Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

New Refs

I have merged most of the references from the "social issues" page, with great props to the contributors who actually found those sources. Also, did some editing to simplify the text, get topics under their proper headings, eliminate much redundancy, and remove some overly cumbersome asides-- especially in places where another article is linked and the extra info isn't needed here. BarkingDoc 01:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving Forward

I have archived previous discussion.

The article is starting (finally) to have a good number of sources. Let's keep looking and getting those references in.

Also, I've been spotting vandalism (or at least nasty POV comments) from an angry Buffy anti-fan, so regular contributors keep your eyes peeled. BarkingDoc 20:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

External links section too large?

I am concerned that the External links section is way too large. Wikipedia policy is that "on articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate." I also suspect there is a significant amount of overlapping content in many of the linked websites. Finally, some links probably need to be removed and placed on the appropriate article (if not already there) such as the Joss Whedon links. Discussion? --ElKevbo 16:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I definetly agree. I'll will see if any of them might be good for footnotes, otherwise most of them can go. BarkingDoc 18:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Format and Themes Pastiche List

I really like the list of pastiche references in the "format and themes" section, but I wonder if it is appropriate. I think that it qualifies as original research. Otherwise it suggests that those "sources" were intentional, rather that just the interested observations of the viewer. Unless there is some reference from the production team (a comment from Joss or Jane or Marti, for example) then I think we shouldn't keep the list. BarkingDoc 18:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The following is original research. It would be interesting to include IF it can be sourced. BarkingDoc 19:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The series was, at times, pastiche, borrowing heavily from previous horror novels, movies, and short stories and from authors as diverse as H. P. Lovecraft and Stephen King and from such common literary stock as folklore and myths. Some of the borrowings that fuel Buffy plots, characters, and themes are:

• Adam (character) - parallels the Frankenstein monster and the Terminator cyborg
• “Amends” (episode) - similar to Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol”
• “Bad Eggs” (episode) - parallels Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Alien
• "Beauty and the Beasts” (episode) - parallels Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde
• "Beneath You" (episode) - influenced by the movie Tremors
• “Buffy vs. Dracula” (episode) - features Bram Stoker’s Dracula
• “Dead Man’s Party” (episode) - parallels W. W. Jacobs's "The Monkey's Paw", Stephen King’s Pet Semetary, George Romero’s Night of the Living Dead, and the Greek myth concerning Medusa, the Gorgon who was able to turn men into stone with but a gaze.
• "The Wish" (episode) and Doppelgangland” (episode) - parallels It’s a Wonderful Life
• “Gingerbread” (episode) - features a boy and a girl named Hansel and Gretel
• “Go Fish” (episode) - parallels The Creature from the Black Lagoon
• "I Was Made To Love You" - similar to Ira Levin's The Stepford Wives
• Olaf the troll’s hammer (object) - Thor’s hammer, Mjolnir
• “Out of Sight, Out of Mind” (episode) - parallels H. G. Wells’ The Invisible Man
• “Some Assembly Required” (episode) - parallels Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein

This section was added back in. I took it. It cites no sources and thus is, as far as I can tell, original research. --ElKevbo 02:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

re do intro

The intro or soon after makes no reference to who plays the title character.. fix? --Joeblack982 08:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think either way is fine. BarkingDoc 19:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Character descriptions

I think the character descriptions are getting bloated and fan-crufty. The descriptions should only have basic descriptions of the most major character details and their primary context in the series. They definetly should NOT include a synopsis of the characters' story on the show, which is firstly unnecessary and secondly will always be biased. Since every character has their own article, there is no reason to try and cram lots of minor details in here. BarkingDoc 00:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• WHen it talks about main characters, it links to the article on main characters, which repeates almost EXACTLY the same info as it had on the previous page. This seems really redundant, I think that it should either have different, more extensive information on the second page, or no second page at all - I can't see how it is justifiable to have the same basic stuff twice. Riverbend 16:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Buffy clairvoyant?

