Talk:Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)/Archive 2

Random comments
This page needs serious rework. The "Faith and Buffy" section should be incorporated entirely within the main article. Value judgements, or statement that verge dangerously on such, should be withheld. Statements should not be repeated unless absolutely necessary.
 * This page has been substantially rewritten in the last month or so. The Faith and Buffy section has been eliminated, and was recently replaced by a short (rewritten) summary of their dynamics under "relationships".  The relationships section has been rewritten, expanded, and organized, and the character bio has also been rewritten.  The Powers and Abilities section may need some further attention, if anyone has time.  Riverbend 17:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey she's dead. She was killed we she reappeared in the Angel series- Isao

Oh.., sorry made a mistake-Isao


 * Working on an overhaul of this article. It will take a little time. Forgive if there are some redundancies while in mid-process. BarkingDoc 01:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Faiths Age
Is Fait really older then Buffy, I thought she was younger, I remeber one of the last episodes of the third serious were faith and buffy had their big brawl and faith was put into a coma that she referred Buffy as Big sister?
 * I don't remember that reference, but it also could have been meant metaphorically. I'm giving the original author the benefit of the doubt and assuming s/he had a reference for the birthdate, though I don't know what it is. (did it come from the role playing game? or perhaps Lindsay's file on Faith?) BarkingDoc

Big Sister was a reference to Dawn's coming in season 5. I believe an interview with SMG revealed this (though it was more about when Dawn was really created by Whedon). Ekarderif 22:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Faith's birthday and age were never mentioned on the show, but it was always implied that she was younger than Buffy. Eliza Duhsku is about four years younger than Sarah Michelle Gellar, it was made clear that Slayers are usually called in their mid-teens (if Faith was really born in 1980, she'd have been pushing 18 when she was called, which is three years older than Buffy was), and her entire look and attitude was based around a child trying to appear adult.

In Faith, Hope and Trick Buffy refers to Faith as her "bestest new little sister." In Graduation Day I, Faith says of Buffy "Look at you, all dressed up in big sister's clothes."Don Sample 08:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In Faith, Hope and Trick Buffy may not have any actual idea of Faith's exact date of birth (and Faith not have any idea exactly how old Buffy is), and calling Faith her "bestest new little sister" likely just reflects the fact that Buffy's behaviour (and her appearance) are more mature than Faith's. But just because SMG is older than ED, and because Faith looks and behaves like someone younger than Buffy does not mean that Faith is actually younger than Buffy. The novel Go Ask Malice, is presented as Faith's diary taking place at the same time as Buffy Season 2. It has her 17th birthday on December 14th 1997 (meaning she's born December 14th 1980). Meaning according to this (uncanon) source she is about one month older than Buffy. -- Paxomen 15:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Faith, Hope & Trick" script describes her as "18ish". Apparently the December 14th, 1980 date is originally from the Angel Casefiles book, though where they got it from is anyone's guess.--Nalvage 21:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice find, I have the shooting scripts but I've hardly looked at them. Someone at Whedonesque said "They got her birthday right as per "Five by Five" (http://whedonesque.com/comments/10801) but I'm not sure where the info was coming from in that episode about Faith's DOB? Also does anyone know where in "Casefiles" it says the Faith DOB? -- Paxomen 00:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Ange: Casefiles Vol. 1 page reference for the December 14, 1980 DOB is in "Sanctuary" not "Five by Five" (page 168). It's an image of a fictional 'Police Bulletin', not sure if it appears in the episode, if it was some material that was made for but never used in the episode, or if Casefile authors Mariotte/Hart made it themselves (though I'd guess the latter being unlikely)? -- Paxomen 12:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything in Go Ask Malice that clearly indicates Faith's age. However, since the author has used the same birthday (December 14) as the Angel Casefiles, it seems likely he is also using the same birth year of 1980, which fits well enough with the contents of the novel. Unfortunately, someone has recently changed the birth year to 1982 in the "Go Ask Malice" section of the article, which fits badly with the novel. For example, her diary entry for December 29, 1997 mentions that she is due to graduate from high school "next year", which could mean either 1998 (next calendar year) or 1999 (next school year). A birth date of December 14, 1982 would make her 15 or 16 at graduation. Unless anyone can point to a place in the novel where Faith's age is made quite clear, I suggest removing any mention of her birth year from the "Go Ask Malice" section. -- Tichtich 12:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I just remembered a clearer indication of Faith's age in Go Ask Malice. In mid-1998, Diana Dormer's diary refers to "...the occasion of the Cruciamentum approaching." Since the Cruciamentum is on a Slayer's 18th birthday, it implies Faith was 17 at the time, confirming the birth year of 1980. I propose the following text: "That Faith was born on December 14, 1980, making her roughly one month older than Buffy (her age/year of birth is not mentioned explicitly, but can be deduced from a reference to her approaching Cruciamentum)". For the longer term, perhaps there should be a separate section dealing with Faith's age, as this seems to be a subject of some interest and controversy. -- Tichtich 13:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In the end, I just deleted the birthdate item from the "Go Ask Malice" section and added a brief sentence to the footnote which already discusses Faith's birthdate, with a link to the separate "Go Ask Malice" page. That page already mentions the reference to the approaching Cruciamentum, so no need to repeat it here. -- Tichtich 14:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

=
=======

the one month older crap is fanfic (those eu books are glorified fanfic).

1) eliza is almost 4 years younger than smg (though, that doesn't exactly matter--giving faith eliza's birthday is the fanficcy part--smg's role is almost 4 years younger than she is). 2) faith's sentence was murder 2 (actually 3), 25 to life... that is an awful light sentence... more than likely she was underage when she committed those crimes, meaning she was 17 or under.

and most importantly!:

3) buffy was called when she was 15 years old. kennedy made a comment that she thought she was too old to be called (and kennedy could NOT have been over 18). 4) if faith was 17 when she was called, she would have already been put through the cruciamentum a month before buffy was. faith wasn't. she was not yet 18 during any part of season 3 when she still had a watcher.

faith saying "big sis'" is a purely size or maturity thing. faith's whole persona was being a young girl who had NOT been sheltered like buffy, one who had grown up too fast.

in all likelihood, faith was about 16 or so when she was called. you can't get called at 18, because the watcher's council wouldn't make 18 the age for their test if they had slayers getting called after that. faith had to have turned 18 AFTER she had gone rogue from the council. if her 18th birthday was christmas 1998, she would have gone through her cruciamentum (still with the council) between amends and gingerbread. unlikely (giles couldn't have done it twice). if this birthday were the case, she'd have been called at 17.

more than likely, faith was 15/16 (and december 30th doesn't have to be her birthday) when we first met her and 16/17 when she committed her crimes. being that she was arrested for more crimes in los angeles in 2000 (assault), she couldn't have been an adult then either, which leads me towards her time in sunnydale was at 15/16. making her go to jail at 17.

imo, all evidence supports she was born in about 1983, not 1980. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.238.127 (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Eliza and SMG's ages aren't relevant. Whether or not Faith's sentence was too light is opinion.  As mentioned above, the "Faith, Hope and Trick" script calls Faith "18ish".  Kennedy is 19 according to the script for "Bring on the Night".  Faith's birthdate is from a "Sanctuary" prop via the Angel casefiles book.  I'm not saying it makes sense, just that it has sources, whereas your belief that she was younger is unfortunately based largely on opinion. --Nalvage 08:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Chosen Two
I have removed a chunk of unsourced fan "opinionating" from the section titled "The Chosen Two" and replaced it with some factual information derived from episode content, including ep references. I reverted a second attempt to restore the unsourced material. Wikipedia articles must contain only information backed up by reliable sources, not fan speculation or theorizing. I ask the diligent anonymous editors trying to establish this text to provide such reliable sources (not fan websites and discussion forums, but notable publications) before attempting to re-add it. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * After a long series of reversions (narrowly dodging WP:3RR by using different IPs), yet another anonymous editor made a new attempt to restore the fancruft, but with some linked evidence. Thank you for that effort. Unfortunately, the source is something called "Orbzine", which is nothing more than a fan mag from a user ("Speculator") of broadband provider NTLWorld.com. This is not a reliable source by Wikipedia's definitions. Furthermore, the page, titled "Articles & Interviews: Joss Whedon (June 2002)", is misleading, in that it initially looks like a transcript of an interview (from an undated and unidentified convention, worse yet), but actually contains quite a bit of text referring to Joss Whedon in the third person, strongly suggesting that someone else (also unidentified) wrote it.


