Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Buffyverse task force/Canon

This is the place to discuss canonical issues about the Buffyverse.

But Che, why is this not at Talk:Buffyverse canonical issues? Answer: The article Buffyverse canonical issues was written entirely by one project member and one anonymous editor, with style and grammar edits by a few one-time hitters. It has a drastically low hit count. The link to this page is sticky on our talk page. No one's gonna read it at the article space.

Discussions about canon can be moved to here. Leave a note on the talk page saying that discussion has been moved and link it. Then, as the header in this talk thread, just link to the page being discussed. This will avoid the need to make the same argument on six different pages.

Opening notes

Bases of the argument

Why canon is important?

It is extremely important to be able to discuss expanded universe fiction in terms of canonicity. There are two major reason for this:

1. This project struggles as it is against Wikipedia:Notability. There is no question that Buffy Summers is notable enough to warrant her own article. Does every character from the comics and novels? Even if there were enough to say about all of them, they would be relentlessly hunted down by deletionists. And not without reason.
   • WP:FICT is not "highly controversial". It is highly ignored. There's a difference. There is very little opposition mentioned on its talk page and it was coauthored by a host of editors.
   • If every minor character from every relatively unknown novel in the English language had an article here, the servers would die. I'm all in favor of articles mentioning them, merged stub articles, etc., but the servers simply can't handle everything.
2. Mixed information is extremely confusing. Most people who are not avid Buffy fans have no idea that these comics and novels even exist. And yes, it is useful for this information to be available so they then can know that they exist. But to have to wade through so much unofficial information to find "something I saw in that show that time" is counterproductive.

So what do we do?

We need to make sure that all necessary information is available, but also that it is clearly and rationally written and organized. This does not mean to delete all non-canon information. But it does mean to clearly indicate what comes from what sources. It also means dividing the information sensibly.

The word of Joss is what distinguishes official from non-official in the Buffyverse. Because he does not always say what is and what isn't official, we have to interpret. Please note that the fact that something is "licensed by Mutant Enemy Productions" makes it official Buffy merchandise, but does not automatically make it official Buffy canon. (For example, the Oz-Wolf action figure implies that Oz can play the guitar with his claws. Although the company needed ME permission to sell the figure, this is ludicrous and is in no way official information.)

• The two shows clearly and unequivocably deserve special treatment. They are the core of the universe, the basis of the mythology; they are complete and stand alone as a complete work.
• Joss has written some of the comics, most notably Fray and some of the Tales of the Vampires / Slayers. These can generally be assumed to agree with the continuity of the shows, for the most part.
• The rest of the comics -- the Dark Horse ones -- are not really associated with Joss. They are to be treated dubiously.
• The novels are clearly not official information. Joss has said he never reads them.
• Don't even get me started on "e-seasons", webcomics, fanfic, etc. A note in the Buffy main article that says that there are a lot of them suffices, and they warrant no more mention.

The shows need to be handled in and of themselves with little interference from outside information. The "canon" comics can be used to support this information, but only in a way such that it cannot be confused with things that appear on the show.

Non-canon information can also be written about, but must be clearly divorced from official information. An article about a non-canon character or piece should have a warning on it (as Paxomen has been doing). An article about a character or concept which incorporates more than one "classification" of information needs to have this information clearly separated such that there can be no confusion.

Furthermore ...

I am sensitive to the concerns of people who are writing about non-canon information and having it deleted. Welcome to Wikipedia, prepare to see your long hard work destroyed. But let's get real for a minute.

Buffyverse canon is in no way analogous to Catholic views on abortion and birth control or the Israel-Palestine conflict. Nor does it resemble medieval imperialism or book-burning. I live with a fellow from Palestine, and I daresay he would be rather insulted by such a comparison. I personally find the comparison intellectually insulting. A cancelled TV show about a skinny blonde who kicks the daylights out of guys with lumpy faces does not deserve to be compared to a huge wall with automated machine guns running through the heart of a country. Such comparisons are provocative and may be construed as bad faith. In the very least, making these arguments may open you up to criticism of not being sensitive to very complicated, very serious real-life issues.

What is and is not "canon" in the most literal sense is, indeed, a POV issue. What is and is not acceptable on Wikipedia is also a POV issue. But there are guidelines, and we follow those guidelines. And if your work approaches the borders of those guidelines, prepare to have it criticized, edited, or deleted. Hell, prepare to have it criticized, edited, and deleted anyway.

