Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Archive 3

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

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:

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. ~ZytheTalk 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)

Both. Actually, in the first episode, Giles took her to the Bronx and had her look ovr the crowd, and try to sence the vampires, telling her that she should be able to sence them. To me that may be clairvoyancy. However, you will notice that she is also said to be drawn to vampirs to hunt them down, and it may be part of THAT aspect of hers that was latter on extented to include all other kinds of magical monsters.

I have noticed that type of character all over the place in fiction and I have a small section on that type of character, called Magehound, on my discusion page, and I would like your opinion on it. Corrupt one 03:45, 6 May 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

Jason: Guys, where'd hte criticism section go? Last time i looked there was one right inside of the cultural impact section. There was talk about the lack of diversity of the show w/ some quotes from Whedon about that. Where'd that go? In fact, there's no criticism here at all. We gotta be impartial people! Just because we add what it is that people don't like about the show, doesn't mean it wasn't awesome!


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?:

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 (talkcontribs)

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 (talkcontribs)

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Yep. I just read it today. Nice article! Ohsoh 00:54, 23 September 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."

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)

Also when you continue to the link Xander Harris it states : "It only took two months of auditioning before he landed his role of Xander on Buffy."

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)

Category:Television programs featuring anthropomorphic characters?

Anthropomorphic: Having the form of a man

In reverting the category, NeilEvans mentioned that "werewolves, demons, and that shark guy" are anthropomorphic. Werewolves are "lycanthropic", not anthropomorphic, as they switch between forms. And that shark guy can not seriously be considered "featured". So that leaves demons - are they anthropomorphic? My opinion is no, but I'm open to discussion... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

When I first saw the reversion, I wondered "Huh?" The only character that I could think of as even faintly anthropomorphic was Adam. Then I thought of the fanfic Mr. Gordo -- but as a character with lines he's either fanfic or Sunnydale Sockpuppet Theatre -- and then Muppet Angel. Ted. If you're of a certain mindset I suppose Parker could be so considered. I don't think that someone looking for "TV featuring anthropomorphic characters" would be very happy with the Buffyverse as an example of such. htom 03:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

SatyrTN : By definition : if it's looking more like a bipedic species with arms + and 1 head it's sufficient to be called anthropomorphic. Green stripes, horns or anything unusual like wings don't matter here. All common demons in Buffy fit the description. --64.11.45.162 04:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not all that convinced demons are anthropomorphic - they are men, not just "in the shape of a man". They're men without souls. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Anthropomorphism says this: the attribution of uniquely human characteristics and qualities to nonhuman beings, inanimate objects, or natural or supernatural phenomena. Demons are non-human beings and therefore anthropomorphic. To say that demons are just men without souls is untrue. Not all demons in the Buffyverse are devoid of souls. Most of the demons depicted in Buffyverse are anthropomorhic as they do possess characteristics or qualities that one would associate with human.--NeilEvans 18:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Recurring themes

I just wrote the page Recurring themes in the Buffyverse. I would like both recurring gags and serious issues mentioned/discussed/linked. Take a peek, see what you can do. Thanks, samwaltz 00:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Eliza Dushku

Why is she no longer listed in the "Starring" section? Missjessica254 15:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Presumably because she was never a member of the central cast - or was she, in year three? Vashti 22:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Technically she was never became a 'series regular' (she never appeared in the opening credits). -- Paxomen 22:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Rhonda the Immortal Waitress

What does this refer to? Without context it is a bit puzzling and a google search doesn't bring any illumination. Catchpole 18:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. What kind of context were you looking for? I've added a comment to clarify that this Rhonda idea was never produced, though that may not be what you found puzzling. I believe there's an IGN interview in which Whedon mentions "Martha the Immortal Waitress", though I don't have the reference right now. --Nalvage 02:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I didn't know if Rhonda the Immortal Waitress existed (as a short story, script, student film or whatever) and was then expanded upon or if it was just an idea. Your clarification is helpful. Catchpole 07:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Page move