 * In principle, some of the information these anonymous users are trying to add makes sense. In all likelihood, the Slayer line is continued through Faith (or would have been, had Buffy not changed things in "Chosen"). The problem is that we editors are not allowed to theorize. That is original research, which is verboten on Wikipedia. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Faith's Last Name
I'm aware that Faith is often given 'Lehane' as a last name in fanfic ('Spencer' is also quite common) but do not recall it ever being mentioned in the TV series, any of the canonical episode guide books or the official RPGs. This may make the name fanon rather than canon.

Is there any canon reference to Faith's last name? I'm loathe to just edit the entry to reflect the query on the provenance of the name incase it's in a reference I just haven't seen. --Stephenboothuk 23:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Whedon picked the name 'Lehane' after the peeps who made Buffyverse role-playing games asked what Faith's surname was. So it's pretty much accepted canon. -- Paxomen 02:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I have the Eden Studios game and her last name isn't mentioned. Maybe it was in a later edition?  The use of the name in fanfic certainly predates the publication of the game in 2003.  --Stephenboothuk 10:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Post at Whedonesque from AlexJurkat
AlexJurkat is someone who compiled the RPG book, "The Watcher Sourcebook"

"''Yep, Faith's last name (and Kendra's) were devised for a roleplaying game .. . actually two roleplaying games--the Buffy the Vampire Slayer roleplaying game (btvsrpg.com) and the Angel roleplaying game (angelrpg.com). The most recent supplement under production involves the Watchers. As Watchers span both series, Tea and Crossbows: The Watcher Sourcebook will be our first cross-branded product (Buffy and Angel). Come to think of it, rather than the Buffyverse or Angelverse or even Slayerverse (as we started calling it around here), maybe we should be calling the Buffy/Angel storyline (and any that follow in the future) the Watcherverse. Lord knows the Watchers Council would prefer that.

''In truth, that's part of why we needed surnames for Faith and Kendra. The Watcher sourcebook will include a history of the Watchers that spans recorded history and beyond (they do claim descent from the gaggle of old guys who created the first Slayer). Since the only records of that history are those maintained by the Watchers, you can see the huge potential for bias in reporting (if not, you haven't been paying attention to the Watchers much). Also, the tone and presentation of that history follow Watcher wont (i.e., stuffy and formal). In our view, "Slayer Faith" and "Slayer Kendra" didn't fit at all. Not only would the Watcher-recorded history include their names (if the Watchers don't know, who the heck would?), but they would use it. They certainly wouldn't make an exception to appear particularly "chummy" with either of those two, as neither can be counted among the Watchers' greatest triumphs. Slayer Summers was "indeed severely trying and undisciplined," but at least she got the job done for many years. The other two were either "ineffective or extremely counter-productive."

''In any event, we had created surnames for both Slayer and were prepared to go that route but decided to see if we could get a definite ruling from the PTB on the issue. Lo and behold, Joss spoke (and quickly we might add). We had hoped to keep the names under wraps as a selling point for the Watcher book sourcebook. Hey, we can dream, can't we? Should've known the word would get out. What the hey, part of why Buffy/Angel fans are the best.

''Thanks for listing. Check out the roleplaying games. Keep the Watcherverse alive!" (whedonesque.com)

Post from Whedon
"There was this role playing game or something. They said she hadda have a last name for her so I chose Lehane 'cause I wanted something southie, just as you thought. So if you hate the name. oops." (whedonesque.com)

Picture
The picture states that this is Eliza Dushku as Faith, however that's not Faith, it's just an Eliza Dushku publicity photo. She has the wrong tattoo on her arm. user:mathewignash

I think the pic works. She's in general Faith costume and on Buffy set (looks like Joyce's room in season seven. I actually like the pic to be honest

Personality Disorder?
Was it actually revealed in the show that Faith had a borderline personality disorder? I don't remember anyone ever actually diagnosing her and wanted to check. Riverbend 18:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing this!Riverbend 15:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

should the watchers be in the relationship part?
I am wondering if Faith's Watchers should be in the part about her relationships. I expanded that section in general, those were there already and I wasn't sure whether they really belong there or not. I just don't know if one Watcher that is barely mentioned in the series, or one Watcher that got some of Faith's misplaced trust in one confrontation, should really count as relationships for the purposes of this section. I can see that her relationships with her Watchers would be significant, in that they would be a constant, reliable presence in her life, and her trust in anyone is out of the ordinary for her, but from looking at other buffyverse character pages it seems like they are mostly romantic relationships, or close friendships with romantic overtones. If they aren't taken out, perhaps someone would want to expand them so that their importance in her life (stabling force, or whatever) is more clear...??? Riverbend 22:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I see, what you mean. I created the relationships section, but have to say your clean up and additions improved it a lot. I wasn't sure about whether to include the Watcher's under that section, but thought it was important as unlike many of the other character's, Faith's attatchments are far more complicated. I can see what you mean about their inclusion deferring slightly from the usual trend of romantic relationships, I think perhaps I'll add in a sub-heading of "Romantic" and "Other" to seperate the two.

That is much better - good job! I think that whole section is coming together. :) Riverbend 22:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

One more thing - it says later in this article that the Go Ask Malice book reveals her first Watcher's name as Diana Dormer (or something like that) - was that ever mentioned in the series? is that book canon? Just wondering if we could put the name of the first watcher in. Riverbend 23:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not, might as well just add "Diana Dormer", maybe bracket it with a note that it's only given in Go Ask Malice, therefore were not explicitly stating it's the genuine name, but it'll look better with a name anyway, seeing as everyone else in that section has a name. Oh! and also, perhaps if we expanded upon this section, we could reference the relationships Faith alludes to in season 3's "Revelations" she's having a conversation, and lists a bunch of dead-beats she's dated. I don't have the quote to hand though..and seeing as it needn't be a big portion of the section, I think it'll be best just to give the full quote, with a little bracketed note explaining what it's about,

on it :)  Riverbend 23:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks, i sorted out that Diana Dormer thing, and changed the relationships round a bit. I didn't think Angel or Spike really fitted in with the sexual and romantic relationships, but thought they shared a bit of affinity with Faith, so grouped them together.

Works for me. I found that quote and put it in. Good work! Riverbend 23:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great. Would have done it myself, but don't have a clue where to look for transcripts, and all my copies of the show are miles and miles away at the moment, lol. I added in a little line after your comment about how Faith has trouble with intimacy "as evident in all encounters below" thought it helped feed into Robin, Xander, Riley. Phew...I think i'll call it a night editing Faith now, lol. Haven't been doing this on wiki for long but already I'm hooked, lol. BTW where abouts are you? Just wondering after our little converse here, lol

Ok couldn't help myself, tidied the a few sections up, just adding episode links where they were missing

I know the feeling. . . I worked some more on the intros in this section, I like that you put them in, provided helpful context, I just reworded them a little. Yeah, I have all the DVDs here next to me. . . (and from TN) Riverbend 00:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I reworked the headings a little bit, see what you think. It may have been better the other way, but take a look. . . Riverbend 15:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, one more thing - there is now the descrip. of Faith and Angel in the relationships section, but there is also some Faith-Angel stuff in Trivia that is now redundant. Any problem with me removing that part from the trivia, to avoid redundancy? Riverbend 15:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, like the tweaks to the relationship section, looks lot better now

