Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Buffyverse task force/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Title References?

A lot of the episodes have references to songs or movies in their titles, would it be worthwhile to have an index to all those references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.98.243 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

List of novels

There seems to be a lot of redundancy between List of Buffy novels, List of Angel novels, Buffy/Angel novels and List of Buffyverse novels. Is there any reason why they can't just all be collapsed into the latter? -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Do it. Majin Gojira (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, they should probably be listed in the order they were released, not their chronological place in the timeline, to avoid violating WP:IN-U and WP:NOR.  Paul  730 02:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [1] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)

There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Template

I'd like to add Lindsey McDonald back to the template, because I don't really understand why he isn't on it. He appeared in 3 of the 5 seasons and had significant emotional impact on a major character (through Darla, and his S5), and if Eve is on there, then he probably should be too. I'll be adding him in a few days if no one has any objections. --LoreleiLynn (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

FAR

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) 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.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Whedonesque.com

I could use more sets of eyes on whedonesque.com. I would like to get it to GA status despite the anti-blog perspective some editors seem to have. Can anyone else lend a hand? Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

New MOS for TV

The television community currently has an MOS guideline under proposal, and would appreciate all comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#MOS proposal in order to have the best possible guide for television related articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on fictional characters proto-guideline

Figured I'd bring this to the attention of this project, since I think it's something that affects everyone here, the setting of a baseline of notability for fictional characters: Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#RfC: Proposing WP:FICT for global acceptance. Feel free to comment. Ford MF (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

List of characters

There seems to be a tendency in Buffy articles to have completely redundant lists of characters that appear in the work in question. Lots42 (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

List of comics

Currently there are three lists of comics (Buffy comics, List of Angel comics and List of Buffyverse comics). All of them seems to be incomplete or overloaded etc. I like to collect them into one list (Buffyverse).

I have the following proposals for content and layout:

  • Detail reference for issues will be the existing TPB articles
  • Following that any information except original title, first publishing date, reprint information and TPB link will be removed. Also the TPB article will be checked for completeness
  • Issues which belongs together will be grouped in a table
  • Content marks for single issues will be removed (compressing the content list)
  • I will keep the two major section: ordered by publisher/date, ordered by Buffyverse timeline
  • The TPBs will be added also to the publisher section

Please give me some comments. If I'm approved to start these changes I will need some help when the two obsolete lists must be exchange for redirects. Gargaron (talk) 20:33, 07 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone still interested in this?

I want to help the Buffy The Vampire Slayer article get to featured-article quality again. I've been trying to find sources for a lot of the things listed in the FAR review, but it's fairly difficult finding them for a show that ended 5+ years ago, especially when using fan-sites is frowned upon. Anyone willing to give me a hand in getting this article to the quality it deserves? --Bloodloss 04:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find the fandom's still going strong. I haven't particularly looked at that article--been updating articles as the S8 and A:AtF comics come out, myself. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised a notice about the demotion of this to non-featured article status was displayed here and not one person contested it or attempted to solve the issues in the Featured Article Review. It's mainly just sources.

From the featured article review:

  • Writing - almost entire second paragraph has no source (I don't understand this. There is one source at the beginning of the second paragraph that sources everything that proceeds it. I've added some sources for the first paragraph.)
  • Music - same problem - (I've added sources for all the artists listed and the albums, though I'm not entirely sure these sources are acceptable.)
  • Format - section is completely unsourced
  • Angel - most of section is unsourced, sans first paragraph
  • Expanded universe - only one out of the four paragraphs has any sources (I've added some sources and information on an upcoming Buffy video game.)
  • Fandom and fan films - unsourced lead out to main article
  • U.S. ratings - spotty sourcing in table, all of prose is completely unsourced (Very difficult to find sources for, from what I can tell - the best I can get is from an unprofessional-looking 'fansite.')
  • Series information - main section prose unsourced and entire DVD section unsourced (I've added a lot of sources for the DVD release dates for North America and the United Kingdom, can't find sources for Portugal and Australia.)


Additionally, I'm not too sure on if places like www.buffyworld.com and www.buffyguide.com are acceptable websites to source, but in some cases it's the best I can get - would it be better to just delete parts of the article that are only able to be referenced via these sites? And I certainly hope that www.bbc.co.uk/cult/buffy is acceptable. --Bloodloss 18:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Last" appearances by ongoing characters

I'd like to start a discussion centrally (here) about the appropriateness of "last appearance" data in the infoboxes of characters who continue to appear in Angel: After the Fall and Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season 8.

