Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Archive 4

Cultural references
I've tagged this section because it's in list format when it should be in prose, and it contains original research. How do we know that "Buffy Sanders" in Smallville was based on Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Obviously she was, but we need a source confirming it before it can go in the article. We can't just list what we assume to be a Buffy reference, we need to prove it. Paul730 11:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read the explanation of the appropriateness of lists vs. prose at Embedded_list, I think you'll find that a list is, indeed, the proper format. Specifically, it is an "Indented List with content." Because most of the items are short and unrelated, it would be very difficult to place them in an easily-scannable paragraph form. Therefore, I've removed this tag. I do, however, agree that the items which are not overt, obvious, and notable references should be removed. IrisWings 04:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Jason Voorhees manages to create a scannable paragraph discussing various media references. It actually says on "Embedded Lists": "In an article, significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed." In a case such as "Cultural references", it may be best to make this section a prose section with a link to a Buffy the Vampire Slayer in popular culture (or similarly titled) page. On that page, you could make it a list. Otherwise, a list on this page is only going to prompt editors to add more and more to the list, making it because very indiscriminate (as you said, they are usually unrelated) and bogging down the main article. For an article 42 kb of readable prose, and 81 kb of coding, that would become extremely laggy. As it sits right now, the list--minus 5 of those bullets--can be completely removed for violating WP:V and WP:NOR. Since this is a featured article, it may be best to remove the section completely--by remove I mean create a page like the one I listed above--and put a link to that page just underneath the "Cultural impact" header.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I feel that the Jason Voorhees section is not particularly scannable, but I agree that integrating the items looks more encyclopedic. If the consensus is that Buffy is noteworthy enough to include a separate "In popular culture" article, I think that's a good alternative. IrisWings 00:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe merge into Buffyverse parodies and then rename that article to Bignole's suggestion? Paul730 00:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If there is that much popular culture references (to and from) then it may be best. Superman has his own article, but I think he's probably get a significant amount more of references. The list itself is a disservice to this page--especially if your idea of "scannable" is a bulleted list--because it's highly unreferenced and becomes a bit distracting when you are dealing with an article written in prose form, then you come across some extended list.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggest Archive
42 (now 43, I suppose) sections is pretty huge. Just a thought GLKeeney 17:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there has been no opposition, I will archive the page in the next day or so to Archive 3 unless someone beats me to it. I will keep open discussions on this page, of course. GLKeeney 17:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving is now complete. I have left the move\rename consensus in place at least for a while. Let me know if you have any issues. GLKeeney 17:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

ratings issue
The line "From seasons 5–7 the show hardly ever reached 5 million viewers" seems to contradict this information I found on E! News:
 * Even switching networks didn't slow down the show's momentum. The debut of season six pulled in a whopping 7.7 million viewers, and the show has continued to garner in strong ratings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kweeket (talk • contribs) 01:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Where in that source does it mention 7.7 million, because I couldn't find it. It only talks about Angel specifically.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good catch, looks like I had the wrong link in my clipboard when I pasted it. The correct article is here. Kweeket 21:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, what I gathered from that was the show reached 5.3 million viewers during its "best" season--which I assume they are referring to season 3, which we have a source that says it was 5.4 million. That's neither here nor there, because Nielsen Ratings are notoriously known for not catching the precise number. That's due to the fact that it's merely an estimation based on a sample poll. Anyway, you can have 7.7 million in a premiere and still taper off. Smallville's pilot broke the WB record with 8.1 million viewers, but the season itself averaged something like 5.9 million. I would remove the line about "hardly ever reached 5 million viewers" though, because it's not backed by anything empirically supported, since the Nielsen ratings are not 100% accurate. That entire paragraph is actually original research, because it's synthesizing information, estimated information at them, with no sources actually discussing. It's simple statistical data, and statistics never tell you what something is, because there is always something not accounted for. But that's my opinion. Also, we need sources to verify when the show aired on television—meaning the time slot and the day—because we cannot expect everyone to have watched the show and just know when it aired.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

IMDB references
Is Internet Movie Database, which is used several times as a source in the article, a reliable source? --Silver Edge 02:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. IMDb is edited by users as far as I know, and because they don't include sources themselves, we can't really verify what they say.  It could just be rumours, not reliable information.  The instances in which IMDb is used as a source for casting information should probably be removed, I'm sure there's better sources out there.     Paul    730  02:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To be more specific, IMDb is a glorified Wikipedia--with less standards and even less scrutiny. Anyone can go to IMDb and provide them with information for a film page. IMDb decides if they will include it or not. They don't list the source of the information they post, so we cannot verify where they get it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Issues with this page
This article is suffering from a lot of original research and unverified claims, not to mention that 4 images currently fail WP:FU, which means they could be removed on the spot. Before being bold I figured I'd come here to inform everyone of some of the issues surrounding this page. If you can correct them, awesome, if you cannot then I'll have to assess the article further--which could lead to an WP:FAR, which I don't want.

First, to address the images. The UPN promotional image has no critical commentary-which is a must for all non-free promotional images and screenshots. This statement--UPN took great advantage promoting the network switch by teasing fans of Buffy's resurrection from The WB's series finale.--which is the caption for the image, is 100% original research. There isn't a source to back it up in the caption or the text to the right of it. All the images of the opening credits, original research as well. Not only is there no text to the left of those images discussing them, but there is no sources discussing the relevance of these altered credits. Changing the font in your opening credits is generally not that noteworthy, unless there was a reason for the change. If they just wanted something different, then it isn't that relevant. If they were doing it so that the credits reflected the evolution of the characters in the show, then they would be relevant.

Unverified claims: who functions as an anchor of normality in the Scoobies' lives even after she learns of Buffy's role in the supernatural world. - not sourced. For example, the Adam character parallels the Frankenstein monster, the episode "Bad Eggs" parallels Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and so on. --no source. Seems to be all original research. The feminist issue comes out especially when facing misogynist characters; the most misogynistic characters, Warren and Caleb, both die in gruesome ways, both killed by heroines of the series --more original research.

This is only me picking random sections, the problems exist all over the article. A major clean-up needs to happen for this article to get back into the prime of its existence when it was a model FA example for other television show articles.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To let you all know, I've removed the intertitle images from the page, because no one, in the past several months since I first noted the problems, has bothered to find critical commentary for the images. You cannot simply say "here are some images, look how they are different". That isn't how non-free image use works. We have to talk about the images we are using.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Move over redirect request
Result was move Buffy the Vampire Slayer (disambiguation) to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. This alternative proposal receives wider consensus from members of both camps. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Request move to Buffy the Vampire Slayer over redirect which currently points here. Have listed at WP:RM.

