timelines. Why not merge the information into Buffyverse Slayer timeline#21st century AD. It's early days yet, it maybe that Whedon et al have little or no desire to give much character background on new slayers for months (maybe years) to come? If later the article improves in its content and in its referencing we could spin it back into its own sub-page, an article "New Slayers"?

On changing the canon article to a redirect to the bigger timeline? I could cope with the idea of just having one, and distinguishing non-canon slayers/information by italics (or distinguishing in another way) and referencing where the slayers appear? But is there support for such an idea. -- Paxomen 00:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple of concerns about merging the timelines. One is that the full timeline has a large amount of information from slightly dubious sources. The bulk of it was taken from someone else's timeline on the net, which contained info from their own fanfic. The obvious stuff has been removed, but there may still be some there. Also, it says Mary O Brien is in The Origin, but the Slayer I assume it's referring to is unnamed, so that name's coming from an unspecified elsewhere. It used to have a specific year for the Righteous Slayer, even though the relevant story mentions no year. I removed it, but I wasn't quite sure if it was coming from some comic/book I hadn't read. A lot of the page is like that, full of info which isn't fully sourced. In comparison, the canon page is all referenced, spruced up, and up to date, so I'd hate to see it lost in favour of, or subsumed completely into, a much less sourced and worked on version.

Also... distinguishing between canon and non-canon stuff could be messy. The Chinese Slayer from Fool for Love is canon, but her name and other bio info comes from elsewhere. So, is she not in italics cos she's canon? Or in italics cos most of her info isn't? Is her name in italics? Is her section crammed with explanatory footnotes? --Nalvage 00:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the two timelines should be merged (although which way I do not know, I don't see anything wrong with a lengthy one that cites the sources they come from to let the reader decide how "official" they are) and I have redirected New Slayers to the 21st century bit of the main (lengthier) timeline article. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless one of us regular Buffy editors goes and reads all the novels and comics, I suspect that most of the timeline info will sit there with uncertain sources indefinitely, but... yeah, okay. I'll do some work on the rest when I get the chance. --Nalvage 01:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read Tales of the Slayers (comic) and Tales of the Slayer (prose) Volumes 1, 2 and 4 (but I have vol. 3 as well) and think that most of the shorts are quite enjoyable so would recommend and encourage anyone interested to check them out (likely easily available from Libaries/Amazon/Ebay). I will also gradually help with non-canon sources, whilst continuing with my ongoing task of referencing the recently survived Buffyverse chronology.

We could disinguish information as well as slayers E.g. the name Xin Rong does not come from a canon source but the character is a part of canon. The Xin Rong name could be moved into the body of text for this slayer rather than in the heading of her subsection - and the source of the name mentioned.

I agree that citing is key, and allows facts to be easily checked (if we know where a Slayer appears - in what stories we can confirm and reference them). E.g. The name Mary O'Brian does not seem to be in The Origin, and I removed the name. -- Paxomen 03:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Play around

Please edit User:Zythe/Template:Buffychrons8 until we get something final. Add anything you think of to the bottom as a new potential template. Obviously we can't use anything yet because only s8 #1 is out, but still.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Angel Television episode

Template:Infobox Angel Television episode has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. NOTE: The intention is not to fully delete, but to substitute in on the pages. — --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 03:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Slayer (Buffyverse)" changes

Hello all, I recently made my first venture into Wikipedia editing after trying and failing to find information on Buffy's Scythe.

In short, I edited the Slayer (Buffyverse) article to include a section on Weapons and Equipment. After a quick overview of stakes and the like, I added information on the Scythe based on information from the S7 episodes in which it appears and the Fray comic. After that, I decided that Nikki Wood's "Slayer Emergency Kit" was noteworthy, and included it as well.

Lastly, I decided that the entire article was rather messy, so I decided to "be bold" and make some rather drastic edits. I pared the information in the article down to just what I thought was relevant to the Slayer mythos, removing some of the more Buffy-centric facts and generally clearing out what I felt was unnecessary or redundant information.

I'm pretty happy with the result, but wanted to make those of you who aren't newbies aware of the changes, in case there's anything you wanted to add. --Jeff-El 21:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems good to me. This article really could beneft from more attention. In particular the introduction of a 'Notes and references' section, and the removal of any original research (especialy in 'Strength' section) - Buffyverse 00:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the original research is mostly mine, I've edited the powers and abilities section, removing most "exact" references, numbers and added many episode citations. It's a start. -- Majin Gojira 01:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's great to see some good progress on this article. -- Buffyverse 16:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Joining/Should we have Roll Call to find active members?

