Buffyverse Wiki:Central Discussion

Central Discussion is a spot on the wiki where the community can discuss topics that concern the whole of the wiki. Think of it as a talk page for the entire database. If you want to open up discussion about a particular article, please do so on the Talk: page for that article. Don't forget to indent and sign your posts to make discussion easier to navigate.

This Wiki is Terribly Biased

I've gone through several articles on this wiki, and I've found it to be excessively biased towards Angel and the Buffy/Angel relationship. Only two sentences were given to describe the romantic relationship between Angel and Cordelia, while Angel's cameo appearances on End of Days/Chosen merited a long paragraph. A long parenthetical section on the Angel page explains that the only reason Spike won in the battle for the Cup of Torment is because Angel wasn't trying hard (Angel explains to Gunn that the reason Spike won the because "he wanted it more," not because Angel wasn't trying.) The entire section recounding seasons 5-7, describing the romantic relationship between Buffy and Spike on the Spike page is named "Obsession with Buffy," even though that only was true for half of season 5. Buffy and Angel had other relationships besides their own, but it feels like the authors of this wiki forgot all about that.

First of all, please sign your posts. Like all wikis, this site is only as good as the people who contribute to it. The relative size of the community is much smaller than it would have been if this site had existed when the show was on. Rather than criticize, why don't you help out? The site relies on fans like you to edit and improve the site. DinoSlider 03:26, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

Can I just say that it is very frustrating when users like Eilowyn go in and edit the Wiki, only to have it changed back to the same bias text it was the day before by some users? What is even the point of putting all that time and energy into contributing to the community when it will just get changed back the next day? Eilowyn has encouraged several new people to come and try to make this wiki more neutral and honestly, being one of those people, I want nothing to do with helping anymore. I had already done a lot of ground work to help make the Angel page more neutral, time I didn't have to spend. I don't want to spend hours, as she does, editing entries, only to have some fan (who is upset and wants it to skew Bangel) come in here and passive aggressively change all her hard work. It is ridiculous. (And I am not sure how to sign it but I am user xlivvielockex)

In-Universe Perspective

One of two things that many editors tend to miss is the use of an in-universe perspective. (The other is the use of past tense.) A user recently started creating "Buffy Season ## Characters" and "Angel Season ## Characters" categories. To me, that flies in the face of trying to stay in-universe on those pages. There are plenty of pages on the site which are out-of-universe (actors, episodes, books, etc.) and rightly deserve out-of-universe categories. I think the categorization should be kept separate and my gut tells me to remove these new categories, but I wanted to know what everyone else thought. DinoSlider 14:41, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

This wiki is horrible

I really dislike this wiki. It is horribly written, messy, and needs more structure. We should take a look at the Battlestar Galactica wiki because they have it down. Each episode needs an arc significance, questions (both answered and unanswered), trivia, and other things like that. I'm really, really disappointed with how this is set-up.

Tyler Austin1118 20:05, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

Like most wikis, this site is a work in progress. If you look back through the history, it has come a long way. Wikis like Battlestar Galactica have the advantage of being current since it was created while the show was airing and had many fans to edit the site. This site was created in 2007, a good three years since Angel went off the air (four for Buffy). The only "current" fans are for the ongoing comic series. Rather than criticize, why don't you help out? The site relies on fans like you to edit and improve the site. DinoSlider 20:23, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

If I go in and re-do everything it's almost 100% positive that someone will just change it back to the way it was. It's happened before to me but a while back. Tyler Austin1118 00:14, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

The new 2012 Buffy movie

Ok hi, my name is Heather. & I absolutely love Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It is actually my favorite show of all time. Now just recently I have been hearing some talk about a "buffy remake" without any of the characters from the TV show. So, I looked a little deeper. I found this link: http://bookaholickat.posterous.com/buffy-reboot-a-new-movie-for-2011-or-2012-wt. I found comments from the cast through Twitter. & alot of them said, I would be happy to do a Buffy movie. But Joss Whedon would have to direct it. So there has to be some way that we can convince Joss to buy the copyright, & make a Buffy movie. I GUARANTEE that everyone will jump on board. Anyone up for that?

Welcome to the wiki. Please be sure to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) in the future. You can look here for some info on the new movie. DinoSlider 19:54, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

FAN FILMS

Hi all. I have just discovered some cool fan film on you tube called Angel a fresh start which is basically based after season 5/6 and shows Angel and Spike dealing with some new adventures it is good if you enjoy fan films or just anything up do with the buffyverse. That's Angel a fresh start you tube.

Fan-Made Content

Hi guys, first of all great Wiki (I only recently discovered it and I am SO EXCITED!). Secondly.... this sort of ties in with the canon discussion ya'll had earlier (which, if I may be allowed to weigh in on that, I think having a section of each page with all of the non-canon slash not-confirmed-to-be-canon info, is the easiest solution as far as readability and user-friendliness goes); my question was: is there any interest in having articles about fan-created content? For instance, fan fiction or play-by-post roleplaying games? I know there's some really, truly awful fan-written stuff out there but there's also some really good stuff. It might be neat to include that in its own category on here. :) Grahamburger 00:38, November 24, 2010 (UTC)

Faith Lehane

Hi everyone. I am not a wiki expert, so I cannot use it easily. Can anyone edit the Faith Lehane page? Someone has modified it copying and pasting from wikipedia (I guess). NIDEL 21:43, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks NIDEL 21:44, August 8, 2010 (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'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.[1], 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'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'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#Childhood_years. 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'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)

Like Star Wars, I think there is 3 (or more) different levels of cannon. Joss Includes the show, Origin (comic book), Fray, And Season 8 as the primary level of cannon. The second level is things that were licenced that don't conflict with 1st level cannon. The third, truly non cannon things are those that openly conflict with cannon (the 4 books, so far). Now Star Wars take lets their 2nd level cannon appear with their first (expanded universe). Joss however, seems to want a tighter rein on his universe. There is no expanded universe in his mind...only what he approves.