Is this ever made clear in the show itself? Buffy certainly has the odd prophetic dream, but is this some slayer power, or some Buffy power, or some result of living on the Hellmouth? I don't believe that this is ever made explicit (or even theorised) in the show. Leeborkman 09:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

don't know about it being discussed on the show, but Buffy has had dreams in which she is reliving moments of previous Slayer's lives. This suggests to me that it must be linked to her Slayer abilities, kind of a way for her to learn from their past mistakes maybe??--NeilEvans 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the, supposedly canon, comic Fray. There's talk of prophetic dreams as a slayer gift. Maybe someone with it to hand can rustle up a quote--Nalvage 19:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Angel episode Damage verifies it is a Slayer thing, that happens to imbue them with instinctive knowledge derived from that which their predecessors possessed. The seeing the future bit is also a gift to help them survive, yes. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Also backed up by the comic version of Whedon's script for the Buffy movie, The Origin (Whedon's comment on the comic: "The origin comic, though I have issues with it, CAN pretty much be accepted as canonical"). Merrick informs Buffy she is the Slayer, and tells her "Your dreams are merely your own self trying to remind you of who you are, and to warn you, perhaps, of the greatest evil rising there." -- Paxomen 15:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, didn't Giles say something like "Could be worse, you could be having the dreams" in the first episode? Or am I delusional? (Can it be both?)Le Messor 02:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro paragraph has elements of POV review/critique

In particular: "This combination of empowerment and empathy has earned Buffy a passionate following among fans, giving the show a cult status." I'm not sure that that is particularly what earned the show a passionate following. You might also mention the show's wit, the combination of two great drama staples (the teen high-school soap and the action/horror genre), the pop-cultural references, etc. Why not just state that BtVS has gained a passionate following. And isn't "among fans" redundant?  ;-) Anyway, I don't really want to edit the intro paragraph of such a popular page myself, but am I right about what is POV?. Leeborkman 12:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you should make the edit. Wikipedia's maxim is "Be bold", the worst that can happen is that everyone'll hate you ;) But I think you're right, it's certainly subjective and ripe for the chopping.--Nalvage 19:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Do we need to have both the {{Buffynav}} and {{Buffyversenav}} templates? Buffyversenav has all of the same links (and more) that Buffynav does, so why not only use Buffyversenav? Koweja 14:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I removed it -- Paxomen 12:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Trogdor

Can something about trodgor go on this page? Kiran90 12:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, why? There was like one off hand mention of Trogdor in the last episode.Illadar 00:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul

I have been giving the article a bit of a structural overhaul. I have not deleted anything, except I really felt the list of pastiche was not necessary?:

• Adam (character) - parallels the Frankenstein monster and the Terminator cyborg
• “Amends” (episode) - similar to Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol”
• “Bad Eggs” (episode) - parallels Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Alien
• "Beauty and the Beasts” (episode) - parallels Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde
• "Beneath You" (episode) - influenced by the movie Tremors
• “Buffy vs. Dracula” (episode) - features Bram Stoker’s Dracula
• “Dead Man’s Party” (episode) - parallels Stephen King’s Pet Semetary, George Romero’s Night of the Living Dead, and the Greek myth concerning Medusa, the Gorgon who was able to turn men into stone with but a gaze.
• “The Wish” (episode) - parallels It’s a Wonderful Life
• “Gingerbread” (episode) - features a boy and a girl named Hansel and Gretel
• “Go Fish” (episode) - parallels The Creature from the Black Lagoon
• "I Was Made To Love You" - similar to Ira Levin's The Stepford Wives
• Olaf the troll’s hammer (object) - Thor’s hammer, Mjolnir
• “Out of Sight, Out of Mind” (episode) - parallels H. G. Wells’ The Invisible Man
• “Some Assembly Required ” (episode) - parallels Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
• “Forever” (episode) - parallels W. W. Jacobs's "The Monkey's Paw"

My thinking is that this information does not all need to be given in this article. I shortened it to :

As the authors of Dusted point out, the series was, often pastiche, borrowing elements from previous horror novels, movies, and short stories and from such common literary stock as folklore and myths. many episodes put a postmodern spin on these elements. For example the Adam character parallels the Frankenstein monster, the episode “Bad Eggs” parallels Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and so on.

