Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move?[edit]

The official name of the series is "Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight" according to the official info in small print inside the front cover. Season Eight is not an unofficial name. Should this be moved to the correct capitalization? Also in the intro it should probably include the full title in bold. Anyone disagree? -- Siradia 04:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking that, and it even refers to season seven as "Season Seven." Go ahead and move the page if you want.~ZytheTalk to me! 12:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I moved it. Woo-hoo! My first page move! I see you've taken care of the intro already. -- Siradia 16:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote article?[edit]

A little earlier to worry about it, to be sure, but does anyone feel that, since the series is canon, it warrants a Wikiquote page as the original series did? And, if so, would it be better as a seperate article or as an extension of the existing one(s)?

AdZ 17:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of expected issues[edit]

So, we have two conflicting reports from recent interviews which are included in the article. Scott Allie saying it's almost up to 50, then Joss saying it could be as many as 25. I notice the Joss interview is actually less serious than even the typically whimsical Joss interview. The actual quote is, "It started out as twenty-five. But now it's blown up so big, I have so many ideas, so many awesome writers scrambling to get in the game, I think it could go as many as twenty-five." It seems very self contradictory. I'm thinking it's either a misprint or an odd attempt at humor. Not sure which. I really can't imagine it's serious though. -- Siradia 04:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a joke. It's just I felt the entirety of our confusing information belonged in there until there was "official word".~ZytheTalk to me! 10:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variant covers?[edit]

Is there a site anywhere that has all the covers? I'm not familiar with American comic books, is having variant covers standard practice? Example:

vol 2 cover 1: http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/2298/img5410dp8.jpg
vol 2 cover 2: http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/4992/img5403ah4.jpg

I assume the second is the "rare" one because they charge you extra for it here in Australia.

Soshesaid 15:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Having variant covers was a huge thing to do in the '90's, and in the past few years, the variant cover fad has fallen back into favor. Sometimes a variant cover can become extremely valuable while other times it is just a different picture to choose from. StarIV 20:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't rare. They're just giving the people who are slow on picking up the earlier issues a better chance of getting them by releasing the same issue over again, where as the comic store would be inclined to only keep the first original comic out until they got more comics and needed shelf space. It's a pretty good strategy, but don't pay extra for it the variant covers aren't any better than the original in my opinion the original covers to the first three are cooler than the newer ones. Non-ya 21:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal note, whilst I love Jeanty's internal art, I much prefer Jo Chen's covers as they allow fans of the TV show to approach it with a less "oh, it's only a comic" standpoint and draw them in. The only variant cover I've actually consciously prefered was for Superman/Batman #26. Maybe I'm just not a fan of yellow.

AdZ 16:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Story titles[edit]

I've already noted this on the No Future For You page, but the names of three of the story arcs so far, (that is, the ones that are known,) are ostensibly based on lyrics or titles of songs, all of them from the 70s. The Chain is a Fleetwood Mac song; The Long Way Home is a Supertramp song; and No Future For You is a lyric from God Save the Queen by the Sex Pistols. This raises two questions:-

1. are these links significant enough to warrant mention in their respective articles? 2. in case of The Chain, would it be prudent to add a crosslink or connect them to a disambig page?

AdZ 16:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not enough of a pattern yet.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not canon to a lot of people[edit]

A lot of people feel this comic is NOT canon. There is a major controversy over whether it is canon or not. I think this should be noted in the article. I notice that in the Doctor Who articles when there is controversy over whether something is canon the article mentions that. I think that should be the case here. Otherwise I think the article gives the misleading impression that the comic is generally accepted as canon, where in fact its canonicity is a very debated issue. Skynowmore 20:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cite references indicating that there is a legitimate controversy. But I find it hard to imagine that there's a meaningful one: Wheadon is in charge of the comics and explicitly considers it Season 8. — Aldaron • T/C 20:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can give you so many interviews of Joss, saying that it is what happens after season 7. I have not met a fan other than you that has questioned this, if you have the comic then if you look on the inside cover, you will see that it's canon. If your still not convinced, I'll give you dozens of links about how it's true. Sorry if I come off strong, but just cause it turns from tv, to comics doesn't mean it's not canon, and we make sure we state season 8 is in comics---User:Smartjoe299

