Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Buffyverse task force/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Chronology Problems

I'm kind of new at this so hopefully this is the right place to bring something regarding the Illyria comic book to the attention of Wikipedia users. I am currently in the process of figuring out how to edit things myself, but in the time being, could someone please take a look at the placement of the Angel Spotlight: Illyria comic book in the chronology chart? It is placed mid-Angel season five, before "A Hole in the World," which is the first appearance of Illyria in the Buffyverse. This constitutes a major continuity problem, whether or not the comic is considered canon, and should be corrected.

Update: Okay, I just moved the Illyria comic up after "Shells" (AS5) on the Chronology chart. Until the comic book has been released, there can only be speculation about where the comic should actually be placed. Nevertheless, the story in this comic definitely takes place after "A Hole in the World" and most likely after "Shells."

Mjerrett 02:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Not all Angel episodes take place after Buffy episodes, some of them take place simultaneously, like Blind Date and Primeval, or inmediatly after the prior episode (Five by Five and Sanctuary), or Primeval and Restless.--Gonzalo84 19:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Other than a few telephone calls (The Freshman/City of, and Fred's call to Willow) what is there to make any two episodes "simultaneous" rather than independent (neither temporally constraining the other)? —Tamfang 17:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Some events are simultaneously happening, but we only watch one episode at a time in its entirety. So IMO it makes sense that the Buffyverse chronology is presented as a list which a fan could potentially follow item by item, with simulatenous things happening close to each other e.g. City of follows The Freshman (as explained above) - Buffyverse 22:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)\

Someone's already done a lot of the work on figuring out "What happens when" already.Majin Gojira 02:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No pipe in external links. —Tamfang 19:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand the use of the word "pipe" in this context, but I believe you mean to dismiss the link. What grounds do you have to do so? Majin Gojira 17:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Pipe" is the name (at least in Unix-land) of the vertical bar character, which you may notice I removed from your link to fortunecity. The syntax does not expect a pipe there, and so my browser saw the url as "...htm|", which gave an error. —Tamfang 01:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Canon

READ THIS: If I have to read the same canon / non-canon argument between project members on another page I'm going to chew my mouse arm off at the elbow. This is why we have the project -- so we can centralize the discussion. So here's what I'm doing: I'm creating a page solely for the discussion of the canonicity of materials right here. When there's a canon issue, start a new section in the canon subpage here and link your discussion to it. Direct non-members to the canon subpage if they object with how you are dealing with canon / non-canon. So here you are:

/Canon!

Thanks. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 12:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
P.S. If there are any more painfully over-argued topics, something similar can be done with them. Save your breath and only make your argument once.

Canon and all points of view

An encyclopedia should consider all points of view not just the dominant ones. A good encyclopedia should try to remain neutral or deal with all points of view without rubbishing any of them.

Wikipedia should capable of dealing with the whole Buffyverse not just the canon Buffyverse. Wikipedia's policy is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I hope I have recently been dealing with 'canonical issues' in a reasonable and neutral way based on actual cited sources. I personally do not see the problem with using information from uncanonical sources as long as it is clearly referenced as such. For example the article on India Cohen in my opinion deserves to be linked from Slayer (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)#Known Slayers page?

Thanks -- original comment, 4 January (edited -- Paxomen 22:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC))

You have a valid point. Noncanon material can be discussed, if someone is willing to take the time to write it up. But the distinction has to be very sharp. The main difference between canon and noncanon materials is that the canon materials are sanctioned and endorsed by the creator. That's a huge difference, and yes, it means that canon materials take top shelf over noncanon. Articles on strictly noncanon material should say very clearly, right off the bat, that they are about noncanon materials. Noncanon information about a canon character/thing ought to be sectioned off from the canon information in a section such as "Xander in the extended Buffyverse" or something. I originally created this project just to deal with the canon aspects of the 'verse because I honestly didn't want to deal with the mountains of noncanon material; if you want to write about it, go ahead. But noncanon means exactly that: not official. In order to consider ourselves "encyclopedic" we need to ensure that nonofficial information cannot be mistaken for official information. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 18:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

StarWars.com contains what I think is an excellent structure: there is a main page for each character and details everything that happens with that character in each SW movie. There's an Extended Universe for non-movie stuff (so far as I can tell; I'm not an SW buff, tho I am a Buff buff). Still, everything has to be authorized. There could be a similar structure here: the TV series vs. other written-by-Whedon materials. The articles should be kept strictly separate, however, and clearly marked as such. Anything that contradicts the series should be highlighted, (I don't want to get into arguments about) other authorized stuff somewhere else and everything else definitely banned. Xiner 06:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Beyond The Verse