Arguments For: The data is already available, referenced and keeps things up-to-date.

Arguments Against: Wikipedia is not for current events.

Options

  1. Keep updating it issue-by-issue.
  2. Keep, but leave it referencing the series.
  3. Keep, as above, but referencing the arc name (for season 8; AtF doesn't have these)
  4. Remove for non-deceased characters

What does everyone else think? Which option is preferred? Jclemens (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they're really necessary at all to be honest. The creation/debut of a character is far more significant than the latest story they appeared in, which is why first appearances are included. "Last" appearances aren't really as notable and are debatable anyway; Cordelia's last TV appearance was "You're Welcome" but she's since appeared in non-canon Angel literature. There's a tendancy to give precedence to canon material. Also, how can we be certain it's really their last appearance; even deceased characters return in fiction. That really makes it their "latest" appearance, which is just recentism.  Paul  730 18:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It should be handled case-by-case. Surely being deceased is not relevant to the last time a character has appeared (Joyce, Wesley). For the Angel characters, it's quite straightforward: last TV or appearance, or After the Fall if they're in that. For most Buffy leads, Season Eight is broken up into arcs, so it's only really important to note their introduction - noting "Chosen" was the last episode of the TV series and that there is an ongoing comic book exists in the Appearances/History section. With some however, like Giles or Faith, it may be more notable to list "No Future for You" as their most recent appearance, as they don't make a habit of appearing regularly in Season Eight. Honestly, all that's relevant to the character in a real-world, static way, is the "first" appearance - everything else goes into discussion about where the character has been taken.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Mass page moves

Hey Buffyfolks, recently, user Darknus823 started moving every single Buffy episode to a new title (his actions can be found here). He did this without any discussion, I explained the implications on his talk page about making such moves without consensus. What happens now, I don't know but I thought I'd bring it to your attention. I recommend undoing every move because someone is more likely to search for "Crush (Buffy episode)" than "Crush (Buffy the Vampire Episode)." I know these will all have redirects now but Buffy occupies a vast amount of space on the project with a lot of interconnected links and pages so this mass move that was carried out could cause a lot of disruption ——RyanLupin • (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, they should be at "Crush (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)", per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). Then, in cases where further disambiguation is needed, we can have for example "Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer character)", "Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode), "Angel (TV series)".~ZytheTalk to me! 12:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Having the full "... the Vampire Slayer" title is more appropiate, and it's not necessary to include "episode" unless there's another page with that title. For example, Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode) would be necessary because Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) links to the character page. But otherwise, "episode" isn't necessary. I support the moves.  Paul  730 13:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Character Profiles: Romantic Interests or Relationships?

We have some inconsistency between character articles. Some list "romantic interests" while others list "romantic relationships." As of now, we have:

  • Romantic Interests: Buffy Summers, Willow Rosenburg, Angel, Harmony Kendall, Jonathan Levinson, Charles Gunn.
  • Romantic Relationships: Xander Harris, Anya Jenkins, Cordelia Chase, Rupert Giles, Oz, Tara Maclay, Connor, Doyle, Winifred Burkle, Lorne, Darla.
  • Other/mix/both: Spike, Joyce Summers, Andrew Wells.
  • None: Dawn Summers, Riley Finn, Faith, Wesley(!), Kate Lockley, minor characters.

Overall, I'm concerned that the "romantic interests" sections tend to attract fancruft. "Interests" are vague, and often reflect subjective interpretations of single-episode events. Does anyone disagree? Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fancruft and repetitive. If it's noteable, it will already be elsewhere in the article. Lots42 (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Any relationships notable enough to be discussed in reliable sources can be covered as part of a "Characterization" section. Crufty lists of every romantic attraction a fictional character has ever expressed is hardly encylopedic and better suited for Wikia.  Paul  730 11:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
If it's part of the characterisation, or plot, it belongs in either of those sections. In all other cases, bye-bye. However, as many of these articles have yet to be re-written to conform to Writing about Fiction standards, it would be premature to excise the whole sections currently. For example, the note about Spike and Angel's possible sexual encounter would make a useful characterisation note as Joss Whedon is describing the "kinds of deviant" that Angelus and Spike embraced earlier in their fictional histories.~ZytheTalk to me! 12:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Spike said he and Angel were never intimate, except...and then he was interupted. That's a fact. Much of the romance sections I found go far, far behind this. Lots42 (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Dawn, Faith, and Wesley had their relationship sections removed by yours truly for the reasons I described above. Notice how their layout in general differs from the in-universe "Biography" sections in the other articles.  Paul  730 12:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I like the removal of fancruftiness, but the bulleted lists characteristic of the other articles are very easy to follow. I'm going to go back and look at those articles in light of that info. Jclemens (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I say leave in Romantic Interests. It allows for a broader interpretation of the facts. The nature of the relationship can be better defined in the description. When we start narrowing the scope of information too much, then we risk these pages as not being comprehensive enough. Let the reader decide, through accurate descriptions of each interest, which ones were relationships and which ones were passing fancies. As long as the description is accurate, then who are we to decide what constitutes esoterica and what does not? Blueheaven77 (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:PLOT; we aren't here to provide plot information so that the reader can make their own interpretations about it. A reader can watch the show itself to do that, or go to a Buffy website. Unless an aspect of the plot (such as a relationship) is discussed in reliable sources, it simple isn't notable enough to warrant mentioning in the article. Obviously, major relationships such as Buffy/Angel and Willow/Tara are important but they can be covered sufficiantly in a Characterization section. These kind of relationship sections are perfect for the Buffyverse Wiki but they're simply not necessary on Wikipedia.  Paul  730 18:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 529 articles are assigned to this project, of which 166, or 31.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Buffyverse participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena (talk · contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 05:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Buffyverse participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Slow Paced Edit War

