Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Buffyverse task force/Episodes

Doppelgängland

Should Doppelgängland be at Doppelgängland (Buffy episode) as the instructions here say, or not? Seems like it's been recently moved from Doppelgängland (Buffy episode) to Doppelgängland, as I discovered when I was about to move it myself, as this page says. Is this an exception? If not, how can I move it so the history follows to the new article, is that possible? Maver1ck 18:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a canonical reference for whether this episode is titled "Doppelgängland" or "Doppelgangland"? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal pages?

Would it make sense to have pages for each season which link to the episode pages? MosheZadka 10:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there already a list of all episodes? Wouldn't that suffice? --Allycat 11:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heading case fixes

I've been updating the episodes with Wikiquote template links that jump directly to the relevant episode sections. While doing this, I've also been fixing the heading cases, which according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Headings should be "sentence case" (i.e., capitalize only the first word and proper nouns). I hope the Project doesn't have a problem with this. I can see there is a desire here not to follow this policy, based on the main Project page itself. I admit I don't know how WikiProjects are affected by general Wikipedia policy, but the episode articles are in the main namespace. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes and trivia sections

This is sort of in response to something from Jeff Q's comment above. I'm new to the project, so maybe this has been discussed elsewhere, but I feel as though having a "quotes" section for each episode article to be a little strange for a few reasons. 1) How does one decide which quotes are proper for inclusion in an encyclopedia and which aren't? Is it based on comedic value? Relevance to the plot of the episode? The season? Where does it end? 2) Formatting is an issue, since there's no standard. 3) Most importantly, we DO have wikiquote, and with Jeff Q's templating, is it really necessary to duplicate 'information' there? NymphadoraTonks 17:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikiquote "duplicates" a tiny amount of wikipedia in its article (a 1-2 sentence of introduction, which would in wp be a "stub"), so there's no reason wp can duplicate what in wq would be a stub. Perhaps decide on a maximum of 1-3 quotes per episodes, with justification only being extreme relevance to the plot or episode (not pithiness -- if it's just funny, it's enough that it's on wq). MosheZadka 16:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crossovers

I've added a "Crossover" notice to each of the following episodes: The Freshman; City of; The Harsh Light of Day; In the Dark; Bachelor Party; Pangs; I Will Remember You; Who Are You?; Five by Five; Sanctuary; The Yoko Factor; Fool for Love; Darla; Redefinition; Crush; Disharmony; The Gift; There's No Place Like Plrtz Glrb; Orpheus; Dirty Girls (left off this list the first time); Chosen; Just Rewards. Is that all? —Tamfang 06:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added sections to episodes linked to the mini crossover

B6.04 Flooded
A3.04 Carpe Noctem
B6.05 Life Serial
A3.05 Fredless

-- Paxomen 17:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl in Question on Angel?

New infoboxes?

The infobox seems to have changed on The Harvest, but I like the old one better. There should be a link to List of all Buffy eps tho, and maybe one to the specific season, but listing the names here is just redundant and makes it harder to navigate to eps around it.

Welcome to Hellmouth page location

Is there a reason why Welcome to the Hellmouth (Buffy episode) current redirects to Welcome to the Hellmouth? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Yeah it should be, just moved it. -- Paxomen 13:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Paxomen. Xiner 16:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angel episodes

Thanks for adding infoboxes to all the Angel episodes Paxomen. :) I hope you don't mind, but I'll add bigger and better quality pictures later on. But they look good for now. I hope you don't take that as an insult, but I have access to better quality pics. --Cooksey 17:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah absolutely, the ones I added are very low res, lataness -- Paxomen 23:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article reviews

It'd be nice if someone with strong writing skills could do a walk thru of the articles that have been struck out and check if they are indeed up to standard. I took a look at Lover's Walk and with all due respect, it isn't ready for prime time. Xiner 15:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could put in a checkmark or something as a sign of a review of any crossing-out action. I'd like to know, too, if I say an article's finished when someone has reviewed my decision. It'd be nice to know that two people have reviewed every article.

