User talk:Paul730/Archive 2

Archive

Hi, I just noticed that you had archived from the recent changes page. But when I checked, the information had not been transferred to the archive page. Just thought id ask if you needed help --The-G-Unit-Boss 16:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: ....My keen fashion sense

If it wasn't aired then you can't say it was their first appearance. If you have a reliable source, you can make note of that in the body of the work. First appearance needs to be when people actual saw them. If it never aired then it never "appeared" if you get what I mean. So, if you have a source that mentions people getting "cut" from the pilot, great, but that doesn't change the infobox information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Saw the film in the theaters when I was all of (*opens up second tab to check the date of release*) 7 years old. If I remember correctly, I saw this with my aunt. I also remember thinking, even at seven, that they showed me things in the trailer that were cut from the final film. As for the show, I never got into it per say...I watched it when it was in syndication. A few years ago, I think like my first year of college, Buffy and Angel would both play at the WB (I think that's who it was, could have been TNT, don't remember) at like 4 and 5pm, which usually was when I was coming home. So, I tended to watch a lot of it when it was one. I'd watch it here and there if it happened to pop up. I liked it, especially the later seasons. I just wasn't fanatical about it. I've seen enough to understand it pretty well. I don't tend to watch a lot of television shows on tv...I hate commercials. I usually just buy them when the come out. So, beyond a lot of movies, I have a lot of television shows. The only show I'm religious about, which you can probably guess easily, is Smallville.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen it. I take great issue with its predominance of in-universe information. WP:WAF specifically states that we should take a primarily out-of-universe stand, and that article sits on about 4kb (not readable prose, but including codes and spaces) of OOU information. So an article that is 30kb large (again, not as readable prose which is the actual indicator), there is only about 13% of OOU information, and the rest is straight up episode rehashes. That's a serious problem. My real problem is that a lot of these types of FACs tend to scrape by with limited feedback (also usually pushed by some of the very people in that project) because of their nature...which is being a fictional character of a television show. People don't really care too much about entertainment articles, and don't usually show up for reviews. I've got Smallville (season 1), which has been sitting in a peer review, with no feedback, for almost a week. People mistaken well referenced for comprehensiveness and satisification (is that a word?...it is now) of style guidelines. I saw people say "support - well referenced". I take that to mean "lots of lines in the reference section", because the article cites all the episodes things happened in. I don't find Andrew's article a very good example to go to, and I know it's hard since there are not a lot of television character articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The Angel cameos are where they should be, they just need to be worked into the paragraph better that's all. This sentence, the main character in the franchise, Buffy has also appeared in the majority of Buffy expanded universe material, seems odd. Has she not appeared in all of the Buffy expanded universe material? You should keep same mediums together. Separating it out can get confusing. I'd keep it in order of when things were released, and just make note of what isn't considered canon. The animated show should be with "television" (test to see if "Animated" can be made into a subsection of "Television", maybe it will look ok), and comics and books should be together under "Literature". I'd probably put the game information in a "Popular culture" section. As things like action figures, and other similar things are usually presented there. That's just me though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You should explain that she does not appear in some of the expanded universe material. When you say "Buffy doesn't always appear in Buffy" it sound kind of weird. Be distinct with separating the different mediums, but keep the information together. It shouldn't be hard to include Joss' cricitism of the non-canon material within that paragraph of information. You shouldn't write it as a series of events that actually take place, but as when each was released for their respective mediums. The cartoon wasn't released to the public? Was it released at all? Vader is separated into "Original apperance in films" and "Everything else" (which is labeled Expanded Universe). If you go that way, you'd have to say "Appearances->Movie->Television" and then everything else would have to be under "Expanded Universe".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying you can't play favorites with what is considered "canon" and what is considered "non-canon". It's great to have Joss' disdain for the non-canon stuff, but you cannot treat it like a pariah. The Season 8 comics are comics, and not part of the television appearances. It's fine to make note that they are considered to have continuity with the television series, but any other non-comics should be in the comics section as well. If the cartoon was never filmed, then it shouldn't be mentioned. If you have a source that says Giselle was supposed to voice the animated Buffy, that's fine, I'd just keep that info with the game stuff as a "oh yeah" kind of comment. If you are covering the comics, then cover the comics. People shouldn't be reading the sections for subsitutions to reading the comics. It isn't hard to precede a sentence with "Does not follow the continuity of..." or something of that nature. Comics are comics, and treating non-canon material like it's a leper shows favoritism to the fans. The article should be written for everyone. Just make note of what picks up continuity with the television show, and what doesn't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, those people who complain "it's not canon" are part of reason "Buffy Summers" is ....eh, it doesn't even have a banner on the talk page. Well, that just means it's not even assessed, which is worse than being the B-class it actually is. You and both know that when you're done it will be GA and on it's way to FA. If they want their canon, they can hitch a ride on the Wikia train and transwiki their butts over there and make the most wonderful fictional world their little hearts desire. As for F5, it's keeping in vain of the other movies, and those that followed, I just don't like the way they made Jason a hallucination (again), and had Roy be the killer. Which probably stems from the horrible mask Roy wears, as you know I'm a stickler for what I perceive to be horrible designs of the mask. I always thought The Final Chapter (pre-Zombie Jason) did it the best, because you couldn't see the eyes. I always thought it was creepier to not be able to see the eyes behind the mask.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Bitch?! What makes me a bitch? lol. Because I say the canon pushers they can take their Buffyverse to the next Wiki-town over? F3 mask good, F4 mask better, F5 mask what they thinking, F6 mask not sure how Tommy got ahold of, but at least it's better than F5 mask, F7 mask alright, F8 mask is one of few good things about F8 movie, F9 mask barely shown thus mask not good, F10 regular mask equivalent to regergitated fecal matter, F10 ubermask pretty damn awesome, F11 mask not too shabby though the roundness of the edge was slightly annoying but better than F10's angular POS (this inhibited speech is kind of fun). H1 mask good, H2 mask...why'd the hair color change over night? H3 mask.......sucked for all the kids that wore them, H4,5,6 masks were very sad, H20 mask improvement on others, but obviously plastered...H20 itself much better than previous 3 movies, HR mask, eh, not horrible...HR movie ...still better than the 4,5,6 movies. I like remakes. Some remakes are worth it. I thought The Hills Have Eyes remake was worth it. People that watched it with me were like "how can you watch stuff like this?" The Halloween remake looks good. John Carpenter's remake The Thing was really good.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot help that I'm finnicky about what I see on screen visually, and the mask is the quintessential pice of the character...you screw it up and you've screwed your movie. Plus, the dialogue alone is some of the worst. As for Halloween, the first two are good, but the first one definitely draws itself out more. I remember watching it with my g/f and she was like "is this going to go anywhere, it's so slow". That's why I like H20 because it keeps the suspense coming. Steve Miner (wink wink, nudge nudge) did a good job with it. I like how they gave a reason (an odd one) for Michael coming after Laurie, and then after her son. Where did the timeline go in H4,5,6? What year is it there? How in the hell did Jamie grow up that fast and have a child of her own. Tommy was her age when Michael first attacked Laurie. Wouldn't he be a bit older if Jamie was having her own child? Everyone likes Paul Rudd, he's hilarious in 40 Year Old Virgin, and one of the only salvageable reason to watch Ron Burgundy. As for part 3, by itself it's not a bad movie. The theme music is awesome. Texas...they are two different films for me. One is built on suspense and the other is built on gore. I like both, don't get me wrong, I though the remake was awesome, but it cannot be compared to the original because they are fundamentally different films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a "reason" so much as a "theme", kind of. He attacked his older sister, Judith, when she was seventeen. Then he waited in the hospital until Laurie was seventeen and came after her. He came after John (Laurie's son) when he turned seventeen. Nothing special other than that. That's how she recounts it to what's his face when she tells him who she really is. Timeline is still screwy in those three Halloween movies. Talk about snuff, how about some Sadomasochists From Beyond The Grave?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hellraiser II is my favorite, because you get to see this almost heroic Pinhead in the end. It's short lived, as he's back to his evil ways in III. Some of the later ones are not that bad, but Pinhead really just makes cameos in them. Inferno is one that takes repeat viewings. The more I watch it the more I kind of like it, because it was different. The ones after that kind of ripped off Inferno in their storylines. Nightmare 1, 3 and New Nightmare are by far the best. I can't watch New Nightmare repeatedly (then again, I can't watch any Nightmare as often as I can watch a F13), but to me it really made the character scary again...until the very end of the movie which seemed to just lose that spark that it had created. I love how reality and fiction begin to bleed into one another, with John Saxon turning into Nancy's father, and Heather finally accepting that she has to be "Nancy" in order to fight Freddy. Plus the music was good. Music is always the key. Best part of FvJ is when Lori brings Freddy into "reality" and Jason comes walking up behind him, I love the reaction on Freddy's face when he realizes the world of hurt he's just landed himself in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You've got to go rent, buy, borrow New Nightmare. You cannot feel redeemed with the series until you watch that movie. Smallville has some awesome music. Not only can they weeve some great pop culture music in there, but Mark Snow is a gift for that show when it comes to composing. Especially when Christopher Reeve guest starred, and Snow incorporated parts of John Williams' classic Superman theme, it was great. For instance, when music fails, The DaVinci Code held the same music the entire time. It didn't go up, it didn't go down, it was the same rhythmic beat the whole time. Quite annoying. Carpenter usually does great music. James Newton Howard, who usually scores for M. Night Schamalan (not even close to the right spelling), usually does great work. Firefly has a catchy theme song. But, I think no one can beat Ennio Morricone when it comes to "epic" scores for films. Sidenote: Sarah Michelle Gellar's wet hair look in Season 1 from that fan trailer, pretty hot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about any remakes or sequels to F13. Lot's of rumors, but according to Cunningham, they are focused more an FvJ 2, and trying to find a way to get that into motion with a good script. Depending on the show. I boycotted Smallville because I thought it was going to damage my idea of what Superman is. I thought it was going to suck. I just happened to be flipping channels one day and caught the last 5 minutes of the third season episode, "Shattered", where Lex is put in a mental hospital. I was like, "wow, that's pretty good". I happened across Season 1 in the store and was like "why not". 17 hours later and I had finished the first season. I only stopped to go to bed for about 7 hours then I was up finishing the rest of the show. Next then I know I was hooked. That's a show with some great character drama, and the entire cast has great chemistry with each other. How'd you find "Buffy"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Smallville "is the most perfect show ever". How do I know this you ask? Well, Buffy wasn't good enough for The WB, so they let her go. Who replaced her? Smallville. Who broke the premiere records? Smallville. Plus, and I know you'll appreciate this, it's got the hottest cast members. People are losing shirts every which way. If you think Paul Rudd is so cute, you must think Tom Welling is like a god.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