Is this OK? I don't like to see work go to waste, so would be willing to gradually insert the references into the individual episode articles over the next week. -- Paxomen 00:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer reviews

It'd be great if people could check out the article and provide comments on how it might be improved at the peer review forum. -- Paxomen 16:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oz as brilliant student

It says in the character descrips that Oz is a brilliant student - I don't know if that is exactly right. He is crazy smart, but doesn't apply himself - so he tests well but barely gets around to graduating high school. Is this worth changing? Riverbend 19:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe minorly reworded Snoopydance 00:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning of other shows

Do we really need to mention Dawson's Creek in the intro of this article? Seems out of place, and I believe deleting it would work just as well. --Sam Weber 21:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It does seem irrelevant. It would be more appropriate in the WB article. Koweja 21:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I kind of agree but the problem is that if we remove the ref, then the text left is

"..However this level of ratings was good for the Warner Brothers Network, and Buffy is often associated with the early success of the network"

Could this be misleading? Because Dawson's Creek was the major success of the network, and Buffy actually only played second fiddle to it in terms of bringing success to WB. The footnotes that describe WB's success always primarily point to DC as the big hit. Buffy was the cult smash rather than the ratings monster. -- Buffyverse 11:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If Buffy wasn't that importaint to the success of the network, then shouldn't the sentence just be deleted? Koweja 15:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Buffyverse is right, Dawson's was the biggest hit, but it's not all about ratings Buffy was still very important to the success of the network, and both series are frequently connected with the success of WB. It was a cult hit with brilliant ratings for WB, but also it was highly regarded by those that did watch it - word of mouth goes a long way, Buffy brought with it critical acclaim, attention from the media that also helps WB. Some of the audience that enjoyed Buffy were willing to dip into other series on the channel including shows that were influenced by Buffy like Smallvile, Charmed.. That's why WB was willing to spend it's last three hours showing two hours of Buffy followed by an hour of Dawson's. -- Paxomen 01:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidate review: Buffy article

Hi

Just letting people know that the article 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' is undergoing review to be a featured article. It might even be possible to get the article on the front page on March 10th 2007, (10th anniversary of Buffy - 10yrs since "Welcome to the Hellmouth" was first seen).

Any feedback you can offer to improve the article and/or to either object or support the nomination, would be wonderful. You can do this at the page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Thanks -- Paxomen 18:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I support the nomination of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer article for selection as a feature article on the date of its 10th anniversary. Starbuck-2 00:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I Support the nomination of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer article for selection as a feature article on March 10th 2007. Jacobshaven3 12:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a featured article!

OK, it took the blood and tears of dozens of editors, a fair amount of that, over the last 6 weeks, but it was worth it because Buffy is finally at Wikipedia:Featured articles. You can see the evolution of the article in this chart below:

Buffy article
Buffy article (October 2002)
Buffy article (October 2003)
Buffy article (October 2004)
Buffy article (October 2005)
Buffy article (October 2006)

-- Paxomen 21:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Congradulations to everyone! Koweja 22:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Great job to everyone! The article is MUCH improved. Congratulations!!!!! Riverbend 18:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk page headers

When Raul654 added the featured article template, he removed a bunch of them. Two of them were {{skiptotoctalk}} and {{talkheader}}. Was there a reason for this? Both of them are quite useful since we have a)new editors coming in all the time, and b)a lot of templates on the top. While I re-added them, I don't want to start a revert war, so if there is a reason to get rid of them, please do so and I won't put them back. Thanks Koweja 22:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ascension / Day

Could someone please add an entry to Ascension (disambiguation)? Thanks. Xiner 15:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit

Howdy! Paxomen and I are doing a trade, as we are trying to get Firefly (TV series) to FA and needed a copyedit, and so he's lending a hand there, and I did some here. I have a couple of observations that I wanted to share and didn't feel like I should do them myself as that might be too bold, so I'll leave it up to you:

• I noticed you guys are using {{cquote}} for your quotes, and the WP:MOS suggests instead that we use HTML block quotes. The ones you are using are generally used for "pull quotes", where, like images, they are outside the flow of the prose and are used to draw attention to that section and give a good summation - like magazines do when they use a quote and blow it up big and put it outside the flow of the article. How you're using them, though are in cases where they are inline quotations, i.e. someone said: and then the quote. In this article, this quote "The very first mission statement of the show, was the joy of female power: having it, using it, sharing it" could be an excellent pull quote and maybe you could move it to the top or use the blue ones like on Pericles so that you can keep the cquote template and the look of it but have it outside the flow of the prose. The others do seem better as inline quotations though and should have the regular <blockquote> code
• I noticed repeat wikilinks throughout. Once Sarah Michelle Gellar is linked, you shouldn't wikilink her again, etc.
• "Spike (James Marsters), a vampire, is an old companion of Angelus and one of Buffy's major enemies in early seasons" who is Angelus? Is that Angel?

