Template talk:Buffynav

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Television (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Buffyverse (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This Buffyverse-related template is part of WikiProject Buffyverse, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Buffy, Angel & the rest of the Buffyverse. You can help! Visit the project page, episode checklist or discuss an article at the project talk-page.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Order of the main characters[edit]

I am sorry if someone disagrees with my change but I changed the alphabetic order of the main characters to the order of importance and chronological order they had in the series. I don't think alphabetic order makes sense here in the template. Even the major villains are ordered chronologically, not alphabetically, so I think the main characters deserve a better criterion of order. Feel free however to change the characters after Angel, I wasn't sure in what order to put them.--177.134.2.172 (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of link to Buffy the Vampire Slayer adult parodies[edit]

Please review Wikipedia:Content disclaimer

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored - Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable.. some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content

Aren't Buffy the Vampire Slayer adult parodies relevant to the Buffyverse (and therefore it's template)? -- Buffyverse 15:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

They aren't even remotely cannon, so they are not part of the Buffyverse and shouldn't be included. They are mentioned in the main article, that is enough. It's not censorship, it's irrelevant. Koweja 14:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"Buffyverse" does not have an objective definition that discludes items not sanctioned by Whedon/20th Century Fox. If the template was "Buffyverse canon" then the Buffyverse adult parodies must be discluded. But the template is simply "Buffyverse" and contains all the articles relating to that word; that's why it includes links such as non-canon Buffyverse novels, non-canon fan-made productions set in the Buffyverse, academic books about the Buffyverse not licensed by 20th Century Fox..... and so on.
Buffyverse adult parodies are not relevant to "Buffyverse canon", but they are relevant to the wider "Buffyverse"? - Buffyverse 01:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see them as relevant to the Buffyverse. They are just parodies, not part of the universe. Would you consider Spaceballs to be part of the Star Wars universe or Galaxy Quest to be part of the Star Trek universe? Koweja 00:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
They're not relevant to the Buffyverse and don't belong in a template concerning the fictional universe. User:Koweja's comparison works best. —scarecroe 02:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Star War/Trek Universes are slightly different because the common usage of "Star Wars Universe" is simpler and not an equivalent to the more complex terminology of "Buffyverse". Still, if there was a 'Star Trek parodies' page (that included info on "Galaxy Quest" as well as other parodies) then the 'Star Trek parodies' page would not be out of place on a comprehensive "Star Wars" template, if that template already included links such as Star Wars fan films, Star Wars RPG, Star Wars CCG....
It depends how you define 'Buffyverse'. Using a narrow definition of 'Buffyverse' (e.g. "the fictional universe established by "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" & Angel episodes"") - would mean that many links on the Buffyverse template would have to be removed including Buffyverse parodies.
However the term 'Buffyverse' is commonly used to describe something bigger than just "the fictional universe established by Buffy the Vampire Slayer & Angel episodes", it's now also often used in a broader sense to describe things associated with anything related to "Buffy/Angel". Many fans use the term to describe both the canon & the completely non-canon materials. A "Buffy" pencil case might be described as a piece of Buffyverse merchandise for example - but that doesn't mean that the pencil case fits into the canon continuity established by "Buffy/Angel" eps. And "Buffyverse Fan films" describes things like "Cherub (Buffyverse)". But noone would try to argue that "Cherub" is part of the canon continuity of the Buffyverse. "Cherub" is a parody of "Angel", but it's still Buffyverse-related. That's why "Buffyverse Fan films" belongs on the Buffyverse template. Similarly the article about Buffyverse parodies is connected with the Buffyverse despite it's complete uncanonicalness (if that's a word).
However taking into account people's discomfort, I have put the adult parodies in the smaller row, and replaced it with the Academia article. Giving the academic article more prominence and the adult one less. - Buffyverse 03:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Nobody speaking about the Buffyverse is talking about pornographic movies not associated with the Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel franchises. —scarecroe 17:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Names should not be so abbreviated[edit]

I changed "harm" to "harmony", "dru" to "drusilla", etc. I understand that an attempt has been made to make the infobox look perfect for one particular editor's monitor. As different people will have different screen sizes and have their text sizes set differently as well, there's no point in attempting this. --Xyzzyplugh 05:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This template is far too big[edit]

This is ridiculously large and, in some cases, fills relatively brief, pithy articles with a mountain of unnecessary material. At most there should be a link to List_of_Buffyverse-related_topics. --Tony Sidaway 03:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your right, it is a fairly big template. However the Buffyverse is a fairly big topic, and WikiProject Buffyverse oversees hundreds of articles. For that reason, I think the topic benefits from a big template that can take you to any of the main articles from where you are within the topic. -- Buffyverse 04:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
No, this template is just too big. You can't see that because, well, your username is Buffyverse after all :) There's too much material here, and I'd bet that a lot of it is really substandard too. Indeed, it would be interesting to deactivate this template and see how many of the articles on it would become orphans. My bet: more than one.
Please, remove the crud, and get it removed from the encyclopedia too. --kingboyk (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It is definitely too big. {{Navbox}} documentation suggests one approach, which is to make it collapsible (though I'm not clear on whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates people think this is still a good approach. Wikipedia:Navigational templates notes that "Some editors deprecate large, colorful, list-based templates on small articles" and suggests avoiding the issue by splitting the template into sections (compare {{EMD diesels}} with {{EMD GPs}} and {{EMD SDs}} for an example). I agree with the point in Wikipedia:Navigational templates that splitting them into sections "retains a more tightly focused relationship between the articles and allow the reader to navigate to other related content quickly." Please consider following one of these approaches. 68.165.76.110 (talk · contribs) 06:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC).
User:Paul730 removed one section. I've removed one line and changed the order. This is a modest start, but a start nonetheless. I think it could be reduced to 4 sections: Angel/Buffy/key characters/Key terms and concepts. We don't need a whole section for music, for example; one link to the overview article Music in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel is quite enough. Arguably "key characters" could be a seperate template for use on character pages. Not sure about that.--kingboyk (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Even if you grant Buffyverse (talk · contribs)'s argument that the Buffyverse "benefits from a big template that can take you to any of the main articles", there are too many main articles. Compare {{Buffyversenav}} with {{Star Wars}} for example. Even {{Doctor Who}}, with a history going back over 40 years, has a more reasonable {{Navbox}}. I should think that these counter-examples, along with the WP:NAV guidelines, demonstrate the need for shrinking {{Buffyversenav}}. I've got a basic familiarity with the Buffyverse but it makes more sense for a big Joss Whedon fan to follow the lead of other pop culture universes and shrink their main navbox. Thanks. — 67.100.128.85 (contribs)

