Talk:Willow Rosenberg/Archive 1

Only Jewish Character

Wasn't Jonathan Levinson, played by Danny Strong, and who was as I recall also a character on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Jewish also?

I don't think he was ever identified as Jewish. Personally I would have assumed he probably was, but I don't think it was ever stated that he was. Hobson 17:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I somehow remember him mentioning a bar mitzvah at one point in the series. I may well be wrong, however, or attributing to him a comment made by another character. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.19.246 (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Wiccan versus Witch

As an active Pagan, currently part of a traditional (Alexandrian) Wiccan coven, I find the description of Willow Rosenberg as a "Wiccan" simply innacurate. Wicca is a very specific Witchcraft religion, involving certain rites and traditions such as the Fivefold Kiss, Scourging, strict adherence to the Wiccan Rede (which is a long poem, not just the one line commonly quoted), etc. It is widely thought of as the "orthodox" Witchcraft religion, and while some other Witches use "Wiccan" instead of "Witch" because it's less stereotyped, this is considered inaccurate by older Witches and those active in the traditional modes of Witchcraft.

Essentially, Willow is an eclectic Witch, not a Wiccan. I say eclectic because she performs some very powerful sorts of magick that are not by any means part of the spellbook of most Witchcraft traditions, such as murder and soul manipulation. In fact, in content if not in form, she veers awfully close to Goetic (medieval spirit-manipulation) magick.

I'll also be changing "magic" to "magick" throughout the article, as it is the more technically accurate term. May you never thirst. Skritchmeee 04:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Did some considerable editing as there was a ton of non-relevant information as well as NPOV issues. "Skillfully acted" etc....

(The above is undated and unsigned.) I'm not the least bit religious but I agree that it's inappropriate to describe Willow as "Wiccan". —Tamfang 08:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I realise I am ressurecting an old debate but having come across this, I have to disagree. Willow is identified in the show as "a Wicca", and any article about her should make this clear.

For example, from Doppelgangland: Anya: I just need a secondary to create a temporal fold. I heard you were a pretty powerful wicca, so...

Willow: You heard right, mister!

This article is accurate if it accurately describes the character on the show, not what the character should have been or how the writers might have portrayed her if they had done their research properly. The fact that the depiction of Wicca on the show is apparently inaccurate is of course noteworthy and should be included too. Hobson 01:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Willow should really be referred to as a "witch", not "wicca". Just because some characters in the show threw around a word improperly doesn't mean that it should go into an encyclopedia as an official description of the character. Whether Willow is or is not a Wicca seems to be controversial, so I would suggest that we just call her a witch (which at least we definitely know is an accurate term). Riverbend 15:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain it is controversial that Willow is portrayed as "a Wicca" on the show. In the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the character Willow is portrayed as a Wicca - surely that's just a fact? I don't think any of the editors have disagreed with that.

If a person like Willow existed in real life then anyone who knew anything about Wicca might say she was not a Wiccan. However, Wikipedia is not the place to try to make an official ruling on whether Willow "really was" a Wiccan or not. The article should tell people who this fictional character is, and in the storyline of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Willow is portrayed as "a Wicca". In this fictional world, Wicca has very little to do with the real-world religion.

It is, of course, important to mention (just a sentence or two) that the writers' portrayal of Wicca is considered highly innacurate by people who know anything about the real religion it is loosely based on (as the article currently does, with a citation).

She is also called a witch sometimes too, but the fact that she is portrayed as a Wicca is notable imho. It is presented on the show as being an important part of her character.

The way the characters describe themselves and each other on the show is important:) This is how the writers tell is who the characters are. Hobson 21:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Joss Whedon didn't nessacerily know ANYTHING about Wicca! It's fiction! Besides, Willow displays quite a few powers that modern day witches or wiccans DO have access to! Me and my circle have proved that over the years! Bubble bunny

who's a regular character?

Doesn't Giles count as a character in at the beginning and still there at the end? Although in season 6 (iirc?) he wasn't in every episode neither was WIllow (or everyone, for that matter) VampWillow 22:42, 2004 May 10 (UTC)

except Xander. Xander was in every episode of every season except season seven, wherein he was not in one ep ("Conversations with Dead People"). And in the later seasons Giles is a guest star, not a main character, because his name is not in the opening credits. Willow and Xander are credited as main characters in every season. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 02:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Willow and Buffy are the only characters to appear in all 144 episodes. —Tamfang 05:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Dark Willow vs Darth Rosenberg

Should we list both the nicknames? I say we do; I, personally, and a considerable number of fans I correspond with, use primarily the second name. I have noticed that we're somewhat of a minority, but that should not be reason not to name it. For completeness' sake, we might as well have it. --Allycat 23:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The former is widespread (google test: 9660 results) whereas the latter is very much a minority exercise and uncommon (gt: 659). I've also seen the "Dark Willow" used as a comparison method and by trade manufacturers of model statuettes; the latter complicates readers' understanding and searches (ie. is she a Sith?) Leave former, remove latter --Vamp:Willow 09:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think a mention of the "Darth Rosenberg" moniker shouldn't be out of the question. It's mentioned in the role-playing game books, and is actually used in the series. Of course the toy manufacturers aren't going to use the term 'Darth,' as LucasArts has mighty lawyers. Putting an 'aka Darth Rosenberg' in parentheses shouldn't cause that much trouble. Anyone who's reading the article and is so confused they think that Willow's a Sith Lord is confused to a point where the article wouldn't help much anyhow, I imagine.--MythicFox 13:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality = a retcon?