I believe Bignole was wrong to move "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)". In his/her edit summary Bignole states "sorry, but because it shares a name it has to be specific per naming conventions" but I don't think they do state anything of the sort. I've looked at Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) and the example they give is "School" which has a main article entitled "School" and a disambiguation page for other meanings of the term. I think the TV show is by far the most notable use of the term "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" so should therefore not need to be disambiguated. At any rate the current situation where "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)" refers to the TV and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (disambiguation)" is the disambiguation page but "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" redirects "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)" is not something that should happen. Either the TV should at "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" with the disambiguation page at "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (disambiguation)", or else the disambiguation page should be at "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" with the TV series at "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)" 81.153.116.72 07:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Per naming conventions, saying something is "more notable" is subjective. Can you prove more people know the television series over the film that came before it? The film has "(film)" attached to it, and thus the television series should follow naming conventions and have "(TV series)" attached to the edit. If you feel the generic title should not be redirected to the television series, then redirect it to the disambiguous page. Notice the examples given for the reasoning "most common usage", they are "The Apprentice" and "Guiding Light". Notice how The Apprentice goes to the disambiguous page, and not to any specific version of the show. "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" was more commonly known for the film before the television series. The television series got the last laugh, as it ran for many years after the film. Because of the subjective nature of saying "this one is more notable than that one," and per naming conventions on the grounds that they share the same name, one is delegated "film" and the other "TV series".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
In terms of this particular example what were the viewing figures for the TV show and the film? That would be one way to objectively establish a comparison of notability. Or check the sources used in the articles/do a search to see which has more secondary sources talking about it.--Opark 77 08:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
And what happens if another show comes along with the same title, but lasts for 9 seasons? Do we change this title, so that the new show gets to have the one without any descriptor? Both the film and the show were viewed by millions. You cannot compare numbers because the film is shown for 8 weeks, and a television show is shown for 22 weeks. Even if the film was viewed by more people as a whole, the show would eventually catch it in cummulative size. It would also be almost impossible, because you'd have to find out the number of viewers for every time the film was played on television.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Bignole on this one. I can only assume the page was moved back without further discussion? GLKeeney 18:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I moved it to (TV series) a few weeks ago, per my understanding of naming conventions. Then it was reverted back to this title, and afterward the reverting user started the discussion to explain their reverting. Better than just reverting and not discussing anything at all.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
So are you comfortable with leaving it as is or should it be moved back to (TV series) (that would be my choice, with the main link to a disambiguation)? Or is it one of those things where the change causes more trouble than it is worth? GLKeeney 20:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where it's linked, but the only problem would be that any links not changed would simply be directed to the disambig page and would simply need correcting when noticed. I think the page needs TV series in the title, because we've have a debate (which we are already having) about what is more notable, the popular television series, or the movie that brought it to life. There's almost no way to objectively tell, there are too many variables to account for. Technically, the movie, the television show, and the character all share the same name. We can say that her name is "Buffy Summers", but popular culture simply knows her as "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". I'd say make the disambig page "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and put the appropriate descriptors on each of the shared titles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved page Buffy the Vampire Slayer >> Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series). Main Buffy the Vampuire Slayer entry now redirects to disambiguation page. Need to make sure link to {{otheruses|Buffy the Vampire Slayer (disambiguation)}} is placed atop other BtVS articles. GLKeeney 14:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the disambiguous "Buffy" page, that sent the television link to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm a little late to the discussion here, but I feel that this article should be at Buffy the Vampire Slayer, not Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series). I also don't feel that it's subjective that the television series is more notable, but that's been debated in this discussion enough. Mainly I feel that when people think of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, they think of this critically-acclaimed show (its Buffy) first, and whatever else -- whether it is its first movie, its comics, etc. -- comes after that. I believe that this article is better fit at Buffy the Vampire Slayer, as plenty of articles go with what has been cited as more notable (and this show has been cited as more notable countless times) than its (first, and only still, at this time) movie, video game, etc., as the main destination, and then has a link to other disambiguation topics of the same name listed at the top of the article. Having the title Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a disambiguation page means that there are a lot of Buffy the Vampire Slayer links that need to be specified to this new name of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) right now. And while with time, those disambiguation links will be fixed, I feel that having this article be any other name than Buffy the Vampire Slayer truly does not help. Bignole, you're a great editor, as plenty here at Wikipedia know, but I cannot agree with you on this one. Flyer22 09:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
But this television show is not the only thing that carries this name. Looking at the disambiguous page, it's more than just the television show and movie that carry this name. You cannot judget other people's opinions like that. To me, the first thing I think of is Kristy Swanson, because that was how I was first introduced to the character. I have not see "more notable" citations anywhere. Fixing a link is not a reason not to have a character page title. I'm following the naming conventions manual of style. The only instance it talks about "which is more well known", is when you have a title shared among like mediums, for instance The Apprentice. You'll notice that The Apprentice is the disambiguous page, while the other versions (and we know Donald Trump's version is the most famous) are distinguished with specific titles. That's a clear case where Donald Trump's show was easily more recognizable than any other version of that show, but it is distinguished with "US TV series" and does not simply retain the generic "The Apprentice" title. If links need to be fixed, then that should be happening. Worst thing that will happen is they will go to a disambiguous page where the television show is listed in plain sight.