Talk:Twilight (Buffy comic)

Edits

Removed "plans to kill Buffy" as I don't believe that he states that that is specifically part of his plans. -Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.31.176 (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Tightened up the page a bit: fixed some spelling errors and removed a bit which stated that it had been confirmed that Twilight was a male from Buffy's past who had betrayed her, since that has not been confirmed in the comics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.163.117 (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability and References

Tagging this for notability and references is accurate, but premature. Material featuring this fictional character is currently being published; expect academic discussion, suitable for references, to follow later. While Buffy the Vampire Slayer has spawned many secondary references over the years, they have never been as contemporaneous as our esteemed Wikipedia editors who have noted their absence in this case. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is the tag premature? It simply reflects that the article as it stands does not have secondary sources and hasn't met the requirements of WP:FICTION.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking at it that way, and no one's proposing deletion on theose bases, no harm done. On the other hand, there's simply no way this article could meet those standards yet, so the tagging won't serve any immediate purpose to motivate editors to contribute, since there's not yet anything sufficient for them to reference. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've done some more work. We have NINE cites now: three primary source, four of non-blog industry sites(Follow the TV Guide link to see what's there: an editorial conversation starter, rather than user-generated content) and two from reviewed/edited sites. So I'm once again believing in good faith that we have enough to meet the notability and verification requirements of WP:FICTION and going to remove the tags again. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Twilight IS Angel / Angel IS Twilight

Don't you think it's too soon to assume that Twilight is a secret identity for Angel? As far as we know the covers shown on darkhorse.com may be fakes, the CBR interview given by Scott Allie may be an hoax...

Strangely on the article the name "Angel" appears 14 times, while the name "Twilight" appears 16 times, including the title!

It looks like if someone from Dark Horse is trying to feed the hoax using wikipedia pages.

It may be wise to come back to an ancient page, one which only uses informations taken from the comics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megatof (talk • contribs) 10:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources and not be individuals' judgement. If it's a hoax, then it's a wonderful hoax, and that should will make for a better article in terms of real-world coverage. The plot section shouldn't keep saying "Angel as Twilight", however, that's a mistake; the character is only presented as "Twilight" up until the upcoming revelation, and it's a bit patronising to the reader as it is currently written.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That's "annoying" in your edit descriptions and "patronizing" here on the talk page. As the guy who made the edits you're talking about, please knock off the insulting adjectives, please. Thanks. MikeHarris (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. Neither was meant as a personal insult, though.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't want to patronize in any way, did not want to insult you Mike (or anyone!).

I just don't believe in this whole "Twilight is Angel" buzz... The fact that *I* believe or not is in fact of little interest.

But what are the facts today? Two covers were shown months before the comics hit the shelves. On one of them you see Angel, and on the other one you see Angel wearing Twilight suit. These covers were spread on the web and Scott Allie claimed they were shown by mistake, that Angel is Twilight... More than that, interviews are given, with no spoiler alert, just as if Dark Horse would want to make sure that a maximum amount of people get to HEAR/READ/LEARN that Angel is Twilight.

But, actually, what do we really KNOW? -What looks like Angel wears Twilight costume-. It may be an Angelbot created by Warren. It may be Angel, dressed like Twilight in order to fool Twilight's allies. It can be anything coming from Joss Whedon's mind... And it CAN be that Angel is Twilight, I give you that.

Sorry, but I see no proof that, definitely, Angel IS Twilight.

I think it's OK to mention that Dark Horse revealed Twilight's true identity as Angel of course, that they say it was a mistake, but as Zythe says the plot section should NOT keep saying "Angel as Twilight". IMHO.

And again, my will is NOT to patronize or insult anyone so please forgive my english: I may be using offensive words without wanting to. (By the way, my english is so so-so that I won't change the page myself.) Megatof (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Joss Whedon's CBR interview makes it pretty much a fact. MikeHarris (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Mike, as long as it's not printed in the comics and on the shelves it's not a fact. It MAY be a spoiler (what you believe), it MAY be an hoax (what I believe), but Wikipedia being an Encyclopedia I think it's too soon to write "Angel as Twilight" here there and everywhere in the plot section. I still think though that it has to be mentionned that Dark Horse have apparently let the information slip that Twilight is Angel sooner than planned. Anyway, all this won't be a problem anymore in a few months :-) Megatof (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Any event that has not occurred yet is not an occurred fact. That doesn't stop Wikipedia from taking at their word, assuming them not to be lying, statements by people who can be expected by virtue of their position to be confirmably in the know. If you disagree with that central precept, then you need to discuss that issue on a much higher level than this talk page. MikeHarris (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This whole page just sounds ridiculous. It should refer to him as Twilight, not Angel. It's ok for it to state he is Angel but not to refer to him as such. "Angel as Twilight" does not sound correct, and at the time it had not been stated that he was Angel. ZODtheReaper (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"The move" - a case for further explanation?

Under character history is says - He later says, "I know that move, Slayer." I was wondering if it would make sense to say something else as to the context of the statement. Specifically, he's referring to her move of bisecting an opponent with the scythe by thrusting up from the crotch. Twilight stops the scythe and says the line. That is apparently a direct reference to her using the exact move against Caleb which Angel nearly witnessed as he was about to get back up and fight Caleb himself in the season 7 finale. So the relevance of the statement to his character reveal would seem... well academic. Concur? However, I didn't want to jump in and edit the article itself without prior discussion. Medleystudios72 (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)