Should Willow's becoming gay be described as a retcon? Many in the Buffy community have thought so ever since she came out, describing her crush on Xander and her obvious love for Oz.

• I fail to see how Willow being gay is retcon. Her homosexuality is even forshadowed in Doppelgängland.--WhyBeNormal 07:02, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Which essentially means you've neither read what's been said here nor what's currently noted on the page, really. Reviewing:

• She consistently expressed a crush on Xander throughout the initial seasons, which actually expressed itself sexually - see season two's Go Fish, where she joyously looks on at a shirtless, wet Xander in speedos.
• She comments on boys, and expresses some level of sexual interest on them throughout the initial seasons as well - I can't think beyond the Living Conditions episode, where she comments on Parker somewhat appreciatively,... well, in fact, as far as the fifth season opener, Buffster vs Dracul and all, she seems positively giddy at just the thought of the Dark Prince (though this can admitedly be attributed to magic, but... I don't know about that). I also have some recollection of other moments of appreciation somewhere in season two or three, I think, which I can't back up on right now, for which I apologize.
• She establishes a functioning, healthy relationship with Oz which lasts... what, two years? Not only this, but if I remember correctly, even after sexual contact, she remains satisfied and very obviously in love with him. Their relationship seems untainted by any doubts of hers as to its nature, and full realization of it or not.
• And this is the main point: It's never even dealt with that she goes from this to a self-identifying lesbian. No-one asks about what this means as to Oz, or what's happened to her apparent and recurring interest in males, or if the crush on Xander was just a silly phase, and so on. Meaning, she could perfectly well be a lesbian (or a bisexual, though this isn't even explored, which just seems kinda silly), but the matter isn't even approached by the characters or Willow herself - this in a show that is all about continuity and character development. Not so much a case of character development, but a change which could be justifiable ("I was repressed, I was fooling myself, I was never fully satisfied, etc.") and is never even passingly explored.

And what, VampWillow being bisexual is a sign that Willow would come to out as a lesbian? Because I'd like to remind people that, at least as *I* saw it, VampWillow was all over VampXander in The Wish, pointing much more strongly to sexual ambiguity than homosexuality, and the logical interpretation could very well be "oh, she's BI!, then!" as logically as gay or straight, if not more.

So, basically, saying outright that her homosexuality is a retcon is indeed incorrect - the note should be made, though, that it can, and sometimes is interpreted as such, by people who know the show and accompanied the character (whether these people are driven in this line of thought by a lack of logic as to the character development or an actual problem with the thought of her being gay is another matter entirely, indeed)

OH, and on the whole "it was foreshadowed" thing?, interestingly, I actually think Xander would be more justifiably gay (what a stupid way to put it, but oh well) what with the way he speaks of Angel, depreciative(?)ly or not, when he sees him, and the whole Larry episode which people would have ended up interpreting as a sign as well. At least he never quite had a proper relationship with girls, and what with Buffy and Cordelia, his interests seemed always highly attached and dedicated, which would have been interesting to explore as a sign of uncomfort with the other sexy. Just sayin'. :) Cheers, sorry for ramblyness, Zeppocity 13:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It isn't that unusual for someone who later comes out as gay/lesbian to have a phase of heterosexuality first (societal pressures, etc) and Willow certainly stays lesbian post-Tara. My own view is that the WB didn't dare get into use of the 'B' word so just let her follow the fairly typical path of many a young lesbian from str9 to gay (and let us not forget that we all do odd things at school!) --Vamp:Willow 21:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, and I'm bisexual, so I'm not really speaking from personal experience, I'll admit it, but I have a really hard time buying the concept that she just switches from a) to b) - to indentify as a heterosexual and live as one, limitedly, is one thing (see the number of gay men with wives who eventually explore their interests outside the marriage or simply live in a state of repression and sexual inactivity), but, and this was what I was pointing out with my examples, Willow didn't just appear straight in all ways, but she acted as such with pretty absolute consistency (leaving the leather-clad joy out of the convo). Now, as far as I'm concerned, this could all be attributed to repression - "her love of Oz was a friendly one with an uncomfortable sexual nature", "her crush on Xander was her subconsciously forcing herself to be drawn to males", etc, etc, etc, this is all very valid to me... but it should have been adressed. I'm not saying that this is a recton and all ye who think not are to be taught, not even close, but I think that one thing should be taken in consideration - her sudden shift from straight straight straight! Willow to gay gay gay! Willow, without any other exploration of the subject, seems lazy to me (whether the WB or the creators are to blame is a whole other can of worms). So, for me, personally, I can't quite shake the feeling that Willow just turned gay (which, good people, doesn't happen that way) where she should have come out as gay. See my issue with this? Sorry for the ramblyness. Not trying to make with the righteous, rather, s€ort of enjoying making the point. Pardon if it's the wrong place :). Cheers, Zeppocity 22:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• You've made good points that I agree with, but I don't think "retcon" accurately describes Willow becoming gay. The writers didn't go back and change the history of the show. --WhyBeNormal 07:19, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Don't reckon so either. A few will however feel that it is, though. Hence a passing reference and no more. Zeppocity 14:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

