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:
|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)

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)


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)

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)

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) 2011:

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: 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)


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.

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)


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:

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:

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)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.