Buffyverse Wiki:Central Discussion

Edit this page
Hi all. The folks with Wikia's quality improvement group are testing a small tweak on the wiki's skin to help bring some attention to the Edit this page button. It's currently believed that the most important link on a wiki is being lost in the collection of tools on the header bar at the top of the page. I inserted some code to the css file as a test to see how this goes. If this is obtrusive or there are questions about it, please let me know. We'll be monitoring how this improves the wiki overall, and hopefully it will be for the better. Thanks! —Scott ( talk ) 21:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Canon
What do people think about including non-canon material in character biographies? Personally, I don't think we should, although I believe User:Din's Fire 997 disagrees. I don't have anything against non-canon stuff, but I don't think we include it in biographies since they often condradict the show and even each other; it can't fit together to make a coherent character history. Look at the Spike article for example, it includes info from Spike and Dru: Pretty Maids All in a Row, even though that novel blatantly contradicts the show - it's impossible for Spike to have killed Nikki Wood and Sophie Carstensen in the same continuity. It makes his biography messy. Then there's something like Queen of the Slayers, which deviates from the canon timeline by over a year. I know other wikis like Wookieepedia include expanded universe stuff, but the Star Wars EU has better continuity than the Buffy stuff as far as I know. Also, Joss Whedon has stated that he does not count any material he wasn't involved in as canon, and makes a definite distinction between that and something canon like Season Eight. Maybe we could cover non-canon stories in a separate section or in the appearances section? We shouldn't ignore them completely, especially since some non-canon stuff like Go Ask Malice feature characters in close detail. I'm just trying to rustle up some opinions so we can try and agree on some kind of policy for how to write character articles. Any thoughts? Paul730 22:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I half agree on both points. I don't think non-canon stuff should be included in the main biography, but I think it's notable under it's own heading in the article, aptly titled "Non-canon." This is the way Memory Alpha handles it and I think it works out well. —Scott ( talk ) 00:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That won't work, seeing as the truly non-canon stuff is very, very limited, unlike Star Trek, which has just as clearly defined parameters as Star Wars does. It's out-right unfair to call things non-canon without confirmation, and only... four, count 'em, four, books have been confirmed as non-canon, as far as I know. The fact is that we simply don't know where a lot of this stuff stands. However, if there is a clear, definitive reason something should be excluded from an article (i.e., Queen of the Slayers blatantly contradicting Season 8, etc.) I wouldn't object to a sub-heading of some kind. But for most stuff (Pretty Maids, Malice, Sins of the Father,) I'd say full inclusion is needed. Think of how much worse off articles like Kakistos and Faith would be without the EU sources. I don't think minor plot-holes should be reason enough to exclude a source, especially since the shows themselves aren't always water-tight about continuity. I say include everything, unless it is a major contradiction. For example, where in the show does it say that Buffy wasn't visited by Pike in season 3? Now, if Pike sowed up now and Buffy was all "I haven't seen you since Vegas," then we'd be able to exclude Sins of the Father. However, the one about Spike is much more easily solved by saying Spike lied, as vampires are wont to do. It's a foggy line, I admit, and if this wiki gets too large we will not be able to enforce it, but for now, let's rely on common sence regarding ambigious material, and only exclude on the grounds of major contridiction. Din&#39;s Fire 997 02:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Like you said, Star Was and Star Trek have better defined canons than Buffy does, that's why I think we should stick to the stuff we know is canon. Joss Whedon has indicated that anything not written by him or sanctioned by him is non-canon., and material such as the Season Eight are especially notable for being canon, which they wouldn't be all the other comics were.  The EU stuff just doesn't mesh together to form a coherent universe... it doesn't have continuity with each other nevermind the show.  The Spike condradiction cannot be solved by "Spike lied"... he says himself in School Hard that he loves to brag, why would he omit mentioning that he killed a third Slayer when it would increase his badass reputation considerably?  It's simply not canon (and I'm not dissing the book, I've heard it's one of the best Buffy books) and doesn't fit into his biography.  I'm sorry, but I'm not comfortable with the non-canon material being included in the bios, but I completely agree they should be covered in a "Expanded Universe" section.