(and again, the use of "becoming gay", as if such a thing exists... anywho. :)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeppocity (talk • contribs) 14:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry to jump on this several months later, but I kinda object to your statements about sexual orientation being rigid and unchanging. That might be the case for you, but it's certainly not the case for all humans. I for one appreciated the nod given by the writers of BtVS, intentional or not, that many of us go through changes as our sexuality develops. I know plenty of people who would say they were once straight or bi and are now gay, and just as many who have gone the other way. I would certainly say that Willow's homosexuality falls under the heading of character development, rather than a retcon. Hexyhex 04:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I, too, disagree with the use of the term "retcon" in this case. It implies IMO an objection on the part of the writer to the suggestion that someone who had been heterosexual earlier in life may later decide to pursue a homosexual relationship. I've no knowledge of whether that happens often, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary I accept that it is possible. Xiner 19:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Do we really need the section at all? Why not just have the facts, that she began a sexual relationship with Tara. If we need to comment on her sexuality, then we could restrict ourselves to quotes from the show itself. I don't see a need to comment on what some fans think her sexuality might possibly be. The reader can make that interpretation for themselves--Nalvage 16:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

For Goodness' sake people!!! She used to be straight and now she's gay! It's really that simple! Bubble bunny

• It seems to me that she is a person who has had true heterosexual and homosexual relationships. That makes her bisexual, whether the people who like to deny the concept think so or not. This isn't an example of a girl going through a "sham" heterosexual period in which she "covered"- it is very clear that she was physically attracted to and loved men prior to Tara. (As numerous scenes showing Willow privately can attest.) Heterosexuals do not "turn into" homosexuals. If she was attracted to men before, the possibility remains for her to be attracted to them again, even though the character has not yet been shown in that light. Same goes for being attracted to women. The girl's bi, why is that so hard to say? ChrisStansfield 01:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My comment above mostly covers my opinion, but... understanding of sexual orientation is not so complete that we can say definitively that heterosexuals cannot become homosexual, or vice versa. Whether or not orientation is biologically hardwired or changeable, whether the preferences are distinct, or names for general areas on a sliding scale, is still a matter of enormous debate. Just check out the Wiki articles on the subject for evidence of that. Maybe she was straight and is now gay. Maybe she's always been gay but kidding herself. Maybe she's actually straight but experimenting. Maybe she's bisexual. Largely pointless speculation about a fictional character whose sexual orientation we can't know for certain unless she expresses it. Which luckily she has. She's gay. We go with how she self-identifies. --Nalvage 03:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article doesn't identify her at all as gay or bisexual, and doesn't discuss whether there was a retcon or not. It just describes her character history in a fairly straighforward way - this happens and then that happens - which is what it ought to do. Hobson 18:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just thought I'd put my tuppence worth in. Willow is clearly gay; she continues to have a romantic/sexual relationship with K after Tara, and expresses attraction to other females such as April the Sexbot and Dawn (Him - ew!). The men which she supposedly fancies (Xander, Oz, Giles) are all brotherly-type figures. Before I knew I was gay, I "fancied" women who were likeable in a sisterly/motherly way, but not hugely attractive sexually. The same is true of Willow. Also, during the high school years, she was so obsessed with having a boyf that she isn't interested in what he looks like. Also, Oz was always the one who was more emotionally invested in their relationship. She didn't kiss Oz and sleep with him because she found him sexy, she did it to get back at Xander or fix a problem. The Will/Oz relationship to me seems pretty tame passionwise; all friendship and no nookie. On the other hand, Willow is seen clearly enjoying levitation/oral sex with Tara and full-on sex with K (Musical and "Touched"). This doesn't mean that she was "covering", she just hadn't realised her own orientation. Trust me, it can take a while to "click" in your head. It also doesn't mean that she didn't love Oz; her reaction to his betrayal shows that she loved him deeply, just in a friendshippy way.

I don't agree that gayness is something which can be changed. My personal belief is that somebody is born gay or straight biologically whether they like it or not. That's not to say that there's any harm in experimenting or having fun, I just don't believe in bisexuality. No offence. Maybe it's becasue I'm so completely gay that I can't imagine having a "choice", but I think homosexuality is ingrained on a person, psychologically or genetically or whatever. Of course, not everyone thinks the same. My friend's friend was in a serious relationship with another girl for two years, but after they broke up, she headed back to boy town. I've never brought it up, but I think she was always straight and just wanted to try it with a girl. Which is fine; it just makes her straight, not gay or bi.

As for Willow, I don't think her gayness is a retcon. Like I said, she was never much of a maneater in the first place, and Joss Whedon has stated that he deliberately peppered the high school years with hints of Willow or Xander being gay. Vamp Will can't be used as a serious argument for bisexuality, since other vampires appear to experiment with same sex relationships, despite being established as straight. (Yes Spike and Angel, I'm talking about you!) I think Vamp Will is a lesbian, who began a relationship with Vamp Xand because of their previous emotional attatchment. (Who knows, maybe he even sired her?)