I have no idea if this is the actual discussion page to ask this question, but how do I go on about joining WP:Buffy? I've been contributing with images and as much info as I know to many Buffyverse articles, helping with vandalism, etc. for a while now, so I figured I might be a good addition to the team.--The Scourge 14:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

To join go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffyverse#Participants and add your username onto the alphabetical list of particpants. It's always great to see new members help edit the articles and continue in the ongoing efforts to improve the quality of the key articles. Does anyone else think that we should do what the Star Wars Wikiproject does and have a "Roll Call" every few months to find out which project members are still active on Wikipedia and which could be added to a "past members" list? -- Paxomen 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comic scans questions

Should the articles feature scans of what the characters look like now in Season Eight? I imagine Amy, Dawn, Buffy, Xander, Willow etc. are all candidates. Should we treat the Post-Sunnydale section as we would a comics article? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the articles are better-served with the actors' photos whenever possible - with the possible exception of Xander, the characters look more or less the same anyway, and it seems more fitting since the comics are essentially (canonical) spinoffs of the TV show. --Jeff-El 01:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That said, I certainly wouldn't disapprove of scans from the comics that illustrate important (lasting) events in the characters' lives or appearance...I suppose I just don't see the need at this time. --Jeff-El 01:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Vampire pics

I dug out my DVDs and grabbed captures of Angel's "Van-Tal" face on Pylea, as well as a vampire being "dusted" (Angel, as a matter of fact) for the Vampire entry. I also used the existing server pictures of Spike's vamp face and The Master to illustrate a traditional vampire and an old vampire, respectively.

I feel that these are all the pictures necessary to the understanding of the Vampire article.

Please let me know if I did anything inappropriate with the pictures, I'm not too familiar with usage rules and would rather not get into trouble. --Jeff-El 01:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You can read up on the topic at 'Wikipedia:Fair use'. Some of the best justified ones are on the Buffy the Vampire Slayer article, because that article is a 'featured' one which demands that it's images are adequately justified. It's best to add not only a summary but also source information and a section entitled "Fair use rationale for use in '...' article" with bullet-pointed justfications. That will reduce the chances of the image police tagging/deleting images uploaded. -- Paxomen 12:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"Watcher" article

I know it's been suggested before, but I'd like to propose that the articles for "Watcher" and "Watchers' Council" be merged.

I just finished cleaning up the Council page considerably, and when I did so I added the information from the "Watcher" article. It seems pretty redundant to me to maintain both articles, and I think that adding information on what a Watcher is into the Council article is the way to go.

I'm really not sure how to formally suggest this, but please let me know what you think. --Jeff-El 03:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on the article. But I'd suggest that if the pages are merged it should be under the banner of Watcher (Buffyverse) with a section on the council, rather than Watcher's Council with a section on what a Watcher is. --Nalvage 11:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice cleaning the article Jeff-El. It's a tough call choosing which way to merge. But perhaps having 'Watcher (Buffyverse)' would be better since it would be a counterpoint article to the 'Slayer' article. Also the idea of some kind of 'Watcher' is far older than the Watchers' Council. The Shadowmen were probably 'watching' at least centuries before the English Watcher's Council existed in the form it appears in Buffy. -- Buffyverse 16:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have merged Shadow Men and Watcher's Council into the Watcher (Buffyverse) as decided above. -- Paxomen 11:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That's great but I think it would be better if Shadow Men and Watcher were merged into Watchers' Council as the council is the main topic of the page. What do you think.--NeilEvans 23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that the merger's been done, I'm pretty happy with everything being under "Watcher." It makes sense to discuss what a Watcher is, then go into their origins and the Council, especially in light of the fact that the current status/organization of the Council is up in the air. Jeff-El 23:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

March/April Roll Call

Our list of participants has over 80 names on it, however not everyone on the list is still an active member. Following the example of some of the other effective WikiProjects I feel it maybe useful for this Project to have a "Roll Call" (e.g. see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Wars#November/December Roll call). If anyone objects to this, then the idea can be abandoned.

Everyone who wishes to continue to be an active member of WikiProject Buffyverse could list their names below and optionally mention any special interests they have for the project (e.g. images, episode articles..), or if they are a more general editor. They can also optionally mention anything they have recently been up to.

In mid-April I will put a message on the talk pages of those who have not yet signed on. Those who still have not signed by the end of April could be put on a past members list, they can rejoin if/whenever they wish. I think those inactive members who made big contributions could perhap be awarded with the Buffyverse Barnstar.

