Talk:End of Days (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

Television: Buffyverse / Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by the Buffyverse task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This redirect is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Horror Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Please help complete the Angel/Buffy episode articles. See what needs to be done on this sub-page of WikiProject Buffy:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/Episodes

Also please help update any major changes made to episode articles on that page so that progress can be mapped.

________________________________________________________

POV[edit]

Tagged as such, because... The article, as it stands, goes on about the silliness of deus ex machina devices in action and actually actively questions the storyline. Which is plausible, but this place isn't really about opinion/analysis, is it? Examples:

This begs the question of how Caleb got in before she did, and why the mystical woman didn't notice him. Also, why can't Angel, Caleb or Buffy sense Spike anymore?
Given the fact that the mystical woman waited thousands of years in a closed pyramid, her English is spectacular.
Unfortunately, the information she gives Buffy is terrible; the knight in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" did far better in a comparable situation.
In the next episode, Chosen, Angel will show up with an amulet that Lilah just happened to give him back home in Los Angeles in the episode Home -- a deus ex machina in the true sense of the word this time.
"I don't understand. How is it possible that we didn't know any of this." -- Buffy joining our disbelief.

And so on. I'd rewrite it myself, but I'm on the drowzy side, so I'll handle it later. Is this okay with everyone? Zeppocity 19:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the other Buffy episode articles? This isn't the only one to slip off the NPOV rules. There's a rather needless Writing and acting section that's featured in most of them that seem to serve as a means to give an essay over the particular episode. POV very much. I think someone with enough free time should go in and remove these from the articles because they are not encylopedic - at least not in the way they're currently written --Bacteria 09:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know, and I agree. I think the section might be salvaged if we convert it into a space for pointing out some of the ongoing plot points or continuity details (which it does not, on occasion), but then, wouldn't this be covered just fine with a Continuity section, and as it is, it's just... wrong. Very much so. I'll try and get to them when I have the chance, and well, it'd be nice if you did too. :) Zeppocity 14:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are absolutely right about this episode, but I am slightly confused about Bacteria's comments - are you suggesting we do away with "Writing and acting"? And should we avoid using colloquialisms like those evident in this page? NP Chilla 18:19, 28 December 2005

I have attempted to convert the problematic parts to a more balanced or neutral form while keeping what I feel to be a legit comment on the story's plot -- let's face it, in the last few episodes of Buffy, the plot really is ramrodded down the viewer's throat via those "deus" devices instead of ticking along like a clockwork (see season six). I also left the fact that the mystical woman can speak English, as the series usually comments on obvious language problems (see Buffy's visit to the three wise men in this season). I don't see the Writing and Acting section called into question at all, by the way. There should be a section to remark on those things in a balanced (!) way.

As this makes most of the comments here redundant, somebody should probably erase the after a while

--194.97.167.250 17:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Buffy721.jpg[edit]

Image:Buffy721.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) 19:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]