 * A slightly more radical solution would be to have two biographies for each character. That would satisfy the people who include the EU stuff.  Think about it, we could have the canon bio on the Spike article, then create a Spike/Biography subpage for his entire biography.  Other wikis like the Marvel Database have subpages like this for quotes, appearances lists, and picture galleries and I've been thinking about suggesting a similar set up here.  We could at least try it and see how it turns out.  Paul730 12:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but I just watched School Hard yesterday. There's nothing there that openly contradicts Sophie being killed. Giles said Spike killed two Slayers "this past century." If we assume he means, in particular, the 20th century then that fits fine, since the Boxer Rebellion was in 1900. Spike himself, on the other hand only mentions that he has, in fact, killed Slayers in the past, and that one such was during the Boxer Rebellion. The next mention isn't until Season 7, at which point (as shown in the Pretty Maids article) he might of been sensering himself. (In case you haven't noticed I have spent way too much time thinking about this particular continuity problem. Meanwhile, this discussing isn't about Spike anyway, so I'll get back on point.) Yours is an interesting idea, I admit. So you're proposing having a TV/S8 bio in the main article with a For full biography, see Biography of Spike or some such? I can't say that would be intirely unacceptable. However, what about smaller articles? Kakistos for example. 90% of that article is EU. Wouldn't it just be better to have very extensive referancing? That way, if someone want's to know if info is canon or not, they can just hover their mouse over a link rather than us designing an entire double-wiki.I'd like to point out, for my own personal sake, that "The EU stuff just doesn't mesh together to form a coherent universe... it doesn't have continuity with each other nevermind the show" doesn't float with me. The show doesn't have continuity with the show, and besides, most EU sources don't contradict extablished canon. Example: I am currently reading Sins of the Father, and so far, I've found nothing that's even a minor problem. Same with all three volumes of Omnibus and Malice. In fact, I've seen sourcebooks that tie fewer canon elements together than Malice. Okay, let's say I give you Sophie. Let's slap the part about Spike killing her into "Behind the scenes." That doesn't mean we need to exclude everything. Again, I say let's only exclude that which openly contradicts. We could still, for example, include his accepting a comission from Skrymir. Uneasy about that? Okay, cut Pretty Maids altogether. But let's do this one source at a time. No blaket policies. Let's duke it out, and only those sources that fit go unmolested, and even then will be labeled.Really, all I'm asking is for each piece of EU to be judged on it's own flaws. Isn't that only fair? Din&#39;s Fire 997 17:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a great discussion :)
 * I think the issue of what's canon and what's not is covered pretty well with a quote from Joss in the link Paul posted where he literally says about Season Eight: "We could do something and for once we could make it canon." Additioanlly, Scott Allie (who served as Dark Horse editor on the comics in publication during the show's run, and continuing on into what Joss calls the canon Season Eight) further sells the point in an interview where he's asked what different between the old comics and the ones Joss is executive producing: "before it was a licensed side project to a successful TV show. Now it's the true successor of the show, the continuation of the storyline." Again implying that what came before wasn't officially a part of the storyline.
 * These facts pretty much speak for themselves regarding how the official parties view what's canon and what's not. As for how to handle it here in an encyclopedic fashion, I don't think (to follow Paul's example) two pages for Spike -- one for a canon bio, and one for an expanded universe bio -- is really needed. We should definately be including that information here, but I think the best way to handle it is by using an Expanded Universe or Non-Canon header at the bottom of the article. When you start splitting things up too much, it hurts the project as is what happened with Star Trek in my opinion. Some folks on Memory Alpha felt so strongly about it, that they actually branched off a separate wiki just for non-canon stuff. They've got over 21,000 articles, but so much of it is just repeating what's being covered on Memory Alpha which is undoubtedly the superior resource.