After this we will have a more useful list of active members and maybe some info on their special interests. This could help for editors to work together and motivate each other on relevant tasks. E.g. if a newer member of the project was looking for assistance on improving episode articles, they would know who might be interested in helping/collaborating. I'll get the ball rolling by starting the list. -- Paxomen 13:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sign below

Count me in. As someone who supports the underdog, I have a special interest in the novels and comics and think that now the series has finished good novels and comics could help keep the franchise alive. But I also have a wider interest in seeing progress in all of our articles and have made contributions across mnay of them (and started more than a few). -- Paxomen 13:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
General edits, spelling and grammar, that kind of thing.--NeilEvans 20:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I suppose I'm most interested in the overall (canon) mythology of the Slayer and the universe she inhabits. --Jeff-El 21:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I've got a couple Buffy articles on my Watchlist, but haven't had much time to do more than cursory edits. -- Majin Gojira 01:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I am most interested in writing the summaries for the comic book issues, as it was I who wrote the summary for "The Long Way Home, Part 1." Though I do generally police the articles (Buffy-related or otherwise) that I come across. -- Whedonite 06:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I make the odd edit here and there for Buffy pages but do more reading than editing, and when there is a big debate on an article I like to throw in my opinion which usually involves standing up the project and its work. -- Buffyverse 09:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't done a lot in the past. I'm usually more of a spelling and grammar type. I'm currently most interested in working on the comics articles and have been paying a lot of mostly quiet attention to them. -- Siradia 04:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The most I've contributed to many Buffyverse articles were images I've taken with fair use. Besides that, general editing such as errors, vandalism, etc., though my classes have taken most of my time away from Wiki. There's still interest. I do have many articles on my watchlist that I keep a close eye on.--The Scourge 17:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Character articles and Season Eight, mostly.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll edit whatever I feel like editing. The end. - NP Chilla 21:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Haven't had much time lately to edit, but want to get back involved. I would love to work on bringing episode summaries in line with whatever guidelines have been expanded upon (I saw something at the bottom of the page about that), and I like to work on character bios and grammar/copyediting. Riverbend 18:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)

I am petitioning to have this page altered to rmeove the restriction against using succession boxes for fictional characters. I think this group has an interest since several related pages for fictional characters are already using these boxes. Please Vote Here.--Dr who1975 18:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Species

I was thinking of documenting the species of demons, doing sub-articles (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_%28Buffyverse%29/*species name*). Is this a good idea? Emperor Jackal 18:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What sort of content do you propose for it? Would it be significantly different from Demon (Buffyverse) or List of Buffyverse villains and supernatural beings? --Jeff-El 23:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, didn't see the last article. Emperor Jackal 16:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As a note. In en.wikipedia.org we do not normally use subpages for articles. subpages are only used within Template, Wikipedia and Talk spaces. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis blanking

For reference, someone has been blanking the synopsis of After Life (Buffy episode). I restored it and posted the following note on its talk page.

While it is an interesting point that tv show synopses may or may not be copyright violations, the solution is not simply to blank one episode. The blanking would have to be discussed either on the series' WikiProject page or at a higher Wikipedia-wide level regarding copyright violations, and applied across the board. I believe the latter is true. samwaltz 18:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Synonpses

It looks like we should be going through all the synopses wikifying them. I have seen darned few internal links. samwaltz 23:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Save Dawn

There is talk of merging Dawn's page into a list of characters page. I think this is pretty ridiculous, when you think how many minor Buffy characters have their own page, but the problem seems to be that she hasn't had enough of a cultural impact to be relevant. If anyone knows any websites or magazine articles which mention Dawn, please put them on the page to save her! Paul730 21:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Willow

I recently made lots of edits to Willow's page. Anyone want to take a look and check if they're any good? I'd like to submit this page for a review, but thought I'd see what you all thought first. Paul730 21:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Slayer Central

In Season Eight, Giles comments would indicate that Buffy and Xander's organisation seems to be the next stage of evolution of the Watcher's Council, now under their command... or at least, based upon the remnants of it. How would we incorporate that into Watcher (Buffyverse)?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Does the Scooby Gang even exist anymore? All of it's members are either dead or scattered across the world, so it's not really the close-knit group it used to be. I think the organisation is just like a big Scooby/Council hybridy thing, so I'm not really sure what to call it anymore. Paul730 06:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering the Scoobies are essentially Buffy, Willow, Xander and Giles, they are still very mcuh together. Kusonaga 17:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Episode coverage

The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles. There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements. Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Wikipedia:Television episodes. We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page. After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles. See: Wikipedia:Television article review process. We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage. Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Season 1 Timeline