Writing & Acting POV

Unfortunately the Writing & Acting sections (and to a lesser extent the Quotes & Trivia sections) are fairly saturated with POV. I've cut comments on how Welcome to the Hellmouth is superior to Encounter at Farpoint, comments on how exciting/funny certain episodes are, and a paragraph on how Cordelia's behaviour in Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered is the episode's "only weak point". Much of the information in these sections is simply too subjective, so I thought I'd flag it up here, partly as a warning that I may go on a POV-culling spree but also as a note to try keeping things as factual as possible.--Nalvage 13:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episode chronology

If we have suggestions to change the chronology, where do we bring them? For instance, I'd suggest that Buffy 4x01 (The Freshman) come before rather than after Angel 1x01 (City of) because of the phone call that takes place between them (Buffy answering "Hello? Hello?" which is near the end of 4x01 but the beginning of 1x01). For this and other suggestions, where do I bring them? Kimpire 19:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk Page for the Chronology article itself is probably the best place. Here, for that particular bit. But I think that phone call is actually near the end of the Angel episode.--Nalvage 21:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitated to put it there because of the whedonverse template. That talk page has nothing on it whatsoever, and has in fact never been altered. Are you sure that's the right place? From the looks of it I should be looking for whatever page was used to hash out the chronology in the first place... Kimpire 11:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where the creation of the page was hashed out, but now that the page exists, its own Talk Page is the right place for discussion. It only has the whedonverse template 'cos no-one's felt the need to discuss anything yet. Which... yeah, suggests that the article was put together in one fell swoop. Anyway, now that you've brought it up here, people might weigh in.--Nalvage 12:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episode naming

... (Buffy episode)

Can I just ask - do we actually need to put "(Buffy episode)" and "(Angel episode)" after each episode's name? I mean, obviously it's unavoidable in some cases, but wouldn't it be easier to simply have Welcome to the Hellmouth, Never Kill a Boy on the First Date and so on for the longer or more quirky ones? Just an idea...! NP Chilla 17:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it seems rather pointless at times, but when you consider episodes like Anne and Enemies, we'd look a bit inconsiderate to take those words. The only uniform way to resolve such situations seems to be to add (Buffy episode) to the title. Since we're in a fictional world, we should prolly defer the better "addresses" to others.

You're absolutely right, of course; but what I mean is for titles like I, Robot... You, Jane, which obviously will not exist elsewhere, should not (in theory) require "(Buffy episode)" after it. Anne, Spiral et al. will, as you rightly say, need to keep their suffix. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Perhaps one of our pals on Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who, Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek or Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Gate could give us their opinion; after all, it's the same way they do things. NP Chilla 21:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I like the idea of uniformity so that personal opinions are left aside as much as possible (and I realize how ironic that sentence is ;-)). If we change the rule for different episodes, there could soon be arguments based on personal interpretations. Xiner 03:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think like them uniform. When looking for the article, a user shouldn't have to guess -- "will this be appended or not?". If they all have the same suffix, then they're all easier to find. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 18:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I very strongly agree with arguments for uniformity, it doesn't make sense to me to have some episodes without the suffix, and some with it. Shortcuts can always also be used e.g 'Welcome to the Hellmouth' is already a shortcut to the actual article 'Welcome to the Hellmouth (Buffy episode)'.

Personally I also think the same should go for characters, places and concepts introduced in the fictional universe, which could all be given the suffix, '(Buffyverse)', and shortcuts made for the more bare name. If a majority indicate that would be preferable I could make those changes? -- Paxomen 20:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean having, for instance, Willow Rosenberg (Buffyverse)? NP Chilla 17:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I think we should. It'd clearly demarcate the fictional universe from the other articles on Wikipedia. As a writer and editor, hell no. Xiner 18:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. What I belive is that the question is Uniformity VS. Convenience - it takes half the time to write Never Kill a Boy on the First Date as it does for the whole thing. As Xiner says, having Buffy Summers (Buffyverse) is unnecessary; and so is Welcome to the Hellmouth (Buffy episode) in my opinion. NP Chilla 20:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On conveniance: it's true shorter names can be more conveniant.. unless of course the shorter version was a shortcut to the article, for example I just made a shortcut at Never Kill a Boy on the First Date so that it redirects to the actual article, Never Kill a Boy on the First Date (Buffy episode), so now when we're feeling lazy we can use that shortcut for that episode.. the same principal could theoretically be used for Buffy Summers (Buffyverse), in fact when you 'move' a page, the old page name automatically changes into a shortcut -- Paxomen 15:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be uniform, because a) it's inconvenient, and b) there are loads of similar articles on Wikipedia (for other TV episodes, comic book storylines, etc) that don't contain suffixes. For example, The Caves of Androzani or The OMAC Project. I think suffixes should only be used if there's likely to be confusion with another entry SHODAN 02:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the old saying goes, "Why have a dog and bark yourself?" <strokes beard sagely> NP Chilla 21:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if you write "[[Title (disambiguation)|]]", including a pipe with nothing after it within the brackets, "Title" (without the parenthesis) will automatically be inserted when you save. So you should never need to write Never Kill a Boy on the First Date twice. —Tamfang 18:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of episode articles