So, as far as these articles go, for main characters, you should stick with 1st level cannon only...there is already enough info in the articles. For lesser characteres that were perhaps featured in a 2nd level cannon work, you can add a section in there about it, but it MUST have one of those nifty "following section is unknown cannon" or some such infoline before it. As far as the third level (contradictory stuff). That info should only appear in the articles about that work and only in articles of characters who only appear in that work (eg. You can give Queen of the Slayers info for Janus's article as he appeared only in that book.) These, of course, need non-cannon markers as well. IthinkIwannaLeia 17:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I posted it on that talkpage too, but aren't many of the Slayers on the Slayer timeline page from non-canonical works? As such, shouldn't they be put in a different section? --Stevehim42 14:10, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

2010 Canon Discussion

The fact that people include non-canon material in character pages makes this entire site essentially unreadable. Whedon has made it clear what is and isn't canon, yet on the Angel page, a good portion of his biography includes events that never took place in canon. There's not even an indicator to mention these things are any different from the rest of the article.

The DCAU wiki handled similar situations well with a "Background Information" section that talks about stories written about the given characters which aren't "canon" to that specific continuity.BD1 06:59, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe the Canon discussion began in 2008 and is still unresolved. I am NOT saying we rule out Non-canon or ambiguous canon but we really should stick to CANON! let's just have a section titled Non/ambiguous canon, it's simple enough. saying that we should only get rid of it if the uncomfirmed canon directly contradicts canon is ridiculous reasoning, it would be like me writing something on fan fiction, making up events and listing them on buffy wiki, just casue they don't contradict the series. But if we are going to list published, non/ambiguous canon, it needs to be VERY clear they are such, i think it's time we stopped arguing and just fixed this, non-canon makes articles messy and strange to read. we have to do something, to quote Willow, "It's time we stopped talking." Millsnj09 14:30, November 24, 2010 (UTC)

• First of all, spell correctly - it makes your arguments look more respectable. "Cannon" is a type of projectile-based weapon found on ships. "Canon" alludes to Biblical canon, which means an official part of a given universe. Now that that's out of the way...
  I still contend that the use of Expanded Universe material is not only beneficial, but necessary for the wiki to flourish. Wookieepedia is the prime example - yes, the fact that a higher-order established canon exists is given token service, but the articles themselves include the widest breadth of information possible. Honestly, if you want to know the complete history of Angel or Buffy or Spike or whoever, it's really easy to just watch the shows and read the (what is it now, half-dozen or so?) canonical comics - we're not needed. Rather, we should be going for a complete collection of information - bringing in outlying sources like the novels, older comics, and any licensed source we can to create the most utter picture of the Buffyverse possible. Take Kakistos, or Beta George, or Pike - all canonical in their own right, but all vastly improved by the Expanded Universe. It doesn't make the articles unreadable, quite the opposite - it makes them more interesting, more varied. If I want to know about Darla, I can watch the episodes with Darla. But if I really want to know about her, ever bit of history, every spin by every author, that's what this wiki should be for - everything, a library for the completionist.
  What's more (despite what our rather biased canon article says) things are not so cut-and-dry. There's never been an out-right statement denouncing tie-in works in general. Sure, Joss doesn't consult them while writing, but that's just author's prerogative.
  I contend that the current status quo is best - focus on show and S8/AtF info, but include any information that does not contradict them in the article body. Anything that does overtly contradict the "Prime" canon can be placed in a "behind the scenes" heading, just like Wookieepedia. As long as everything is properly sourced (which it should be regardless of canonical standing) it shouldn't be even remotely confusing about where a piece of information stands - hover your mouse, read the source, end of story. Din's Fire 997 10:01, November 26, 2010 (UTC)
• But it's not a history about any of them, Darla, Kakistos, Pike, Beta George, you said it your self canon is an official part of a given universe, meaning that the history your reading about them that comes from Non-Canon is not officially part of the universe. You'd get the same results reading a history about each of them on Fanfiction, or hell writing it yourself. I DO NOT want to get rid of published canon but i think it should be sectioned off as non-canon, it would make the article make a lot more sense. I noticed before you were talking about the whole third slayer business that Spike alledgedly killed. that definetley should be deleted it obviously contradicts what is said in the show. And seriously "Half a dozen," cannonical comics! Plus JOSS WHEDON created this world, he has a right to do whatever he wants with it, if he says that all the chracters dropped to the floor and started having sex with eachother, that is what has happened in the universe. That is what is canon. You're damn right it's his prerogative, cause he created this universe. We need to establish CLEAR sections on what is Canon and what is NOT! anything that people are unsure of like Angel Aftermath- which i personally don't think is canon cause Joss had nothign to do with it- could be placed in amiguous or non-canon, either way works. Millsnj09 22:41, November 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Another minor thing - don't edit your posts after you've made them - it gets confusing. Moving on...
    You seem to be under the impression that I do not understand the concept of canon. This is false. I've have been in the business of editing this sort of wiki for many years now, and am quite familiar with how the rules of fictional universe crafting and publishing work, thank-you-very-much.
    Here's the issue: unlike Star Wars, Star Trek, or any number of fictional universes, the Buffyverse does not have a clear, published, publicly-available standard of canon. Joss' involvement is a good hint, but it isn't by any stretch law (take for example The Origin which Joss had no real role in, other than the initial concepts from nearly a decade prior). There are exceptions.
    What's more, even if there was a published standard (and when I say published, I'm referring to something along these lines ) it might only marginally effect our practices here. Again, I cite Wookieepedia - they actually have a similar issue. George Lucas has said outright that only the Star Wars movies count as far as he's concerned. These works comprise "George-canon," or "G-canon" for short. However, Dark Horse Comics, Lucas Books, and all of the other Star Wars contributers continue to work on a separate, much larger universe. These works have their own internal canon called "C-canon" (short for "common"). C-canon works have to obey what happens in G-canon, but not the other way around.
    In lieu of a published source saying otherwise, it is my contention (and has always been so) that this wiki should be about chronicling the Buffyverse equivalent of C-canon, regardless of any official statements on the matter. If there's a clear, unavoidable conflict between Joss' stuff (let's call it "J-canon" for the sake of discussion) and the wider Buffyverse, than sure, J-canon wins every time. But it should still be our job to chronicle as much of the Buffyverse as possible. Again, proper citation is all it takes to clear up any confusion for the reader.
    If it helps to think of it as two separate universes, fine - there's Joss' universe, which contains the shows, The Origin, Season 8, After the Fall, IDW's Spike and Illyria, and the various Tales comics. But there's also the larger Buffyverse, which contains all of that, and then some. Joss' word is still law, it's just that other voices contribute too.
    It's our job to document that larger, second universe, as it is more varied, more complex, and (by it's very nature) more in-depth than the J-canon universe alone could ever be. Why document that over a purist view? Because it needs it more.
    So that's the thing, really: Yes, Joss' word is law in the Buffyverse. Fine. This wiki, is about more than that, and rightly so. Din's Fire 997 05:13, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • I know that you know what canon is, it would have been very coincidental if you had managed to get through this discussion without knowing. You don't need to get all pompous with me: Thank-YOU-very-much. You want to talk to someone about not listening. I DO want to put all published Buffy universe stuff on wikia. I just think Canon and Non-Canon, should be separated, I know that canon in the Buffyverse can be quite complicated, but if we Just stick to what we know is canon and what has no involvement from Joss then we should be fine. Maybe instead of arguing here we should take a poll or something, take a vote on who thinks it should stay the way it is and who thinks it should change. Millsnj09 08:57, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
    • Sigh... okay, fine, I'll use YOUR teminology, if you want.
      This wiki should treat all information, "canon" or "non," equally, provided that "non-canon" stuff doesn't directly contradict "canon" stuff. They should not be seperated, as this diminishes the quality of the articles and makes them unwieldy. (please note that the above is not an admission of the canonical status of any given source).
      That being said, a vote is certainly permissible. The main issue (and the irony of this entire discussion) is that that is essentially what we're doing already. Firstly, tihs is the proper forum - voting would take place here anyway. Secondly, take a look at the recent updates page - this place is practically a graveyard in terms of day-to-day edits. To be honest, we're probably the only two people following this discussion this closely to begin with. A vote, though the correct way of doing things, would probably be a wasted effort. In order to make any sort of case for policy change, a reform movement would need much wider support than a single (or even a small handful) of users in order to be accepted. Not to mention you'd probably want at least two or three admins on board. Besides all that, it would probably be unfair to try anything of the sort without a larger discussion window.
      Tell you what - let's let the issue rest for a while. If other people want to express their opinions here, that's great, and discussion can continue. If, after say, a month (New years perhaps?) there's been no concensus, we can attempt a vote. If nothing changes at all, we let it lie. Sound fair? Din's Fire 997 10:08, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh, and no recruiting. ~_^ Din's Fire 997 10:11, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay cool, we can take a break from this. Come back next year. Oh and don't worry, i wouldn't even know how to recruit, so you can rest easy on that front. Millsnj09 22:09, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