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Bignole, I was not truly judging your opinion. I apologize for making you feel that way. I was more so giving my thoughts. And as more notable, yes, this show has been cited as more notable than its movie that "gave it life", in that it has been called more brilliant and more well-crafted than its movie countless times, and though I don't usually go around stating how I think other people feel, I'm sure that Joss Whedon feels that way as well, considering that his true vision of the movie did not play out how he wanted it to. Having to fix links is surely not the only reason that I don't feel that the name Buffy the Vampire Slayer should not be at a disambiguation page. I don't feel that just because the television show and movie are not the only ones that carry this name means that it should be a disambiguation page. To me, that's like asking which one is more notable, Veronica Mars or Veronica Mars (character)? Or Shrek or Shrek (character)? And since there's no way to surely tell, the names Shrek and Veronica Mars should be disambiguation pages. Okay, okay, Veronica Mars only has two links (at this time) of the same name on Wikipedia, but Shrek has several titles of the same name, and yet it is not a disambiguation page, not by those five letters only. It could easily be debated that the Shrek character is more notable than the first Shrek film or its sequels (I know plenty of people, including myself, think of the Shrek character first when we think of Shrek, not its films) and yet the Shrek film has the main destination on Wikipedia. Better yet, the name Shrek has a main destination, and it's not a disambiguation page, but rather provides a link to its disambiguation page at the top of the article, which is what I feel should be done in that case anyway. Sure, Shrek does not have as many articles of the same or similar name as Buffy, but that does not take away my point, and the title Buffy is more well-known for either its film, show, or the Buffy character herself, not for all of those other titles of the same or similar name to it. With Buffy, even the Buffy Summers article is based on the Buffy from the show...Buffy the Vampire Slayer...not its film (which remains its only film still at this time), which is also why I cited the show as being more notable. But that is not my sole reason, of course, for feeling that the title Buffy the Vampire Slayer should not be at a disambiguation page, even if most newbie Wikipedian editors, when they link Buffy the Vampire Slayer, they most likely are not going to type Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), which will just lead to so many more Buffy the Vampire Slayer disambiguation links. Flyer22 19:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't have much to say which hasn't been said already, but it's true that Buffy is a franchise which flows through various media. It started in film, was brought back as a television series, and now continues through the comics. This isn't like Star Wars or something, where you have the films, and then everything else is just expanded universe. The Buffy film, TV series, and Season 8 comic books are all notable in their own way, not the mention the spin-off novels and video games, and I think it's better to add "TV series" to this article's title rather than give preferential treatment to the show. It doesn't matter what Joss Whedon thinks of the film because it still exists and has many fans (even though it sucks :P). Yes, this move may cause annyoing disambiguation links but so be it, they can be fixed in time. Oh, and since you mention it Flyer, the Buffy Summers article shouldn't just be about the character from the show, it should be about the fictional character as a whole, including the film. This is a problem I am working to correct in my sandbox. Paul730 19:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't feel that this issue is all that different from the Star Wars subject in this context. I don't feel that by having Buffy the Vampire Slayer be at its show is giving it preferential treatment either. My reason for it not being a disambiguation page is explained above. As for the disambiguation links being fixed, from this move, with the rate that they will be made and continue to be made, I doubt that problem being taken care of adequately. And, yes, the Buffy Summers article here at Wikipedia should not just be about the character from the show. I see the comic book material concerning this character thrown in there as well. The film in which "it spawned from"...however, doesn't leave much to expand on concerning Buffy's character. Flyer22 19:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Look at Star Wars. The original film was always known as simply "Star Wars", and it wasn't until the sequels and prequels came out that it became known as "A New Hope" or "Episode IV" (whichever you prefer), even though the name explicitly called it "Episode IV: A New Hope". You are looking at it in the light of continuity, but that isn't how it's done on Wikipedia. Naming conventions have their style for a reason. If I say "Jaws" you'll probably think of the film before you think of the book, but the link to the film is Jaws (film), and not simply "Jaws". No one can deny the fact that the movie is more popular than the book, but naming conventions state that when you share the same name you get distinguished with specific titles. I'm sorry, but by your definition, if another "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" medium arrives in the culture, and it's "more popular" than the show, then we'll have to revert the name "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to the new article, and this will be changed to "TV series", because it will be less popular.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
My reasoning is not "if another 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' medium arrives in the culture, and it's 'more popular' than the show, then we'll have to revert the name 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' to the new article, and this will be changed to 'TV series', because it will be less popular"...and that is not what I really mean, though I doubt that any other Buffy genre will be more popular than its show. The naming conventions of Wikipedia stating that when you share the same name, you get distinguished with specific titles is not the case for all or most articles on Wikipedia. Shrek is a great example of that. And, again, my reason for Buffy the Vampire Slayer not being a disambiguation page is not necessarily due to which one is more popular, but the fact remains that when people type in or link the title Buffy the Vampire Slayer, they are most likely trying to link to the show, or the character from the show, but now what will pop up instead is a disambiguation page, which I feel is not necessary and really is not beneficial to anything, when the title...Buffy the Vampire Slayer...can simply be its show, and then have a disambiguation link at the top, for other titles of the same name. Shrek, for instance, is not called Shrek (film), although many could argue that maybe it should be titled that since the Shrek character is what most people think of when they think of that big green fellow, not his films. Shrek is not the only example of this on Wikipedia either, of course. I really don't have much more to state on this matter that is too distinct from what I have already stated on this matter. I basically feel that this move of Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) is not for the best. But if consensus here at Wikipedia is to keep it at Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), then it's not like I'm going to go and move this article back to its original name, especially when that move will just end up being reverted. Furthermore, it could remain titled as Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) without being a disambiguation page, while providing a disambiguation link at the top of the article, which is what I feel is better than the title of Buffy the Vampire Slayer being a disambiguation page itself. You have stated your thoughts on this matter, Bignole, of course, and I have stated mine. I just don't agree with a lot of your thoughts concerning this specific matter. I always like to "here" your insight though. Flyer22 20:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
With the Star Wars analogy, I meant that all the "Star Wars" films are kind of "mainstream" so to speak, and the expanded universe is really only for fans. Whereas both the Buffy film and TV series are "mainstream", despite the film's inferior quality. Jaws is a better example to use for naming conventions, and Jurassic Park comes to mind as well. Whether we, Joss Whedon, or the critics like the Buffy movie or not, it is certainly notable. I don't see the problem with the disambiguation links; worst comes to worst the readers have to click on Buffy (TV series) when they get there. Angel has (TV series) in the title (although I realise that's an entirely different situation due to angels being separate subjects, but still) and people still manage to link to that correctly. Paul730 20:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I know what you meant, Paul. I still don't feel that this move is for the best. I understand both your and Bignole's reasoning on this matter, of course. Flyer22 20:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Flyer, that isn't how naming conventions work. You don't keep renaming the same topic because a new branch of that topic becomes more popular than the last. The reasoning for the "most commonly known by" is when you are dealing with two completely different subjects, like in the "Shrek" instance you cited. The other versions of "Shrek", were not connected to the movie, and were not well known to begin with. Should they be renamed? Maybe, I don't know. But you cannot go, "oh, the movie is no longer the most popular, so we'll call it 'film' and give the title of 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' to the new, popular version of the character". Naming conventions state, that when the same topic shares its name that it becomes distinguished with specific titles. The television series "Lost" is probably most commonly known when the name "Lost" is mentioned, but it's still got a specific title. That is why we don't use subjectivity in these cases, because it's extremely difficult to prove what is the most common usage, and if that common usage won't change in the next couple of years.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Bignole, I know how naming conventions work. I stated above that my reason is not necessarily about "renaming the same topic because a new branch of that topic becomes more popular than the last"... I'm against this move for several reasons, and that really won't change. I don't feel that it's all too difficult to prove that the title Buffy the Vampire Slayer is more so used in regards to the show than its movie, but again, we've debated that enough. Flyer22 21:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Even so, this isn't a popularity contest. They share a name. As a matter of fact Buffy the Vampire Slayer

