Template talk:Buffyversenav

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Buffyverse-related article is part of WikiProject Buffyverse, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Buffy, Angel & the rest of the Buffyverse. You can help! Visit the project page, episode checklist or discuss an article at the project talk-page.
Buffy Portal

Contents

[edit] Inclusion of link to Buffy the Vampire Slayer adult parodies

Please review Wikipedia:Content disclaimer

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored - Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable.. some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content

Aren't Buffy the Vampire Slayer adult parodies relevant to the Buffyverse (and therefore it's template)? -- Buffyverse 15:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

They aren't even remotely cannon, so they are not part of the Buffyverse and shouldn't be included. They are mentioned in the main article, that is enough. It's not censorship, it's irrelevant. Koweja 14:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"Buffyverse" does not have an objective definition that discludes items not sanctioned by Whedon/20th Century Fox. If the template was "Buffyverse canon" then the Buffyverse adult parodies must be discluded. But the template is simply "Buffyverse" and contains all the articles relating to that word; that's why it includes links such as non-canon Buffyverse novels, non-canon fan-made productions set in the Buffyverse, academic books about the Buffyverse not licensed by 20th Century Fox..... and so on.
Buffyverse adult parodies are not relevant to "Buffyverse canon", but they are relevant to the wider "Buffyverse"? - Buffyverse 01:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see them as relevant to the Buffyverse. They are just parodies, not part of the universe. Would you consider Spaceballs to be part of the Star Wars universe or Galaxy Quest to be part of the Star Trek universe? Koweja 00:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
They're not relevant to the Buffyverse and don't belong in a template concerning the fictional universe. User:Koweja's comparison works best. —scarecroe 02:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Star War/Trek Universes are slightly different because the common usage of "Star Wars Universe" is simpler and not an equivalent to the more complex terminology of "Buffyverse". Still, if there was a 'Star Trek parodies' page (that included info on "Galaxy Quest" as well as other parodies) then the 'Star Trek parodies' page would not be out of place on a comprehensive "Star Wars" template, if that template already included links such as Star Wars fan films, Star Wars RPG, Star Wars CCG....
It depends how you define 'Buffyverse'. Using a narrow definition of 'Buffyverse' (e.g. "the fictional universe established by "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" & Angel episodes"") - would mean that many links on the Buffyverse template would have to be removed including Buffyverse parodies.
However the term 'Buffyverse' is commonly used to describe something bigger than just "the fictional universe established by Buffy the Vampire Slayer & Angel episodes", it's now also often used in a broader sense to describe things associated with anything related to "Buffy/Angel". Many fans use the term to describe both the canon & the completely non-canon materials. A "Buffy" pencil case might be described as a piece of Buffyverse merchandise for example - but that doesn't mean that the pencil case fits into the canon continuity established by "Buffy/Angel" eps. And "Buffyverse Fan films" describes things like "Cherub (Buffyverse)". But noone would try to argue that "Cherub" is part of the canon continuity of the Buffyverse. "Cherub" is a parody of "Angel", but it's still Buffyverse-related. That's why "Buffyverse Fan films" belongs on the Buffyverse template. Similarly the article about Buffyverse parodies is connected with the Buffyverse despite it's complete uncanonicalness (if that's a word).
However taking into account people's discomfort, I have put the adult parodies in the smaller row, and replaced it with the Academia article. Giving the academic article more prominence and the adult one less. - Buffyverse 03:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Nobody speaking about the Buffyverse is talking about pornographic movies not associated with the Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel franchises. —scarecroe 17:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names should not be so abbreviated

I changed "harm" to "harmony", "dru" to "drusilla", etc. I understand that an attempt has been made to make the infobox look perfect for one particular editor's monitor. As different people will have different screen sizes and have their text sizes set differently as well, there's no point in attempting this. --Xyzzyplugh 05:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This template is far too big