When it comes to the Willow/bisexuality/homosexuality issue, I think Wikipedia should take a nuetral (spelled right?) stance on the whole thing. If the above debate proved anything, it's that different people read things in different ways, and providing them with biased opinions served up as facts is unprofessional. Perhaps mention the debate itself in the trivia section or something, but base the article itself on the show or statements from the creators. Paul730 02:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

By the by, the fact that Willow or the Scoobies never question her sexuality? Who cares? As long as she is happy with who she is, her friends don't give a toss whether she's gay, straight, bi, evil... etc. I'm glad that Buffy focused on the romance of Willow/Tara instead of devolving their love into a political or biological debate. And the end of the day... Willow is was happy with Tara. Who cares about the fact that's she's a woman? At least Joss didn't do a temporary "We're gay this month" storyline in the vein of SATC, the OC, or Torchwood! Paul730 03:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Alot of people are saying she's bisexual, which I disagree with. She was straight but converted when she met Tara, she was a teenager at the time therefore young enough to still question her sexual oriantation. It has been stated in many episodes that she is 'gay' rather than bisexual, for example: she says it in season 5's 'Triangle' and Buffy says it in season 7's 'Him' Bubble bunny —Preceding comment was added at 08:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but just because she refers to herself as gay, doesn't necessarily mean that she isn't bisexual; it could simply mean that at that time she only wished to be with women (more specifically Tara). On the other hand, in Doublemeat Palace, after the lamprey is killed, she says "If I wasn't gay to begin with, I sure am now!" Think outside the box 10:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's great speculation and all, but if she refers to herself as gay (which she does on plenty of occasions), shouldn't we take her word for it? Bubble bunny (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as you say this is all just speculation. What has Joss Whedon said on the matter? Anyone got a source? Think outside the box 13:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed Giles from list of romantic relationships

The fact that Willow had a crush on Giles does not qualify him as a romantic relationship. It was never pursued, much less consummated.

When I started the little "romantic relationship" heading for all of the Buffyverse character profiles, I meant for it to include all romances, including meaningless one-time things and crushes. I think we should definately include the Giles/Willow line. If you want to change the title of the list to be more neutral sounding fine. Pinchofhope 03:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "romantic interests"? --Gruepig 05:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the following content from the Romantic Relationships section:

• Rupert Giles — When Willow sees him sing at the Espresso Pump, her reaction is to say, "Now I remember why I used to have such a crush on him." There is a hint of this crush in the earlier high-school seasons, where you could see pictures of Giles in Willow's locker, but it never goes anywhere. Normally, they share a "little sister-big brother" relationship (more than the "daughter-father" one that both Buffy and Anya have with Giles); very affectionate, mutually respectful, but often conflictual.
• Dracula — Willow describes the infamous vampire as "sexy", to Tara's surprise and mild jealousy.
• RJ Brooks — Under a love spell along with Buffy, Dawn, and Anya, Willow becomes obsessed with this male high school student, despite his "physical presence." When Anya points out that "his physical presence has a penis", Willow insists that she can "work around it", summoning the goddess Hecate to transform him into a woman. Xander and Spike intervene before she succeeds, and the love spell is soon lifted.
• Winifred Burkle — Though not technically a romantic relationship, in the S4 Angel episode, Orpheus, Willow is seen somewhat slyly inquiring as to what is Fred's "story" to Wesley, indicating a possible interest on Willow's part and earning her a surprised look of pondering from Wesley. Additionally, Willow, later in the same episode, mistakes Fred's excitement at seeing her, and her eagerness to spend time with her, for attraction. Willow tells Fred she is already seeing someone, namely Kennedy. (cf. "Orpheus").

Options for dealing with this:

1. Leave it gone. It's not central to the character development, nor is it of interest to the general public. My preference.
2. Rename the 'relationship' part of the section. Seems WP:TRIVIA fancruftish to me.
3. Something else that hasn't occurred to me yet.

Consensus at Talk:Winifred Burkle was that Willow/Fred was not a romantic relationship, and I'm using that as my basis for being WP:BOLD here. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dawn Summers is not a romantic interest. Per discussions in edit changes, I do not believe Willow's comments in support of Xander communicate a legitimate romantic interest. Burden of proof is on those who add or restore material, so it will keep leaving until someone finds a reliable source that confirms that interpretation of Willow's comment re: Dawn. Frankly, I'd be quite open to renaming 'interests' back to 'relationships' and including only those that span more than one episode. Jclemens (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Willow's Middle Name?

Where does the mention of a middle name appear? I don't remember there being one. --MagicPath111 05:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As the article says, in the script of Bad Girls. The line was cut from the show. —Tamfang 05:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a link to such a script, or a note as to where it came from? Xiner 19:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Scripts are available in script books. But if it was cut, it isn't canon.

Scripts also here http://www.unreliablenarrator.net/buffy_scripts.asp specifically http://www.unreliablenarrator.net/buffyverse/buffy_shooting_scripts/3x14.htm but Danielle isn't in it

It's from an early draft of the script. I'm wondering if we should cut it, or at least move it to the trivia section? It's conceivable or maybe probable that it didn't make it to a later draft (let alone the actual episode), because Joss didn't want her middle name to be Danielle.--Nalvage 01:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Willow's diploma is (or was reccently) on E-bay, and I happened to notice she was called Danielle. It can be argued that the document could be fake and not an actual prop, but I feel inclined to believe it's legitimate.MaskedScissorDoll 06:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there agreement then that her middle name was never given on the show? Surely then the intro should read "Willow Rosenberg" where it currently reads "Willow Danielle Rosenberg". A line from an early draft of a script which was cut from the show is surely not canon. The fact that this early draft gives the middle name Danielle could go in the trivia section.Hobson 18:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made this change. Hobson 00:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Willow's favorite band

Willow says her favorite band is Cibo Matto in When She Was Bad. I wish there were a place to put it in the article.