Not really sure where to ask about this, so I figured here might be a good starting point. If somebody knows a better place, I'll happily move. Anyhow, this is in regards to the timeline that appears at the bottom of pages for each of the season 1 episodes. It begins with "Welcome to the Hellmouth" taking place in the fall of 1996. I was under the impression that Buffy was a mid-year transfer student, arriving at Sunnydale High at the beginning of the second semester, which would be Spring 1997. This would fall in line with the show running only half a season, beginning with the first episode also airing in the Spring of 1997. Not to mention that there's no cold weather episodes, like there are during the subsequent (full) seasons (which would denote Winter), and would also fit with the appearance that school was already underway when she got there (included in such elements as Buffy being the only student who didn't know where her classes were, or that needed textbooks, etc.). Is there something somewhere that instead denotes Buffy having put in a full year at Sunnydale High for her sophomore year, or do others agree with me that Buffy was a mid-year transfer student? And if others agree that the timeline needs to be corrected, is there a simple way to make the changes across the board, or is the best way still to make the changes to one episode and then copy and paste it into the other 12? Nolefan32 01:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Any changes to that timeline are made on this page, Template:Buffchron96-97, and will be reflected on all the pages that feature that template. --Nalvage 01:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The idea of Buffy being a spring transfer student is intriguing, but I can't really say I have an opinion without actually re-watching the first season. I'm curious to see what the opinions of others are on this one. --Jeff-El 01:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, considering that Xander is complaining about having trouble with his math (presumably homework) in his very first scene, I'd say your belief that it is not the first day of school checks out. I'm not sure there's going to be any indication of what time of year it actually is, though.--Jeff-El 01:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Giles says that the Harvest takes place "From out of the crescent moon, the first past the solstice." That places the start of the show sometime in the lunar month following the winter solstice (not the summer solstice because they wouldn't be in school anymore) The latest possible date for it would be January 20th. It must be close to the end of that month, since Buffy is already sixteen. Don Sample 19:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Using Giles' phrase about the crescent moon, I did some searching and found this gem of a web site that attempts to timeline the series based on various statements, etc., in the show (http://members.fortunecity.com/lost_giant/buffy/seas1.htm). This guy guesses, based on various information, that the night of the Harvest was Jan. 10 (you're welcome to read the page yourself to understand why), though that puts it nine days before Buffy's 16th birthday and Joyce does mention in the episode that Buffy is 16 at the time of the Harvest. However, if Buffy's birthday was only a little more than a week away, she could have been accepting her as 16 - not an uncommon practice, especially considering that the 16th birthday is one of the significant ones. Another theory could be that Giles' mumbo-jumbo about the timing of the Harvest could just be a bunch of gobbledegook the writers thought sounded good (which they do a lot - and don't even try to figure out how old Angel or Spike are based on statements in the show, because that constantly changes), and this all actually happens later on, closer to early Spring. After all, I would note that it seemed especially warm for January, even for Sunnydale (except for Amends, when they discuss how unseasonably warm it is, Sunnydale does seem to have rather cool winters based on the coats everyone wears for part of the season every other season). Still, I do think that we can only go on what is said in the episode, and since Giles was good enough to narrow down the timeline in this case, early January 1997 is when Buffy Summers matriculated to Sunnydale High. Nolefan32 04:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I recently had an online discussion about this topic. Cordelia says in the computer lab during "The Harvest" that it is Friday. That same day, Joyce mentions it is Buffy's second day at school. The first waning crescent moon after the winter solstice occures on Wednesday, January 10. However, if one considers that the crescent moon actually begins the moment a new moon ends, meaning the new moon lasts as long as, say, an eclipse in cosmic terms, then the very first sliver of the waning crescent would begin on Saturday, January 6th. This might be enough to fullfill the phrophecy form which Giles is reading. Backtracking form that to the day Buffy first arrives at Sunnydale High, that would put it on Thursday, January 4th. (Possibly the first day back for everyone after the 95 Christmas vacation.) Furthermore, if one assumes that the events with Darla at the very beginning of the episode take place before midnight the night before, then the series can be said to begin on Wednesday, January 3rd, 1996. So, pending an investigation into that opening scene (to see if any clocks are seen to see what time it says, or dialogue hints) the series probably either begins on the 3rd or 4th of January, 1996 - provided one accepts my theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.101.59 (talk) 15:32, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Buffy the movie in the Season 1 Timeline