I don't know what would count as proper references. But the debate does get brought up briefly in an interview with Scott Allie of Dark Horse comics: http://www.stakesandsalvation.com/2007/05/interview-with-scott-allie.html There's a line in there "J: There has been some debate on the Internet about canon in the Buffy comics." I don't know what would count as a legitimate controversy. What I'm talking about here is the opinions of a lot of fans. Which means it's about how the Buffyverse is seen by the people most interested in it. No matter what Whedon says this will affect how people view the comic. No matter what Whedon says a significant part of the Buffy community will always view these comics as not canon. There will always be a controversy. I think such views should be noted, if not here then in Buffyverse Canon article where what's Buffy canon is discussed (it is certainly relevant to discussing what's Buffy canon). Re "I have not met a fan other than you that has questioned this", honestly I am quite amazed that you haven't met any fans that question its canonicity. I am familiar with it being questioned for months, since before the comic started coming out. Skynowmore 21:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fans suck. Joss' word is gospel. Most mainstream media and commentators have described it as canon, echoing Joss' words. Otherwise, believe what you like, it ain't touching the article. ~ZytheTalk to me! 21:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't of said it better my self, exactly how you should put it...End of topic---Smartjoe299

Fans don't suck. Buffy would never have become so celebrated if it weren't for fans. Without fans this "Season 8" would never have been made. Without fans there would be no wikipedia Buffy project. Fans are important and their opinions count.

As for Joss's word being gospel, I think its status as "gospel" is compromised by the fact that a lot of people don't accept it as gospel (at least as regards the comics' canonicity).

The topic isn't ended, because there will always be a significant contingent of fans who don't see these comics as canon. Skynowmore 20:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Joss writes it; it's canon. Sorry if you don't like comics or whatever, but that's your problem. The rest of us are loving Season 8. Your quote from the Scott Allie interview is vague, the canonicity of the old Buffy comics is debatable since some are written by Mutant Enemy and some are not. Season 8 is overseen by Joss and it, like Angel Season 6 will be, is 100% canon. Paul730 14:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The view that it's canon if Joss writes/oversees it is not a universally accepted view. Nor is this a matter of liking comics or not. It's a matter of whether comics can be canon for a tv show. As for "the rest of us are loving Season 8", the rest of who? I have seen a wide range of different reactions to Season 8. Some people love it, some people hate it and there's every view in between. But I don't think loving or hating it is relevant here. I hated most of season 7 but I consider it canon.

I think my quote from Scott Allie is less vague if you read the page and see it in context. Scott Allie reacts to the interviewer's remarks is if they are about the question of Season 8's canonicity. I think it is clear that the canon debate the interviewer is talking about is the Season 8 debate and that this is how Allie takes it. Skynowmore 20:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that fans argue about what is and isn't canon until they are blue in the face. Unless there was some major ipute (in which case it'd be picked up by the broader media) that needn't concern Wikipedia in most entries. I've removed a tonne of stuff from Canon (fiction) because it largely involved what fans did or didn't consider canon. A lot of that leaks over into entries I'm afriad but the bottom line is that, for example, there is no Dr Who canon. The only person who says what is or isn't canon is Joss Whedon (or his inner circle) and he says this is, see here. Without something official it is WP:OR relying on WP:RS and isn't really worthy of a mention. (Emperor 16:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The reality is that a lot of people just don't accept what Whedon says as regards this being canon. They seem to feel that the rule that only the onscreen can be canon is more important than Joss saying this is canon. Skynowmore 20:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's simplify this. Whedon and Dark Horse have described the comic as canon. We have sources for this. There may be fans who disagree, but unless those fans are identifiable (ie. not anonymous or as-good-as-anonymous posters on forums), notable, and have expressed that disagreement in a source that meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, they can't be mentioned. There may be a debate over canon, but unless that debate has been referred to by a notable source, then it can't be mentioned. Having said this, there may be an argument for changing any mentions from "they're totally canon" to something more equivocal like, "Whedon has stated that the comics are canon". --Nalvage 00:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Having said this, there may be an argument for changing any mentions from "they're totally canon" to something more equivocal like, "Whedon has stated that the comics are canon"." -That sounds like a good idea. :) Skynowmore 02:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Btvs-faithsea8.jpg[edit]

Image:Btvs-faithsea8.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Buffy801-805.jpg[edit]

Image:Buffy801-805.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

standalones[edit]

