Talk:The Long Way Home (Buffy comic)

	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.

Comics: United States Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by United States comics work group.

(II)

I removed (II) from the issue titles. I assume the II represents Volume, but that is not needed. StarIV 20:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PROBLEM WITH ISSUE no4's DESCRIPTION

Warren wasn't saved from dying of shock, and Amy brought him back from the dead. Or else the First could have never used his appearance in the seventh season. Please someone edit this part if you agree.

This is mentioned under "Writing and artwork", but there is a limit to how much can be said on the topic without turning to sheer speculation. --Jeff-El 01:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 2?

Is it actually volume 2 of Buffy on Dark Horse or is it rather a new series altogether, as "SEASON EIGHT" is written as part of the title on the left margin...~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure. I always got the impression that it is Volume 2 and that "Season 8" would be an unofficial part of the title? But if it is on the cover? -- Buffyverse 23:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the small print inside the cover, it appears it is not volume 2. That's where it would be. Instead it does call it "BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER SEASON EIGHT #1, March 2007." I guess that's the official name. -- Siradia 03:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also just confirmed this with the owner of my friendly neighborhood comic book shop. This is not a volume 2. -- Siradia 04:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article really necessary?

Do we truly need an article about a single storyarc in a recently debuted comics series, when we have no idea as yet how much of an impact this storyline will make on the Buffyverse or on the comics world? It seems extraneous, especially since there is already an article for the series as a whole. - Pennyforth 20:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point that there is some overlap. However having the separate articles allows "The Long Way Home" article to focus on the writing and plot synopses of this particular story arc, and the "Season 8" article to focus on the gradual development of the series as a whole which can look to the future and ongoing developments. This is jusy my opinion, but it maybe that merging could result in weakening the encyclopedia because many people would write synopses for each issue on that page. I agree we don't "truly need" the article, but then there are not many articles on Wikipedia that we "truly need". I prefer to ask the questions, "Does having this article weaken the integrity of Wikipedia? Are there people that will find the article? useful" In my opinion having this article may prove useful to hundreds (if not more) of readers who wish to follow the continuation of the notable Buffy series in more detail. -- Buffyverse 23:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly...but it still seems to me that this article is redundant, and the material could be covered just as easily in the main article. Looking at it from the established perspective of the series as a virtual Season Eight, it would be the same as creating separate articles for different storyarcs of each season. Say, having an article for an arc beginning with Faith's first appearance and ending with her allying with the Mayor, and then another article for an arc beginning at that point and ending with "Graduation Day" 1 & 2--and having both of them along with the season 3 overview in the Buffyverse chronology. I feel that redundancy does weaken the integrity of Wikipedia;in this case, this treads on the ground of Wikipedia:Notability--is the initial storyline of a comics series that is all of one issue "old" notable enough to warrant a separate article, when it could easily be summarized in the article for the series itself? The article needs to be "boiled down" anyway. There's far too much specific detail for a single issue of an ongoing series--if so much space is devoted to each issue in the arc, this article will be huge. - Pennyforth 17:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I was a little surprised to find this article when I was looking up season 8. It's made more sense to me as I've thought it through. I think this is a different kind of arc compared to a tv arc. It seems that having an article for the comic book arc is similar to the article for a single episode of the tv series. I think it would be absurd to have an article for a single issue, and I suspect there may be arcs in the future that don't warrant an article. This is the reintroduction, written by Joss, and I suspect that there is too much info for the main article. At least I think there will be very soon as more issues are released in the coming weeks. The main article should be more overview of the series as a whole. It's just kind of awkward while there's only one issue out so far. The Buffyverse types are quick though. :-) --Siradia 20:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO if multiple people are willing to work on an article that has only been up for a month then that suggests there is a reason for that article to exist, and this is a series with a premiere issue that has already sold over 100,000, which is a huge number of comics for a comics company that is not Marvel/DC. Many more people will experience the story in its trade paperback format. Pennyforth is right, it seems slightly redunsdant now, but this is because we are only one issue into the series. However more and more information is being (and will continue to be) released about arcs far into the future, and the detail will be filled out on 'Long Way Home' article as the other issues are released. As time passes the 2 articles will become very different. I think that having an article for each arc has to be thought of as the same as having an article for each television episode. Because comic issues do not cover as much ground as episodes, so we don't really need an article for each indivdual comic issue. However as you say Pennyforth there is potential for the synopses to become overly long in the story arc articles. When this happens we may need to edit detailed 'Plot descriptions' into proper 'Summaries' for each issue. I do think there is a demand for these stories to be explained and outlined by the neutral source of Wikipedia. Wikipedia has the benefit to act as an alternative to (a) Soliciations by bodies that have an interest in selling the comics (b) POV reviews (c) the excess positive/negative comments in various forums and other internet chatter. People come to Wikipedia as a resource, and IMHO it should be available to them whether they want to learn about the general theory of relativity or want to find out about the latest Buffy.

