Talk:Buffy Summers

First Death

Did Buffy die from being bitten by The Master or drowning in the pool? TheWikiWitch (talk) 13:57, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

Edits

Someone should edit her powers and abilites section of the infobox to accomodate her new and enhanced abilites. Darklighter88 10:41, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Scrollbar?

Is there any reason why this article is wide enough to have a horizontal scrollbar at the bottom when others don't? It's a minor detail, I know, but's kind of annoying. Paul730 23:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the quote from "The Gift" and the scrollbar went away. I wonder why that affected the width of the article... Paul730 23:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Deaths

"When Buffy was shot by Warren Mears, she briefly flatlined in the hospital before being saved by Willow, who removed the bullet via telekinesis. It is never acknowledged by Buffy or anyone else whether this constituted a third death"

Well of she flatlined it means her heart stopped beating, so it was technically a clinical death. Also Xander said "This dying thing is funny once, maybe twice" or something, so it's wrong to say no one acknowledged this. I think this should be edited. I mean if this doesn't count as a death then Buffy's first death shouldn't count either. Sure Willow used magic to heal Buffy, but it was only equivalent to Xander performing CPR or the doctors using the defibrillators on her.

Slayer templates

I think having five Slayer succession boxes at the foot of the page is overdoing it a little. Technically, Buffy wasn't really succeeded by Faith, only Kendra. I know the Slayer line is a little headache-y but surely there's a more simple way of conveying this info? Paul730 15:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think there's a better way to handle the Slayer lineage with a template, but I can't exactly picture it right now. Does anyone have any ideas? —Scott (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It'd be pretty easy to remove Buffy's deaths from the page. Just have templates for Buffy, Buffy/Kendra, and Buffy/Faith. Cut out the parts where Faith is alone, and you're fine. Din's Fire 997 14:19, 14 February 2008 (EST)

You mean the section Buffy's deaths? Why remove that? (I'm not necessarily opposed, just want to know) What about the dates in the templates, would we put 1996 - 1998 as the time between Buffy's activation and her first death, or 1996 - Present as her time as the Slayer. Also, I'm not 100% sure what you mean, Din's Fire, would you mind making those edits to show us? Paul730 19:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There ya go. By treating the time when Buffy was dead as "time off" rather than a new succession, we remove one of the five boxes. Not as effective as I thought it would be, but at least it's ONE down. Of course, it's completely up for argument if that's even a good idea, so feel free to revert that edit if y'all disagree. I won't be offended or anything. Din's Fire 997 02:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia

This article is a complete copy of Wikipedia's. I even see some of the edits I did. --Biccy 05:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, much of the article is from Wikipedia, as are other articles here. It's a good starting point for articles to development, rather than starting from scratch with nothing. In fact, most of the Buffy Wikipedia articles would be better off here given their amount of in-universe and plot information. I plan to rewrite the Wikipedia Buffy Summers article so the one here won't be the same as it in the long run. Paul730 05:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

3rd Death

I have encountered confusion over a possible "3rd death" in conversation. In an episode near the end of season six, wherein Buffy is rushed to the hospital after being shot by Warren, the doctors are working on her and just as Willow is arriving, the heart monitor reads Buffy's heart having stopped. The steady tone is heard for a while as Willow commands the doctors to all leave and uses her magic to remove the bullet. At first, a viewer could interpret this as Buffy having technically died. However, some argument can be made that "time of death" was never called by the doctors, and a stopped heartbeat alone does not necessarily mean death. Also, if Willow could not reverse Tara's natural death, why would she be able to negate Buffy's (essentially) same demise? Buffy would have to have not actually died yet.

I'm just wondering if something should be added to the article to touch on this 'near-death' experience to illustrate that everyone is aware of it and there's no canonical "3rd death" unless an official source states it.

Or am I jumping the gun on this and really just rebutting an argument not yet made? Medleystudios72 15:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think if Buffy had died a third time, it would have been acknowledged in some way. I guess we could state "Buffy flatlined but it was never confirmed if she died", which is just explaining what happened in the episode. We shouldn't start arguing either side in the article . I'm not sure that the "Deaths" section needs to be in the article at all TBH, it just seems to regurgitate info already in the bio. I'm not necessarily opposed to it's inclusion, does anybody have any opinions on that? Paul730 21:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If Buffy was officially considered to have died in Prophecy Girl, I think it stands to reason that this one should count, as she wasn't really any more dead in that situation compared to this one. Kanten 07:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

But you're still speculating on something that isn't confirmed either way; it's made pretty clear via dialogue that she died in "Prophecy Girl", not so much with "Villians". I've edited the section so that it acknoledges the posibility that she died without commiting to either side of the argument. Everyone happy? Paul730 02:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Any absolute statement either way is fan speculation, no matter how reasonable the argument. There was nothing sourcable to support either way for an encyclopedic entry. My concern was in wanting the even acknowledged, showing we're aware of the possibility. I believe the current version articulates that perfectly. Medleystudios72 01:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I submit that two pieces of canonical evidence establish that she did not die in "Villains". First, immediately prior Willow removing the bullet, Xander says, "Will, what are you doing?! She's going to die." And Willow responds, "No she isn't." Then she withdraws the bullet and the heart monitor returns to normal. Second, in "Dirty Girls" Xander says, "This girl has died two times, and she's still standing." Add in the specific enjoinder contemporaneous with Willow removing the bullet on using magic to revive someone who died by such 'normal,' non-mystical means and it's pretty clear that the writers didn't consider her to have died. Q.E.D. Amuk 23:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Birthdays

