Talk:Buffyverse canon

This article was nominated for deletion on June 1, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep and rename..

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Buffyverse task force (assessed as High-importance).

A summary of this article appears in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

small note

1)i think that the orgign is three parts and not four
2)i personally finds the canon notes in wikipedia very usefull. it's obvious that somepeople think that only the onscreen is canon and that some thinks that only the comics writen by actors are canon and that basicly for every combination there is somewhere someone who thinks that this is the real canon. what i really want to know is what the majority of buffy fans regard as canon. and i'm getting it, thanks :) --84.109.54.117 00:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffyverse 'canon'?

There is no fixed 'canon' for the Buffyverse, it is a subjective term. Unlike Star Wars canon no authority has come out and defined which materials are and are not canon. The star wars canon is indisputable since its creator has formally organised it (see web page). In fact Whedon does not seem interested in doing as such. Just like the church centuries ago did not have a defined 'canon', and different people argued about what should and should not be 'canon'. At one point early in Christianity, many people argued that 'Revelation' should never be canon, but now to Catholics it is. I personally believe that when Whedon or Mutan Enemy are involved with the writing it becomes canon, and all else is secondary canon that takes place in a similar but parrallel universes.

Some Buffy fans refuse anything as canon that is not onscreen.
Some Buffy fans I know refuse that Haunted is canon because they dislike the Mayor's role in it despite it being written by Espenson.
I personally don't think something being written by an actor/actress makes it canon, but can still respect the opinion that it does.

... and so on. 'Canon' can be different to different people until there is a consensus (which there is not for the Buffyverse).

An Encyclopedia

The purpose of an encyclopedia should be to consider all points of view not just the dominant ones. Should the abortion article just focus on republican views? Should the Palestine article be written only from a Jewish perspective? A good encyclopedia should remain neutral or deal with all points of view without rubbishing any of them. In the same way there does not have to be a problem.

In other words I am saying wikipedia is capable of dealing with the whole Buffyverse not just the canon Buffyverse. In fact Wikipedia's explicit policy is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Buffy fans have the right to access to information about 'uncanon' sources as about 'canon' sources. they also deserve unjudgmental access. I believe I have recently been dealing with 'canonical issues' in a reasonable and neutral way based on actual cited sources and therefore do not require heavy editing unless there is a consensus on the discussion page of one of my articles for a particular direction? I think it would be better if when commenting on whether material is cannon, that is done in such a way that people who are fans of such material are not rubbished. Use of language, that implies that 'uncanon' material is inferior, unimportant, or a waste of time is not showing Neutral point of view, and shows disrespect to those who read the materials, and even more disrespect to those writing articles about them. I personally do not see the problem with using information from uncanonical sources as long as it is clearly referenced.

Thanks -- Paxomen 21:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

was wondering what the problem with mentioning the comics written by Mutant Enemy Productions. This information seems worthy of including, after all i was hoping the article could be comprehensive and inclusive as possible, and surely the article is not overly long? so why not include this text??? :

Several of the comics have been written by script-writers of Mutant Enemy Productions, and do not seem to contradict any information from the 'Buffyverse canon'. Some fans argue that any/all of these might also be considered canon. For example:

Jane Espenson has written a number of Buffy comics including the graphic novel Haunted, and the one-shots, Giles, Jonathon, and Reunion.

Doug Petrie wrote Ring of Fire, and 'Bad Dog' a mini story found in the graphic novel, Food Chain.

Spike & Dru story: ‘All's Fair’ was written by 'Spike' actor, James Marsters.

Also having this information from the article deleted means it even more unbalanced, it now has 150 words devoted to 'canon' section. and 792 words devoted to 'uncanon' section! Therefore in my opinion it seems it should be included?

-- Paxomen 13:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OR

This entire article currently appears original research. It cites as the sole arbiter of canonicity "the fans," who are not a verifiable source to my knowledge. Was some poll done of them? Is there some other way for the reader to check the consensus of fans? Absent that, this would need to be referred against a definitive list of canonical material from Whedon or some other authoritative source (As happened with Star Wars and Babylon 5). Otherwise, the entirety of this article is speculation. Phil Sandifer 15:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The designation and treatment of canon and non-canon stuff seems to be a major point of community debate. Folks argue over what is and is not canon. Folks edit and remove non-canon stuff exuberantly, to the chagrin of editors who believe that non-canon material should be included (while being labeled for what it is). This article presents a fundamental aspect of the debate while not attempting to provide an authoritative, definitive word. I do see your point, and I think it is important to talk about this issue some more since it weighs heavily on what material editors are "allowed" to add to buffyverse pages (see extensive debates, most notably comments by Paxomen), and hopefully fellow editors can find some cites from authoritative folks. But I don't consider this article to be entirely speculation, it is trying to make a comprehensive list of buffyverse and nonbuffyverse materials and examine the involvement/approval of "show" folks in their creation, as well as examining continuity issues. I also think it is important to have a page like this (it has survived a deletion attempt, indicating that at least some people agree) in order to provide editors with SOME sort of reference for what should be included in character bios and show pages, as well as add some predictibility about what is going to be summarily removed by canonites (term used affectionately). I haven't worked on this page but I have considered it a helpful reference while working on buffyverse editing and hope that these issues can be discussed further to make wiki-buffyverse more comprehensive and complete. Riverbend 15:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is meant to be a content guideline, it should probably be moved to the Wikipedia namespace as a subpage of the Buffy WikiProject. It certainly doesn't seem to come anywhere close to an encyclopedia article at present, although it would, I think, provide a very useful guideline for the project. Phil Sandifer 15:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Phil. One thing that was glossed over in the deletion debate above is that SW/ST canon is established pretty rigidly by their parent companies. The quote from Joss Whedon pretty much states that he doesn't pay that much attention to it, and thus the majority of this information is speculation. A subset of it would be undoubtedly useful to the WikiProject, but as an article-space page... I don't think it's suitable. -- nae'blis 15:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shall need a week or so, but I'll see if I can have a go at restructuring it and improving referencing. -- Paxomen 00:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any progress on this? Phil Sandifer 01:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to begin restructuring today. I'll aim to make the article far less speculative by moving original research out of the article and using more citations. -- Paxomen 13:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: OK, I've made a significant start, I'm working on it in my own userspace (for now) because it has been taken apart, and not yet made complete in a way that makes complete sense to expose publically. This is taking longer than I expected, but it will come together eventually.