One of my favorite moments:[1]  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. There's always the super jump, nuclear blast level heat vision, and and for something really sad <---This took me forever to find, because people kept replacing the music with their own version. Stupid people, Peter Gabriel's "I Grieve" is much better than anything they can find. This scene got me choked up. I haven't cried since I was like 12, but the cinematography and the music just go hand in hand with this scene.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Missed the comment before hand. Oh come on, I call Spike getting his soul jumping the shark for Buffy. What, one vampire with a soul wasn't good enough? Were they so desperate to get Buffy and Spike together that they had to rehash the same ol' trick "someone give the vampire a soul". Come on. ;) As for DC characters, it's a logical step. There's only so much "high school" stuff you can do, and other than Aquaman, most of the introduction of the characters to the series has been pretty good. Green Arrow was a recurring character, who most fans actually enjoyed seeing. He was our Bruce Wayne, since we can't have the real one. You have Spike, eh? Well, so did we actually. James came over as a recurring character, Milton Fine, for season 5...so we've had Spike as well. :P Plus, Jensen Ackles (Dawson Creek fame), Eric Johnson, not to mention Michael Rosenbaum (you know, a male actor who's had more of a career than all your male actors combined), should I mention Justin Hartley? Plus, who wants Xander and his one eyed self. I dont know about you, but I don't want to have to baby-proof the house if he stops by, him and his lack of depth perception.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I remember both of those episodes. That was a shocker when Tara got killed out of no where. What? You didn't think the heat vision was cool? (I'm off to bed, I'll catch your response in the morning) Later.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick side note, I wonder if that clip turned Alexis Denisof on. I bet he watches that over and over again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well you just mentioned all those males, so I was mentioned the males on Smallville. Why is Smallville better, one important thing: "personal sacrafice". It's much greater on Smallville than it is on Buffy. At least Buffy got have relationships. Clark was in love with Lana from the moment he met, but could never be with her because of his secret. Even when they started getting close, and eventually did get together, his secret always pushed them away. There's a great moment in season 1 where he actually has her kryptonite necklace (in a lead box Lex gave him), and he's contemplating giving it back (she doesn't know he has it). If he gives it back, then he's going to lose her because he can't be near her when she wears it. In the end, when he watches her and Whitney (her b/f at the time) together he realizes that he'll never be able to give her that and fights the k-poisoning long enough to return the necklace. He returns something to her that can kill him. That's pretty self sacrificing, and that's what makes the show great. They beat up on Clark, especially in the later seasons when they are out of high school (which in my opinion, these seasons away from HS, with the more adult stories are the better ones). There are several episodes back-to-back where he gets kicked down by the writers. Plus, there's nothing better than being able to watch a man become a villain. It's one thing to for them to already be villains, but to see what drives a man down the dark path (avoided the opportunity to say "dark side") is a lot of fun. Also, knowing where Clark will end up (i.e. Man of Tomorrow, Superman, whatever you want to call him) is the fun part of watching him get there. Why does he make the choices he makes? That kind of stuff. That is why Smallville is unique and fun. Anyone can watch a hero save the day, few know where the hero will end up in the end and get to see the journey that creates that hero.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

He was a dirty vampire. She is a vampire slayer. Does anyone else not see this coming? I saw the episode where Angel takes back his vampirism. I've seen most episodes of both series. Let's see, Clark was born with his abilities he didn't ask for them. Angel screwed around centuries prior and got his cummupins (sp). Clark would give anything to be normal, but every time he loses his powers he is forced to get them back because: 1.Someone leeches them and then abuses them, so he has to steal them back, 2. He disobeys his biological father, powers are stripped, then there is this nuclear missle crisis where he gets shot and killed. Biological father gives back powers but at the cost of the life of someone he loves. Now he is burdened with the knowledge that because he disobeyed initially, he has indirectly sacraficed the life of someone else (even harder when you realize first it's the love of your life that bites the dust, but when you beg to have it reversed that it's your own father that takes the place...screwed from both ends). Clark only wants to be normal, but can't because he can never escape his destiny (which he's always trying to do, even though he has no clue what that destiny is). Angel kills people, Clark actually saves the lives of those that attempt to kill him, because he'd rather look for the good in people (sacraficing himself in the process) then allow another person to die.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Who came first, Angel or Angelus? It's one thing to have a dark side that comes out occasionally thanks to red kryptonite, it's another to have been quite evil (actually known for being evil) and to get your soul back from a curse (at least Spike actually did it on his own accord) and then spend the rest of your life trying to make amends for all the wrong deeds. He's a hero born from guilt; a hero no less, but it wasn't who he originally was.

I was actually going to make the comparison between Buffy and Clark awhile ago, but I figured my last statement would give you the chance to go ahead and open the door before me. How they both started, basically against their will, trying to fight their destinies but always being drawn back into them...very similar. I think the key differences are how it affects their outside lives. Neither can have long lasting relationships because of the lives they lead, but kind of for different reasons. The "real" relationships Buffy has, the men usually know who she is (at least in the end) and are accepting of it...something just usually happens later that screws it all up (no pun intended on the "screw"). Clark can never get that close because he cannot tell his secret to just anyone. He's only been able to have one true relationships with someone he could trust, and that was Lois. They are similar in other ways as well. They both wouldn't really be accepted in society if they just came out and told their secret to everyone (not including if you save the world or something and then tell them who you are). Buffy says "I'm a vampire slayer, with superhuman strength and great puns" and people (general people) are like "Ok, this way to the padded room". Clark says "I'm an alien, with superhuman strength and other abilities you couldn't understand", and people say "This way to the operating table, let's find out how similar you are to us.." One will be fed meds, the other would be dissected, so they both kind of have that "loner" necessity.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

By the time Clark is "Superman", everyone's a bit more accepting of things. I mean "Clark Kent". Before he starts saving the world all publicly. If he were to reveal his secret to the wrong person, he'd be government food before the week's out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the best ending would be for it to end reminescent of the first scene of Christopher Reeve in the original Superman movie. Where he has completed his training, accepted who he is, and is ready to "be revealed to the world". They can do the blurred field of vision with it as well, just like Donner did when he first showed the suit in the film. But that's just me. "Aqua" was fine, I just couldn't stand Alan Ritchson. Justin Hartley's Aquaman from Aquaman (TV program) was much better. I've never seen Heroes, but it was created by some of the executive producers of Smallville. It also doesn't have the same feel to it that Smallville has. It's about people with extraordinary gifts, but they were all human. Plus, they came in when Smallville was a 5 year veteran? Smallville will look old next to most television shows. It's going into its seventh season, and the story arcs, acting, special effects, everything really are just getting better each season. We get Supergirl this season (the real one, not that phony from the finale of Season 3), plus more of Phil Morris as John Jones. I think Gough or Millar said that Clark and Lois are going to notice that they have a stronger attraction to one another this season as well. Nothing major, just a realization that they care deeper for each other than either of them realize. I'm excited. :)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No. It was made based on the success of the Smallville episode, but they had no intention of casting Ritchson. It was going to be an origin story, like Smallville. It was a pretty good pilot. You should read the article, I wrote that one too (though I had a bit more help from others on that one). Batman isn't one because of the films, and I think the Batembargo leaks into this as well. Like, certain characters cannot be featured in the Batman animated show, and I think since they have an on going Batman franchise with the films now, he's presence in Smallville would probably conflict with things. Then again, we have two "Clark Kents" out at the moment, though I prefer Tom to Brandon. Marvel hasn't really had good luck when it comes to live-action television series. They had the animated Spider-Man and X-Men shows in the 90s (which were awesome), but I don't think their subject matter really transfers well to the small screen. Other than Bill Bixby's The Incredible Hulk, which was a great show. I'm a big fan of Bixby.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've heard it is. It'll be like other shows, meaning I'll buy it but not watch it on TV. I hate commercials, and a lot of the primetime channels don't come in as well either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The writing is great. There's no one else who could have pulled of Peter Parker. It's the only movie that manages to balance action, drama, romance, and humor at the same time. X2 is good, but it's not better. It just doesn't have the same tempo. Spider-Man 2 is the only one I could have seen getting a best picture nomination. The cinematic styling of it all, the music, plus...X2 didn't have Bruce Campbell in a cameo role. Speaking of, his cameo in part 3 is the most hilarious thing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Char lists

Yeah, it's fine for now. Include everyone. Per the style guidelines, minor characters go in a "list of" page. We can trim the info down later, and since I have the two making of books, I think we could probably get some OOU information on just about all of them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The Chain

What did you think of it?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's very good, in my opinion. It slips into Charmed territory with some of the new types of creatures now confirmed to exist in the Buffyverse, but doesn't feel quite so lame as when Charmed introduced them. Hell, I'll just say it. It's not a spoiler, anyway. Fairies. Andrew's in it a bit - and is hilarious. Giles is in it a little and is cool. Loads of awesome cameos from past Slayers (except you know, the big three: B, K and F). And the whole thing is really sad. Some people who live in San Diego got to read the first few pages of "No Future For You" and apparently it makes you gutted we never got a Faith spin-off.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's only Charmedlike in the sense that there's fairies and an all-out fairy-demon brawl which reminded me of a Charmed season finale... There's also living leafblowers and mystical slimy slug monsters. But it's done in the totally realistic Buffy/Angel "Smile Time"/"Once More..." surreal way. Which should make no sense. Unless you watch Buffy. So I assume that made sense to you? Oh, and I'd also advise getting Spike: Shadow Puppets which is really funny and I hope gets made canon. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It is shaping up quite well! As for canon, I feel it can be counted until something more official says it doesn't and if the writing/tone matches. And Shadow Puppets is pretty close. I think I'll buy Shadow Puppets when it comes out as a TPB, until then I'm reading ... through other means. I buy Countdown and Buffy and Birds of Prey (which is amazing! Gail Simone = Joss Whedon in terms of awesomeness) as soon as they come out, but everything else I have a more skeptical approach with. My local comic shop is pretty decent for getting in pretty much everything. Stuff I know I'll be buying when it comes out is Batman and the Outsiders, any Season Eight spin-offs (here's hoping for a superteam or a whole new character/mythology in the same universe) and any Avengers: The Initiative spin-offs which center on Trauma because I think he's a cool character. Anyway, night! ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Can't wait to see it in colour. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd quite like her and Willow to break up but she still be a character we see from time to time. Two lesbian characters don't have to be dating each other'n'all. Fans will like her more if she's her own person, and perhaps grow to like the idea of a slow-burning romance if they ever chose to put them back together. Of course, that would require a major ongoing side plot and Season Eight does seem to be cycling characterset-to-characterset through the whole Buffy universe... maybe one day we'll see more of a her in a spin-off?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

A Kennedy book would be awesome. Put an official writer on it, "declare" it canon (seems to sell things well when they do that!). If she's not gonna appear too much in the main comic series. And yeah, a Willow spin-off series would be good but they would have to sort of... find her own supporting characters, but at least Amy and Warren make fantastic antagonists. And I'm hoping that a big "surprise" at the end of Angel: After The Fall #12 will be a two-page spread or something that's basically a "dum dum dum" - Cordy's back. Illyria (well, Fred) and Cordy would make good Willow supporting characters, come to think of it.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Oh, and goodnight... again. Timestamp! 23:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, one last thing before bed. More [After The Fall news] and the fans underneath discuss a brilliant way to bring Cordy back. That's all anybody wants! Lol and some mystery Angel character may get their own spin-off - Illyria, Connor or Gunn, you think? Anyway, night. F'real.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Good news

Lynch is now canon.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm really excited about Angel: The Fall, hehe. I just wanna see the giant fish made canon tbh.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Captain J

Yes, I'm still working on it, just I've taken a break while I've got uni applications, work and boyfriend stuff to deal with! Still, let's hope to get a sustainable FA for before S2 starts! :D~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been nominated for FA now.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna do some more summarisation (after I watch this film, The Night Listener) but I'm not sure the Jason Voorhees method is necessary - Andrew Van De Kamp is a FA. And yes, one more paragraph should be added to the lead as the article is 42kb long and the guide is one paragraph per 10kb.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I contracted the history (a lot) - can you proofread it because there may be typos and grammatical errors from when I fused sentences or something that my eyes just aren't picking up. Also? Fix it anywhere you feel needs fixing!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I just walked in the door and saw it. My first comment was going to be about that. You have redundant sections. You cannot have a "Character History" and an "Appearances" section. They constitute the same information. Merge them is the best bet. Also, the image of the cast of Torchwood, doesn't meet fair use criteria. This is an article about Jack Harkness, not the entire cast of Torchwood. Someone needs to check citation #37, because you can see the code in the reference section. I haven't read the article and I already stumbled across the first peacock term - "tumultuous" - in the first sentence of "Character history". So, that says to me that it probably needs a good copy edit to remove any other similar wording. This, "Jack can both be compassionate and ruthless." has no citation. It would be considered original research to note instances of his actions and then draw your own conclusions. Also, you cite 4 episodes in that succeeding sentence, one of them is cited twice.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I just got back from a long drive so I don't know when I'll be able to sit down and read the entire thing for specific issues.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Silly people. Kenny, a real person? I feel sorry for the real Kenny then, that's a lot of medical bills to have to pay. People always thinking you're dead.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, here's a possible updated version of the page if the two of you could give it a once over?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I gave it another (big) update. Should I submit it to the main article space? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, but I hated the stuff about whether he was even a Captain or not (obviously written by some disgruntled Captain of some boat somewhere :P) so I'll just wipe it. If I put the Barrowman quote in the box, there'll be no section left!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Does boxification improve it? :) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I think you're correct, consistency is better! I was just trying to entertain the casual editors wondering why on earth I'm making so many edits :P ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just done some more summarisation. I tried it without the headings but then it looks messy =/. Hmmm, still thanks for all the help! ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Buffy questions

I'll take time to quickly answer some of these for you:

• Dates should be linked fully, ala December 25 2007, but you don't have to link December 25. Be specific if you just link a year, like 2007 in TV or something.
• I think awards for Gellar can go under a section regarding her performance, like the "Johnny Depp" section in Jack Sparrow.
• DVD features should be cited as the year of release.
• I'm most like the Doctor.