Is the goal of this project going to be exclusively to organize the fictional universe, or will it also include an attempt to research/organize/standardize topics such as cultural influence, production information, academic analysis. I already think the primary article includes too much hyperbole/unnecessary expansion on cultural issues with very little supported reference (I know am responsible for some of that myself, so I'm not bashing any of the contributors), but this project might be the perfect area for such information to be streamlined and, more importantly, made consistantly accurate and referenced. The number of "many claim" and "some believe" references on the main page starts to be dauntlying unencyclopedic. It seems that the primary goal so far is to canonize the fiction, but I think this could be an important aspect, IF others in addition to me are interested in such an endeavour. BarkingDoc

Good call, and I like the idea. I'm not sure I'd know where to start, though; although I know there is critical theory and the like written on BtVS, I wouldn't know where to find it. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 04:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Refference is not always possible. For me personally, my primary sources for critical social/culture issues on Buffy/Angel are messages board discussions, you can't link to every single relevant post. Perhaps it's better to create a seperate article on the us internet fora by fans of the show, providing some links, so that people, who're interested dig into that themselves. Then we could link to such a page as "source." --Allycat 11:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable Buffy articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Walkerma 21:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is a short list of articles which I think we can start discussing among ourselves before approaching the V1.0 people:

Episodes marked as struck-out in episode list:

1. Angel
2. I, Robot... You, Jane
3. The Puppet Show
4. Nightmares
5. Out of Mind, Out of Sight
6. Prophecy Girl
7. Lessons

Important episodes

1. Hush (Buffy episode)
2. The Body (Buffy episode)
3. Once More, with Feeling (Buffy episode)

(Disclaimer: I wrote some of those)

Main article

1. Angel (TV series)
2. List of Angel (series) episodes
3. Buffy the Vampire Slayer
4. List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes

Important characters

1. Buffy Summers
2. Xander Harris
3. Willow Rosenberg
4. Anya Jenkins
5. Spike (Buffyverse)
6. Cordelia Chase

Cast

1. Joss Whedon
2. Sarah Michelle Gellar
3. Alyson Hannigan
4. Nicholas Brendon
5. David Boreanaz
6. Charisma Carpenter
7. Jane Espenson

Concepts

1. Slayer (Buffyverse)
2. Watcher (Buffyverse)
3. Buffy the Vampire Slayer and social issues
4. Sunnydale Syndrome

More?

Note: the numbers say 5K-20K articles will come from wikiprojects, there are something on the order of (estimated) 1000 projects. This means we should probably aim for around 40 articles to suggest, since we are a pretty big project.

Note the second: The above is roughly 30 articles.

MosheZadka 11:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding Angel (vampire) to the important character list. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Possibly even add a few other Angel-specific characters, like Charles Gunn, Winifred Burkle and Wesley Wyndam-Pryce (he counts as Angel-only because he's not major on Buffy), but in that case the articles should probably be significantly improved. MosheZadka 06:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

That's great! You seem to have a good selection. Please let me know when you get a consensus on which of the above to include (or it may be easier to eliminate the ones you don't like). Would you rank them as A-class, or a good B-class article (or use your own method if you prefer)? For A-class we like to have "hard" references such as books, official publications or peer-reviewed articles. We have a good amount of time before a CD will come out, so there is time to work on this and improve key articles. Thanks a lot for your comments, I will keep checking in. Walkerma 21:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I've also touched up Richard Wilkins, not literally, and it was pretty succinct already. Xiner 15:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know, if you want to update our Buffyverse list you should feel free to add articles and assessments, or even create your own worklist that we will link to. I put in Buffy the Vampire Slayer as A-Class, it looks very nice to a non-expert like me, though you should note the "disputed" tag on the use of the TV Guide picture. Thanks, Walkerma 04:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

---

The Extended Buffyverse

Intro

Hiya, I have started a number of new articles contributing to this project. I hope that these articles can come into completion within the next year with others help. The outlines are pretty much ready. The details of novels, comics, and video games just needs to be filled in, help is completly welcome.

Although most of the novels and comics do not fit into 'first canon'. They might be seen as stories in parallel Universes. The novels often even contradict each other! (Although Christopher Golden seems to have successfully managed to largely have an internal solid continuity (his books don't contrdict each other hardly at all). Anyway the 'continuity' section of each article could deal with how close the book/comic are to canon, and where they venture away from it (see below)

I think it would be good to have full database of articles of books and comics, and i know that with a few helping hands this could be done:

Buffyverse chronology - As best as i can tell, this is the best order to watch and read Buffyverse stuff (& I spent 2 years reading the books and writing notes about the timeline) this is the best that the stories fall into the respective timelines, though you have to take the comics/novels as secondary canon that sometimes largely exist unto themselves rather than take place in the canon Buffyverse

Buffyverse comics, Buffy comics, Angel comics, Buffyverse novels, Buffy novels, Angel novels, Buffy/Angel novels, Buffy video games

Also this article was created to put some perspective on the canonical issues that need to be considered when dealing with the books and comics.. (Buffyverse canon

-- Paxomen 12:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Spinoffs: Articles for Novels, Comics & Video Games, Structure of articles

Here is an idea for a template for the books/novels/games, this has not yet been made an article since :

Example Template

(An image of the cover on right side)

an info box with info on author, publisher, preceding and following stories in that format...