Your work is not being deleted because "this information is wrong" or "your opinion is less important than X's". Your work is being deleted because it is considered by others to be non-notable. Wikipedia relies greatly on judgement calls, and to claim the NPOV rule in this case is taking the rule out of context. The discussion over the differences between the official Catholic viewpoint and the secular viewpoint on abortion is indisputably rather notable. The discussion over a particular novel or comic in the Buffyverse may not be.

In closing ...

When I wrote my opening notes for this project, I said I wanted to disclude noncanon information because the vast and often contradictory information in the extended universe seemed just too much to handle. We have enough trouble keeping the core 'verse articles up to par. And yes, the core 'verse articles are the most important because a) they are the most notable and b) they reach the broadest audience. An article with 50 hits a day deserves more attention than one with 5.

I fully encourage, however, people to keep working on the supplementary extended 'verse information. But it has to clearly and unmistakably be presented as such if we want to maintain the airs of an encyclopedic project.

If you would leave this section intact and start discussion in the next section, that would be great. Thanks.

Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 16:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Canon: discuss it here!

General discussion not tied to an article.

---

I think that the canonicity argument should be avoided entirely, since fandom will never come to a consensus about what is or isn't canon. Even if Joss were to show up on WHEDONesque tomorrow and type up a post declaring that x is canon and y is not, many would simply ignore him. In my experience, every fan has their own personal idea of what constitutes "canon", and thus, a neutral encyclopedia like Wikipedia isn't the place to settle something so subjective.

I propose that instead of labeling whether or not x is "canon"/"non-canon", unless it comes from a televised episode of Buffy or Angel, we simply clearly source where it comes from (whether it be a comic, a novel, one of the video games, whatever), and let the readers decide for themselves whether or not it's part of their personal "canon". This is the exact policy that the Doctor Who WikiProject uses, and considering that fandom's IMMENSE amount of "expanded universe" material, I think we should follow their example (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Doctor_Who#Canon_or_not.3F for more details).

I do agree with most of Che's opening statement, in that material from the expanded universe should be clearly labeled as such, and separated from the main body of an article. I just think that declaring whether or not something is "canon" is something of a judgment call that shouldn't belong here. --SHODAN 00:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Slayer (Buffyverse)

well in season four there was reference to the first slayer it was said that she was a girl with the heart of a demon wich is what allowed her and slayers after her to have there supernaturel powers and in season five her spirit guide appeared in the form of the first slayer wich can give you an idea as to what she looked like. and the fact that all slayers are girls started with the first slayer. she was a girl and after that every slayer was a girl.(angel243-7-21-2007- (9:03am)

Where does the "Origin of the Slayer" stuff come from? It's certainly not anything that's been said (in that form) on the show! Also, I'm not sure we should be taking "canon" names from the tie-in novels (Like Spike & Dru, etc.) Xanfan 21:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also do not read the origin of the Slayer(s) the way it is described in this article. I will try an edit pass to bring it more in line with the series depiction. It's hard to know what is "canon" in this case, since there are several sources that are formally part of the mythology, and the article isn't claiming to only be about the show. However, my understanding from interviews is that the novels are not considered canon by the show's creators. Perhaps we can agree that "canon" only includes sources that were written or supervised by Joss Whedon? (such as the show, "Fray", "Tales Of The Slayers" etc) BarkingDoc

Re: canon: I believe that since there is no official body which decides what is and what is not canon (like Star Wars), any reliance here on canon would constitute original research. I would suggest an alternative: citing sources. Add ", in the television show", "in Fray" or ", in Child of the Hunt" (personally, I loved that novel!) to the evidence for "facts" regarding slayers, presenting possible contradictions. Since there are Buffyverse articles published in newspapers and peer-reviewed-journals, one can add those notable opinions which "resolve" contradictions. I believe that would create what an encyclopedia article about a concept in a series with multiple writers (when different episodes give different evidence, point to specific episodes), multiple sources and no official what is canon authority (no, Joss is not one -- he has specifically claimed he does not care about canon [c.f. commentary to Chosen, where he explains he does not care that the power level of ubervamp is inconsistent by choice]. Thanks MosheZadka 16:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

That is a misrepresented statement on the part of Joss. The statement in Chosen was made within a specific inciudent within regards to overall story of the episode in question being more important than consistancy. It was not a grand sweeping statement of "What is canon" as you make it out to be. Here's the statement, infact:

"People complained again that the vampires were too easy to kill. They were supposed to be stronger than other vampires and, the fact of the matter is, it’s true. Like the convenient magic, it’s true, because again, I was more interested in showing the empowerment than I was in the continuity. To make every vampire as hard to kill as the first one would have been too hard." - Joss Whedon

Aside from which, the Fan reaction is far more commonly noted due to the lack of a solid stance on the subject. The common phrase is "Joss' Word" on the subject being canon. Furthermore, the "What is Canon" discussion is better ment for the full Buffy board, not this backwater entry.