 * Anyway, those are my thoughts. I think we should include everything, but it's helpful to figure out how we want to present the information on the wiki. —Scott ( talk ) 17:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Scott, for reiterating that Whedon himself and other offical sources discount EU material. That the main point I've been trying to make but have got distracted by debates about specific continuity errors (which, by the way, I still dispute the Spike thing; he spends an entire episode bragging to Buffy in detail about how he killed two Slayers, and that same episode includes the dialogue, Buffy: Slayers, you killed two of them.  Spike: I did.  Nothing outright contradicting Maids I'll grant you but it makes no sense whatsoever for Spike to downplay his own Slayer-killing record when he's obviously so proud of it).  There is a clear division in the Buffyverse between canon and non-canon material, one that Whedon and other authories have pointed out, and all I want is for that division to be clearly drawn on this wiki.  Please don't think I'm prejudiced towards EU stuff, I count several non-canon stories in my own "personal" Buffy canon; Go Ask Malice, Buffy: Year One, Oz: Into the Wild, Blackout, etc are all as good as canon in my own eyes.  But they're still not canon in Joss Whedon's eyes, they're not part of the official story.
 * The problem with having only a "Non-canon" section is that it splits up the narrative of the bio too much. Having a subpage would be a better way of presenting information in the way people want it to, I'm sure Din's not the only one who counts the EU.  For characters with few appearances like Pike and Kakistos, a subpage probably wouldn't be necessary, but characters like Buffy, Faith, and Oz, where large portions of their history are canon and non-canon.  It's probably not needed, but it would be nice.  It wouldn't be a separate article exactly, just a sub-page.  When you add a forward slash to an article's title, doesn't it create a subpage rather than an actually separate page?  Hold on, I'll create Spike/Biography to see if it works.  Yes, see how "Spike" is linked at the top?  Anyway, I'll stop rambling now... Paul730 00:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, although I will concede Whedon's statement above, I will go on record saying that you have misinterpreted Scott Allie's. He could just as easily be saying "This isn't Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Viva Las Buffy or Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Notes from the Underground. This is simply Buffy the Vampire Slayer. He is, in essence, noting the removal of a colon, and that cannot be used as a source excluding EU materials. Okay, Scarecroe's idea below is a good one, but really quickly, allow me to expand on my position, and why, I think, I seem to be at cross purposes with everyone else. I first learned of the concept of 'canon' with Star Wars. Now, SW, you see, has a stacked system of canon: G-canon contains only the films by Lucas, and is absolute - if other sources contradict, G-canon wins; C-canon has most novels and comics, and includes all G-canon; S-canon is for the stuff where only SOME elements are counted, and N-canon, of course, is the stuff that doesn't count at all. I view the Buffy EU as C-canon. Whedon doesn't have to count it for it to "count." It just doesn't count (even remotely) as much. That's why I've been fighting so hard: the way I see it, just because something isn't as canon as, say, the shows, doesn't make it non-canon. Wicked Willow is non-canon, but Malice could easily be "C-canon." In short, it only becomes N-canon when Whedon himself says so. (Like when Boba Fett showed up in Episode II) Okay, rant done. In any case, before we go making templates and cutting up articles, could we at least try to tune down the use of "non-canon" as a label? "EU" works just as well most of the time. Din&#39;s Fire 997 00:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just came across another example of how to split up canon vs. non-canon and still keep everything together. Here's how the Star Wars wiki does it: starwars:Anakin_Solo. I kinda like it and it's better than splitting off and make extra articles for the same topic IMO. —Scott ( talk ) 21:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll agree that a template would work smashingly (Hitting myself in the head for not thinking of it, btw) but I would hesitate to use wording like that here. The only reason this discussion is even here is because Joss refuses to either create or allow someone else to create a standardized canon. Thus, "confirmed" cannot be used. I think that the Wook also has an "ambiguous canon" tag, in effect stating "this source isn't strictly included, but hasn't been excluded either." That I would support %110. Or even "This article/section of article