The Buffy movie is included in the same timeline I mentioned above as taking place summer 1996. That's an odd attempt to retrofit the movie to the series, especially considering that the movie is still considered non-canonical even in the timeline. Seems to me the movie should be deleted, or at least reflect it's correct timing based on its release (Spring 1992). The Origin comic, considering it's purpose actually is to retrofit the movie to the series, can remain 1996 to lead in to the series (though it really should be Spring 1996, not Summer 1996, since it takes place during the school year and the students would be on vacation if it really were Summer it was taking place). Nolefan32 01:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, non-canon works (comics, etc) are generally included in the timeline regardless of canonicity. Interesting point about marking it at 1992 though, I'm curious to see what others have to say about that. --Jeff-El 01:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to add that considering that the film centres around the prom, it's not unreasonable to say that it takes place in (early) summer.--Jeff-El 01:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The first day of Summer is June 21/22; most schools, except perhaps for those that have adopted year-round calendars, have let out by late May early June, long before Summer actually commences. Prom season is during May, which would put it firmly in the Spring. As for the movie, I can understand wanting to include non-canonical works like comics and novels for reflecting how they might fit in the timeline, but there's a big difference between a novel written during the run of the series or after its run that makes every effort to fit into the Buffyverse based on given info at the time (even though it might be contradicted later by a canonical work), and the movie which was produced years prior to the series and thus contradicts it on several major points, most notably making Buffy a senior while she's still at Hemery High. Thus I would consider either (a) deleting the movie altogether, or (b) separating it from the series timeline by somehow making it more distinctly its own entity, and as I noted, correcting its date. Because whether we like it or not, the movie is NOT set in 1996; just add that to the list of ways it contradicts the series. Nolefan32 02:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of changing the year to 1992. Where I come from (which is decidedly not California), school does continue into late June, and having a prom in early summer would not be unusual. Whatever's most appropriate for California works for me. I do think it should be left in the timeline though, even though it's not remotely canonical.--Jeff-El 02:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In Witch Buffy says that she has been slaying vampires "for more than a year now." That places the beginning of the events shown in the movie about a year before the start of the series. I would place the movie in the winter/spring of 1996. Buffy gets kicked out of Hemery, and Joyce doesn't find a new school for her until early winter of 1997, when the series starts. Don Sample 19:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, but canonically speaking, it would be the events of the Origin comic that take place in winter/spring 1996. As the movie was released in 1992, it is probably safe to assume it's also set in 1992.--Jeff-El 22:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I put the movie where I thought it might closest fit regarding character arcs and story arcs rather than strictly time-wise but probably shouldn't have dated it 1996 simply so it could be enforced to the more canonical events. Perhaps there is a need for putting it on the list another way (e.g. 1992)

Generally my feeling is that trying to completely strictly and logically compose the listing, even based on sources such as guidebooks.. would be enough to drive someone crazy, because there is so much contradiction... many of the non-canon stories are placed in a vague area of the narrative rather than at a specific point.

But as people say perhaps this is not the best option. -- Paxomen 00:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal of infobox change

I want to propose that the infoboxes on Circle of the Black Thorn, Initiative and Wolfram and Hart be changed to the {{Infobox Buffyverse Group}} template. This would just make the articles match others dealing with the Buffyverse.--NeilEvans 15:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me.Jeff-El 15:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I will wait a while to see if there is any objection, if not, then I will change them over.--NeilEvans 16:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone went ahead and deleted the Wolfram & Hart infobox on us, so I replaced it with the Buffyverse one. Jeff-El 22:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Canon viewpoints

I'm new here. I'm not sure if this is where I should be posting this. I apologize if I'm posting in the wrong place. I notice that in Doctor Who articles it is noted in the articles when the canonicity of something is debated. In the case of the Buffy stuff I think the Buffyverse Canon and Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight articles should note that many people don't feel the season 8 comics are canon and don't feel anything that's not onscreen is canon. This is a major area of fan opinion and I think it should be noted. I am not saying the articles shouldn't say the comic is canon, only that I think the differing opinion should be mentioned as well, seeing as so many people hold it. Certainly I think an article discussing what's considered canon in the Buffyverse should note a viewpoint a large quantity of fans hold on that. It is after all the rule so many Buffyverse fans go by. There are obviously different definitions of canon and I think that should be noted, with reference to the widely held only-onscreen-is-canon view. (I have also put notes on the talk pages of the relevant articles, so as to put the info where it's relevant. I hope that doesn't count as spamming.)Skynowmore 21:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the Doctor Who articles refer to canon being unclear because that show has no central authority that's made a definitive statement on the canonicity of the various spin-off media. In the case of Buffy season eight, Whedon's made it clear. Fandom's full of arguments and disagreements, we'd need good sources to demonstrate this one's notable. --Nalvage 21:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Skynomore, welcome aboard. Can I assume you've seen the Buffyverse canon article? It's linked from virtually all of the comic and novel pages. I personally think it could use a little cleanup or clarification, i.e. definitively stating which products are considered canon in a simple list, but it's a good starting point nonetheless. Jeff-El 21:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Children of the Senior Partners

This has been raised on the Children of the Senior Partners talk page, but I think it needs to be seen by a few more eyeballs. The article as it is is rather short an pointless...let's face it, we've only seen two of them before and information on them is scarce at best. I certainly don't think they qualify as "key terminology" in the navigation template.In my opinion, the whole thing could/should be merged into the existing Senior Partners article. Jeff-El 23:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Season 3 Episode 3 of Angel (That Old Gang Of Mine): This page needs to be renamed.