That said, the novels are considered to be the least-canonical of all Buffy Tie-ins. I mean, for instance, one novel has Leprechauns in it. Leprechauns! Which have been stated multiple times (on Buffy and Angel) to not exist. Most fans disregard the novels on the basis that most of them, well, suck. - Majin Gojira

An encyclopedia should be able to deal with multiple points of view in a reasonably neutral way else it is a rather poor encyclopedia. Only keeping 'canon' information (which is a very subjective term in the Buffyverse anyway, see Buffyverse canon), is kinda like writing an article on drug users, but only from the perspective of the police and ignoring the perspective of the drug user, or an article on the fall of 'Native Americans' only from the perspective of modern day America. This article should be able to deal with slayers that are mentioned in graphic Tales of the Slayers which is considered by many fans canon. But also prose Tales of the Slayer, which whilst not considered 'canon' by many, surely only enriches the article. The short stories in the Tales of the Slayer volumes do not contradict anything in the show so why not add depth to the article, for example including a link to the article India Cohen. As long as people clearly reference where they get information, that is as long as they don't use information from sources fans might consider uncanon and not mention it therefore giving the impression it might have from the TV show. Aside from that I see no reason to dismiss and delete references to a wider slayer mythology which can be accessed with an open mind??? For example why did the article India Cohen need to be banished from the page, especially as the article is better presented than some of the canon slayer articles. Should wikipedia be confronting uncanon interpretations or deleting them?-- Paxomen 18:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Paxomen, I know what you're trying to express. I too believe it's unfair that India Cohen and other non canon are not represented in this page. Although they are non canon, they are still part of the buffyverse in buffyverse merchandise. Can someone please help me fix the non canon slayers section? Thanks. -Lil_Flip246

Somebody has sinced deleted the non-canon section, which is ridiculous. It is still part of the Buffyverse and as such should be included, I'll probably revert it later, or somebody else should; just because it is not canon does not mean it should be just totally ignored. Or we could make a new article about non-canon slayers and put a link or a 'see main article' tag on this page. --Cooksey 15:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I check History and Dmlandfair apparently removed the non canon slayers section. I worked really hard to find those slayers. Can someone please put those slayers back? Although they are considered non canon, they are still buffyverse merchandise. I've even put a disclaimer about it. -Lil_Flip246

Dmlandfair has insisted upon deleting the non-canon material. But we really should discuss this, because it is an important issue. The non-canon material is just as important as the canon material; it's not a very good encyclopedia if we just pretend that the non-canon stuff doesn't exist, or relegate it to a hidden away article. It's ridiculous to not include non-canon stuff, this is an encyclopedia and as such we should include everything. As long as we tell people that it is non-canon, I don't see a problem. --Cooksey 20:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this discussion somehow. I'm all for creating a new List of non-canon Slayers (Buffy) article or even a Non-canon Buffyverse superarticle with links to all the rest, but I think that this article should stay in line with the rest of what people involved in Wikiprojfect Buffy are trying to do, which is to document the shows and other Joss-sanctioned Buffyverse concepts. Dave 20:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think those are great ideas. But we should have links to those on the buffyverse page. -Lil_Flip246

The page Slayer (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) was not created as a Wikiprojfect Buffy, in fact it was made long before there was a "Wikiprojfect Buffy". The whopping great thing saying: "This Whedonverse-related article is part of WikiProject Buffy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the rest of the Whedonverse on Wikipedia. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page." was recently added by user, Dmlandfair, one of the users who has been deleting all references to articles like India Cohen. i think the whole wikiproject needs a larger discussion about this. It seems unfair to me that the wikiproject Buffy (of which i am a member) can just add its signature to an article created and worked on by others, then start deleting things on that same article? This kind of behaviour reminds me of the medieval Church which would encourage its allies to militarily take over whole territories where heresy existed, then once the Church got more power there, to burn any books within those territries which it found too challenging to cope with.

