Talk:Anne (Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Please help complete the Angel/Buffy episode articles. See what needs to be done on this sub-page of WikiProject Buffy:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/Episodes

Also please help update any major changes made to episode articles on that page so that progress can be mapped.

Reworded notes[edit]

Note...reworded notes under story. I felt the wording of how "the last season before Joss Whedon was distracted by other projects" has a bit too much of a negative connotation to it for encyclopedic text. - Picklefork, 22:36 EST, Mar. 6, 2006

other actors![edit]

Ah! I'm dying. who are the other actors who have appeared in Angel, Buffy, and Firefly??? It seems rude to list that fact without also listing the other actors. Please update with other actors. If I find them I will add. ~M —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Margeeolio (talkcontribs) 00:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Story Arc[edit]

This is a great article about a great episode about a great series, but shouldn't "Story Arc" really be about where this episode fits into the development of the Buffy Epic and the development of major characters? To me the significance of this episode is that no matter how far she runs, Buffy can't hide from who she is. In the fight with the demons there is that unforgettable scene where she stands poised confidentally with weapons at the ready. At that moment she knows exactly who she is. (The Chosen One) Just a thought. - TFreckman —Preceding unsigned comment added by TFreckman (talkcontribs) 18:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Continuous Take[edit]

Has anyone made mention of the fact that the scene where all the main characters first meet after the school break, is one continuous take? Reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock's Rope and and a scene from Sam Raimi's The Quick and the Dead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

I watched this episode last night and noticed the "oner". Whedon quite often uses these long continuous takse in his episodes (and in "Serenity"), and even talks about them in some of his commentaries. - Paxomen 14:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Buffy301.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Buffy301.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hammer and sickle[edit]

This was removed for some reason, but it's a fairly obvious piece of symbolism by Whedon and worthy of note. In the climactic fight scene, Buffy does pick up a hammer and a sickle that look just like the ones on the flag of the USSR. I'm not sure why the editor removed this note: of course Whedon wasn't endorsing Soviet-style communism. It was just a visiaul reference. But it's interesting to note. Garth M (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

While somewhat obvious, the comment was still inferred, biased ("infamous" mean that something is "bad", and communists would disagree with that label), and unencyclopedic. While it may be "interesting to note" it still falls as OR and does not belong in the article. kingdom2 (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Fine, remove infamous. It's still a notable bit of trivia about the episode. I'm putting it back in without the word "infamous". Garth M (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It is still unsourced OR. kingdom2 (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean "unsourced"? Are you saying I need a source for the fact that the hammer and sickle was a communist symbol? Seriously? Garth M (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying you need a source that confirms that the hammer and sickle was used specifically to symbolize communist revolution in the episode. You need more proof than your own interpretation. This is what you are trying to do, and this is what you need to do it. kingdom2 (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It definitely wasn't done on purpose--if I recall correctly Joss said on the commentary that he didn't even notice it till the editing. I think he then asked the props person about it, but no one had done it consciously.--TEHodson 08:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not "a hammer and a sickle": it's one weird weapon with complex blades. —Tamfang (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


