This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 27, 2021. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
This pretty much comes down to my own doubt as to how this goes, so I'll put it up for discussion; is there really any point in having every single reference to a character within the article wikified? Is this the way it's usually done? It just seems a somewhat weird form to me, even if pratical. Can someone clear this up for me? Zeds
Zeppocity recently changed the " Band Candy" mention of Giles and Joyce's regression from "emotionally" to "mentally". I was going to revert it, as "mentally" implies (to me) that they believed they were teenagers and wouldn't recall anyone they knew since then, whereas "emotionally" implies that the memories are intact but their attitudes changed. But I'm not so sure about my facts. Can someone cite some evidence that would make one or the other more certain? (And perhaps, while they're at it, jot down a synopsis for "Band Candy", which is currently just a structure-only stub?) Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I just watched this episode and I can tell you it is not one long continuous shot... Though certain segments following Buffy ARE one shot, they are divided by many other shots, the most obvious being the Christmas memory and the fantasy of Joyce being revived. It's cited, but it's inaccurate. 98.176.34.63 ( talk) 05:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason for this? I mean, all the previous episode recaps are just a (fairly detailed) synopsis. And I'm assuming the acts are determined by when the commercial breaks are? Anyways, I was just curious if there was a legitimate reason for the change in format. It's not that I disapprove. I'm just... curious. =) Somuchbetter88 ( talk) 08:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm gonna take out the passages about the premise and structure of the series, which our excellent collaborator User:Moni3 has added verbatim to this and two other episode articles. So much repeated content is contrary to the spirit of the Web and mostly irrelevant to this episode. We certainly ought not need to be told that, gosh, the series also includes some stuff about relations among the regular characters. — Tamfang ( talk) 22:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought you had an issue with the first paragraph in the Background section, but you removed the entire section. Anya's abruptness is not explained. Joyce's previous illness isn't either, nor the odd family dynamics of Buffy, Joyce, and Dawn. I'm on the fence about the last point, but the other two I think should be included. Xander doesn't find a parking ticket; the camera shows an attendant putting one on his car. There has to be a better way to integrate the 1-sentence paragraph in the lead into the article. The lead is choppy and it doesn't flow well now.
Tell me what your major objections are to the background section the way it was. There is a way to compromise, but I'm not sure your edit accomplishes it the best way. It doesn't bother me that information is verbatim or similar in Hush and Once More, With Feeling. At this point, I don't really plan to do any more of the episodes. Either way, I don't mind rewriting the background section, but I feel like a significant part of introducing the reader to the issues in the article, why the show was so unique and groundbreaking, and why it defied conventions for television aimed at adolescents and young adults, are adequately explained. -- Moni3 ( talk) 01:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Miro3 had "brings forth", which isn't right, because the theme had already appeared in Buffy's first encounter with Glory and in the first signs of Joyce's illness. I tried "puts into relief", a metaphor of a carving whose appearance varies according to the angle of light; but I prefer to avoid a word whose other common meaning is so inappropriate! At this moment I have "emphasizes", which may be the best I can do. Another possibility is "counterpoint". — Tamfang ( talk) 23:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
If this were the first unexpected twist, it wouldn't be a cult favorite. The first would be "Innocence", I guess. Do unexpected twists happen more often in the last three seasons than in the first four? Can there be such a thing as a pattern of the unexpected?
My judgement on this point may be impaired because I never saw a full episode until December 2003, so I had plenty of opportunity to read spoilers – and less opportunity than the original audience had to become accustomed to the rhythms (if that's the word I want) of seasons 1–4. — Tamfang ( talk) 04:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
About Dawn's reaction to the news, Moni3 wrote: will check, but as memory serves only "no" can be discerned from Trachtenberg's lines
For whatever it's worth, here's the relevant part of a purported script that I downloaded from somewhere-or-other.