What if we cleaned up the way facts in articles are cited? If a piece of information has a citation from a non-canonical source, it provides at least a subtle indication to the reader. If nothing else, it will help the readability of articles - even for canonical information. For example, citations could look like this:

Darla was resurrected by Wolfram and Hart. ("To Shanshu in L.A.")

It won't solve the issue of canon, but it should at least help point it out. At least it will help keep in-universe articles from sounding clunky (In episode blah, we see that ...). DinoSlider 14:33, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

2012 Canon Debate

The above is a very interesting conversation, but I don't think a formal policy was ever formulated, was it? I think it would be very beneficial to the wiki if there was a clear policy on this topic. If I might summarise the debate so far. Currently four levels of canon can be distinguished:

• Confirmed canon: TV shows, Fray, After the Fall, Season Nine, etc.
• Ambiguous canon: Spike: Shadow Puppets, Angel: Aftermath, Long Night's Journey, etc.
• Non-contradictory non-canon: Go Ask Malice, Viva Las Buffy!, etc.
• Contradictory non-canon: Queen of the Slayers, Blackout, Spike and Dru: Pretty Maids All in a Row, etc.

Currently, pages can include information from any of these sources, which may be confusing to readers, who - like Joss himself - want to know about the an absolutely official story-so-far. To amend this, several ideas have been put forth, but before we discuss that, it might be important to also distinguish between several kinds of pages.

• Single source pages: like the pages for episodes, comic book, and novels, as well as for characters, events, locations, or demons that appear in only one source.
• Multiple source pages: like the pages for recurring characters, demons, locations, etc.

Demarcation of canon in the first type of page is relatively easy: a template could be used that puts a box at the top of the page that makes note of the canonical status. The really difficult part is how to treat those pages which use information from multiple sources with different levels of canonicity. Taking the page for Kakistos as an example. This page features a biography for the character based on sources of all four levels of canonicity. Possible solutions that have previously been suggested are:

• Split description: The description (biography) section is split into two sections each dedicated to different levels of canonicity. Within this solution, there are three further versions :
  • Confirmed canon vs the rest
  • Canon vs non-canon
  • Contradictory non-canon vs the rest
• Demarcation inline: Information from all kinds of sources is included in the same description, but any paragraph describing information from any source other than confirmed canon, is preceded by a warning noting the level of canonicity of the paragraph that follows.

