I don't believe it's necessary to state characters' status from Fray's perspective. Presumably most everyone from the show is dead in Fray's world. The fact that Willow happened to live until Fray's time before dying doesn't change her current status. Accordingly, I think we should remove "Deceased in the future, if looked at from Fray's perspective." and leave it as "Alive." Amuk 23:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I disagree. She has a confirmed death scene: for all intents and purposes, Willow is done. This is no prophesy, this is real. Because of the existence of the Fray comics, Buffy is now in the "past" while Fray is the "present." But what really matters in this case is the fact that we have a confirmed death scene.
    Take Anya for example. There are still stories being written that take place before she died - that doesn't make her any less dead.
    Frankly, in this universe, it's kinda pointless to label someone dead or alive anyway: they'll probably be back.
    So yeah. I vote for straight up "Deceased." But at least we agree that the "from Fray's point of view" thing needs to go. Din's Fire 997 20:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I like the "c. 2,200 AD" change a lot. That's the perfect way to handle it. Amuk 12:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Ahhh semantics, fun fun! From Fray's perspective, Fray is in present. From Buffy's perspective, Buffy is in present. Define present. My opinion, this can only defined once Status is defined. Because of the existence of the Fray comics, Buffy is now in the "past" while Fray is the "present. Based on what? This is opinion; I say we are in present and the existence of Frays books are a look into the future. The Anya example is not the same, Anya is dead "at present", the stories written are of the past, not the future. So to take your example further, if there were a book written about Anya being resurrected in the future, would her status be alive 3023, or dead?Leaving the buffyverse for a moment, example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_2099
    Seriously? lol. It boils down to deciding what is present. Is it relative to our universe's present, or the existence of any future book. Hakatri 12:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Hakatri
  • A recent talking point in the Central discussion was regarding page tense, and it has now been established that all events in the Buffyverse shall, for the sake of our editing, take place in the past. Buffy, Angel, Fray, all of them have already occured, for the sake of uniformity and clearity of prose. So, since the "present" is now defined as "sometime after everthing," it can be derived that Willow should be labeled as "dead."
    Frankly, I'd just as soon see the whole "status" line removed from the infobox for just this reason: with time travel, ressurections and ghosts, it's impossible to tell who's really alive. Din's Fire 997 19:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm on board with that; I agree too, that status can change from moment to moment. Something firm needed to be established and it sounds like it was taken care of. cool :) Hakatri 19:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Hakatri
The fact that we used past tense to describe events doesn't mean she should be listed as "dead". If we use Fray's future as a reference point, then Buffy, Xander, Dawn, Giles and Andrew should also be listed as dead--Gonzalo84 20:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Willow is alive![edit source]

You said buffy was in the past? No Buffy is current, Fray is in the future. Why not put buffy as deceased or everyone else in buffy? Willow is still alive and active at this point!

I agree. I think the same as you. Buffy is in the current, Fray's future is a posible future, but that future can change. so I think willow´s status is alive. What we can do is a separate page of Future Dark Willow, because thay aren't the same, i think, and put that willow's status: dead. what do you think?¿ --Trebio 13 july 2009
Willow is alive in the present and that is what should be listed as status.--Gonzalo84 06:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Late i know but i think some people believe that because the Fray future is what season eight is leading into that the Dark Willow stuff HAS TOO have happened. but really aspects of it can change. they can stop Dark Willow from being there without destroying Fray's world. But no i agree we should not list Willow as dead, listing D Willow as dead makes more sense. if we were to list all characters dead by Fray's time there wouldn't be anyone NOT listed as deceased anymore. Millsnj09 21:53, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

Willow's Religion[edit source]

"Willow also identifies -- at least ethnically and culturally -- as Jewish. She refers to herself on a number of occasions as Jewish and appears to come from a religious family."

Just another thing to add, in season 5 episode 16 "The Body" during a flash back they are talking about Christmas and Santa and Willow saids "Santa always passes me by, its like something is stoping him. Must be the big honking menorah!