Reading this made me want to get it on Netflicks and watch it! Great job! If anyone here, wants to lend a hand in copyediting Firefly, that would be shiny! --plange 00:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Genre description

I added Action to the genre section of the side box. It seemed silly that it wasn't there, considering the amount of fighting in the show. Courtnificus 17:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What happened to season 1 episodes?

The individual pages for all of season 1 episodes and the first 3 of the second season are not existent anymore? Anybody know why?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Redsignal (talk • contribs)

Copyright violations, apparently. You can see the deletion logs, and they all say deleted "xxxxxxxxxxxx (Buffy episode)" (Copyvio buffyguide). Koweja 18:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yay, its fixed!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Redsignal (talk • contribs)

Buffyverse location proposal

Please see the proposal here regarding buffyverse locations, ie places, and the future of them. KnightLago 21:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the Halfyard essay a reliable source?

I think the analysis is a good one, but I'm not convinced that it goes beyond one person's take. It was hosted on what appears to be a fansite, and the link is now a 404. Does a similar analysis appear anywhere that has some sort of review process for what is published? Croctotheface 03:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

SlayageOnline.com is an academic peer-reviewed online journal (edited by published acdemics Lavery and Wilcox), that only features selected essays every issue. We do have to be very careful about using possible analysis that would actually reflect controversial opinions, but the quotes used from Halfyard's essay are primarily descriptive and I can't imagine anyone disputing her words describing the opening sequence and its connection with the horror genre. The link went dead because Slayge moved web sites (from Slayge.tv to SlayageOnline.com), but I have repaired the appropiate links) - Paxomen 15:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Croctotheface 08:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings

Why are there three spoiler warnings on this page? I'm going to fix it so that only one is needed (although I'm sure you all know I wish they just did not exist :) ). — Deckiller 13:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's probably for anyone who uses the table of contents and skips to a section that has spoilers, but the spoiler warning is not visible because it is located in the section above. If anyone clicks on Plot summary in the table of contents, they'll skip to the Plot summary section where there is no spoiler warning there anymore. --Silver Edge 16:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really agree with so few spoiler warnings - people who haven't seen the show could be potentially very spoiled now IMO if they don't notice the warning in the 'Settings' section (and is it just me or does it appear now that 'Settings' is the only subsection which might contain major spoilers). This is especially important as its possible the article might be on the front page of Wikipedia on March 10 (Buffy 10th anniversary), and exposed to many non-Buffy-watchers. -- Buffyverse 17:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhap a spoiler warning right below the lead then? — Deckiller 17:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, one warning is certainly more then ample. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

On March 10, the article will be exposed to many Buffyverse newbies who may want to dip into the series and may benefit from not having the story spoiled. I suggest following the example of the featured TV series article, The Wire (TV series) which has a 'spoilers follow' warning then a 'spoilers end' warning. I have just done this on the Buffy article from 'Inspirations and metaphors' section past the plot summary and characters sections, and then the 'spoilers end' mark. There are continued spoilers before and after this, but all the biggest stuff is then within the warning area. Is this OK? -- Paxomen 18:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Today's featured article, March 10 2007

This article will be on the front page of Wikipedia on March 10, which is exactly 10 years after the premiere Buffy episode was first aired on March 10, 1997. So it will be worth keeping the article in top-notch condition, and engaging in any discussion before making any major changes. -- Paxomen 18:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

lol... is it just me or was this page featured before?--Xallium (talk • contribs) 01:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it has. o_o LonelyPker 01:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been a "featured article" (reviewed as high quality) for a few months but it has never been "Today's featured article" before, it is on the Wikipedia Main Page for the whole of today. This means it will experience much higher traffic then usual, but it will also get more attacks from vandalism. -- Paxomen 02:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You're not wrong there. The KLF attracted just under 200 edits yesterday. I dare say you'll get even more. Congrats on the front page and good luck! --kingboyk 12:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that someone besides me remembered that today was the 10th anniversary. -- Jayunderscorezero 12:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, Paxomen. I remember voting in the FAC back in October, warning you crazy bunch that if you were to wait for the anniversary, you'd have to maintain the article for five months. And that's what you did. Xiner (talk, email) 16:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job, editors!