The same processes here could be used for other multiple source pages. I'm very curious to see what you think would work best. Before you reply though, please consider that this a hot topic where personal opinions and preferences tend to get in the way. Don't let that happen to you ;) --Paul van Gent 13:47, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

I see no compelling reason to break with the in-universe perspective to distinguish canon vs. non-canon within the main body of an article. A template at the top, proper citations in the text, and optional comments in the Behind the Scenes section should be sufficient. Canon or not, all of the material covered in this wiki should be from licensed sources. The fact that some of it has been arbitrarily "blessed" or "certified" seems like more of a footnote. It isn't like canon equals non-contradictory. DinoSlider 01:22, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DinoSlider. In-universe perspective is nice and clean, footnotes cover the bulk of the issue, and Behind the Scenes can clear up any of the complex stuff. Din's Fire 997 02:46, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Why is Spike After the Fall part of the Dubious canon articles?Darkfox666 06:12, May 20, 2012 (UTC)

As described in the canon article, Spike: After the Fall is often, but not always counted as canon (some fans only consider AAtF #1-17 as canon). As you can read, there is no 100% conclusive proof, which is why it is on the list of disputed canon works. Personally, I find the proof of its canon status to be enough, but some might disagree. --Paul van Gent 08:10, May 20, 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer to think Asylum and Shadow Puppets, as well as all of IDW's post-After the Fall works (with the exception of Fallen Angel: Reborn) as canon. It just seems to fit in so seamlessly, especially since Whedon adapted Betta George into the mainstream. Smijes08, 16:08, May 20, 2012 (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)

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

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)

• It is worth debating about, but my oppinion, No. If Buffy's tryst had been about sexuality or attraction i would probably call her Bisexual, but it wasn't it was about the fact the Satsu loved her in a way Buffy hadn't felt in a very long time. That plus the fact that she was horny lead to her sleeping with Satsu. Buffy's greatest weakness is that she sleeps with the worst person possible, NOT that Satsu is bad, i quite like her. But Satsu just happened to be this person, if she had been a guy, a guy saying he loved Buffy then the same thing would have happened. It wouldn't have mattered if they were a girl or a guy, cause it wasn't about sex or sexuality. It's open for debate. Millsnj09 20:09, October 24, 2010 (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." {{SUBST:User:Innocentlysassy/Sig1}} 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'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's Fire 997 23:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur... full-scale past tense.--Gonzalo84 21:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That makes the most sense to me. I like the idea of writing it from the perspective that it is a history that really happened, which would include eliminating mentions of episode titles (like "in Welcome To The Hellmouth we learned") using past tense, mentioning the year of anything if we know it, and refering to anything not mentioned in either show or cannon comics as "unknown" (for instance, "nothing is known of Quentien Travers' life prior to 1998). Should we edit articles to conform to these rules, or at least the past tense rule, or do we need a formal vote or more consensus first? Web wonder 17:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Past tense, yes. In-Universe POV, yes. However, there is still some rather violent debate about how to treat Expanded Universe material. The current agreement seems to be "ignore the problem and pray it goes away." So you shouldn't remove any EU material, but you're not obligated to supply it. Other than that, go ahead and reformat your heart out. Din's Fire 997 21:35, 14 March 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

The only problem with that is that Hulu only works in the United States.--Gonzalo84 21:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Unnecesary articles

Hi everyone, I'm new to this wiki. I've noticed a lot of articles that really don't need to be here. For instace, do we really need a sperate article for all the characters that appeared in The Wish? Does Wishverse!Master really need his own article? Why can’t his info just be included with The Master? It’s the exact same character, and lets face it we’re probably never going to see the Wishverse again. Having secondary articles for all the Wishverse characters seems silly to me. I think it would be much better to have a section in their main article discussing their role in the Wishverse.the previous unsigned comment was made by User:Vampire in Rug at 04:15, 9 February 2009

The point of this wiki is to be free of the "notability" guidelines of places like Wikipedia. So, to answer your question, yes, minor characters, like the Wishverse version of the Master do deserve their own article.--Gonzalo84 20:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Licensing

I've noticed this wiki lacks licensing on any of its images, which is a violation of Wikia's image policy. So I thought I should let you guys know you need to start licensing your images with an appropriate license as per the legal technicalities that come with hosting them. An example of a basic, yet appropriate license template for this wiki would be the common Non-free television screenshot so I would recommend you guys create something like this or otherwise applicable and start the licensing. If it would help, I would be able to apply the license to all pages via my bot, and if the community finds that easier than doing it manually I would be delighted to go ahead with that. Good luck with it, and leave me a message if I should do it. Cheers! ~Joey~ ^Talk^ 08:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

About that. Do we happen to have a liscense template for comicbook images? After TV shots, they are easily the most common. Din's Fire 997 18:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it, I recommend making one. Also, if they all are in a certain category I'd be able to replace the screenshot license on them with the new comic one. Thanks. ~Joey~ ^Talk^ 20:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Joey: If you have a bot that can do it automatically, then I say do it. Even if it isn't right for them all, its better than nothing. I saw how long it took to get images up to standard on other wiki's. If we let users do it manually, it will never get done. Do what you can and then we can go in and fill the holes manually. thanks. IthinkIwannaLeia^WaddaUthink? 20:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I've put all comic book covers into a single category. I think. I've been working through the various images and trying to categorize them a bit better than having them all shoved into the "Images" category, which is impossible to work through. -- sulfur 21:03, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

After The Fall

Not to twiddle my own … whatever it is you might twiddle, … but seeing as how I’ve done a lot for the Buffy Season Eight comics I was thinking about taking up the Angel ATF and Aftermath comics as well. But I’m not here to say that, no, this is a discussing page, so I was wondering: if I do put in detailed info for ATF, the page will get super long, what would the community think if I broke up ATF into their respective collections? Examples being the Buffy Season Eight Collections of The Long Way Home, and Wolves at the Gate. The snag is this, I know that the arc is called After the Fall, and I would have to break them down into their collected volumes, which, as it stands, only one volume has it’s own title, that being First Night. So, should I give the in depth treatment, if I do, should I break up the info in volume segments, what do I title these segments with no names for search purposes? PonyEnglish 01:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