More[edit source]

This Article Should Have More Info It Stops At Retreat. What about what happens to her in Twilight and last gleaming. From Retreat it just skips to the future as if thats the end and sense the future is an altered reality in my opinion and there is no proof its not. The Future willow should be its own article. So this article can continue as normal without people seeing "future" And guessing its already in there or that thats it. Quite misleading. A lot of other wikis have other pages for alternate timeline or future character for an example it should be "Future Willow". Wowfunny521 00:47, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

  • The Future stuff was written after Time of your life. And the Twilight and Last Gleaming stuff just hasn't been added yet, because it's all very recent. This wiki is a place for everyone to contribute, if you are worried about it being misleading, why don't you add that stuff, as long as you are familiar with what happened. Millsnj09 23:40, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
  • Well i will very soon. I just finished time of your life so i'm getting the rest later this week or at least get more of them. Wowfunny521 04:30, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh and to prove my point on it either being misleading or something else going on: Dawn,Giles,Xander,Buffy,Andrew,Kennedy,Angel and Spike all go past time of your life yet willow who is one of the mains does not? Really Andrew and Kennedy go past that point. Wow! There really is a problem here. Also why i think that its because of the future thing is that when i came here to read the character article to see if the comics where worth getting i saw the future thing and figured that sense it was an event that took place in the future that the article must have been finished. Until i found once i got time of your life that it does not go past it other than a few small reference to retreat. I will add more things once i get the others thats not the issue. The issue is i think that you might wanna move the future thing to its own article so for one it wont be misleading and for two most other wikis make another version for future characters especially when the future can be changed. Wowfunny521 21:39, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

This is not Marvel Universe. If the Madwoman ever comes to the "present" and becomes an alternate character then we will discuss it. So far we have no idea if Fray's future is an alternate one, so the "Future" section will remain where it is.--Gonzalo84 19:10, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Actully just in case thats what you really thought i have never ever read or watched anything from the marvelverse. Well i saw a couple movies a long time ago. That was not what i was refering too. I know this does not justify the change to the page. I just wanted to make that clear. Wowfunny521 15:24, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

I recently edited this page from "Willow Rosenberg was a Witch" to "Willow Rosenberg is a witch". It was reverted back with the summary, "Articles should be written in the past tense." Yet, on the Buffy Summers page, it is stated that "Buffy Summers is a Slayer" and the Xander Harris page starts out in the present tense also. So, should the Willow page be changed, or should all other present tense articles be changed? I vote for the former, since the articles shouls be in-universe. --Saintends 05:49, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

the reason it was edited back to "was" is because she has been depowered due to the seed of wonder being destroyed. thus she isn't a witch anymore and neither is amy. they lost their connection to the source of their magic. buffy hasn't lost her slayer abilities so she still IS a slayer Mr.Scryer. 12:02, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

  • That was not the reason as stated by the summary. The summary said, "Articles should be written in the past tense", which none are. So I suppose in this case, the reverter was right even though they gave the wrong reason for the revert. Also, is a witch only a witch if she has powers? --Saintends 20:41, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
    • The consensus from the Central Discussion was to always use past tense. Since the decision was not made until after many pages had already been created, there are many inconsistencies. I try to clean up every page that I edit, but it is a very large task. I reverted the edit for the reason stated and I stand by it. I cannot help the fact that many other pages are still wrong, but I am trying to keep it from getting worse by watching edits on a regular basis. DinoSlider 00:45, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Witch vs Sorceress[edit source]

I know constantly they referred to Willow as "witch", but personally I feel she was mostly a sorceress. Compared to Tara, her magic was not innate. Tara's magic was natural and she showed restraint in her magical use. Willow, just knew how to channel and evoke mystical energy, even absorb magic. Her alleged "witchcraft" was not like Tara's witchcraft, which involved using the energy of the Earth and nature and considering consequences. Does anyone else agree? Warlockangel3000 18:01, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

She's called a witch for the entire run. And while Tara is more on the wiccan side and Willow more on the spellcasting side, both are witches. End of story.--Gonzalo84 18:55, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

I'm very well aware of what she's called, I'm saying as a general consensus, are those who feel like the title of 'witch' was inappropriately given to her, not saying anything should be changed. I've ran accross several forums regarding how powerful she really was, and it got me to thinking about it. The show generally referred to anyone who practiced magic as witch or warlock, but there are those who used magic but weren't called witches. Warlockangel3000 03:19, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the show also uses sorcerer and wizard, as well as shaman, but these seem to belong to a different sort of traditions, regardless of power level.--Gonzalo84 06:20, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

Article title[edit source]

Shouldn't the article be named Willow Rosenberg instead of Willow Danielle Rosenberg? Buffy's page is titled Buffy Summers instead of Buffy Anne Summers. Giles' middle name isn't included in the title for his page either... Also, most pages are linking to the Willow Rosenberg redirect page instead of the actual page, so personally it seems more appropriate for the title to be Willow Rosenberg. Should the article name be changed or no? Fitzaby (talk) 15:29, July 16, 2017 (UTC)

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