As someone who has been recently writing a number of articles about the Buffyverse, such as the largely non-canon Buffy novels such as it worries me that I'm wasting my time, if some wikiproject member decides to edit out all references to non-canon stuff.

I totally agree with you, Wikiproject Buffy is just trying to delete all references to non-canon material. This article should contain non-canon material, as long as it is clearly marked as non-canon stuff, which it is, so I don't see the problem personally. --Cooksey 18:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I know. People keep doing that. I keep reading all the non canon slayers, but someone keeps removing it. Please do not remove it. I've added a India Cohen, and can someone add more names. -Lil_Flip246.

Thank you Cooksey for adding that disclaimer. Now we can stop arguing about it. -Lil_Flip246

Though it would be good if we added in which novels did these slayers showed up on.--Gonzalo84 18:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the novels/comics should be specified -- Paxomen 18:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Buffyverse Slayer timeline

This page is still under contrustion. Can someone help me fix it? I just learned that some of these are non canon slayers, so we need alot of help editing this. Some are written by canon authours like Joss, so those are canon. Others are just bogus, and not connected to Joss whatsoever, like India Cohen. So we need alot of help sorting this up. -Lil_Flip246

I dunno if the Tales of the Slayer stories would count as canon: people like Nancy Holder, who weren't really associated with Joss, wrote stories in there. I don't know if those stories could really be considered cannon....also, you could add in that Buffy's predecessor in the Whedonverse was a pretty unattractive female, because it's been hinted at in the series very many times. --Ooks

Only the TALES OF THE SLAYERS ("S") is CANON. Joss says he doesn't bother reading non canon books, cause there is no point. He says they could make buffy have an abortion or something, but that is just their fanfic. Only stories associated with Mutant Enemy, Joss, and Buffy writers are CANON. -Lil_Flip246

So, since Tales of the Slayer is NOT canon, why are Thessily and Peri (among others from Tales of the Slayer) on the chart? They should be removed. That was the point I was trying to make. And I'm sorry for misspelling canon! --Ooks

I told on the edit summary that I wasn't sure yet whether SOME of these were canon or not. So I hope that clears your quesyion. -Lil_Flip246

"Only Canon Slayers are featured in this list. You may notice some Non Canon slayers, cause this page is still in development and re-editing."

Plus this is what I wrote on the headline. -Lil_Flip246

I kept the Peri because it was written by a Mutany Enemy/Buffy TV Writer, Jane Espenson, which makes it canon. The only canon story in those non canon novels. Someone should make a non canon salyer timeline. -Lil_Flip246

Okay, well, I'm sorry for the confusion. I also was wondering whether or not to consider things written by Rebecca Rand Kirshner or Jane as canon, and when I consulted my friend at the Buffy boards about it, he said that even if people like Jane are closer to Joss Whedon's mind than the other writers, it doesn't make anything they write instantly canon. So, I'm not sure, but Peri could just be kept on here.

On another note, Yuki Makumura should be here, because even if she was in those non-canon comics mostly, she was seen in the last picture in last story, Tales, in Tales of the Slayers. (wow, a lot of repeat of words in that sentence) --Ooks

Okay add her then. Which story was she featured in the comic? -Lil_Flip246

Why did someone write unattractive slayer? -Lil_Flip246 Anyways, someone should make pages for each of these canon slayers.

Can someone please add Fray to the list of slayers. I haven't read the comics so I don't know much about her. -Lil_Flip246

You just saw her picture in the last story, 'Tales' (with Fray). Uh, that was me with the whole unattractive slayer thing, because there are various hints throughout the television series that Buffy's predecessor was not too attractive.

I'll add Fray.

--Ooks

What are the hints? Anyways, I checked google, and Buffy fansites, and Yuki Makumura has ONLY appeared on a NON CANON comic. So I don'y think she belongs in this list. Again, someone should make a non canon slayer list, which excludes Buffy and co.

I agree with you on that fact, but in the Tales of Slayers story 'Tales', which is canon, she is pictured among the other canon slayers. Here's a picture, she's the tallest one pictured. http://www.pylia.co.uk/tales_of_the_slayers.htm That's pretty much the only reason I included her, because she appears in a canon comic.