So, I am to take your silence on this matter as a go ahead and do what I would like with the After the Fall page? Okay. So I’ll start doing sandbox pages for the volumes and post them as I get them done. As for the name, I’ll just have to go with After the Fall Volume 1, Volume 2, so on and so forth until they are finished. Thanks for everyone helping me make this decision, it’s been outstanding really, a little astonishing even. Right. PonyEnglish 00:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed someone with more insight would put something foward first.
I'd say do that, but keep in mind that, technically, First Night is still Volume 2. So, you'll probably want After the Fall: Volume 1, After the Fall: Volume 2: First Night and After the Fall: Volume 3, or something similar. Fortunately, there's only going to be four volumes, I believe. After that, it should revert to a normal titling pattern similar to Buffy. Din's Fire 997 03:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that we really need to change from articles based on story arc to articles on individual comics. The details should go into the individual comic articles. The Story arc articles should be limited to broad synopsis and significant events. Take a look at Wookieepedia (mother of all fan wikia) to see their treatment of Star Wars: Legacy and Knights of the Old Republic comics. It works better this way. IthinkIwannaLeia 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Who's The Creator?

Does anyone know who the creator of this site is? And how many demon spieces are meantioned throught the show? Including Angel.

Arielpen 17:00, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Quotes section in Episodes Articles

Personally, I believe there shouldn't be there. Those sections are extremely subjective because it depends on the editor's choice of what quotes are cool. I vote for complete elimination, or at least chosen quotes submitted to vote.--Gonzalo84 23:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotes are pretty standard on fan wiki's and they have worked well on others. I agree with you that is is subject to the editor's opinion. Good thing we all are editors. If you prefer one quote over another, replace it, discuss it in the talk page, or find another place where your quote fits in ithe article. If someone else doesn't like it, they acn always switch it back. If reversion wars ensue, discuss on the talk page and call for a vote. IthinkIwannaLeia 17:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Style

My bigger prorblem is with the style of these quotes. They all use the pre/code tag feature, meaning they use a monospace font (which is fine) and don't wordwrap (which is not). If you're just doing it to get boxes around them, that can easily be done with a template, or even just plain table markup. --trlkly 08:56, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I've been wondering about this for some time (sorry to revive this nearly a year later), I've tried to fix some of this and it always gets reversed. I think a solution, if the community wants a certain format, would be to use/create a type of template (at the very least, so it can word wrap). Most communities use templates on this sort of thing for the very reason templates are made: to follow a particular format. Having the quote itself in a box that visibly differs from the rest of the article and clearly separates itself from the other quotes is fine by me, in fact, I think that's a cool idea (and a good one). However, the way it's done now, as mentioned above is silly, people shouldn't have to scroll to the right to read the entire thing (if they so wish), a wiki should be easy to use for the general user (something wikia itself fails to get and implement). --Terran Officer 06:15, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

I created a new template that hopefully does the trick. Here is an example usage:

{{QuoteBlock

|Giles|"Dig a bit in the history of this place and you'll find a-a-a steady stream of fairly odd occurrences. I believe this whole area is the center of mystical energy, that things gravitate towards it that-that you might not find elsewhere."

|Buffy|"Like vampires."

|Giles|"Like zombies. Werewolves. Incubi, succubi... everything you've ever dreaded was under your bed but told yourself couldn't be by the light of day. They're all real."

|Buffy|"What? You, like, sent away for the Time Life series?"

|Giles|"Uh, w-well, yes."

|Buffy|"D'ya get the free phone?"

|Giles|"Um, the calendar."

}}

Yields the following:

Giles: "Dig a bit in the history of this place and you'll find a-a-a steady stream of fairly odd occurrences. I believe this whole area is the center of mystical energy, that things gravitate towards it that-that you might not find elsewhere."

Buffy: "Like vampires."

Giles: "Like zombies. Werewolves. Incubi, succubi... everything you've ever dreaded was under your bed but told yourself couldn't be by the light of day. They're all real."

Buffy: "What? You, like, sent away for the Time Life series?"

Giles: "Uh, w-well, yes."

Buffy: "D'ya get the free phone?"

Giles: "Um, the calendar."

Hopefully everyone will like this. DinoSlider 16:17, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Comic articles need Reformating

All of the Comic articles need reformating. Each individual issue should have its own article. The articles about the full story arcs or TPB collections should discuss the plot and significant events. The individual issue articles need to "Appearances" sections. Adding Characters, Locations, Demons/supernatural beings, Magical Items, etc. under the Appearance section will not only give more info about the individual issues, it will also allow for greater cross-linking to other articles. This causes those other articles to be updated more often. I invite you to take a look at how Wookieepedia (the mother of all Fan Wikia) handles their Legacy, and Knights of the Old Republic comics, which also feature multi-part storylines Season 8 and After the Fall. I'd make all the changes myself, but I don't have nearly enough time to spare.

Sample Format:

{ {Comic book Info box} }
 Buffy Season Eight 25: Living Doll is the twenty-fifth issue of the Buffy Season Eight comic series and the fifth issue in the Predators and Prey story arc. 
 Contents 
 1 Publisher's summary 
 2 Appearances 
 2.1 Characters 
 2.2 Events 
 2.3 Locations 
 2.4 Organizations 
 2.5 Demon species/Mystical Beings
 2.6 Magical Items
 2.7 Misclaneous 
 3 Collections 
 4 External links