This is ridiculously large and, in some cases, fills relatively brief, pithy articles with a mountain of unnecessary material. At most there should be a link to List_of_Buffyverse-related_topics. --Tony Sidaway 03:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your right, it is a fairly big template. However the Buffyverse is a fairly big topic, and WikiProject Buffyverse oversees hundreds of articles. For that reason, I think the topic benefits from a big template that can take you to any of the main articles from where you are within the topic. -- Buffyverse 04:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
No, this template is just too big. You can't see that because, well, your username is Buffyverse after all :) There's too much material here, and I'd bet that a lot of it is really substandard too. Indeed, it would be interesting to deactivate this template and see how many of the articles on it would become orphans. My bet: more than one.
Please, remove the crud, and get it removed from the encyclopedia too. --kingboyk (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It is definitely too big. {{Navbox}} documentation suggests one approach, which is to make it collapsible (though I'm not clear on whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates people think this is still a good approach. Wikipedia:Navigational templates notes that "Some editors deprecate large, colorful, list-based templates on small articles" and suggests avoiding the issue by splitting the template into sections (compare {{EMD diesels}} with {{EMD GPs}} and {{EMD SDs}} for an example). I agree with the point in Wikipedia:Navigational templates that splitting them into sections "retains a more tightly focused relationship between the articles and allow the reader to navigate to other related content quickly." Please consider following one of these approaches. 68.165.76.110 (talk · contribs) 06:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC).
User:Paul730 removed one section. I've removed one line and changed the order. This is a modest start, but a start nonetheless. I think it could be reduced to 4 sections: Angel/Buffy/key characters/Key terms and concepts. We don't need a whole section for music, for example; one link to the overview article Music in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel is quite enough. Arguably "key characters" could be a seperate template for use on character pages. Not sure about that.--kingboyk (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Even if you grant Buffyverse (talk · contribs)'s argument that the Buffyverse "benefits from a big template that can take you to any of the main articles", there are too many main articles. Compare {{Buffyversenav}} with {{Star Wars}} for example. Even {{Doctor Who}}, with a history going back over 40 years, has a more reasonable {{Navbox}}. I should think that these counter-examples, along with the WP:NAV guidelines, demonstrate the need for shrinking {{Buffyversenav}}. I've got a basic familiarity with the Buffyverse but it makes more sense for a big Joss Whedon fan to follow the lead of other pop culture universes and shrink their main navbox. Thanks. — 67.100.128.85 (contribs)

Since the characters tend to take too much room, can we at least have a separate template for the characters specifically? I've seen template splits before. Just look around the Star Wars articles of this site as an example. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 06:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is more than jjust about the characters. We have too many discussions taking place on the same subject. We don't need 3 different sections discussing this template being too large. We need to find one centralized location to discuss this.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, here is my opinion on what the template for the Buffyverse should change to:

v • d • e
The Buffyverse
Canon • Index • Joss Whedon
Television
Comic Series
Expanded Universe
Auxiliary
Academia • CCG • DVDs (Angel) • DVDs (Buffy) • Guidebooks • Magazines • Music • RPGs
Universe


If would be better if you could merge the Characters links into one and we can have a list of ALL characters from not only the TV shows but from the canon comics also, but I would create this page once it's accepted.

This makes it nice, compact and functional. More importantly, it recognises the changing face of the Buffyverse, with the new direction in canon comics. You can also then go on to have specific Buffy or Angel nav boxes as well. Matty bon (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a helluva lot more cleaned up than the current version (which apparently, continues to grow as we talk). I like this set up (even though I believe that there shouldn't be a "Buffyverse" template given that we have systematically removed the name "Buffyverse" from article titles because of it's lack of professionalism and fan-initiated origin).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Since I made the character templates that you see below in the People section of this conversation, we should make the template in discussion that Matty bon made. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 15:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I know of another editor that is making new templates for both Buffy and Angel, splitting off the two shows (as should have been done in the beginning). My talk page has one of the templates.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool! Then we can put those templates to the proper pages and use the character ones for the Show's articles and character articles. :) FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 16:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
v • d • e
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Canon • Index • Joss Whedon
Series
Spin offs
Expanded Universe
Auxiliary
Academia • CCG • DVDs • Guidebooks • Magazines • Music • RPGs
Universe

