Talk:List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
________________________________________________________
Contents |
[edit] Synopses
Thanks to the following for allowing use of their synopses on wikipedia:
- Angelicslayer.com - Many synopses used for 'expanded overview' sections of wiki.
[edit] Inca Mummy Girl redirect
Somehow, "Inca Mummy Girl" has been bent so it is redirected to the main Buffy page. I'm not sure how that happened, and even less how to undo it, but this doesn't seem to be right. -- Wolf Deunan 21:07, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed. It was redirected by User:Lucky 6.9 because of, I presume, bad writing. I'll restore and clean it up. -- Wapcaplet 03:41, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Quick links back to listing
I find annoying the lack of a quick link back from every episode to the episode listing by season. The link to the category doesn't seem the best one. --Doppelgängland 14:18, Jul 14, 2005 (GMT)
- Agreed. If only someone'd go thru all the pages now to fix that. On a related note, the link to the List is included only near the top of the article for each episode. I wish constantly that there were a more prominent link, such as in the sidebar. Xiner 23:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Season numbering
I've changed the season numbering from the use of textual numbers to the digits themselves, for two reasons:
- It isn't as visually discomfiting, since the eye is more accustomed to seeing order in the sequence "1-2-3-4-5-6-7" than, as the old brain-teaser goes, "O-T-T-F-F-S-S".
- It avoids the frequent arguments about excessive capitalization in headings, in which far too many people simply ignore the long-standing, apparently universally cross-project MediaWiki style standard of sentence capitalization.
~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Spoilers in summaries
Before editing the page any further, I realized I should ask veterans here first. Should the episode summaries here give away the plot/ending? I find it useful to have an episode listing that doesn't reveal much (like this) and episode pages that tell all. -- xiner, Feb. 2006
- I agree that not too much should be given away -- Paxomen 04:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, my bad. My friend Pallescere and I were the ones editing the pages. I just did season 7 and I tried to make the summaries less spoilery, lol. :) Binthemix 08:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Sorry I then butchered your work...I was actually referring to the S1-S4 summaries originally. Thanks a lot for improving the page, though. I wouldn't have attempted it. Xiner 00:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Buffy Body Count
A link to the appropriate Buffy Body Count page within each episode page would be useful. A huge undertaking, too.
[edit] Screenshots as fair use
In order to resolve the long standing debate over fair use of screenshots on List of Lost episodes, I am now trying to resolve the issue under the belief that the issue is an opinionated matter and not a matter of policy. Talk:List of Lost episodes#Fair use criteria number 8. I ask that people share their comments, but please try to keep the conversation in this section focused.
One thing that works against us is that the conversation tries to defend too many points at once. Try not to respond to comments about other aspects of the debate, and just take this one step at a time. Basically, respond if you think this is an opinionated matter regarding policy point 8 of WP:FUC or not.
I believe if we can break through on the issue of point 8, the rest will fall into place. -- Ned Scott 08:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Help needed in Justice League Unlimited
If somebody is interested in Justice League Unlimited, please go to the List of Justice League episodes to help fix that page, meet this one's high quality standarts.Some users refuse to expand info and create article per episodes, even though they know the existence of the wikiproject and well developed pages like the sub-articles here.--T-man, the wise 02:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)--T-man, the wise 02:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Images
There's no consensus that images aren't allowed, so removing them without discussing is a bad idea. If it's ever going to be a featured list, it will probably be a version with images. - Peregrinefisher 19:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Featured list status
I sincerely apologize for the lazy work done on the episode descriptions. In the following month, I will create a spoiler-free list, improve all fair use image rationales, and finally finish the episode descriptions then submit it again on FLC. Michaelas10 (T|C) 16:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Buffy/Angel Crossovers
Could we get a listing of all of the BtVS/AtS crossovers, like in the List of Angel episodes? I was looking for the corresponding episode to Chosen, since Angel obviously crosses back over for the finale, and I realized that there are no crossover listings (such as for "Pangs") on this page at all. Zekintha 12:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moving articles
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)
- 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. --Elonka 23:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- 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)
- 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? --Elonka 01:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Might I point out that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy? (Radiant) 13:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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? --Elonka 01:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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)