Since the characters tend to take too much room, can we at least have a separate template for the characters specifically? I've seen template splits before. Just look around the Star Wars articles of this site as an example. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 06:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is more than jjust about the characters. We have too many discussions taking place on the same subject. We don't need 3 different sections discussing this template being too large. We need to find one centralized location to discuss this.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, here is my opinion on what the template for the Buffyverse should change to:


If would be better if you could merge the Characters links into one and we can have a list of ALL characters from not only the TV shows but from the canon comics also, but I would create this page once it's accepted.

This makes it nice, compact and functional. More importantly, it recognises the changing face of the Buffyverse, with the new direction in canon comics. You can also then go on to have specific Buffy or Angel nav boxes as well. Matty bon (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a helluva lot more cleaned up than the current version (which apparently, continues to grow as we talk). I like this set up (even though I believe that there shouldn't be a "Buffyverse" template given that we have systematically removed the name "Buffyverse" from article titles because of it's lack of professionalism and fan-initiated origin).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Since I made the character templates that you see below in the People section of this conversation, we should make the template in discussion that Matty bon made. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 15:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I know of another editor that is making new templates for both Buffy and Angel, splitting off the two shows (as should have been done in the beginning). My talk page has one of the templates.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool! Then we can put those templates to the proper pages and use the character ones for the Show's articles and character articles. :) FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 16:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's my version, exlcusive to Buffy only, we also need to make an Angel one. One thing is I'm not entirely satisfied with the "Series" section? I think maybe we need a better name? Also, I'd like the Buffy template to be shades of red rather than blue. The Buffy and Angel boxsets are red and blue respectively so I think it would make sense for the navboxes to match. I'm not sure how to change the colour though. If we're going to split the template into two, should we move Template:Buffyversenav to Template:Buffynav and create a separate Tempate:Angelnav page?  Paul  730 20:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice template. And yes go for the template. Also, if someone can help me get those same colors for the character templates, that would be great. So yeah. Make Tempate:Angelnav. :) FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Would "Franchise" work in place of "Series"? Something along those lines, anyway?~ZytheTalk to me! 10:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

After finally remembering about them, I created Template:Buffynav and Template:Angelnav and replaced the Buffyverse one on a few articles. Just commenting here to let people know in case there's any feedback. Should we redirect this template to the Buffy one or just delete it?  Paul  730 23:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I personally prefer one template. The way I see it, there's a fair few articles which would qualify for including both in anyway. Thus, it'd just use up the same size as this one. Tphi (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Except it's two distinct series and should be treated as such on Wikipedia. A major problem with the Buffy articles on this site are that most of them written from an in-universe perspective, which an all-inclusive "Buffyverse" template would only encourage. I realise there are overlapping characters, but Buffy and Angel are not the same thing, even if they are part of the same fictional universe.  Paul  730 02:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Except it's not two distinct series, it is the two distinct series, all spin-offs, and all related and expanded media. While some of the expanded universe and comics can be attributed to their own parent shows, there are still some things which are born from both and some articles which touch on both (music, academia, and awards to start with). Not to mention that Angel, one of these "two distinct" shows, is itself a spin-off of Buffy, and one which draws heavily from the parent at that. Throughout the whole series of Angel, the main cast list never fell below a 50/50 ratio of Buffy alums. These two television shows and their related articles are intertwined so deeply that they cannot be separated, and, personally, I like the template the way it is. If you want to make it look smaller and prettier, though, the key seems to be to follow the trend of the other navboxes and make everything left justified. I don't know how much good it will do, but it is a start. kingdom2 (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The templates should be split. There are far too many articles between both Buffy and Angel that this template never should have been combined the way it was. There is Buffy the Vampire Slayer and then there is Angel. There is no Buffyverse (Yes, I'm aware there is an article, and I've seen the questionable notability there). If there was just Angel, then it would be understandable, but Angel itself has a lot of article topics that are distinct to that television series (the same for Buffy). Of course there will be overlap with some, in which case both templates get placed in those articles, but not all of the articles actually overlap. "The Master" only needs to be mentioned with Buffy and only needs the Buffy template. Cordelia (though, I'm not sure why she really needs an article, but that's beside the point) would need both nav boxes. Buffy Season 8 has nothing to do with the television series Angel, or even Angel's comic book series. Having a story that connects to another series does not mean they "overlap". They had an overlapping element. Sunnydale has nothing to do with Angel the TV series, as Angel had left for L.A. There are a list of characters that are solely connected to Buffy. I don't know what you're assuming is so "intertwined" but they really aren't. A lot of that "intertwine" is fan obsession with canon and continuity. There is a link to the Angel series in the the Buffy nav box (and I assume an Angel nav box will include a link to Buffy), thus, a reader won't see it and go, "what about Buffy".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all, combined, Cordelia appeared in 140 episodes of Buffy and Angel, so I'm not sure where that crack at her comes from or what the point of it is. Secondly, I do see your point, but this splitting up would have to be done VERY carefully. This is what the result of the split would look like:


Splitting them up barely makes any difference in size whatsoever, and I made sure that what went into those templates were inclusive to their shows (which is why Willow and the Watchers' Council made it to the Angel template), so I personally do not see the point of refining two new templates and taking the time to spread them around on all those hundreds of pages when we already have one inclusive template. That is my opinion, and judging by the length that this debate has been going on for, I do not see this template ever being split. kingdom2 (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Splitting them up without trimming their content barely makes a difference, of course. First, Willow was not a supporting character on Angel. She appeared in what, a single episode? Given that you have a "main character" list and a "minor character" list, exactly what is the point of listing every individual character page? Not to mention that most of those character pages fail all types of policies and guidelines and probably shouldn't even exist. The same for those fictional places, as most fictional places never acquire any form of notability. No need to link to the real life L.A. either. A link to Wikiquote shouldn't be there either. A nav box should not contain every possible page, but only things that are really essential, as almost all of the pages will contain a link in the actual article for the more minor articles. I think Paul did an excellent job of cleaning up the template for Buffy, but I think a major concern right now is cleaning up the articles and condensing and merging ones that fail the appropriate guidelines and policies for having their own page. I think when you do that, you'll find that regardless of the template used, it'll be much smaller - as the more important thing is that you shouldn't be lumping all together. The Justice League is a spin off of Superman, but you don't see them mixing templates.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Look at Template:Doctor Who. Doctor Who has been runing a helluva lot longer than Buffy, and yet it's template is a reasonable size because it doesn't include every single article related to the subject. There are separate templates for spin-offs like Template:Torchwood and Template:TSJA, rather than an all-inclusive "Whoniverse" template. I think these are good examples to follow when making navboxes for large franchises.  Paul  730 20:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you have swayed me (which is not something that is easily done). However, as for the wikiquote, what reason do you give for not putting it in. It seems like a perfectly reasonable inclusion to me. As for Paul's template, because the characters pages have all the people listed in them, I can see why listing them would be redundant. I would like to point out that there are separate pages for Buffy and Angel novels and comics, so we should change that on Paul's template. I would like to ask, though, if there is a reasonably easy way to put these two templates in the individual pages without having to go through each one by one. Also, Willow was in three episodes of Angel, saving the day in the third, but I can see what you mean. kingdom2 (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I would put both templates on pages where both have direct connections. Like, both could be on the Slayers page, as both series elements of the Slayers present. I wouldn't expect to see Buffy's template on Lindsay's page, given that the character never showed his face in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. As for why the removal of Wikiquote, we shouldn't have external links in templates (the same way we shouldn't have external links in the body of articles). Wikiquote, where relevant, is usually linked on the page already (right next to the nav box).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Should we then redirect the Buffyverse template to the Buffy one, and add the Angel one manually to the relevant articles?  Paul  730 01:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to manually go in an swap them all out. You cannot redirect a template like that, at least not to my knowledge. A template is a fixed code that is presented when you put {{ }} around this name. It will merely have to be deleted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, 'cause most Buffy articles only have the Buffyverse template. I would like to ask, even though this is the wrong discussion page, if these new templates make the Angel and Buffy characters ones redundant. These templates are only found on the actual character pages, and in the crossover characters both are found, making for some unnecessary stack-up. I was just wondering if we should get rid of or redirect the Buffy character one and make the Angel character one redirect to the new Angel nav. This would save a couple of pages worth of work and make the whole subject area more uniform. Besides, as I said, the character templates seem redundant. Just a thought. kingdom2 (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I never quite understood their creation, but they really aren't necessary. Both templates feature links to the character lists, which contains all of the characters (plus more).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I find the character templates redundant as well, although I wouldn't object to a "Characters" section in the Buffy and Angel templates so long as we were strict with ourselves and only included cast regulars (ie, only people who were in the theme tune, none of this "Oh, but Faith is important, we should add her!"). Or am I just opening an unecessary can of worms?  Paul  730 02:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
No, the thought crossed my mind as well. I don't see why Giles, Willow, Xander, Buffy (clearly), Oz, Anya, and Spike (am I missing any series regulars?) couldn't be listed in the actual template. The same for Angel's template. Restrict it to just the regulars (i.e. the people that got actual opening credit acknowledgment, not someone who just happened to be in a lot of episodes...*cough*Joyce*cough*).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
You missed Riley, Dawn, and Cordelia. Seriously Bigs, what you got against Queen C? And I'd make a case for Tara; she wasn't a cast regular but she did make it into the theme tune for her final episode and I think that's enough of a loophole to chuck her in.  Paul  730 03:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
You missed Riley, Dawn, Cordelia, Angel, and Tara (that was Joss's trick, put her in the opener the episode she was killed). For the Angel nav, it would be Angel, Doyle, Cordelia, Wesley, Gunn, Fred, Lorne, Connor, Spike, and Harmony. kingdom2 (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I keep editing at the same time. Yeah that is enough of a loophole. She was in the opener, granted as a mean and cruel trick, and she was in more episodes than Oz or Riley. Also, can't forget Angel. He was a regular for two seasons. kingdom2 (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Was she really a "regular" though? When her name appeared on screen was it a "also starring" or a "guest starring" credit? I'm less tempted to include her because she really wasn't a main tune credit before that single episode where they killed her (which was probably just to throw everyone off and get them to think, "Yay, she's in the main theme she'll be here next season"). Riley was a main themer, really? Also, do we need to list Cordelia on both templates? I mean, maybe so, as we list Freddy vs. Jason on both the Nightmare and 'Friday the 13th templates.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I consider Tara a main character in the series, and the only reason she was not a main cast member was due to contractual issue (I forgot where I read that), and I consider that one episode loophole enough. Riley was in the opener for the last half of season 4 and the first of season 5. And Cordelia should be in both templates, as the character was created in Buffy but had greater presence in Angel. kingdom2 (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I got to go to bed. I'm out. kingdom2 (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
That's why I'm asking how her name was presented, because it cannot be about how "we" interpret her status, otherwise more than just them will be added by people who interpret others as "main" characters. If she was listed as "Also starring", and not "Guest starring", then the loop hole is irrelevant as she was still a main character, just not main theme worthy. Similar to House, which did not add the three new doctors to the main credits even though they received "starring" status in the episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Except for that one episode, which I do consider to be enough, she was always listed under "guest starring". Buffy never did an "also starring". Tara was however always at the end of the list, which was the spot generally saved for the regular guest stars. Despite all that, though, Tara is always considered by almost every viewer and character list online, including the ones on wikipedia, to be a main character, so I don't see what the big deal is. as long as we a very strict about this list, no problem should arise. kingdom2 (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The big deal is that if we let one slip through the net, others will want to add Joyce and Faith and Drusilla and other popular characters. I do see Bignole's point, but Tara was credited in the same way as other main characters in "Seeing Red", she was elevated to cast regular status for her final episode. Compare against Jonathan for example, who was added to the theme tune as a joke for one episode, but wasn't billed like Tara was. Tbh, the fact that this is already sparking such debate amongst ourselves is making me rethink the necessity for a "Characters" section. I'm worried we're just opening the doors for a slew of edit wars and debates from huffy fans who are upset their favourite character isn't included.  Paul  730 12:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Solution: Only list characters who were main characters (main themed) for all seven (five for Angel) seasons. Problem solved. Yes, it unfortunately leaves out Cordelia and Giles. That, or only list the people that were part of the main themes for more than a single season. Then again, we could always go through each character page and see who really meets WP:FICT and WP:NOTE (and WP:PLOT, WP:NPOV, WP:WAF, WP:NOR, etc) and start merging ones that probably won't ever meet the criteria for article existence. I have a feeling if we do that then we'll be able to list every character article we have. But that's probably not on the table, is it? ;)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't like that idea, and I think that all of the controversy that Paul mentioned would start can be subverted by simply saying "If they were listed in the opening credits at any time, then they go in." Tara was in, so she goes. Joyce was not, so she does not. Simple as that. With Bignole's idea, the only people listed in Buffy would be Buffy, Xander, and Willow, and the only ones for Angel would be Angel and Wesley, which is a pathetic character section. There would be no conflict or edit warring, it is a simple rule. Also, when I listed the Angel characters to go on the list, I forgot Illyria. kingdom2 (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that is probably the only one that I am adamently oppose to because she should NOT have an article. She should be part of Fred's article, as it's a character that was "spun" out of Fred (so to speak). Otherwise, Angelus should have an article separate from Angel. I don't think Illyria was part of the "main titles", I think the actress that played Fred was part of the main titles and they merely used scenes with Illyria after Fred "died". As for the others, let's put the Buffy ones in Paul's template above (create a new row of "Characters") and see how that looks with all of the ones that fit the bill (main title only). How's the Angel template coming by the way?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
And I am also adamantly for her inclusion. Illyria was not a character that was "spun" out of Fred, they simply used the same actress. Illyria is and entirely separate being from Fred, in appearance, abilities, memories, and personality, merely inhabiting her body. She is also featured in seven out of twelve issues of After the Fall, and, along with Spike, one of the main characters in Spike: After the Fall. Angel and Angelus have identical character histories, Fred and Illyria do not. She is very much her own character and the actress who played Illyria (Amy Acker) was included in the opening credits, which means she fits the rules. If we don't go ahead and include her, someone else will come along and do it. Also, I would suggest putting the Character sections in between the Series and Spin-off sections. Here is what they look like with characters:

I don't see anything wrong with the way it looks. The character lists are even practically the same length. What do you think? kingdom2 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think both look fine, and much tidier than that Buffyverse template. What is up with the Buffy and Angel people putting actors in the main titles for "special" episodes? Harmony? LMAO. Seriously. Anyway, I think these are much better.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Harmony wasn't a special entry, she was in the main credits for the last 6 episodes of Season 5, implying that, had the show not been canceled, she would likely have been in the main credits for Season 6. But again, we need a rule for which there is no wiggle room, and the opening credit rule seems sufficient. Now all we have to do is redirect this template with the Buffy one, redirect the Buffy character one with this, and redirect the Angel character one to the Angelnav. Then it's just a matter of going through all the Angel articles and switching them out. I went ahead and added the character lists to the Buffy and Angel navs. kingdom2 (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Redirecting this template to the Buffynav template didn't work. The big one still showed up on in transclusions. We are going to have to replace the code with the Buffynav and delete the Buffynav template. kingdom2 (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Replace the code on this page with the one you want, and then do a page move to the title that you want.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

After a couple of tries, I got the move, but I can't figure out what to do with the character templates. I want this nav to replace the Buffy character nav and the Angelnav to replace the Angel character template, but because you can only replace code and cannot merge articles into each other with moves, something is going to have to be deleted and there will be a lot of fallout and cleanup. Otherwise we are going to have duplicate templates, like we already have with this template and Template: Buffynav. kingdom2 (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Put a speedy deletion tag on the character template. After you do that, click on the "what links here" icon on the left of the screen (below the search bar, in the "toolbox" section). Systematically remove the character nav from all the pages and replace them with the appropriate template (Buffy, Angel or both). ... Strike that. Do the replacement first, and then put up the speedy deletion. I would copy all of the talk page information here and paste it over at "Buffynav". Once that's over, then put a speedy deletion on this title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitary break[edit]

This title is already spread around on nearly every Buffy-related article. Putting a speedy deletion here is a horrible idea. We should put one on Template: Buffynav as that is only on 2-3 pages. After Buffynav is gone though I think I'll move this page to that title. It looks way better. Your solution for the character nav will work, and I'm gonna get started on that tomorrow. Also, this section is getting ridiculously long. kingdom2 (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
You'll have the same result. When you move this page to "Buffynav", all of the articles with {{Buffy the Vampire Slayernav}} will have redlinks, because the quick link that this page generates with its title will be no more. You'll have to go in an switch all of the navs to "Buffynav" regardless.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Your right, it won't matter. All the pages that it used to be on now have redirects. I've put the speedy deletion tag on this page and I'm going to put it on the character ones. kingdom2 (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Buffy comics[edit]

It might be good to create a new section to separate the canon Buffy comics from those that are not. It might make things less confusing in the long run --220.238.175.38 17:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Could get a little messy, since some of the original comics are considered canon due to the involvement of people like Jane Espenson. Are there any definitive rules for the canoncity of Buffy comics? Paul730 23:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the only comics that are official canon are the ones that have either been specified canon by Joss or have been confirmed as canon by being referenced or referred to in other canon material - so this only includes: Season 8 comics, After the Fall, Fray, Tales of the Slayers, Tales of the Vampires 121.220.66.96 (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


I Agree, it has been stated by Joss that he reguards canon as very important, so this should be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.103.78 (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Inside jokes[edit]