Book Description

Though apparently not the one on the back of the book. I have been told by a wikipedia editor that we are not allowed to use the 'book descriptions' from the back of the books since it counts as copying material. It would have to be rewritten, in completely different wording..

Continuity

This section could be highly useful. It could state roughly where the book takes place in the Buffyverse timeline, & how much in line the book is with 'first canon'. It could point out specific ways in which the story broke with canon or achieved it.

Trivia

This section might highlight random bits of information that any might find interesting or unusual.

EXAMPLE- Queen of the Slayers (Buffy novel)

Spinoffs: Articles for Novels, Comics, Naming Issues

The spinoffs should be in the spirit of the naming for episodes, all of the novels/comics have already been prepared for the creation of articles, see the many red links at Buffyverse chronology:

The video games are all on one page (see: Buffy video games)

The comics and novels have been renamed to bring them in closer line with how episodes are named. Here are just a few to give an example of the spinoffs have been named:

The Origin (Buffy comic), Oz: Into the Wild (Buffy comic), Halloween Rain (Buffy novel), Spike and Dru: Pretty Maids All in a Row (Buffy novel), Old Friends (Angel comic), Redemption (Angel novel), Past Lives (Buffy/Angel comic), Reunion (Buffy/Angel comic), Heat (Buffy/Angel novel), Seven Crows (Buffy/Angel novel), Monster Island (Buffy/Angel novel), Unseen (Buffy/Angel novel)

If anyone spots links anywhere using capitals in the brackets for the second word e.g. (Buffy Novel), (Buffy Comic), (Angel Novel)... then preferably needs correcting to (Buffy novel), (Buffy comic), (Angel novel)...

-- Paxomen 05:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Spinoffs: Articles for Novels, Comics, Article headings

Buffy novels has been renamed to Buffy novel, and Buffyverse novels to Buffyverse novel by Kingturtle. Please take a quick look at the whole article, and decide which article title is more appropiate, singular or plural, then give your opinion below to decide the fates of potentially other articles. This was what I posted on Kingturtle's user dicussion page:

My opinion is that the article I made is about the novels collectively, and not about the definition of a 'Buffy novel'? Also it is a parallel article to 'Buffy episodes', 'Buffy comics', Buffy video games', 'Angel comics', 'Angel novels', 'Buffyverse novels', 'Buffyverse comics', each one collects together the group of its subject, rather than defines the singular. Wouldn't a redirect from 'Buffy novel' to 'Buffy novels' be more appropiate and consistent with all the other articles? -- Paxomen 21:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

it made more sense, i felt, but if there are arguments to switch it back to Buffy novels, i will not oppose the change back. Kingturtle 22:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

it's not about the concept, it's about the collection. Plural is appropriate. Dave 06:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

agreed - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 17:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit & infoboxes

Hi. I notice a lot of the Buffy/Angel comic articles (eg. Old Friends (Angel comic))have been tagged for copyedit. Is there someone in the project that can do this? I would help out, but I really don't know enough about the subject to do a good job. It would be far better if someone with a knowledge and interest in the subject could dive in and improve the language of the articles. Kcordina 09:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm on this and gradually ploughing through adding infoboxes and improving grammar on books/comics (for examples of the novel infobox and the comic infobox see Spark and Burn and Old Friends (Angel comic) respectively) though I can't expand further on the synopses on Old Friends until the TPB comes out in England and I get my hands on it. What I like about the novel infobox is that it has Preceded by and Followed by so that you can put clear links to the previous and next story in that format (just like the episode infoboxes have links to the previous and following episodes). Does any one how I could add these options to the comic infobox.? -- Paxomen 12:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Done -- Paxomen 01:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Buffyverse chronology completed

Buffyverse chronology has finally come into completion, that is to say there is now an article for every episode, novel, comic and video game. Furthermore all the comics and novels (unless any have been missed) have their own infoboxes.

The small comic covers that appear next to the comic synopses can be clicked on for a larger images, some of the best cover art (in my opinion) came late in the run of the Buffy comics and can be seen in trades like Viva Las Buffy (Buffy comic), Slayer Interrupted (Buffy comic), and A Stake to the Heart .

There's also articles for books/comics upcoming, though obviously the details for such articles can't be fleshed out until they are released:

Spike: Lost and Found, Illyria: Spotlight, Gunn: Spotlight, Wesley: Spotlight, Spike: Old Wounds, Spike vs Dracula, Carnival of Souls, and Blackout -- Paxomen 01:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Buffyverse chronology has had a major updating into a stylish chart system format and a split onto three pages. -- 00:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Grammar and literary conventions (Very Important)

All contributors should refer and add to Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/General.

