Talk:Old Ones (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

This page was proposed for deletion by TTN (talk · contribs) on 2 December 2019.

Untitled[edit]

I don't think the section on the Scourge is accurate. There are demons and there are demons, and there are demons. Pure demons, in the sense Anya uses in "Graduation Day, Part One" refer to giant, non-anthropoid demons like Olvikan. The Scourge are the type of anthropoid demons that bear the taint of humanity (Anya's terminology), but aren't interbred with humans the way half-demons like Doyle are, or a mystical demon/human hybrid like vampires are. Need to research this more before editing the main page, though. CaveatScriptor (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is in my opinion that this article really shouldn't exist. There has not been enough of the Old Ones to constitute this as a seprate file, it should be lumped back in with the generic Old Ones file, like it was before. There simply is not enough information on the subject to warrent a seperate article. Majin Gojira 04:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's true the Old Ones are not mentioned as much as some entities of the Buffyverse, despite this fact surely the Old Ones are extremely important to the whole mythology of the fictional universe. They are even referred to in the very first episode of Buffy, and we see one in action in the last episode of Angel. Don't they deserve an article of their own for WikiProject Buffy}? -- Paxomen 15:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They may be important to the universe, but there is simply not enough information on them to justify an article devoted competly to them. Most of this article is literally a retred of what's in the genetric Old Ones section or the Illyria article. Besides, most of the information available is extremely vague (IE: Is there a difference between a Pure Demon (exemplified by Olvikan) and an Old One (exemplified by Illyria). Majin Gojira 20:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC) EDIT: This was before I noticed your update and moving of said information to this article.[reply]

Shouldn't some mention be made of the pre-Buffy "Old Ones" and "Great Old Ones" of Lovecraftian lore? The reference to an elder race of hyper-dimensional beings with sinister intent who once ruled and will again goes back at least to "The Dunwich Horror"

I just cleaned up the page a tiny bit, but unfortunately there's still loads of speculation. We don't really know whether Jasmine, Wolfram & Hart, Olvikan, or the "Prophecy Girl" demons have anything to do with the Old Ones. Shame I'm not brave enough to eviscerate the whole thing.--Nalvage 01:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Nalvage. The writers were pretty vague about the relationships between the various powers that existed before man, but IMHO following your edits this article at present doesn't overstep it's bounds, and does a good job of citing its sources (the episodes) where information came from. -- Paxomen 02:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Lovecraftian... ManofRenown87 00:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand?[edit]

Just out of curiosity, where is the antipodal point thing ever stated? Because absolutely no point in the United Kingdom exists antipodally to anywhere in New Zealand. Joehundredaire 10:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spike says (paraphrasing), "I figure there's some bloke in New Zealand..." It's pretty common to variously refer to New Zealand, Australia, or China, as being directly on the other side of the earth to Europe, whether it is or not. Spike wasn't really being scientific, but someone added the info, then I think someone added "supposedly" to make it less definite, but it still looks like the show's taking a considered stance on the matter. Maybe it should be removed, or qualified further. --Nalvage 15:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. Yeah, I found that one out when I attempted to plot the location of the antipodal point for a fanfic and came up with a great big expanse of ocean. :) Joehundredaire 21:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We also don't know if the Deeper Well follows a direct straight path. It might bend or twist a bit along it's trajectory... Medleystudios72 (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Oldonebtvs.jpg[edit]

Image:Oldonebtvs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last Entry on List of old ones[edit]

"...Though all three demons appear in canon, none are 'confirmed' as Old Ones." Then why are they in this article? Including the words "...and other ancient beings" in the section header doesn't make their inclusion in the article appropriate. I'd like to delete that last bullet, but want to give anyone who objects a chance to do so. CPitt76 (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illyria is an old one, so shes suppose to be mentioned here and as for the other two well they may not be one of old ones but they were on earth before and during the old ones reign, but yeah I see what you mean since there not actually old ones technically they shouldn't be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.173.94 (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually removed the entry I was talking about back in January, not referring to anything in the current article. I'm fine with the three entries currently listed. CPitt76 (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]