My detailed arguments backed up by policy are already present on this talk page at. My position has been backed up by 2 other admins in word, and by the Vampire Slayer (TV series) one other admin in deed who moved the page over the redirect but then reverted when he noticed the page is move protected. Indeed, he is the 3rd admin to attempt to move the page over the redirect! See also, a previous debate which resulted in the dab page being moved to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (disambiguation) and the curious result of the primary title redirecting here.

'''Please read my rationale at. I'm not going to repeat myself here''' as I know it will not be productive.

Please note I merely wish to have this page named per convention and guidelines. If it's followed by a debate about moving the dab page again so be it; in the meantime let's lose the "TV series" dab suffix which goes against all naming conventions. --kingboyk (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

An alternative proposal is to move Buffy the Vampire Slayer (disambiguation) to Buffy the Vampire Slayer and leave the TV series here. --kingboyk (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support move to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Moving Buffy the Vampire Slayer (disambiguation) to Buffy the Vampire Slayer is my second choice: it is also an improvement over the current situation. Should there be no consensus here, I suggest that the closing admin flips a coin, as both choices are clearly superior to the present situation (which goes against our naming conventions and disambiguation guidelines). Kusma (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree 100%. There has to be action one way or the other. --kingboyk (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support move to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The television series is the primary usage of the name.  The alternative proposal (to relocate the disambiguation page to Buffy the Vampire Slayer) is not unreasonable, however.  Either change would be an acceptable solution to the current situation.  Under no circumstance should Buffy the Vampire Slayer continue to serve as a redirect, as that makes absolutely no sense.  —David Levy 16:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What setup do you advocate? (What should be done with the page title Buffy the Vampire Slayer?) —David Levy 04:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC) In this case (unlike in the case of "Garfield"), "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" isn't even the character's name! (It's the character's first name followed by a description of the character.) There is considerably less justification for assigning the Buffy the Vampire Slayer title to the article about the character than there is for assigning the Garfield title to the article about that character. ("Garfield" is the character's complete and only English-language name, and it's similarly likely to to refer to the character as it is to refer to the comic strip. "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," conversely, is far less likely to refer to the character than it is to refer to the media in which the character appears.)  —David Levy 04:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC) This surely is begging the question. But regardless, in that the film came first, surely the cultural impact of the film includes that of the subsequent works based on it, including the TV series? This priority is then anything but irrelevant, if cultural impact is to be the guide. Disagree that having more or less coverage has anything to do with cultural impact or any other measure of importance. Rather, it's simply that there is less to cover! A film can't possibly contain as much material as six and a bit years of a TV series. (Or if it did it would be a pretty boring series (-> which I'm not for one minute suggesting is the case.) I'm afraid I think your quotation from Neutral point of view isn't relevant here. It specifically deals with the question of coverage given to different viewpoints. There are no differing or controversial viewpoints covered by these articles; The material in both the film and the series is well known and agreed. Andrewa (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC) 2. Indeed, the passage that I cited isn't particularly relevant to the situation at hand, but said citation is the logical follow-up to the irrelevant WP:NPOV reference that you introduced to the discussion. I'm addressing your argument that a lack of balanced coverage constitutes a breach of NPOV.  —David Levy 04:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The primary usage is the film, which had world-wide distribution. The games have similar distribution but are spinnoffs. The television show may be well-known in the first world, but there are many English speakers who have never heard of it. Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On what do you base the assertion that the film is the primary usage? It doesn't appear to approach the television series' level of recognition.  (For the record, I've seen the film and never seen an episode of the television series, but that has no bearing on the fact that the latter's cultural impact is far greater.)  —David Levy 19:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Based mainly on the information in the various articles, which is incidentally consistent with my experience here in Oz. On what do you base your opinion? Andrewa (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I base it on the fact that without any effort on my part, I've been exposed to massive amounts of international (particularly United Kingdom and United States) attention toward the television series and its offshoots for years. The original film, conversely, came and went with relatively little impact (apart from serving as the television series' predecessor), at least in the U.S. (its country of origin).  A Google search appears to confirm that the phrase "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" refers to the television series more often than it refers to anything else, though I'm certainly willing to reassess my opinion if presented with evidence to the contrary.  (Did you say that some articles contain this?)
 * I think, if it were solely up to me, that I'd move the article on Buffy Summers to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which is the name by which she is known to many who've never played the games or even seen the film or TV series. Then have a hatnote pointing from there to the disambig. There are also of course already links to the various articles on the film, the TV show, and the games, from within the article on the character. The main problem with this is that Wikipedia has thus far swallowed the bait of the promoters of the games etc, and the article on Buffy herself currently describes her primarily as she was reinvented for the TV show and games, with only passing mention to the rather different character as she appears in the film which started it all. In the interests of NPOV this history needs to be expanded and fronted a bit IMO, to present both versions of the character. Andrewa (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea actually, but probably goes against naming conventions? As for "swallowing the bait" who cares?! We place articles where people would expect to find them. Just because the film came first matters not one iota. The film flopped, the TV series became massive. --kingboyk (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Moving the Buffy Summers article to Buffy the Vampire Slayer would not comply with our naming conventions. "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" most often refers to the media featuring the character, not to the character itself (which is far more likely to be referred to simply as "Buffy").  And even in cases where a character and the related media typically are referenced by the same name, our standard practice is to disambiguate the title of the article pertaining to character (because of its narrower focus).  For example, our Garfield article is about the media (primarily the comic strip) in which the "Garfield" character appears, while the character's article resides at Garfield (character).  —David Levy 02:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unconvinced that any breach of WP:NC is involved. Agree the proposal differs from practice in other cases, but this is an unusual case. Garfield is not exactly a parallel, because of the lack of ambiguity with the character and medium in that case. Andrewa (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't an unusual case at all. It's quite common for a character's name to be used as the title of the work(s) in which said character is featured, and our standard practice is to assign precedence to the work(s).
 * Expanding the Buffy Summers article to include additional information about the character's portrayal in the film is a reasonable idea, but you need to realize that "NPOV" does not mean "equal attention paid to all facets of a subject". "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" (emphasis mine).  We have less coverage of the feature film than of the television series because the latter has had considerably greater cultural impact.  The fact that the film "started it all" is irrelevant.  It simply isn't as popular or well known.  —David Levy 02:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (Apologies for messing up the format, but what you've done is a little unusual and I'm not sure how you would like it fixed.)
 * 1. You're over-thinking this. The relevant criterion is the likelihood that someone searching for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" seeks information about a particular subject.  The television series is the most popular entity to bear this name.  It makes absolutely no difference what came first.  If the television series were significantly less popular than the film (as is the case with A League of Their Own, for example), the film would take precedence.  But it isn't.  When someone searches for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," he/she probably is thinking of the television series.  It's as simple as that.
 * See below. Andrewa (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Move dab over redirect, because the film is reasonably well known, and is the origin of Buffy. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're not signed in. Being the "origin of Buffy" doesn't matter, and it's only "reasonably well known" as opposed to the TV series which is "very" well known, imho. --kingboyk (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Proposal goes against WP:TV-NAME. Before making any of these proposals, please read the naming conventions. There is also a film called Buffy the Vampire Slayer (film), and not only does "(TV series)" tacked on the end disambiguate between the two, but it is also following the naming conventions for a TV series. – Axman (☏) 10:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't lecture me about reading the naming conventions when you clearly haven't grasped them yourself nor have you bothered reading the debate above where I analysed in great detail how the current scheme defies the naming conventions. We don't disambiguate article titles when the TV usage is the primary topic, as the redirect from Buffy to here suggests it is. This is in the very first paragraph of Naming conventions (television). If you agree with the naming conventions, you support my proposal; the only valid reason for opposing is if you refute the notion that the TV series is the primary topic. --kingboyk (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies if you though I was lecturing you, that was not my intent. I oppose your proposal because both the film and TV series are well known and that one does not have primary name usage over the other. Therefore Buffy the Vampire Slayer should be the disambiguation page, whilst the others retain their "(film)" and "(TV series)" suffixes. – Axman (☏) 03:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think I have to agree with Axman wrt WP:TV-NAME. --203.220.171.83 (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But he is wrong. The naming conventions are perfectly clear on this - see Talk:Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_%28TV_series%29. If you oppose because you can demonstrate that the TV series is not the primary topic or that there is sufficient doubt fine, but you're agreeing with somebody whose logic is flawed. You're also not signed in btw. --kingboyk (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * AxSkov and 203.220.171.83: I have no objection to making Buffy the Vampire Slayer the disambiguation page (with Buffy the Vampire Slayer (film) and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) retaining their current titles), but please note that the page in question merely advises us on how to disambiguate when necessary (and contains the advice that "if the title of the television program is the most common usage of the phrase, let it be the title of the article"). Therefore, the relevant argument should be that the television program is not the most common usage of the phrase; simply pointing out that guideline's existence doesn't establish very much.  —David Levy 13:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mild oppose, and move Buffy the Vampire Slayer (disambiguation) instead. My interpretation of WP:DAB is that a "primary usage" takes precedence over a disambiguation page only when a healthy majority are known to be looking for a certain topic (e.g. BBC, off the top of my head). Googling "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", the second hit is IMDb's entry for the movie, while the comic book I'd never heard of is also on the first page of hits. So while I've no doubt that the TV show is the most popular BtVS, I'm not convinced it's sufficiently dominant. --DeLarge (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, though I really think that it would be the simplest and most sensible to move the disambiguation page instead. - Koweja (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, *sigh* - primary topic. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
From discussion above:

You're over-thinking this. Not sure what this means, but if it's the opposite of under-thinking, then perhaps I am. (-> Andrewa (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It means that you're creating complex rationales for something that's very simple. —David Levy 09:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The relevant criterion is the likelihood that someone searching for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" seeks information about a particular subject. Agree. And I can't see how anyone searching on that and ending up at an article on the title character could be surprised or disappointed. If they had no idea that there was anything to Buffy other than the games (or the film, for that matter), they'd have learned something, true. But that's not in itself a bad thing surely. Andrewa (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That a setup isn't terrible doesn't mean that it's the best. Reaching an article about the character wouldn't be catastrophic, but it would be unexpected and unideal (for reasons that I've already explained).  —David Levy 09:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The television series is the most popular entity to bear this name. More popular than Buffy herself? Come on! That makes no sense at all! Andrewa (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is not the character's name. It's the character's first name followed by a description.  It's reasonable to argue that the disambiguation page should have the title Buffy the Vampire Slayer (because several notable works are known by that name), but our naming conventions clearly preclude using it for the article about the character even if it were the character's exact and only name.  —David Levy 09:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Many who would not know who you meant if you just said "Buffy" or would get it wrong (I have a friend who has it as a nickname!) and haven't a clue as to her surname would recognise her as Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Andrewa (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, but that isn't the character's name. Many people know Duane Chapman only as Dog the Bounty Hunter, but the latter title belongs to the article about the television series (not the person).  Another example is Judith Sheindlin (widely known as Judge Judy).  —David Levy 22:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Or how about the late Steve Irwin (known to many only as "the Crocodile Hunter")? The title The Crocodile Hunter belongs to the article about the television series (not the person), despite the fact that Irwin also used this moniker in a similarly titled feature film.  —David Levy 23:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are names and names. Steve Irwin is widely known by that name, I don't think he's widely known to many by any other name, although he was of course promoted as The Crocodile Hunter as you say. There's a hatnote to his article at the article on the TV show. Personally I've always regarded that nickname as a bit of showbiz hype but I could be wrong (evidence?). But at Buffy the Vampire Slayer (disambiguation) we read Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a television series that aired from 1997 to 2003. It may also refer to: and one of the options is Buffy Summers. So I would say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a name for Buffy Summers. And I'd also say that under some circumstances, The Crocodile Hunter could refer to, and be a name for, Steve Irwin, but I certainly wouldn't support moving that article. Andrewa (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nor would I, and that's my point.
 * You're Australian, correct? I imagine that Irwin's name carries significantly greater recognition in Australia than it does in many other countries.  In American media, for example, he often was referred to simply as "the Crocodile Hunter," so many people know him primarily by that name.  Nonetheless, Steve Irwin (not The Crocodile Hunter) is the appropriate title for the article.
 * I don't know whether you're familiar with Judith Sheindlin, but she usually is referred to (including by people appearing on her show) as "Judge Judy." Nonetheless, Judge Judy is the title of our article about the television series.  —David Levy 03:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It makes absolutely no difference what came first. Disagree. It's not the only factor to consider, certainly, but it is relevant. Andrewa (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it really isn't. If the film and the television series were of approximately equal prominence and no other entities with the title "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" existed, this would be better than flipping a coin.  But that isn't the case.  —David Levy 09:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree that they are not of equal prominence. Disagree that if they were, we'd consider irrelevant details... this is exactly when we'd make the disambiguation page the unqualified name, or redirect the unqualified name there (we aren't at all consistent in which we do). Perhaps we are using the concept of relevance in different ways... to you perhaps it's just those considerations that support the conclusion. To me, it's evidence either way. Andrewa (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, we would not have a disambiguation page if there were only two notable uses of the phrase "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." Two-article disambiguation pages serve no practical purpose.
 * I don't understand your comment about "relevance." —David Levy 22:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If the television series were significantly less popular than the film (as is the case with A League of Their Own, for example), the film would take precedence. Not automatically. As you're speaking hypotheticals (so I assume you don't think it's over-thinking to do this), consider this: If the television series were extremely unpopular but famous for other reasons, then it could still be the primary meaning. Box-office isn't everything. Andrewa (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What kind of nitpicking is this? "Popular" vs. "famous"?  Come on!  Obviously, I'm referring to overall prominence (and I used terminology that applies in this particular instance).  But sure, if the A League of Their Own television series were famous because a world leader had been assassinated while seated in the studio audience, that might change matters.  Happy now?  —David Levy 09:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. Suggest we cool this down a bit, it's getting personal. Andrewa (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you want me to say. —David Levy 22:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just stick to the issues. If you think that the difference between famous and popular matters here (and I agree it does) and if you think I'm wrong to talk about what is famous (and obviously I chse the word for a reason) then say why. If on the other hand you think it doesn't matter, as your accusation of nitpicking implies to me, then why say anything? Andrewa (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I wasn't attempting to draw such a distinction. I referenced popularity because that was the contextually applicable type of prominence.  I never meant to exclude a television series (or anything) possessing a different type of prominence.  You ignored the crux of my argument and addressed a semantic issue unrelated to my point.  —David Levy 01:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me try again: If the television series were significantly less popular than the film (as is the case with A League of Their Own, for example), the film would take precedence. No, that's oversimplified. It's a generalisation that is obviously false; Your example of a world leader being assassinated is a bit far-fetched perhaps but you get the idea.
 * To get back to the case at hand, it's not as simple as deciding that the series is more popular than the film... whatever that means, it's not as though people have a choice of one or the other. But even assuming we can decide which is more popular, that isn't the end of the story. They can dislike something and still be very aware of its existence.
 * At the risk of being again accused of nitpicking, WP:NC doesn't talk about popularity as such. Can we relate your argument back to the terms it does use? Andrewa (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The word "popular" doesn't necessarily carry that connotation. It also can mean "prevailing among the people generally"  (as in "a popular superstition" or "a popular misunderstanding of the issue").  I was referring to such prevalence.  In this particular instance, the entities in question derive said prevalence  from their recognition (favorable or unfavorable) in popular culture.  I was not claiming that we should base our article titles on the extent to which something is liked.
 * At this point, you've gone far beyond nitpicking. Misunderstandings can occur, but I've repeatedly clarified my statement.  How many times must I explain myself before you'll stop going after this straw man?  —David Levy 03:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No straw man is intended. You have used the word popularity as well as popular, and yes I assumed you meant, well, popularity. That word isn't ambiguous as far as I know. You've also spoken of more popular and less popular and these phrases are in my experience referring to, well, to popularity, as opposed to phrases such as "a popular superstition" or "a popular misunderstanding of the issue" where, I agree, the meaning is significantly different. Andrewa (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, in these particular cases, such popularity is a major factor. I've never claimed that it is in every case.  —David Levy 04:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nor have I claimed that you claimed this. Disagree that popularity is a major factor, although it is relevant. But I am interpretting popularity here in what I think is its normal sense of lots of people like it. Before we go on (assuming you think we should), can I just check that this is what you mean? Andrewa (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The extent to which people like the movie and the television series is irrelevant. What matters is the extent to which people are familiar with them.  In this instance, however, the two happen to be linked. Had the television series attracted fewer fans, it might have been quickly canceled and faded into relative obscurity.  Its success in attracting an audience is what led to its prominence (something that did not occur in the case of the A League of Their Own television series).
 * In other words, I'm saying that the irrelevant type of popularity led to the relevant type. —David Levy 07:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you think I've been nitpicking and worse. Where from here? Andrewa (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you accept my repeated explanations and stop arguing against a point that I'm not trying to make. —David Levy 04:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree that doing that is a waste of time. I'm certainly not intending to do that. Admit that this discussion has not been one of my best (Happy Christmas BTW). But nor can I see why you would even bother replying to such arguments. If you're not trying to make a particular point, why defend it? Andrewa (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not. I'm defending the statements that I've actually made.  —David Levy 07:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