There is a Lois and Clark Episode called That Old Gang of Mine, and everytime I try and connect to that page directly, I get the Angel page. Could the That Old Gang of Mine page be renamed so that at least it is ambigous and the user can chose to go to Angel or to LnC? Thanks.D8a 01:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey...I think I did it! Jeff-El 01:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Relationships

I'm starting to get annoyed with the ever-growing list of relationships on the Buffyverse pages. As someone who's guilty of contributing to them, they're too fannish to have any real encyclopedic value and are a breeding ground for pointless trivia and OR. Also, it's not made clear what constitutes a notable relationship. After all; Spike and Anya's one night stand should be included in romantic/sexual relationships. But really, Spike has more of a relationship with Dawn, albeit a platonic one. But then, he also has a strong relationship with Xander, even if is based on hate, so shouldn't that be in there as well? What purpose do they actually serve?

I propose that all "Other relationships" be deleted completely, and "romantic/sexual" sections be drastically reduced. Rather than list every moment of two characters' relationship, briefly state their feelings for each other, and cite any crucial episodes. For example:

Harmony Kendall — Spike and Harmony are involved from Season Four through early Season Five of Buffy. Despite Harmony's obvious adoration of him, Spike frequently ignores and mistreats her. Although he tolerates her annoying habits in return for sex, his constant abuse, endless broken promises, and growing obsession with Buffy eventually bring about their break-up. Spike celebrates his re-corporealisation in Angel Season Five by having sex with Harmony, largely because she was the nearest female available, but she becomes possessed and attacks him, marking the end of their relationship.^[2] Harmony's embarrassing nickname for Spike, "Blondie Bear", is later picked up and used at Spike's expense by Angel^[3] and Gunn.^[2] James Marsters explains that Spike's abusive behaviour towards Harmony stems from his bitterness at all females after being dumped by Drusilla, stating, "It's beyond rebound at that point, it's really revenge."^[4]

should become

Harmony Kendall — Spike and Harmony are involved from Season Four through early Season Five of Buffy. Despite Harmony's obvious adoration of him, Spike frequently ignores and mistreats her, merely tolerating her annoying habits in return for sex. James Marsters attributed Spike's abuse of Harmony to his break-up with Drusilla, claiming "It's beyond rebound at that point, it's really revenge."^[4]

Also, do people like Jeffery, Tyler, Owen, Tom, and Scott even deserve a mention on Buffy's page? She dated them for like two seconds! I think her list should be limited to Angel, Riley and Spike, with brief mention of Pike and Xander. How do other people think these sections should be handled? Paul730 17:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I recently rewrote Buffy's relationships entirely in prose. It's far from perfect, but I think its a step in the right direction. If anyone has any thoughts, please tell me. Paul730 15:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Appearances on House M.D.

I just added this to Spin (House episode):

This is the first of several episodes where a member of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer acts in House. In this episode, Tom Lenk who plays Andrew Wells in BTVS plays a clinic patient. In the episode Safe later in the season, Michelle Trachtenberg, who plays Dawn Summers, plays the main patient. Marc Blucas who plays Riley Finn in BTVS, played in the third season House episode Top Secret.

Could someone else keep their eyes open?samwaltz 20:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Buffyverse-box character inclusions

Could I just ask - how come Gavin Park has materialised on the Great Big Buffyverse Box of Death, when his article itself says that he is "one of the most marginal recurring characters"? Why do something like this when he might not be around for much longer... if you don't mind me asking. NP Chilla 22:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC) (from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buffyverse#Wolfram & Hart employees)

Most recent character additions to box:

User:200.232.155.106 added Gavin & Caleb.
Viper h added Principals Snyder and Wood.
John Kenney added Jenny Calendar, Kate Lockley, Forrest, Graham, and Kennedy.

We could be going down a slippery slope, how long until we are faced with the addition of The Cheese Man. Perhaps we should set some kind of guidelines for characters that can be on the box (episode count? ..but that sometimes can be misleading e.g. Graham had a high episode count but very little accumlative screentime/lines - and was arguably a glorified extra)

If I were making the guidelines, I would say:

The people who appeared in the opening credits (Scooby Gang & Fang Gang/FG) appear in the box, and the most important villains/friends who had a significant emotional impact on multiple of those opening credits characters - as long as they have a significant episode count, and preferably if they appear in three or more seasons.