I have a bunch of random Buffy and Angel episodes on my watch list and there is a slow paced edit war going on. Such as on the 'You're Welcome (Angel episode)' page, with the removing and adding and removing and etc. of the cast list. This is prevalent on many pages. Lots42 (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to start a discussion on the talk page but they refuse to participate. If they won't justify why the cast list needs to be there, then it's just vandalism in my opinion.  Paul  730 23:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't go that far, but I agree that cast lists generally do not belong. If anyone is up against 3RR and needs me to remove against-consensus cruft like that, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
If someone is refusing to discuss controversial changes then I do consider it vandalism because the manner in which they are editing is disruptive. I've taken the time to articulate my reasoning as to why the cast lists don't belong and they're not doing the same so I don't feel I'm breaking WP:3RR by reverting them.  Paul  730 00:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
BTW, you might want to read WP:3RR a bit more carefully, especially the exceptions bit. I would hate for you to get blocked for doing the right thing, but content disputes are not considered vandalism and not 3RR exempt. Jclemens (talk)

Categorycruft

I've been applying WP:CATEGORY#Guidelines to the Buffyverse characters, and keep getting reverted by an IP who has ignored warnings to date and will not discuss. I articulated my position here. Zythe has also been helping, both by providing input and pointing out where I've perhaps gone too far, but I'd invite more eyes on the topic. Spike and Angel seem to be getting the most attention. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So, by my count, the following editors have helped removed over- or inaccurate categorization:
The IP editor who has been doing this has been blocked twice for disruptive editing. However, it seems unlikely that the behavior will cease. If you are this IP editor, and would like to understand why your edits are being contested by four other editors, please post here and engage in discussion. I already posted a detailed explanation of the reasons you were being reverted on your talk page here. Jclemens (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Angel's article's title

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus Parsecboy (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


It just seems weird to me that Angel's article is at Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) when he is also the titular character of Angel - especially considering that he appeared in Angel nearly twice as many times as he appeared in Buffy. Perhaps a rename is in order? I'd recommend either a rename to Angel (Angel character) or Angel (Buffyverse) or even Angel (Whedonverse). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The article used to be titled Angel (Buffyverse) but it was changed because terms like "Buffyverse" and "Whedonverse" are informal slang created by fans and innappropiate for an encylopedia. The character was originally a Buffy character and was created for that show, so I think that's the more appropiate title. (Also, and I can't prove this, I think the general public probably know him better from Buffy than his own show.)  Paul  730 13:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there's no compelling reason to rename it. He first appeared in BtVS, and unlike Joey Tribbiani, there is no good surname to use to differentiate his article. Angel (Angel) would be silly, and Angel (character) could be a number of different folks, even though "our" Angel is likely the most well known. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
2¢... and I just dropped this on Wikipedia:Requested moves...
Angel (TV character) seems the best fit. This is the most likely search under that dab suffix, so it seems reasonable. And in all honesty, Angel (character) should be a sub-dab since the primary dab lists at least half a dozen characters. - J Greb (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Why not Angel (Angel TV series)?... he is the titular character. 70.51.9.124 (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd go with J Greb's suggestion, since it is more likely than someone searching for the current name. I'd throw the other suggested locations (assuming they don't currently have an article at them)(except for Angel (Angel)) up as redirects to the article. Further thoughts, anyone? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
We didn't title the page that because we have naming conventions for TV related articles. Article titles are not based on what "looks pretty" (unless it's an asthetic thing, but that isn't the case there). First, it's unlikely anyone is going to type in "Angel (TV character)", let alone "Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)" - not unless you've been on Wikipedia long enough to know how things are run. The most common searches will be for "Angel" and "Angelus", in which case a link to the disambiguous page is provided on those and the disambig page lists him there. Per the naming conventions:

Where an episode title is the same as a character or object from the series which has its own page, disambiguate further using the word "episode":

  • Serenity (Firefly episode)
  • Serenity (Firefly vessel)
  • Serenity (film)
That means, the order of breakdown would include the television show in the title of the page (not "TV character"). As far as why "Angel (Angel)" then wouldn't be the title, it's because Angel was a character on Buffy the Vampire Slayer long before they ever thought of giving him his own show. The fact that he had his own show is irrelevant to the fact that he started (and was well established, it wasn't like some two-bit role) on Buffy. The chronigical history (real world history) of the character says that he was a Buffy character who got a spin-off series. He wasn't an independed character that just happened to be on Buffy. There's a bit of undue weight being placed on the fact that he had his own show after the fact. If he was some insignificant role on the show, barely ever seen, maybe a little leeway on the titling, but you're disregarding years of appearances on Buffy simply because he got his own show and was more numerical appearances there - which you cannot do.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Another reason, "character" is vague. Character in what? TV Character in what show? There are other characters that go by the name "Angel", and they follow the same format - which is the TV show is used to disambiguate the page title. See Angel (Neon Genesis Evangelion) as one example.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
First, the naming convention your cite is a naming convention for episodes, not characters - there is no naming convention for characters. Second, the historical fact that Angel was on Buffy before he was on Angel is irrelevant - per WP:NAME the criterion is for recognizability, not timeline. It certainly seems that someone looking for the article on Angel would be more likely to do so based on his appearance on his own show than on Buffy's. Further, it would appear that it is not likely that someone who watched Angel only (noting that they were broadcast, at least recently on different cable networks in the U.S.) would think to look for the titular character of the show under a Buffy reference. These reasons alone argue that he should not be named after Buffy - the scale is further unbalanced by the fact that he appeared much more often on Angle than he did on Buffy. Therefore, to leave the article where it is is to give undue weight to his role on Buffy and to make it unnecessarily hard for Angel viewers to find the article. As I stated before, I really don't much care what it gets changed to - virtually any title would be better - but it would be ludicrous to leave it at its current title. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's the naming conventions for all television related articles, it's just that the majority of examples are for episodes. The specific thing that I cited actually includes process when you have a film, a ship, and an episode that have the same title. In this case, the ship would be the "character", and as such it is clearly indicated that you include the show name in the title of the article. BTW, the part in WP:NAME that you cited, that's not for articles that have to be disambiguated, it's for naming pages that don't have multiple sources (e.g. "Serenity" has multiple sources using that name (film, TV episode, a ship), whereas "Jason Voorhees" only has one source).
You cannot make an assumption that someone looking for Angel would be doing so based on his own show and not on Buffy, that is original research. You're making a blanket statement that has no facts to actually back it up. You cannot say, "he appeared more here, so that means it's more recognizable" - no, it means that he appeared more in that run. You cannot compare the popularity of his appearance on Angel to his appearance on Buffy (especially since it was that popularity on Buffy that got him his own show in the first place).
You don't care, but say things like "it's ludicrous to leave it where it is"? Riiight. Had the article been created before his show, it would have been Buffy the Vampire Slayer in the title, and it wouldn't have changed when he got his own show. You're giving precedence to his own show from our own original research that it was more recognizable than Buffy. The difference between our two arguments is that you're taking a subjective route by saying "this one is bigger than that one", while I'm taking an objective route and saying "put it in the order in which it ocurred".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
1) The section of policy I was referring was part of the blanket policy - before they got into the general/specific/disambiguation distinctions.
2) No, the naming convention you referred to isn't applicable here - look at the title of the "relevant" section - "episode articles".
3) Yes, we would have moved the article when its location became inapposite. For example, George H. W. Bush would have been under George Bush, when this article name was no longer appropriate, it was changed - regardless of the fact that he was there first. See again the policy I mentioned earlier.
4) If you want some evidence that Angel is more likely to be looked for with reference to his own T.V. show - the IMDB shows that Angel was in roughly twice as many episodes of Angel than of Buffy and a look at Angel (series) suggests that the shows were roughly equal in popularity. If you are uncomfortable with renaming it after the Angel series, though, there is always the Buffyverse title - which contrary to the above suggestion is at least widely enough respected to have its own article, several categories and templates, including a stub template, and is part of at least one species article and several character articles. Considering this widespread use, it's a hard argument that it's inappropriate for the article title - especially since such a title would fulfill the widely-used criterion required and would sidestep the Angel vs. Buffy debate. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It is relevant, as you apply the same tactics to this article (as, if you read it, there is only one object in there that is an "episode", as the other two are not, indicating that it is applied far beyond the scope of just "episodes"). Plus, we have the TV manual of style, which indicates we use the title of the show when disambiguating character articles.