''When someone searches for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," he/she probably is thinking of the television series. It's as simple as that.'' Not convinced. IMDB, for example, indicates that enquiries regarding the movie are increasing. I wonder how DVD sales are going? Andrewa (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What bearing does that have on the fact that the television series is better known? —David Levy 09:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Calling it a fact doesn't make it one. DVD sales figures, on the other hand, are data, and help establish the facts. They're likely to favour the TV series, for all sorts of reasons, but If they didn't, then the assertion that the TV show is better known would be in serious trouble.


 * By all means, feel free to challenge my assertion that the television series is better known than the film is. —David Levy 13:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have. Much of it on both sides is speculation, unfortunately, but that's what we have for now. More data would be good. The show doesn't screen on any channel I have available to me, so I can't check the credits. But I wonder do they refer to the film? Now, not everyone reads the credits, but those looking up Wikipedia are likely to. Same goes for the games, comics etc. The film, of course, couldn't credit the others, but subsequent releases of it could.
 * There's certainly a tendency on the part of Wikipedia contributors to ignore the film. Take the article on Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Album, for example: Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Album is a soundtrack album featuring music from the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series. The album is made up mostly of tracks by little-known artists, though some better known ones, such as Garbage and Alison Krauss, are also featured. A small part of the original score is also included. Although the album was released in 1999, it contains music from Buffy's first four seasons. (My emphasis.) Except for the sentence I've bolded, this article doesn't mention that there ever was a film, let alone link to the article on it. Yet the album it describes apparently contains music from the film (perhaps it's the theme, track 1?), as well as from the TV series. Andrewa (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Having never seen the television series, I don't know whether the film is mentioned in the credits. I also don't know how this is remotely relevant.  —David Levy 22:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just one more piece of evidence, rather than just going on opinions. Andrewa (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Evidence of what? —David Levy 00:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Evidence of English usage, both direct and indirect in this case. Andrewa (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. —David Levy 01:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The decision as to what the article is called should be based on WP:NC. This refers to what English speakers would most easily recognize. How are we to assess this? One way is by what they use themselves (direct evidence). Another is by what they read elsewhere (indirect evidence). The credits are an example of both, and a particularly good piece of indirect evidence, as they are accessible to many of the readers in whom we're most interested. Andrewa (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that a mention of the film in the television series' credits would be indicative of increased prominence on the former's part? —David Levy 03:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. Andrewa (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that I don't follow your logic. —David Levy 04:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly certain that you're misinterpreting the article about the soundtrack album. I believe that "original score" refers to music composed specifically for the television series (as opposed to most of the music contained on the album, which was merely used in the television series).  —David Levy 22:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I may well be mistaken about the original score, see Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Album. But I resent the allegation that I am misrepresenting anything. Andrewa (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please re-read the statement in question; I said that you were misinterpreting the article. —David Levy 00:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I need to cool down myself obviously, that's a very revealing slip! Andrewa (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries! :-)  —David Levy 01:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the passage that I cited isn't particularly relevant to the situation at hand, Agreed.