That is of course still highly subjective but anyway.. This would immediately discount recurring characters who did not have much of an impact on the SG/FG - such as Gavin, Graham, Forrest. Characters up for debate under such guidelines might include: Adam, Amy, Caleb, Principal Snyder, Principal Wood, Professor Walsh, Eve, Hamilton, Holland, Jasmine, Kate, Kennedy, Warren.

If I were choosing of these characters up for debate, I would get rid of the Principals, Eve, Hamilton and leave the rest.

Perhaps after deciding which characters belong on the box, we could have put some invisible text in the box advising wikipedians to not add further characters without discussion).

What are people's thoughts? -- Paxomen 23:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The box should, I think we'll all agree, involve the most important characters and articles to the Buffyverse and its story. Therefore, adding superfluous characters who only had a marginal prescence/effect can only be detrimental.

Paxomen has hit the nail on the head with his theoretical "guidelines" - significance over size. NP Chilla 10:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed some characters (Eve, Hamilton, Principals, Graham, Forrest, and Gavin) and put up an invisi message to discuss further changes here (see Template:Buffyversenav history).

In my opinion, Jasmine does belong in the box. She's the villain of Season 4. Both Hamilton and Eve are major characters in Season 5, despite their number of appereances.

Keeping the characters to 2 rows

At the moment the template:Buffyversenav has only 2 rows for each category (at least on my screen - is that the case for everyone else?). IMO it should stay that way, rather than get bigger going into three rows and making the whole box bigger. IMO if we add another character, we could remove one already there? What are peeps thoughts. -- Paxomen 17:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

On my screen, it's already 4 rows, with the 4th row only having a few names on it. Different people will have their monitors set to different resolutions, and they can also set their text size differently. There's no point in trying to make the template look perfect for your particular screen setup, as others' will be different. --Xyzzyplugh 05:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you have also said elsewhere "I understand that an attempt has been made to make the infobox look perfect for one particular editor's monitor." Maybe I didn't make it clear but I wasn't trying to craft Wikipedia for my own personal use by specifically making the box specifically for my screen, that's why I asked the question above "is that the case for everyone else?.. What are peeps thoughts." so that others could say if it wasn't the case that every section had two rows.. Also if you are also referring to the addition/removal of certain characters - that is about drawing a line somewhere after attempts to add minor recurring characters like Gavin, Forrest and Graham. IMO this is necessary, and other users also felt that a line had to be drawn somewhere (see subsection above) . -- Paxomen 12:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the infobox clearly shouldn't have every character who has ever appeared on the show. As to the 2 line thing - try changing your monitor's resolution to 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x960, 1280x1024, 1600x1200, these are all common resolutions, and see what it does to the infobox. Then try changing the text size(in version 7 of internet explorer, it's in the Page menu at the top of the screen), this also changes the layout of the infobox. The infobox is going to look different for different people based on their own personal setup. --Xyzzyplugh 00:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's two rows for me too. I like it that way. Kusonaga 12:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of Amy Madison

I noticed that Amy is listed in the main character directory as a reccuring character, but not on the bar at the bottom of the page. Is there a reason for this, or is it an oversight? She has her own article, it just takes a while to get there. I reccomend she be added to the people directory, because by standard of comparison she's probably been in more episodes than Eve. If I've overlooked something I appologize in advance, I just had trouble finding her today. -- Unsigned comment from: User:MaskedScissorDoll 16:51, 1 August 2006

Assuming you mean on the Template:Buffyversenav? -- Paxomen 17:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And you would be correct in your assumption. Incorportating previous arguments into my own, I'd say Amy is one of the most influential minor characters in the show. First appearing in season one, Amy helped define what a witch is/can do. Further, she set the precedent of witches abusing power. She was present, be it as her human self or as a rat, for most of the series. I find it easy to infer that Amy helped Willow develop as a character by helping Willow find the worst side of herself. By doing this, she affected every member of the cast. Also, Amy accidentally showed Xander (in the first of many incidents) that magic doesn't always make things easier when she botched a love spell. I understand that the box doesn't need to be cluttered, so if it's an absolutely not situation I get that, but I just kind of think she should be there. She seems as important to the series as Eve or Professor Walsh... But then again, she's not technicly an enemy or one of the main characters, so I'm probably wrong.--MaskedScissorDoll 20:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'd agree Amy probably deserves to go there rather than Eve. I removed Eve and added Amy, so that the character section is still only 2 rows. -- Paxomen 22:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits: Navigation template