Is there a page dedicated to inside jokes in the 'verse? There's no such thing as leprechauns, etc. samwaltz 11:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm curious: what's the joke about leprechauns? —Tamfang (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I forgot what episode it was in, but in the third season Buffy commented on things that do not exist, saying leprechauns as an example, but, presumably because she had seen so many unbelievable things, she asked Giles if she was right about the leprechauns. His response was "As far as I know."
It is a poor example of an inside joke. Better ones include that there is a Santa Claus, but instead of leaving presents he disembowels children, and of the dimension of no shrimp and the dimension of nothing but shrimp, all of which were revealed by Anya. The Santa Claus one was only talked about at the beginning of "The Body", but the shrimp dimensions are mentioned throughout the series, having particular appeal to Tara who is allergic to shrimp, and by Illyria in season 5 of Angel, who stated that she had been there and grew bored of it quickly.
That was probably more information than you were looking for, but I got on a roll. kingdom2 (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Faith Hope & Trick:
  • There's two things I do not believe in. Coincidence and leprechauns.
  • Buffy, it's entirely possible they happened by chance to arrive simultaneously.
  • Okay, but I'm right about leprechauns, right?
  • As far as I know.
As it happens, I saw that episode recently; I was wondering what makes it an inside joke, i.e. whether there's something that a first-time viewer wouldn't get. Likewise the Santa Claus thing in The Body (which I had forgotten), where's the "inside"? Shrimp is a much better example. —Tamfang (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
They aren't so much "inside jokes" as they are "universe jokes" (copyright 2008: kingdom2). They are jokes concerning aspects of a fictional universe that one would not expect (one would expect leprechauns to exist in the Buffyverse, and while one may or may not expect Santa Claus to be real, they certainly would not expect him to disembowel childred). kingdom2 (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

People[edit]

I think the list of people in the box is getting excessively long. Several of the characters are very minor, and are really just cluttering things up in my opinion. I'm thinking specifically of people like Clem, Groo, Scott (who?), and Senator Brucker (seriously, she was in three episodes). Villains who weren't actually the "Big Bad" of their season, like Caleb, are also borderline in my eyes. Jeff-El 05:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand.... If no one objects I will be taking out: Clem, Ethan Rayne, Gwen, Senetar, and Scott Hope----Smartjoe299
Okay, somebody keeps re-adding Scott with no explanation, without an account/talk page of his/her own. I'm going to try taking the high road here and look for some consensus: there is just no reason for Scott to be in this template. Agreed? Jeff-El 21:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Scott definitely does not deserve to be here. He was in about three episodes wasn't hugely important; even Buffy seemed to forget about him, "Scott? Oh... boyfriend Scott." I'd maybe argue for the inclusion of Ethan and Groo, they're not my favourite characters by any means, but they are fairly important and span mulitple seasons. Paul730 23:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This has also been discussed in the past: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buffyverse#Buffyverse-box character inclusions -- Paxomen 01:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Does Angel's hairy girlfriend really belong here? Paul730 01:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say "no." --Jeff-El 02:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we going to see any chacters from season 8 in there, like Generall Voll or satsu etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.103.78 (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

We already have Major and minor character links for both Buffy and Angel. Do we really need a list of all these people? And by first name only? It's not that useful for navigation right now, in my opinion. Maybe if we trimmed it down to just people who actually appeared in the opening credits? -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support restricting it to opening-credits cast members only. That list would be pretty sizable on its own, even including some "minor" characters like Harmony. I would also support the inclusion of the TV series' "Big Bad" villains: The Master, Adam, Glory, The First, and Jasmine. I know there are other noteworthy characters like Drusilla, Darla, The Trio, and so on, but then we run the risk of recreating the exact same problem. Jeff-El (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd say keep it to opening-credits people only, and perhaps big bads. Such as...
  • Buffy, Willow, Xander, Giles, Cordy, Angel, Oz, Riley, Spike, Dawn, Anya, Tara, Doyle, Wesley, Fred, Connor, Illyria, Harm
  • Master, Dru, Mayor, Adam, Glory, Warren, Jonathan, Andrew, First, Darla, Holtz, Jasmine
Thoughts?  Paul  730 18:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure about having all of the big bads, but maybe. Not sure. At the very least it's a good start. Let's pare it down to that and see how it looks. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Drusilla should not be omitted if there are less significant characters like Holtz, Adam and Jasmine in the list. I'd say she is more crucial to the extended plot than these characters, what do others think?--124.190.1.27 (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, people have readded Lindsey and Joyce for being "important", we're starting the problem all over again. Importance is subjective; Kendra has few appearances but is important to the mythology of the show, someone like Graham has lots of appearances but little importance. We need to cut this section down to cast regulars only, ie. people who appeared in the credits. I think we should omit Big Bads too, since there's confusion over that as well (is Jonathan a Big Bad, what about Amy?). What do people think? Remember that we also have a link to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters in the nav box.  Paul  730 15:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought we were going to separate this into two templates?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I took the initiative[no pun of course. ;)] and created two character templates for both shows.

For Angel: {{Angel The Series Characters}} For Buffy: {{Buffy The Vampire Slayer Characters}} I hope this will help out with the large template issue you have with the other one. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 19:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Also I've just added them to all character articles. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 22:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Expanded universe[edit]

In Expanded universe, we have a comics link, but then links to a comic (Fray) and two comics series (Tales of Slayers/Vampires). Same with novels. Is there a reason these are bumped out? WOuldn't it make more sense to have: Novels, Comics, Video Games, Fan Films - maybe borrow the RPG and card game from Auxilliary.