But with Oz, wouldn't her fav band be Dingos ate my baby? Think outside the box 13:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Willow's power when under magic spells

I think the last paragraph in Powers section should be deleted. Tons of spells have been cast on the show and I don't see what the big deal is if she became a ghost during such an episode. It doesn't contribute to the understanding of the character. What do people think?

(Xiner said that.) I agree, particularly because it has no lingering effect (except that it helps get Willow out of her shell!) and because it could have happened to anyone. (It probably did happen to a few others.) —Tamfang 22:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Fictional Deity??"

Does Willow really belong in this category? It seems based on one utterance by Kennedy - and how/why would she know? As far as I can see Willow merely performed a powerful spell and was momentarily affected by it.--Ross Nolan 15:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

On the side of goddess, that momentary affect only happened once in the Buffyverse. Hyacinth 17:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Deity - Extract from the opening of that article: "A deity or a god is a postulated preternatural being, usually, but not always, of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings...They are usually immortal...and they may be thought to be the authorities or controllers of every aspect of human life (such as birth or the afterlife). Some deities are asserted to be the directors of time and fate itself, to be the givers of human law and morality, to be the ultimate judges of human worth and behavior, and to be the designers and creators of the Earth or the universe. Some of these "gods" have no power at all—they are simply worshipped."

Kennedy does not have any special power which means she can detect Willow has suddenly turned into a 'Goddess', she was just using it as a phrase of praise. Even when Willow was under the control of the dark magics at the end of Buffy Season 6, that didn't make 'Willow' herself anything other than human (althought the magic controlling her may have been demonic).. Although it's possible that doing that spell made her become a deity, there is not a shred of actual evidence to suggest as such, And even at the end of Chosen, I can't see Willow meeting much of the criteria above. -- Paxomen 18:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is evidence to support that Willow did indeed become a goddess. It is stated in the show that she became a goddess by Kennedy. Also if you watch the season seven extras the writers do confirm that willow became a goddess and that is how her character arc ended.

God may be defined that way on Wikipedia, but the only character most certainly a Goddess on Buffy, Glory, is only preternatural, of signifigant power, worshipped (by demons), and immortal (though not impervious). The criteria of our real world don't apply, those of the fictional Buffyverse do. Hyacinth 09:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In Season Eight, Amy calls her a goddess again.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

date of birth

Article has said Willow was born in 1980, 1981 and 1982. Is there canon for any of these? Buffy was 1981, it said on her tombstone. Surely Willow is the same age?

I agree, unless Willow was skipped a grade it's impossible for her to be a year younger then Buffy and Xander, seeing that Buffy was born in january of 1981 and it says that Willow was born in 1982...that doesn't make any sense.PhoenixPrince 12:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Her birth year was actually stated on the Official Buffy website as being 1982. Chimufu 04:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

People born in different years share grades all the time. It depends on the month you were born and each individual school's cut-off date. I was born in November which is a tough month for school-placement. Consequently I spent most of my school career being anywhere from a couple of months older and a full year younger than classmates. There's no controversy here. ChrisStansfield 01:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, as Willows really smart she could have skipped a grade. Think outside the box 12:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Willow and Xander

For the section on romantic interests, would it be appropriate/relevant to mention that in "The Wish", alternate reality vampire Willow and vampire Xander were romantically involved?Riverbend 18:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Dark Phoenix and cultural references in general

It's correct that Willow is compared to Dark Phoenix. Thanks to the editor who corrected my earlier edit and put that back in. I have removed some of the detail from that paragraph however. I believe it's legitimate to make comparisons with other works of fiction when the show's creators acknowledge it as an influence or reference (or one of the characters actually acknowledges it on the show, as here), or perhaps when a comparison is made by an authoritative commentator (eg a scholar or a professional critic). However it's important to avoid suggesting there is a comparison to be made simply because we as Wikpedia editors, or as fans (I'm certainly a fan), see a similarity. It seems to me that describing the depiction of Willow as similar to the depiction of Jean Grey in the third X-Men film falls into that category, as to my knowledge it hasn't been remarked on by any authoritative source, and it clearly can't have been an influence on the way Willow was depicted as the film came out years after the show.Hobson Edit - no date on my sig? Trying again. Hobson 18:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for removing some of the detail from that paragraph. I put it back in the article since they were compared in the show, but personally, I think it's a coincidence that they both had black eyes and veins. I only kept that section there because it's been in the trivia section since forever with no debate, so I thought people considered it relevant. Paul730 10:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Healing

Does Willow really have the power to heal from partial lobotomy? I don't think so. There was something funny with that storyline - I think there's more to come which will explain it. And I don't think Willow can heal in a matter of seconds after having her brain chopped up. Even Wolverine would have needed a while to get over that. Paul730 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well Willow is one of the strongest witches it the western hemispere, having the ability to change the laws of the universe.So healing in a matter of seconds would fit her catagory.

Fair use rationale for Image:WillowRosenberg.jpg

Image:WillowRosenberg.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 20:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Guitar playing-werewolf

I just wanted to say, I love the way Oz is described as a "guitar playing-werewolf" in the relationships section. So cool. Think outside the box 12:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Buffy621.jpg

Image:Buffy621.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Official word on a Babylon 5 influence?

Just out of curiosity... has there ever been any word from Joss, Marti, etc on whether or not Willow was a nod to the character of Leetah in Babylon 5?

