Talk:Willow Rosenberg

Willow's enemies

The Amy section is just incorrect; Amy did not keep Warren alive by any means, she did not try to kill Buffy for anyone, and she did not engage in an airborn battle with Willow. She did, however, curse Willow so that when she kissed Kennedy for the first time, she began to change into Warren. Willow's subconscience devised the exact punishment--turning into Warren; Amy says that it's always better to let the victims come up with their own punishment because it's always better than anything she could devise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzislippers (talk • contribs) 17:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC) oops, this may have all happened in the comic book "Season Eight," though; if so, mea culpa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzislippers (talk • contribs) 17:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It did. It's not a bad read, but the article should probably do a better job of differentiating between what happens on screen and what happens afterwards. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A long delayed reply but as one who has seen the programme but not read the comics I can say that these events were definitely in the TV episode. Britmax (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Which events, which episode? Turning into Warren is the only event mentioned above that I remember from TV. —Tamfang (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Season Eight image

Shouldn't the issue #3 image of Willow be preferable to the #19 image? It makes it out as if Season Eight is all about Dark Willow, the way her character arc in Season Six was. It also doesn't accurately portray how the character appears issue-by-issue, which is as a flying, old-timey-clothing-wearing witch.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

in charge

Whenever Buffy and Giles are both absent or incapacitated, Willow takes charge. The first time she did that, it was a bit of a surprise. But I (currently rewatching s7) don't remember when that was. Is it worth mention? —Tamfang (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Appearances/Television subheadings removed

I'm still in the middle of something that's going to keep me from paying close attention to commentary and such, but I thought Zythe wanted to remove the High school/College/Season 7 subheadings. I don't really care much about them, but I do think something should be there to make a better point that Willow's character changes with the TV seasons. So I'm not sure what the main objections was: the High School/College subheadings, or subheadings themselves. I'd like to see subheadings restored at least to Seasons 1-3, Seasons 4-6, and Season 7. Makes it easier for readers, a more aesthetically pleasing article, and again the emphasis on the development of the character with specific TV seasons. --Moni3 (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The other thing is the article seems to completely shy-out the non-canon material that was still a substantial part of the character's existence in popular culture during the TV run. Is it not Interesting that Amber Benson wrote a Willow & Tara comic? I mean, it's probably shite, but it's the sort of material that needs to be addressed in a proper Literature section. That's why I preferred the "Appearances/...Television/...Literature/" kind of tree.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an objection to replacing the season subheadings?

As for the non-canon material, I didn't find sources to discuss them, but my sources mainly concentrate on the television series. There's fan material, like the Buffy magazines that I don't have access to. Are there reviews for the Willow and Tara comics? If Whedon considers the novels and comics before Season Eight to be outside the scope of the Buffy canon, how important are they? I admit that I've not read the out-of-canon books and comics, although the one Benson wrote is on my list to get. Have you read them? --Moni3 (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read them and Zythe is right, they are shite. However, they're also an official appearance by the character and therefore relevant in the article, especially since they're the first time she's headlined her own story.

As much as I like and appreciate the rewrite of this article (seriously, well done), I generally prefer having an "Appearances" section separate from development/characterisation info. See the Cordelia Chase and Wesley Wyndam-Pryce articles as examples. Would it be possible to re-jig the layout of this article to match those somewhat?  Paul  730 19:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The non-canon material is in the See also section. Are you suggesting that a separate section be created for this non-canon material if no sources discuss it, its notability is dubious, and their quality is less than stellar? I'm not sure what really this section would include. What beyond the See also mentions should be mentioned?

As for the article layout, I went with the way the sources treat Willow's character. She is noted as the most evolving character in the series so "Evolution" or "Development" follows the way the sources describe her. I understand that other characters have a different layout, but the source material should dictate what is included in the article. Buffy's article would be different because she does not change as significantly as Willow, and her issues are different. I'm concerned that rearranging the article to adhere to "Appearances" and other character article subsections would make this article less coherent. I'm willing to discuss it, but I wanted to make my concerns clear. --Moni3 (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that a "Literature" section be created to cover all the character's appearances in books and comics, similar to the Cordelia article. Canonicity and quality are irrelevant, and we don't need secondary sources to acknowledge that she appeared in a comic.