For that matter, I'm not really sure what the Auxilliary category is. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fray and the Tales comics aren't really "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" comics, they're spin-off titles set in the same universe. Classing them simply under Buffy comics would be inaccurate, IMO, they're too distinct on their own. "Auxillary" seems to consist of merchandise/random out-of-universe stuff. It all seems a bit miscellaneous.  Paul  730 20:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
But surely they qualify as Buffyverse comics (and they are listed there), which the expanded universe link goes to. As it stands now, in the navbox, we have a link to Buffy comics, a link to Angel comics, a link to buffyverse comics as well as those specific links to Fray, Tales, Season 8 and After the Fall. I can see why Seaon 8 and After the Fall are bumped out (though I think we could probably fold them in as well), but can't see a good argument for Fray and Tales. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not too comfortable with that "Buffyverse comics" page... seems a bit too in-universe. I think Fray/Tales completely deserve their own individual links, they're distinct spin-offs on their own. Like you say, Season 8 and AtF are notable on their own, so are Fray/Tales. The links you mention all seem fine to me since they're different series, with the exception of Buffyverse comics which I'm not even sure needs to exist (certainly not in it's current form). Maybe the Buffy/Angel comics lists should be converted into articles (about the publication history/reception etc of the series, like Buffy Season 8), and the Buffyverse comics list should be rewritten from an out-of-universe perspective.  Paul  730 21:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying that these series aren't notable, just that we don't need to link them in this navbox, because they're already under the umbrella of the larger comics articles. I think that a navbox should really be a pretty general guide to the articles available. Comics, books, movies, etc. To help people find their way around all of these articles. When we've got every little series and product crammed in here, it just seems a little confused. After the Fall and Season 8 at least have the merits of potentially long-running series. The Tales books and Fray were 5 or 6 issues and done. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Despite being brief, they're separate titles... I understand what you're saying about keeping nav boxes concise, but ommitting them doesn't sit right with me. Perhaps this is drastic but if the size of the navbox is the problem, maybe we could split it up into separate ones? One for characters, one for literature, maybe even different ones for Buffy and Angel... Just a suggestion, what do other people think? If we do keep the single navbox, I expect many other links to go with Fray/Tales, especially the music and places sections. I assume that's what you're trying to do anyway.  Paul  730 21:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to force it or anything, but I think we could knock off some more chaff, true. But only so that the important stuff really shines through. Do you think that we should carve out an entry for the Spike comics, since they were under a separate title, as well? -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I really think of the Spike books as Angel books, like when Giles or Jonathan got one-shot titles, they were still Buffy comics cos they were Buffy characters. Fray isn't about characters from Buffy or Angel, it's it's own series. The Tales books are the same, only less so, since they feature cameos from TV characters. Maybe it's just a case of "I like it". :P Feel free to make the edits you want, and maybe I'll look at the finished product differently.  Paul  730 22:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
When I first saw this box I thought it was too large. Personally, the first thing I'd do is separate the box into Buffy and Angel. Most pages might have both boxes, but some pages that have no direct tie to the other series can survive on the one nav box. It also removes that "Buffyverse" tag which has been recently systematically removed from most page titles because of its fan origin (I know the fans like it, and Joss has started using it, I mean, it's pretty catchy). Anyway, just separating the box into two will cut your space down for each individual box by a lot.
What is the difference between Tales of the Slayer (prose) and Tales of the Slayer?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The comic is good and the novels aren't. ;) Lol, I'm kidding. Both are anthology series about various Slayers throughout history, one is a graphic novel and the other is four prose novels. The set-up is similar for both, but the comic was overseen/partially written by Joss Whedon and is canon, thus earning it more attention in both fandom and the media.  Paul  730 22:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that two templates is probably a good idea. There are many pages that would only need one. Plus, the division might make them easier to navigate even when they are on the same page. I'll try to hammer something out. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Where are we on this?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this list should be inclusive because,[edit]

...unless you know where to look, or see the character in the template, you will not know that a wikipedia article exists about the character. Say I am new to the series, go onto Wikipedia, find Spike, like reading about Spike, want to know more about others around Spike, where do I look ? Just use the faulty wikipedia search engine ? Oh, wait, there is a Template:Buffyversenav template with more names and information linking directly to the articles I am looking for. Yippie. Thank you for reading and considering rkmlai (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you make it to the template at the bottom of the page, then you'll make it to the categories at the bottom of the page that have the same (more comprehensive) list of characters. First, the main reason this template is too large is because it includes two television shows. There are many things in Angel that have nothing to do with Buffy, and vice versa. There should be two templates, one for Angel and one for Buffy. This was discussed before, and someone was supposed to be creating a new template for Angel.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Characters templates[edit]

...are redundant, and clutter up articles. Don't we have a characters list (let's try for featured list!) and some fairly useful categories already? I think the point of a new, slimmer navbox is to do away with the bulky clutter of listing every single important character in the series. If we have to list characters (by some massive consensus), should we not keep it to just credited cast?~ZytheTalk to me! 10:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

They are needed to navigate though the franchise characters. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 22:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure we do need character templates, although I appreciate the time Faith has spent making them. As Zythe said, we can link List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters in the navbox. Also, as for navigating through the pages, we have internal links in the articles themselves. We also have Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Character navboxes do seem redundant.  Paul  730 22:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
"Needed" is such a strong word. How so? TfD it is then.~ZytheTalk to me! 00:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Overlap[edit]

Some people are now listed under both "characters" and "villains".

The "Angel" link in the villains section could probably be made to link to the Angelus section of the article, as he's noth a villain and a main character, but otherwise people like Holtz should just be in one or the other.

Jasmine[edit]

Doesn't Jasmine qualify as a Villian big enough to be listed on the template? It's been a while, but it seems like she was a pretty big deal, what with her connection to Cordelia and all... Certainly bigger than some on the template, like Veruca, who was only in three episoes, or Jinx, who was a sidekick... Nerrolken (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

She's on the template under "Powers". Kingdom2 (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

People & Villains categories[edit]

Having characters divided into essentially "goodies" and "badies" is a very conjectural approach and borders original research. Looking along the list of "People", there's plent that could be also considered villains at some point in the show (Andrew, Angel, Anya, Connor, Cordelia, Faith... and I'm just up to F here). Plus, the label of "People" is rather vague also - denoting that the villains are all non-humans, which of course many are but some aren't. Let me know your thoughts on this one so I can judge consensus. As it stands however I feel very uncomfortable about the groups being divided this way. Tphi (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually totally agree, it's not black & white - for instance, Darla is under 'Recurring' in the Angel characters template, but under 'Villians' in the Buffyverse template. I think we should switch it to 'Main' and 'Supporting' or 'Regular' and 'Recurring' and just differentiate by that 124.181.102.9 (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. So it would look something like this (I've alphabetised and standardised to one-word names as much as possible, they're all over the place currently.)
As long as no one raises any objections, I'll edit this into the template. Tphi (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
As this template goes for the Buffyverse as a whole, not just the two shows, I think that Fray should be moved up into the "Main" section, as she was the main character of her own comic book series. The characters included show an obvious bias for the television shows, and since Fray is the main character of a legitimate spin-off, she deserves to be on the list. kingdom2 (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
This is how it should look:
Just because she was not on the shows does not mean that she was not a main character in the Buffyverse (also, the Scythe was in Fray before it was on Buffy. I also included Kendra Young. kingdom2 (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with all of that. I'm going to edit this into the template now. Tphi (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are Kendra and Veruca included? Seriously... if anyone can give any reasonable argument as to why they should stay they should be removed. 124.181.102.9 (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

All the people who appear in this category are those who have their own pages, appeared in three or more episodes, and to some degree had significant impact in those episodes. In fact, on this basis I would also argue that D'hoffryn should be included. kingdom2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC).