Alientraveller 11:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're citing an episode or a film, use the cite video template to cite the date of broadcast or year of theatrical release. A DVD special feature is cited by year of release of the DVD package it first popped up in. I mean, The Return of the King was out in 2003, but all the citations come from the 2004 DVD release.

As for me identifying with the Doctor's character, I can say my Asperger's Syndrome does make feel alienated from others, yet my Christian goodwill gives me a strong moral compass, so in turn I am both loving and infuriated by humanity in general. If you've read Gulliver's Travels, I guess you may understand a dislike of humanity, but love for individual humans. So I suppose like the Doctor, as a whole, beyond the quirks of each actor, as a shy but trustworthy individual. That said, I'm quiet like Tennant, intelligent like McGann, eccentric like T.Baker and confident like Pertwee and Eccleston. Plus, for whatever reason every girl I've befriended, I always tried (and failed) to turn it into a proper relationship. Alientraveller 11:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't stand Maths and Science, although I mean in a classroom manner, as robotics and aliens are clearly quite cool, so I am a sci-fi geek, and the Transformers saga is just a stroke of genius in combining both. So there's my Aspergish perception regarding Tennant's Doctor: I don't think he babbles, but clearly people always tell me I do. Funny, I feel like I never get to say enough. Alientraveller 11:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you got your answers while I slept. I cited 1980 for the year of the film. I didn't cite the year the DVD was released, which is probably best if you are using commentary (which I'm noticing Alient already said, as I type this). I was merely citing the film for the plot information. I don't know who I'm most like fictionally. I took one of those superhero tests a long time ago, guess who popped up at 72%? Superman. :). As for the multiple Buffys...They aren't really that significant to the plot, I would graze over alternate universe Buffy. She probably only deserves a sentence of information, two at best. Buffybot could have a bit more. The comic info seems even less important than the one alternate universe episode of the show. I'm sure all those books are on Amazon or some other online store.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't the BuffyBot actually replace Buffy while she was dead, or missing (I can't remember what, but I could swear she was gone, and the Scooby Gang didn't want villains to know the truth). As for the non-Buffy decoy, the reason I see that as less important is because it wasn't Buffy (e.g alternate universe), and it didn't replace Buffy (like the Bot), but was simply a diversion for one comic issue. That's just me. You might be able to work it in so that it works out just fine. LOL, yeah, picture me as Superman. I might have some of the same personality characteristics, but I certainly won't be lifting landmasses any time soon.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just leave yourself a note somewhere mentioning them, and focus on the real Buffy for now. By the end, you may find a way to include them, or you may find that they are not needed at all. You could simply have a "See also" section and link to those characters (or appearances if that is where they are mentioned). I saw that on your user page. It's probably better than saying "I think I'm kind of like John Wayne Gacy or Ed Gein when it comes to my love for children and my love for my mother".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Extreme...yes. Funny...also yes. Point being that at least you aren't listing those types of people.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I took a test and the test compared me to Superman. I don't know if I could compare myself to anyone, I like to think of myself as a very unique person. LOL, yes I don't get on people's nerves. Apparently, Erik and I have angered an entire website community. There have been others, I just didn't list everyone. Though I find it funny that such people get so angry they start a forum thread, or vandalize my user page, I don't take pride in it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to go find it on MySpace, because that was where it was. I'm at work right now so I can't get on MySpace. I'm a social work major, so I would assume I carry a lot of the traits of many superheroes. Just none of the really cool ones, like flying, or heat vision. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I work for the state, so I tend to have a lot of free time on my hands here. The only catch is that the computer has filters so I can't access a lot of things. I wasn't aware of that comic. I'm not huge into reading comics and stuff. I have a select few at home. The Death of Superman series, from his death to his resurrection. And I have the birth of Hal Jordan as Green Lantern, the sequel to that, and his downward fall becoming 'Parallax'. That's about it. I had some other random comics when I was younger, but I have no idea what my mother did with them. Probably threw them away.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I try to read as many comics as I can, in the shop or the library. I spend my money on DVDs. You like Watchmen btw? Alientraveller 14:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I like Marvel more so than DC, but there are certain characters I prefer. Superman is at the top. I like Batman because of Tim Burton, who introduced me to the character when I was a child. I like Green Lantern as well, that's Hal Jordan, not just any GL. Marvel has more "cooler" characters. But the comics I personally bought, I bought those for a reason. They are key moments that I was interested in reading first hand. I'm much more of a movie person.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I love both Marvel and DC dearly. Alientraveller 14:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The classics. Spider-Man, the Incredible Hulk (remember, I'm a Bill Bixby fan, so I loved the 70's show...even though I got reruns..seeing as I wasn't older enough to see it first hand), Wolverine (gotta love the adamantium), The Human Torch, and Gargoyles. The last I was familiar with from the cartoon, but as I read I find that Marvel made a comic line for them, so that is a point for Marvel.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man 2 is the greatest comic book movie ever made, and this comes from a die-hard Superman fan.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

BB was a great new start to the series, and probably better than the original Spider-Man, but definitely not the sequel. Maguire and Dunst have chemistry. A lot better than Bale and Holmes. FF is a kids movie. It was kind of funny, but how you can you justify spending 20 minutes introducing 5 characters to their powers, when it took that long just to do Peter Parker in the original film? That movie felt so rushed. It was far better than Daredevil. That's for sure.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mind Daredevil. I don't hate Ben Affleck and I enjoyed the film enough to want to read the source material. FF is so bad it's good... almost. What about Sin City, now that's a damn good movie and an excellent comic book adaptation. Paul730 17:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

First, DD had fight scenes just to have fight scenes. How bad is it when the most entertaining character is the side-kick (i'm speaking of John Favreau's character). They even changed a lot of the backstory around. Colin Farrell and his bushy eyebrows, come on. The dialogue was pretty cheesy as well. Too much rock music throughout. I love rock, but let's get some real orchestra music in here, it's a movie for crying out loud.

I liked Sin City. Just like 300, but they are graphic novels (stupid semantics) so not the same category in my eyes. Kind of like V for Vendetta. All three are great graphic novel adaptations.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Got it. What Superhero are you?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm Batman! Alientraveller 11:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Just butting in, apparently I'm Superman. I got Hulk before on a different one.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Yeah, it's short. You could use your Bat-pencil to make it longer. Holy-rusted editing, Batman!  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I like everybody at Marvel really. Such a great fictional universe. Alientraveller 11:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'm Harmony (78%) tied with Willow, followed by Cordelia (73%) and Spike (68%). I am least like Faith (45%) and Lorne (50%).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What Buffyverse (Angel & Buffy) Character are you most like?

You scored as a Willow

Willow. Smart. Resourceful. Understanding. Full of Self-Doubt. Shy. Unstable. Your live has mostly been about relying on your smarts. You parents mostly ignored you, so you had to learn to be resourceful. Magic came along as a boundless frontier that had a unique set of chalanges and rewards. The mystical is one of most compelling things for you. Only love can surmount that. You emotions are a whirlwind of either strength or destruction. The combination of Brains, Magic & Overwhelming Emotions makes you a dangerous, but very interesting person.

Willow 85%

Cordelia 80%

Buffy 70%

Xander 68%

Spike 65%

Oz 65%

Angel 65%

Wesley 50%

Doyle 48%

Lorne 45%

Giles 45%

Anya 45%

Faith 43%

Harmony 35%

 BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

So it seems. I guess I can live with being a lesbian. lol. Homer Simpson would probably say, "Ooooh, leessbiansss....aaaaggghh (<--that is supposed to simulate the drooling sound)".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving the powers into characterization is apart of who she is, and should be fine. If you remember I have that brief mention of Jason's superhuman strength and invulnerability in that section. As for that magazine. Being "for fans" is irrelevant, it doesn't mean diddly. It's published, that is what matters. Now, was it self published is the question. If it's self published, then probably not, because Wiki has this thing about "anyone can have something published" theory. If it's something only sold from a website, or handed out at Comic Cons and other similar types of conventions...eh..probably not a good source to use for such stuff. You might want to, if you haven't already, check out this. It's Google Scholar. I cannot guarantee the usefulness of anything in there, but if you haven't checked it out, it can be helpful. Sometimes you'll find things are inaccessable via the internet, and you may either have to buy the book, or need to get to a public or school library to access it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's one for the key hits that include "feminism". [2]  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the magazine should be ok. Titan Books (which is owned by that company) is who publishes the Smallville companion books that I use for those pages. Just becareful what you use. If it's some fan submitted insert that talks about feminism, then it probably wouldn't be considered professional. If it's some regular writer for the magazine, or an exert from a professional writers, then go for it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Scroll

The scroll?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That code was part of a template that got deleted, so it technically isn't supposed to be used [3]. I think the general consensus was that it hides the references in a manner that makes them hard to get to, because you have to scroll through the whole thing to check references, as opposed to simply scanning the lot directly. Apparently, the code itself has made its way to other articles because of the deleted template (Template:Scrollref)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I figured as much. It's tending to land more on obscure articles that don't attract a lot of attention, like fiction articles. If anything, I would much prefer a "Hide/Show" box, that way, if you needed to look at them you could click one buttom and see all of them together, but if you just wanted to read the page, it would certainly make it shorter if they all hid by default.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Spike pic

Probably. Though it's a bit unusual considering Wiki articles look prim on any resolution.--The Scourge 19:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a 1024x768 resolution, so it already looks centered. Along with anyone with the same resolution, it might seem pointless to center it.--The Scourge 20:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a vacation coming up so I won't guarantee those images any time soon. Most likely by the end of the month.--The Scourge 21:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

*sigh*, here we go

Well, I'm going to start cleaning up the Michael Myers page. It won't look anything like Jason when I'm done, other than structure and tidiness. I'm going to clean up that huge biography, and maybe try and get some characterization and popular culture stuff in. Just though I'd let you know, since you were pestering me about working on good ol' Mikey's article (just kidding about the pestering part). :)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I mean. I have the 25th anniversary. THe sequel DVD I have has nothing. I'll probably skim the two articles (they're both featured) to see if they have anything useful. There's some things I can use from Jason's article. That "Psychological appearl of Movie Monsters" has him in it I believe, plus he usually appears in the same parodies on television with Jason. I think the "Creation" material is what will be lacking, and probably the "Casting" material, since we'll probably end up needed some kind of special edition DVD for all the films, which I don't think there is. My primary concern right now is cleaning up that damn film section, as it's written like a biography. This page is riddled with original research. If you find anything just drop it on the talk page of my sandbox.