Buffyverse stubs

Buffyverse stub and pictures

Wouldn't it be nice if a picutre appeared next to the "This Buffyverse-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."-text. Maybe a stake or that BtVS logo-thing. --Allycat 12:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It was there until someone extra-project edited the stub. I'll put it back. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 04:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Sub-categorising

As the amount of articles in the 'Buffyverse stubs' category is getting quite large, and the article names are quite long; I was thinking of making two subcategorised for Angel and Buffy episodes, and then transferring the relevant articles to these instead of leaving them in the main category. I'm just looking for a quick consensus before I make the change later. --Cooksey 16:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

sounds sensible -- Paxomen 22:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Buffyverse character stubs and merging

Lately, I've been expanding on some of the Buffyverse stubs, but also removing some of them. I think we need to reach some kind of consensus on what really qualifies as a stub here. For example I took away the stub (and expanded a bit) on the following:

• Graham Miller
• Scott Hope
• Forrest Gates
• Larry Blaisdell

Nothing more can be said on these characters, in my own opinion, and I think we need to review some of the other stubs (I've put up the devil's robot up for deletion and think the Veruca article is fine as is). Some still need some expanding but beyond that... Kusonaga 11:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not anybody read my outline for character articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/Characters, it's been there since the inception of this project last year. I am still heavily in favor of using merged character articles, in which case the information on Graham and Forrest would belong in an article called Initiative members and Scott and Larry in one called Sunnydale High School students or somesuch. Anyone working on minor characters please take a look at what it says on the characters subpage. No consensus was ever reached, I admit, but there was never any discussion. Now would be the time to register objections. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 12:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I read it, but simply worked with the articles already there. I would have no problem if those articles would be put under a larger banner like I did with the the Other Vampire Slayers (see below). Kusonaga 05:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't an accusation, K -- I apologize if it sounded like it. I was dead tired when I wrote that post, so I wasn't really paying attention the language I was using. What I meant was, I was not sure who was aware of those intentions and who was not, which could potentially cause some trouble. See the ongoing troubles of the character article formats, for example.

I'm going to go ahead and move the four you've mentioned into "minor characters" articles. I'd like to try and organize an effort to do this systematically with all the minor characters. Peace - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 12:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I think Larry should stay as he is. But I'll be pour a whole bunch of other stubs into the SSH article. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 13:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, Che! :) Kusonaga 15:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Forrest deserves his own article as he passed from a member of the Initiative to be a villain, the same goes for Jesse McNally .--Gonzalo84 07:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, K. I'm still working on assembling some more scattered stubs, but I have an exam in 3 hours, so I'll do more work tonight.

@ Gonzalo: Neither of those articles ever progressed beyond stub status. If you're willing to work them into full articles, be my guest.

P.S. Does anyone know where to find enough info on the Colonel (from the Initiative) to add his stub to the article? He deserves a place in there, but it's a long time since I watched Season 4. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 11:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't like villains automatically earn their article space; why should they have all the fun? Forrest isn't that interesting. But in any case, I think The Intiative article should contain a section called Members, into which the nicely succinct Initiative Members page should be absorbed. Those two are just not long enough to deserve their separate ways. Xiner 12:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Forrest doesn't have his own article, and I would really like Jesse to stay in the SSH Students article. At any rate, the reason not to merge The Initiative and Initiative members is redirects. Forrest Gates and Graham Miller both redirect to Initiative members, so people looking for their bios can easily find them. But redirects always point to the top of the page, and can't point at sections. But people shouldn't have to wade through the Initiative article to find their bios. (By the way, its article really ought to be expanded.) - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 22:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, you can. It's just like linking to a specific section on another page (see Wikipedia:Redirect#How to make a redirect). Xiner 14:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the Devil's Robot article, I believe it should be deleted or put in an article containing demons, creatures and villains that had only been referenced, such as the demon Piasca (from Lonely Hearts), Santa (The Body), or Barvain the Demon Priest (A New Man).--Gonzalo84 16:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Would someone please cite the source for the name of Merrick?. The article calls him John Merrick, though, as far as I know, his name was Merrick Jamison-Smythe.--Gonzalo84 18:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Merrick Jamison-Smythe was Merrick's name (played by Donald Sutherland) in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer (film) but I think John Merrick is the name of the Buffyverse character established by flashback in Becoming, Part One (Buffy episode) and later in The Origin (Buffy comic). However I could be wrong, so I'll give the graphic a re-read, & see if its mentioned in the shooting script of Becoming I in next few days, and clear up the issue on relevant articles. -- Paxomen 18:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Pax. I have the Becoming I script and he's only known as Merrick. I'll check the Origin comic as well. --Gonzalo84 21:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

OK I checked Becoming I script too, and the Origin comic, and it seems his full name isn't given. John Merrick is used only in a number of web fanfics so I was wrong on that, it's not used in any of the official sources. I think I removed all references to John Merrick and changed to Merrick since obviously fanfic is not a valid source.