We could still keep the "Evolution" section largely the same, just have an Appearances section earlier in the article. See Zythe's sandbox as an example, maybe a condensed version of that? (Some good sources lying around that sandbox, btw, if they're not already in the article.)  Paul  730 23:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, "Identities" is kind of misleading. Why not "Characterisation" (a lengthy section discussing the evolution of the character but not in a chronological way), with headings "Sexual orientation", "Dark side" (ie. Dark Willow and Vamp Willow, Season Eight, w/e), "Powers and abilities" (notable with Willow as hers were frequently allegories / plot devices). I get that you're trying to show a "trajectory" for Willow's development, which is admirable, but it means that the area for expansion isn't Sourced Academic Analysis but rather Plot Detail Important to the Character (which should be informed, as in the Cordelia article, by what academics notice). I think Literature appearances are notable enough for a mention as having existed in a certain context, time and place etc., but a no frills "See also" is a kind of disregard that forces readers to click the link and work out how that publication date relates to the Buffy airdates etc.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cordelia's article, which I have read a couple times, is not the standard by which all character articles should be judged. I found some of it confusing and not as tight as it should be, but it's not really the point of our discussion here and if you want my opinion about it, I can give it to you elsewhere.

Identities is the perfect heading for the section that discusses Willow's original self (a lack of an identity) and her two alter identities. Sources discuss this about Willow's character. There is not really a point to a Sexual orientation section because Whedon made it pretty clear that sexual orientation, lesbian, or bisexual identity was never the focus of the show. Only Willow's relationship to Tara, and subsequently her relationship with Kennedy.

This discussion is the result of a conflict here: I'm using what the sources say about Willow's character, and it appears you're looking to make character articles uniform. I don't see the point in the uniformity if it makes this article less coherent. And without accessing what the sources actually say, I don't know how you can argue to make it one way or the other. (I don't understand what but it means that the area for expansion isn't Sourced Academic Analysis but rather Plot Detail Important to the Character means.) This may just be the result of my not understanding what your vision is. I've had extensive arguments about article layout and what to include in the lead where all the editors were essentially using different words to mean the same thing.

It's ok that Willow's article looks different from other character articles, even other Buffy character articles. It's ok that there are different subheadings and that the article covers different material. Writers concentrate on different areas for different characters. There are no discussions about Willow's constant inner battles between what she is called to do and what she wants to do, her attraction to dark romances, and her simultaneous need for friends and family and her need to distance herself from them. These are Buffy's issues and Buffy's article should appear in such a way to summarize them according to what Buffy scholars write about. While I have not found everything written about Willow's character, the article does reflect the sources I did find.

As for the non-canon appearances, I simply can't see what can be written about Willow's appearances in novels and comics if the quality is "shite" and no sources discuss how these plots are relevant to Willow's character development. What could be said? If the See also links aren't clear, they can be made clearer with a "Non-canon literature appearances" heading in the See also section and publication dates following the titles:

Non-canon literature appearances:

• Willow & Tara (Buffy comic) (2002)
• Wicked Willow trilogy (2004)
• Etc

Secondary sources are always necessary. That's the hallmark of article quality. Anything else opens the article to ^{[citation needed]} tags. --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

1) There are sources which discuss the ambiguities of Willow's sexual identity, the ambivalence in early seasons and the full on "Gay" of later seasons, her relationship with Oz, the negative fan reaction, Whedon's hilarious rebuttal etc. 2) Again, if one critic sees Willow as "identitiless" in early seasons and then other information about the casting process finds one thing, what you're doing is moulding these sources into a synthesised account of Willow's development. 3) The article needs to step back and point these things out from afar, objectively, without identifying itself with those positions itself. That would be the (perhaps you might say only) strength of the Cordelia article over this one. 4) Just list the non-canon appearances simply in prose. It's the same as bullet-points without the article identifying canon as superior in itself; the primary sources themselves are testament that the character was published as a titular character in something in such-and-such a year. That's all they need to be, they don't need to be a part of the character's on-screen development, just part of its out-of-show existence.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This article now reads like an essay

I can see a lot of work has gone into re-writing this article, but the result reads like an essay rather than a Wikipedia entry. Much of the article reads like an analysis of the character rather than a factual account. Wikipedia should not be offering opinions, even if those opinions are backed up by references. That simply means that someone else shares the same opinion. The need to use references in an article is not an invitation to offer a point of view as long as an academic can be found that shares that view. Wikipedia can factually report that an authoritative source holds an opinion - but that is a very different thing to positing a view and citing a source which shares that view.

