|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 16 July 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.|
Please remove Star Wars and Star Trek
- Done. If anyone wants to use them as examples (and they might make sense to keep an eye on articles like that for ideas on how to improve the article) then they can link to them. (Emperor (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC))
I added some clarification to the ambiguous nature of "Whedonverse", "Jossverse", and "ME-verse", based on Whedon's Firefly. I'm not sure I'm happy with the wording, but I'm hoping it conveys the scope and aspects of these terms. Criticisms and amendements are invited. — Jeff Q (talk) 08:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I fleshed out the article and added detail. As above, would be interesting to hear peoples views on the terminology. Especially as WikiProject has opted to use the lesser-used term 'Whedonverse' yet largely discluded Firefly as separate from the project, and suggested the Whedonverse is the fictional universe encompassing Buffy and Angel but not Firefly, as the term on the internet largely includes the all three shows. -- Paxomen 20:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
For Firefly/Serenity it is more appropriate to use Whedonverse because it is not in anyway related to the Buffyverse. Having said that the following from the article does not really make sense "These other works including Firefly do not seem likely to take place in the same fictional universe as Buffy and Angel, therefore Buffyverse is more appropriate to describe the fictional universe at hand." Why would Buffyverse be appropriate to describe the fictional universe when Firefly/Serenity is not Buffy-related.
I've seen this term used almost as often as the Buffyverse term, and since their both in the same canon, this term should be featured somewhere in the article... --GaryColemanIsLegend84 5 July 2005 15:23 (UTC)
- I've added "Angelverse" and "Buffy/Angelverse" based on a quick Google check to see that these terms are indeed in use in thousands of web pages. — Jeff Q (talk) 5 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)
Are They Canon?
Please check the Slayers page for info on Canon Books/Characters and Non Canon. Thanks.
Buffy E COMICS
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
Remove the terminology section.
I encountered this article by accident but it is largely filled with useless information about the subject. A large section discussing various terms is hardly needed. Mention that it can be attached to Whedon's name but is often not because Whedon has done other things not related to Buffy and let it rest. - 184.108.40.206 19:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
This article requires a complete rewrite, or at least some major surgery.
Firstly it needs an introduction simple, direct description of what the "Buffyverse" actually is.
The fan-cruft sections about what is-and-isn't and various fan-spats about what to call the derivatives of the Buffy franchise should be heavily reduced or dropped entirely. Theres really no reason why Firefly should be mentioned whatsoever.
The termininology section needs to go entirely. That big block of junk at the bottom can probably go as well.
The "supernatural" section can probabably be rewritten to form the bulk of an article describing the features of the buffyverse. It's a poor choice of section title though. Artw 20:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK I've done a some slight rearranging, but the article still needs lots of work:
- I expanded the intro, so hopefully it's clearer what the Buffyverse is, and the issues surrounding it.
- I reduced the 'terminology' section. I think it's still appropiate to keep this section, though perhaps it could be reduced further. I'd also argue it's worth explaining what 'Whedonverse' is (the fact it usually includes Firefly), since people often confuse the terms 'Buffyverse' and 'Whedonverse', and also since this article is supposed to be useful to people who might not know anything about Buffy/Angel or have any idea the difference between 'Buffyverse' and 'Whedonverse'. Furthermore on Wikipedia, typing in 'Whedonverse' leads to the 'Buffyverse' article.
- The 'supernatural' section (anyone got any ideas for new title?) really needs to be expanded upon and improved. -- Paxomen 01:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've renamed it "Characteristics of the buffyverse". I've also moved some other stuff around and deleted a bunch of "cannonical issues", since they have their own page. TBH I find the focus on "canon" a bit strange - possibly it's an obsession of the fanbase, but an outsider it;s a bit strange that it should be such a major issue, requiring it;s own page and spilling over so hgeavily onto this page. Terminology is now "Alternate terms".
- The article is still in need of a lot of work IMHO. Artw 00:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps it was overkill before on the stuff about different Buffyverse stories, but I'm not convinced that one sentence in the "Alternate terms" section is the way to go either. Why not just summarise the section that was there before. Buffyverse canon is a direct sub-page of this page, and the issues of that article really should at least be briefly mentioned here Essentially this is a whole article about a fictional universe. "Characteristics of the Buffyverse" is a useful title and I'd agree that it should include the bulk of the article. However ignoring the differing stories in which Buffyverse tales are told is ignoring how this fictional universe has come about. The Buffyverse is nothing without the stories that collectively build the fiction? The choice to ignore the stories is puzzling to me. --Paxomen 02:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- The Star Wars and Star Trek main pages do perfectly well without huge discussions of what is and isn't "canon". Perhaps just listing the various properties that spin off from the Buffy would surfice, whithout the emphasis on what is and isn't canon. And as you say there is the canon page (which is linked to above the index) which should be enough coverage for those that care about that kind of thing. Artw 02:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- They actually do have text dedicated to looking at what stories build their fictional universe ("Star Wars" has loads and "Star Trek" section is about the same size as the 'Boundaries of the Buffyverse' section before it was deleted - see both below).
- I understand what you're saying, emphasis on 'canon' looks geeky and may seem unimportant to the uninitiated. But the stories themselves are the building blocks of the Buffyverse, and this article is not called 'Characteristics of the Buffyverse', it is just called 'Buffyverse', and since we know what it's building blocks are, they really should be explained. -- Paxomen 03:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The Buffyverse character bios
I've done a complete sweep of the character bios a bit. I did not edit any of the back stories or anything. Just a few links and missing templates. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 11:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
It is briefly mentioned in the first episode of 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' that Vampires are susceptible to garlic however is never referred to since. Should it be included among vulnerabilities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrumpetBflat (talk • contribs) 10:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Monks! Rhymes with "bonks" or "honks" but not "junks" or "spunks"!
Is it just Sarah Michelle Gellar who can't pronounce this ordinary and very commonly-occuring word properly? And if it is, were the other actors taking the piss out of her when they said it the same way? Or what? You've seen "Monk", right, the OCD cop? That's how you say "monk" or indeed "Monk". 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)