shares its name with 5 distinct topics, and a whole slew of books. It encompasses more than just a television show. 21:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Popularity contest or not, I doubt that those other topics are usually the first to come to mind when one thinks of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Flyer22 21:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
But you don't know for sure. I think of the film first, because that was my first association with the character. Some other person may think of the comics, as they may have never watched the show. Or someone may love the games, but again, never saw the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not know for sure, but I have hung in the Buffyverse a lot, just as you may have, both on the internet and off of it, and the most common usage has always been the show or the show's Buffy character, from my experience. Not to mention...that they are the most famous, but, again, I see your point. And for the record, I don't have anything against the original Buffy film, in case anyone here feels that I do. Mainly just stating my thoughts on this matter. Flyer22 21:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
As I've said, there tends to be widespread disregard for non-canon material, so things that happen in "Buffyverse" are not representative, as not everyone that is a fan of the show, film, comics, books, etc etc hang out in online chats for Buffyverse, on the WikiProject Buffyverse, or the like. What you can say is that the people that are hung up over the canon issue of the universe tend to prize the show over everything else. But Wiki isn't built for the fans, it's built for everyone.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I get that Wiki is supposed to be for everyone. But as I've stated before, it is also about what is common usage out of titles of the same name. From my experience, that has not been the movie. You may argue that my experience doesn't count on this matter, but from what I have seen, I feel that it does. Anyway, I surely know what you mean. No worries on that front. Flyer22 22:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Early use of profanity on US television

Rewatching some old episodes on video for lack of anything to do, I noticed that characters quite often mouthed or even half-pronounced the word fuck, sometimes several times per episode (especially noticeable with "Evil Willow"). How did that ever dodge scandal and/or mention??? 128.195.186.27 14:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Adieu