''but said citation is the logical follow-up to the irrelevant WP:NPOV reference that you introduced to the discussion. I'm addressing your argument that I'm addressing your argument that a lack of balanced coverage constitutes a breach of NPOV.'' Aren't we getting a bit off the track here? My comment on NPOV wasn't even directed towards the question of article names, and you at first seemed to agree with it. Are you now seriously suggesting that a lack of balanced coverage is a good thing? Just so long as we agree that it's a bad thing, I don't really care what else we call it. Andrewa (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm merely disputing your assertion that having less information about the character's portrayal in the film than we have about the character's portrayal in the television series constitutes a breach of NPOV. —David Levy 09:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I see. But why? Wikipedia is not a battleground. The function of this discussion page is to improve this article, and I really don't see how this helps. Andrewa (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You made a claim pertaining to an article, and I expressed disagreement (a normal part of discussion). What's the problem?  —David Levy 13:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just that we've got way off the track. Your questions seem to have nothing to do with the article name. You asked what I'd do instead of the rename which I oppose, and I told you, and in hindsight should have started a discussion section at that time. I made a comment about the content of another article at the same time, which in hindsight was a bigger mistake... I should instead have put a pointer to the other article talk page, and made a note there. Let's do that, since you're obviously very concerned about this particular issue. Andrewa (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Which issue? The "NPOV" issue?  I was merely responding to your comments.  Everything's fine, mate.  :-)  —David Levy 21:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should broaden it a bit, and take it elsewhere... Not sure where just yet. This is something that interests me obviously, in the context of the general cultural movement towards establishing fictional universes. Sometimes, and I think this may be a case in point, the original material is suppressed quite deliberately (and I'm sure with the best intentions!). This raises some interesting and sometimes difficult issues for Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No one is suppressing the film. It simply isn't nearly as popular as the television series.  —David Levy 22:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, but they are. The film is not regarded as Buffyverse canon. Those who promote this canon would prefer that the film was forgotten. I'm not saying you or any other specific person is doing this, or that there's any lack of good faith involved among Wikipedia contributors. Just that there is this sentiment among many Buffy fans, and it's also in line with the commercial interests of the owners of the material.
 * And it's not Wikipedia's place to oppose them, that would be promotion in the other direction. We simply document the facts. But we need to be careful. Andrewa (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's true that the original film takes place outside of the subsequent works' continuity. This is because significant creative changes were made (rendering it impossible for said film to exist within the same fictional universe), not because anyone denies its real-life existence.  —David Levy 00:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * At the risk of another accusation of nitpicking, I don't think anyone denies that the film exists. Rather, it's a desire to ignore it. And this is fair enough, but we need to be very careful that this perspective doesn't contaminate our coverage of the whole of the subject, which includes the film. Andrewa (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The original film is ignored within the subsequent works' fictional context. In real life, it's ignored in the respect that the general pubic is significantly less interested in it.  I'm not aware of any effort to "suppress" it.  —David Levy 01:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So, what you're saying is you like the film. Perhaps the conspiracy is not to "supress" the film but to "promote" it beyond it's actual real-world importance? --kingboyk (talk) 13:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This probably isn't relevant to the discussion about page titles, but I couldn't resist chipping in... I don't think Joss Whedon tries to suppress the film. In fact, he wrote the TV pilot with the film in mind; he says he wanted the TV series to follow on from the original story of the film. Obviously he wasn't pleased with the finished product of the film, but I know he counts his original script and the basic events and characters of the film as canon - he declared the comic book version (which was based on his script) as canon. Also, characters and events from the film/script appear and are vaguely referenced in the TV series. So I don't think he's trying to suppress it - the film is a very important part of Buffyverse history, both in the canon fictional universe (even though the finished film isn't canon) and the real world development of the franchise. It's not ignored.  Paul    730  04:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence
Here's a little bit of evidence, although I do admit it goes against me: The article Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) has versions in 31 othe wikipedias, as opposed to only 11 for Buffy the Vampire Slayer (film). What other measures can we use? Andrewa (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Real world evidence. I could go create stubs for the film in 40 other wikipedias, and it wouldn't prove a thing. Better evidence would be prove popularity, discussion of and references to either in other works, the fact that there are college courses dedicated to Buffy that focus on the show and not the film, etc. Or, everyone can stop arguing over irrelevant things and make Buffy the Vampire Slayer the disambiguation page as an acceptable compromise. - Koweja (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We do still assume good faith here. But I did have a look at the French Wikipedia articles and their histories (before even writing the section above) and they both seem bona fide, and are different articles. The problem doesn't occur in French, as the TV series is called (in translation) Buffy against the Vampires while the film was called Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Agree that the disambig move would be a good compromise. Andrewa (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I wasn't accusing you (or anyone else) of editing other languages just to create a false sense of notability. I was simply pointing out that the existence of an article on Wikipedia does not prove notability. - Koweja (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree it doesn't prove it, but it is good evidence. We have procedures to remove unencyclopedic material, and while they're not perfect they work remarkably well IMO.