covers an Expanded Universe source. The events herein do not necessarily affect the 'proper' Buffyverse."Din&#39;s Fire 997 00:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We did well to establish that official parties don't consider certains thing to be canon with the interview material linked in the discussion above. I think the conversation has moved on to how we want to present the non-canon and canon information. I'm glad you like the template, I do too. If others in the community here like it better than doing separate articles, I can go ahead and draft up a template and we can further discuss how it should be worded, etc. —Scott ( talk ) 17:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I've not been as active on this wiki lately. Anyway, I'm still reluctant to allow non-canon/expanded universe material into the biographies.  A template is a nice idea, and it works on the Star Wars wiki, but the Buffy EU is so integrated into the canonical events... the non-canon stories occur between episodes of the show.  It would be like a template every second sentence.  Also, some events are canon, but the specific details aren't.  Like, we know Kakistos killed Faith's Watcher, but the specifics of how she died as presented in Go Ask Malice aren't necessarily canon.  Similarly, we know that Buffy went to Vegas and a mental hospital before coming to Sunnydale, but the details are vague.  How would we show the difference between what is official canon and what is "filler" info coming from the EU books?  It just seems like there would be too many disclaimers "This isn't canon" breaking up the flow of the article.  It works on Star Wars because there's relatively few non-canon stories.  I'm still pushing for the sub-article format (and there could be need for a template on those, when dealing with stories that branch into a completely separate continuity like Queen of the Slayers) but there doesnt seem to be much consensus for that.  Paul730 23:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that some non canon material like long running virtual continuations should be aloud for example Watchers the Virtual Series which has been going for 5yrs (regemet) this unsigned comment was made by Regemet at 03:20, 17 July 2008


 * First of all, "Virtual Seasons", like Watchers is fanfiction, so they have no place here. As for the non-canon EU, I believe information that doesn't contradict established canon should be included as long as we don't have to resort to speculation (like "Spike lied about killing only two Slayers") to include it and, more importantly, if it fills dangling or unexplained plotlines (like the name of Faith's Watcher or the Gypsy Elder Woman) or backstories (for instance Giles' pre-Sunnydale experiences). In the case of stuff like names let's use the reference or behind the scenes section to point out the non-canonicity. I have taken the liberty of ceating a template for non-canon names, like Magda Kalderash or Diana Dormer. Let's keep non-canon disclaimers in the midst of articles for long sections of non-canon material, for example if we include stuff that explains what happened to Buffy between seasons 1 and 2 or for characters' backstory. EU stuff that is blatantly contradictory (Queen of Slayers, Wicked Willow, The Lost Slayer, etc) should be limited to the articles describing each novel.--Gonzalo84 05:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Categories for images
I noticed that User:A morris has started placing images in categories. I don't think that's really necessary, especially when the article for those subjects are already in those respective categories. Placing images in categories makes us look like an image farm, which might attract the wrong attention from copyright holders. What do other folks think? —Scott ( talk ) 16:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. Something better might be: a small representation of demons, places and members of organizations on the relevant sub-categories. A morris 17:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * One cool thing might be to have a character and demon portal. I have a gallery template on some other wikis that I could bring over here. There's a test version here if folks would like to check it out. —Scott ( talk ) 18:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Real World Categories
There are two Categories, Category:Real world categories and Category:Real world articles. Are we using these? If we are I don't think they need to be separated. A morris 01:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we really need them do we? Is there any question as to whether the Actors category contains articles about the real world? —Scott ( talk ) 07:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A morris 20:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have marked them for deletion.