Merrick Jamison-Smythe is used all over the internet for the character played by Donald Sutherland in the movie, but the script I have only uses MERRICK, though i can't tell if it is the shooting script, or a very professional transcript done by a fan. But I don't have access to the film itself. -- Paxomen 14:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Eyghon stub is now a full article--Gonzalo84 23:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I would merge it into the article on the episode, since that's the only episode he appears in. Then he can have a section in a monsters article. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Buffy and its authority

Why is a Wikiproject Buffy template arbitrarily added to every page that has any connection to Buffy the Vampire Slayer? I spruced up, and basically made, a load of Angel episode pages, so surely I should at least have been contacted, even as a courtesy, before someone just adds the template to the talk page of every single episode? I mean it's just common manners. --Cooksey 18:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's intended to be added to any page that a member of the project does work on. (I mean actual work, not just fixing a grammar error.) We work on a lot of articles, as you may have noticed. They're meant to alert non-members that there is someone associated with a whole community working on the page, and as an implicit invitation. In addition ...

1) I don't remember seeing anywhere in the Wikiquette article that you should contact a user when you edit a page he made.

2) According to the page history, you've been a member of the project for six weeks. So a Buffy page that you work on does indeed fall under our project umbrella. In reality, you should have put those tags there. Furthermore, why would it offend you if someone tags an article that you worked on while a member of this project?

3) When all else fails, if you don't want your work misrepresented, don't put it on Wikipedia.

Them's the breaks, bro. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 18:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that if I wasn't a member of this wikiproject then they wouldn't be added to the pages that I did. I mean I'm not saying that I don't want to be a member, and that I don't want them to be associated with the wikiproject. I'm just wondering. --Cooksey 20:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that, whether or not you believe it would have been courteous to tell you, that's not how Wiki works. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 21:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I went over the Buffyverse related articles list and basically added the project banner to all of them, including pages you have had no stake in. In otherwords, read my comment below. Kusonaga 20:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me. I think it's very reasonable to associate every Buffyverse page with the project devoted to it. Also, you are a member of this project, and in essence, one of the names in the Wiki. You don't own any of the pages. I don't see what was so wrong with doing this, really. Kusonaga 19:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I just wasn't aware that anyone was doing that. I usually put them up when I start working the page. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 21:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:WikiProject:

A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific family of information within Wikipedia. … A Wikiproject is designed to co-ordinate the efforts of several users, and to allow a group of conceptually related pages to have similar structures and appearance.

Tagging an article as part of a WikiProject only means that the project members are assuming some responsibility for maintaining and improving that topic-related article. It is not a form of ownership, and doesn't impune or take away from the efforts of non-member editors. The thing to remember is that no editors or group of editors "own" any articles. When we contribute to an article, we are supposed to be doing it out of interest in the topic, with the only credit being our user name and changes logged in the article history. We're all in this together, folks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well said. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 19:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Kuso was merely placing a tag, its not like he was deleting the articles you made, or moving them. WikiProject Buffy tries to encompass every Buffyverse related article in order to make quality articles for every one that uses this site. Personally, I'm glad somebody tagged the articles I made or edited 'cause it probably becomes annoying by the 15th article you tag.--Gonzalo84 20:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:WikiProject/Best practices:

The best way to attract contributors is to advertise your project in the talk page of relevant articles. You can do that by inserting your project notice template, or by mentioning your WikiProject in the to-do list of the article.

This is a surprisingly large field, and there are a lot of "relevant articles". And, as the person who created the template, I can say it follows the same form as most of the other WikiProject templates. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 17:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

To-do box for WikiProject Buffy

There is now a to-do box for WikiProject Buffy at {{todo-buffy}}. See the Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/Pending tasks page for information. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 16:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent progress

Buffyverse Wikiproject icon

Could someone create some kind of alternate "This user is a member of the Buffyverse WikiProject" icon?. That photo of David Boreanaz in the tub isn't even a promo photo.--Gonzalo84 04:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Angel episodes

I have now fixed all the Angel episodes which already had pages, by adding infoboxes etc. Next I'll start all the episodes which don't have articles already, but those will be little more than the infobox and a very small description. Somebody with a good knowledge of the episodes should turn them into articles from stubs. The only non-stub episodes is Not Fade Away, but apart from that all the rest need more info. --Cooksey 14:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it would be wise to ask the folks of www.cityofangel.com for the use of their summaries etc.? Kusonaga 17:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I could do, but I'm sure that there are people here who could write their own. I'll just add a brief summary and let other people do it probably. --Cooksey 20:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer cast and crew

Please vote at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Actors by series and its sub-categories as this category is one of a number of categories nominated for deletion. --TimPope 23:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Character double pages

Moot point by now

Some parts have really become a mess. I'm talking about five articles that need to be looked at, but for the Faith, just go to the other discussion.