Hey, I enjoyed the Spider-Man: TAS - Venom Saga more than I did Spider-Man 3. I think they did a better job of capturing the "dark spidey" and the sadisticness of Venom.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed the infobox image. What do you think?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

GMTA = Got My Total Attention? lol. Just kidding, I know what you meant. It's my favorite as well. People are going to be awfully pissed when all those images are gone. Anyway, I was meaning to tell you, it would be great if you could help find some characterizations that talk about not revealing his eyes through the mask. I'm going to look myself as well, but 4 eyes are better than two, and probably better than black ones. Reason being, I love that line so I'd love to include it as a quote box in that section...though we need surrounding text so that it just doesn't look like some random thought.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I generally don't like to use in-universe quotes to characterize fictional characters, because it just lacks that OOU tone. I mean, when you think about it, a real person wrote that, but they don't stop the show to elaborate on how that is. I mean, like how I would like to use Loomis' dialogue, if you can find "real" people discussing these points that the character brings up, then I think it's fine. You know, find people that talk about how she is a reluctant heroine, the loneliness of her life, but how she always comes through to save the day..well, at least the first two points because that is really about "who she is". Finding that stuff, then I think the quote is fine. Just like I hope to find some stuff about Michael being characterized as the devil, pure evil, or something of the like...and find some stuff about people focusing on how you really don't see his eyes all that much in the first film (which, oddly, you see them quite a bit in the rest of them).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear lord, they're fighting over what images to use on the article. Boy are they going to be mad when I'm through. The biggest complaint I heard over at the Smallville season articles is that "the images are all gone, stop!".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You assume it was his eyes in II. If she hit just above the eye, in the brow, that would blind him (all the blind going into his eyes). Eh, I liked H20's mask way better than the previous 3 masks, or the Resurrection mask. Um...fair use for Buffy's death? Hasn't she died like 10 times (j/k, I know it isn't that many, but she has died more than once). You have to establish why this death is so important. It's important to fans, but not the casual reader. At least, not important enought to say "hey, she died here, look at the image". You have to be like "____fill in lots of expostitory text____". Depends on what you find, because an image just sitting there will be taken as eye candy in a review.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the quote that comes before hand, but if you have surrounding text that talks about the consequences to the character and series, and it's supported by reliable sources, then it should be ok. -- The "fighting" is on the actual mainspace. Check Michael's history and you'll see DCincarnate reverting back to the images he uploaded after someone changed them. There isn't any discussion on that matter, he just doesn't like people removing his images, even though I'm going to remove them anyway, the ones that were replaced were better quality. His were too dark. Oh, is Wiki lagging for you, is it just me?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks. Could you fill out the citation template with the appropriate information for me, please? Oh, no worries about the comment, trust me, I've gotten far worse and far stranger.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll probably set it up for each individuals comment, and correlate the ref name to do the same.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew about Mickey speaking as a child. I'm like you, I'm torn between the two. The thing about this one is that I believe it's been buried in the ground for like the past 15+ years. I think Zombie said that he had the mask as a child, that he made it (or was into making masks period), and that he hid that mask. I can't remember, but that would explain the tattered look to it. I don't have an issue with the hair so long as it doesn't get in the way. I mean, it's like Zombie's annoyance over Michael finding the only mechanic with a super clean jumpsuit...I see it as, who in their right mind would come cut the hair of a young boy who just butchered his entire family with a knife. Even less likely when he gets older and stronger. You could sedate him and cut it, but this isn't the military, so I don't think there are hair length restrictions. I'm almost already assured that Scout Taylor-Compton isn't going to be as good as Jamie Lee Curtis. I saw the TV spot where she delivers the "was that the boogeyman" line in Loomis' car, and it just sounded forced.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't. Well, definitely not Linda's constant "totally", and Annie...come on, who kind of person ditches a kid with another babysitter just to get their freak on? I think fleshing out the character and providing a bit of psychology for why he did the things he did will be good. I mean, at least we'll know from the start of this movie that Laurie is his sister, instead of going through an entire movie saying "why the hell is he attacking these three girls"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If that was the case, why travel across the street and kill Annie and Linda, why not come directly for Laurie. I don't tend to like people who are selfish and annoying. That kind defeats the purpose, unless I myself am selfish and annoying, then it's one of those like-minded friendships. I see someone willing to dump a child just to have sex, and I go, "kill them, kill them now." I don't see a difference betwen P.J. Soles' character in Halloween, from the one she played in Carrie. I had no qualms with either of them biting the dust. Now, Alice is a likeable character. Tommy is a likeable character. But once you got into a few sequels of Friday the 13th, the likeable character was Jason. That was the point of the movie after that; to root for the killer. Blank slates were scary in the 70s, now, not so much. It's much scarier to know a reason for things. Look at the SAW films. They built a lot of tension out of trying to figure out the true story about why Jigsaw brought them to his funhouse. As for Michael, what blankslate can you induce from a character 25+ years old? We already know why he did it in the original, thanks to the first sequel. He isn't a blanket slate any longer, not even if you make a direct sequel that ignores every previous sequel. You'll still go back to the original. That's why, I think, this movie had to go in the direction of explaining things from the getgo and giving Michael some sort of reason for killing his family in the first place.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It made no sense though. If you go with the theory that he felt attached to Laurie in a sisterly way then he shouldn't have bothered with the other two. He didn't kill Judith's boyfriend. He could have put a toy on the stairs and tripped the super-speedy cuminator and then stabbed him with the knife. You can't say he's unpredictable and then say that he came after Laurie with an intention. I mean, he stalked the inhabitants of Lindsey's house, whether Annie, or Linda, or Bob before he even thought about coming over to the other side of the road. Hell, he didn't go over there till Laurie came to him first.

I can blame them. I was a teenager once, and I wasn't that selfish. Lazy, sure, but I wasn't about to sell someone out for a piece of ass. And Linda, she'd be lucky if I didn't strangle her with a phone cord if she said totally to mean too many times. Cordelia developed over time, but in those first few seasons...yeah I was wishing she'd bite the dust. Tommy 4 and Tommy 6. Tommy 4 is smart, funny, innocent. Tommy 6 wasn't afraid any longer, wasn't worried about having sex, but with protecting people from something he felt was his fault (rightfully so).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Patient, maybe, but he didn't even stop to look in the window or something. He was just minding his own business across the street before she came over. He didn't initially attack Tommy. He grabbed him through a window, but it wasn't like he had a knife in his hand or anything. Plus, Tommy is a boy, and the only child he was close enough to kill in part 6 was the little girl. She was far to innocent to kill, plus, he was drawn away by the shouting of one of those counselors, I dont' remember which. Later, he busted into the cabin that had all the children, but Megan was screaming at him so he focused on her in that instance.

Oh come on, Annie was two steps away from pimping Lindsey to the first street hussler that woudl give her some pot. I know Linda was written based on just about every role Soles did in the 70s, doens't make her less annoying, just makes her a typecast. :)

Easy, Cordelia was a stuck-up, little miss priss. She deserved to at least get her ass kicked every so often to put her in her place. Buffy was once the same way, but, not the television Buffy. Remember, Cordelia wasn't in the movie. Stop cross pollinating mediums..lol. ;) Season 6? Either you're getting a little too hopeful or you're referring a comic book line like that of Buffy Season 8.

Yeah, Judith had a terrible night. I mean, do you really think the boyfriend was going to call her the next day? "Yeah, is uh, Judith there?....Sorry, but Judith was stabbed to death by her six-year old brother, Michael, it happened right after you had sex with her. The police say she took longer to die than you took to get off". ...something tells me he didn't have any plans to call back.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the bit about the eyes opening at the end of Resurrection. It really doesn't have to do with his appearances, but a stupid "door open" thing the producers stuck in, as always. I hate it on the article page, and I don't care for the bit about the "boy Jason" on Friday the 13th. I don't feel they are really part of the plot, but just gags that are built-in at the end, and probably shouldn't be mentioned. It's like telling a joke that is said in a comedy film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Tommy saw Michael from across the street. Michael never came over to the Doyle residence till he chased Laurie over there. LOL, setting it up? You're losing this "lack of reasoning" theory. You're providing motive for his actions, and thoughts of reason for them as well.

Why would I criticize all the supporting characters in Friday the 13th? EVERY supporting character in any slasher film is forgetable. If you call "memorable" the ability to remember who they are, I can remember most of the names from most of all those series. Kirsty Cotton is a likeable and memorable supporting character. She wasn't the focus of the first Hellraiser, but you liked her. You kind of always rooted for her....(when you weren't rooting for Pinhead at the end of Hellbound when he turned human). Even in the seventh? film, when she returned and gave up her boyfriend to the Cenobites. He deserved it, but she was still likeable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Cordelia went out with Xander after the fact. She was still stuck-up in the beginning. Plus, you cannot compare characters on a television series with those in a film, as supporting characters in a television series get way more air time than those in a movie. You want likeable and memorable, then Ryan James is your man...er, boy. I know you don't watch Smallville all that much, but you might remember "Stray" (from season 1) and "Ryan" (from season 2). Those are probably the most heartfelt episodes of the series, and they both focused on some random weekly guest star. But he was likeable, and memoriable enough to bring back for another episode. Also, flashbacks don't count, you've already ingrained yourself into loving the character. If you see how horrible they were in the beginning, you don't like them any less...Angel is a case in point. He was far worse than Buffy "back in the day", but you just pity him even more because of that.

I put the actors names in "paranthesis"? Is that what you mean? It's just following the MOS for plots, which says you can/should put the actor's names in paranthesis upon first mentioning them. I figure, for consistency purposes, even the Michael's should have their names there. It also helps since the infobox doesn't actually list their films, but references their films.

LOL. I like that. He's so complext that you just write you (the universal "you") own motives for his actions. Annie and Lynda are "totally" forgetable. Who thinks of them when they think of Halloween? Other than you and I, who are discussing them, JLC is the only person remembered of the female persuasion. Nightmare's characters? Who, Rod? Tina? Maybe memoriable deaths, but not memoriable characters. Scream was different, because it was written by Kevin Williamson, the master of character drama...Dawson's anyone? He knows how to write good characters. That's like Joss Whedon, he knows how to write good characters.

"You think I'm never lonely because I'm so cute and popular? " -- There you have it ladies and gentlemen, the stuck-upness comes out in even the most important of moments. I've never said Cordelia wasn't memorable, just that I think she deserved a few good kicks to the chops occassionally. Again, television characters are much easier to do, because you get many episodes to develop them. You cannot compare films and television shows because of that. It's much harder for a film to have memorable characters, because they have to compete with lead characters, the running plot that usually has to wrap up at the end, unlike in tv-land where everything can easily carry over to the next episode, and the next and the next. Unless you wrote it as a two-parter, you aren't guaranteed a sequel, hence why the only thing we know about Lynda and Annie is that one uses "totally" way too much, and drinks underage; one smokes pot and is a bad influence on our leading lady, as she gets her to drop some grass--wonder where their "let's pimp the kid" theory came from, she was a peer pressurer from the get go..lol. Lynda can't even spell her name correctly (i've been spelling it with an "i" the whole time)...seriously, her parents were probably drunk filling out the birth certificate--maybe that's where she gets her habit? LOL, I kid.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Taking the piss out of you? I don't get European dialogue..lol. I'm pretty sure it means that I'm just pulling your chain, as we would say. Is so, then yes, I'm just arguing to argue.

Glenn's death is the best. It's like the bed had explosive diahrea.

Is Joss writing for the X-Men comic or something?

Which one was Glory? I don't have those people's names in my head like I do film.

I don't frown upon drinking and teenage sex. I participated in one of those, the other I don't know because I don't have the taste for it--you can figure out which is which. I'm only pointing out the fact that it's hard to like someone who's that stupid, selfish, and mannipulative (yes, manipulative--Annie "totally" leeched Lindsey off on Laurie by extorting the possibility that she would tell Brad Tramer (or however you say his name, the no actor part, who gets killed in part 2..guess that solved that anyway) that Laurie wouldn't go to the dance with him). And Lynda's dialogue? One too many beers? It kills brain cells, so they say. ;)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I'd so no. Because I wasn't mocking, just arguing for argument's sake.

