Jump to content

Talk:Joss Whedon/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Joss Whedon. 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: 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) 20:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Joss Whedon. 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: 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) 02:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Once more, with feeling.

"songs and lyrics for the musical episode" -- er? songs are made up of music and lyrics. So "songs and lyrics" is needless repetition. This episode was on BBC this evening, and I think it gave a credit for the music that wasn't Joss Whedon. Needs checking; I'll probably catch the repeat tomorrow night & I'll pay closer attention -- Tarquin

The script book (ISBN 0-689-85918-X) claims "words and music by Joss Whedon" on all the songs; apparently he and his wife worked out the songs while on vacation, then came back and hired a couple real composers (Jess Tobias and Christophe Beck) to arrange it. --Brion 23:18 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)
True, bad phrasing on 'songs and lyrics.' Should be 'music and lyrics.' (my fault) The credits on the CD soundtrack concur with Brion's script book - Joss wrote the music and lyrics for everything with the exception of one instrumental piece (Dawn's Ballet), which was by Beck. Tobias and Beck did arrangement. (Joss goes into some pretty amusing details in the liner notes about how he wishes he had bothered to learn how to play a musical instrument before tackling the project!) -- Wapcaplet
It was a good episode. I think every season of Buffy has a few episodes at the start where you think "uh-oh... they've lost it / it's gone all weird / hmmm not sure I like this", and then there's an episode that makes you think "aha! this is Buffy" -- Tarquin

I thought I'd move all the info for the Musical episode in a new page, adding much more info about it, it is now at Once More, With Feeling. Lazarus Long 21:48 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Intro.

I've cleaned up the intro: moving the comic book text to it's section, and removing the links to the tv series to theirs. I don't know what to do about Buffy - it should probably be mentioned in the intro, but do we then link that to the Buffy article, or to his Buffy section? I don't think Firefly (of which I'm a huge fan) and Angel should be mentioned in the intro (which should be very short, tho may include Serenity in the future). -- Jeandré, 2004-07-11t11:03z

spoilers in relationship section

I removed the last part of the relationship section which was: "...as we see in the deaths of Angel, Spike, and Fred," which I believe is to spoilerish for a biography.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Joss Whedon. 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: 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) 15:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Trump "husband"?

I was reading this article and became confused at the sentence that begins, "Referring to Trump's husband Jared Kushner and Trump..." Jared Kushner is not Trump's husband and never was! He's his son-in-law! Can someone please fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.31.229.21 (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The Trump in question is Ivanka, as established in the previous sentence. Reach Out to the Truth 14:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Need source for his wedding date

I added the date of Whedon's marriage to Kai Cole, but we could use a better source. Cole's blog post says (a) They met in 1991, (b) they lived together for four years before marrying, and (c) they went on a honeymoon in 1995, but it doesn't explicitly say they married in 1995. (Those facts would be consistent with, for example, meeting and moving in together in January 1991 and marrying Christmas 1994...) On top of which, that post is about a lot of stuff other than "when they got married"... I felt it was good to put in this date anyway, just because a lot of internet sources (like IMDB) give the marriage date as 1991, which is clearly wrong per Ms. Cole's blog post--but I'd be happier if we could find a more neutral source, and one that give the precise date. My google-fu is weak. Can someone find it for me? — Narsil (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I can find recent sources like this [1] "Cole married Whedon in 1995" which seems to be based on the blog post, but nothing before the blog post. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I would say that the Telegraph article still counts as a better source than the blog post, since it's an actual news article and I would assume they'd have verified the fact. That is, I would say that, except that the same article says they divorced in 2015, and per the more detailed Us Weekly article, the decree was granted on July 1, 2016--so I'm reluctant to use the Telegraph article either... ☹ I'll keep my eyes open for yet another source. -- — Narsil (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
[2] This uses the blog post as fruit but a spokeperson for Whedon replied "this account includes inaccuracies and misrepresentations which can be harmful to their family". It is unlikely that this means that the date is wrong, but I think we should just insert the blog post for now and then perhaps add a template:better source needed/{{better source needed}} tag. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the link from Vulture is good enough. It actually gives the year, and doesn't say where it gets that info from--hopefully they checked the date (they're a news source, right? right? ;-) ) and even if they didn't, if they got it wrong they'll presumably append a correction. IMO we can use that source and don't need to {bettersource}-tag it. I'll make that change, if it's okay. — Narsil (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

RE: Names of public figures' children

There was an RfC about this specifically two years ago at Talk:Brian Austin Green#RfC: Names and DOB's of children in a BLP, where the closing consensus reads, "The policy on biographies of living persons clearly leaves the inclusion of details of family members up to the discretion of the article's editors, as long as the information is well-sourced. All editors seem to agree that there are reliable sources, and the overwhelming majority of editors favor keeping full names and dates of birth of the children in the article." This has generally meant that if the parents or their representatives announce it to the media themselves, or there are incontrovertible sources such as an RS citing a birth certificate, that this is allowable as pertinent biographical data.

In this case, aside from the RS British newspaper The Telegraph, there is an LA Times article in which the parents themselves had the reporter in their home and introduced the children. .--Tenebrae (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Joss Whedon. 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: 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) 05:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Ex-wife's accusations

Anyone can accuse anyone of anything — that doesn't mean we include it. As to one editor's point that the accusations are notable because they were published in an essay on an RS trade cite and helped lead to the shutdown of a large fan site, attracting RS press attention, fine — but all we have to say is "accused him of infidelity." There is absolutely no need to go into blow-by-blow detail. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, WP:BLPGOSSIP suggest to "Avoid repeating gossip" and WP:RUMOR states "rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." What Tenebrae suggested above should be sufficient to cover the events that led to the shutdown.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Several Joss Whedon related websites and organizations have officially decided that Kai Cole's essay is a private matter and unrelated to Joss Whedon's work (the Whedonverse). Several people raised questions about the timing of the essay release; it was delayed beyond the normal timing of such a missive. Drbits (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Closing Whedonesque.com

Various Joss Whedon related websites, facebook pages, and twitter pages have closed over time. Past closures have always been because the workload got too high or the editor's time constraints changed. This is just a statement of history, not specifically related to Whedonesque. None of the other Joss Whedon related fan sites, pages, or conventions have closed in the past year.

Joss Whedon is an outspoken activist against Donald J. Trump's anti-female agenda. For example, Joss started and seed-funded a "Save Planned Parenthood" campaign. He has admitted to being angered by women who support Trump and not being careful enough in his responses. The "attacks" listed in the Feminism section were not against the women, but a knee-jerk reaction against what they were supporting. Drbits (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joss_Whedon/Archive_3&oldid=1023041359"