Lindsey McDonald
Lindsey McDonald (Angel)

Darla (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
Darla (vampire)

Kate Lockley
Kate Lockley (Angel)

The Groosalug
The Groosalugg

I bolded which articles I think should stay. I made the Kate Lockely page a redirect to Kate Lockely (Angel), but we should just have to choose either one, and remove the article with the redirect. As for the Groo thing, the article (a redirect) with one g should just be deleted. Kusonaga 10:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you assessment. Delete the incorrect Groosalug article, and merge the two Lindsey and Darlas. Plus delete the extra Kate one. --Cooksey 11:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Put the Groosalug up for deletion. I'd like some more consensus on the Darla and Lindsey bit, on which one of the two pages to keep (and I'd also rather have a more experienced wiki-person merge them). Same thing with the Kate thing, which one to keep?
Kusonaga

Well, Groosalug got to be a redirect, which is fine too. Kusonaga 07:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have since decided to accept this as a silent consensus, and merged the pages. The pages are now:
Lindsey McDonald (Angel)
Kate Lockley (Angel)
Darla (vampire)
Kusonaga 09:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Well done and thanks. --Cooksey 12:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure. Kusonaga

Other Vampire Slayers

I have taken the liberty to collect the three slayers documented and made their old pages referrals. I took this action because I felt that it was unnecessary to have these three slayers have their own seperate pages while their on-screen/on-panel time has been so little. Of course, the work can be reverted, and the subject is open to discussion, I just felt this was the right course to take.
Kusonaga 14:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of the slayers on Buffyverse Slayer timeline may warrant space on this page. Then again, maybe not; the two pages could become redundant. Someone whose familiar with the slayers in the article could check it out -- if there's enough to say about the Slayer (without breaking copyright laws) to build a stub-sized blurb like on the OVS page, then they can go there. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 13:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

I re-designed the Userbox for this project. It now uses the same style as the project-notice. I also made two userboxes for fans of either show. Please tell me what you think. --Allycat (Talk - Contribs) 22:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! - Che

Looks good, although I preferred my picture of David Boreanaz in a bath tub :P. I'm surprised it took this long to fix it actually, I made that userbox aaaaaaaages ago expecting it to be spruced up quite quickly. --Cooksey 18:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Buffyverse Vampires

I've put detailed information of the Buffyverse vamps on the article. Named the source as well --Gonzalo84 00:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Buffyverse Demons

There's now an article for Demons in Charmed. If Charmed has its own demon article, I believe its our duty to create an article for Buffyverse Demons, as the Buffyverse is way more complex than Charmed.--Gonzalo84 04:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Project Subpages (SEEKING CONSENSUS!)

The project subpages (/Characters, /General, etc.) have fallen out of use, and that's fine by me. Recently User:Xiner decided he wanted to use them. That's also fine with me. We need to decide as a group if we're going to use them. So let's have a quick vote, shall we? Use or Don't use. Qualify.

• I say we use them as a place to archive stale discussions that are nonetheless still important. This appears to be what Xiner intended, but some of the discussions being moved are still live. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 17:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with use for stale discussions, since there are presently only about 40 members this talk page maybe adequate for much of the live dicussions regarding the project. -- Paxomen 19:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Episode articles

Main article recently updated: Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/Episodes

Anyone writing episode summaries should check those for season four on Buffyworld.com. That to me is exemplary work. Xiner 19:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

(discussion moved from the main page to here)

Quotes should be strictly limited. I've a soft spot for those in Welcome to the Hellmouth but even then, Wikiquote exists for a reason and other episodes should definitely apply stricter rules for inclusion of quotes. Xiner 04:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely correct. Not to toot my own horn, but take a look at the "Quotes and Trivia" at Lessons (linked above). Every quote there has explication as to why it is important to overall continuity or somesuch. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 17:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, quotes should be incorporated into the main article as much as possible as it'd likely provide the context for the quote.

Actually, no, we need to avoid quotes in the summaries, because heavy quoting in the summary runs into copyright problems. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 17:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikifying characters in synopses

Should every character in every synopsis be wikified, even Buffy, Willow...? My own opinion is that only rarer characters, e.g. Gwendolyn Post should be linked to from the synopsis of Revelations... rather than the same characters again and again. -- Paxomen 23:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I linked the char names on this episode page, but i don't know if that makes the most sense. Still there should be some way for people to quickly lookup the char names they're not familiar with. Bindingtheory 04:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think episode pages should adopt the convention used on Buffy's Wikiquote page. The first occurrence of a character in each ep is linkified. This should avoid clutter while still allowing web-surfing. Xiner 16:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying to do. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 19:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Episode sub-page