Season 8 comics

Why are these mentioned in the plot summary? They're not part of the show, which is what this article is about. Obviously they should be mentioned somewhere, but not here IMO. Paul730 03:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the section. Paul730 02:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggest Archive

42 (now 43, I suppose) sections is pretty huge. Just a thought GLKeeney 17:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there has been no opposition, I will archive the page in the next day or so to Archive 3 unless someone beats me to it. I will keep open discussions on this page, of course. GLKeeney 17:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Redirect Buffy the Vampire Slayer here, and move that to ...(disambiguation). Having read the discussion, I am convinced that it's demonstrated that the TV Series is the primary use, and other franchise members secondary; ergo, it's sort of rotten compromise, and it goes against NCs. However, I'll clear the edit history of Buffy the Vampire Slayer so that it can be moved without admin intervention, should the parties agree so eventually. Duja 10:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)Buffy the Vampire Slayer — most common usage, the disambiguation is sufficient for other uses —~ZytheTalk to me! 20:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose -  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose GLKeeney 20:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Paul730 00:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Flyer22 21:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm quite sure that most people would associate the name with the TV show rather than the film or any other useage. PC78 23:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The name is associated with the fictional universe more than anything. 132.205.44.5 21:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The TV show is the primary use of the name "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". Do a Google search and see how many results are for the film compared to the show. Either way, the idea being suggested below (keeping this as Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) and turning Buffy the Vampire Slayer into a redirect to this article) is nonsensical. An undisambiguated title should never redirect to a disambiguated title. Whatever the result here, Buffy the Vampire Slayer should not be a redirect. 172.206.24.87 05:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • My vote is per WP:NC-TV. It's almost completely unverifiable to say "this is the most common usage." You'd have to take an empirically supported poll to even justify such a charge. Of course it is the most common usage to fans of the show, but it isn't the only usage. There seems to be an issue with things about this show taking precedence over all related articles. For instance, the Buffy Summers article pretty much ignores the fact that the character appeared in a film, and I believe it tends to ignore comics that are classified as "non-canon". Look at Jaws (film), Jurassic Park (film) (or the book Jurassic Park), or Star Wars. When you say "Jaws", the first thing that comes to mind is the movie, not your mouth, or even the book. The same goes for "Jurassic Park". The movie is throught about before the book. Originallly, "Star Wars" was how "A New Hope" was known, but we don't redirect "Star Wars" to "A New Hope" (but if you look at the page you'll see that there is a direction for people looking for "A New Hope" who have put "Star Wars" into the search and gotten the generic page).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As I am the one who most recently moved this page, I am obviously opposed to this move, though perhaps, not as steadfastly as some. To me, the term "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is just what it says. A topic regarding Buffy the Vampire Slayer in all her forms whether it be film, television, games, comics or something completely different. It should not be automatically assumed that when a user searches for Buffy the Vampire Slayer that he must mean the (TV series) or the (Film). The search term is, by definition, ambiguous and should be handled as such. GLKeeney 20:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see how it cannot be automatically assumed that when a person types in Buffy the Vampire Slayer or links to the title, they most likely either mean the film, the show, or the show's character. To me, to say that we shouldn't assume that, is like that when a user types in or links to Jaws, we shouldn't assume he or she is most likely looking for the the film or the character from the film. It may seem presumptious to think that the person would be looking for the film rather than the novel, but it cannot be denied that in common usage, the film is what people refer to more so than the novel. I feel that this is the same case for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, except in reverse. When a user types in Buffy the Vampire Slayer or links to it, they usually mean the show or the show's character, rather than its film or video games or comic books. It makes more sense to have this artlce be at Buffy the Vampire Slayer, with a disambiguation link at the top of the article, just as it was like that before. I really don't see the problem with how this article was before in that way...not to mention that it's just as easy to find its disambiguation page that way while causing less disambiguation links of the title Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In any case, this article could still be titled Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) without the title of Buffy the Vampire Slayer itself being a disambiguation page. Flyer22 21:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It cannot be automatically assumed, because you aren't in their head, nor is there empirical evidence to suggest that is what they are looking for. Heck, the disambiguous page lists the show first. When you put in "Jaws" you don't get the film, you get a disambiguous page. If you want the film you have to type in Jaws (film), because just typing "Jaws" gives you a disambig page. The original way would actually cause you to have to search longer to find what you were looking for. If you title this page "TV series", it's best to make the disambig page the generic version so that you can show people all the different articles that share that name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I see what you are saying and it is obviously a valid point. I would estimate that for any given disambiguation page like the one for BtVS, there would probably be some majority of people that are actually searching for one of the articles that it covers in particular. If this were especially and unequivocally demonstrable in some objective fashion, I might even be swayed, though I think I would have to bang on Bignole's drum and say, "What do we do when another article covered by the disambiguation becomes the most popular?". GLKeeney 21:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • In their head or not, I feel that it can be automatically assumed. It's like that all the time for naming conventions on Wikipedia, as in common usage. I'm not saying that they cannot be thinking about the video game or the Number 3 comic, but I feel that it can easily be stated that most of the time...that is not the case. I still don't feel that having this title itself as a disambiguation page is for the best, but, sure, I see your point, Bignole. As for "What do we do when another article covered by the disambiguation becomes the most popular?" Well, I have seen aspects of a topic become more popular than aspects of it that were previously more popular, but, oddly (or maybe not so oddly) enough, the common usage still remained the one that was initially the most popular. With this topic of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I basically feel that it better serves as not being a disambiguation page itself, more than my being against it being titled Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series). Flyer22 21:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but I don't see evidence of that. You said, "the common usage still remained the one that was initially the most popular," wouldn't that mean that we should change the film article to the simple "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" title, since that was the initial popular usage of the name. It was around for 5 years before the television show, so it wasn't like they came out at the same time and the show became more popular. The show came later. Halloween (1978 film) is easily more notable than Halloween (2007 film), but we distinguish the years they were made.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
      • As for my saying "the common usage still remained the one that was initially the most popular"...yes, that has been the case for other matters, and, no, that doesn't mean that we should change the film article to the simple "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" title, initially popular or not, considering that it (the film) is not the most common usage, nor did it remain the most common usage, not from what I've seen, and I've been around every type of Buffy fanatic there is. The title Buffy the Vampire Slayer is common, yes, but it is more commonly used to refer to the show or the show's Buffy. But if I must state, "From what I've seen"...fine...I state that again. But before anyone says "according to you"...that is not soley what I mean, and having been around countless other Buffy fans or occasional Buffy viewers, it appears that Buffy as referred to the show or the show's Buffy is more in common usage to them as well. Flyer22 22:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Bignole, don't we usually just gain from consensus what's best? Inline citations don't usually work in titles. And empirical evidence proves nothing, anyway. Wikipedia usually decides these things amongst the community. You can say however, that the television series has the most cultural impact and real world significance, considering the depth in and variety of works which analyze it to say the least. The entire franchise is formed around the television series, with the original film as its inspiration and everything else from the television series onwards being a spin-off, academic or ancillary work.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think any one person saying "this is the most common" or "this isn't the most common" is consensus of anything. Hence why "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" works better when showing the franchise as a whole, instead of just the television series, because there are far too many things sharing the same time, and being connected to it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Again, I don't feel that far too many things being connected to it means that it should be a disambiguation page. And as Zythe stated, I don't feel that it can be denied that the television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer had the most cultural impact out of any of the other aspects of the same or similar name. Flyer22 22:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
        • It doesn't matter, because you are saying that if enough of the television show fans say that title is the most common, then what was considered consensus for naming conventions is irrelevant. "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" encompasses more than the show itself. The show may be the foundation for a lot of things, but it is one part of a much greater subject.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
          • It does matter, because it's not just fans of the television show stating that the show is the most common. I am speaking of fans of Buffy the Vampire Slayer in general, and even television critics that just watched the show on occasion. And, yes, consensus is better given to the most commonly used of the similar titles, as in being the destination for the title. As for this show being one part, due to its cultural impact, it is often cited as the most important part. Flyer22 00:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I agree with Zythe's statement that "The entire franchise is formed around the television series, with the original film as its inspiration and everything else from the television series onwards being a spin-off, academic or ancillary work". However, I still think that (TV series) is necessary in the title, as it implies that the show, like Bignole said, "is one part of a much greater subject." The Buffy franchise is comprised of many different medias, and the television series is just one. Somebody searching for the show who types in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" will be directed to a page which informs them all the medias, including the show. It lets them see the scope of the franchise, and with a simple click of a mouse, they can be at the page they desired. Links on other pages can be fixed with time. Since the show has the most cultural impact, it should be at the top of the list on the disambiguation page, but a disambiguation page is still necessary IMO. Paul730 00:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