I didn't know where else to ask this so I will ask it here. I know a couple of the "Buffy season 8" issue articles have been noted for deletion. I think it might make more sense if we keep the articles for the story arcs, such as "The Long Way Home (Buffy comic)", and "No Future For You (Buffy comic)", because they tend to get big. I do think though, that we should merge all the standalone issues of Buffy season 8 to one new article. So if this works, we would have an article for "The Chain", "Anywhere But Here", and "A Beautiful Sunset", all merged into one..I think that would work because standalone's don't have as much information as a 4 issue arc. What do you think? --Smartjoe299

That's bull. They have less content, but since Wikipedia focuses on out-of-universe information it is irrelevant. The articles should be rewritten to focus on real world reception such as ratings, reviews, behind-the-scenes information, conceptual history and professional criticism. For example, look at "Through the Looking Glass (Lost)" or "The Joy of Sect" and see which techniques they've used.~ZytheTalk to me! 13:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zythe, you're completely right that articles should be rewritten to focus on real world reception such as ratings, reviews, behind-the-scenes information, conceptual history and professional criticism. However, the two episodes you mention both establish enough notability to deserve individual articles, receiving some sort of media attention for the content. If notability can be established for any of the comic stories (not just the one-offs) and we can come up with decent behind-the-scenes and reception info, the it deserves it's own article, but if not, I would support a merge for all of them. Currently, they're just huge plot summaries and original research.  Paul  730 17:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a deluded optimist who hopes Joss will send us all DVDs in the post with his Season Eight director's commentaries on. Or, rather, hopeful he'll spill most of it in Newsarama interviews.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, personally delivered DVDs? Hmm, hopefully Dark Horse will release hardcover collections, they usually have some good special features at the back. Fray had some good interviews in it which I plan to impliment when I actually sit down and read them. Special features don't really establish notablity though. These comics are uber-popular, yes? Shouldn't there be more real-world info? I see The Long Way Home (Buffy comic) has a brief reception section, that's a small step the right direction.  Paul  730 22:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge list of episodes with TV series[edit]

Wouldn't the reference value of the list of episodes be improved if it were merged with the list of TV episodes to form a comprehensive list of all Buffy episodes? — Aldaron • T/C 15:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would help. The different mediums are treated very differently, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight" are two separate entities. In a sense, the comic book continuation is a spin-off.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that they are distinct, so that separate articles certainly make sense: I wouldn't merge all of this into the episodes article. But it would be useful to have a single merged episode article that spans all formats. — Aldaron • T/C 17:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't confuse the television and comic book format - they're not episodes, they're issues. I don't think I've ever heard of a comic book being called an "episode" until Buffy Season 8 came along (maybe that's just me). What you're suggesting is a bit fancrufty - I believe they used to have a timeline or something which encompassed all Buffyverse stories, canon or not, but it got deleted. They still have "Timing" sections on episode pages, but I'm trying to see them deleted as well, because they're full of original research. I get what you're suggesting, but I just think it would be best to keep the two mediums separate. It's still a comic, even if it is canon.  Paul  730 20:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, but we don't have the chronology article anymore. If that were still around, there'd be no need to consider a merger, but in it's absence, the lack of some kind of list that crosses media and covers continuity is an omission. We should bring the chronology back! — Aldaron • T/C 20:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That raises an interesting question. Was the Buffyverse chronology moved to a Wikia before AfD struck?~ZytheTalk to me! 21:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, although it should have been. It would have been perfect for the Buffyverse wiki. It wasn't very accurate though... I remember reading it and thinking "this is all wrong". The problem with a chronology page on Wikipedia is that it's a bit in-universe. It's connecting two distinct series by the fact that they take place in the same fictional universe. Also, original research is required to piece it together if there aren't any sources (and most expanded universe stuff has a fairly vague place in continuity).  Paul  730 22:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. It didn't belong on Wikipedia.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should merge the issue list to the episode list. The Season Eight comic books are canon, so it makes sense if it proceeds the season 7 episodes. Joss has said that there will be a season 9, so this is ongoing. That's a yes from me. --Redsignal 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with those who say they should not be merged. They reference two different projects in two different media. I would like to see them hyperlinked, though (maybe they are already and I missed it). Jwolfe 09:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It doesn't matter if it's canon or not, it's still a comic. Wikipedia doesn't deal in issues like continutity and canon, or at least it shouldn't, because writing from an in-universe perspective is against guidelines. The television series and the comic book are two distinct mediums - the season 8 comics are not episodes and are part of a different series. When the list of issues on this page become too long (it's like 50+ issues, right?) I would reccomend that it be split into a list of issues pages, but we can't confuse two distinct series just because they're set in the same fictional universe.  Paul  730 09:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Beautiful Sunset[edit]