The stuff on dreams
So, at the end of the Sunnydale section, there is some stuff about their shared dreams. Any objections if I streamline that part down into like one sentence? Riverbend 22:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I say go for it. You only really need to ask on the Talk page if you think an edit's likely to be controversial.  Basic improving of the prose, or streamlining should just be charged into, I think.--Nalvage 06:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. I am usually really heavy-handed with edits, but I worry sometimes that I am making too many changes without consulting the community. . .  Thanks for the advice!  Riverbend 17:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Buffy Season Eight
According to various interviews with those involved, Faith is slated to appear in the second story arc of Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight. A question comes to mind: will this appearance go in canonical or non-canonical? Granted that appearances in licensed material usually aren't considered "in continuity" in most canons, but considering that Whedon himself refers to this comic as an official continuation of the television series (hence the title), will it qualify as canonical? -- Pennyforth 16:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely canonical. The Season 8 comics are a continuation of the television series, not the original comic series.  See other Buffy pages to see how the appearances sections are dealt with.  Paul730 21:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Btvs-faith1.jpg
Image:Btvs-faith1.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Faith season8.jpg
Image:Faith season8.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite
I recently rewrote much of this article in my sandbox and moved it over to the mainspace. It's not quite finished yet; I have to expand the "Concept and creation" and "Characterization" sections a bit more. However, I have purged most of the plot summary, replacing the "Character history" with a more out-of-universe "Appearances" section. I also removed some of the images which didn't offer much critical commentary on the character other than "here's another picture of her". Most of the material I've deleted has been moved to the Buffyverse wiki, so if you want to access the old article, it's more or less all over there.  Paul    730  03:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Article title
As I've watched Paul whip this article into much more emaculate shape, it dawned on me while reading some of the material that the full name "Faith Lehane" is not what the character started with. Apparently, "Lehane" is something that was added for the video game and then subsequently stuck with the character afterward. So, really, shouldn't the article be "Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)" or "Faith (Buffyverse)"--personally, I get kind of twitchy with the last one because "Buffyverse" is a fan term, but that to has become a common place for the series. Anyway, back to the name. When I did a Google News and Google Scholar search for "Faith Lehane"--as searching plain ol' "Google" will pick up fansites and other biased entertainment websites, while news and scholarly sources are typically ones that establish notability and have more editorial oversight and neutrality--I discovered that "Faith Lehane" doesn't show up anywhere: Google News and Google Scholar. When I did the same searches but with "Faith - Buffy the Vampire Slayer" as the key word, I actually found hits for the character. To me, it's clear that "Faith" is the most commonly used name associated with the character for this series, even though she has since been given a last name. I think the issue is one that has been plaguing lots of Buffy related articles, and that's fans--and this isn't anything negative against fans, because I'm the same way with my favorite shows--place importance on things that are generally unimportant outside of the fandome. The characters of Conner and Lorne aren't listed under their "full names", because "Conner and Lorne" is how the characters are more commonly associated outside of the fictional material. I think we are placing undue weight on the in-universe material, when we should be placing it the real world concept. This is the same reason why Jason Voorhees is not listed as "Jason Elias Voorhees", or Michael Myers isn't listed as "Michael Aubry Myers", because those middle names are not what the characters are known by away from the fiction material. Jabba the Hutt has a full name in the IU world, but his article is still "Jabba the Hutt". There are plenty of other examples, but I think there seems to be a current trend to keep articles "up-to-date" with their topics, which is not what Wikipedia is for. It isn't a current events website. Now, no one take this as I'm saying we shouldn't mention her "full" name in the article, because I think that it's part of that character and certainly deserves mentioning. I just believe that it shouldn't dictate the title of the article. To the outside world, she's simply known as the Slayer "Faith". Spike isn't William the Bloody, though the redirection exists because fans of the show might actually search for him under that name.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The character in the show is called Faith, and that's all she's called. The fact that Whedon gave her a surname some time later for a roleplaying game doesn't change that, although it's worth noting somewhere in the article. Hobson 00:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently, the explaination of her surname is a footnote, which can be found by clicking the "A" next to the name in the lead.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest the intro should read "Faith is a a fictional character created by Joss Whedon for the television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer." Perhaps the text currently in the footnote could then be added to the end of the Concept and Creation section?Hobson
 * I could see that. There could be a little side note in the text on Whedon needing to add a surname for the character for a video game, or whatever the text reads exactly.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed Lehane from the lead per Hobson's comment and worked the footnote into the C&C section. It probably needs to be better worked into the section through.  Should we mention Lehane at all in the lead?  I was going to write an editors note asking people not to re-add it, but then I remembered Jabba the Hutt has his full name in the lead.     Paul    730  09:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would pull a "Jabba the Hutt" and insert it as they did for that article.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pulled a Jabba.    Paul    730  12:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I moved the page without checking here first. Anyway: My take is that if Whedon ever officially named the character, that name should be used as the article title (Faith Lehane), simply because it is more professional looking. If it's debatable that he ever did name her, Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) is a better compromise than anything with "Buffyverse" in it. --kingboyk (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whedon did officially name the character, but it was after the show ended so only fans really know about it. While I agree that Faith Lehane looks nicer than Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), that isn't really a good enough reason to name the article that.  If "Lehane" had been with her throughout her history, then sure, but it's really just an afterthought, a minor detail.  As Bignole pointed out above with the Google searches, "Faith Lehane" isn't what the character is known as in pop culture.     Paul    730  19:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If he named her, the article should take that name. I'm sure that naming is supposed to be retrospective; i.e. if that's the name he gave her then that's her name from birth isn't it (she's fictional after all).
 * She's known as Faith but we can't have that name as it's not available. We have to come up with a compromise, and in my humble opinion "Faith Lehane" is a far better compromise than "Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)". What she's popularly known as isn't so important; we have redirects to cover that and we have intros to explain it. --kingboyk (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC) PS We don't add disambiguation suffixes to articles unless necessary (I'm having trouble getting this point across, but it's true). Here isn't necessary, because Faith Lehane is available.
 * I don't think it's a huge issue what the article is called, but it is an article about the chartacter in the TV show. The way the character was developed later, in a relatively little-known RPG, is a minor detail. The granting of a surname is only retrospective from an in-universe perspective. It's the TV character that's notable because the show is fairly popular and influential, and really any other stuff, even if it is canon (we all agree that anything Joss says is canon I think?) is only notable because it relates to the TV showHobson (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with what you're saying, but I don't think it negates my argument that Faith Lehane is her name and is the best compromise title for the article (since "Faith" is taken). What the lead says about her is a different matter; there's plenty of space to explain all this to the reader. We might have to agree to disagree and at least the current title isn't ghastly :) --kingboyk (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

File a formal request at WP:RM to gauge the consensus, please. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? This is the discussion. It's going fine. No need to add bureacracy to the process. --kingboyk (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to apologize for calling Lehane a "fan name" when protecting the page. I understand that it is an official name. The "Buffyverse" thing was on my mind when Paul asked me to protect the article, and I just put that down. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Jabba the Hutt has an official name, but the article is still "Jabba the Hutt". What about Spike? Should we call his article "William the Bloody", or should we retitle "Angel" to be "Liam", since that's his real name. Connor had like 3 different "official" names in the series. We should not subject article titles to recentism, just because someone decides later that the character should have a last name. It's like the constant debate with the Desperate Housewives characters, who are getting married and divorced left and right. What becomes THE name they should have? It's best to leave it as it was created and make the notes in the article about the name.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the name should necessarily be what was initially created; Buffy didn't gain the name "Summers" until the TV show and Lorne was known simply as "The Host" for an entire season. However, they are still known as Buffy Summers and Lorne for the majority of their history, it wasn't just added in at the last minute like Lehane.  If the character of Faith is continued (and with the comic books and potential Ripper series, that's entirely possible) and she becomes commonly known as "Faith Lehane" in the media, then it would be fine to call the article that IMO.  However, right now it's just a footnote in the character's history, and too obscure for the title.     Paul    730  22:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But it's her name :) Just because we didn't know it was her name when we were watching the TV show doesn't change that :) And, as above, the best choice ("Faith") isn't available to us. Remember, we're looking for a compromise article title and that's all: what you write about her in the article is a different matter. (Except admittedly someone might come along and say "you should call her Lehane and not Faith" in the article body, which is clearly not acceptable... hmm) --kingboyk (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Her name is "Faith" to people that aren't fanboys/girls of the show. What if Whedon changes the name? What if she gets a middle name? What if after that they wipe the slate clean and she only goes by "Faith"? You're treating the article to recentism. Things changes in fiction all the time. "Faith" is the name more used than anything. Even a generally inconclusive Google test proves that it isn't that inconclusive when you search for "Faith Lehane" in news articles or scholarly works, because it doesn't show up.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would he change her name? Does he have a habit of changing these things? BTW, please don't make assumptions about me (an assumption which is incorrect). I'm not a fanboy and I didn't know much about the character that I hadn't read here.
 * I know that Faith is the name she is known by. I also know that Faith is not available! You're making points at me which I've already acknowledged to be correct! :)
 * Anyway, if I'm in a minority of one so be it. The issue here is just opinion, unlike the Buffy redirect where I'm demonstrably correct ;) So, let's concentrate on that more important issue. Thanks for engaging in dialogue. --kingboyk (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse you have being a fanboy, I was being general. You're opinion on choosing her name is based on the fact, or so it appears, that "Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)" just doesn't look pretty. I wasn't aware that how something looked aesthetically was a criteria for naming articles. As for Buffy, I don't see your "demonstrably correctness" over there.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not so much prettiness as the wish to avoid long, disambiguated titles. Disambiguation is supposed to be used sparingly. Here we have a choice. That said, I see which way the wind is blowing here. If folks want to take it to WP:RM in order to widen the debate that's fine but my position seems to be the minority. That's cool.
 * Wrt to the main article: The redirect is incorrect, which I've demonstrated with reference to the naming conventions (including the one you pointed me to). Where the dab page lives is certainly a matter of opinion and I respect your opinion on it even though different to mine. Anyway, we digress, but if anyone else wants to chip in the discussion is at here.--kingboyk (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is the more appropriate place to continue the discussion, this talk page or your user talk? Anyway, I can live with the new title if need be, but I also feel that Faith Lehane is the more proper name regardless of how widely known it is. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree. Let's keep her last name in bold (the first time  in the article)Brand Eks (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Her last name is something new that was added, it is not what she is most commonly known as.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Something new is always being added... doesn't matter - Whedon himself named her that, so it's encyclopaedic. Brand Eks (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter who named her, see Jabba the Hutt for example. Jabba has a "real" name, but it isn't the lead for the article because the name he is most commonly known by is that name. The name that starts the article should be the name that appears at the top of the page (minus the disamgibuation).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