 * But I also agree that we should prefer real world evidence. Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As stated above, I'd be fine with moving the disambiguation page to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The current situation (in which that title redirects to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)) is what's unacceptable.  —David Levy 04:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references section
...has maintenance templates on it, and is frankly imho not of the standard expected of Featured Articles. I suggest copyediting it and/or moving it out to a new article and leaving a summary here. The article could do with a good overall copyedit, too, to ensure that it doesn't get nominated for demotion. (It's difficult, I know, maintaining a good article on such a popular topic which anybody can edit). --kingboyk (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC) See "In popular culture" articles for more guidance. --kingboyk (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and done it. We now have a small prose section here (could be a little larger but it was hard to seperate the wood from the trees), Buffy the Vampire Slayer in popular culture, and Unofficial Buffy the Vampire Slayer productions (detailing fan films, adult stuff etc). --kingboyk (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice work, that section was really dragging the article down. I think it was prose when the article became featured, but gradually devolved into a "List of times the word Buffy is mentioned in pop culture".  Thanks for cleaning it up.     Paul    730  17:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, wouldn't surprise me, that's usually what happens with these things (The Beatles got so bad it was demoted). Fortunately the FAs I've worked on are on more obscure topics so I don't get this problem :) Anyway, glad you like it, thanks. --kingboyk (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tidying up after the storm
Buffy the Vampire Slayer which is now the dab page has a lot of incoming links which need to be disambiguated. --kingboyk (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll work on it. - Koweja (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Only 1000 more pages to sort out. I'll work on it more later if nobody else takes over. - Koweja (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Cast in infobox
Ok, since someone was a little disgruntled about the edit I'm coming here. Given the size of the cast for this show, and apparently the opinions on who should come in what order, my suggestion is we just send the "Starring" area down to the characters section - as is done at Smallville (TV series). This removes any unnecessary opinions as to "who comes first" in the infobox, and at the same time removes the 13 names (which is a bit excessive for the infobox) of all the people who at any one time might have starred on the show. If nothing else, I say only list those that were on the show from season 1 to season 7, and let the rest be listed in the characters section below.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just redone your edit, Bignole. Due to the long cast (made longer by the inclusion of Joyce and Faith... since when are they cast regulars?), the kerfuffle over what order to put them in... blah blah, it's just easier to link to the later cast section.  I don't think there's any big controversy here.     Paul    730  13:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Use the cast from the opening credits of the last episode of the series in the infobox, in my opinion. - LA @ 11:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would that not give rise to recentism, because you are playing favorites with those that only recently joined the show, when there were others who were series regulars and left early on?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is an approximate guide to the opening credits, though I haven't actually counted the amount of episodes for each character. Those bolded were in the last episode's opening credits, I think. - LA @ 12:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sarah Michelle Gellar (7 seasons)
 * Nicholas Brendon (7 seasons)
 * Alyson Hannigan (7 seasons)
 * Anthony Stewart Head (6 seasons - 5 in the opening credits)
 * James Marsters (5 seasons - 3.5 in the opening credits)
 * Emma Caulfield (4 seasons)
 * Amber Benson (4 seasons - 3ish in the opening credits)
 * Michelle Trachtenberg (3 seasons)
 * Charisma Carpenter (3 seasons)
 * David Boreanaz (3 seasons - 2 in the opening credits)
 * Seth Green (3.5 seasons - 2ish in the opening credits)
 * Marc Blucas (1.5 seasons - less than 1 in opening credits)
 * Kristine Sutherland (guest - never in opening credits)


 * See, to me the only people that need to be listed in the infobox are Gellar, Hannigan and Brendon. They are the only constants in the shows 7 season. Everyone else came and went with the wind. If anything, I say we list those three and let the characters section of the article take care of the rest. You can note in the section, if not already done, when and how long they were series regulars.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am just giving you all options. I am not about to go rewatch the entire series to find out who was in the opening credits how often. If the top three would suit, go for it. Sounds good to me. - LA @ 12:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I put those three in, and then changed "see below" to "see also".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Little piece of trivia about James Marsters. He appeared in the opening credits of all five seasons of Angel, however, only one as a cast member. The other four seasons had a scene from the episode "Into the Dark," where Spike is running from Angel in an alley. That might have also happened on Buffy, but I can't be sure. - LA @ 12:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should add Anthony Stewart Head to the Cast in the Info box, because he has appeared in all 7 seasons. He's only had one big absense, and that was in the middle of season 6. Even though he was a guest in season 7, he appeared in the majority of the episodes of 7. I'm going to add him now, because I don't think there will be any big arguments but if there is, just take his name off and we can discuss it farther - Smartjoe299 @ 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the current cast mentioned in the infobox will suffice and the see also works very well. —— Ryan (t)•(c) 11:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Buffy logo 0001.jpg
Image:Buffy logo 0001.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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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) 06:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Buffythevampireslayer-1.jpg
Image:Buffythevampireslayer-1.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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Buffythevampireslayer-5.jpg
Image:Buffythevampireslayer-5.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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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) 06:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series
I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 16:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Issues
This article seems to be suffering from a decline in quality with regards to referencing. There are several unreferenced statements in the text, including several completely unreferenced paragraphs. Other sources being used fail WP:RS, including the use of fansites and IMDB. Unless these issues are fixed, the article is a prime candidate for going to FAR for possible delisting as a featured article. Anyone want to step up and tackle the problem? AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mass moves
Recently, user Darknus823 started moving every single Buffy episode to a new title (his actions can be found here ). He did this without any discussion, I explained the implications on his talk page about making such moves without consensus. I suggest undoing every move because someone is more likely to search for "Crush (Buffy episode)" than "Crush (Buffy the Vampire Episode)." I know these will all have redirects now but Buffy occupies a vast amount of space on the project with a lot of interconnected links and pages so this mass move that was carried out could cause a lot of disruption ——RyanLupin • (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone still interested in this?
I want to help the Buffy The Vampire Slayer article get to featured-article quality again. I've been trying to find sources for a lot of the things listed in the Featured Article Review, but it's fairly difficult finding them for a show that ended 5+ years ago, especially when using fan-sites is frowned upon. Anyone willing to give me a hand in getting this article to the quality it deserves? -- Bloodloss  01:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not even aware that this article was demoted from Featured Article status until now. It's a little surprising. But then again, I figured that if enough of the additions added by IPs were not steadily reverted as they had been, the article would be endanger of getting demoted (not that all IPs just add crap and without citations, though if they do add citations, it's usually not in correct format). I mean, this article is not even GA (Good Article) ranked, but B ranked now, though I do not see it as B-rank at all, but rather as a GA that needs some tweaking. I don't even feel that it's that far away from FA. Flyer22 (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