--Ooks

Ok, add her. Anyways, can someone make a page for Rachel O' Connor. More info can be found here on Rachel and Yuki, etc..http://www.geocities.com/tales_slayer/ -Lil_Flip246

Can someone/s help us make pages for these canon slayers? Also we need help to fix the format of the list. As you see it looks like it's been done poorly. Can someone who is an expert help us make it more presentable? Thanks. -Lil_Flip246

There's this slayer named "Nubian Goddess" and she's from Tales of the Slayer (Novel), Vol. 2, "The Ghosts of Slayers Past" by Scott Allie. But in this site: http://www.pylia.co.uk/tots_timeline.htm it shows a pic of her. Where is that pic from? Unless it's from Fray or Tales of the Slayers, I won't add it as canon.

I'm might add Mary O'Brian because she was from the Origin, which is apparently an adaptation from the original scripts of the buffy movie. Does that mean that this comic is like the season 7 novel, "Chosen"? If so I'll add her. Slayers like Jing Po are also in this book.

It says that the picture's from Buffy Mag, "Note From The Underground", Part Five, Cliff Richards....I dunno what that is, does anybody read the Buffy magazine? lol...but, I probably would'nt add it.

I was not sure whether or not to add people like Mary O' Brian, Lady Sarah, Jing Po, etc. either. I don't really think it would hurt if we did.

By the way, nice job making it neater!

--Ooks

Can someone please fix the format here? It looks pretty cheap. Can someone please make it look more presentable? -Lil_Flip246

Can someone please make a Yuki page? There's alot of information in the internet about this slayer. Thanks. -Lil_Flip246

Can you guys help me add more canon slayers? Thanks. -Lil_Flip246

I think there are some erros. Can someone fix that? Thanks.

The Slayers timeline page needs to be redone. Non-Canon slayers (i.e. The non-canon slayer which Spike killed in a non-canon novel) have been included with canon slayers. Viewers will not be able to tell which slayers are canon and non-canon. Viewers won't be able to tell which stories about canon slayers are canon or not. The viewers need to be notified. There should be seperate lists for canon and non-canon slayers. Lil Flip246 19:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buffy

An encyclopedia should consider all points of view not just the dominant ones. Should the abortion article just focus on republican views? Should the Palestine article be written only from a Jewish perspective? 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 but have had whole sections/links deleted because they are not conforming with what certain people consider 'canon'. People's use of language, in articles implying 'uncanon' material is unimportant, or a waste of time is not showing neutral point of view, and shows disrespect to those who read the materials, and even more disrespect to those writing articles about them. 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 a place on the Slayer (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)#Known Slayers page?

Thanks -- Paxomen 21:59, 4 January 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)

Buffyverse chronology (canon only)

Paxomen -- Reading both chronologies and comparing them, I came across the following possible problems. Some of these are probably typos; others might be differences of opinion regarding what is canon. So I wanted to run them past you.

Tales of the Slayers graphic novel: There are two stories in this collection that aren't on either of your chronologies:

• "Righteous"
• "The Glittering World".

Also, the very last story in the chronology you have listed as "Epilogue", but the actual name is simply "Tales".

Tales of the Vampires graphic novel: You are missing the very first story in this volume, which doesn't have a title at the beginning but is entitled "Tales of the Vampires" in the credits at the end of the book. However, you have a story listed called "Watcher's Training" in your chronology which isn't in this book. I'm guessing these are the same thing? If so, is "Watcher's Training" your own title or was it once published under that name?

The Origin graphic novel: Since this is the revised version of the Buffy movie, designed to make it consistent with the series, I think it is certainly canon. So it should be made bold and added to the canon-only list.

Other graphic novels: According to the Buffyverse canonical issues article, most of these are considered non-canon, with a few exceptions listed here. Your timeline treats the following graphic novels as canon:

• "Ring of Fire"
• "Spike and Dru: Paint the Town Red" (but not the other stories in "Spike and Dru")
• "Haunted" (and also the "Haunted" flashback)
• "Willow & Tara: Wannablessedbe" and "Willow & Tara: Wilderness."

I suspect that this is deliberate, since this list of graphic novels is similar to the list on the B.c.i. page. On the other hand, you have these listed in italics, not bold, so I wasn't sure if it was deliberated.

On the flip side, the Angel graphic novel "Long Night's Journey" only appears in the longer chronology, but it's in bold.