While "Lehane" is a canon name given to Faith by the creator of the show, it is still, from a real world perspective, a rather minor aspect of the character. It's not used in the show or the comics, it appears solely in the RPG and (briefly) in one of the novels (as far as I know). Nobody except loyal Buffy fans even know her as "Faith Lehane". Giving "Lehane" prominence in the title or lead section is giving undue weight to what is basically a footnote in the development of the character. Yes, it's her name, but canonicity in a fictional universe does not equal real world significance. The surname is covered later in the lead with context on it's creation.  Paul    730  19:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do a Google search on the name Faith Lehane and then tell me that it's not who she's known as. Not to mention it's six frakking letters extra in the damned article!  Besides, the article for Kendra is called Kendra Young despite her last name ever being used in the series.  None of this matters... it's her official name, so it should stay. Brand Eks (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See Bignole's first comment in this thread about Google and "Faith Lehane". You're right, it's her name... so?  I'm not disputing that, I'm disputing that it's her common name.  It's not like "Buffy Summers", where the surname has been with her throughout the majority of the character's development, "Lehane" was an afterthought with very little significance in the series.  Her Wikipedia article shouldn't be some kind of in-universe profile where we detail her stats like full name, height, weight, hair colour.  It's about the real-world history and development of a fictional character, and "Lehane" is a very minor part of that.  You say that the surname needs to be in the first paragraph of the article for completeness... well, it is.  Read the sentence "Seven years after the character's creation, Whedon granted her the surname Lehane for a role-playing game and subsequent material."  The lead explains that the surname was created much later and is not a big part of the character.  You're trying to insert it prematurely into the lead as if it was always there from the beginning - Faith Lehane wasn't introduced in 1998, Faith was.  Faith Lehane wasn't played by Eliza Dushku, Faith was.  The surname came much later because somebody pointed out to Joss Whedon "By the way, you forgot to give her a second name..."  Oh, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS comes to mind when you mention Kendra - I doubt Kendra even needs her own article, but that's an argument for another day...    Paul    730  19:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have left a warning on the talk page of Special:Contributions/68.122.122.227 for making the same revert 4 times in the course of about 2 hours. I haven't taken it to WP:AN/3RR as this user may simply not know the rule (it would have been better to place the warning after three reverts I guess), but other editors may want to keep an eye out. This IP address appears to have made no other edits to Wikipedia other than the same repeated edit to the into of this article.Hobson (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We seem to be edit warring over the "Lehane" issue...I've reverted three times now and I'm done. How can we resolve this issue? I feel that Paul and Bignole eloquently presented their feelings about why Lehane doesn't belong in the lead, and Kingboyk gave some good counter-arguments, but clearly we haven't reached consensus yet. -- Kweeket Talk 19:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll start . . . I think everyone agrees that the surname "Lehane" should be mentioned in the intro, as it is in the current edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faith_%28Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer%29&oldid=184316225 . The current edit conflict has been about whether it is correct to say "Faith Lehane was introduced in 1998 in the third season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer" in the intro. I believe that is incorrect. As the article clearly states, the character was not called Faith Lehane when introduced to the show in 1998. She was simply called Faith - her surname was created by Joss Whedon years later. The key point for me is that this article is not an attempt to create a coherent in-universe biography of the character. Fans of the show know that her name has always been Lehane - even if it was never mentioned in the show - because we know Joss Whedon said so on a message board many years later. But what this article is supposed to be is a factual account of the character which appeared on the show. It's the show that's notable - because it was very popular, mainly. If the character's history was expanded, for example in a little-known role playing game, then that may well be worth a mention in this article, although it shouldn't get too much weight. But it's certainly not for us to retro-con and decide that the details added once the show ended also apply to the show itself. The facts are that a character called Faith - and only Faith - appeared in the television series. The character's background was then expanded in other, less notable media, including, some years later, a roleplaying game. That's what happened in the real world, and that's what the article should say.Hobson (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur, as it was one of my earlier points. This is about what she is most commonly known, and her most common name is that which appeared on the television show (where she originated). Personally, I like the way the article currently lists it, because it's in the opening paragraph and clearly indicates it was a recent change.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey all. I just wanted to say I'm over my revert crusade. I realized, during my Wikiblock, that I was being unreasonable with this and ultimately if the majority wants the article the way it is then that is the way it should be. No hard feelings I hope? Brand Eks (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure thing:)Hobson (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * None from me.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm going to have to support the installation of her last name. The very last time Faith was featured in "No Future for you" She used a parody of her real name for espionage purposes.  She went from being "Faith Lehane" to "Hope Lyonne."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.78.111.120 (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because she recently used it doesn't make it commonly known. It also doesn't make it notable just because she made a parody of it. The fact remains that it is a detail that was added much later in your fictional history to develop the character further. It should not be treated like it was part of his name when she was first created OR that it what she is most commonly known as.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Something Wrong...
There's something wrong with the infobox. Pokemon Buffy Titan (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be because you deleted the coding.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Who Are You
Okay, there's a bit of a debate going on as to whether or not to include Sarah Michelle Gellar in the infofox as having played Faith. I understand both sides but I have to agree that she shouldn't; SMG didn't really play Faith, she played Faith's mind in Buffy's body... she was mimicking Dushku. It's not like she's known for playing the character, she's known for playing Buffy, who happened to be possessed by Faith in one episode. Likewise, I don't think we should list Rance Howard as having played Angel, just because in the episode "Carpe Noctem" he happened to switch bodies with some old geezer. The characters are known for being played by Eliza Dushku, and David Boreanaz, the infobox should stick to these people alone. In Buffy's case, we should stick to Kristy Swanson and SMG, the only two actresses really assosciated with the character. Maybe we could just mention that the characters were played by the respective actresses in the "Appearances" section?; As Buffy (Eliza Dushku) is taken into custody by the Watchers' Council for crimes she did not commit, Faith (Sarah Michelle Gellar) discovers for the first time what is like to be surrounded by loving friends and family.    Paul    730  17:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that would work. To me, saying that SMG played Faith is like saying Freddy Kreuger played himself in Wes Craven's New Nightmare. Just because they listed him in the credits like so, doesn't actually make to real.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course Sarah Michelle Gellar is actually a real person and Freddy Krueger... isn't, so that might not be the best analogy. I understand what you mean though - SMG is credited as "Faith" in "Who Are You", but that doesn't mean she was actually playing the character...  it was a brief twist in the story, not a serious casting decision.    Paul    730  17:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Apareances
i added this caus i tought that was necesary, almost every character hast this beautiful, idexed, apareances list, so i did this, but it was reverted because "already this is in a prose section" or something like that. But several episodes are not covered in the article so i think this is a good idea, and is more easy to fond her episodes this way. give your coments

Appearances
Canonical Appearances Faith has been in 30 canonical Buffyverse appearances.


 * Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Faith has appeared as a guest in 20 episodes.
 * Season 3 (1998, 1999) - "Faith, Hope & Trick," "Beauty and the Beasts", "Homecoming", "Revelations", "Amends", "The Zeppo","Bad Girls", "Consequences", "Doppelgangland", "Enemies", "Choices", "Graduation Day, Part One", " "Graduation Day, Part Two"
 * Season 4 (1999, 2000) - "This Year's Girl, "Who Are You" (played by Sarah Michelle Gellar)
 * Season 7 (2002, 2003) - "Dirty Girls", "Empty Places", "Touched", "End of Days", "Chosen"


 * Angel : Faith has appeared as a guest in 6 episodes.
 * Season 1 (1999, 2000) - "Five by Five", "Sanctuary"
 * Season 2 (2000, 2001) - "Judgment"
 * Season 4 (2002, 2003) - "Salvage", "Release", "Orpheus"


 * Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season 8 Comics: Faith has appeared in four issues so far:


 * No Future For You, Part 1-4

PS: i hope that this was not reverted because i listed SMG playing Faith... --200.104.201.224 (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you for bringing this discussion to the talk page rather than edit warring, many people aren't that considerate. The reason I reverted you is because a list of episodes just isn't necessary in the article.  Faith's appearances on Buffy, Angel, and the comic books are all covered in prose in the existing "Appearances" section.  If it's a list of appearances you're looking for, Wikipedia isn't the right place, but the external links to IMDb and Wikia probably are - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an indiscriminate collection of information.  We're not here to serve every purpose, even if it might be useful or interesting to readers.  As for similar lists in other Buffy character articles, those pages probably fail Wikipedia policy.  If you look at good quality character articles, like Jason Voorhees, Jack Sparrow, Superman, Jack Harkness, Jabba the Hutt etc, there aren't any lists of episodes/stories the characters feature in because it's not encyclopedic.     Paul    730  21:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Name redux
I know this has been gone over above, and I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that the article's title nor subsequent paragraphs be changed. Having said that I do believe that the opening paragraph should read: "Faith Lehane is a fictional character created by Joss Whedon for the television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Played by actress Eliza Dushku, Faith was introduced in the third season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and was a focus of that season's overarching plot. She returned for shorter story arcs on Buffy and its spin-off, Angel.  The character's story is continued in the comic book series Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight, and she also appears in apocryphal material such as other comic books and novels. Faith was set to receive her own spin-off television series after the final season of Buffy, but Eliza Dushku declined the offer, and the series was never made.  For the entire run of the television series, Faith's surname was never given; it was chosen later by Whedon for a role-playing game and subsequent material." This is more in line with the opening to the Buffy Summers article (which includes her middle name), and articles on real people who usually go by one name like: Cher, Jewel (singer), JoJo (singer), Bono, Sting (musician), etc.