I know that the article got deleted due to not having enough information for a page, but as the release date is getting closer, we will surely get more information...should we remake the page? -Smartjoe299

Is an individual page really necessary? Can't any real world info/plot be covered here? "The Chain (Buffy comic)" doesn't seem to consist of much except plot and original research. We shouldn't create individual articles for the sake of it. What would be the purpose of it?  Paul  730 20:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was kinda thinking,but where should we put the plot info, credits, and critism? -User:Smartjoe299

Plot can be covered in the issues table, like Angel: After the Fall, we don't need a big plot summary. Creators could be mentioned in a development section, provided there's some relevant info and it's not just a list of names. Criticism can go in the reception section.  Paul  730 13:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just leaving this link to use later. Good development info!  Paul  730 22:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a single page for a buffy episode and since these are basically episodes why can'y we have a page for this, we should re-create this page, we have a page for everyother issue, so why not this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay beardo (talk • contribs) 19:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issue #[edit]

I'd like to include some sort of template for issue numbers on the episode pages, like with Astonishing X-Men. The issues with #s in parentheses like that would be fine I think. There are numbered issues in the cover sections, but this could clear up what's what. Some issue #s are in some infoboxes, but others are not. Include there too? Any preferred ways of doing this? Xndr (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Link NOT WORKING![edit]

The external link for the preview pages of Time of Your Life leads to a comment thing. WHAT IS WRONG?! Pokemon Buffy Titan (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International release dates?[edit]

There's no info about when and through what publishers the comic will be released outside the US.--86.43.64.115 (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not typically how it works. UK distributers typically import from the US publishers.~ZytheTalk to me! 20:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know very little about comics, But I'm a Buffy fan and I'm trying to find out how to get this (I can't import off the Internet or anything, I'd need to buy it in a store) I really should not use Wikipedia for this, I know, I'll have to get help with this.....thanks anyway for telling me how comic distribution works, anyway.--86.43.64.115 (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colon in title[edit]

Shouldn't it be Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Season Eight (with a colon) since Season Eight is a subtitle?--Marcus Brute (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The official name in small print on the title page does not include a colon. Jomasecu talk contribs 00:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most subtitles are written below the title without a colon. When written on one line the colon is necessary. Look at Star Trek: The Next Generation, the title card in the infobox has no colon.--Marcus Brute (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the comic, look at the small print at the bottom of the title page, where the publication info is. The title is written there on one line with no colon. Jomasecu talk contribs 21:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source for canon[edit]

A lot of the interviews with Joss Whedon seem to be dead links (I'll have time to clean that up later, probably), and now I'm having trouble finding a reliable source for it's canonocity. We know it is, but we still need a ref for it. Anyone know where one can be found? Jomasecu talk contribs 01:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characters section deletion[edit]

First of all, I did not make a major change to the article. I reverted a recent major change tto the article that I found unnecessary, unnotable, and poorly written. I stated the exact reasons in the edit summary:

"characters section is both unnecessary and poorly put together, see Uncanny X-men - only main cast get mention, not guest or enemies"