Okay, here's my version, exlcusive to Buffy only, we also need to make an Angel one. One thing is I'm not entirely satisfied with the "Series" section? I think maybe we need a better name? Also, I'd like the Buffy template to be shades of red rather than blue. The Buffy and Angel boxsets are red and blue respectively so I think it would make sense for the navboxes to match. I'm not sure how to change the colour though. If we're going to split the template into two, should we move Template:Buffyversenav to Template:Buffynav and create a separate Tempate:Angelnav page?  Paul  730 20:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice template. And yes go for the template. Also, if someone can help me get those same colors for the character templates, that would be great. So yeah. Make Tempate:Angelnav. :) FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Would "Franchise" work in place of "Series"? Something along those lines, anyway?~ZytheTalk to me! 10:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buffy comics

It might be good to create a new section to separate the canon Buffy comics from those that are not. It might make things less confusing in the long run --220.238.175.38 17:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Could get a little messy, since some of the original comics are considered canon due to the involvement of people like Jane Espenson. Are there any definitive rules for the canoncity of Buffy comics? Paul730 23:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the only comics that are official canon are the ones that have either been specified canon by Joss or have been confirmed as canon by being referenced or referred to in other canon material - so this only includes: Season 8 comics, After the Fall, Fray, Tales of the Slayers, Tales of the Vampires 121.220.66.96 (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


I Agree, it has been stated by Joss that he reguards canon as very important, so this should be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.103.78 (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inside jokes

Is there a page dedicated to inside jokes in the 'verse? There's no such thing as leprechauns, etc. samwaltz 11:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People

I think the list of people in the box is getting excessively long. Several of the characters are very minor, and are really just cluttering things up in my opinion. I'm thinking specifically of people like Clem, Groo, Scott (who?), and Senator Brucker (seriously, she was in three episodes). Villains who weren't actually the "Big Bad" of their season, like Caleb, are also borderline in my eyes. Jeff-El 05:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand.... If no one objects I will be taking out: Clem, Ethan Rayne, Gwen, Senetar, and Scott Hope----Smartjoe299
Okay, somebody keeps re-adding Scott with no explanation, without an account/talk page of his/her own. I'm going to try taking the high road here and look for some consensus: there is just no reason for Scott to be in this template. Agreed? Jeff-El 21:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Scott definitely does not deserve to be here. He was in about three episodes wasn't hugely important; even Buffy seemed to forget about him, "Scott? Oh... boyfriend Scott." I'd maybe argue for the inclusion of Ethan and Groo, they're not my favourite characters by any means, but they are fairly important and span mulitple seasons. Paul730 23:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This has also been discussed in the past: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buffyverse#Buffyverse-box character inclusions -- Paxomen 01:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Does Angel's hairy girlfriend really belong here? Paul730 01:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say "no." --Jeff-El 02:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we going to see any chacters from season 8 in there, like Generall Voll or satsu etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.103.78 (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