Basically, articles are titled with the most common name, and use such throughout to refer to the subject, but they almost universally start with the most full name known. —MJBurrage(T•C) 22:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not totally opposed to this, it'd be interesting to hear some arguments either way. I remember discussing this a while back with Bignole about whether to mention Michael Myers' middle name in that article and we decided not to because it was too trivial.  A lot of the Buffyverse characters have lengthy names that are referenced quite a bit in the series (Alexander Lavelle "Xander" Harris and Krevlorneswath "Lorne" of the Deathwok Clan come to mind) and we should probably come up with a concensus on how to cover this in articles.     Paul    730  22:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First, she isn't real, thus the rules of articles are real life people do not apply. Secondy, "Lehane" was something added much later in her fictional history, not something later revealed in some episode of the show. By saying "Faith Lehane" you are insinuating that it has always been her name, when that is not the case. It isn't a name she goes by, as that is simply "Faith". Like Paul pointed out, we don't label Michael Myers as "Michael Aubrey Myers", even though his last name has been stated in a later film. The middle name is not only trivial in mentioning, but it is also no what the character is primarily known as. What happens if Whedon later gives Faith a middle name? Or, what happens if the character gets her own TV show and her last name is changed because the developers don't care about some role-playing game. Just because her fictional history is adjusted later doesn't mean we should treat it like it has always been there (otherwise you border on writing an article with an in-universe tone).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for MJBurrage, but I wasn't using the real life peple thing as a "rule", more like an analogy for people/characters/things which go by multiple names. Does it really matter if Lehane or Aubrey wasn't always part of their name?  Characters develop with time; Mario was originally known as Jumpman and the Mario name was added in later.  Buffy didn't get a surname until the TV show but it stuck.  Faith Lehane is the characters name: fact.  It's not her common name (which is why it's not the article title) but it's still her name.  If her name is changed, we can mention her various names in the article, no big deal; Faith Theoretical Middle Name Lehane (also known as Faith Theoretical Surname etc, or list them in the infobox (see the various spellings of Wesley Wyndam-Price).  The fact that she has multiple names is a quirk of fiction, it doesn't change the fact that those are her names which have been applied to her by real world writers.  This isn't in-universe or trivial like the character's height or date of birth, it's their name, which to me is a basic out-of-universe fact that should be stated up-front.  It's not their common name, sure, but Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner isn't Sting's common name but it's still stated right away in his article.  I don't see how, because she's fictional, Lehane isn't Faith's name and shouldn't be applied to her in the article.  By your logic, we shouldn't describe Jason Voorhees as a killer, because he wasn't a killer originally, and another film might come along to say that he was never a killer. :P    Paul    730  02:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You're applying too much importance to something that was added only 2-3 years ago. The character first appeared 10 years ago. Mario is the name everyone knows "Jumpman" as. What you don't see in Mario's article is that his name is "Mario Luigi" (with his brother Luigi Luigi). It's a last name given to the character, but not one actually used in mainstream production. They list "Jumpman" in the infobox because it was his first appearance, but he didn't have an actual name. "Jumpman" was merely a name that he was referred to because he didn't have a real one. Faith had a name when she first appeared, and given that the role-playing game isn't that significant in the character's history (i.e. The game did not make her popular, it was the show that did), there's no reason to think that "Lehane" is essential to understanding the character and needs to be part of her name when mentioning her. Also, my logic was that you look at the original incarnation, and the most common form of that incarnation. Jason is widely known as being the killer of Friday the 13th films, hell, he is even wrongly believed to be in the first film. "Lehane" is only known to people that played the game, and those that are die-hard fans of the character. If I've only watched her television appearances, or read her comics, I wouldn't know anything about such a last name. I never said "Lehane" shouldn't be stated anywhere. It's just like Jabba the Hutt and his actual name that was used in official Star Wars novels. It isn't the name people recognize. "Faith Lehane" could hardly be the name that people recognize considering that the most coverage she received was on the two TV shows, and that name wasn't used. Hell, it wasn't used anywhere until 3 years ago, and I don't know how much it is being used now.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Jabba is a poor example because Star Wars has multiple levels of canon, and Lucas has always reserved the right to change things that have only been established in print (look at the history of Boba Fett). In this case we have a creator approved name, and its not as esoteric as a nick name or a confirmation name, it is her undisputed surname. That fact is not changed by when it was revealed, nor by how often it is used afterwards. No one disagrees that it desreves description (as I did at above at the end of the Paragraph), and maybe that should come as a footnote instead, as:": Faith Lehane is a fictional character created..."—MJBurrage(T•C) 12:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Canon? I didn't realize encyclopedias were guided by what someone feels is "official" and "unofficial". First, Lucas approves everything that happens to his characters because he owns everything outright. This goes down to what the storylines in the video games contain. The fact that he allows various "canons" is irrelevant to the fact that final approval lies with him. Second, I gave you another example: Mario. Mario has a name, yet it isn't mentioned in the opening line. Again, you are putting too much emphasis on something that is not only trivial by nature, but only recently created. You're trying to rationalize the situation, which we don't do for other characters (at least not ones that are featured articles), to say that since Whedon did it, even though it was a decade later and not even widely used afterward, then it makes it ok. It's the same principle behind why we took "Buffyverse" out of all the article titles. Just because Whedon used it later doesn't change the fact that it was still a fan coined term. "Faith" is the name of the character that originated on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. "Lehane" is the surname the character was given years later to help create a large backstory for the character in a game, and subsequent other media where it was necessary. That's the important piece of the puzzle. You cannot lump all of this fictional character history together and try and compile an "accurate" description. That is precisely the idea behind "in-universe" tone, which is something we try to avoid. You distinguish between the evolution of the character, you don't merge it all together to try and treat her like a real person and act like that was a part of the character all along.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong, I do not think that Wikipedia should be limited by a franchises own ideas as to what is canon or not. Rather, as you point out we are limited by what is citable and notable.  I actually think that by not including the surname at the beginning and then describing its creation later we are giving it more attention then just having it up front with a footnote.  Surnames (when known) have always been considered notable for real and fictional people alike.  Wikipedia standards for an article on a person (fictional or not) is to start with the full name (as best known) and then use either the surname or the common name (in the case of stage names and fictional characters) thereafter.  To not do this here actually makes it more important than my suggested treatment.
 * Along those lines, I would actually start the Jabba article as follows:
 * Jabba Desilijic Tiure[1], usually called Jabba the Hutt is a fictional character in...
 * I am simply stating that this article is about the character commonly known as Faith from Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. Since Faith Lehane is her name, thats how the article should start. —MJBurrage(T•C) 21:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, you are confusing real life situations with fictional characters. Your logic suggests that this article should be: "Faith Lehane, most commonly known as "Faith'", is a fictional character ..." Sorry, but that isn't how it is done. Her name isn't "Faith Lehane", it's simply "Faith". The fact that a surname was added years later doesn't change the fact that she is always known as simply "Faith". You are indirectly giving more importance to the name by making it first. It's the same principal behind starting an article with: "Jaws is an Academy Award winning film...." Yes, it may be true, but it is giving undue weight, and bias, to a minor aspect of the film. The film is not notable for winning an Academy Award (it's actually notable for starting the "blockbuster" film era). You are giving undue weight to "Lehane" by including it first, because it wasn't something the character was first created with. It certainly isn't the most commonly known name of the character (by popularity or simply by longest running use of the name). I hate using such a thing (and Paul forgive me for doing so), but it's fanboyish to force things into prominance simply because you like the character and follow the "canon". Forcing "Lehane" into the opening statement like it's always been a part of the character provides an inaccurate view for an encyclopedic article. Even if you later say, "oh, this wasn't created till 2005", it doesn't change the fact that you are treating it like it's always been there. Hell, the only reason Whedon even gave her the surname was because it was needed for a game. Had they not needed a surname for the purposes of the game, his latency in creating such a thing suggests that he had no intention of ever doing it, so it's importance becomes completely diminished. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned, because it's part of the development of the character, but it certainly isn't her "name". It may be a canical "full name", but it isn't the name of the original character, nor the name what she is most commonly known by.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Me? Fanboy?  Never. ;) I understand what you're saying Bignole but I still disagree to a certain extent.  You're right in saying that the name shouldn't be stated upfront in the article because of undue weight, your Jaws/Academy Award analogy is a good one.  In fact, the way the sentence currently reads, it would be factually incorrect to insert Lehane in: Faith Lehane is a fictional character created by Joss Whedon for the television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. That's not really true, since Faith Lehane wasn't created for the TV show, Faith was and Lehane didn't appear until later.  (I think I argued that point extensively in above argument on this page, actually...)  However, I still think a field in the infobox for middle names, aliases, etc would be acceptable.  Whether it was created later, or is canon, or isn't widely known, does not change the fact that Faith Lehane is indeed the complete name applied to this character by a person who has the authority to do so.  The film X-Men 2 has about four bloody names; X2 might be it's "official" or most widely known name, but that doesn't change the fact that X-Men 2 is also it's name and needs to be listed on that article.  The first Stars Wars film was renamed years after it was released, does that mean it isn't actually called A New Hope because it wasn't created that way?  No, because it is called that because it's creator says so.  Just like Joss Whedon says Faith is called Lehane.  Notability doesn't come into it; it's a valid name and ignoring something as basic as the article subject's name(s) is blatantly remiss in my opinion.  To reiterate my point, I think we should have a "full name/aliases" field in fictional character infoboxes.  (BTW, to digress for a moment, where on Earth is Mario known as "Mario Luigi"?  I've heard him being called "Mario Mario" before but even that is just fanwank based on the Mario Bros title as far as I know...)     Paul    730  23:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Infobox inclusion is a different discussion. I personally don't care about that aspect of it. As far as Star Wars goes, it was technically always called "A New Hope", it was merely billed in marketing as "Star Wars". The opening segment has always read "Episode IV: A New Hope". :P In response to Mario, I got that mixed up. It is "Mario Mario", which was created (By created I mean first time stated as literally "Mario Mario") in that horendous thing they called a movie back in the 90s. But again, I never said "don't mention the name", what I said was it shouldn't be used as the opening of the first sentence.