However I looked at the episodes subpage and thought that could be very useful if it was kept up to date, and may potentially act as motivation for project members to contribute to the overwhelming task of bringing theBuffy and Angel episode articles all up to scratch. Having a complete and good quality episode guide to the Buffyverse should be the top priority of this project but the task of completing hundreds of infoboxes, and synopses is daunting. If that sub-page was regularly updated so that the project could see its progress and see articles come into completion, that hopefully would encourage work to be done in this sphere.-- Paxomen 19:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like that very much. It was for a while, then it kind of died. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 21:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I just updated to the best of my abilities episodes subpage, and hope that it might enthuse project members to see that progress can be made if gradually. Please have a look to review how much has been done but also how much needs to be done. The contributors who have already worked on the page tend to to have their own niche (e.g. Cooksey has focused on Angel infoboxes and images, maybe other project members might like to find their own niche (when I have time in a few months, I plan to focus work needing doing for on behind scenes information for Angel Season 5, for example. Also a list of the main contributors is on that page since it may be useful being able to contact people doing episodes so the whole episode guide can be coordinated. -- Paxomen 22:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)a

Thanks for bringing that page to our attention Paxomen. I'm going to be continuing to fill in infoboxes, add caps and "correct" the format of the Angel episodes over the next week, I haven't done anything for quite a while due to a number of reasons. --Cooksey 16:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Episode synopses lengths

Some of the synopses are around 50 words, some are over 1000 words. I think Wikiproject should aim for some kind of middle ground here. In my opinion I think the synopses should be fairly brief unless they are landmark eps (e.g. synopsis for 'The Body' is divided into four acts). Wikipedia is supposed to give a basic idea rather than every detail. I say synopses should be 100-500 words. What are others opinions. -- Paxomen 23:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

plot synopsis seems too long to me... Am I the only one who keeps finding these to be consistently rather bloated? Again, to justify episode pages on wikipedia, we should focus on references and yada yada yada, and try and keep the episode descriptions themselves somewhat tighter than this, non? Though I do know how hard that can be. Anywho, I'll try to trim it a bit, I think, if I can. -- comment (Talk:Angel (Buffy episode)|originally posted here) -- Zeppocity 20:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been saying they should be no longer than 600 words, no shorter than 300. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 03:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

AnGeL X provided her synopses for the Project for Buffy Seasons 1-7, and Angel Seasons 1-4. Some are slightly longer than 600 words (some are more like 800 words), for that reason episode articles may contain two sub-sections within the 'Plot Synopsis' section; (1) 'Summary' preferably around 100-300 words (2) 'Expanded overview' preferably around 500-800 words. What do people think of this kind of organisation? It's most effective use seems to be in Angel Season 4 at the moment. It should come into effect across the whole episode guide in the next few days. My thoughts are that this kind of thing maybe useful because sometimes a reader only wants a brief description, sometimes a more detailed one. -- Paxomen 20:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The article page for this talk page has different numbers in different places. I'd say 500-700 words should be sufficient, considering that such guidelines are usu understood to allow for +/-10%. Xiner 05:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the superb additions of User:AnGeL X & User:BuffyGuide the synopsis have now been up for a while (as stated above summaries of the episodes and expanded overviews). But at the moment Angel Season 5 is still the weakest link, most of its episodes don't have long enough summaries (many at the moment are only a single sentence) -- Buffyverse 03:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Crossover plots btwn Buffy and Angel

Some storylines (eg the amulet in Buffy's final battle) in both shows reappear on the other. I argue strongly that they should not be placed in a section of their own, as they are usually one or two sentences long. They also do not bear much importance, as whatever importance an Angel storyline may have on Buffy is nearly completely reflected on whatever happens on Buffy itself. I think they belong in Arc significance as that is what the section is for; to discuss storylines that last longer than an episode.

I forgot to mention that we could create a page listing all crossover plots. That'd be useful for anyone looking for such info, not buried within individual eps, which should have shorter explanations. Xiner 06:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 23:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're not saying a crossover ought not to be (also) mentioned in the episode entry. —Tamfang 01:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh no. "I think they belong in Arc significance as that is what the section is for; to discuss storylines that last longer than an episode." Please see Chosen to see the formatting within that section for what I have in mind. Xiner 02:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No quarrel with that. By the way, is <nowiki> the only way to get square brackets as in "There is another one [Hellmouth] in Cleveland"? —Tamfang 03:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think so. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 19:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

userbox buffyfan

hello, Category: Wikipedians who like Buffy has been unlinked from the userbox buffyfan, by this edit. This removed I really don't know how many users from the category, inluded myself. Just though to let you all know, not sure If it is the best place. Posted the same comment on the talk page of the userbox. Thanks --A/B 'Shipper 女 ^(talk) 23:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Species Infobox

I have created a new infobox for species/character kind, special to be used on demon species articles. --Gonzalo84 00:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

{{Infobox Buffyverse Species|
 Image=[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg]]|
 Title=Hellhound|
 First=[[The Prom (Buffy episode)|The Prom]]|
 Last=''idem''|
 Creator=Joss Whedon|
 Name=Hellhound|
 Kind=Demon|
 Powers=<br>
* Superhuman strength, stamina and resistance.
* Superhuman senses of smell and hearing.|
 Actor=(Unknown)|
}}