OH YEAH, I remember her now. She wanted Dawn.

Tina's scarier? I don't know. It would be scarier for Rod, definitely. But what is every poor adolescent boy supposed to think when Glenn, who's staying up late to watch the "Miss Nude Pageant" gets sucked into his bed, which then spews his blood (and possibly let's him create more blood to spew that) all over the ceiling? Come on, every adolescent boy that saw that scene said, "nope, no more masturbation for me". Seriously, what do you think Glenn was planning on doing when he watched that pageant? I mean, Nancy wasn't giving it up.

See, I haven't commented about Lynda or Annie in a negative light in this post. Totally,  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall Glory other than her motives. It was a part of the season I only caught bits of. Most of the Dawn storyline I missed (stupid reruns). I literally came in going, "who the hell is that, and why do people think she is Buffy's sister?" This one, "I just noticed something; you have superpowers. That is so cool. Can you fly?--made me think of Smallville. When Chloe is bitten by the Kryptonian parasite, and Pete gives Clark some Red K. Clark is showing her his powers, and she's like, "Cool, can you fly?"..and Clark says, "I may be an alien, but I'm not a cartoon." ..lol, great stuff. --"Buffy: [Describing Glory to Giles] "She was kinda like Cordelia, actually. I'm pretty sure she dyes her hair!"

I remember some of those quotes, others...not so much. They were pretty funny.

Like I said, Tina's is probably scarier, but Glenn's is scarier to the young boys who were probably going home after the movie to watch the Miss Nude Pageant.

Ben Tramer...yeah. I usually figure that stuff out, but I stopped caring after I wrote it. I'll usually sit around for a few minutes running entire movies through my head until I get to the part where they say someone's name. See, I didn't even care about him. Plus, your usage of his name made me think I guessed right the first time. Oh well. He's not real anyone, so we didn't hurt his feelings or something.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he served as an excellent distraction when he was smushed between that van and the police cruiser. ;) Night.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Your message

I was not being rude, I was in deadly earnest. If a man can get so angry over the electronic biography of a minor television character he leaves a rude and abrasive message on my talkpage and attempts to threaten me with an FAR in an edit summary, he needs more inner serenity. I hope in the future he gets it because having that kind of fury simmering within is not healthy. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't accept that was rude, I was wishing him well with his spiritual development. I've added his name to a few prayer request sites, hopefully God will help him more then I apparently can without being called rude. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Van De Kamp has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Always listening.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No Future For You, Part 4

You seen this cover yet?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but without context it's just sexy chicks getting their strangle on. Wonder if this means a typical Buffy/Faith catfight or maybe Vaughan will wanna do something shocking.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I tell my friends Buffy news, they just give me an exasperated sigh.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I was totally unaware it involved time travel. I just thought it was Faith vs a rogue Slayer and there'd be parallels between her and Faith, and I expected Faith to take on Buffy's role as "the good Slayer" in their smackdown.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

1955, wow. You know, if Faith sells well, then maybe Vaughan will get to write his own spin-off series about Faith and her own supporting cast... kind of like how Justice League and Avengers have a million spin-off titles.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

X-Men is the best example, what with "Uncanny", "Essential", "X-Treme", "Adjectiveless X-Men" (love that), X-Factor, New X-Men, Exiles, Excalibur... good god - but Marvel's universe is much more expansive than Buffy's. ANYWAY! Faith's supporting cast should be Robin (the Gunn/Giles of the team), Andrew (the Xander/Fred) and then all the rest should be newish characters, maybe even a token hideous demon (Urkonn/Lorne/Clem style). I was also thinking the other day of how awesome an Andrew one-shot would be, dealing with his relationship with his brother, his feelings of uselessness and then maybe the discovery of his own self-worth... maybe he could even summon a demon or two. And, of course, I'd like a one-panel deadpan scene where Andrew says he's gay in a hilarious way, something like "Sorry to go all Willow on you..." maybe. I actually think he has a lot of potential as a character.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea for Ripper in my head is two stories, one with older Giles in Oxford or somewhere feeling useless, and lonely, then discovering some demonic plot and putting together old (pre-Scooby) friends and being useful again. The whole way through (perhaps moreso, in a How I Met Your Mother way) are flashbacks with Young Giles, Young Ethan and the bad crowd ("Philip Henry, Dierdre Page, Thomas Sutcliff, and Randal"), and it should show Giles' gradual abandonment of dark magic as he is swayed by some tragedy involving vampires to join the Watchers' Council. I would love for it to reaaallly deeply expand on Giles youth, so that when you see him in Buffy, it really comes across how much of a closed book he is. And all the young cast should be sexy as hell. I'm not too fussed if any American actors are in it — they'll blow the BBC's shallow budget out of the water. I just hope they get better casting people than Torchwood used.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I like that Angel and Darla have mostly lost their accents. It's unreasonable to imagine Spike and Dru would still be even vaguely British. Heh. I love the original Fang Gang, I'd read a whole series of Darla/Angel/Dru/Spike stories.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Just thought of a weird question. If Dark Horse were to publish Buffyverse What If...?/Elseworlds stories, say "What if Drusilla had been called as the Slayer" or "What if Connor was the Key?", would you buy them or dismiss them as moneygrabbing? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Ooh, I just had a weird Ripper thought. One of his old lady friends should have this delinquent unseen granddaughter who we just hear is incredibly violent, a tearaway etc. but in the end we see her like, save Giles and the others from a vampire and you realise she's a Slayer, and it should end with Giles taking her under his wing, all warm-and-fuzzy-like.18:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Full-time Puppet Spike? Was there ever a Gay Xander (there was "suave Xander" and "military Xander".) Two Willows? Why not Tara from the world-without-shrimp? I like Vampire Willow, she's her own character. Puppet Spike would only work full time if they tied Smile Time into proper Buffy mythology by connecting it to the Demon-hunting Puppet in Buffy season one.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Oh, I misread Vamp Buffy as "Vamp Willow", heh.18:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That does sound kinda cool. Would you like them to put Hellboy into Buffy continuity and transform Dark Horse into a big publisher like Marvel, with a huge Buffy universe, or would you rather Mutant Enemy became the publisher (hah) or would you rather Buffy didn't stretch out in the way DC and Marvel have done?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good, good. But would you like to see a mass proliferation of Buffyverse titles? Buffy Exiles, Buffy Outsiders, Buffy Shadowpact kinda thing? Or would you rather just something like Angel, Buffy, Fray and the occasional one shot or mini-series?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No Andrew movie? As for your Exiles team, I dreamed up an alternate Scooby team a few years back which I was gonna write a fanfic about. Basically, kinda lame, it was all their morally ambiguous near-parallels. So like, Faith and Amy and Andrew... and Harmony, and Halle, etc. but I couldn't think of a good reason why they should be together, only that the team up was made of win. I suppose in an AU, you could establish they are the Scoobies, but it would involve too much irritating crossoverness. I suppose with an Exiles style team, they could just drop in on a world like this. The Buffyverse is so ripe with storytelling possibilities, just Joss teases by keeping it slow. I'd love if Gail Simone and Brian K. Vaughan and Paul Lynch and some others got to write their very own "canon" series... If Joss is god, then Gail Simone is like... a goddess, btw. Read any of her Birds of Prey stuff...~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Bits. I'm tempted to get a TPB (but ah! which one?) but at the moment I'm busy trying to read Stranger in a Strange Land, Nineteen Eighty-Four, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man and I've just bought Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit, A Clockwork Orange (orange-obsessed much?) and The Interpretation of Murder. I also wanna buy this Fritz Klein sexology book, but it's non fiction. On top of that, in the last couple months I've got into Birds of Prey (which is OMGness good), Countdown, Season Eight, Shadow Puppets, Justice Society of America, just read Fray AND last week I bought Gen¹³ cos it featured a teenage Midnighter and Apollo as well as being written by Gail Simone. But yeah, I'm gonna get into Runaways! Apart from reading the occasional Marvel comic like World War Hulk stuff and Avengers: The Initiative, I'm not hugely vested in it (post-Civil War, eek) even though like every 90s kid, you can expect me to know most of the characters (heh). But, yeah. Will do. Joss and BK swapped books, oddly.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read the last 3-issues of She-Hulk. I liked Jennifer vs. the Leader, but they lost me with Duckworld. Although Ducktor Strange is my new hero.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is the better OTP: Wiccan/Hulkling or Karolina/Nico/Xavin? Would you like to see Wiccan cheat with Anole? Heh. There's also this seried called "Little Marvels" or something, which features Power Pack and is a huge Marvel parody, even having a "Civil Wards" event parody. I think they even did a Planet Hulk/Illuminati one. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would buy a future setting / AU story where Wiccan is Sorcerer Supreme.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your idea for Young Avengers is basically what Justice Society is now. Basically Justice Society are originally these World War II heroes but they train on the next generation of young heroes. It's like Old Timey Justice League + Teen Titans. Quite cool, actually. It's like, an extended family. Normally the gay Obsidian is in it a lot, but this year he's had no lines / action, just a security guard role. But, the totally cool schizophrenic Starman makes up for it.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC) OMG: Jack, Martha, Ianto and even Gwen look really hot in the new promo picture.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I like Tosh more than I like Jack! Lol. But yeah, Jack is prettier... so is Gwen (with her mouth closed). Owen is just fugly.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Jack in Doctor Who is fantastic. Tosh is just cool, I loved her in Countrycide and Captain Jack Harkness. Too bad Tosh/Anyone good looking isn't gonna happen :(. Unless... Tosh/Martha (hah)... nah, no such luck.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Abaddon was so the wrong direction. I would rather he was a minion of Bilis, and I'd have liked the suggestion Bilis was behind all sorts of stuff for the whole year. I'm a sucker for the Big Bad format.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

BKV discusses Buffy Season Eight: Twilight and (lol) Faith the Slayer Slayer~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is looking very good, btw. The only thing I can think of is altering some of the sections from a list of quotes into a comprehensive summary, perhaps with little quote boxes, but I can see that's where your headed anyway. :D ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I really need a clever Whovian-obsessive type with all the DVDs and who has watched all the commentaries to add a thing or two to the Jack episodes, but I don't know if such a person will see the article and be motivated to improve it.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've watched all those. They're mostly "look how cool the monster this week is" and "our director/writer this week is like, the bestest ever, not just BBC budget", with very little discussion of the characters. Doctor Who Confidential does do a lot more of the "Jack's back, here's why he's cool" and retrospectives on the Master, etc. but it's largely the same.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't seen it. Sexual orientation IS a big part of Jack, but I see your point. Is someone's sexuality part of their personality, though? And would powers and abilities constitute an element of characterization? The FA Superman has a separate powers section, which I think means that (for some articles) the "powers" of a character is in some way one of their most defining characteristics, although perhaps not Jack. Anyway, what are your thoughts...~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the powers stuff is IU. But Jack's orientation is under characterization, just since it takes up disproportionate room, it has a subsection.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article

• Hello, Paul730, you may remember me. We've discussed the Spike (Buffyverse) article, the Angel (Buffyverse) article, as well as the Willow Rosenberg article before. I've recently talked with User:Bignole on the topic of what more to improve on with the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article before nominating it for Good Article (GA) status or Featured Article (FA) status, and one of his suggestions was that you may be able to help with summarizing this article's plot. And you may be able to help with some other aspects of this article that need improvement. For more of what was discussed on this matter, you can click on this link to my talk page, of course.