Please explain the meaning of "notable" tag--I don't understand what would make one Buffy episode "notable" as opposed to merely obvious. Most tv shows have episode pages, and they're not much better than this one but they're not all tagged. Other elements that should be added are production notes, for example, but I'm not going to do it (sorry). I'll do clean-up, but can't handle an entire reworking of a page. Also, it would be nice if people who love tagging pages were as enthusiastic about working on them. It's frustrating to spend hours making a page better just to have someone do a drive-by tagging. Did you see the condition of the page before I worked on it?--TEHodson 08:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The article has no sources, hence the unsourced tag; it has a plot of 720 words, the MOS says 300–500 words for an episode, hence the plot too long tag; there's nothing but plot so that tag as well. And it does not establish notability, see WP:GNG, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and lets trow in some pokemon. Yes I saw the state of the article, it wasn't great but it still has most of the same problems. Now it even violates WP:NOTPLOT. I can't tag every article at once, I tag them when I come across them. Xeworlebi (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
My point is, improve it! Don't just tag it and leave it for others to deal with. At least I eliminated several hundred words, irrelevant information, and the opinions of any number of people who believed their feelings were the same thing as information. If you care enough to tag a page, you should care enough to do something to make it better. Tagging is a very poor way to make Wikipedia a better place. It's lazy and makes it look as though you enjoy pointing out weaknesses, saying "Gotcha!" but have nothing to offer yourself.--TEHodson 21:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Or not. By pointing out valid problems with the article there's a higher change someone who cares enough to go and actually fix the issues. "Their purposes are to foster improvement of the encyclopedia and to notify readers about possible problems." you call it lazy, I call it pointing out valid issues with the article. Maintenance templates exist for a reason. You said "but I'm not going to do it (sorry)" and then you say I should if I want to point out valid problems? Kinda hypocritical… Removing valid maintenance templates is an even worse way to improve Wikipedia. Xeworlebi (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I worked on the page for more than three hours before leaving it at least better in some regards. I am not qualified to create Production or other sections. And before removing the tags, I removed the things that had generated them in the first place. The "plot only" tag is really the only one that's valid now. In any case, the editors with whom I've had discussions about tagging before this consider it pretty poor form to just hit a page and keep going; I've noticed thought, that there are those who just love to do it.--TEHodson 00:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
"The "plot only" tag is really the only one that's valid now." So were are the references? Why is the plot 40%/140% to long according to what WP:MOSTV says it should be? How does this article establish notability? You can't remove stuff to fix the unreferenced tag, you have to add references for that, same for notability. You have removed a fair share of plot, which is great, but it is still too long. These issues are present, tagging for them is entirely appropriate and correct. WP:EFFORT isn't a good argument either. Xeworlebi (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There are never references for plot synopses, at least not that I've seen and edited (and I've edited book, movie, and TV plots, reducing all of them significantly, usually only to see them plumped back up quickly by over-eager fans) The reference is the episode itself, or the book itself, whatever. I've just looked at a random sample of Buffy episode, book, and movie synopses, and not one has a single reference--the source material is understood to be the reference. What else could the reference be? The scripts or books aren't all loaded online by the writers. The people looking at them already know the show and are usually looking to see which episode is which--to get to the episode article one has usually followed several links, starting with the show's main page. Buffy episode synopses are notoriously long and overly-detailed (because the people who write them are big fans); I reduced the length significantly, got rid of editorial writing, opinions, and unrelated trivia. I have no idea how any TV show episode page is "notable" but they exist, and appear to exist as a convention. None that I looked at are tagged with "notability" as an issue. Before tagging this page and reverting edits, did you look at other Buffy episode pages? It's the Production section that usually has all the references, as the information is gleaned through reading an article, or listening to an interview or commentary, but even so, it's a TV episode, not an historical article; there are, by its nature, a limited number of references. What exactly do you require to be satisfied? This article, such as it is, will probably never rise to an objectively "high" standard. It's just there.--TEHodson 20:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Look at that. I just read the MOS (TV) section on plots, and it specifically states what I just said above: The show itself is the reference and citations are not required. I'm removing the reference tag, and until the episode page is exapended to include other information, it should stay off, as it doesn't apply to the plot section, per WP itself. The other tags may inspire someone else to work some more, but it's more likely someone else will come along and lengthen it again--the problem appears to be axiomatic--if someone loves the show enough to sit here editing, they think it should be really, really detailed. I'm an exception (probably because I write and edit professionally).--TEHodson 20:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact that there are no references on the page. And the episode still does not establish notability! Stop removing valid tags just because you don't like them on the article you spend 3 hours on. Xeworlebi (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Ignorance wins. I'm done.--TEHodson 20:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just begun the process of asking for editing conflict resolution regarding the notability tags all over Buffy and Angel episodes. My request can be found here: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEHodson (talkcontribs) 10:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Plot summary length[edit]

Xe: The plot summary on this page is about 700 words, which is the same as most episodes of Buffy that I've seen, including Hush. You tagged that one, too, for plot length, but didn't protest when the tag was removed without the summary being shortened by even one character. I'm going to try to shorten it a bit more, but as it's average for a Buffy ep to be @ 700 words due to complexity, and the summary guidelines say that if a plot is very elaborate more words are acceptable, I propose we remove the tag so this article doesn't look such a mess. Unless you come here within the next couple of days to argue for its remaining, I will remove it shortly.--TEHodson 00:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't remove tags just because you think the article looks like a mess because of it. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here again, just as it did above. Don't look at other articles and say 'they have a long plot so this one can have a long plot as well'. Instead look at WP:MOSTV and say 'this plot is too long, maybe the other article should be shortened as well'. Xeworlebi (talk) 09:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Again you delivered a lecture instead of dealing with my proposal. The plot length is down to 630 words. I don't see any way to make it shorter without losing essential plot elements. Is this short enough that if I remove the tag, you will not start fighting about it? You have arbitrarily set yourself up as the final judge of this and other pages. I say it's now short enough. You did not fight with the user who removed your tag from Hush, even though not one character was removed from its 700+ plot summary. Will you let me remove it without fighting? Yes or no? --TEHodson 09:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, no I haven't, different case, Yes. Xeworlebi (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Every time you post you make it clear that you have no real interest in working with others in a constructive manner, nor any genuine interest in the quality of these articles. You play games instead. Your final "yes" was in answer to my final question, which was Will you let me remove it without fighting? I'm accepting that as a sincere yes, and taking you at your word despite your behavior, and am removing the tag. I trust you will stand by your word and for once, show good faith.--TEHodson 09:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I try to inform you about the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and you say I'm lecturing you, I give a the most basic answer to your questions and you say I have no interest in working with others. You've set yourself up so that nothing I say can be good for you. Xeworlebi (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