Batsu
Okay, no doubt everyone knows about the Big Controversy. I'm wondering whether we should categorise Buffy under LGBT characters? Whedon has said she isn't gay, it's debatable whether she's bisexual or not... does she fit the category is what I'm asking? We have far more ambiguous characters listed under that category. I'm not too fussed either way, but I don't see how "Batsu" is any less LGBT than "Spangel". Paul730 03:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Beginner
Just curious if there is a beginners guide to editing the Buffy Wiki lying around somewhere. I used to help with WoWWiki and since I stopped playing, I still feel the itch to Wiki somewhere. Screenshots used to be something I enjoyed for WW, but still would like some input on what's needed/wanted and such. There were a lot of guidelines and rules for WW, so just checking on that here. So not so much a "this is how you wiki," which I did find (and do know how to do), but more "we are working on and want this." 07:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Formatting titles
Can we please get some consensus on formatting, at least when it comes to writing titles? As far as I am concerned, titles of television series, books, video games and comic book series/story arcs go in italics, whilst titles of individual episodes or indiidual comic book issues go in quotation marks, and yet I keep seeing episode titles being put in italics, which is not how I was taught to format titles nor is it how titles are formatted on Wikipedia.--Jayunderscorezero 17:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keeping up with the style marked by Wookiepedia, I guess individual tv episodes should go in quotations, while the rest in italics. I believed every title should go in italics, but I just noticed how they do it at the Wookie.--Gonzalo84 05:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've also put quote in italic but they would go better in quotation marks wouldn't they. Any thoughts? -- Nieve

I believe quotes used to illustrate the articles (re: those that are used with the quote template) should remain in italics so they can be different from regular text.--Gonzalo84 03:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead of arguing over what should be in italics and what not. Why dont' we keep the italics for ALL titles, but add quotes for episode titles?--Gonzalo84 22:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Or we can follow the correct rules of grammar for the English language! This is how it goes: the parent source, the one in which a work is contained and published under, goes in italics - books, albums, TV or comic book series, etc. Those works contained and published under them - short stories, poems, songs, episode titles, and comic book story arcs/titles (both episodes and arcs/titles are essentially short story-equivalents) - they go in quotations. There is no argument here. It is the proper rules of grammar. Check any list of episodes on Wikipedia and you will see that all episode titles are in quotations. kingdom2 01:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to be sarcastic. Many of the contributors, myself included, are not native english languaje writers. Besides, in my case, my confusion comes from the style used in Wookiepedia, which has a coherent, unified style and in which most comic book titles (issues and story arcs) are written in italics.--Gonzalo84 02:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kingdom2, episodes and storyarcs within a larger series should go under quotations. Series themselves should be italics.  It's the standard practice on Wikipedia, if Wookieepedia does it differently then I would disagree with their policy.  Paul730 02:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize. I was drunk when I typed that. kingdom2 22:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Character Galleries
I'm here to raise the issue of Character Galleries. Some galleries are contained within the character articles (see Leah for example), while others are separate, like Buffy Summers/Gallery. I believe we should go for the second style (separate galleries), though these should be organized to separate screenshots froms promotional photos. Recurring characters should also be granted separate galleries.--Gonzalo84 19:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Let us see… ease of having information- as well has galleries… on one page and at your finger tips, or… having an obscure image page that may or may not receive half the attention that its parent page would. Honestly, the question to be asking is: how many head shots do we really need of each character/object on their page? This isn’t a fan-made geocites page where we record all the photos ever done. It’s a collective of encyclopedic knowledge. Yes, pictures help, but moderation is key. PonyEnglish 20:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we should also keep in mind article length... an overtly long article is tiresome to see. I'm not talking about images within biographies and such sub-sections, but to the place of a Gallery sub-section, particularly in the big articles. This isn't Wikipedia. It's encyclopedic, yes, but the point of this Wiki is also to be free of the Wikipedian restrictions.--Gonzalo84 20:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I got the idea of the character galleries from the Marvel Database, another wiki which has galleries for almost every character. The way I see it, main characters like Buffy who have long articles and many images should get spin-off galleries whereas minor characters like Leah whose articles are little more than stubs, can have galleries on their actual article.  Also, I like having the gallery because there are potentally many images on this site featuring Buffy being used on other articles (like episode articles) and the gallery is a nice place to collect them all for easy access.  Paul730 21:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Tense consensus