              • I still don't feel that the title Buffy the Vampire Slayer should be a disambiguation page. And its disambiguation problem is going to get worse before it gets any better. Flyer22 00:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • How is it going to get worse? You type in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", and you get a page that lists all of the articles that share that title. They see the television show right at the top, the film below that, the comics, books and games below that. It isn't a hard page to navigate. Who is going to type in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (disambiguous)" to find a list of all the Buffy the Vampire Slayer articles? Other than the editors of this page, I don't believe that anyone coming to Wikipedia that types in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is going to come to this page and go "how come this one has to have 'TV series' attached to its name? This is the most popular version."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • How is it going to get worse? I already stated above that most newbie or random Wikipedian editors will simply internal-link the title Buffy the Vampire Slayer. They are most likely not going to internal-link Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), and while using a pipe trick to hide the TV-series part. Of course, a new or random Wikipedian editor looking for a list of other Buffy topics is not going to type in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (disambiguous)" to find a list of all Buffy the Vampire Slayer articles, and, in fact, I would state that most people who visit Wikipedia and type in Buffy the Vampire Slayer are not looking for a list of all articles of that title. The issue of finding a disambiguation list of similar titles is taken care of by simply listing the disambiguation link at the top of this article, as it was before. Flyer22 00:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      • That's not a problem with the disambig page, or with following naming conventions. That's a problem with editors and one shared with all new editors for all pages. That doesn't mean we should rename all the pages to make life easier for new editors. Again, without empirically supported evidence that supports the theory of "what other people are thinking when they come here," I don't think that should even be an argument. You are arguing subjectivity against objectivity. If the links are wrong, they can be corrected. Since it's obvious that there is such a devoted fanbase to this series, I don't think it will be a problem to correct all the links that go to the disambig page. Back to the "new editors" linking things, I'm curious as to what they would be linking since just about every article that needs to be created has already been created, and you typically only link once in an article and that has probably been done as well. I doubt you'll have editors removing "TV series" from a link under the guise that "this article should be called simply "Buffy the Vampire Slayer".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
        • That is a problem with the disambiguation page. It's a very important problem, as far as I can see, one where all the disambiguation links will never be fixed, as is the case with all disambiguation titles here at Wikipedia that have no main destination. The difference in the case of Buffy the Vampire Slayer or any extremely popular title that is a disambiguation page is that more disambiguation links will exist than be fixed. I'm not necessarily trying to make life easier for anyone on this matter. I don't even feel that it is a theory of "what other people are thinking when they come here", but rather common sense that when a person types or links Buffy the Vampire Slayer, they are most likely searching for the show or the show's character; this show is the most famous and most influential part of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer franchise, as is known. I'm not stating that people cannot be thinking about the original Buffy film, one of the comic books about Buufy, or a video game about Buffy, etc., but am rather stating that that is not as usual as a person searching for this show or its Buffy. I'm not even stating that on my personal opinion, but rather what is well-known. I'm not truly arguing subjectivity against objectivity. I wasn't stating that we'll have other editors removing "TV series" from a link under the guise that "this article should be called simply "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". I feel that it's not too beneficial to have the title Buffy the Vampire Slayer be a disambiguation page. In the same way that the title Angel is not a disambiguation page, no doubt due to the title Angel being commonly used to refer to a being in Heaven, I don't feel that Buffy the Vampire Slayer should be a disambiguation page...considering that its common use is to refer to the show or the show's Buffy. I don't believe that its common usage can really be questioned, and I won't believe that...until any of the other aspects of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer franchise are as famous or have been more influential than its show. Flyer22 07:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No it isn't. Why are you blaming an article for a problem that rests in the hands of the editors causing it? If "all the disambig pages will never be fixed" then that still is not a problem, because the links are not going to a place where you cannot find the television article. "More disambig pages will exist than be fixed?" Ok, there is no proof of that, so please stop using arguments that are extremely unsupported. I understand that you want the page name to change, but these arguments have no validation to them. We know all the pages for this topic. There should be only one link on those page to this television article (if they are following the style guideline for links). It is not difficult to simply go to the pages and make the correction. Ah, you just said "common sense that they are searching for the show or the character," I don't get into you continually suggesting what other people are thinking (which has no evidence of support), but if they are looking for the character, the disambig page has the character listed. It has the show listed. It's a click away. That isn't an argument to go against the naming conventions. If the only thing that existed were the film, the television show, and the character, I could understand, but those are all small pieces in a much larger topic. "Angel" isn't the disambig page because there are far too many topics that are not associated with that name. Every topic under the disambig page for "Buffy..." is associated with that character. That is the difference between why the disambig page is "Buffy..." and not "Buffy ...(diambig)". The most common usage of that term is meant for this one character (that is what WP:NC-TV means by most common usage, hence their example of The Apprentice, which is an disambig page for all the other versions).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    Why am I blaming an article for a problem that rests in the hands of the editors causing it? Because it is because of unnecessary disambiguation pages like the title Buffy the Vampire Slayer causing the problem as well (at this time). You can say that it's the editors problem constantly, but experienced Wikipedians know what to do. Newbie or random Wikipedians most likely don't know what to do when it comes to linking the title Buffy the Vampire Slayer. And, sure, we can say, "Well, then that's their fault. They should immediately learn the Wiki-ways." But if there were no unnecessary disambiguation page for the title itself...Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which most any person familiar with the show or franchise would simply type in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, rather than an addition such as TV series tagged onto it, then there would be no problem as is will be a constant problem with that. Stop making the argument that more disambiguation pages will exist for the title Buffy the Vampire Slayer than be fixed, stop using arguments that are extremely unsupported? I don't feel that I need citations for that. And, yes, I believe that it's obvious that more "More disambig pages will exist than be fixed." I also don't feel that I need citations for saying it's "common sense that they are searching for the show or the character", considering that I stated that they are most likely looking for this show or its Buffy, considering that this show and its Buffy wouldn't be the most famous and most influential part of the Buffy franchise if that weren't true. It's the same way that we acknowledge that most people who type in Jaws on Wikipedia are most likely looking for the movie, not the novel. I see no difference here. And I'm not fond of the title Jaws being a disambiguation page either. Look, I've stated most of what I have to state on this subject. I see no reason to keep discussing this any further with you. The title Angel, whether having some other topics not associated with the same name or not, is not a disambiguation page, though the term represents several other topics, mostly still representing the title Angel being a superbeing. You say, "'Angel' isn't the disambig page because there are far too many topics that are not associated with that name." But I don't feel that most of those are truly separate of that name. And in any case, there are other titles on Wikipedia that have topics separate of its name and yet are still disambiguation pages (in what I feel is unnecessary), of course. My mind will not change on the stance that Buffy the Vampire Slayer should not be a disambiguation page. You feel the way that you do. I feel the way that I do. You and I can continue to discuss this with each other, of course, but I really don't see the need anymore. Flyer22 19:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but if you're excuse is that these "new editors" won't know, then that means they probably don't know about more important things either, so their problem again lies with editors educating them. You cannot expect people to "immediately learn the Wiki-ways," I sure didn't, but you cannot hold their hand either. You cannot say, "well, let's just name it this, because those silly newbie-editors won't know how to type a correct name when they link." That isn't an excuse, I'm sorry. Experience comes from practice and they won't learn anything by being exposed to incorrect usage of style guidelines. Otherwise, you'll perpetuate a cycle of them going "well, so-n-so article ignores the guideline, how come we can't here?" You're entitled to your opinion, but I do agree that we can simply say "they will be thinking this, so we should name it this," or that we should create article names to be simplified for those "new editors" who may or may not know how to do things properly. You have to learn somehow. If they are screwing up the linking for Buffy, you can guarantee that they are doing it that way for other articles as well (we aren't going to rename "The Apprentice" to be the US version, simply because some editor has not learned how to properly pipe a link).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      • My main "excuse" is not that "these 'new editors' won't know." Also, it does not mean that they probably don't know about more important things here at Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia is always assuming that newbie or random Wikipedians don't know about such things as disambiguation pages or pipe tricks when it comes to internal-links when they've just arrived here at Wikipedia and sometimes a little while after they've arrived here at Wikipedia... And Wikipedians are mostly right on that front. When I first arrived here at Wikipedia, I knew some of the more important things about Wikipedia, but not a few of the simplest things concerning Wikipedia. And I agree with you on the part about educating the newbies, of course. My main reason, though, for the title Buffy the Vampire Slayer not being a disambiguation page is because I truly do feel that the title Buffy the Vampire Slayer is the most common usage...as referred to its show or the show's Buffy, and therefore it being a disambiguation page, when it could rather be the destination point of the show, with a disambiguation link at the top of the article, is not the most beneficial for this title. I know that you disagree with that, of course. But as I have stated many times now, this is how I feel on this matter. I'm not even horribly against this article having TV series in its title. I'm more against the title Buffy the Vampire Slayer being a disambiguation page itself. Flyer22 20:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • In the spirit of consensus building (and thats what this is all about, right?), I would not be wholly opposed to:

I do not wish to imply that I think this is the best solution as I most definitely do not, but, consensus being the goal, I thought another option appropriate. GLKeeney 20:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

      • I kind of suggested that, even before just now. And I would be fine with that. Flyer22 20:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I was not attempting to claim any credit. I merely want to see if this is any more agreeable. Endless wrangling tires me ;) GLKeeney 20:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, I know that you weren't attempting to claim credit. I was more so about citing that I long felt that way during this discussion than about declaring that suggestion as mine. Flyer22 21:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
        • If consensus moves to that, then I would say that is a better alternative to removing "TV series" from this article. I can agree that a redirection point for that, to this, would probably make more people happy all around, than having the disambig page be "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" or this article be "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (the two contrasting opinions as it seems).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

P.S. I've just noticed that I accidentaly closed this prematurely (before scheduled 5 days). Either way, admin intervention is not necessarily required should the consensus be gained. I'll unlist it from the RM, with no prejudice against reopening. Duja 10:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If this the primary topic, there should be no disambiguation in the title

If this is the primary usage, Buffy the Vampire Slayer redirected here, and this article has a suitable disambiguation header pointing to a dab page, there is no reason at all why page shouldn't occupy the main slot. This is what I've done. When do we ever redirect from a main slot to a disambiguated title? What good does it do to have an unwieldy article title? Almost never or never/little to none, I would suggest. --kingboyk 16:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There was not consensus that "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is primarily used for the television show, given that the film preceded it. You are going against consensus, and naming conventions. Your disambig page even points to the naming conventions, which clearly say that when two topics share a title (i.e. The television show, the film, and I believe some games and comics, share the title) you disambiguate. Not to mention that the character is known by that name as well, her article just chooses to use her surname name in the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with the above debate at all. I'm agreeing with it and trying to enforce it! The TV series is the primary topic and thus must live at Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The guidelines support me in this, and so does convention. Read on please.
You're misreading the guidelines. According to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic:
The title of the "Primary topic" is what I called "main slot" in my post above.
Now, the only issue that has to be decided is - what, if anything, is the primary topic? The above debate concluded (rightly imho) that the TV series is the primary topic. Thus, as the primary topic, it gets to live at the primary topic title ("main slot"), which is Buffy the Vampire Slayer. For the purposes of disambiguation, it gets a disambiguation link at the top (i.e. {{otheruses}}). Now here's the funny thing: the link you've just given me - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) says this too! -
To summarise, if the TV series is the most common usage of the phrase "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (and it is) then that must be the name of the article. If it isn't, Buffy the Vampire Slayer must be a dab page. We do not add disambiguation phrases to the names of articles when the primary title is vacant or redirects to the primary usage of that phrase. --kingboyk (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC) (emphasis added by me)
?? The guy who allegedly "won't discuss" is wondering why there's an eerie silence... Which bit of the above guidelines are not clear? What arguments if any are there for ignoring naming conventions in this case? --kingboyk (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Kingboyk is right. The current situation is like having United States redirect to United States (country). This page should be moved back to the title without parentheses, as the current title violates our naming conventions. Of course the TV series might not be the primary topic, but in that case, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (disambiguation) needs to be moved to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Kusma (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, you've got it in a nutshell. As I wrote on my talk page: The point is that Buffy the Vampire Slayer has to be either the primary topic or a dab page, it shouldn't be a redirect to the primary topic! The guidelines are perfectly clear on this. Just about the only exception is when an article is primary topic for two or more phrases (The KLF, KLF); in such cases one of those has to be a redirect and the {{redirect}} dab template is used in the main article instead of something like {{otheruses}}.
I think it's already been established that the TV show is the primary topic, not least by the archived debate above (incoming links would suggest so. What else is there? Well, the film didn't make much of an impact. There's the character - Buffy Summers - but she's a character on the TV show too, and the article has a dab header.) The issue then is not so much the primary topic but the overriding of naming conventions once the decision had been made that this is the primary topic. The closing admin got it wrong, and he knew he was getting it wrong when he did it. Just see what he wrote! :) --kingboyk (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly where is it established that the tv show is the primary topic? The television is not the first instance of the subject, the film is the first instance. The film is the first instance of the character Buffy Summers. The television was just a spin-off of the film. I made the suggestion awhile ago, when we were having this discussion initially that "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (disambiguation)" should be simply "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", because we don't know what readers are looking for. Using a POV decision to say the television show is the primary topic, when the character wasn't created on the show, nor is the show the only medium that she appears in. It much better to keep an objective mind about the titles and call the "disambig" page simply "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", and let the reader decide if they want the character, film, television show, comics, novels, or games that share that title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the primary topic is usually figured out through discussion. If a title can be used for something well-known and something obscure, we usually take the well-known thing as a primary topic. The existence of Berlin, North Dakota is not a reason for us to make Berlin a disambiguation page. In the case at hand, the film seems to be comparatively obscure. From a general point of view, I must say that I like to have the main page a disambiguation page, as that makes it easier to fix incoming links. In any case, to determine that the TV series is not the primary topic, you should demonstrate that other entries on the disambiguation page are at least, say, half as likely to be chosen by readers as the TV series, which would give us something of a rationale to use to inconvenience the majority of people who come here looking for the series. Kusma (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The primary topic isn't necessarily the topic that came first chronologically, it's the most common usage of the phrase. It was already decided in the above discussion that the TV series is primary hence the redirect from the main slot to here.
You can't fudge the naming issue to satisfy your personal opinion. Naming conventions dictate that since the primary title is vacant and consensus has determined this to be the main topic, this article lives at Buffy the Vampire Slayer. As Kusma said, we don't have United States (country).
If you wish to argue that the TV show isn't primary (and that Buffy the Vampire Slayer should be a dab page), then you should start a new naming debate. (Please don't though. It was already discussed above, has no doubt been discussed before, and I don't see what other usage can be better known than the TV show but anyway...) In the meantime, I move (aha!) that protection should be removed and this page moved to the primary topic in accordance with our naming conventions when a primary topic has been determined, and it has for this topic. --kingboyk (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It was a concead for all the fans who look at "canon" over anything else. The discussion was going nowhere, and it was "fine, we'll let you do that if you drop it" decision, and I believe editors even brought up that redirecting the basic "Buffy" title should not have been done in the first place. These pages are overrun with fanboys that remove anything they deem as non-canon, that goes for the article titles as well. There was no evidence to show that it was the "primary usage" of the name. There are too many articles that share that name to assume one is more than the other. I would be willing to bet that more people think of the character before any medium of entertainment. It's a POV decision, that is easily, alternatively decided by being objective. Make the disamgib page the general title and let the reader decide.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I see. Well then, I would propose moving the article to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and then reopening the debate about whether to actually put the dab page there instead. I do see your point, but it's irrelevant to my position that the primary title should not be a redirect :) Do I have your agreement on that point now or not?