... (Buffy episode)

( [Moved discussion to Episode naming dispute, so that all discussion on the same topic in one place ) - Paxomen 12:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Unaired pilot

Hiya, peeps maybe interested in an article I just added to the wikiproject: Unaired pilot (Buffy episode) -- Paxomen 22:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It's about time. I've always wanted to do so, but never bothered to. I've added a link to List of episodes to improve exposure. Xiner 02:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, but I think it should be moved to Unaired Buffy pilot or Buffy the Vampire Slayer pilot episode or somesuch. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 13:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Does make sense to rename; It has been moved to Unaired Buffy pilot since thats how most fans know it and also it's not a real episode else fans would talk bout 145 episodes, rather than 'Chosen' being the final and 144th. -- Paxomen 03:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sunnydale High principals

I don't think Principal Flutie deserves his own page. It can easily fit in on the Sunnydale High page. And if someone tidies up the pages of Principal Woods and Principal Snyder then they can also fit nicely. Yes, they're all important characters, but their infoboxes and everything can be incorporated into one consistent page. Xiner 01:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Uniformity

Can I just ask - do we put "Welcome to the Hellmouth", or Welcome to the Hellmouth? Is the "T" in "The Master" a capital T? Do we have a system for this? NP Chilla 20:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean when referring to things like this in an article, at the moment, I think for the episodes at the moment both systems are used, though it might be better for the project to pick one and stick with it. I don't mind either way... My Watcher's Guides are at home so can't check them but The Monster Book (which is official) uses 'the Master' (small 't') when referring to him. -- Paxomen 15:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just coming here to comment on the episode-naming conventions. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles), TV episode titles should be placed in quotation marks, which just so happens to be the way I prefer it as well. So, I would use "Welcome to the Hellmouth". Italics should be reserved for the name of the show, i.e., Buffy the Vampire Slayer -- SHODAN 02:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad. I think I prefer the "" option. -- "Paxomen 05:39, 25 March 2006 (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. --Siva1979^{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)

I don't know. He doesn't belong there. But hey, neither do half the people on there, if you ask me. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 12:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Done (see below) - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 12:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion (may-june 2006)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer and social issues

Has just been put up for deletion. It needs heavy work before I'd endorse it for saving, I'd suggest somneone start citing the various published works on Buffy and Philosophy to beef the article up. Majin Gojira 03:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

RESULT: DELETION.

This wasn't a really stellar article, but it was an important idea. It -read- like original research even though there is scholarly literature on the subject. Keep your eyes out for an opportunity to bring the information in the right way, and maybe one day it can be forked back into its own well-done article. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 12:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone did want to use more of the material in other articles, feel free to use the user:subpage: Buffy and social issues (I saved the article content before it was deleted) -- Paxomen 13:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Dingoes Ate My Baby

This article is up for deletion. This project is going to have to make efforts to only start articles from a point of high quality, else it will get attention from those who want to "kill cruft" :) -- Paxomen 05:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

RESULT: SURVIVAL.

Spike (film)

Spike (film) is up for deletion, please could peeps have a quick read of the article, and then give opinions in the deletion forum about whether it should be:

1. kept
2. merged (with something else (e.g. maybe an Undeveloped Buffyverse projects page that could also include the content from Buffy the Animated Series and Ripper (television)?)
3. deleted

RESULT: SURVIVAL.

Thanks -- Buffyverse 01:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Buffyverse canonical issues

Buffyverse canonical issues is up for deletion. Appreciated if people could have a look at the article and vote. The main options seem to be:

1. Keep and Rename to Buffyverse canon (5 votes as of now)
2. Merge with Buffyverse. (5 votes as of now)
3. Delete (1 vote as of now)

As of now the results are evenly split between merging the whole article into [[Buffyverse][], or simply renaming it to 'Buffyverse canon' and improving the referencing so the article contains less original research. -- Buffyverse 13:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

RESULT: SURVIVAL. (Renamed to Buffyverse canon) - ..but needs more sources to backup notions of what is/isn't canon.

Ripper (television)

Ripper (television) is up for deletion. Appreciated if people could have a look at the article and vote. Possible options may be:

1. Keep
2. Merge with Rupert Giles
3. Create a Buffyverse undeveloped projects page (which could also include Buffy animated, and Spike movie
4. Delete

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

RESULT: DELETION.

The result of this vote was actually legitimate, as much as I hate to admit it. Not a crystal ball, as we all know. There's no reason the info couldn't be included in Rupert Giles, but the AfD community was actually right in deleting this. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 23:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been brought back, so I guess it requires deletion again. Kusonaga 13:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that makes it a candidate for speedy, no? - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 18:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Tagged for Speedy Deletion now. Majin Gojira 20:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)