IPs modifying ratings numbers?
Why are the ratings numbers getting changed? These are years after the fact--this should not be in dispute. Can we get this stable, please? If you're changing them, PLEASE provide an edit summary detailing the basis for your change. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Lesbians and Corporates
I heards somewhere a studio objected to having lesbians in the show, and there was cancellation of delaying of something somewhere. Pretty vague, huh!? Is this just a random rumor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohsoh (talk • contribs) 10:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, absolutely. There is no truth to lesbians having caused cancellation of delaying of something ANYWHERE. :P No, really, what did you mean? I know that Xander's character was originally intended as 'the gay one,' but female homosexuality was far more palatable than male at the time, so Willow ended up as the token gay. Also I know that Angel was supposed to be Spike's sire, but because of the sexual undertones, Drusilla was retconned into his place. So, yes, AFAIK, lesbians have never been the problem, but what were you referring to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viralhyena (talk • contribs) 06:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * At the time ? Huh, pretty much the contrary. Female homosexuality is much more palatable than male nowadays, in nearly every tv show there's a lesbian. But at the time, when an homosexual character was introduced in the show it was more often a man than a woman. There was "queer as a folk" but no L Word. As a matter of fact, I think BTVS was a pioneer if not the pioneer in showing desinhibited lesbians, two major characters in love with each other and not the usual "Oh my god, I'm gay ! How can I tell my parents ?" character who stay for one or two episode. Now, OhSoh, I don't know what you're talking about, but I know for sure that WB did not allow to show Tara and Willow in any sexual scene... unlike Buffy/Riley, Xander/Anya, etc. It's only when Buffy was broadcasted on UPN that more kisses and intimacy could be seen. user:parlook 01:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know why they dissolved the Spike/Angel thingy. Women are much more tolerant to the gay theme as they immensely enjoy slash fiction. Most of the female viewers just couldn’t connect with Buffy and fantasized about Spike and Angel doing it instead. In my opinion the show would’ve attracted much more viewers if they had indeed entertained all the girls fantasy and just went on with it.Astronauttothemoon (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Long way home tpb.jpg
The image Image:Long way home tpb.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --07:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Dealt with! -Duribald (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion re: Episode Article Layout
There are numerous issues with the Buffy episode articles, including overly developed synopsis, trivia, production information that is not sourced, lists etc.

Here's my suggestion to make the articles more clear, concise, and sourced.

{{hidden|New layout|

Synopsis
In this section, we will write a thorough summary of the episode.

We will also link Buffyverse characters/terms to their articles, ie. Buffy Summers, Spike, Slayer etc. to ease the visitors' understandings:

For example:

''On Christmas Eve, Buffy Summers strolls through the cemetary at night. She suddenly encounters a vampire wielding an axe.''

Production Information
The following will differ amongst the episode articles. They will apply to those that have sourced information regarding writing, casting, filming, promotion, music etc.

Writing
This sub-section will appear if there is information available regarding the episode's writing. Relevant information for this section include the process of writing (positives and negatives), the influences to the script, continuity, omitted dialogue etc. MUST CITE SOURCE!

For example:

''Writer Joss Whedon struggled with the first act, claiming "I had no idea how to start the show. I wrote some stuff and it was never good." However, after having lunch with fellow producer David Solomon, Whedon was suggested to mirror the episode to the events of the film The Matrix.

For example:

''The following was cut due to time constraints : '' Buffy: What's going on? '' Willow: Xander's dating a demon. '' Angel: Again?! '' Giles: Oh, dear Lord. ''

Casting
This is not to credit the cast.

This is to reveal any information -- if available -- regarding the casting process. MUST CITE SOURCE!

For example:

''Britney Spears auditioned for the role of Demon #2. However due to scheduling conflicts, Spears dropped out.

Filming
Here will appear information available regarding the filming of the episode. MUST CITE SOURCE!

For example:

''During the eight-day shoot, both Sarah Michelle Gellar and David Boreanaz suffered from the stomach flu. They blame the bad catering. ''

Plot
Explain the plot in this section (500 words or so).

Production
The following will differ amongst the episode articles. They will apply to those that have sourced information regarding writing, casting, filming, promotion, music etc. If this information doesn't exist, then there's a good chance the article shouldn't exist, unless there something exceptional about this episode (highest rated, controversy in the news, or so on) that provides real-world context.

Writing
This sub-section will appear if there is information available regarding the episode's writing. Relevant information for this section include the process of writing (positives and negatives), the influences to the script, continuity, omitted dialogue etc. MUST CITE SOURCE!

Casting
This is not to credit the cast. This is to reveal any information -- if available -- regarding the casting process. MUST CITE SOURCE!

Reception
Comments from notable critics here, ratings details, awards and nominations. }} AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Michelle Gellar quote in lead section
For me, this quote doesn't add any useful information to the article, but perhaps I'm wrong on that, so I'd like to know other user's opinions about it before deleting this paragraph. When I read the lead this was what came into my mind:

First of all, since this article is about the series in general, SMG's opinion about the character isn't that relevant; I'd rather put it in the article about her (if at all).

Secondly, the "quotes" section on imdb isn't a great source - if we know it's from an interview, why not name the interview as a source instead of quoting a quote? --Six words (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Relevance of the quote is debatable, but the fact that it cannot be verified should tip the balance. Since no one had objected, I'll delete the quote. LSD (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters
A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction). Ikip (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Buffyverse objects closing in a few hours
FYI Ikip (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of "reboot" movie info
I noticed a bit of edit/reversion/reversion began on the info about a tentative stand-alone Buffy movie being announced. I'm of the mind that it is relevant since it impacts the possible future of this franchise to find continuation and that it is related to the core character, initially created for the original movie which is mentioned in the article. It seemed to me that perhaps this subject desreved inclusion on the discussion page. Medleystudios72 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It can be put in Buffy Summers and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (film), but Kuzui doesn't have rights to any characters from the TV series except for Buffy herself. It's really a case of recentism to include it here, since it doesn't clearly mean anything yet. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see your point. My intial stance was based on treating this page as if it were about the emcompassing franchise rather than the narrower purvue of this article.  Any possible effect the announcement could have on the specific subject of this article itself - meaning the television series - can only be speculative.  (For example: Will it prevent the possibility of future projects derived directly from the television narrative?)  Since there's nothing concrete to even document, there's no sense in doing so here.  Whereas it is relevant in related articles of greater scope - the character and the entire franchise based upon her which contains the original movie under it's umbrella.  Medleystudios72 (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Outdated movie rumors...
have been removed. The majority of what was included has been superseded by future speculation, so I've left the current "final word" from Whedon, as there's no encyclopedic value for a list of past rumors, even if they were documented in the trade press. If a future reliably-sourced rumor is to arise, then it should be included at the expense of the past one. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking for deleted comment on the decision on which character would be made lesbian or homosexual in page histories.
I don't remember very well, but there was a quotation/comment by Joss Whedon or another writer for the series on either this page, Willow Rosenberg's page or possibly Anya Jenkins's page concerning the decision on which character would be made lesbian and possibly something about minorities (wording of the exact phrase is uncertain). While the comment might be inaccurate (and has since been removed), I'm looking for the source and also the identity of the other character (i.e. the person other than Willow who was considered a possibility).