Update 2: I just gave the article the major overhaul I think it needed - I had to remove a lot of comments that were OR. It means that there are no sections of the article where it is stated "This is considered canon" or "This is not considered canon" unless that can be backed up. I reckon that this article is just about deserving to keep its place on the mainspace. I found some good sources where Whedon and writers refer to 'the canon'. - Paxomen 15:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The changes are impressive - it is looking much improved. Thanks for the hard work! Riverbend 18:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Role Playing Game

whatever gets decided about this page, I didn't see the role playing game mentioned (did I miss it?). I have read that it is where Faith's last name (Lehane) comes from, but is her name generally considered to be part of the canon? Riverbend 15:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind!!

I think it is generally considered canon, check out Talk:Faith Lehane#Faith's Last Name - Paxomen 00:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy promo (Christmas)

I'm having a hard time understanding this sentence from the "Buffy promo (Christmas)" section, and as I have no knowledge of this promo, could someone fix it? The issue that I have is with the sentence: "It would have to take place shortly after Amends, since snow in Sunnydale is highly unusual however it is clearly not canon since both the narrator and Buffy actively break the Fourth wall." So my question after reading it is: what's not canon, the snow or the promo? Could someone please fix the unclear run-on sentence? Zekintha 04:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the recent overhaul of the article that section of text no longer exists. What was meant though was that the promo overtly broke the fourth wall and therefore did not fit in with the continuity of the series. The promo featured Buffy and Angel in a Snowy location which might potentially have been Sunnydale following the events of the episode "Amends" when it actually does snow in Sunnydale. -- Paxomen 00:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Brian Lynch

After looking at the references linked from the article, I can't find anything that indicates that Spike: Asylum and Spike: Shadow Puppets have been "canonized" by the inclusion of Betta George in After the Fall. In my view, bringing a character from non-canon works into canon works does not necessarily mean the original stories become canon. Is there any kind of reliable source that says I'm wrong? --Jeff-El 00:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you're right. I changed it. --Nalvage 11:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major edit

I've always found this article extremely difficult to read, and so I just gave it a major facelift. I added a section on the TV series; I think it's necessary to include it in the article, though I admit that my reference is a little on the weak side. I also used the centred quote template throughout as I like the way it neatly emphasizes the quotes included. I do admit that it doesn't look quite as nice for shorter quotes, though. --Jeff-El 04:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffyverse pages I can't find anymore

Didn't there use to be a timeline of episodes, books, comics, etc., related to the buffyveryse, and another one of things considered cannon in the buffyverse (again including books, comics, and other things mixed in with the episodes)? What happened to these pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.150.9 (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were deleted, as it was felt they weren't warranted in an encyclopaedia. --Nalvage 01:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy Canon vs. Fanon

The first link leads to a page that even though is only an "Example of fandom commentary on Buffyverse canonicity" is seriously outdated,and i think that fact should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ildin (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Buffyverse objects closing in a few hours

FYI Ikip (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==

Vincent Kartheiser Screentest

I recall it being noted somewhere that the Vincent Kartheiser screentest for 'Angel' had the actor playing a boy who had come to live with Angel rather than the character being his son...where was that said at? I edited the item, but I cannot recall where it was said at, unfortunately. I do think though that there's a possible indication in the dialogue, where Connor says Angel isn't his father. Unless he was referring to the whole thing of viewing Holtz as his father. But onscreen, even though he disliked Angel, he still often used 'dad' when talking about him. Angel says his past doesn't have anything to do with him...I know he could just mean it not influencing things now (they were talking about Angelus) but it seems to me it could also be an indicator because his past would have something to do with the boy's birth, anyway.

Maybe I'm just mixed up.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Buffyverse canon. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 11:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buffyverse canon. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060727002702/http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/425/425492p10.html to http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/425/425492p10.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wtftbq.com/learn/buffy_canon.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]