How is anything you wrote an answer to my question? A simple Yes or No is treated as an invitation to mock instead of just answer. It doesn't get much simpler than Yes or No, but you still didn't answer simply, straightforwardly. Why not?--TEHodson 10:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

And you contribute nothing. You just tag article after article (hundreds in a single day!), revert edits (aka other people's work), and use bots for punctuation. How about spending 5 minutes on even just one of the articles you want to tag, instead of tagging it?--TEHodson 10:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
You asked two questions and I answered with two simple yesses, and that's not straight-forward? Now I'm mocking you? For crying out loud, I can't do anything good can I? And some personal attacks on my way of contributing, that was missing from this nonsense. For the record, I do not use bots (I do use a script that highlights WP:PUNCT issues, so I can see them more easily), I revert unconstructive edits and I'm pretty sure I have never tagged "hundreds [of articles] in a single day" as I rarely make 100 edits a day in total. Anyway, I'm done with this nonsensical discussion, if you have any relevant question I'll be happy to answer, if your only goal here is to attack me then I'll be ignoring you. Please keep up the positive work you do here and leave the bickering behind. Xeworlebi (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
"Yes, no I haven't, different case, Yes." That's a "straight answer"? I have no wish to attack you, and I'm sorry if you think that's my goal, but you have not exactly done a good job of communicating in a helpful way. I was being completely straight with you when I started this discussion in order to avoid the trouble of the other day and to do what's fair and acceptable to you, since you're the tagger who insists on being satisfied before a tag can be removed. I was respectful. I essentially asked your permission to consider the plot length issue resolved, but you didn't respond respectfully to me. I cited your approval of the removal of your tag on Hush because I think consistency is a reasonable request (and your comment that I should then make that one shorter--you know very well what would happen if I touched Hush beyond what I've already done; those couple of changes have brought the house down--I can't imagine how angry they'd be if I significantly altered it). And re your edits: On 6/12 you made 120 edits. Not all of them were reverts and tags, but a quick scroll through your contributions make the pattern very evident, and that's what a significant percentage of them are. I'm not saying it's bad, just a bit harsh for those of us who are writing and rewriting, trying to make the things you tag better and getting reverted and argued with while you move on to the next batch of tags. Anyway, after these issues are resolved, I won't ever edit a Buffy article again, which is a shame because they need to be improved, per your own assertions. But you and the other two have successfully driven me away. Go team.--TEHodson 13:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed "writing" section[edit]

What you wrote is all opinion, from a source not considered reliable, and isn't about writing but is an analysis of a character and the episode (and not a very deep one). No Buffy episode is about one thing--the meanings and implications are always pretty far-reaching. If you want to put all that back in, make a section called "Analysis" or something like that, and I'd recommend quoting the source, saying something like: So and so writes that..."quote" then put in the citation, but it would be better if you had more sources than just one guy saying this or that. I understand what you're trying to do, but it's pretty thin stuff. Also, I'd say the episode is about how one can't just shed one's name in the hope that doing so will also shed you of your responsibilities. This episode is about Buffy remembering who she is in a much deeper sense than just her name, but that's my opinion. Others may have other opinions about other sections of the ep (Giles and Joyce's feelings, for example, and their differing relationships with Buffy, Joyce's blame of Giles). If you can find more, you may end up with a very interesting section.--TEHodson 20:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

A source that does not introduce a spam "computer threat" site obliging me to undertake a "System Restore" to get rid of it would also be more welcome. One for the blacklist? Britmax (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Crikey! What happened? If it is as bad as it sounds, blacklist away.--TEHodson 00:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)