IthinkIwannaLeia 17:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• So I have received no response to my proposal on changing the format of comics to have the main artiles be based on issues not story arcs. Am I the most active person on this page when it comes to the comics (I don't think so since I am not active). No response will equal consent...although I don't know when I'd have time to fix it. I think everyone should get involved in this. Let me hear what you think. IthinkIwannaLeia^WaddaUthink? 20:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I have looked again at the various articles. I still think we should have individual articles about the individual issues, but even if we don't end up doing that, the Predators and Prey article should at least be split up. In the back of issue 25 Scott Allie calls them all one-shots. No where in any of the issues does it say "Predator and Prey: Part _". The only place that these are linked is in the upcoming trade paperback. It is a pretty common convention that when naming a trade paperback that collects various stories, you just pick one of the more popular story titles and slap it on the cover. That doesn't mean that everything collected there in is part of the same story arc. These are 5 one-shots in a row with different artists, and writers. At the very least these issues deserve to be in their own article. Anyone have any objection to separating it out? how bout other issues? 21:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty much a repaste of what I said in the talk section of Predators and Prey, it just helps to say the same thing here for all to see, since it goes in with what you are saying,"Granted that they are referred to as one-shots they are part of a story arc entitled “Predators and Prey”. They have been simultaneously referred to as one-shots and a collective story arc. When I have the time I will cite a source for that. But yes, you can make the argument that stories like “A Beautiful Sunset” are one-shots, have their own page and yet are included in other volumes of TPB’s so why not have the same for this one? I contend that the intent of collected one-shots illustrates a reflection for the Slayers, i.e. how the world views them and how they view themselves. I could be wrong, entirely. But I think for the sake of continuity and equal parts sanity, that the stories remain as one. Now, I have also toyed with the idea of moving “A Beautiful Sunset” and the other stand alone stories into their respected TPB’s, if that is something that you think would be a more viable reason of cataloging the stories that would be easier than dismantling the Predators and Prey article. This is similar to my desire of expanding the Angel After the Fall stories with the detail we give the Buffy Season Eight stories. There I will be expanding the information whilst collecting the stories by their volumes IDW publishes them in. It’s just that I lack the time to really do that, hopefully soon though. Get back to me, and thank you for your help."PonyEnglish 22:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• PonyEnglish, I don't know if you were a comic fan before you Buffy and Angel moved to the format or not. I have been collecting comics for decades, and I can tell you that Trade Paper Backs are never thought of as highly as the original issues. TPB are mostly used to gain extra money for the stories. Recently, TPB have become more popular, especially with franchises that cross over into other mediums. For instance, people who don't read comics that watch the Watchmen movie might pick up the Watchmen "graphic novel." They probably don't realize that Watchmen was originally published as a series of comics, and that the "graphic novel" they have in their hand is actually a trade paperback of a collected series. The original individual issues are viewed as the source material. Any collected works are merely reprints. The same is true for Buffy. I know there are a lot of Buffy fans who pick up the TPB's and have never touched an actual comic in their live. But I think it is important to put an emphasis on the original works, not the reprints. So to answer your question, I think putting "A Beautiful Sunset" and other isolated stories in the same article as another story arc simply because they were re-released in the same TPB is a horrible Idea. Once again, if you want to have a article about an entire story arc, thats fine. But I think each individual issue needs its own article whether it is a one-shot or part of an arc. The story arc articles can give synopses and discussions on themes used throughout the arc. The individual issue articles can have a list of appearances (characters, demons,etc).

If I am out voted on the individual issues having their own articles, at the very least, keep the one shots separate! As for Predator and Prey, if their are sources that say they are part of a loosely based arc, fine. But I would point out that projects can change over time. They may have originally thought that it would be a loose story arc, but then realized it would be better as unrelated stories (they often did this in the middle of a buffy season too). Scott Allie and everything else I have read has not said they were part of the same arc since issue 23. Scott stated that they were unrelated one-shots most recently. I have nothing more to say. And I don't have time to change the article formats anytime soon, so I leave the final decisions up to others. Anybody else other than PonyEnglish and myself wanna put their 2 cents in? This discussion affects all future articles, ya know? IthinkIwannaLeia^WaddaUthink? 18:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As much as I really loved your dissertation on the views of TPB’s in relation to the mouth-breathing-geek and the common-upright-man, I really am not seeing how breaking twenty some odd issues into their own page is going to help out. Sure there is the handy “proceeded by” and “followed by” little buttons on the side but how many pages do you want to open up on your browser just to figure out what is going on? How long to you want to hit a back button to get to something seven issues ago? How long do you want your history to be? Yes, there is more value in the single issues themselves, that’s why people collect them, but it’s a better means of conveying a story via trade paper back collections. Frankly, I also find it a better means of understanding wikia articles, why? Because when I showed up here and starting helping out, the pages were already done up by story arc and/or TPB collection. As newer issues came out, I would continue with tradition set before me by such order. Why? For sake of flow. For continuity. For sanity. Granted I’m not the best code writer when it comes to creating pages and putting in pictures and links and all the tiny little nuances of a wikia page, but it’s pretty. It works. So why mess? I think we do a great job cataloging the issues; in fact, it is relatively easy to search this wikia and find any season 8 issue. Maybe the average user just wants the meat, the skinny … the skinny meat? … of what the issue was about, and doesn’t have time to go through synopsis and links, doesn’t care about price guides, who wrote it, who drew it, who inked it, who did the colors, who did the lettering, maybe they just want the story. Maybe they want to come here, check out an investment before purchase. Who has that time? I mean, you yourself don’t even have time to code it, so why expect it? As pointed out to me, this isn’t the big W; I refer not to a former President. Very much like it, close, but we ain’t Wikipedia. We’re a tad more loosey goosy here. It is fan read and fan orientated and fan written and ultimately fan directed. So now I also enter the case that this isn’t Wookiepedia, “the mother of all Fan Wikia”, as you’re so found of touting. We’re the Buffypedia. I’m sure Wookiepedia is a great place and all your collective mad skills is epic hard on, I wouldn’t know, I stopped going when my favorite character was slaughtered both on the literal and with the metaphor. Also, Lucas is a douche bag. But there is no right or wrong way to do a wikia. I’m sure you could argue that, but what I’m saying is that if we feel that TPB’s are the way to go, then so be it. If you’re uncomfortable with it, excuse yourself from the dinner table and eat at the neighbor’s house. PonyEnglish 03:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, time for me to chime in:
I admit, I haven't taken the time needed to read all of these arguments, but I got the gist of them. I agree with IthinkIwannaLeia. We should have individual articles for each issue. That being said, we should also expand the plot summeries on TPB and story-arc pages. Predators & Prey is one arc, yes, but each issue is so different that they need their own articles. I think we should follow the Wookeepedia standard here: minor plot summery and full production details for each issue. Appearances. If a one-shot, more attention to plot. Story-arc articles summerize the plot as a whole, leaving out the irksome little details that make an issue-article good. TPB articles should be given the same attention and format as any novel, or TV episode, or what have you.
We're not doing enough for either of these article types. This does need to be fixed. Fortunatly, once the basic templates are up, it's not very hard work to do. Din's Fire 997 04:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to the Buffy wiki, but (as noted below) am an Admin at Memory Alpha, and I recently went through all of the comic articles there and updated them so that they all looked the same and so that each individual issue was covered off too. I've been recently reading through the Buffy comics (the Dark Horse ones only thus far, haven't gotten to the Season 8 or ATF ones), but I came here looking for information on individual issues here and there, and would be happy to do some work on some of them like that. Some examples of the work that I did include a series, an issue in that series, and a fully completed issue. I'd put something like this forward as individual comics and their series versions. Any thoughts? -- sulfur 21:17, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