Also, I'll completely understand if you're too busy with the Buffy Summers article to assist with the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article at this time. But I just wanted to ask, regardless. Flyer22 03:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is my trim job of the plot section of Bianca and Maggie. It isn't in the article, I just implimented it to show what it could look like. What do you think?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's all good. I don't know what Flyer22 thinks, they've been offline for awhile. The biggest issue I see with the page, is the copyediting. It seriously needs someone proficient in c/e to go through that entire page. I found a run-on sentence at the bottom of thep age that goes on for like 5 lines. The other big problem is plagarizing. I don't think it was the uploaders intention, but there is far too many instances of text that either is identical to the source material without quote marks, or it's so damn close that it should have been in quote marks regardless. Also, the "Cultural impact" section is filled is characterization information, so that will have to be reworked. It's a good article, it's just needs cleaning.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Yeah, I like your trimmed version of this plot, Bignole, and I went ahead and used that version, of course. Though I left one of the images within it. And, definitely, I wasn't going for plagiarism of any of the quotes within this article without quote marks. I mean, most of the quoting within this article...I didn't copy it word-for-word, but some of it, the instances you witnessed, I only slightly re-worded. And, of course, I understand that those instances weren't re-worded too distinct from what was originally said, and I, of course, understand your concerns on that matter, and I will certainly address any other instances such as those within this article in a way to fix them. Flyer22 08:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Smile

 BIGNOLE  (Contact me) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

5 by 5

Yeah, I saw you created that sandbox. The television appearance section looks good. Couple things. "season's penultimate episode", I'd probably just say "the season three finale". It's just simpler to read..lol. "...where Angel visits her the next season." -- I'd drop the "the next season". It isn't necessary. I'm sure in the fictional land he visited her more than we saw. "Faith battles Angelus and finds a way to incapacitate him without killing him by injecting herself with a mystical drug and feeding herself to him." -- to "Faith injects herself with a mystical drug and feeds herself to Angelus in order to incapacitate him."----- "she finally reconciles with Buffy", "finally" isn't necessary. It looks real good. Is it wrong that we get enjoyment over the fact that we know many people are going to be mad because we are cleaning up the article? Anyway, no one has commented, besides you, on the Andrew FAR. If they don't comment within another week and a half, then I would have to assume Raul will put the process into the second phase and an actual vote will take place over that article's status. Anyway, come review the Pilot (Smallville) article. I put it up for FA status. If you review it, just know, I cannot change the fact that it's Superman. I know how you feel about DC, but I'm sorry, it's the one thing I'm dead set against changing. lol. ;)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"Rendered" was a far better word.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

Sorry this took so long, I live in stupid Florida, and I lost power right when I was typing up my response (which was right after you messaged me). What I was saying, I've seen people say that it is the title of the season, so you should capitalize it. I guess if you want to write out "Five" is your choice in this instance, since you are not speaking of an actual 5 seasons, but really the 5th season. Either way, it isn't major and I'm sure someone will correct it if it's wrong. I was surprised I didn't get any props for the "5 x 5" title. lol.

Love Shaun of the Dead (I like British humor...big Monty Python fan). Hot Fuzz was hilarious. I showed my g/f Shaun just before we went to go see Hot Fuzz, to let her see what type of humor should be be in for...then Fuzz was completely different. It was like "true" British humor in the first 20 minutes, then it was more Americanized humor for the rest of it. I mean, it was less of the subtle humor that was in the first film...plus you had to know zombie films before hand to get some of the jokes ("We're coming to get you Barbara!"...LOL), and action movies are more mainstream than Zombie flicks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Change "Date" to "Year" in the template, it will work the same. If there isn't an actual month listed (which would be on the same page as the ISBN number and the publisher), then that's fine. Generally it'll be the only date on the page. If you are using a book, you put the author of the book. There is usually an "authorlink" section right after "Last...First", but Peter Bracke doesn't have a page so I removed an irrelevant section. Check to see if your author has a page. If they do, then put "|authorlink=|" right after "First=". It will link to that appropriate page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You're all taken care of. I put them in..and they all have articles, so that's a plus when I linked them. I'm off to bed. Here's to hoping the power doesn't go out while I sleep. Not like I have work on Sundays, but...I'm just too lazy to want to have to boot the computer up. Keep the "Faith".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

I couldn't go to bed without a link: -->"Padawan"  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The second would be fine, if there is a reason to justify it. Fansites are tricky. There has to be good reason to include them. Like, I'll include Kryptonsite because it has been mentioned in secondary sources, but mainly because the studio has actually had Craig Byrne (the webmaster) writing three of their official companion novels, so he has ties to the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Does she have a Wikia article?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Kind of part of WP:EL and I believe WP:NOT#LINK. I was seeing flak for having a Wikia link, but I'll fight that one to death. We cannot tell people "if it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, then transwiki it" and then follow that up with "but don't link to the other Wiki". As for Wikia pages, you can have one for whatever you want. I don't know who that character is, if she doesn't have a Wikipedia article, then wherever you see her name you can link here via a Johnny Appleseed type of link. Notice how the blue is not as dark as an internal link.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's up to you, I'm really not up on the Wikia realm. I rarely go over there, and when I do I just sit and go "omg?" (tilting my head). Though, I did notice the two Wikias for Buffy, and the hot image of Gellar on her personal Wikia page. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The first one, she looks beautiful, like uncanny gorgeous kind. The second she looks mature, respectable, but still with a hint of "pretty". But you missed what I said. I said that her personal Wikia looks hot. As in this image. This is the "OMG" hot. I don't think I've ever seen her not look good. Even when she's supposed to look bad, she still looks bad in a kind of hot way. The early seasons are less so, probably because she was younger. As she matured she's gotten better looking. It's like Kristen Kreuk, she got better looking as Smallville continued, but it may be more of the "putting her in less children's clothing and more adult clothing".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

LMAO. Well, I always thought she was hot, I just think that picture is "OMG" hot. Cordelia? Not my type, especially after the faux boobage she had done later. I hate that. The Charmed women can always look good, but I don't see them as "hot".

Actually, I didn't get your last one... So, to respond. I respect the concept of them as well, but when you go to the Smallville Wikia and look at the episodes, it's just like "dear lord that's a long plot". I just don't particularly care to edit there, just because .... I like it here better. :)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

At the beginning of Angel, she wasn't fat, but her boobs were awfully bigger. Look at her in early Buffy episodes, and then compare her later on. Plus, when you get fat your boobs don't tend to get bigger AND perkier. Though, her fatness tended to coincide with her fictional pregnancy, and then departure from the show. That made me assume that she really did give birth, and that her departure was orchestrated so that she could spend time with her baby. Look at her when she returns at the end of the series...she's thinner again. It could have been make-up, but she looked like she had real pregnancy weight. Since she gave birth around 2004, according to her wiki page, that would be about the time she left Angel. Oh, and to answer your first question, I don't have a "TOP" person. I've always thought LeeLee Sobieski was pretty hot, too. I had an ex who looked a lot like her. But I don't really have a "top" person. You? (of course I mean your "top" guy person).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Break

Notable by association? You might as well jump on the bandwagon of "episodes are notable because they are episodes and so there should be an article for every episode of every show". I think you mean this page, and while Wiki isn't a paper encyclopedia and there is the idea that "there is no limit to what we can cover", there is the issue of notability, verifiability, original research, and reliable sources. Also, Wiki isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, which is on the same page as "wiki is not paper". The key is, Wikipedia is about quality, not quantity. Thus, those characters have not only not asserted any notability as to why they should have their own article in an encyclopedia, but quality wise they are in the pits. The information I have on the main page outweighs, encyclopedically, everything on those individual pages. That says to me that they are probably best listed on the main page, a "list of" page, and/or a Wikia. I have no intention of going over to those other articles. My bias is for Smallville, I want to create the most well rounded set of articles possible. If that means some have to be merged, or deleted, because they don't fit the guidelines and policies, then so be it. There are plenty of other locations to put the information, like a Wikia page. Chances are, it is already on a Wikia page. If you compare those character articles to their Wikia counterparts, the only difference is the size of the article. The Wikia's go into even further depth about the fictional life. On a kinder note, Jackman is a fairly attractive man. I think Tom Welling has gotten more attractive over the years. (Takes a man sure of his sexuality to say that). There are plenty of men I think are rather handsome, but that tends to lean more in the "man, I wish I looked like that", and less in the "man I wish I could hit that" fence...lol. That's funny you should mention that thing about the eyeliner, I've a stickler for eyes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not every article can be FA, but every article should strive to be FA quality. Also, since this isn't a paper encyclopedia, there is nothing that says, if the information comes along, an article cannot be recreated (or unredirected if that's the case). The great thing about not being a paper encyclopedia is that, if the article doesn't meet the criteria, it can be deleted on a whim (ok, the point is coming so stay with me, I know that first part isn't the "great" that I'm referring to), but in the converse, if the information becomes available, or is found, the article can be created again just as easily. There isn't a publication date that we have to wait for, like a paper encyclopedia. Since we strive for quality over quantity, and we're online, we don't have to rush. That's why the rule has always been, with regards to fictional topics, start with the most basic concept, develop that, then split to the next level, then the next, then the next. These articles were created because the characters didn't already exist, and people jumped the gun creating them. It's the exact same principle behind why we have thousands of television episode articles, 90%+ of them are probably the epitome of what an article should not be. Like I said on the merge discussion, I'm all for great articles, no matter the size. If those articles can be cleaned and OOU info found for them that asserts why they warrant separate discussion from the main page, or one of the other pages, that's awesome. It makes my job easier. I even said that I had no intention of even calling for a "close merger" for at least a month. If the articles cannot even get started by then, I don't see why there should be any more opposition to the merge. There's a bit of information in the companion books that I could use for Lionel and Chloe, maybe Whitney (season 4 isn't out yet, so Teague is S.O.L.), but they wouldn't assert notability. Since those articles are not high on my to-do list, and no one else seems to be working on them, I find that they are probably better left in a large topic, where there is OOU info about them, until someone can work on them in a sandbox and get them ready for the mainspace. Main character, or minor character, everyone has to meet notability guidelines. To do that, you need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I think his hair has gotten better. I hated Season 1 and 2. The beginning of 3 was good, and the way it was in the season 4 premiere. Sometimes they let it go and he ends up with a mullet. I wouldn't wish a mullet on anyone, not even females (speaking of which, I'm not a fan of bangs on women. Just looks weird. It's like your mother cut your hair and got scarred after the front and just left the rest the way it was).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that whole "cross cultures" thing. Hey, that Hayden Panettiere is a hot one, and I can say that now, because she just became legal..lol. But that character article, yeah, that looks like a Wikia page. The entire thing is a biography. Sound fair? I'm in the mind of, not assertion of notability, then it should be merged to a larger topic regardless. I don't know what secondary sources you could find that would show Xander's impact in the culture. But, like I said, I'm not going to go over to the Buffyverse character pages and start tagging them for merger. LOL, do I look nuts? You Buffyverse people would tear me to shreds. lol. I'd never hear the end of it. However you want or plan to clean up or leave those articles is fine. The Smallville ones aren't high on my list, so that means anyone else is even further away. I still have to worry about finishing Mikey, then picking up Fred. I trust your judgement in cleaning up those articles though. You've done good work with Buffy, and I'm sure you'll do good work with Faith. An article that's troubling me is that Bianca article. It's so...cluttered. There are all those "the fans think, the fans did this, the fans protested this" talk in the article that it's hard to see past that one thing and help the article in general. There is also a lack of summarizing. Everything gets all this minute detail. It's really wordy. I a having that if that article was trimmed everywhere, and reorganized to have less of those 1 paragraph subsections, that it would be at least half the size it is now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I told Flyer22 that there would be instances when it would be acceptable to actually say "the fans", but a lot of the it seems like it was "fan action" that caused something. It would must simply to just say something happened because of criticism against/for or whatever. Yeah, I've found things like that, or weasel words. Sentences that have words like "overwhelmingly". It needs a serious copy editor, and I told Flyer22 to contact the League of Copyeditors for help on that. It's just so hard. It seems like everything is working backwards, just to find a way to go forwards. This is what I find hard so many times with articles is that, if you come in late, it's so much hard to fix things then if you are there from the beginning. For instances, it took me forever to do Jason, and it will probably take me awhile to clean up Michael. But, Spider-Man 3 and The Dark Knight (film) were films that a bunch of us managed to snatch up really early in the development and clean them up and keep them clean as the production progressed, one is still in that phase. It's so much easier to keep things stable, then to stabilize them after they've already rolled over.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We cannot play favorites here. We cannot delete new articles because of these same reasons, but allow others simply because fans want to see the page. We have a Wikia article on these characters, and the main article discusses them in an almost entire OOU manner. Main characters do not require their own articles. We would be playing into the hands of IU favoritism. If you cannot find OOU information on a character, why should it have its own article? It turns into what Michael Myers is now, but on a far lesser scale (since we know Myers has been covered in secondary sources away from the source material). Wiki is about quality, not quantity. It's the exact reasoning behind episode articles. Someone likes the episode, so they think it should be separate. But all information is guarded by verifiability, and no original research. Are they noted for being in the show by more than just the fans that watch the series? A show may be notable, but that same thing that makes the show notable doesn't trickle down to its individual parts. Does that mean that if they've used the same Best Boy on the show for every season that he should have his/her own article? I didn't say the articles have to be FA quality, but they have to be more than they are now, and if they cannot get that way soon then they should be merged to a larger article until the time comes that they can warrant separate mention. The only reason these characters have their own articles is because they were not characters in the original comics. Should comic book Buffy have her own article because she's in a comic? Or should we have Jason Voorhees (DC Comics), since he has a comic history? The comic characters are still part of their counterparts, just a different medium. Chloe, Lionel, Jason, Whitney...they are merely part of the larger entity, Smallville, and haven't shown through reliable sources that their appear has impacted anything other than the fictional world of their show. Do we know if fans only watch the show because of these characters? The same for Buffy. We don't know that, and that is why they should be merged to a larger article, until the time that they can show that the impact of their existence stretches beyond their primary source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't calling you a IU pusher. You didn't create those Smallville articles, and I'm sure you didn't create those Buffy articles. The only thing that can be covered with primary sources are cold hard facts. Characteristic sections cannot be covered via an episode source. An interview with the creators, or actors, which are primary, would cover that. But if the only source is the episodes they were in, then it won't fit notability, and you run the risk of original research. Because I've read things that were like, "John Doe is really narcistic, as seen in episode X, where he does blah blah blah". That's still original research, even when you show "proof" of what you are you saying (universe you, not you [Paul] you). As for fan magazines, I'd say no. Because it would be like fans of the show voting on an episode. It wasn't a group of professional critiques actually giving out an award. In this instance you brought up, who is the episode competing with? Most likely other episodes in the series. That's like saying the 21 year old version of myself is the best version.