Greetings, Buffyverse editors!

As you may be aware, for the last several weeks there has been extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) about how Wikipedia articles on television episodes should be named. Editors from many areas of Wikipedia, including members of several different television WikiProjects, have worked together and come up with a general guideline that article titles should include disambiguating phrases only when there is another article on Wikipedia with the same name as the episode name. Thus, if you were creating episode articles for Knight Rider, the episode Circus Knights would not need any disambiguation, whereas Nobody Does It Better (Knight Rider) would, in order to differentiate it from Nobody Does It Better (song). However, the guideline also recommends that Circus Knights (Knight Rider) exist as a redirect to the episode.

The discussion has been fairly well-advertised at the Village Pump, in many WikiProjects' talk pages and on the talk pages of many television program episode lists. However, the editors contributing to the discussion at WP:TV-NC felt that it was appropriate to make one last call at affected WikiProjects for discussion before people started moving episode articles to new names.

We appreciate the work that editors do in every area of Wikipedia, and want you to feel included in the decision-making process. Thank you for your help!

Request for comment - naming of episode articles There is currently an active debate at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) about the naming of episode articles, such as when it is appropriate to use a suffix such as (<series name> episode), and whether or not WikiProjects should have the right to set guidelines for their particular shows. Any interested editors are invited to comment, at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television)#Request for comment. --Elonka 09:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not what's being debated. The issue is whether wikiprojects can set guidlines that contradict the global guidelines of wikipedia. There hasn't been a single argument that wikiprojects shouldn't have the right to make their own guidelines. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Buffy editors. Actually, there is disagreement about what is being debated. There are talk pages for your perusal, provided above, and there are sub-debates about whether mediation is appropriate and what to talk about there, and what the actual disagreement is. (see more at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)). The conflict at least seems to be in the general area of "disambiguation issues for naming conventions for television episodes", which as you can see will affect how Buffy articles are titled (or retitled when the current majority there gets around to it). I don't care what your position is, but the discussion there is getting somewhat stale and frustrations are kind of high. Everybody in the discussion needs to really get into 'constructive mode', so any input in any of the areas of disagreement that you perceive would be greatly appreciated, particularly as relates to that discussion's effects on projects other than Lost (um, you). Again, regardless of your position, a fresh eye and new perspective would be very, very cool. Riverbend 00:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episode naming dispute

Just giving regular editors here the heads up here that i'm planning to start the page moves which where described in this message at the Buffyverse project talk page about a month ago.

In short, this is to remove unneeded dabbing on articles. So basically articles where the name of the episode is already unique, as per WP:TV-NC and WP:D (which says not to disambiguate when disambiguation isn't needed).