Leeta was also a cute redhead who got 'beefed up' with psi powers (in her case, due to Vorlon modification). From season 3 on, when she got 'Really Uber-Psi' her eyes would go all black. Moreover, in Season 5, Byron, a P12 blip and leader of the telepath resistance to PsiCorps, repeatedly refers to her as 'his willow'. When you have a psychic redhead with eyes all-a-pupil being called Willow in an episode of a show that came out a few years before Ms. Rosenburg ever existed, it seems pretty bloody obvious... but it'd be OR without anyone on Joss's team mentioning it.

And while I don't have proof, of course, there's no way on EARTH that I'd believe for an instant that Joss Whedon never watched B5.208.54.15.46 (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Portrayed by Adam Busch

I removed the part of the infobox that said she was portrayed by Adam Busch. I mean, technically, yes he did portray her during that episode with a spell or something, but almost every series has an episode where someone switches bodies, I remember a recent Family guy episode where Peter and Lois switch bodies, should we list both voice actors as portraying the other character? I dont think so, it doesnt follow the norm of society or the entertainment industry as far as crediting goes, and it goes against what most other articles on wikipedia follow. If anyone disagrees with me please change it back, but add a reason here on the talk page. 64.230.43.230 (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a legitimate, one part of one episode portrayal. If you want, I believe there was a special feature (commentary of featurette) where Adam talked specifically about having to imitate Alyson's mannerisms. Compare Buffy Summers' infobox: Eliza is credited as playing that character. Jclemens (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of putting some sort of note so that people know the circumstances of his portrayal of Willow then. Those who don't watch the series might be confused or think it's vandalism. 64.230.43.230 (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It really doesn't need to be mentioned at all in the infobox. It was a minor story point in one episode, not a significant part of the character. Nobody associates Adam Busch with playing Willow from Buffy; he played Warren, Willow just happened to fall victim to a weird hex in one episode. Putting this trivial detail in the infobox gives it undue weight as far as I'm concerned. As for the Faith/Buffy body switch, a similar discussion was held a while back about that.  Paul  730 17:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

... and the consensus in that case (was there any?) apparently did not result in any change to the Buffy Summers infobox. I think changing this one is premature. I'd rather go with 64.230.43.230's (Can you register so we can keep better track of discussions with you?) clarification to the circumstances. I'd say Adam's portrayal of Willow is as central to the episode as Eliza's portrayal of Buffy, and Sarah's portrayal of Faith in Who Are You? Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, putting multiple different performers, with notes detailing their circumstances, seems quite cluttered for the Infobox. The undue weight argument isn't too compelling to me, but there's no question that the infobox looks best with one single performer's name. How about we move the data on minor performers out of the infobox and into the text? I think Buffy would also benefit from such a change. Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It could definitely be mentioned in the article somewhere, just not in the infobox. I'm going to fix the Angel article as well since we've reached an agreement.64.230.43.230 (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(EC) There was no opposition, and silence implies consensus. Using Buffy Summers as an argument would fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS since that article is hardly good quality. Adam's portrayal of Willow might be central to the episode, but it's not central to Willow's character, which is what this article is about. Busch wasn't "playing" the character of Willow, he was playing Warrens image which had taken over Willow... it's all in-universe and messy. You need to detatch yourself from the fan trivia and look at it from an outsider's perspective. If you talked to somebody in the street and asked them who played Willow in Buffy, they wouldn't think to say Adam Busch. The infobox should be for the most basic of infomation, and Adam playing Willow is minor and trivial. I'm not saying Busch shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all; if, as you mentioned above, there are sources discussing how he affected his performance, that would be fine for a characterization section, but not the infobox.  Paul  730 18:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe we're agreed that minor/one-off portrayals do not belong in the infobox, but can be dealt with appropriately (without undue weight) in the body of the articles in question. The articles are supposed to be about the characters, though, so the average person's equation of Aly with Willow is fine and we should speak to that as the primary understanding... while at the same time realizing it is incomplete. Alyson Hannigan is not playing Willow in the comics, just as she did not in any other books or comics. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Too many pictures?

Do we really need yet another picture of Willow? I think not. We already have one showing her black-eyed look. Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Dawn Summers as a Romantic Interest

Please note the words: ROMANTIC INTEREST. Not "relationship." However brief it was, Willow did reveal that she was attracted to Dawn's body before she found out who it was. jclemens is abusing his/her power as a mod here. Why do I have to provide a source when no one else has been asked to do so? Just face it, you don't agree. But you cannot deny what she said. My proof is in her words, which are there for everyone to see. So you can keep changing my edit, but I will keep changing it back (because I am right). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueheaven77 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Your additions are based on your interpretations of what was said in one line, in one episode. I disagree with your interpretation. Since the burden is on you to demonstrate your interpretation appears in reliable secondary sources, editwarring to reinsert original research is not appropriate. Find a reliable source that sees things your way, and I have no leg to stand on.