Personally, I wouldn't like Buffy the Vampire Slayer being a dab page because I think most visitors will be looking for the TV show, and for those who want to read about the character it's easy to click through to it. There would also be a lot of incoming links to clean up I imagine. However, that is a seperate debate.
So, can I get this page unprotected and moved pending a new discussion on where the dab page should be (Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Buffy the Vampire Slayer (disambiguation)? --kingboyk (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Buffy the Vampire the movie should have a separate category from Buffy the Vampire the television show. Both are such iconic cultural phenomena that it astounds me that this question is being asked in the first place. There are NUMEROUS other shows and movies that use this format for disambiguation purposes, and I find the desire to merge them to be perplexedly ....I'll not use negative language here, but suffice to say that it is the kind of thing that encourages strong language. How could you possibly think that this is a good idea unless it is for a reason that is personal in nature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manticore55 (talkcontribs) 19:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Manticore55 (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Consider that my John Hancock.
Don't worry mate, nobody's proposing such a thing. The TV show and film will remain separate articles. --kingboyk (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
King, we cannot assume what readers are looking for, that's why we need to be objective about this. There are numerous articles on Buffy that share that title exactly, or are simply associated specifically with the title (as is the character's case), which is clear from the dab page. What if there are gaming fans that have never watched the show? Or comic fans who have never watched the show. I know people that focus their attention to one medium and not the rest, regardless if what they are doing spans multiple mediums; they just don't care about the others. We are placing too much bias into the decision--in this case, a bias toward what is the most current version in the public eye--when we should be looking at this without bias. Stripping away all bias, one would say the dab page should be the "BtVS", and all else should have specific titles associated. It isn't about what looks pretty and what doesn't, it's about being neutral and not picking sides.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
No, with respect, I believe that we optimise for what the readers expect to find: so, yes, we do have to make an assumption about what they're looking for. However, I'm entirely happy to debate that issue, the issue of where the dab page lives (and if it's at Buffy the Vampire Slayer that's fine although not my personal choice), separately. What say you to my proposal to move the page back to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (since the current scheme goes against naming conventions) and open a new debate about the dab issue? Can we agree to that plan of action or not? --kingboyk (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
But "optimizing" when you have several topics of the same subject, and saying "I think people like this one more", without any empirically supported evidence, is not appropriate for article naming. I see why Halloween is for the holiday, and Halloween (1978 film) is for the movie, because one has been around FAR longer than the other, and been apart of a vast number of cultures. This is less clear with Buffy, considering it was only a few years after the film that the television show began. The only part that goes against naming conventions is the redirection of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)". The solution there is, remove the redirect and send it somewhere else (like the dab page). :) A discussion was already held about moving "TV series" to just plain ol "Buffy", and it didn't find consensus. The redirection of plain "Buffy" to "TV series" is irrelevant to that consensus, because it's a separate issue. If plain "Buffy" IS redirected here, then I agree, it makes no sense to have "TV series", but since I do not agree that it should be redirected here, then I don't believe we have a problem with this title. I say, redirect plain "Buffy" to the dab page, and then, since you believe this page needs renaming, we start a discussion about this page's name. If consensus is that this should be "TV series", then the dab page should automatically become plain "Buffy". If it's that this page should be renamed plain "Buffy"...well, then we won't have to worry about the dab page at all, will we. ;)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I know you don't agree it should be redirected here, but that's how the admin closed it. All I want to do is clear up the mess he left and bring this page into line with naming conventions. Specifically I want to:
  1. Remove move protection
  2. Move Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) back to Buffy the Vampire Slayer
  3. Start a debate advertised at WP:RM for Buffy the Vampire Slayer to be moved to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (disambiguation) to be moved to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. You'll presumably support, I'll oppose, consensus will decide the matter and we'll both abide by the decision.
Do you agree to this proposal? --kingboyk (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Not completely, but here's why. The page was already "Buffy...TV series". The last discussion was about changing it from "TV series" to just "Buffy". If you ignore the fact that the admin close the discussion early, the page was already "TV series". By moving it now you're ignoring the consensus that was established well before September 17 (when the most recent debate took place). I do not agree with that, because the topic that is under discussion is which medium is the prominent usage (that's your reasoning for changing the title to plain "Buffy"). If you take the redirected "Buffy" and the idea of subjective determination of article titles out of the equation, then this page follows naming conventions for articles that share titles with other articles. There are only two problems with this page's name, and that is the redirection of Buffy and the disagreement about whether this article should be retitled based on the idea that it is "more known" than anything else. I propose the redirection be moved to the dab page for the time being, and a debate started as to whether this title be changed, not to have this title changed back to what it is after you've moved it yourself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
No can do, because that's a fundamental change without consensus: indeed it goes against the consensus established in the archived discussion above to move the dab page and make this the primary topic. My change merely implements naming conventions. Thank you for the polite discussion but I will have to seek 3rd party admin input as we've reached impasse and I feel you're playing the system. --kingboyk (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly how am I playing the system? (which, I love the comment, since it was preceeded by "thanks for the polite conversation"). WP:NVTV state that it should have "TV series" attached to its name. What you are disputing is whether or not it should be the primary location of the general "Buffy" name, without "TV series", because it's more well known. I said, prove it with evidence. You cannot just say, "it is" and everyone is supposed to take your word on that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You're playing the system by getting the page locked at your preferred name, by blocking my attempt to enforce naming conventions to get your own way about the dab scheme, and by conveniently ignoring the above debate which already decided this is the primary topic and to move the dab page. As I said, I'm quite happy to discuss the dab scheme later, but you want it all now... you won't let me get rid of the redirect at Buffy the Vampire Slayer which is just flying in the face of guidelines and convention. I've also had 2 other admins support me here and nobody speak up to support you, and yet still the page is locked! (Actually 3, as I see that Ryulong came along and moved using my rationale too). If you've not played the system to get a result which goes against normal practice I don't know what's happened. --kingboyk (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and changing the Buffy the Vampire Slayer redirect to point to the dab page, after I'd listed the move proposal at WP:RM where my entire argument is based on the fact that redirects point here! Man you're good. You've got more tricks than Penn & Teller! Needless to say, that page is protected now too as there's no point move protecting this one but allowing the main title's redirect target to change. Wait for the results of the RM, and if it doesn't go your way you can revisit the dab issue afterwards. --kingboyk (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The mind boggles at this situation. There is no point redirecting the main page title to something with a disambiguation qualifier ("TV series") in the title, with a dab link from there. If I were interested in researching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, on a balance of probabilities I think that I'd be more likely to be searching for the article about the TV series - so it should surely be in the top spot. As for the comment made earlier that a qualifier is needed in this title to avoid confusion with the movie... I disagree - if there was potential for confusion, the producers would have given the two productions different names. They didn't. Thinking of it in terms of my digibox's EPG - if Buffy (series) was one, it would say "Buffy the vampire slayer". If the film were on, it would say "Buffy the vampire slayer (film)". I think we can use this as a reasonable benchmark for what our readers expect. Merci beaucoup, Martinp23 23:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)