If any of the regular editors here who haven't yet participated in the recent article naming discussions have any concerns/complaints about this, please voice it now. Otherwise, i'm going to start the moves without going through Request Moves. --`/aksha 09:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial page moves require a request through WP:RM, they shouldn't be handled unilaterally. The Buffy articles have clear guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/Episodes, and format should not be changed unless there is discussion and consensus for such change. --El on ka 23:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Request Moves that's already happened show consensus for getting rid of disambiguation. The note on the Buffy Project talk page has been there for 1 month with no replies. Am i supposed to assume that there are Buffy Editors here who care about how the articles are named, but simply haven't bothered to reply to the message for an entire month? And don't bother using the Arb case as an excuse for stalling, the ArbCom will grant a temporary injunction if they see fit. Otherwise, the ArbCom doesn't mean we have to stop at all. --`/aksha 01:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the note that invited editors to the discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), it's my understanding that some of them did respond to indicate their opposition (such as Riverbend). Also, a consensus to move one set of specifically-named pages, has no bearing on other pages. Pages have to be explicitly listed, and a notice about the move has to be listed on the page to be moved, otherwise how are the involved editors even supposed to know about it? --El on ka 01:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might I point out that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy? (Radiant) 13:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that. WP:RM says that it's only necessary when moves are controversial. The moves have been mentioned multiple times here, and I don't see any responses from people other than those who have already commented at TV:NAME. If the only "controversy" is one editor following around another and declaring all his moves "controversial", I see that as disruptive filibustering, and not true controversy. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, a dispute at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) has boiled over to this WikiProject, such that one user has decided to start moving a bunch of articles around, in violation of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffyverse/Episodes guidelines here, and without any attempt at WP:RM. I have requested that these moves be reverted, but I really strongly recommend that anyone in this WikiProject who cares about the article titles (whichever way that you prefer), get involved in the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) and Talk:List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes. --El on ka 23:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above omits two relevant facts. First, the user is acting in concordance with the long-standing guideline WP:DAB; and second, he has announced his moves a month ago for comment, and there have been no objections from within the project. Some more discussion is here; it would be nice to keep discussion in one place. (Radiant) 13:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to naming guideline

I'd like to propose changing "All names should be appended with "(Buffy episode)" or "(Angel episode)" to "All episode names that require disambiguation due to other articles with the same name should be appended with "(Buffy episode)" or "(Angel episode)". This reflects the way the articles are named now and is consistent with the rest of wikipedia, notably WP:D, WP:NAME, and WP:TV-NAME. Input from editors of Buffy and Angel articles would be appreciated, thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure one way or the other any more as long as short cuts mean that one way or the other readers/editors find episodes - Paxomen 17:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the cases of articles that have been moved, a redirect from the old name is created automatically. If you'd like to recommend adding a line recommending creating redirects for articles without the disamiguation, I think that's totally reasonable. Something like "For episodes that don't include (Buffy episode), a redirect from Episodename (Buffy episode) may be created."?

I concur with Milo per WP:DAB (and note that the change Milo suggests matches the actual naming of the episodes), and concur that creating redirects is a sensible approach. >Radiant< 10:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason why "Doppelgängland" still has the disambiguation?--Nalvage 20:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. >Radiant< 09:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Angel episodes in threat of being merged to single article

TTN is beginning to tag Angel episodes with a "non-notable" merge tag. Discuss. Kweeket 23:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arc significance of Giles not touching from S07E10 to S07E13

I'm not much of a buffy expert, but it seems like the subplot in S07E13 where the gang finds out Giles may have been killed at the end of S07E08 and was really just a manifestation of The First during eps S07E10 to S07E13 warrants some notes in the "Arc significance" sections of those episodes where there was "supporting evidence" of Giles not touching anything ... off the top of my head: Buffy doesn't get a chance to hug Giles when he first shows up at the house because a potential walks in front of them; Giles doesn't have the books about the first, one of the potentials is carrying them in her bag; A potential drives the van to the desert instead of Giles; etc... I'm sure someone with the DVDs could find several examples per ep.)

hossman (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images up for deletion

Quite a lot of the images from the buffy episode pages are up for deletion - they seem to need a non-free use rationale for each article an image is used. The current rationales (or some of them at least) seem to be for the List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes, rather than the episode articles.

[[User::Redsignal]] seems to have uploaded a lot of them - see their talk page for a list of the what seems like most of the articles. I'll try to help if I can, but a collaborative effort is probably best. Silverfish (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy dies at the end of season 2 of "Angel"?

When and how does she spring back to life? I'm a bit confused because I know there is an episode Angel where Angel and Spike go to see her in Rome when she is with the Immortal 174.215.158.210 (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Willow revives her at the beginning of season 6 of Buffy, of course. There are no more crossovers (for a while) because Buffy moves to another network. —Tamfang (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deletion alert

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Down. I've no idea whether this may lead to wider attempts to remove episode articles in general. —Tamfang (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]