We already have Major and minor character links for both Buffy and Angel. Do we really need a list of all these people? And by first name only? It's not that useful for navigation right now, in my opinion. Maybe if we trimmed it down to just people who actually appeared in the opening credits? -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support restricting it to opening-credits cast members only. That list would be pretty sizable on its own, even including some "minor" characters like Harmony. I would also support the inclusion of the TV series' "Big Bad" villains: The Master, Adam, Glory, The First, and Jasmine. I know there are other noteworthy characters like Drusilla, Darla, The Trio, and so on, but then we run the risk of recreating the exact same problem. Jeff-El (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd say keep it to opening-credits people only, and perhaps big bads. Such as...
  • Buffy, Willow, Xander, Giles, Cordy, Angel, Oz, Riley, Spike, Dawn, Anya, Tara, Doyle, Wesley, Fred, Connor, Illyria, Harm
  • Master, Dru, Mayor, Adam, Glory, Warren, Jonathan, Andrew, First, Darla, Holtz, Jasmine
Thoughts?  Paul  730 18:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure about having all of the big bads, but maybe. Not sure. At the very least it's a good start. Let's pare it down to that and see how it looks. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Drusilla should not be omitted if there are less significant characters like Holtz, Adam and Jasmine in the list. I'd say she is more crucial to the extended plot than these characters, what do others think?--124.190.1.27 (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, people have readded Lindsey and Joyce for being "important", we're starting the problem all over again. Importance is subjective; Kendra has few appearances but is important to the mythology of the show, someone like Graham has lots of appearances but little importance. We need to cut this section down to cast regulars only, ie. people who appeared in the credits. I think we should omit Big Bads too, since there's confusion over that as well (is Jonathan a Big Bad, what about Amy?). What do people think? Remember that we also have a link to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters in the nav box.  Paul  730 15:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought we were going to separate this into two templates?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I took the initiative[no pun of course. ;)] and created two character templates for both shows.

For Angel:

v • d • e
Angel The Series Characters
Canon · Index · Joss Whedon
Characters
Main
Angel · Connor · Cordelia · Doyle · Fred · Gunn · Harmony · Illyria · Lorne · Spike · Wesley
Recurring
Darla · Faith · Groo · Kate
Villains
Holland · Lilah · Lindsey · Drusilla · Holtz · Jasmine · Eve · Marcus
Powers

For Buffy:

v • d • e
Buffy the Vampire Slayer Characters
Canon · Index · Joss Whedon
Characters
Main
Angel · Anya · Buffy · Cordelia · Dawn · Giles · Oz · Riley · Spike · Tara · Willow · Xander
Recurring
Amy · Andrew · Faith · Kendra · Halfrek · Harmony · Jenny · Jonathan · Joyce · Kennedy · Snyder · Wesley · Wood
Villains
Powers

I hope this will help out with the large template issue you have with the other one. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 19:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Also I've just added them to all character articles. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 22:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expanded universe

In Expanded universe, we have a comics link, but then links to a comic (Fray) and two comics series (Tales of Slayers/Vampires). Same with novels. Is there a reason these are bumped out? WOuldn't it make more sense to have: Novels, Comics, Video Games, Fan Films - maybe borrow the RPG and card game from Auxilliary.