I Robot, You Jane s01e08 @ 0:08:13

"Birthday: 10/24/80" gets changed to "Birthday: 05-06-79"

Both contradicted by her tombstone in "The Gift". There's no definitive birthdate for the character, although January/Febuary seems most likely due to air dates. 1981 is the only solid info we have. Paul730 01:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The dates on her tombstone in Nightmares (s01e10) are "1981 - 1997"

In Season 4 episode 11, when she and Riley are finally talking about their lives, he asks her what she is and she says "Capricorn, bordering on Aquarius," which leads to believing that her birthday is in early, or more likely mid January.

ThRow

She precisely says “Capricorn on the cusp of Aquarius”. Capricorn goes until January 20th and Aquarius starts January or 21st. A birthday on the cusp is one which falls close to the cut-off line, generally one to three days on either side. From that her birthday can only be on the 18th, 19th or 20th of January.

Buffy-fan 23:25, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

Following the time line in season 2, her birthday is between Haloween and Valentine's day .... The series were filmed for such real life events. Later, following season 3, Buffy's birthday is after Christmas .... and finally it was oficially declared to be on 19. January:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118276/trivia

ThRow

Since Buffy’s birthday has been officially confirmed by Joss to be January 19th 1981 shouldn’t it be added to her page?

It’s noted on IMDb (BtVS Show page, Trivia), TFAW.com, the official retailer of Dark Horse Comics celebrates it with special offers and even to CNN it was worth a note: Happy Birthday, Buffy!

Angel S5

I removed the following from the article, but it's been contested:

"After the destruction of Sunnydale, Buffy relocates to Europe[79]. When Angel and his crew take up leadership positions in Wolfram and Hart, Buffy begins to lose trust in him. When Angel calls for help in containing the psychotic Slayer Dana, Buffy sends Andrew, now a Watcher-in-training, to help him apprehend her, but refuses to leave Dana in Angel's care, directly ordering Andrew to bring Dana back with him by any means necessary[80]."

Based on his deception in "The Girl in Question", we can't trust Andrew that Buffy even knew about any of this. Obviously he would say Buffy sent him personally, because it sounds good. Also, in "Predators and Prey", Andrew tells Buffy that he's met Angel; if she knew about the Dana mission, she would know that already. Buffy has never indicated personally that she's lost trust in Angel because of his affiliation with W&H, it's all filtered through Andrew, an unreliable source. As for Giles refusing to help Angel with Fred; we don't know that he refused, he said that Willow was on a different plane and unable to help them. Even so, Giles' opinion of Angel isn't relevant to Buffy's article.

I've put a lot of effort into the biography section of this article and how to cover Buffy's alienation from Angel; it's already addressed:

"As the Scoobies and the Slayers have been declared terrorists in the wake of Sunnydale's destruction, decoy Slayers were set up to divert enemy attention for Buffy's protection, one in Rome, who was supposedly dating the Immortal, and the other underground; not even former allies like Angel were aware of her true location.[84]"

That gets across that the pair are no longer in contact, without making assumptions about Buffy's supposed mistrust of Angel. So I'd like to remove the top paragraph about "Damage". Paul730 16:07, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

"Young Buffy" actresses

Should we list Buffy as having also been portrayed by Mimi Paley (the hospital flashback in "Killed by Death") and Alexandra Lee (Buffy's younger self in the dream scenario that Willow has to pull her out of in "The Weight of the World"), or is that unnecessary? (The case is probably stronger for the first, since it was an actual flashback, tha+n for the second, which happened only in Buffy's head.) Tkts 03:20, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

The two should be listed. Weight of the World also includes a flashback (Hank and Joyce showing baby Dawn to young Buffy).--Gonzalo84 14:38, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Not human

Since Spike could hurt Buffy after Willow resurrected her, isn't she no longer human? Will-O-Wisp 10:38, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

1) Was this before or after the chip came out? 2) if before, it's probably a technicality. Since Buffy has already died, she can't be alive, so, as far as the chip is concerned, Spike isn't hurting anyone. Doesn't mean she ain't human. Din's Fire 997 18:43, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Tara makes it pretty clear that she's still human and didn't come back wrong -- the "deep tropical cellular tan" line. Tkts 05:21, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, i remember, Tara explained, that there was like a tiny bit of something in Buffy, related to her in heaven, nothing bad or life altering. But enough to confused that chip and cause it not to activate. She is still human Millsnj09 20:15, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

New User Edits

I thought this page and Angel were protected against edits by new users. However, someone was able to create a new user and immediately edit the Buffy and Angel pages. The edits for this page were recently reverted and most likely the ones for Angel will be soon, but isn't this the reason they were locked down in the first place? A couple of months ago, someone removed the banner at the to because it "pushes the page down too far; inability to edit is evident," but it seems that is not the case. DinoSlider 06:54, December 22, 2010 (UTC)