Comics: I think there must be tons of Buffy comics that are not in your list, right? You have included "Giles", "Jonathan", and "Reunion" in the long and short chronologies. These are considered canon here. But you have them italicized as if they were non-canon. Certainly "Reunion" is canonical because it's actually referred to in B6.05 and A3.05.

Novels: According to the Buffyverse canonical issues article, the novels are generally not canon. Your edits support this, except in for the following novels or stories which are listed in the canon-only chronology:

• Tales of the Slayer I: "Die Blutgrafin"
• Tales of the Slayer I: "Mornglom Dreaming"
• Tales of the Slayer II: The War Between the States"

I suspect these are typos, because they are all in italics.

Inconsistent ordering:

• In the long chronology, "War Between the States" is listed after "Father", but in the canon chronology the order is reversed.
• The comic "Broken Bottle of Djinn" appears twice -- once in 1937 and once in 1997. Also, this is listed as "Tales of the Slayers comic", but the link goes to the Tales of the Slayer book.
• In the long chronology, "Willow & Tara: Wannablessedbe" is listed after "B5.03 The Replacement", but in the canon chronology the order is reversed.
• There are two different "Autumnal"s listed -- a Buffy GN and an Angel GN. This might be deliberate, but I wasn't sure.

The work you have done on these articles is awesome. I hope my nitpicking doesn't sound negative! Thanks! Lawrence King 06:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Cheers for your help, yeah most of these corrections were needed,

I did make up the name 'Watcher's Training', to distinguish it from the rest of the series, but I suppose the official name of the strory needs to be used, so I changed it

Tales of the Slayer II: The War Between the States" is by a mutant enemy person, so i bolded it and left it on the canon list, as is 'again sunnydale'

I discovered Giles comic was actually by Christopher Golden not Jane Espenson, so removed it leaving only comics closely associated with mutant enemy.

There are two graphic novels 'autumnal', one buffy, one angel, i think they were both released around the same time

The haunted flashback entry is now red bold italic (it is canon flashback therefore according to the key should be blue italic bold), but will change blue, when i get around to completing the buffy comic articles some time in next few months, though quicker if anyone helps in the writing of synopes (see below)

Tales of the slayer : borken bottle of djinn, is part of the 'tales of the slayers' series but not contained within the TPB, I have added it more clearly to the Tales of the Slayers page, and it is entered twice in the chronologies because some of it takes place in the past, some in buffy season .

Think I made the corrections suggested but if i missed any edit away :)

Thanks -- Paxomen 14:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Buffyverse

Are They Canon?

Please check the Slayers page for info on Canon Books/Characters and Non Canon. Thanks.

-Lil_Flip246 Jan/1/06

Buffy E COMICS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/buffy/ecomics/

What are those? Are they part of the buffyverse? Are they canon? Are they only available online? -Lil_Flip246

They are just various issues of the Buffy comic from Dark Horse, put online by the wonder of BBC (see Buffy comics), mostly considered uncanonical

Buffy/Angel novels

Despite the claim added to the 04:52, 3 January 2006 version of this article there is not such a fixed 'canon' for the Buffyverse, it is a subjective term. Unlike Star Wars canon no authority has come out and defined which materials are and are not canon. The star wars canon is indisputable since its creator has formally organised it (see web page). In fact Whedon does not seem interested in doing as such. Just like the church centuries ago did not have a defined 'canon', and different people argued about what should and should not be 'canon'. At one point early in Christianity, many people argued that 'Revelation' should never be canon, but now to Catholics it is. I personally believe that when Whedon or Mutan Enemy are involved with the writing it becomes canon, and all else is secondary canon that takes place in a similar but parrallel universes.

• Some Buffy fans refuse anything as canon that is not onscreen.
• Some Buffy fans I know refuse that Haunted is canon because they dislike the Mayor's role in it despite it being written by Espenson.
• I personally don't think something being written by an actor/actress makes it canon, but can still respect the opinion that it does.

... and so on. 'Canon' can be different to different people until there is a consensus (which there is not for the Buffyverse). - NOTE: This unsigned comment left by User:Paxomen

Future spin-offs

Okay, this caused a little bit of bother over at the Illyria talk page, do spin-offs that don't exist yet count as canon? If/when the Spike movie gets made, I would of course accept it as canon. However, I am of the opinion that, until the Spike movie gets made, we cannot accept any events that are 'planned' to be in it as canon, as it may never get made and these events may never occur. See the Illyria talk page for what I'm talking about. Jayunderscorezero 08:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)