The character section that was added attempted to list every single character in the series, regardless of importance. If a character section is to be incorporated at all, it should only be of the main, core characters (which this article sites in the infobox as Scooby Gang), and it should not be in bullet-list form. That kind of writing should be avoided whenever possible. kingdom2 (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, there has to be a character section, not only for the main characters but also for more episodic ones (also see the section for the TV show), the current link that's available - Scooby Gang - is one-sided, not mentioning the villains. As for unnecessary, unnotable, I highly doubt that the characters are not notable or unnecessary. For poorly written, fair enough, I've prepared a table with links pointing to the characters' pages. Feel free to give suggestions/edit it. I'll add it to the article once I compile all the proper links.
Also note: try to improve an edit from another member or article before deleting it. After all, that user may not have had time to properly format it, etc. Note 2: reverting a major change is still a major change. The content is good, it just needs to be "arranged". --Mihai123 (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am in no way obligated to try and fix your edit. And, as demonstrated by your use of the sandbox, not having enough time is in no way an excuse. Also, as I stated, by precedence we should only list main characters, if at all, and the link to the Scooby Gang season 8 section accomplishes that. Precedence is big here. Check the articles of any other major comic book and you will see this practice. And to defeat your last argument, I did not say that the characters are unnecessary, I said the list is, and, of the characters listed, only 11 have proven notable (only 11 have appeared in more than one story arc). Also, as seen in the Uncanny X-men article, full character sections are generally only required when there are huge, rotating casts of ensemble characters, not 11. I stand by my edit and will revert any attempt to add a similar list. kingdom2 (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So by your reasoning you expect a new user (and even ones that haven't even registered) to know all these inner details and even use a sandbox... That's not going to happen. Sad truth. And since you were arguing about semantics (reverting vs. deleting) you won't mind me adding that table, as it's not a list. Also, I'm not asking (or, for more eloquent answer to your use of "obligated", a strong word, I'm not making you, forcing you, giving you orders ..etc.) to fix my/whoever's edit(s). I assumed you wanted to contribute to this article, to increase its value, to help, my mistake, sorry. If at any point I seemed aggressive, I apologize, I'm not; and neither should you. Here's some reading material: Wikipedia:No_angry_mastodons Regarding "I [...] will revert any attempt" I probably should add here that you don't own this article and neither do I or anyone else (Wikipedia:Ownership). Also see this: Wikipedia:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point. I'd hate to know you oppose this edit for the wrong reasons.
As I mentioned earlier, Buffy's TV show page contains a Characters section and not only includes secondary characters (ex.: Angel, OZ, Anya, Kendra (Slayer), Spike +more) but also villains (ex.: Spike and Anya (they fit in both categories), Drusilla, Mayor Richard Wilkins, Andrew Wells, Glorificus, etc) which are not listed in the Scooby Gang article you want to use as a characters section. I should also add that Buffy Season 8 is not just a comic, it's meant to stand as an eighth season of a TV show, so using a TV show approach in this case is the way to go. If you feel that neither a table or a list are appropriate you're free to suggest an alternative or let others works with the content that's available (if you're unwilling to contribute). Note: If you believe a text approach is preferable, expanding from the list format is easier. --Mihai123 (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