For example, the article states: "From the inception of Willow's character in the first season, she is presented with contradictions", "Willow is malleable, in continuous transition moreso than any other Buffy character", "The dream presents poignant anxieties about how she appears to others, not belonging, and the consequences of people finding out her true self", "Long a level-headed character who sacrifices her own desires for those of her friends, she gradually abandons these priorities to be more independent and please herself", "She is capricious and aggressive, the opposite of Willow's usual nature, her bad behavior so exaggerated that it does not instill fear into the viewer like other female vampires in the series, but indicates more about Willow's personality", "As surprised as Willow is with Vamp Willow, she feels bound to her" etc etc. These are presented in the article as the opinions of the author, or, strictly speaking, of Wikipedia. A variety of external sources, no doubt reliable and authoritative, have been used to give weight to these opinions, but that still constitutes original research as the article appears to be a synthesis of different sources. In general, it needs to make a much clearer distinction between fact and analysis, the analysis needs to be reduced and the source given more weight in the article itself (eg "one academic has suggested" etc) and synthesis needs to be avoided.Hobson (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The notion that no expert, critic, or analyst's opinion should be offered is absolutely incorrect. If so, there would be no articles on literature or film. --Moni3 (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the person means that the article should maybe attribute to academics more than synthesise itself. "As Jennifer Cusie notes", or "So-and-so opines that..." etc., rather than "Willow is full of contradictions."~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. These sources and information should definitely be present in the article, but be worded in a clearer, more neutral manner. Willow's development should not be presented as fact, but the opinion of those commenting on it.  Paul  730 19:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You know, this is one of the reasons Wikipedia just...frustrates the fuck out of me sometimes. And I know y'all probably don't deserve the multitude of my experiences coming out like this, but I really don't know how this attitude permeates and I honest to all fuck just don't know how to respond. I know I'm going to get admonishments to agree good faith, a phrase that I have come to loathe from its abuse, but I don't know any other way to express this.

This has happened before in several other rewrites I have done and I always wonder if my frustration is a result of my narrow-mindedness or a general "slacktivism" where editors find it much easier to comment than actually research. This article sat here in its lackluster state with cite needed tags and shitty to nonexistent sourcing and no one made a peep. I just don't understand: were you happier when it was like that? I don't really think there's any excuse for the way it sat. It offered no justice to the topic. I started watching the article a month or so ago. Here it has been rewritten with the best sources I could find and all the sudden everyone is a critic? I don't own the article, so any of you can go to the library or buy the books from Amazon or wherever and contribute to the article. Instead, because you don't have the sources, you offer opinions on the writing for which you have no authority. By far I don't think I'm God's gift to anything and I think just about anyone can rewrite an article if they're driven enough and they have the sources to do it. I find it rather depressing that I have to depend on myself for my own standards of what good article writing is. I don't know how to say this it's so self-evident: the article is summarized and anyone who insinuates the information is synthesized does not know what synthesis is and has no familiarity with the sources.

The confidence of your criticism is mystifying. The confidence of my approach is the result of writing 19 featured articles. I don't know any of your experience in article writing; it seems limited to gnomish edits. I've attempted to elevate this topic to the way the sources treat it: not just a pop culture blip, but an expression of art that should be placed alongside literary characters from masters. The writing is engaging and it moves while being neutral and accurately representing the sources. Your comments want it dulled for specious reasons that I don't understand and I'm overwhelmed that I'm faced with such misunderstandings of Wikipedia guidelines.