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse my shameless Star Wars ignorance. Why would Lucas name the film Epiode IV if it was the first in the series, did he always plan on making a prequel trilogy?  Wasn't the original Star Wars intended as a standalone film?  If you're not bothered about the infobox, would you object if I added Faith Lehane, Michael Aubrey Myers, and Jason Elias Voorhees to their respective infoboxes in a full name field?     Paul    730  00:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of us are old enough to remember that "Episode IV" did not appear in 1977. I even remember an article (probably in Time) that said something like: "The first surprise in The Empire Strikes Back is that the crawl begins with 'Episode V'. What's this? ..." —Tamfang (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we're getting a bit off subject but to answer everything quickly. Lucas is a loon, and there is no telling what he originally intended. Same reason why we don't know why Raiders of the Lost Ark is classified as "Chapter 24" (or something like that). As for Jason, that's your choice. WP:WAF indicates that the infobox should be filled with information essential to understanding the character. So if there is dissention in the community, it will be over that aspect of it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added the field for Faith... other, non-Buffy characters, I'll worry about later since they're not relevant to this talk page. MJBurrage, are you happy with this compromise?  I do feel that including the surname in the opening sentence is misleading for the reasons discussed above.     Paul    730  00:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It does not matter that we did not know the character's surname while the show was in production, neither the show nor its creator ever suggested that Faith did not have a surname, it just was not mentioned at the time. Even if Whedon had only given Faith's surname in an interview, it would still be the character's surname.  Compare Peppermint Patty to Marcie (Peanuts), in which the former article starts with the character's full offical name even though it was only used twice long after the character's introduction, and the latter article which only starts with a given name because the creator never gave the character an official surname.
 * By not including Faith's surname in the opening we are implying that she did not have one, when the truth is that we just did not know it once. I.E. it is more misleading to not include it. —MJBurrage(T•C) 04:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How about using articles that are actually featured (i.e. been reviewed by the community)? Using articles that sit on the bottom rung of quality as proof of how things should be run is probably not the best bet. Faith DID NOT have a surname in the show. Please stop acting like she is a real person and that we merely did not know her surname in the show. She isn't real, and if they don't state it in a given media that we should not be assuming anything otherwise. "Faith" is the name of the character in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. "Faith Lehane" is the name given to the character in a role-playing game almost a decade after her inception. This is not something that has always been a part of her publication history, nor is it something that she is widely known as. Enough said. I'm not going to debate back and forth the simple fact that she isn't a real person, and thus this idea that she's always had this name we just haven't known about it is ridiculous. Good Night.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My suggestion, and its reasons have nothing to do with confusing a fictional character with a real person. The simple fact is that this characters name is Faith Lehane according to both the creator and the franchise holders.  Your assumption that the character did not have a surname, simply because we were not told what it was, is faulty logic.
 * As for the article: Question, what is the character's full name according to authoritative sources? Answer, Faith Lehane. That is why the article should start with that name.  The fact that her surname was not given or used on the series is notable, and should be mentioned in a note or later text but it does not change the simple fact that the characters name is Faith Lehane
 * As a good example of how a retconned name should be handled, see James T. Kirk, the article uses the character's common name for the Title, his full name to begin the first line, and his pre-retcon name is discussed later. —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have up on a similar debate over at Talk:Sarah Connor (Terminator). I am opposed to the use of "Jeanette" in her middle name, the second word in the article, as if it were objectively canon.~ZytheTalk to me! 00:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Buffy article mentioned by MJBurrage - Buffy is actually called Buffy Anne Summers in the show. There's a whole episode in which she calls herself "Anne", after she has run away from home. In a similar way, Rupert Giles is known as Rupert Giles throughout the show, so it's reasonable to say there was a character called Rupert Giles in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It's not about canon or what any character's name "really" is. It's about accurately describing the character in the TV show. Other material which also featured the character is worth a mention somwhere in the article.Hobson (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A character is a piece of intellectual property, and its name can be further detailed (or changed) by the property holders as they see fit. If that happens than the "correct" name is the current one, (the "common" name would still be whatever most people call the character, but the correct name is what its owners say it is).  The other names (either different or just less detailed) are part of the IP's history, but they are not more correct just because they came first.
 * In this case we have one character that has appeared in multiple media, but it is the same character not a reboot, or a reimagining . The name of that character is "Faith Lehane" —MJBurrage(T•C) 17:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As I tried to say above, what the name really is, or the correct name - however we phrase it - isn't the issue. The TV show is notable because it was watched by millions of people, spawned academic studies, spawned spin-off material etc. The major characters in the TV show are therefore notable. The spin-off material is much less notable, and so are any additions they make to a character's background and history, even if they are approved by the character's creator. This article rightly focuses on the character people saw on their TV screens, and mentions appearances in other media later on. Including something from the Buffy Roleplaying Game in the title would be giving it undue weight, to put it mildly.Hobson (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A valid source is a valid source. While the books and comics are less well known than the television episodes, they are not necessarily less valid as sources.  According to the IP holders the RPG bios and the Season 8 comic issues are equally valid to the television episodes, while other books and comics are less valid.
 * This character is not just a TV character, it is a single character from a franchise that spans multiple media. If the books and comics were some sort of reboot, with alternate versions of the characters I would agree with your arguments, but in this case the comic in question is the direct continuation of the series.
 * The argument that anything that comes later should only be described later is not supported by any Wikipedia guideline I am aware of, and taken to a logical conclusion would suggest that the article should only start with things revealed in a characters first episode, and only discuss things revealed in later episodes later in the article since later is "less valid".
 * The article should take all of the valid information available and present a comprehensive article. —MJBurrage(T•C) 04:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're trying to use that "canon" argument, and canon has no place on Wikipedia...except to simply say "this is canon". We do not base judgements on "canon", we base it on historical facts. Historically, the character is just "Faith". It was not until a video game that Joss decided to expand (that is the key word) on the character and give her a last name. Notice how all of the featured character articles are written from the OOU perspective (i.e. the page is represented by the historical facts of the character, not by taking retconned facts and treating them like they were always there). You are the only one arguing this still, while several editors keep coming in to tell you that "Lehane" is not appropriate in the introductary sentence. As a matter of fact, WP:INUNIVERSE does back up Hobson, and the rest of us. You are trying to use this "canon" argument to explain why "Lehane" needs to be in the first sentence. In other words, you are saying that since "Lehane" is canon then it has always been a part of the character and should be listed as such. That is one the problems with an in-universe tone. From WP:WAF: "A fictional character article or section written like a biography." You're treating "Lehane" like it has always been there, it has not. It was a minor aspect of the character added years later. Important to note, but not as a primary identifier of the character. Here is another one: "Discussing a fictional topic's appearances in major works and obscure spin-off material in equal detail." One last one: "Ordering works by their fictional chronology, rather than the actual order they were published." This last one is very similar to your argument, because you are trying to re-order her last name based around the fact that it's "canon".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The character had an original appearance in a single episode of the TV series, every episode (TV or comic) since then has expanded on what we know about the character in some way. Your argument rest on a stance that a TV episode adding information is somehow more valid than the rest of the franchise.  If an episode had ever implied that she did not have a surname, or that she had some other surname, than Lehane would be disputable.  But in this case the characters surname just had not come up until Whedon wrote the RPG backgrounds.  When or were an IP holder creates something does not change its validity.
 * This article is not only about the "TV Faith" or the "Comic Faith" or the "Game Faith", it is about the single character across the Buffy franchise. If there is information from a valid source than it can be used, and neither the copyright date nor the media make something more correct.  Under your argument, every episode is a retconn, since new information is revealed in every episode.  According to the IP holders the characters name is Faith Lehane.  The fact that the character's surname was never mentioned during the TV episodes is notable and should be mentioned, but it does not mean that the character is just named Faith.
 * You keep saying that the characters name was changed. If the series had once said that the characters name was Faith Stewart and then said that her name was Faith Lehane, that would be a change, and I could see using neither in the intro.  However the characters named was not changed, it was just further detailed, in the same way that every episode further detailed the characters.
 * As for confusing the reader about the origin of the surname, that is why there should be a footnote after the surname in the opening line.
 * Now to the points from WP:WAF that you highlighted:
 * Using the characters complete name, as identified by the IP holders, is not treating it like a real persons biography. Most articles start with the most correct current name of the subject, not some older shorter name.  Take Star Wars for example, when it was released it was just titled "Star Wars", the whole "Episode IV" stuff came later.
 * A comic book by the franchise creator, and marketed as the Eighth Season of the show is not an "obscure spin-off".
 * Chronology does not apply to this debate, as no episode ever implied a "name change".
 * James T. Kirk is a great example for this case. According to the franchise as a whole, the character's name is Faith Lehane and the article should start that way. —MJBurrage(T•C) 06:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Star Wars was always "A New Hope", it was only marketed as simply "Star Wars". If you argue that I'm giving preference to the TV show, then I'll argue that you're giving preference to a comic book. Now, what I really said was that the article should reflect a HISTORICAL account of the character. That means, you do not treat stuff that was created later like it has always been present. Stop getting stuck on this "canon" thing. We do not base decisions off of that. As for Kirk, that page should really just be "James Kirk" (even the page title), but that's neither here nor there. Try finding an example that is actually FA, you know...that has been peer reviewed and deemed to be in professional standards for Wikipedia. Regardless, you're still the only one arguing this, and your argument consists of "well, it's canon so it should be present". You aren't grasping the fact that canon has no place in dictating how we structure on article in an encyclopedia. Her name is "Faith Lehane" in the comics, whether those comics are "canon" to the TV series or not, the fact remains that "Lehane" is not her Television surname...as she was never given one on the show. Since this page starts off with, "Faith is a character from Buffy TV series...", it would not be accurate to say "Faith Lehane". The article is about a TV show character that was expanded upon in comic books and video games. For some reason, you are having a difficult time accepting that. I'm not going to continue to have the same tireless argument with you. Happy editing.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that your entire argument boils down to "the TV show is more valid than the comic", and I (and others) do not see that as true. I suspect that if the final season of the TV show had used the Lehane surname, we would not be having this discussion.  I am not saying the comic is more valid, but equally valid as a source.  There is nothing in the guidelines that says an older work of fiction is more valid than a newer one.