I think the key will be to make the Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight article more about the artistic developments, news, and expected lineup, meanwhile the story arc articles look more at the plot, cultural references, writing, art.. in the individual arcs. -- Paxomen 03:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Hellmouth, Smile Time, Normal Again... The Long Way Home (Buffy comic). Episode articles, all of them. There are also many articles all about individual Superman, X-Men and Batman arcs. Problem - where? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity: Earring

Just random, doubt it would go in the article. That one girl's earring (the one with the feather earring... do they say her name?) keeps jumping around. In part one (pages 6 & 7 I think) it isn't there in one frame, then there in another, in the right ear. In Part two it switches to the left ear while they're talking on the roof, then back to right in the last panel of the same page and whilst fighting the undead.

(I have the first edition of both, by the way, in case it's incongruent in later ones.) Torca 06:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently her name is Renee, according to this article. Torca 06:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this to the section on writing and artwork I've created; the episode pages have sections on production errors, so why not the comics?Jeff-El 18:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOS: Wikiquote

Hi, I've been soldiering on (pretty much solo) trying to piece together a functional wikiquote for the series, but I've only very basic command of the programming language, and am having trouble linking this page to its appropriate section of the quote page, in the same manner as they are in the TV series' respective page. If anyone on here can help rectify this, I'd appreciate it.

AdZ 16:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think I fixed it. --Nalvage 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nalvage, LrdChaos and Aphaia for helping on the page, but it's still got a long way to go on it and I can't do it alone. If no-one else is able or willing to add, clean up or program the page, I think it should either be scrapped or merged. That said, I think merging it with the show would be lazy and nto necessarily improve either article.

What to do?

AdZ 20:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Stryker

I'm not going to change anything for now, but I really don't think General Voll is very comparable to William Stryker of the X-Men. In the comics, Stryker is a preacher, not a soldier as depicted in the movie. If Stryker had appeared in the first X-Men film, which Joss wrote a draft of, I would maybe think it should stay; as it is, though, I think it's a stretch to compare the two characters.Jeff-El 01:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think it's an interpretation that doesn't bear out. I'll likely remove it tomorrow if no one presents any objections. -- Merope 03:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think Bolivar Trask or Thunderbolt Ross would be more appropriate.Radical AdZ 10:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be better, but unless there's a source that states the two characters are actually connected in some way, there's really no benefit to making the comparison. Jeff-El 14:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Longwayhome4.jpg

Image:Longwayhome4.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 05:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image galleries

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. Durin's essay on this is an excellent reference, but I'm happy to discuss the issue with anyone who needs clarification on the policy. -- Merope 23:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Buffy Season8 comic -Issue 2 (low-res).JPG

Image:Buffy Season8 comic -Issue 2 (low-res).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 13:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Longwayhome1.jpg

Image:Longwayhome1.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 11:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Longwayhome2.jpg

Image:Longwayhome2.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 11:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Longwayhome3.jpg

Image:Longwayhome3.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 11:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Longwayhome4.jpg

Image:Longwayhome4.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 11:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image issues

The fair use of image:Longwaycover03.jpg in this article is questionable. Listed below is/are the reason(s) for this:
• Minimal use: As few non-free content uses as possible are to be included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Full policy
• Photo galleries: Fair use images may never be included as part of a photo gallery. Full guideline

This image is being cited since it's the first one to come up due to image maintenance, but it serves as a good place to start.

8 spot images would normally push the limits of minimal fair use of image in a plot summary section. More so when they are just the covers showing "who's here" and not interior panels that illustrate a hard to describe plot point. This type of usage is simply decoration.

There is also the problem that, even though they are disjointed, using all 8 covers from the four issues creates a de facto cover gallery.

If the above concern(s) can be addressed in light of the relevant policies and/or guidelines, the image use can be retained. If not, the image needs to be removed from the article.

The issue with Longwaycover03.jpg has been addressed.

- J Greb (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use of image:Longwaycover07.jpg in this article is questionable. Listed below is/are the reason(s) for this:
• Minimal use: As few non-free content uses as possible are to be included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Full policy
• Photo galleries: Fair use images may never be included as part of a photo gallery. Full guideline

Same issues as with Longwaycover03.jpg, and this file had also just come up in the maintenance sweep.

If the above concern(s) can be addressed in light of the relevant policies and/or guidelines, the image use can be retained. If not, the image needs to be removed from the article.

The issue with Longwaycover07.jpg has been addressed.

- J Greb (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pLOT DESCRIPTION

This article has the most detailed plot/story description I have ever seen in any article about a fiction (movie, TV series episode, comic book arc, novel, etc). it's ridiculous. You don't even need to read the book after. Can't someone edit it down? 96.236.6.144 (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on it; too much detail is simply not allowed by Wikipedia. Plus, some of it does overlap with the character's articles. Lots42 (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Long Way Home (Buffy comic). 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/wizard/002837101.cfm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723005827/http://www.slayerlit.us/interviews/interview6.htm to http://www.slayerlit.us/interviews/interview6.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) 20:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]