I contributed nothing to the article, but nice work at getting this to Featured Article status, those of you that did! Paul Haymon 05:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, great work on the FA. -- Ari 07:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Butt Slayer?

Someone please fix those "Buffy the Butt Slayer" links..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.153.247.195 (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

It's already been fixed. Try bypassing your cache with Ctrl+F5.—M_C_Y_1008 (^talk/_contribs) 12:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Translations

There does not seem to be any information in Wikipedia about the different languages the series was translated into and the various countries in which it has been shown. I know it was shown on Sky in the UK and was translated into German, French, and Italian, but does anyone have more information? I believe detailing where the series was shown would help to expand the scope of the article and reflect the tremendous success and popularity of this show. All the best, Wachholder0 15:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Just noticed this as it was the FA today, otherwise I would never have looked at this page. The intro reads

Buffy the Vampire Slayer is an American cult television series that aired from March 10, 1997 until May 20, 2003.

Surely it was rather than is as it finished in 2003. See Z-Cars for example if how I think it should be. Noticed as I went through looking for examples though some say is and some say was, on series that have finished. Was makes more sense to me. Jimmmmmmmmm 16:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "aired" sufficiently indicates that past tense. PhoenixTwo 17:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The series still exists even though new episodes aren't being created so it should be written in the present tense. Koweja 17:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To repeat what others have already pointed out, it still is a series whether it has finished or not. So the word needed is is. -- Paxomen 17:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added some invisble text in the article just before the opening to prevent editors changing the tense without discussion:

• Fictional narratives (and works of art) exist beyond their completion, e.g. A Tale of Two Cities is a novel (we do not say A Tale of Two Cities was a novel), The Mona Lisa is painting (we do not say the Mona Lisa was a painting). They were completed in the past we can say A Tale of Two Cities was completed in the 19th-century, but we cannot say it was a novel, it is a novel.
• Here is a passage from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) which hints at why this is so:

"The story that each work of fiction depicts does not change despite the continuation of stories across serial works or sequels, and as a consequence, the events within one work of fiction are always in the present whenever it is read, watched, or listened to."

• Please do not change the tense in this passage without contributing to discussion on the talk page, Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Possible error

In the casting section this sentence appears: "He landed his Xander Harris role following only four days of auditioning." This might mean exactly what it says, but I thought the intent might be something like ""He landed his Xander Harris role only four days after auditioning" (quite a different meaning). Can't check the source myself and not familiar enough with the subject matter to easily check independently.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with source, changed to less ambiguous text: "He landed his Xander Harris role only four days after first auditioning." -- Paxomen 22:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Great. It seemed odd to me that we would see the word "only" if he had auditioned four times.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well he likely did multiple auditions in front of various people during that four day period, I don't know how many auditions he did and this particular source does not reveal that information. However since Brendon refers to "auditioning" there was at least two auditions. Four auditions would be very few for a 'series regular' role, the norm for such a big role is many many callbacks before getting a part. -- Paxomen 23:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Impact on Television

Apart from Doctor Who, references are to television in the USA. If the title is to be impact on television globally, I think some more non-US examples are required. --mgaved 10:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cancelled?

I was under the impression Buffy came to its natural end, and was not cancelled by the network? Matthew 15:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was not cancelled.. IIRC, the producers ended it because Sarah Michelle Gellar would not do a series eight.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 16:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 22#Category:Television program cancellations by year for a cfd thread on the proposed renaming of the category scheme to "Category:Television program series endings by year". Those categories are intended to show the year the series ended regardless of reason. Due to some complaints by Illyria and a few others, though, they are now nominated for renaming to make that purpose clearer in the title. Dugwiki 17:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it was not cancelled -- Buffyverse 22:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)