 * As for Star Wars, when it was released it was in fact only called Star Wars no "Episode IV", no "A New Hope". (I can personally confirm this clip is correct as I saw the film at the time). In articles based on serialized fiction the article covers the whole series not just the first episode/season.  In the case of the Buffy franchise the serial is not limited to the TV episodes, as it is ongoing (albeit in another media, that while less well known is equally valid).
 * That I am the only one arguing this right know does not make me the only one to agree with this position (this topic is older than my presence at this page). From their comments; kingboyk, Brand Eks, and NileQT87 all agree that the opening should begin with Faith Lehane.  A footnote after Lehane would satisfy your request for a historical account of the character's name (the whole point of footnotes), but in articles on characters from current fiction, the intro covers what we know now, a history section covers exactly that (character history in the real world).   The fact that Lehane was not used on television is now history. —MJBurrage(T•C) 14:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Lehane" is historical, but you wouldn't present the history of 1992 before the history of 1892, now would you? I'm not against "Lehane" in the lead, just not in the lead sentence. I think it would be appropriate to state later in the lead, "For a role-playing game, Joss created the surname of "Lehane" for Faith; Lehane has gone on to be accepted in the other media incarnations of the character"...or something to that extent.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * MJBurrage, you keep implying that she's known as "Lehane" in the comics, but that name has never been used in the comics. It's canon, certainly, but it's not actually present in the series itself the same way "Summers" or "Rosenberg" are frequently used.  It's an extremely obscure detail. More importantly, Lehane was created later so it's mentioned later in the sentence.  It's simple matter of arranging things the way they were shown in the subject matter itself.  You talk about how each episode introduces new information on the character, and that's true, but you wouldn't cover later episodes before earlier ones.  You wouldn't say "The character is now a hero, but has a dark past" you would say "The character was initially heroic, became a villain, and then redeemed herself" because that's the order it was present in the story.  Similarly, stating "Faith, later known as Faith Lehane" is more appropiate than "Faith Lehane, previously known only as Faith".  It's about writing in an out-of-universe manner; you're trying to apply "Lehane" retroactively to a time when it didn't exist, and giving current events precedence, which is not how we cover fiction on this website.  Buffy "Summers" would be an exception because the televison incarnation (in which she was known as "Summers" from the start) is the primary focus of the article as opposed to the film in which she's known only as "Buffy".     Paul    730  17:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument boils down to "the TV show is more notable than the RPG". Notable, not valid. It's certainly nothing to do with which came first.Hobson (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If it was part of the story that the character did not have a surname, and then got one, I would agree (because it would be character development), but that is not the case. If a Season Seven episode had used the Lehane surname, than I have no doubt the article would start with Faith Lehane, and explain later that the surname was not given at first.  But since the surname was given in other media, there is opposition to including it that way.  To me this is favoring one part of the franchise over another.  While TV by its very nature will always be more famous than published material, it is not necessarily more valid as a source.  For a franchise that is specifically being continued away from TV, it should not be primary either. —MJBurrage(T•C) 01:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is about the TV character, not the comic book spin-off or RPG game spin-off of the character. Those are merely things that have further developed the character, but were not in her original creation. You are trying to present information as if it was already there, sorry, but you cannot do that. Enough said. There is no point for us to argue the same crap over and over again. Please allow the RfC to take place and some fresh, unbiased eyes can come weigh in on the discussion.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is about "Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)" neither the franchise nor the character is limited to television, and the article should not be either.  Your entire argument boils down to "TV better than other media" —MJBurrage(T•C) 04:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine, and yours boils down to "it's canon, so it should be presented in the first sentence because it's 'true'". Now, let's move on to the RfC.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Buffy isn't known by non-fans as Buffy Anne Summers. Not all Buffy fans know her middle name. It is only mentioned in the show a few times as well, and in some seasons not at all. Why then would the Buffy Article write her name as Buffy Anne Summers and not include Faith's last name in the same manner? One good reason to do so is simply to include more information in less text, rather than two sentences, only merely including trivia, you could write one short sentence and remove the trivia of how she got her last name. Adjust the article to match the Buffy one, Faith Lehane, stop with the pedantic wikilawyering. 122.104.165.13 (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * An outsider's comment: we are a general-use encyclopedia, not a fansite; that said; we should keep extraneous details and nuggets of plot to a minimum, and this includes extraneous personal details. I'm not pigeonholing this article, there are tons like it with the same issue, but just ask yourself this: does noting the characters entire name significantly aid my understanding of Faith, me being a casual reader who has watched maybe five episodes of the show? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 13:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Another outside comment: An encyclopedia entry surely contains as much and as accurate material as possible. It's not per se about "aiding understanding" of an article, but providing a complete and cohesive picture, which in turn allows for full understanding. It doesn't hamper understanding to have a surname listed, and it doesn't confuse things either - taking the comments above at face value, were this a real character, then Lehane would always have been her surname, just unstated for a long time. Real individuals who are titled later in life, often find themselves primarily identified by those later additions, so there are real as well as fictional precedents for even suggesting the whole article be moved to Faith Lehane, to avoid the clumsy disambiguation... but while there's likely no need for a move, it makes sense to include the surname - even though it was retroactively added to the character - clearly and concisely in the lead.
 * There are well-made points on both sides (albeit some of them are increasingly pedantic ones), but surely the broad issue is not between inclusion or exclusion but simply WHERE it should be included. In that case, the easiest answer is surely to include it automatically in the opening sentence - the well made point that this is an article on the character NOT (just) the "TV character" should further point to this, simply mentioning later that her surname was given subsequent to the TV show.
 * Since the complete first sentence at the moment is "Faith is a fictional character created by Joss Whedon for the television series  Buffy the Vampire Slayer :" the key points are surely: character, Whedon, television, and Buffy. As a character, it makes no difference if she has a surname or not. As a television character she does not have a surname. As a Buffy franchise character, she does. As a Whedon creation, she does - since it certainly seems that this is a Whedon-chosen (or at least approved) name. That would be 2/3 or 3/4 in favor of having her initially named fully, although clearly referred to as "Faith" throughout the article rather than "Lehane." Indeed, it's the sentence "Seven years after the character's creation, Whedon granted her the surname Lehane for a role-playing game and subsequent material" that is arguably the more trivial detail, not the name itself. That sentence should surely be a reworded to included "didn't originally have a surname during her television appearances" (or similar) and then placed as a footnote after the surname to explain it, should explanation be needed.
 * As another suggestion, perhaps including it in-text rather than in-footnote would be more acceptable: "Faith Lehane (known during her tenure on the programme simply as "Faith") was created..." might therefore be appropriate, but even that's beginning to drift into including unnecessary information in the lead. ntnon (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Something being "canon" does not mean that it is not minor. The "real" name of Jabba the Hutt is "canon", but it isn't used in the lead sentence. As a matter of fact, it isn't mentioned till the end of the paragraph.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But then on the other side of things, the Ewok Wicket's page is named for his full Wicket W. Warrick. In any case 'the Hutt' is a stand-in for a surname. Were Faith known as "Faith the Slayer," the situation would be more comparable. Had she an alternate surname, there'd be a major conundrum. Since she can still reasonably be referred to as "Faith" if her full name is known to be "Faith Lehane," I really don't see that this is a major issue. If the RPG revealed her name as "Fatima Lehane," then there's an issue. If the TV programme called her "Faith Lohan," then there's an issue. But clearly the character in the TV series was "Faith Lehane," with the surname unrevealed.
 * How's this for a better analogy than Jabba? When Superman's arch-nemesis debuted, he was a scientist called "Luthor." Not "Lex" and not "Lex Luthor," JUST Luthor. Cher, Madonna and Sting have been dismissed for being "real people" - what about (Lex) Luthor? I can't find a definite date for his first name being revealed, but it may have been as late as ten years after his debut, and likely not by his creators. In addition, his character and appearance changed radically. Indeed, the early appearances are now said to be an alternate "Lex" named "Alexei." And yet it is still "Lex Luthor" who debuted in 1940, not "Luthor" alone. Similarly, this character is Faith Lehane. She's always been Faith Lehane, even if that revelation were a later one. To take another analogy from earlier, the Darth Vader in Star Wars is still Luke's father, even though that isn't revealed until later... ntnon (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, there's a big difference with Lex and Faith. First, "Lex Luthor" is the primary, most-common, most notable name he goes by. Second, the name was given to him in the comics (the place he has primarily appeared). "Lehane" is not something the character is known by outside of the fandom, "Faith" (and just "Faith) is what she is known by. "Faith" is a character from the television show, her primary source of appearance. "Lehane" is a surname created in a video game (not even her secondary source of appearance), and only recently carried over (I'm not even sure if it did carry over, I don't read the comics) to the comic book line. It's a trivial addition to the character, one that was only done because the game developers needed her to have a surname. You are trying say that "she's always been Faith Lehane". No, that's wrong. She was NEVER "Faith Lehane" in the television show, and that is what this article is dealing with. A television character who has had additional appearances in other media, and been expanded upon in that media. You're trying to treat it like she is real, and that her last name has always been "Lehane". Sorry, but as far as the real world goes, that isn't true.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, and basically repeating what Bignole just said) The difference being that "Lex" Luthor is what that character primarily known as, in the source material, other media, third-party sources etc. It's his common name.  "Lehane", on the other hand, is barely known.  It's never mentioned in the source material (TV series or comics) and is rarely if ever mentioned in third-party sources.  It's an obscure piece of trivia.     Paul    730  02:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)