The comic character article thing was an analogy. I'm saying that these articles were specifically created because there wasn't already an article on the comic character...since one didn't exist. The point was, that isn't a reason to create an article on a fictional character. That's like creating an article on a person who goes to a very notable high school. They were there for 4 straight years, they made honor roll, and were the class president. The problem is, there is still the question of "why should they have their own article in an encyclopedia?" This is the question posed to these Smallville characters. Why should they get their own article? Because they were important to the fictional world of that show? That doesn't say how the characters impact anything outside of the fictional realm. That isn't what an encyclopedia is. That's simple a database, like what Star Wars has. Also, the Buffy analogy isn't flawed. They are all based on the television character, even non-canon? Well, all versions of Superman are based on the comic book character. Everything has the same roots, no matter how it branches off. The fact that you said "non-canon" proves that it wasn't flawed. If there was no "non-canon" material, and everything literally was a continuation of the series, then sure, I could see a flaw. But there is non-canon material. Plus, what about the film Buffy. Wasn't she a different character? She's obviously looked over in the current article (i know she isn't in your sandbox though, so don't yell at me ;)) I'm lost on what you thought I meant about Clark Kent, and what you think now. :|  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to feel guilty about. Trust me, if you could see what I did to film articles when I first started. I was a "detail for detail" kind of guy. My first few months...hell, probably for a good long while was chok full of crap edits. No sourcing, nothing that should have stayed. I'm still learning to this day. There are always things to improve upon. I think the problem is that most of us, when we first start, don't bother to read the rules. It's always like "gotta add this, I'll read later". LOL, whatever you need to tell yourself about the film. ;) j/k. Oh, and Smallville isn't 100% reimagining. If you did 100%, nothing would be the same. ;) Gotcha. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You must have missed this edit and all the ones like it for each of those films. As for what you thought and what you think now. You were right on both accounts, but in the wrong order. The way I see it. You have to start from the beginning. In this case, we start with the series, Smallville. Let's pretend that all of the characters are completely original, and are located no where else. At this moment, no character is significant outside of this television show. They may be the main character, but when it comes to the real world they just don't exist. There is OOU information, as supplied by the cast, crew, some fan magazines ;), and other sources which are based on the primary source (in this case, the television show). When the characters are talked about, it is always in a discussion by people connected to the show, by either job or fanaticism. In other words, all of the comments about said characters are from biased eyes. That isn't to say the information is bad, just that it isn't a representative sample of what the character's true impact in the real world is. That being said, you should develop these characters on that main page, until they become too long. Then, split that information into a "List of characters" page, where you can expand on them more, without worrying about outweighing other information that doesn't pertain to the characters (in this case, production information, or ratings, etc. which are found on the show's main page). Then, what you look for are sources, which have no connection to the show, who report on these characters. Who talk about these characters impact on the genre (i.e. Buffy being a strong female protagonist, in a genre generally overrun with macho males), impact on society, and/or impact anywhere else but the fictional universe of the show. As this information will show that the character has been covered significantly in secondary, reliable sources. If that is found, then the character will warrant a separation to be on its own, regardless of its size. To explain, the first split--from the main article to the LOC article--was because too much detail information, even OOU, can become too much for one article, while the second split has not to do with the character being too large for the LOC page, but that the character has shown to have been notable in their own right away from the confines of the television show. In the case of Wolverine, he has had that coverage away from the main series, X-Men. Even if that coverage was limited to just comic book related critics, it was still people who look at all the comics, and not just one series (like how a fan magazine would name episode 34 of Buffy the best episode ever...but the catch is that it is being compared to other Buffy episodes, and not other television shows). Should their be an "alternate universe" Wolverine? No. The reason is, it's still the same character, no matter how they change the fictional biography. You've already churned out a topic that is down to the most specific it can be. Even if the alternate universe character has done things the original did not, and has been noted by even the most prestigious of newspapers for it, it still boils down to it being that one character (Wolverine in this case). It's just a different variation of him, and would not need a separate article to explain such a thing. It would just need a clarification to explain that this characteristic, or this action, or this impact on genre X was done by the version of the character in continuity Y. Now, going back to Smallville. In my eyes, and how I perceive the way article development should take place, Chloe and the gang have not shown that significant coverage (per WP:FICT) from reliable secondary sources, which would say "hey, this character is significant beyond Smallville, and needs to be mentioned separately."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Not just a trivia list, but a goofs list. How OR of me. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much work you do on the Buffy television show articles (not the characters), but you might like this for the articles. It's a Visual Effects Award for season 7. I didn't check any previous years (which would just be one previous year), but you might be able to use this. You have to scroll over them to get the winners. Buffy is "Outstanding Visual Effects in Television Series". [4]  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I'm busy cleaning up and expanding Smallville (TV series), which I think is currently better than Lost (TV series) (which is FA). Then I'll have to worry about the FAR for Andrew Van De Kamp, which no one has responded to (minus you who found more concerns) in over a week. They have less than a week, then Raul should move it to the second phase since it's clear there is no one actually concerned with fixing the article. At that point, it will be a true "delist" voting procedure.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you may want to correct any links to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Because it shares its name with the film, the correct title should have been Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series). I've fixed this, but I'm sure all the links to that need to be corrected to avoid a redirect.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I believe the more well known gets the privilege of the generic redirect (in this case, simply Buffy the Vampire Slayer), but per naming conventions it has to be specific. It mentions "most common" in there, but by the examples it lists, it seems to be either contradicting itself (like it's been changed) or meaning something else. When you have a television show and a film sharing the same name, you distinguish between the two accordingly. The way I see the "most common" thing, is if you have several television shows using the same name, like "The Apprentice", then the most common doesn't have to be distinguished. Seeing as, it's probably harder to say "this television show is more commonly known than the feature film" than it is to say "The US version of The Apprentice is more commonly known than the British version". Seeing as, it's usually the one that came first that is better known in a case like that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

On general principle, since "popularity" is so POV, if something shares the exact name then make sure it's distinguished. The second people realized Zombie's Halloween was simply "Halloween" it became Halloween (2007 film), and the obviously more well known film went from Halloween (film) to Halloween (1978 film).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

So get this. According to IESB (which isn't good enough for Wiki, but good enough for my gossiping ears), since Brandon Routh and Christian Bale are out for the new JLA movie--which is supposed to be motion capture (like the new Beowolf movie coming out--apparently WB has approached Tom Welling to take the role.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on

Chris Reeve was so perfect in the original movie. I still get chills when he contemplates revealing his identify to Lois in her apartment (right after her interview with "Superman"), and he straightens up and removes his glasses. No amount of CGI could have been done to make a transition look so perfect. Your brain knows the truth when you are seeing the two "identities" separately, but when you watch him literally go from one to the other like that, it was priceless. Routh was a joke. I have this thing where I believe they were so unimpressed with his acting ability that that is the reason he barely speaks in the movie. Plus, 75% of the dialogue was literally stolen from the fist two films, and it was really an updated version of the original. Superman comes to town, introduces himself to the world (again) by savind Lois in a falling air vehicle (same dialogue in that scene). Lex has another real estate scam. Seriously. According to IESB, from their "scoopers", JLA will be it's own continuity and WB doesn't plan to touch the Singer/Nolan films...that they will continue on their own. I wanted Tom to be Superman, because, in my opinion, he looks far more like Chris than Routh ever did (I love the two episodes they did together), but it's my opinion that for him to play Superman and Clark Kent (Smallville's) at the same time would be too confusing. You associate Clark Kent with Welling right now, and unless they end Smallville right before the JLA movie (which I hope they don't), then it's going to be bad.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Did I really write that, or did I just correct a typo? That doesn't sound like my writing, but it sounds like something I would say with my constant sarcasm, if I was making fun of the movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally don't remember that. There is so much I don't remember. Most of my earlier Wiki days are like a drunken nightmare, er...what I would assume a drunken nightmare would be like if I actually drank.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