Your Bush example is not the same thing. The reason for that change would be because his son (who shares the same name) came along and became notable enough for an article. Since we cannot have 2 "George Bush" articles we include their middle initials. That does not apply to Angel, as when Angel left Buffy for his own show we didn't all of a sudden develop 2 Angels, as it was the exact same character. You wouldn't just move the article because he got a new home, as you'd be falling into a bit of recentism in your strategy for naming.
You're using synthesis when you're saying "looking at the Angel article you can see the popularity was equal". First, you're making the assumption that the two shows had separate audiences, which you cannot do. Secondly, as I stated before, having more episode appearances does not mean more recognized in that setting. It would mean more appearances in that setting, but there is no evidence (at least non presented in this discussion) that suggests that more readers associate Angel with Angel, than they do with Buffy. Simply saying, "there are more episodes" is nothing but a fallacious argument that holds not statistical water. Even if we say, "ok, Angel is the most recognized setting" - then you're suggesting that we use that title, in which case the article woudl be "Angel (Angel)".
"Buffyverse" is a fan term. The fact that it is a notable fan term (and I use the term "notable" lightly, as, in case you haven't looked at that article closely, there is a serious case of suspect notability there) does not change the fact that it would be unprofessional to use it when naming articles (and why Jinx, Jude, etc. still have "Buffyverse" listed when a great many were moved to either Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Angel is beyond me).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment there appears to be undue weight given to "Buffy ..." as the "preferred title" from what I'm reading here. If everyone is just going to argue between the primacy of Buffy or Angel, then that is just ORIGINAL RESEARCH being used to bludgeon each other. Suggestion: Angel (Josh Whedon character) and be done with it. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment
evidence of "Buffyverse" in third party sources: (amazon.com - book) — this suggests Angel (Buffyverse)
how publishers handle the two series together: "Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angle" — this suggests Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel)
70.55.203.112 (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware that "Buffyverse" has been adopted by the commercial media for this franchise, but that doesn't change the fact that it is an unprofessional, fan created term that is not appropriate for naming articles in Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The standard on Wikipedia is commonly-used titles, not "professional" titles. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Everything on Wikipedia is based on professional standards. Regardless, "Buffyverse" (especially in association with Angel) would have a hard time being considered "the most commonly used" title. First, it's known primarily to die-hard fans (which isn't unusual, given the fact that they are the ones that coined it). Second, look at the root of the word ("Buffy").  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Encyclopedic quality - if you want to be professional about it, the DELETE this article as being excessively crufty, with no use in a general encyclopedia, hell both the TV series should also be deleted. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of bias, why is this RM section part of WP:Buffyverse's talk page, instead of the article talk page? This seems like a suspiciously biased place to put it. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Your first comment makes no sense. I have no idea what you are talking about and why it pertains to a discussion about article naming. To the second, this is a project page that emcompasses all Buffy related pages. As a matter of fact, this is probably less biased than had it taken place solely on the Angel article. At the same time, I hope someone notified the Angel talk page about this discussion. The ideal place to have this would be the WikiProject TV page, as it's probably the most neutral ground, but still relevant location, to have this discussion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I placed a tag on the Angel talk page, of course. I placed the debate here, as Bignole suggested, to generate a wider discussion. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Buffychron2000a

The deleted template Template:Buffychron2000a appears to be still standing on all the episode articles. Don't know why it is still standing, but perhaps someone with a bot can remove all of them (or undelete the template - who the heck is the template harming?) Johnelwayrules (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Added cultural ref. to 'Once More with Feeling'

Do people agree with this addition. I was assuming that this was a refernce to Michael flatley's 'Lord of the Dance'. Hope this doesn't class as unsourced or original research.Calindreams (talk) 11:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Two-part episode merge

Your input is requested at a two-part episode merge proposal here. Neelix (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Buffyverse_task_force/Archive_5&oldid=1036777790"