Presumably they had some scripted lines so that the conversation would look right even if inaudible. Or perhaps inaudibility was an idea adopted late in the process. — Tamfang ( talk) 23:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
When I was a lad, ellipses had four dots when the omitted matter included the end of a sentence. Perhaps this nicety is considered passé, like alternating single and double quotation marks! — Tamfang ( talk) 01:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You guys have really got to cut it out. What you are doing is not in the spirit of WP and you both know it. See WP:OWN if you really don't understand what I mean. Make a serious case for not allowing the slight reworking of two sentences. Please.-- TEHodson 04:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey folks. Apologies for the delay, have been off enjoying myself. First, TEHodson, I can understand why you'd be wary of Moni bringing in a "buddy" to offer an opinion, but at least 4 of the editors mentioned are much better at writing than me and would be neutral especially in matters such as grammar. You'll note that I do not yet have an FA to my name. Perhaps, you should have a read of their work or even their talk page before judging them?
Next, I'm seeing a lack of Bold, revert, discuss. I know it's an essay, but in my opinion it's one of the finest on Wikipedia, TEHodson, when you made your changes (which are perfectly acceptable per WP:BOLD - even on an FA), they were reverted. This means that they were contentious, and a discussion should have happened. That would have allowed a consensus to have developed without the article being reverted over an over again. As it happens, the recent lack of edits shows to me that some sort of compromise has been found, so this note is more for the future.
As for ownership, it's not easy to get an article to featured status, and it's perfectly natural to want to keep it there. This doesn't mean that edits shouldn't be made to the article, just that they will be under much more scrutiny. That's not exactly OWN, even if it does make things more difficult for new editors to the article. WormTT · ( talk) 12:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Unsure about three sources used in here - The Futon Critic is an abridged version of a transcript. If it were the straight transcript, that would be fine, but given that it's some random blog's edited version, I don't see how it's RS. TangoTV looks a little dubious, although it's just citing a time slot. SpoilerTV also looks bloggish, but the text that it supports is just an attribution to the random dude on the internet, so it could be removed if need be. Marking as satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020 because the questionable sources are only used lightly and I don't think a featured article review would be helpful here. Hog Farm Talk 03:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 27, 2021. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
This pretty much comes down to my own doubt as to how this goes, so I'll put it up for discussion; is there really any point in having every single reference to a character within the article wikified? Is this the way it's usually done? It just seems a somewhat weird form to me, even if pratical. Can someone clear this up for me? Zeds
Zeppocity recently changed the " Band Candy" mention of Giles and Joyce's regression from "emotionally" to "mentally". I was going to revert it, as "mentally" implies (to me) that they believed they were teenagers and wouldn't recall anyone they knew since then, whereas "emotionally" implies that the memories are intact but their attitudes changed. But I'm not so sure about my facts. Can someone cite some evidence that would make one or the other more certain? (And perhaps, while they're at it, jot down a synopsis for "Band Candy", which is currently just a structure-only stub?) Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I just watched this episode and I can tell you it is not one long continuous shot... Though certain segments following Buffy ARE one shot, they are divided by many other shots, the most obvious being the Christmas memory and the fantasy of Joyce being revived. It's cited, but it's inaccurate. 98.176.34.63 ( talk) 05:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason for this? I mean, all the previous episode recaps are just a (fairly detailed) synopsis. And I'm assuming the acts are determined by when the commercial breaks are? Anyways, I was just curious if there was a legitimate reason for the change in format. It's not that I disapprove. I'm just... curious. =) Somuchbetter88 ( talk) 08:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm gonna take out the passages about the premise and structure of the series, which our excellent collaborator User:Moni3 has added verbatim to this and two other episode articles. So much repeated content is contrary to the spirit of the Web and mostly irrelevant to this episode. We certainly ought not need to be told that, gosh, the series also includes some stuff about relations among the regular characters. — Tamfang ( talk) 22:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought you had an issue with the first paragraph in the Background section, but you removed the entire section. Anya's abruptness is not explained. Joyce's previous illness isn't either, nor the odd family dynamics of Buffy, Joyce, and Dawn. I'm on the fence about the last point, but the other two I think should be included. Xander doesn't find a parking ticket; the camera shows an attendant putting one on his car. There has to be a better way to integrate the 1-sentence paragraph in the lead into the article. The lead is choppy and it doesn't flow well now.