I've been looking through the histories of the three pages, but if someone could help narrow it down, it would be helpful. 142.58.43.181 (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You may want to try Google, or some Buffy fan forum, because this page is not for general enquiries, but for suggestions to improve the page. Do you have any? Darrenhusted (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, please don't ask the same question in many places. I've deleted the identical question from the Anya and Willow talk pages.  I seem to recall it was a question between Willow and Xander, with misleads in the first two seasons for both, but beyond that, I agree with the above editor. Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The other character according to "The Q Guide to BtVS" is Xander. It states that Whedon thought about making Xander gay and had dropped hints in the episode with high school jock Larry Blaisdell. I suppose it is interesting to note for character development if anything else.-- Hana ichi  09:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Impact on television
I think this should be extended to include Twilight, True Blood, The Vampire Diaries, etc. And instead television, be "popular media"

(94.193.49.11 (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC))


 * That's cool but we need reliable sources to verify Buffys impact on those series, we can't just make it up as we go.    Paul    730  16:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Besides, it probably isn't correct. Those series all owe more to Laurel K. Hamilton's Anita Blake series than they do to the Buffster. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never even heard of "Anita Blake" before reading your response today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.238.143.14 (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am a writer, book reviewer, and pub a couple of fanzines; I am perhaps a bit more in touch with the publishing industry than you are, 128.238. You can be assured that the writers of these books (not to mention their publishers), know exactly who Laurel K. Hamilton and Anita Blake are. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Influence is not a zero-sum game. It is entirely plausible that both BtVS and Anita Blake have had an impact on modern media. Still, citation needed. Remco47 (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Main image
I reverted the main image back to the title screen from the opening sequence. I feel that image is much more appropriate and iconic as it appears in the title sequence for every episode, then just a black and white version of the logo. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

brain teaser

 * Each [opening title] sequence ends with a long shot of Buffy ....

Except the seventh! —Tamfang (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it's The First in the guise of Buffy. The season six intro ends with a shot of the BuffyBot as well. Are you wanting to change the sentence a bit to reflect it? Drovethrughosts (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Feminism in Inspirations and metaphors section
Hello! This sentence stands out to me in this section for some reason. It doesn't feel like an accurate description of feminism or a metaphor for feminism. Any ideas?


 * "The feminist issue comes out especially when facing misogynist characters; the most misogynistic characters, Warren and Caleb, both die in gruesome ways (the first tortured and skinned alive by Willow, the second eviscerated and cut in two by Buffy)."

I'll certainly try to come up with something here. I feel like there's a better way to express this idea. Mabe a citable source on feminism in Buffy might be a place to start? ScreenRighter (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Good news! I found some excellent resources for this topic, from here. I think this quote from Cathleen Kaveny (What Women Want: 'Buffy,' the Pope, and the New Feminists, Commonweal November 7, 2003, pg.18-24) addresses the issue of feminism without invoking murder or misogyny:
 * The series is about vocation; it explores what it means for Buffy to be a vampire slayer, not merely to slay vampires for fun or profit. It shows her struggling to live up to the demands of the role, sacrificing the usual teenage pleasures to meet her unusual responsibilities. It also shows her growth in competence, wisdom, and confidence, and her eventual realization that the sacrifices are worth it. In exploring the meaning of vocation, the show suggests ways of overcoming several dichotomies that hamper a creative and humane response to the contemporary situation of women.

I'm thinking maybe a small intro and this quote in there would much better serve to illustrate feminism as expressed by BtVS. Any one have other thoughts? ScreenRighter (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I settled on this:
 * Buffy struggles throughout the series with her calling as Slayer and the loss of freedom this entails, frequently sacrificing teenage experiences for her Slayer duties. Her difficulties and eventual empowering realizations are reflections of several dichotomies faced by modern women and echo Feminist issues within society.

If anyone has a problem with it, please let's discuss it. :) ScreenRighter (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Article introduction
I think the article introduction does not describes the TV-show. It just states some facts about the period when it was created and the author. I think an avareage reader would want to know immediately what the show was about. The show was not about some kind of "vampire slayer" that "surrounded himeself with friends". The show (IMO) is about the struggles of a young woman while growing up. Vampires are just a metaphore. Maybe it should be said at the top that the show uses vampires as a parody and a metaphore to the adult world? Anyone agrees with me? Sorry for my English.

I would like to propose this introductory text: "Buffy the Vampire Slayer is an American television action drama series that depicts life struggles of a young female and her family and friends by using vampires and monsteras as an alegory to the real world problems."

Than I would continue with the existing text: "...The series aired from March 10".

Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersmola (talk • contribs) 21:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are trying to change things from a simple statement of fact, into an unsourced theory about the show as a metaphor. Sorry, can't support that. It was not advertised and marketed as a metaphor, it was advertised and marketed as a show about a vampire slayer who surrounded herself with friends. Any reliably sourced analyses of the show as more than that, belong in the body of the article; and speculation and original research have no place in the article at all. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  12:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The IP user is correct, that the show uses the vampires and/or monsters as metaphors for life. This has been stated by creator Joss Whedon. There's a subsection in the article about it. Even though it's correct, it's probably best to leave as is for simplicity, as it is the lead. Again, there is a subsection about the metaphors, so the content is there. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm apt to agree with Drovethryghosts and the above IP user. What kept viewers coming back to Buffy was not the weekly vampire stacking or demon beheading, but the sympathizing with Buffy on a more personal level: "...the opportunity to watch more common human fights: the fight to maintain relationships, the fight to find one's place in the world, the fight against self-doubt." ("The Psychology of Joss Whedon: an Unauthorized Exploration of Buffy, Angel, and Firefly" Joy Davidson) Wouldn't it be useful for first-timers to Buffy to be introduced to some of this in the introduction?
 * Thelibrarian24 (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's in the article. Putting it into the lede as is proposed would be retconning what was pitched to the network, and marketed to the mundane world, as "a show about a vampire slayer who surrounded herself with friends". We can't re-write history to fit our later insights into the show and Joss' motivation(s). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate quote?
Hi. I'd like to add this quote by Joss Whedon into the metaphors and feminism section. Any objections/comments? “Interviewer: So why do you write these strong female characters? Joss Whedon: Because you’re still asking me that question.” Cosainsé (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)