Citation styles and reference styles

I've noticed that episodes are references with quotes half the time (such as "The Harsh Light of Day") and with italics the other half (such as The Harsh Light of Day). There should be some sort of consistency here. I come here from Memory Alpha, one of the Star Trek wikis, and over there, we've got the practice of doing episodes and individual comic stories with quotes, and we do comic arcs, series, novels, and movies with italics. Any thoughts about trying to make things a bit more consistent? -- sulfur 21:06, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

Well... we modelled the style after Wookiepedia. There, episode names go between quotes, while the shows and comics (including issues and arcs as in Time of Your Life, Part 1) go in italics. Episodes in italics come from the first version of the wikia, when I was one of the few editors. --Gonzalo84 06:14, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

When one character quotes another

There are a few places -- so far, I've only noticed it on the Dawn Summers and Groupies articles -- where a quote is used to illustrate the article, and while the quote is correctly attributed to the character who spoke the lines, they in turn were reading someone else's words. Both of these examples come from "Blood Ties," when Dawn and Spike are reading aloud from Giles' notes. Since the lines are very much in Giles' voice, it's odd to see them attributed to someone else. Would it make sense to attribute these with a phrase like "Dawn, reading from Giles' notes" or "Dawn, quoting Giles"? -- Tkts 23:44, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

actually, what you say makes perfect sense.--Gonzalo84 18:23, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Double General

Hey guys i noticed that we have two pages for the General, the first being for General Voll and the second just called The General, supposedly being for the unnamed sucessor of General Voll. I always just thought they were the same person, i know he looked kinda different and his name was oddly classified when he returned in Retreat, Twilight and now Last Gleaming,as opposed to how he looked in Long Way Home. A recent Q&A with Georges Jeanty, insinuated that this was meerly a continuity error:

15. AndrewCrossett: Do you know why General Voll (from Long Way Home) disappeared, and this new nameless General took his place? He seems to sound quite a bit like Voll when he talks. Georges: Yeah. That was my bad. I had no idea that those two guys were one and the same. Major blunder on my part! Sorry. He just disappeared forever and when he resurfaced I thought he was someone else.

I was wonderign if someone would help, move all the info from The General page to General Voll's page, and then we can just delete, The General Page alltogether. Millsnj09 03:27, November 25, 2010 (UTC)

Podcasts?

There are a number of podcasts which still exist dedicated to Buffy and Angel. Does anyone mind if I create a page listing them? Robinpierson 12:24, November 25, 2010 (UTC)

I do not mind and would consider it useful. Thanks JohnnyWalker2001 18:06, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Buffy on Chiller channel starting January 9th!

I'm currently watching a Buffy marathon (Christmas day) on Chiller! I saw a commercial that the show will start January 9th at 6pm Est.time also! Finally, Buffy back on TV! (Also, we need "Blogs" on this Wiki) BuffymyBasset File:PamSignature.png 19:51, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add a new page...

The page contains all the Buffy and Angel episodes in broadcast order for easy reference. It was recently removed from Wikipedia for being "too fancrufty", despite many people arguing for it to be kept. I personally think it's very helpful to be able to see how the producers originally intended us to see the show (although we may not always follow it to the letter ;) ).

The debate about its existence can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_and_Angel_episodes

If it IS "too fancrufty" for Wikipedia, then I would like to think it has a home here :)

The page I would like to add to this Wikia is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ThunderPeel2001/List_of_Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_and_Angel_episodes

Please let me know if this would be acceptable. JohnnyWalker2001 18:05, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the point for such a page. There are already lists of the episodes, links to the next episode of each show within crossover episode pages, and the chronology page. I vote to skip. DinoSlider 04:27, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

The discussion at wikipedia has already shown the arguments of boths sides. Unlike wikipedia we already have a Chronology. Here its redundant, because of the arguments shown by DinoSlider.--Gonzalo84 17:59, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

New thread

So Buffy upset the balance by activating all the potentials. That's what caused all the demons to enter into the Earth dimesion, right? 1 Slayer = 1000 demons, 1500 slayers =1,500,000 demons (possibly). The Universe was trying to balance everything out, right?SuperFreak1880 09:06, February 10, 2012 (UTC)Steve

This is not the place to discuss that. Here we discuss THE WIKI ITSELF. And your comments must be placed BELOW THE HEADERS. Please read before just writing.--Gonzalo84 15:38, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Should TPB and HC comic collections have their own page?