Tell me what your major objections are to the background section the way it was. There is a way to compromise, but I'm not sure your edit accomplishes it the best way. It doesn't bother me that information is verbatim or similar in Hush and Once More, With Feeling. At this point, I don't really plan to do any more of the episodes. Either way, I don't mind rewriting the background section, but I feel like a significant part of introducing the reader to the issues in the article, why the show was so unique and groundbreaking, and why it defied conventions for television aimed at adolescents and young adults, are adequately explained. -- Moni3 ( talk) 01:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Miro3 had "brings forth", which isn't right, because the theme had already appeared in Buffy's first encounter with Glory and in the first signs of Joyce's illness. I tried "puts into relief", a metaphor of a carving whose appearance varies according to the angle of light; but I prefer to avoid a word whose other common meaning is so inappropriate! At this moment I have "emphasizes", which may be the best I can do. Another possibility is "counterpoint". — Tamfang ( talk) 23:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
If this were the first unexpected twist, it wouldn't be a cult favorite. The first would be "Innocence", I guess. Do unexpected twists happen more often in the last three seasons than in the first four? Can there be such a thing as a pattern of the unexpected?
My judgement on this point may be impaired because I never saw a full episode until December 2003, so I had plenty of opportunity to read spoilers – and less opportunity than the original audience had to become accustomed to the rhythms (if that's the word I want) of seasons 1–4. — Tamfang ( talk) 04:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
About Dawn's reaction to the news, Moni3 wrote: will check, but as memory serves only "no" can be discerned from Trachtenberg's lines
For whatever it's worth, here's the relevant part of a purported script that I downloaded from somewhere-or-other.
Presumably they had some scripted lines so that the conversation would look right even if inaudible. Or perhaps inaudibility was an idea adopted late in the process. — Tamfang ( talk) 23:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
When I was a lad, ellipses had four dots when the omitted matter included the end of a sentence. Perhaps this nicety is considered passé, like alternating single and double quotation marks! — Tamfang ( talk) 01:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You guys have really got to cut it out. What you are doing is not in the spirit of WP and you both know it. See WP:OWN if you really don't understand what I mean. Make a serious case for not allowing the slight reworking of two sentences. Please.-- TEHodson 04:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey folks. Apologies for the delay, have been off enjoying myself. First, TEHodson, I can understand why you'd be wary of Moni bringing in a "buddy" to offer an opinion, but at least 4 of the editors mentioned are much better at writing than me and would be neutral especially in matters such as grammar. You'll note that I do not yet have an FA to my name. Perhaps, you should have a read of their work or even their talk page before judging them?
Next, I'm seeing a lack of Bold, revert, discuss. I know it's an essay, but in my opinion it's one of the finest on Wikipedia, TEHodson, when you made your changes (which are perfectly acceptable per WP:BOLD - even on an FA), they were reverted. This means that they were contentious, and a discussion should have happened. That would have allowed a consensus to have developed without the article being reverted over an over again. As it happens, the recent lack of edits shows to me that some sort of compromise has been found, so this note is more for the future.
As for ownership, it's not easy to get an article to featured status, and it's perfectly natural to want to keep it there. This doesn't mean that edits shouldn't be made to the article, just that they will be under much more scrutiny. That's not exactly OWN, even if it does make things more difficult for new editors to the article. WormTT · ( talk) 12:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Unsure about three sources used in here - The Futon Critic is an abridged version of a transcript. If it were the straight transcript, that would be fine, but given that it's some random blog's edited version, I don't see how it's RS. TangoTV looks a little dubious, although it's just citing a time slot. SpoilerTV also looks bloggish, but the text that it supports is just an attribution to the random dude on the internet, so it could be removed if need be. Marking as satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020 because the questionable sources are only used lightly and I don't think a featured article review would be helpful here. Hog Farm Talk 03:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)