Template:Buffy and Angel cast[edit]

I've just created it for the actors template. {{Buffy and Angel cast}}

It's based off of the Star Trek DS9 Template:

Like that one. It's used for the articles of major cast members who appeared in the opening credits of both series. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 12:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's unnecessary if you have a link to their character pages already on the Buffy and Angel templates.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Title link[edit]

The title of the template currently links to the page Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The problem with that is that the link takes readers to a disambiguation page, which is strongly discouraged. Ideally, the link at the top of this template should take the reader to an article that provides an overview of the whole "BtVS" fictional concept and pointers to more specific information. The closest thing to such an overview is in the article Buffyverse, but this template does not link to it, and in any case that article focuses more on the setting of the fiction than on the characters or plots. I think the ultimate problem is that Buffy the Vampire Slayer should not be a disambiguation page, but an introductory/summary article that provides readers with an overview of the topic and directs them to more detailed articles on particular aspects. Anyone want to write such a thing? --Russ (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, and it is not necessary, because the articles in the disambiguation page are only those related to BtVS. It contains all of the major aspects of the franchise: series, film, novels, comics, studies, and Season Eight, among other less-important, but related things. While such a practice may be discouraged, it still applies and is a better alternative than the Buffyverse page, which is a fan generated term that encroaches upon Angel. kingdom2 (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Rules for Character Inclusion[edit]

These rules are already stated in the "Too big" section, but I decided to write them again in a new section so that they are clear and readily available. The rule is as follows:

A character is only included on this template if the actor/actress who portrayed them appeared, at any time, in the opening sequence of the show. That means that they were listed and their names appeared, not just an image in the montage.

This rule was chosen because of its complete objectivity. While people can debate for hours on the relative importance of characters, there is not debate on what actors appeared in the opening sequence. This rule also means that, because of her one appearance in the opening credits, Tara Maclay is included on the template.

The point of this template is to represent the franchise as a whole, not every little detail and aspect of it. That is exactly what happened with the old Buffyverse template and exactly what we want to avoid with this one. kingdom2 (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you really claim to represent the fanchise as a whole if you don't include such important characters as Joyce? Yes, I agree, too many characters is a bad thing, but right now, I would argue that there's too few. Can't you make separate catagories like "Minor characters" or "Major Villians" (or "Big Bads" might be more fitting) that include more characters but still make it easy to read? J52y (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Joyce is a supporting character, not a main one. If we open the door for "important" characters like Joyce and Dru and Faith, then we end up including everyone. That's what happened with the old template. Minor character articles are accessible through in-prose links, categories, and character lists. There's no point in clogging up the template.  Paul  730 15:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect, the 600+ Disambigulation links, and Franchise Categorizing[edit]

I redirected all of the other templates to this template. At first users tried that but they were just redirecting the Slayernav page and that was it instead of redirecting all of the templates that were redirecting to Slayernav. So you were seeing the "REDIRECT:" on many pages. That shouldn't happen anymore. If you guys decide to change the name again, remember to change all of the template redirects or else the same issue will happen again. Here is a listing of the templates that redirect here for future reference. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 13:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)"

And btw, the reason why I changed the title link to Buffyverse is because otherwise you have a massive amount of pages that are pointing to a disam page, which we try to avoid. Doesn't "Buffyverse" cover just about everything? That's why I made the link to that. It avoids directing to a disam page. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Buffyverse is a fan-generated term that refers to a fictional universe, encompassing both Buffy and Angel, which is what we do not want to do. The old Buffyverse template was far too big, and as Buffy and Angel are separate shows, we decided that they each needed their own nav box. Buffyverse cannot go as the title of this template because we removed everything Angel from it and gave it its own nav. The reason why I put the disam link there (I knew what I was doing) is because there is nothing on that page that is not related to Buffy, and as this navbox is representing the franchise of BtVS, not the show, we felt that we couldn't just make the link to the show. I know it is usually something that is to be avoided, but it is not entirely forbidden, and because Buffyverse is absolutely not an option (not the topic of the nav) there was nothing else I could think of that would be better. kingdom2 (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
re: disambigulation, How about a full-fledged BtVS page, describing the general universe, its various other media incarnations and spin-offs, thus eliminating the disambigulation. Kind of like the Star Trek page and template. As the current Buffyverse category stands, it doesn't seem to reference the Swanson film, which I think is correctly referenced in the Buffynav template, based on Kingdom2's comments. The Buffyverse category would need to be updated to include film references then. This BtVS main page would then be within Buffynav, Jossnav, and possibly Angelnav -- or at minimum, the Buffyverse (which it already is linked) and Angelverse. It seems the Star Trek wiki-people split off the various series and movies based on era. The existing BtVS page can then be moved to a real BtVS (disambigulation) page via the 'otheruse' template. --Vorik111 (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the "Angelverse". "Buffyverse" applies to both Buffy and Angel TV shows and all media based on them, including the film. While I like the idea of the franchise page, I do not know who will make it, and I do not think that there is enough information to make one. With 40 years of Star Trek, it is easy to have a franchise page. If you include the film, Buffy has only been around for 16 years, and 11 without the film. I think that, while it is not a perfect solution, we should just have the title link be to the TV series page. That is where most of the subjects stem from and it is obvious that having the disam link is going to be divisive. I'll go ahead and change it. kingdom2 (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A franchise article would probably be a good idea since we have a lot of articles that probably shouldn't exist (see the Auxilary section of this navbox to see what I'm talking about). The majority of those article aren't particularly notable and, with with a bit of summarisation, would work a lot better merged into a larger franchise article. That's what was done with Friday the 13th (franchise), and I think it turned out pretty good.  Paul  730 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Film in 'Series' Section[edit]

OK, I think the debate has to happen. Why is it in the series section I ask?