Someone without a user account is consistently editing the "People" section of the Navigation template to include a highly irrelevant character, namely Scott Hope. Discussion on the talk page has so far reached a consensus that this character shouldn't be in the template, but this individual either hasn't read it, or isn't interested. I'd rather not get into a revert war over this, but am unsure as to the proper course of action. Jeff-El 00:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This has been discussed before (see text above). I suggest that the users are directed to the discussion on this page. If they continue to edit, engage on their talk page. If they show no interest in listening to consensus, and continue to add minor characters, their actions maybe considered vandalism and could be treated as such (see Wikipedia:Vandalism). -- Paxomen 01:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Image fair use rationales

Hi, I felt I should move these here so that they might get some attention. Fair use images on wikipedia need to have a detailed fair use rationale that complies with the non-free content criteria policy. I hope that the Buffyverse wikiproject can get on to fixing this issue up. Thanks. -Malkinann 05:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Angel Hotel.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Angel Hotel.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Malkinann 09:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hotel Demon.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Hotel Demon.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Malkinann 09:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Angel_Worried.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Angel_Worried.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Angel Bed.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Angel Bed.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Malkinann 05:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Angel Sunbathe.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Angel Sunbathe.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Malkinann 05:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Angel Bed3.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Angel Bed3.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Malkinann 05:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Buffyverse chronology in "Articles for Deletion"

Anyone interested may want to have a good look at Buffyverse chronology, and decide whether it should be kept or deleted, and vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffyverse chronology (2nd nomination)

Currently:

Delete 5 Keep 2

-- Paxomen 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wolfram & Hart

Over the last few weeks I've been quietly overhauling the Wolfram & Hart article. I think it now contains a comprehensive, well-referenced, but brief(ish), description of the company and its role in the series. I've also added a couple of real-world production details, but I think this is the section that needs expanding now. With a little more work, I hope it can be seen as an example of how more of the organization articles should look. --Jeff-El 19:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Move Recurring Angel guest stars

It is time to move this article to List of minor Angel characters, which is more in-line with the Buffy character articles. Beyond that, in its current state, most of the characters on the list are already mentioned in List of Angel characters, which is why those characters need to go and the article needs to be renamed to properly reflect the purpose of the article. Kusonaga 19:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Edited the above title, since it is more appropriate.Kusonaga 10:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the change is made, but what I can't seem to understand is still all those pages that still link to Recurring Angel guest stars. I already fixed the buffyversenav template. Kusonaga 11:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability guidelines

It's recently come to my attention that a lot of characters don't fit notability guidelines, and should just be integrated into lists. Really, characters like Cyvus Vail, who have appeared in just three episodes, really don't deserve their own article, and this applies to A LOT of characters that currently have articles. Kusonaga 21:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Listing of characters that should be redirected to a list

I've already begun the work of integrating some characters into the List of Angel characters, in tune with what I've mentioned above. The Angel series is currently what I'm focusing on. I'm not going to redirect the articles right now, but I will start doing so in about a week, which I think is enough time for people to read this. If people are opposed to this, please state so under the comments section, with clear and pertinent arguments. Thank you. Kusonaga 12:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Merl (Buffyverse) (prominent role in only about 3 to 5 episodes)
Drogyn (2 episodes)
Archduke Sebassis (3 episodes)
Cyvus Vail (3 episodes)
Helen Brucker (3 episodes)
Skip (Buffyverse) (3 episodes)
Dennis (Buffyverse) (3-5 episodes)
The Immortal (Buffyverse) (1 episode, no actual appearance)
Rutherford Sirk (2 episodes, 1 book)
Nina Ash (3 episodes)

Update: 13:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Raiden (3 episodes)

Update: 10:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Justine Cooper (8 or so episodes, but quite minor)

Final update: 10:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC) - All articles listed here have been redirected to List of minor Angel characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kusonaga (talk • contribs)

Comments

I actually just want to say that I support you completely. It needs to be done. --Jeff-El 13:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

→

^ 'Buffyverse' is a term coined by fans of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel to refer to the shared fictional universe in which they are set. The term has since been used in the titles of published works e.g. Ouellette, Jennifer (2006). The Physics of the Buffyverse. Penguin. ISBN 0143038621. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference Destiny was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference GirlinQuestion was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference IntroducingSpike was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1] 'Buffyverse' is a term coined by fans of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel to refer to the shared fictional universe in which they are set. The term has since been used in the titles of published works e.g. Ouellette, Jennifer (2006). The Physics of the Buffyverse. Penguin. ISBN 0143038621. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help)

[Destiny-2] Cite error: The named reference Destiny was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[GirlinQuestion-3] Cite error: The named reference GirlinQuestion was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[IntroducingSpike-4] Cite error: The named reference IntroducingSpike was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]