So... Wikipedia employs "literary present", while our second role model, Wookiepedia, employs literary past. We need some consensus here cause we constantly alter article tense to what the editor belives is correct. Let the discussion begin.--Gonzalo84 18:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The concept of literary present, which is proper English grammar, is that, as fictional events are not real events, they should not be tensed as such. Past tense should only be used concerning fictional events if they are about events in the fictional timeline, i.e. "Buffy was dead, but was brought back to life." Cordelia still is a character on Buffy and Angel and that will never change. Past tense should only be used in the character biographies, as they discuss events in the fictional timeline. However, the article leads should, at all times, maintain literary present, i.e. "Oz 'is' a member...", "Cordelia 'is' a servant.." (which, by the way, is not how I think that article should open), etc. kingdom2 19:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The difference here is that Wikipedia writes from a real world perspective whereas we (and Wookieepedia) write from an in-universe perspective. With the exception of "Behind the scenes" sections and articles (which should be clearly identified as such), the majority of info on this site should be written as though the characters and situations are real.  For example, it shouldn't be "In "Prophecy Girl", Buffy fights the Master", it should be "At the end of her sophomore year, Buffy fought the Master", etc.  Mentioning episode titles in the prose takes us out of the fiction.  When writing in in-universe style, past tense is preferable IMO.  See the Buffy Summers biography, for example.  As for episode leads, it depends on the character's status.  From an in-universe perspective, Buffy is still alive and active etc so present tense is correct.  However, Kendra is dead so past tense should be used in her article.  With Cordelia, she's dead but still techincally a servant of the PTB since it's implied she continued her mission in the afterlife.  I'd vote for present tense in her article.  Paul730 19:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Paul, with one minor disagreement, that being the use of present tense of Cordi. Frankly, if we're going to play around with tense that way, we need to decide from what POINT in the in-universe timeline we write. Are we writing from "now" IU, which is to say the most recent S8 and AtF issues, "now" literally, meaning 2009, or from the most recent source in the timeline (in this case Fray)? I would vote to, once again, follow Wookiepedia and assume that all events have already occurred, and thus use past-tense across the board. At the Wook, even sweeping concepts such as The Force, Slavery, and alcohol are past-tense. Thus, if we follow them, even such "timeless" things as magic and vampires (as a species) can be clearly labeled without any mucky tense-issues. Of course, if the majority agrees with Paul, I'll be content with that. Din&#39;s Fire 997 21:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be right Din, because if we're writing everything from the perspective of current Buffy continuity, then all Fray stories would have to be handled like "Melaka Fray will become a Slayer in the future", which is just plain awkward. Past tense all round then?  Paul730 22:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is an "across the board" approach necessary? It is possible to write from more than one perspective. S8 and AtF stories are still going on and these characters are still active participants. Do you really think that we need muddle their pages by saying that they "were" something when, in the publications, they still "are" being something? Just because Fray takes place in the future it doesn't mean that the way we treat tense be dictated by that. Imagine how confusing "Time of Your Life" would be. We can tense each thing from its own perspective - Buffy and Angel from theirs and Fray from hers. The alternative seems very confusing. kingdom2 22:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree. An across the board past-tense seems way less confusing to me. Imagine Time of Your Life with mixed tense: "Buffy is then thrown foward in time where she will meet Melaka Fray. Together, the two will battle Dark Willow before Buffy will return to the present with Willow's aid. Willow then comforts Buffy, but Buffy is distressed and untrusting." When it ought to be: "Buffy was then flung toward in time, where she met Melaka Fray. Together, the two battled Dark Willow before Buffy returned to the past with the aid of Willow. Willow attempted to comfort Buffy, but Buffy had become distressed and distrusting." My vote stays full-scale past-tense. Din&#39;s Fire 997 23:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Video addition
Per the new note regarding video additions to pages, it got me to thinking not necessarily about embedding video, but rather links to episodes from a reputable/dependable source such as hulu.com. For instance on Blind Date, a link such as : Watch this episode. Just an idea. Thoughts? Hakatri 12:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Hakatri