Recently some pages dedicated to DVD collections of several episodes have been deleted. I was wondering if the same thing should happen with comic collections. The original story content is related through the single issue pages as well as the pages for the series the issues belong to. The pages for TPB/HC collections could be argued to contain only merchandising information in the same way that DVD collections do. What's more, there is a confusing overlap in collected editions. Season Eight is collected per 5 issues in TPBs, and per 10 issues in HCs; then there's mini-series which are included in their own TPB and later also in an omnibus. I totally believe that series should have their own page, but collections are sometimes rather arbitrary. --Paul van Gent (talk) 10:32, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I like that the comic collections have their own pages. It's still in the Season but still a story arc, y'know? Maybe both can have their own pages? The series and the story arcs? Romance Girl (talk) 02:16, September 15, 2012 (UTC)Romance Girl

Any time there is a release, it should be cataloged. This allows someone coming to the wiki to see that comic issue X is collected in TPB A, HC B, and Omnibus C. With an informed view, they can choose to purchase the collection that makes the most sense to them. -- sulfur (talk) 14:27, December 14, 2012 (UTC)

Good points both, I am convinced ;) ―Paul van Gent (talk 15:18, December 14, 2012 (UTC)

I know you're already convinced, and I fully agree with all aforementioned arguments, but I'd like to add another point to why there definitely have to be pages for preferably every collection there is: in overseas (like Germany where I'm from) it's not that easy to get access to individual issues, especially if you don't own a credit card. Collections however, which have an ISBN, can easily be ordered from whatever bookstore (on- or offline) you prefer. So if you're interested in having certain issues, it's a tremendous help to know which collections they can be found in, and which collections contain precisely which stories (if the respective pages are consistent that is, which I'm working on). Amazon or darkhorse.com unfortunatelly are not always as reliable as you'd like them to be in that respect. And that's just beside the point that I prefer TPBs over individual issues anyway ;). WikiaFrogo (talk) 13:32, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Cover art or actual cover

I was wondering if comic book pages should feature the clean unaltered uncropped cover-art or the actual cover with text, logos, etc? Currently it's a mix of both. For older issues it might not be possible to find the original cover-art, so I would lean to using the actual covers. --Paul van Gent (talk) 11:14, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

The actual covers are more largely related to the issue, right? I don't think the unaltered versions matter as much or are very important. So I agree with you :). The actual covers should be used only. Plus, they're just more interesting XD. Romance Girl (talk) 02:12, September 15, 2012 (UTC)Romance Girl

I agree, the preferred version for issues, TPBs and HC (basically all merchandise) should always be the actual cover. The original cover art, if available, can still be added to the pages additionally, if someone likes them, so that shouldn't be a problem. WikiaFrogo (talk) 13:17, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Buffyverse actors in other shows

As it stands right now, some character pages have these huge blocks of text toward the bottom of their pages saying that they, along with dozens of other characters (each one also named) are played by actors that also appeared in other shows (Six Feet Under, Supernatural, Criminal Minds, etc). I would like to remove these from the pages and instead put this info on separate list pages a la the DCAU Wikia, and then simply link to those link pages. Agree/disagree?--OzzMan (talk) 13:54, August 16, 2013 (UTC)

Where are we now putting information from Non-Canon novels and comics?

I've been a fan of buffy for a very long time, and a "lurker" on this wiki. Recently I wanted to start contributing to the wiki by filling in some of the holes in information I've found. However, I realized, after reading both discussions on cannon and the current articles that I didn't know where to put some of the information (and didn't want to add it if it would just be erased.) I agree that non-canon information shouldn't be included in the main section of character pages, but it seems like there should be some place it is collected, especially given the large number of buffy novels and comics as well as the interconnected nature and continuity between many of the novels, short stories and comics. Now that it is no longer part of the bulk part of the articles, shouldn't there be a "non-canon" section added to pages (primeval wiki does this)? Or maybe separate pages for non-canon appearances, much like there are separate pages for alternate universes? I know that this wiki is written to be "in-universe" but I can't help but think it would be counter to the purpose of a wiki to allow the desire to remain entirely in-universe hamper the ability of wiki to become a comprehensive collection of information on the buffyverse. In short, where should I now put, for example, information on Council of Watchers found in Buffy novels? Isn't it there some way to, for example, note on Wesley's page that there is a non-canon story with information on Geoffrey Wyndam-Pryce? --- Louzeyre

Non-canon things go on their own pages, to help avoid confusing people. The "noncanon" template is placed at the top of non-canon articles, and appearances by canon characters in non-canon works may be noted in their appearances section, so long as it is made evident that the work is non-canon. As per your example, Geoffrey Wyndam-Pryce has his own page, which links to the relevant pages, such as Wesley and the comic he is from, but the Wesley page does not link to this page, as it is non-canon. Again, this is done to help keep clear what is and isn't canon. Non-canon Buffy works certainly have a place on this wiki, but we try to ensure that it's obvious that they have no bearing on the TV show or the ongoing comic series.--OzzMan (talk) 20:05, October 11, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. However, I was still hoping for some further clarification. Specifically I was wondering if there was place (or if there could be made a place) for facts collected from non-canon sources. For example:

According to Blood and Fog by Nancy Holder, as of the 1880’s the Watcher’s Council would have meetings of a privy council. These privy council meeting would be composed of 13 members, and include the current Prime Minister and the current slayer’s Watcher.

According to Pretty Maids All in a Row by Christopher Golden, as of the 1940’s the Watcher’s Council’s headquarters were situated in a building on Great Russell Street . The Council’s directors meetings would be held the fourth floor of the building around a table with 14 chairs: one for the current slayer, one for the current slayer’s watcher and the rest for the council directors.

Both of these are from non-canon sources, and aren’t something that would be included the summary of the work they are taken from, but are facts that seem to build on each other. While they are not canon, it does seem like there should be somewhere where these kinds of facts, from licensed material, could be collected, just as the council’s page, for example, is a spot where the canon information about the council is collected.

Or for a slightly less obscure example --- what languages does Spike speak? There is a list on his canon  page but he is seen speaking and reading others, from Turkish to ancient Sumerian in non-canon comics, couldn't there be a place where those can be listed as well? Thank you again. --- Louzeyre

FAQ: Fancy Signatures

The information on the FAQ under Fancy Signatures is incorrect. I, however, don't know enough (yet) to fix it. Could someone else take the lead on it?

Thanks! tzi (talk) 01:43, December 31, 2015 (UTC)