People drink at that age here, it's just not legal until you are 21. I just don't have a taste for it. I can't stand anything that tastes like beer or liquor. Never have. My g/f (who wasn't my g/f at the time) attempted to get me drunk, and we went out and her roommate had her bartender friend make me his "special" drink (which I assume is just his personal hunch punch, but probably with better stuff since he has a bar to work with). I had two of those, plus a "sex on the beach" (they had to find things that didn't have a liquor taste, which tends to be anything with a lot of sugar in it), and some other stuff...I got nothing--much to the chagrine of them since I don't drink and they figured any small portion of something would be me plastered. I just got a headache. I tend to get headaches all the time, but for some reason, if I have anything alcoholic, I immediately get headaches. So, that doesn't help the matters any. I can usually taste it even if someone cooks with it. My g/f used cooking wine with some chicken, I could taste it...luckly it was weak enough that I could eat the chicken just fine. A co-worker brought in some Kahlúa cake, which I didn't know what that was at the time, and my buddy about bust out laughing when I stopped eating it and was like "this taste like alcohol"...then he explained to me what Kahlua was. I don't shun it or anything, it's just not for me apparently...or at least my taste buds tend to say that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL, that's hilarious. Well, my only explaination is that my father drank a lot when he was younger and while he was with my mother, and still today...so, my theory is that with his body coping with the massive amounts of alcohol he consumed, I indirectly picked up a tolerance for the most part. I have no intention of becoming drunk strictly for the feeling. I'm the kind of person that likes being in control my actions, and I don't trust anyone not to fuck with me if I pass out either...because it would be like the ultimate payback for all the crap I give them with my sarcasm.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen pictures of my friends at their colleges, passed out and people putting their asses on their face and god knows what else they did that didn't get on the camera. I just watched a video today of a girl that was passed out, so they decided to shave her head. The entire time I was thinking, "this is a lesson, because you're lucky you only lost your hair and weren't raped." Actually, that made me just think of one of exes. After we ended our relationship (I couldn't stand her deceptive behavior) I saw some images of her passed out on the floor drunk, at a frat house, and they had basically tied her to the floor. Those same, "god only knows what they may have actually done to her" thoughts were going through my mind, but the way I felt about her then, the worst thing could have happened and I would have been like "serves ya right". lol. That's horrible, I know, but that was then and I was still holding a grudge because I don't take lying kindly. Alcohol, it does wonders for people..lol. I admit though, it's funny to watch people when they get completely wasted...especially when you're the sober one, so you'll definitely remember it all.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, shaved her head...and colored on her face. I know someone that shit themselves and there wasn't any alcohol involved. Just a very memorable line, "oh god, I shit myself."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It was funny. Truly mean, and I would have killed them if they did it to me, but funny to innocent bystanders. Anyway, it was a buddy of mine. We were at a Boy Scout camp many years ago...when we were like 15 or 16. Anyway, we had just gotten finished eating breakfast and we went to the trading post to get a wheelbarrow and some shovels. I don't remember what we were doing, maybe just getting some gravel or something...I can't remember. So, he was standing there, and he had already mentioned that he had to go, but we didn't think anything of it, and I don't think he did either. He was apparently farting up a storm and had just released one (we heard it) when he immediately goes "oh god, I shit myself," and you hear this sound like when you squeeze the last bit of ketchup/mustard/whatever from a bottle. Sure enough, it comes falling out his shorts, in all it's liquidy mess. So, he left to go clean himself up and we used the shovels to scoop it up and put it in the dumpsters (thank goodness we were right there). Anyway...so it's actually a sad story, but what always made it hilarious, no matter how bad I felt repeating it, was his announcement of it just as it happens, coupled with the sound and the view of it coming out. I wasn't laughing when it happened mind you, just upon reflection afterwards.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Kind of shock, because he wasn't lying...he really had to go. Later, while cleaning it up, I was just trying to hold back the laughter thinking about what he said right before and what some dumbass said trying to make him feel better. It's the most cliched thing in the world, "happens to the best of us." ??? Stupid. No it doesn't. It happens to the unluckiest of us. Everyone gets a turn of the wheel at least once in their life. Happens to the best of us? Might as well have said "at least you didn't pee yourself too."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems ok the way it is. If they are speaking in reference to what they did when they were writing her, then it's part of the concept behind Faith. It very well may blend characterization information in with the other information. Just be careful not to repeat yourself later in the characterization section. The characterization section can be populated with information not from the writers. Something like a television critic discussing the character. I mean, Faith being the opposite of Buffy is a characterization. So, depending on how you write it would be how it is taken. Simply stating that Faith was created to be _____ is fine where it is. I would touch on things in the concept and creation section when they are things that could easily be characterization pieces. Then, in the characterization section, I would elaborate on those concepts with secondary sources discussing examples of how this is personified.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You could retitle the section "Character development". That way you can cover it all.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Character development isn't the same though. It's more general, where characterization is about personality, and things embued into that character, like strength. But it's up to you. If you can manage to keep the two as they are, and not have repetition then it won't matter what the titles are.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You call the section "character creation" or just "creation", which is how it's done for the Star Wars FAs and Jack Sparrow. Alientraveller 09:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Covers

I saw that variant on Whedonesque yesterday, I might have to collect the variants! Also, the Buffy #8 variant has Faith's knife and the regular #9 cover is hot! ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I loved Franco's issue but he had the bonus of not having to draw "the trinity" at all. Jeanty is pretty stable - he may not be able to draw Andrew, but Franco can't draw Rona anyway. Uruu's art is a little different, I hope it doesn't affect A:AtF badly. Also, random question: who do you consider to be Marvel's "trinity"; Spider-Man, Wolverine and Hulk or Spider-Man, Captain America and Wolverine? Or...~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I got Paul Lee mixed up with Uruu! Yeah I don't like Uruu so much. Lee's good. And Freddy all the way man! Would the Marvel version of the DC Trinity (discounting the Squad Supreme) be Sentry (hate), Thor and who else? Or maybe Ms. Marvel is the Marvel Wonder Woman?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

New Tony Head Ripper interview, the BBC needs to be okayed by Fox.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Species would be original research, though. Yeah, change the template to say "classification", then it could be more informative and we could refer to Willow/Tara/Amy as "witch" too. And Gwen Raiden as mutant. Oh wait, she's no longer got an article. :(~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Done it, anyway.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as we find a wording to stop run-on explanation. For example, would you write 'Extradimensional "key" in human form, later giant' or classify her by her role in the majority of the series - simply human?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Slashes are so messy. With Lorne, just put demon. Morality is irrelevant to species (a gender, race and sexual orientation analogy from our pal Joss), that's the whole point. Doyle, put "Half demon", ditto Connor. Cordelia is "part demon". Jonathan is referred to as a sorcerer in series too, right? If we can classify characters by role, can Andrew be put down as "Demon summoner", and Giles as "Watcher"? Ethan as sorcerer? Maybe we can delete the field entirely, and place the explanation in the powers secion. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Cordelia and Jasmine, on a level. And Connor, too, sorta. Ex- is too informal. Use "former".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Demon genetics

Lol, well, "half demon half human" for ones that are halfbreeds. With Connor, it's more amiguous since a vampire is a human corpse with a spiritual/metaphysical possession, and Cordelia was made "less human".

Doyle - Demon/human hybrid

Connor - Demon/human hybrid

Cordelia - Part demon, formerly human

~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. You can tell Whedon's TV shows are essentially comics made with cameras. I mean, Cordy's practically Psylocke or Donna Troy.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Xander is hot, especially when he's not Nick Brendon

Although Nick Brendon is cute. I think The Long Way Home teased the audiences with the possibility of either one, so Whedon would have time to consider what moves would or wouldn't be unpopular.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I loved Angdelia and Spuffy cos they were rather nonconventional at the time but Spuffy became such a fan thing and Spike love got thoroughly saturated across the internet/everyone I know. Angdelia was sweet, but had a fitting ending. I think Buffy and Angel should always stay unrequited true loves. I'd the idea of Angel visiting a widowed old lady Buffy before she dies and telling her he never stopped loving her or something. Bangel is sweet, I mean, Season One looked like that was the intention but they became like siblings further towards the end... however, if Xander had got hotter (costume/makeup/gym people's fault, not Nick B's) then the fans would have been all for that. I think there'd be something poetic to Buffy and Xander getting married, lovey and everything, but him always knowing he'll never be an Angel or a Spike to her.

What's really weird is that comics can introduce sexy new characters all the time. But Buffy being a TV show to start with, would fans ever accept (for example) Piers the redhaired time traveling pirate from the world without shrimp? I don't think they would. But if they did, I'd love the IMDB discussions of "who should play [these characters]" in any future Buffy films. I live in denial.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a random character, so ludicrous they could only be from a comic.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Own

Not allowing things to be mentioned simply because of canon issues. That's an ownership issue. The way I've seen it, it isn't toward any particular editor, but toward the project. I guarantee that your Buffy Summers work will cause a stir at first, at least from how you have described the practice on that page alone. The Buffy people seem to be as diehard as the Simpsons people, maybe worse. ;)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the activity state of the article. Jason was muchly unactive. The activity really hasn't changed that much. There was always passerbys who simply touched up what was already there, as they do now. Except that now it's in much better shape, and under going an FAC apparently. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's GA. Anyone can pass an article that is nominated into GA status, except those that worked on it significantly. FA is a completely different matter, because it's a wide spread discussion and only Raul can close the discussion as "promote" or "not promoted". As for Buffy, it may be there there isn't anything to be active about. What is the activity on all the Buffy articles? You'll find out when you put the content in. If they like it, great, then you won't have to worry. If they don't, expect to be doing a lot of "Baaaa"ing, as the wolves will be coming. ;)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

His own show? I can't seem to think of how anyone would want to watch a show about Giles. I mean, he can be funny at times, but that is usually in his responses to Buffy and Willow and Xander.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the character, I just do not believe he is deserving of his own show. And you know, if he had his own show, it would be canceled faster than Emily's Reasons Why Not. LOL, just kidding. But I don't believe it would attract a viewership large enough for it to laste beyond a season.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But where will it air? If it's a Joss Whedon series it won't be on the WB, since that's now The CW (and controlled bye CBS instead of WB). He damn sure isn't going to go back to FOX, they couldn't run a successful sci-fi series if they were trying to save their lives (look what happened to Firefly). Sci-Fi channel? They just cancelled Painkiller Jane, and I don't know what the ratings are for Flash Gordon. Plus, look how long it's been since the last Buffy show. The audience has moved on to other shows. I'm sure there will be the die-hard fans, but I don't think there will be too many advertisers running to get their stuff on that show (and that is what keeps a show running).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It may fair better over there because it is a different system.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Michelle Trachtenberg (sp) supposed to be in it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Angel (Buffyverse)

Excellent. That may come off as sarcastic, but I'm totally with you on the reworkings of these articles. They are not as encyclopedic as they should be, which I've tried to implement in some ways here and there. I'll help where I can, and don't be shy to call on me. Kusonaga 08:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, it's nice you keep coming on with those character articles. Maybe you should concentrate on just one: I suggest finishing off Buffy. I'll definitely review it for GA for you once you're done, unless Bignole beats me there. Alientraveller 19:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Halloween

Oh, so you're a big fan of the series? I get it: evil incarnate. When it comes to horror I'm always more interested with a macabre style than something designed to make you feel awful. I love all those old Universal movies with Lugosi and Karloff. Alientraveller 16:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I don't like gory stuff: I found my thrills in thrillers rather than horror. I thought you would have liked Frankenstein/Bride of... I thought you would have recognized the subtext in the latter one particularly. Alientraveller 17:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankenstein is one of the most moving books I've ever read: by contrast, Dracula started off great and then fell apart. You need to see Bride of Frankenstein then. It's one of the best black comedies ever made. You read me: I wouldn't class it as horror. Anyway, I'm hoping for I Am Legend and Sweeney Todd to be great horror flicks. Alientraveller 17:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely, that's part of why I love it, and it's not too long. It's so ahead of its time, and it's so satirical: the Monster knocks down a statue of a bishop, and Dr Pretorius laughs drunkly at a skull. The mood is so macabre and camp, and it has a very amusing subtext, especially since James Whale was gay. Have you seen Gods and Monsters? Alientraveller 17:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I adore Sir Ian too. So does my brother, and he's a homophobe! Alientraveller 18:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankenstein and Dracula are some of the hardest books to read; it's that old english. You get lost in the placement of words, and Mary Shelley had a real issue with wandering off on tangents of flowers and trees.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

One thing is that I'm fascinated by all these horror stories, like Jason, Freddy or Romero's living dead universe, but unfortunately I just can't watch due to their censor-baiting unpleasentness. I just like horror, as Karloff put it, as a camp fire tale, as macabre amusement, just like the old Universal films, and as Tim Burton does today (I didn't mind Sleepy Hollow). I'm just a scaredy-cat: I hate Itchy and Scratchy sometimes, but other times it's ok. Alientraveller 18:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thing is though, why must one show a zombie tearing apart and eating someone? Isn't horror better if it's implied? I'll see Halloween one day, it does seem like an okay scary flick. Alientraveller 18:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)