This is what is written in the nav: ATTENTION! DO NOT MOVE THE FILM TO EXPANDED UNIVERSE. THE ENTIRE BUFFY FRANCHISE IS DERIVED FROM THE FILM, SO, WHILE IT IS NOT CANON, IT IS HARDLY EXPANDED UNIVERSE. THANK YOU.

a. The nav isn't about Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a universe, it's even linked in the title as Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV Series), the television series is the basis on the nav. b. The film does not equal the series, this has been stated time and time and time and time and time and time and time again c. If it is indeed part of the 'series' then why isn't Pike, Merrick and those lame vampire antagonists in the 'characters' section? Credited cast? d. The film is related to the television series and season eight, but it is not part of the 'series, therefore film = expanded universe. Can we please move it? Thankyoubye. 58.164.112.194 (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No! Absolutely not no! We cannot move it and this debate is NOT one that needs to happen, and here is why:
A: the title link is to the series because there is no other, better link (Buffyverse is not acceptable as it includes Angel, which has its own template). If you look in the above section of the talk page, you will notice that there has already been a discussion on the creation of a Buffy the Vampire Slayer franchise page in order to put in the title link.
B: "Expanded Universe" is described in its article as: "the 'extension' of a media franchise (i.e. a television show, series of feature films, etc.) with other media (generally comics and original novels)", and, since the entire freakin' Buffy franchise is derived from that one, awful movie, then, if anything, everything else is expanded universe, but since that would be absolutely ridiculous, we lumped it together with the series section.
C: The film was never considered not part of the series, just not canon. The canon version of the events of the film - including the characters Pike, Merrick, and Lothos - can be found in the Origin comics.
D: The reason why the template is so heavily biased towards the series (the character section for example) is because the series is the most readily recognized incarnation of the franchise by the public. Not many people could tell you who played Buffy in the film (Kristy Swanson), but almost anyone who grew up in the late 90's could tell you that Sarah Michelle Gellar played Buffy on the show.
The point of all the above points is that, while the film is not in anyway canon (or even decent, for that matter) it is an intrinsic part of the Buffy franchise. Every single little Buffy thing comes out of that movie, which is why, while it is rather separated from the series, it is by no means and in no way, shape, or form, in any way "expanded universe". kingdom2 (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I would be cool with it if the nav was a Buffyverse type nav, but it's not, it's a television series nav. "Although there are some exceptions, Expanded Universe works are generally not accepted as canon, or part of the 'official' storyline." - The film is not part of the canon of the series, Season Eight, Angel, After the Fall, Fray, Tales of the Slayer or Tales of the Vampires, henceforth film = expanded universe. The franchise of the nav's basis doesn't begin with the film, and the nav itself is for the television series, so until such time as the nav actually becomes about Buffy as a franchise, move. It's completely in the incorrect position at this point in time. thankyoubye. 58.164.112.194 (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The nav already is about the franchise, we just don't have a franchise article and, as the primary aspect of the franchise, the TV show got the link. If that link is the basis for your whole argument, we could just unlink it (the TV show is linked below anyway). You need to get your head out of the "Buffyverse" canon and stop thinking from an in-universe perspective. Canon has nothing to do with a film's role in a franchise. Look at the Halloween franchise; that series has 3 movies that were retconned from continuity, as well as a remake. The films have separate continuities and canons, but it's still classed as one franchise. Same with the Batman movies or James Bond or whatever. The Buffy movie may not be canon, but it's still a legitimate and important part of the Buffy franchise, whether the fanboys like it or not.  Paul  730 15:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
To 58.164.112.194: Have you ever heard the statement "Every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square". It is a basic concept of geometry that states that, as anything with four sides and four 90 degree angles is defined as a rectangle, only a rectangle with equal length sides is considered a square. Well, that is the basic format for you expanded universe/canon argument. If something is expanded universe, then it is generally not considered canon, but just because something is not canon in no way instantly classifies it as expanded universe. Expanded universe is a product that "springs forth" from another concept, and the only place that the film "sprang forth" from was Joss Whedon's magnificent cranium. There are also several non-canon things in Buffy that are not considered expanded universe (Unaired Buffy pilot, Corrupt (Angel), and Angel pitch tape just to name a few). This argument is so absolutely ridiculous that it is actually making my head hurt. You are trying to argue that a piece of work which an entire franchise is based on is, in fact, part of the expanded universe of that franchise. In biological terms, the franchise gave birth to its own mother. I am sorry, but there is absolutely no way that the film belongs in the Expanded Universe section. kingdom2 (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Of what you both say is meaningless, as the nav was of the television show, but thank you! Now that you've de-linked the title, the whole thing actually makes sense, rather than being retarded! There are still a few lingering issues however... for one, the 'episodes' link shouldn't be there if the nav is, in fact, about the franchise. Since it is in the second-tier of the nav, it assumes the position of making the nav about the television series. 58.164.112.194 (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The title has been delinked, but the film is still staying in the Series section. We have reached a decent compromise, so accept your losses and gains and go home. kingdom2 (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Weee!! How I love Wikipedia so. It's just the epitome of democracy at work! And not at one point do we ever think, "what's the point?" Thankyoubye. 58.164.112.194 (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
We listened to your opinion and removed the link (which seemed to be your main complaint), now do you actually have anything more constructive to add to the discussion at this stage?  Paul  730 17:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Color issue[edit]

Just bring up an issue here that's been nagging me for a bit now... and it also affects {{Angelnav}}.

In light of WP:COLOR and WP:ACCESS, the background of the title bar really needs to be changed. As it stands, the deep blue makes all the default text colors hard, if not impossible, to read.

Is there a washed out version of the blue that would be acceptable to use instead?

- J Greb (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Angel[edit]

Should their be mention to the related show angel in the template? Angel the TV show has many charters from Buffy The Vampire Slayer and has a plot based off Buffy the vampire slayer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.34.61 (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Faith[edit]

Why is Faith not in this box? I think she is a notable enough character, certainly moreso than some of the others included 67.246.14.41 (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)