I can't stop you from changing it. So change it. If you do so without the benefit of what the cited authors have to say, however, you are doing a great disservice to the topic and to readers. I think the rewrite I did is not faultless, but it is excellent, and it would be fairly close to passing FA class. I don't even know why I'm posting this. It will obviously alienate those who posted above and virtually ruin any chance of improving the article further. I'm just really frustrated by my experiences. If anything, please...just please...get the sources and read them. Honor the topic. Punish yourself by writing and rewriting it over and over. Seek every opinion you can. Never stop improving it. --Moni3 (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. We welcome your improvements, we are simply appealing to let you be okay with some suggestions for further improvement. But you're not. Clearly I have misunderstood Wikipedia guidelines at every level. I don't want to have upset another editor. Despondency is contagious. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Moni, I've reflected on your reply a bit more. It was quite personal. I apologise if I don't have the credo to offer my advice, that my edits are too "gnomish" and your spate of featured articles means I cannot interpose my criticism, which was only that the article doesn't attribute explicitly enough to its very worthy sources. The prose style is lovely, etc.; it just doesn't seem like an article About Fiction enough, was as far as I saw it. But you know what, if you don't want to take anything I've said on board, then I'll keep my mitts off the article and let you take it as far as you feel you can take it and I'll see if any FA reviewers hit on these same notes. And I am genuinely apologetic if you feel victimised by my insistent, falsely "confident" critique.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's taken me three days to be able to return to this discussion. I have not read it in the interim. I said I didn't think you deserved the full brunt of my frustration. You didn't, Zythe, not you or the other editors. It is a valid frustration, however. Among the 8,000 or so editors about 150-200 are article writers: editors who add substantially more than a paragraph here and there. Wikipedia is hard to take and so new I don't often know what to make of it. I've compared writing here to shopping for bridal gowns at a bargain basement on Christmas Eve. With Bridezilla felons. It can be brutal and not always effective. It makes me really angry sometimes, but I am also gratified by many of the achievements by many editors. The space of the Internet between editors who add content or who putter about doing other tasks is so wide I don't really know what reality is. Perhaps none of us really know. I don't think I'm that hot a writer and I made a lot of mistakes when I first started writing articles. Perhaps the absence of contact and a run of FACs has given me a false confidence that I know what I'm talking about. Without anything else to compare it to, however, all I have are my experiences.

So clearly I'm sensitive. However, the comments above did not seem like suggestions for improvement. They seemed instead a wish for the writing to be mediocre. Maybe because the majority of articles here are mediocre and that's what people are used to. I really want this to be the absolute best article possible. So I need to be patient while y'all need to have much, much higher expectations.

Perhaps our wide gap here is communication. I'm willing to shore up any language that seems confusing or does not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines or policies without making the article duller than it is or inaccurate to the sources. I can't promise not to have another lunar freakout, but I can promise that I only want the article to get better. --Moni3 (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Lesbian?

She is clearly a bisexual. --24.62.109.225 (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've always been inclined to think the same but the character self identifies as lesbian and all real world sources from show creators related to the storyline say lesbian. So that's what we go with. Millahnna (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've an idea: place her under "Fictional LGBT Characters". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.109.225 (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Mistake

Did anybody else realize that the first kiss aired with Tara was not in season five, but in season four. In restless, the last episode of season four, Xander dreams he`s in his ice cream truck and Tara and Willow are in the back. So their is a mistake in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratepop22 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not shown on screen. --Moni3 (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation

I believe that Anya says that Dark Willow can't teleport, only fly. Does anybody know if this correct? (Under the Dark Willow section, it mentions she can teleport.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.7.49 (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's some fine technicality about it's teleporting but not really and I thought it too technical to detail in this article. It would have to get too far into the issues created by the series without much profit in understanding Willow Rosenberg any better. --Moni3 (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

While I entirely agree that it's probably too technical in nature to describe in detail, the point is that it's misrepresenting Dark Willow as having a power she does not technically possess. Perhaps the sentence should be edited or stricken for accuracy. 75.85.7.49 (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

She possesses the power to move herself with her mind. In everyday vernacular, that's teleportation. In the Buffyverse, that's something technically separate from teleportation. I'm ok with the way it reads now. If you can find a good source that describes whatever Anya calls it, it can probably go in a footnote, but I think it's a really bad idea to get so technical in the article prose. --Moni3 (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)