For the record, if there's consensus to remove all "interests" and revert to strictly relationships, I'd be even more happy to move in that direction. Relationships are far less ephemeral and less subject to such differences in interpretation. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No. You need to provide me with another possible interpretation of what she meant by her statement. What else could she possibly have meant? Answer me that. Also, show me where everyone else provided "reliable secondary sources" for their insertions in this category. You cannot just say that you disagree. That is an abuse of your powers. You need to justify your action. I have offered her own words and the context in which they were used. You have done nothing.My addition is WAY more relevant than the addition of Doppelgangland Vampire Willow. In that case, Willow was not attracted to her vampire alter-ego. In this case, she has a brief romantic interest in Dawn before finding out who she was. So, tell me how else her statement could possibly be interpreted and I'll stop reversing you. Otherwise, I will report you to Wikipedia for abusing your powers. Blueheaven77 (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I am here because somebody asked for a third opinion. Blueheaven, without even reading the article, I know that you have to have a neutral source for your additions. Do you have one? If not, it is just your interpretation (it may be a correct intepretation). I know it is unfair that other statements and interpretations have been left in this article, but of course you are always free to delete them also on the grounds that they are not sourced. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I am asking is, how do I get verification of such a thing? Do I ask Joss Whedon? Do I talk to screenwriter Drew Greenberg? They are the only ones who can offer what you are asking. So, my question still stands, what other possible interpretation could there be for her statement? There has to be more of a reason to delete an entry than "I don't agree." OK, so who are "you?" "You" are not an expert. "You" are not a writer on the show. "You" are no different than I. And I am the only one who is backing up what I am saying with quotes and context (the only proof I can possibly offer). By this logic, I can delete Tara as a romantic interest solely because "I don't agree." Blueheaven77 (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You could find an interview with the writers in which they discuss why they decided to make Willow attracted to Dawn. But frankly, I doubt you would find one because it's a one-liner gag and hardly notable enough to warrant mentioning on the article. I agree with you that the joke was about Willow fancying Dawn for a second, but I don't think it needs to be included in an encylopedia. Whereas Tara was a major love interest of Willow's and there's a lot of discussion about their relationship in reliable sources.  Paul  730 10:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Because of her importance to the LGBT community, Willow is almost certainly the most commented-upon Buffyverse character. If you look at Slayage and the whole breadth of academia Buffy studies, I suspect there's a fair chance you can find some writer who supports your interpretation. While such might not meet the letter of WP:RS, I think that would be sufficient for such a small point. Again, I'm all for reverting to just covering established relationships which removes almost all of these questions. Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, no one has done what I have asked. No one has offered a possible explaination as to what she could have meant aside from being attracted to Dawn for a moment. In fact, one person has agreed with my interpretation. Check out this synopsis of the episode from BuffyGuide.com. http://www.buffyguide.com/episodes/him/himsyn.shtml "R.J. is dancing with a girl in a sexy outfit doing some sexy dancing. Willow and Xander admire the girl, while Buffy scoffs at her attire. As Buffy says how glad she is that Dawn isn't there to see her crush with this "slutbag hussy," the girl turns around: it is Dawn. Xander and Willow are appalled at their earlier lusty feelings." Blueheaven77 (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, but you don't appear to understand that the burden of proof is upon you, as the person advocating the reinsertion of the material, not on anyone else. Please read and understand WP:PROVEIT. Besides, I did provide an alternate explanation, that Willow was merely empathizing with Xander. Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Reliable source was found. Let's face it, your interpretation of the event was wrong. The burden of proof is on me, but you cannot arbitrarily go around and edit posts without a valid reason. You could have handled this better, but you chose not to do so. My explaination of the context in which the statement was made was the only logical one. This was not an "edit war." This was one person asking for a GOOD reason why his contribution was deleted. You failed to offer one. So, if you continue this campaign against me, I'll simply have to keep standing my ground. However, with the source I provided, you no longer have a leg to stand on. BuffyGuide is one of the most visited and trusted Buffy information sites on the internet. Edit: Also, there is a difference between "sympathizing" and "empathizing." She was empathizing with Xander. If she had said, "Sorry" or "It's OK, you didn't know," then she would be sympathizing. Instead, she indicated that she felt the exact same way as he did about lusting after Dawn's physique. Blueheaven77 (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No, a source was found. If you'll read WP:RS, you can see that it's questionable whether buffyguide.com fits that definition. I could challenge that if it were about me getting my way, but it's not--it's about WP:FANCRUFT. At least now, if someone reads the article and asks "Why is that fancruft there?!" there's a source for them to view which supports that interpretation.

It would be better for everyone if you took WP:AGF and WP:DGAF to heart. This is not, and has never been, a me vs. you thing. It's been you vs. the rules. If you would stop focusing on logic and more on understanding the rules, learning how to apply them, and when they do and do not support your goals, you will find that a) you accomplish more, and b) less stress is involved for everyone. Every wikilink I've put in here has been designed to help you with that task.

On the other hand, I still view the outcome as sub-optimal. If anyone cares to add Giles back in (see above for where I removed him), that door is legitimately open. So, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buffyverse#Character_Profiles:_Romantic_Interests_or_Relationships.3F to settle the issue across multiple articles with similar issues. Feel free to chime in there. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you are pathetic. Rather than be proven wrong, you are seeking to change the entire category. Bravo to you, sir. This has been nothing but a petty excuse for you to exercise some sort of imagined power from the very beginning. When I first made the addition, you said that my interpretation was wrong. Then, when I asked to to come up with a better one, you said that I lacked a reliable source to back it up. Now that I have a reliable source, you say it isn't reliable enough. BuffyGuide is a recognized source for information, by ANY criteria. But rather than be proven wrong, you simply want to change the rules. You keep saying that I need to read how to find a source. What you are asking of me is irrelevant. There is no other way to interpret what she said. If she said to Warren "I am going to pull your skin off and kill you," does that mean we can interpret her statement as an overture of love? Keep trying to "help" me, but you are WRONG in this case. Get over it. I found someone way more credible than you to back me up. And I have emails out to others as well. Blueheaven77 (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just my two cents, but the point is that Wikipedia is trying to be academic. BuffyGuide is a fansite with fans' interpretations and not an academic site with academic studies and isn't reliable(at least with respect to this; they might be more reliable when it comes to news). Unless you have an academic source supporting your claim, or the writer of said episode supporting your claim, you haven't proven anything other than other fans believe as you do. (Now as to Wikipedia succeeding at being academic or justified in trying to be academic, that's another matter entirely). DonQuixote (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Two more sites that support my interpretation: http://www.vrya.net/bdb/ep.php?ep=128 http://www.nika-summers.com/Guide/him.php