For that matter, I'm not really sure what the Auxilliary category is. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fray and the Tales comics aren't really "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" comics, they're spin-off titles set in the same universe. Classing them simply under Buffy comics would be inaccurate, IMO, they're too distinct on their own. "Auxillary" seems to consist of merchandise/random out-of-universe stuff. It all seems a bit miscellaneous.  Paul  730 20:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
But surely they qualify as Buffyverse comics (and they are listed there), which the expanded universe link goes to. As it stands now, in the navbox, we have a link to Buffy comics, a link to Angel comics, a link to buffyverse comics as well as those specific links to Fray, Tales, Season 8 and After the Fall. I can see why Seaon 8 and After the Fall are bumped out (though I think we could probably fold them in as well), but can't see a good argument for Fray and Tales. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not too comfortable with that "Buffyverse comics" page... seems a bit too in-universe. I think Fray/Tales completely deserve their own individual links, they're distinct spin-offs on their own. Like you say, Season 8 and AtF are notable on their own, so are Fray/Tales. The links you mention all seem fine to me since they're different series, with the exception of Buffyverse comics which I'm not even sure needs to exist (certainly not in it's current form). Maybe the Buffy/Angel comics lists should be converted into articles (about the publication history/reception etc of the series, like Buffy Season 8), and the Buffyverse comics list should be rewritten from an out-of-universe perspective.  Paul  730 21:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying that these series aren't notable, just that we don't need to link them in this navbox, because they're already under the umbrella of the larger comics articles. I think that a navbox should really be a pretty general guide to the articles available. Comics, books, movies, etc. To help people find their way around all of these articles. When we've got every little series and product crammed in here, it just seems a little confused. After the Fall and Season 8 at least have the merits of potentially long-running series. The Tales books and Fray were 5 or 6 issues and done. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Despite being brief, they're separate titles... I understand what you're saying about keeping nav boxes concise, but ommitting them doesn't sit right with me. Perhaps this is drastic but if the size of the navbox is the problem, maybe we could split it up into separate ones? One for characters, one for literature, maybe even different ones for Buffy and Angel... Just a suggestion, what do other people think? If we do keep the single navbox, I expect many other links to go with Fray/Tales, especially the music and places sections. I assume that's what you're trying to do anyway.  Paul  730 21:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to force it or anything, but I think we could knock off some more chaff, true. But only so that the important stuff really shines through. Do you think that we should carve out an entry for the Spike comics, since they were under a separate title, as well? -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I really think of the Spike books as Angel books, like when Giles or Jonathan got one-shot titles, they were still Buffy comics cos they were Buffy characters. Fray isn't about characters from Buffy or Angel, it's it's own series. The Tales books are the same, only less so, since they feature cameos from TV characters. Maybe it's just a case of "I like it". :P Feel free to make the edits you want, and maybe I'll look at the finished product differently.  Paul  730 22:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
When I first saw this box I thought it was too large. Personally, the first thing I'd do is separate the box into Buffy and Angel. Most pages might have both boxes, but some pages that have no direct tie to the other series can survive on the one nav box. It also removes that "Buffyverse" tag which has been recently systematically removed from most page titles because of its fan origin (I know the fans like it, and Joss has started using it, I mean, it's pretty catchy). Anyway, just separating the box into two will cut your space down for each individual box by a lot.
What is the difference between Tales of the Slayer (prose) and Tales of the Slayer?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The comic is good and the novels aren't. ;) Lol, I'm kidding. Both are anthology series about various Slayers throughout history, one is a graphic novel and the other is four prose novels. The set-up is similar for both, but the comic was overseen/partially written by Joss Whedon and is canon, thus earning it more attention in both fandom and the media.  Paul  730 22:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that two templates is probably a good idea. There are many pages that would only need one. Plus, the division might make them easier to navigate even when they are on the same page. I'll try to hammer something out. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Where are we on this?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I think this list should be inclusive because,

...unless you know where to look, or see the character in the template, you will not know that a wikipedia article exists about the character. Say I am new to the series, go onto Wikipedia, find Spike, like reading about Spike, want to know more about others around Spike, where do I look ? Just use the faulty wikipedia search engine ? Oh, wait, there is a Template:Buffyversenav template with more names and information linking directly to the articles I am looking for. Yippie. Thank you for reading and considering rkmlai (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you make it to the template at the bottom of the page, then you'll make it to the categories at the bottom of the page that have the same (more comprehensive) list of characters. First, the main reason this template is too large is because it includes two television shows. There are many things in Angel that have nothing to do with Buffy, and vice versa. There should be two templates, one for Angel and one for Buffy. This was discussed before, and someone was supposed to be creating a new template for Angel.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Characters templates

...are redundant, and clutter up articles. Don't we have a characters list (let's try for featured list!) and some fairly useful categories already? I think the point of a new, slimmer navbox is to do away with the bulky clutter of listing every single important character in the series. If we have to list characters (by some massive consensus), should we not keep it to just credited cast?~ZytheTalk to me! 10:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

They are needed to navigate though the franchise characters. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 22:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure we do need character templates, although I appreciate the time Faith has spent making them. As Zythe said, we can link List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters in the navbox. Also, as for navigating through the pages, we have internal links in the articles themselves. We also have Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Character navboxes do seem redundant.  Paul  730 22:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
"Needed" is such a strong word. How so? TfD it is then.~ZytheTalk to me! 00:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overlap

Some people are now listed under both "characters" and "villains".

The "Angel" link in the villains section could probably be made to link to the Angelus section of the article, as he's noth a villain and a main character, but otherwise people like Holtz should just be in one or the other.