As we're (see up) not the only ones interested in this topic, would someone else please share your view/opinion ? It would help since apparently this is not going anywhere. Kindly review the discussion above, this table and an old version of the page and add your argument for including (or not) some sort of Characters section in this article.--Mihai123 (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with k2. The precedent in the vast majority of similar articles, including featured articles such as Batman, Superman, and Captain Marvel (DC Comics), is not to include lists of minor characters in the main article, but in a subsidiary article. I suggest they be included in a new section of List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters, as this is an official work. Actually, it seems they are already included in List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Jomasecu talk contribs 21:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC) (correction 21:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
(edit conflicted) You neglected to move your argument forward amidst that huge sea of personal attacks. The only argument you made in that response is that you assert guest and minor characters and villains are notable enough, siting the Buffy TV series article as an example. However, the big difference is that that is an article for a TV show, not a comic book. When it comes to comic books precedence dictates only main characters be listed, which is what the Scooby Gang link accomplishes and more. Second, no, this article is not being written as if it is an 8th part of a TV series. It is to be written as its own, independent subject, which just happens to be a continuation of a TV series. Next time you want to try and debate your point, don't spend an entire paragraph throwing bullshit insults at your main opposition. kingdom2 (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jomasecu. kingdom2 (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)You're welcome. :) Regarding the TV series article, there is no list of minor characters, rather summaries of certain characters that serve to illustrate how minor characters in general affect the story, which is similar to the comic articles I linked. That would be fine here, a list or table would not. Jomasecu talk contribs 21:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You both need to calm down and have a nice cup of WP:TEA--the world won't end just because we don't have the right format, and it's no good reason to get worked up over. On that score, however, I do agree with Jomasecu, that a pointer to a the list article is a sufficient way to reference characters. All appropriate character info should be included--but just once, and in the most appropriate place. Jclemens (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jomasecu is on the right track. We know that:
1. According to Jomasecu, minor characters should be added to a separate page ("subsidiary article")
2. According to k2, comics are separate from the TV show => a separate section away from the TV show
3. The Scooby Gang article is clearly insufficient (for use as described by Jomasecu) because - due to it's limited range it can only include one side of the characters.
4. To keep the comics and the TV show apart, neither the List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters nor List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters can be used.
5. Thus, a new page needs to be created - List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Season 8) characters (maybe with links to the appropriate character pages') or have its content moved somewhere else. Here, where ? This is the question.--Mihai123 (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
/Personally, I think k2's reply appears a lot more like a personal attack than what I said, even resorting to profanity. I specifically added that "I'm not attacking you" disclaimer.--Mihai123 (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are appropriate in the current lists. It's not List of Buffy the Vampire (TV series) characters; it's a list of franchise characters. I don't see a reason to seperate, especially since many of them overlap. If we were to write List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Season 8) characters, would we include background info from the series? Jomasecu talk contribs 22:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new page should clone this format, each character linked to its main page, and the description should include a small part of the plot (only from the comics), the new role the character gained in season 8. It should be implied that the reader already knows the general features from the series. Add a notice at the top: This page lists characters only in light of the events from Buffy Season 8 (Comic). For a broader view see List_of_Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_characters. This new page should try to have as less info from the series as possible, only to make the proper connection from the series, ex.: Buffy, after having been the only slayer for most of her life, now has to come to terms that there are other like her. Her new mission is to train...[...]She encounters New Villain #1 and then #2. She saves the world by [...]" Or Xander: "He takes a more hands on approach by leading the headquarters[...]" Focus on the comics. This is what I'm proposing after thinking this through.
Only linking to the franchise pages from the comic article would add a lot of confusion, many of the characters from the TV show will never appear in the comics. In this situation we're back to square one with adding (or not) a Characters (should it include all of the recurring ones ?) section to the main Season 8 article and then a link to the whole list ( => big mess). It also depends on how we see the comics, as a continuation, another season, a spin off ? There's no central place for season 8 characters (except here but it's very short, red links, etc., and supposedly only the recurring characters should be listed there; the minor ones are an even bigger mess in that regard). If we want to go with the advice Jclemens offered for a new list, it would only include the character and link to its main page. A proper page should offer a minimum of background info or more. The reason I wanted this discussion started to get some insight from someone else, feedback. See the idea above.--Mihai123 (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Buffy is a franchise, and seeing as the minor characters list includes characters from all corners of the franchise, the main characters page should do that as well. Adopting a new article exclusively for the characters as portrayed in Season Eight is nitpicking to a fault. At most, Season Eight should get its own subsection on the main characters article, and that's it. Character information of the franchise should stay on the same page, and we should put a link in the infobox that leads to that subsection. What we should do is completely rewrite the existing section and only add those characters which have crossed story arcs, all with working links. This would save the time of crafting a new article, it would be more convenient with interlinking the franchise, and satisfy content issues by including Twilight, Amy, and Warren (the only villains to have crossed story arcs, and also happen to be the most notable). What do you think? kingdom2 (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mihai123, I think you're trying to invent issues that don't really exist. Buffy has had comics before, and there's a franchise-wide set of character articles and a list of minor characters. Nothing about S8 changes that, really. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea k2, that will work fine. --Mihai123 (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing issue?[edit]

I just had a question. I haven't bought these issues, as I am low on cash and have been reading them at the magazine store. I distinctly remember reading an issue that was right before this issue with the first part of this New Oz story, that was told from the vampires point of view. This kid who has just moved to Sunnydale gets sired by this female vampire, much to the dismay of his female best friend. The guy and his sire spend a lot of time together, and the best friend gets angry, ends up killing the sire, so the guy bites his best friend. Is that from the current series 8 comics? I was just wondering as I know its a stand alone storyline but I am sure it was in a Buffy Comic, but I do not see any refrence to that issue here. I just saw that issue a month ago. Otherwise, I do enjoy the series, but at times it does get too confusing. I didn't start from the beginning..70.31.225.235 (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)samusek2[reply]

That's a "Tales of the Vampires", wasn't necessarily set in Sunnydale, and wasn't part of Season Eight per se. It's not discussed in detail in the article on that series, however. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight Shouldn't there be some information about the recent news regarding Twilight's identity? It's wierd that it's all missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChicagoMel (talk • contribs) 21:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight (Buffy the Vampire Slayer).~ZytheTalk to me! 17:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_Season_Eight&oldid=1206470894"