Talk:Touched (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 June 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.

Television: Buffyverse / Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article 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. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Buffyverse task force.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article 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 article 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]

I applied the POV tag and it was removed due to, apparently, lack of rationale behind it. So: the article isn't very openly POVy, but some of what goes on in the writing and acting category, though plausible, heads off into a personal interpretation and should at the very least be rephrased - again, this isn't a Buffywiki. This is the wiki, punkt. Hence, a little more care with how things are presented is needed, and I don't think that shows here. Hence (lala), POV.Zeppocity 16:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, If you feel that there is a problem with phrasing of the article then I suggest you correct it. It looked ok to me but I'm not a buffy fan or expert so I'm not going to try to amend the article. Though I'm sure there are plenty of fans who will comment on, amend or approve of any changes you care to make. AllanHainey 08:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a matter of being a Buffy fan or expert; stuff like The First, wondering along with the viewer why Caleb is digging out the one weapon that can defeat them and Caleb's unsatisfactory answer, along with a lot of the stuff in writing and acting, is both cutish phrasing and, well, utterly true; this all needs, however, to be phrased in a less interpretative matter.

I would have gotten to it myself, but I'm pcless right now, which means I'm mostly checking occasionaly on article changes and talk pages on another's pc, but not editing, well, anything myself, since there isn't enough time to do it properly (yet there is to write this... colour me freaky and specific, I guess). I will get to achieving a more wiki form once I can, yes. Zeppocity 12:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I saw absolutely no way to rescue that: while it would have made a fine addition to any "critical review", it is not an encyclopedia article. I've removed it for now: I plan on finding out sources to cite later. MosheZadka 13:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've now been bold and removed the POV tag: there is no POV (AFAICT) in the article any more, now that I removed the section completely. MosheZadka 13:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The word "rightfully" (which has recently been removed, reinserted, re-removed) is definitely POV. It does not describe how Spike feels, it is an external judgment on the merits of his position. Riverbend 14:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from article[edit]

The writing has been criticised for showing the scythe as a deus ex machina by some, and some contend

After six years of telling us over and over again that casual sex is bad for you — see "First Date" five episodes earlier for the most recent bout of moralizing — the writers suddenly decide that it might be okay after all. These scenes are probably the most graphic of the series, though still tame even by American TV standards.

Just when victory seems certain, Caleb decides to dig out the one weapon that can defeat his cause. No plausible rationale is given, and even the First seems confused. Though the scythe was hinted at in the previous episode ("Empty Places"), this is another case of the writers using a deus ex machina device to advance the plot of season 7.

Though it is believable that Spike doesn't tell Faith or the renegade Scoobies and Potentials what is at the vineyard, there is no reason why Andrew should hide it from them. It seems unlikely that nobody would ask him after he and Spike both announced they had found something important.

No attempt is made to divine if in fact there is a secret weapon in the sewers or what it might be, even though Willow is using locater spells to look for Buffy at the same time (as revealed in the next episode).

Dawn again displays linguistic abilities that would seem far beyond what a normal teenager could manage in the time available. This time, she's good at Turkish, not Sumerian as in "Get It Done".

Fair use rationale for Image:Buffy720.jpg[edit]

Image:Buffy720.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]

What I Changed[edit]

I removed the copyright violating expanded overview: blow by blow details are FORBIDDEN, people. The summary left isn't perfect, I know. But better then the expanded... I also removed the extensive quotes, I simply don't understand why we need them, when we already -have- a Wikiquotes website. Lots42 (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]