I guess I am asking where this standard of proof was applied to ever other entry. If you are going to ask of me the (impossible) task of tracking down a hollywood screenwriter or director and getting their take on this, then you need to show me where everyone else did the exact same thing. Otherwise, the mods are being arbitrary in their decisions. For some reason, JClemens has a very personal reason to exclude my entry. If you are going apply a standard for one entry, then that standard MUST be applied for all entries. Otherwise, it is going to come off as a personal campaign/abuse of power. I could go and email academics about this episode and get their take, but first I want to know what academics support every other entry on this page. Show some even-handed logic here. Blueheaven77 (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have a serious desire to not see Buffyverse articles littered with Fancruft. I have an illogical personal desire to see quality encyclopedic entries for characters in fictional media that I like. Shame on me.

The fact that you see emailing academics as some sort of a solution to this issue just underscores the fact that you don't understand Wikipedia's policies. I'm not altering the text at the moment, so you don't need to watch this talk page like a hawk. Please, take some of your energy and read about Wikipedia's goals, policies, and the like. It'll be more productive than disagreeing. WP:NPA and WP:AGF are good places to start, too. Jclemens (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And once again, you avoid my question. Blueheaven77 (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What question? You mean your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument? Please, read up on Wikipedia, you'll find that many of your questions have already been answered by community consensus. I see no reason to reiterate things that are already well-referenced in policies, guidelines, and essays. You, I, this article--all are part of a larger whole. Become one with Wikipedia and you will become enlightened. Well... sorta; at the very least, you'll be able to make more compelling arguments. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict -- reply to previous comment above)I really don't care that much about this article to go through and edit out each and every fancruft, but I just have to point out that those two sites are more examples of fansites. They're not academically reliable in their literary/dramatic/symbolic interpretations. And if you feel that other fancrufty material on this page has as much validity as your fancrufty bit of trivia, feel free to edit them out. But then again, at least in regards to this, there's a difference between "romantic interest" (i.e. emotional investment) and "sexual interest" (i.e. fancying someone for a split second). DonQuixote (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Blueheaven77, just because there's already fancruft in the article doesn't justify you adding more, and it doesn't mean Jclemens was wrong to revert you for adding unsourced information. I understand that your edits were made in good faith, and you may be offended that you were reverted while similar info was allowed to stay, but the fact is that not everyone here has the time/interest to make sure every Wikipedia article is flawless. Everything should be cited to reliable sources, and if you see something that isn't, please remove it rather than using it as an excuse to add more. This argument should be about whether Wikipedia policies support such-and-such info being included in the article, not about personal interpretation of a frankly rather minor joke. The burden of proof was on you when you added that information and any editor is within their rights to remove it if it lacks reliable sources (reliable by Wiki standards, not "most popular fansite").  Paul  730 22:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Powers

Infoboxes are not for laundry lists of things. IP editor, if you want to enumerate every single manifestation of Willow's magical power, please do so in the text somewhere, and leave the Infobox uncluttered by it. Jclemens (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Relationship

I don't think asking a speaking to a guy and being asked to go for a walk so he can murder you counds as a romantic relationship:

• Thomas — Encouraged by Buffy to "seize the moment", Willow builds up the courage to talk to this boy and go for ice cream. However, when he turns out to be a vampire and tries to kill her, Buffy has to save her, and Willow is forced to accept the existence of demons. Thomas is the first vampire ever to be dusted on Buffy (cf. "Welcome to the Hellmouth").

Maybe this is an important moment for the character, but it is not a relationship worth listing in that section.Yobmod (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree--feel free to remove it if you want. I left him in, even though it's just a single issue thing, because it was the central theme of the pilot. Jclemens (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Willow's enemies

The Amy section is just incorrect; Amy did not keep Warren alive by any means, she did not try to kill Buffy for anyone, and she did not engage in an airborn battle with Willow. She did, however, curse Willow so that when she kissed Kennedy for the first time, she began to change into Warren. Willow's subconscience devised the exact punishment--turning into Warren; Amy says that it's always better to let the victims come up with their own punishment because it's always better than anything she could devise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzislippers (talk • contribs) 17:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC) oops, this may have all happened in the comic book "Season Eight," though; if so, mea culpa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzislippers (talk • contribs) 17:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It did. It's not a bad read, but the article should probably do a better job of differentiating between what happens on screen and what happens afterwards. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A long delayed reply but as one who has seen the programme but not read the comics I can say that these events were definitely in the TV episode. Britmax (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Which events, which episode? Turning into Warren is the only event mentioned above that I remember from TV. —Tamfang (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)