User talk:Paul730

Buffy's powers

Errr, what about the episode "Potential"? I remember they made a point (at least in the pilot) that Buffy had no innate vampire sensing powers, except through decisive sartorial critique. The channeling stuff / mystical protection should go in a small powers section but not the infobox. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was none other than me. Blame my Whedonesque RSS feed. (Edit: OMG HE ANSWERED MY QUESTION) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Only if he gave Lorne a happy ending. That's not what Angel's about though. Okay, only if it was appropriately comedic (e.g. a brief flashback to a Clem/Lorne wedding).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

But it would be funny. And isn't he?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope the final page of A:AtF #12 is a double spread of Cordelia, saying something candid and unexpected in an "omg she's back" kind of way.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is why it'd be a great cliffhanger.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Buffy's title

It wouldn't be supported on the disambiguous page, because the title of this article has nothing to do with disambiguation. I wasn't challenging that page. My move was based on the naming conventions page, which is completely different. The example he mentions is "School", which is something used in various mediums and forms; not something that is used primarily for one topic (like Buffy's name, television show, film, etc). In this case, it may be more appropriate to retitle the disambig page "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", and provide links to all the other pages that share that title. It seems to me that this is more of that "canon" thing getting pushed through the fence. I left a comment on the talk page, and invited WP:TV and the naming conventions pages to the discussion. I don't know if anyone else will join.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate canon when I'm watching or reading something, but when it comes to an encyclopedia that should cover everything, it kind of bothers me to see pages run on the basis of "canon". Joss killed off Tara because she was gay? Didn't Willow and Tara have a pretty long romantic relationship? I'll check the Xander/Dawn stuff after work (since I shouldn't be on here). Your experience with the forum sounds like mine. I read all this "I'm not going to watch Smallville anymore because they are going to bring back Clana (Clark/Lana)" and all this stuff about how they hate that relationship. Get over it, I say.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it happens that way with every show. A certain fanbase gets pissed about something so they have to write up "hate mail", basically, to show their annoyance. You can't please everyone. I always thought Tara's death was such a shock that it worked strictly on that basis. I loved how it became the straw that broke the camel's back (in thise case Willow going all psycho-witch). Those episodes in that storyarc were some of the best IMO. I still remember today when I saw ASH come in at the last second and blast Willow with some magic of his own. He didn't last long, but it was still intense.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I liked Anya. I didn't care for that one night fling with Spike, but I liked the character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I like Spike, he reminds me of me in a lot of ways (well, after he became "good") He can get some, but there are just certain things that maybe don't need to be done. You have to admit, it seemed rather sharkish for her to fall in-love with another vampire (one that has repeatedly tried to kill her...and not simply because she slept with him and inadvertantly removed his soul). They shouldn't have turned to each other because it provided an excuse for Xander to not get back with Anya, and I thought they were a perfect match for each other. Not saying that Xander deserved a second chance after ditching her at the alter because of some stupid fear, but at least the door would have been more open.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it was majorily Xander's fault. But I felt the one-night stand with Spike kind of put Xander in a place where he felt "well, if she can do that with him then I don't need to try and work things out."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was logical, just that it was his excuse. You can see, by the end of the show, his longing to get back with her (hell, you can see that from his jealousy over her fling with Spike). I'm merely saying it was something that happened that, I believe, he saw as his "upperhand". Some people may want to get back together with someone else, but when they see an act that makes them feel betrayed (as Xander probably saw the fling with Spike) it becomes more of a "I have to throw this in your face" thing, which ultimately removes that chance of getting back together.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

They seem to establish notable information, but I cannot say they establish enough notability to warrant a distinct page. That doesn't mean that they don't, just that unless you read the entire book you won't know how much information they provide. Also, I don't think a single source of anything screams "make me my own page," but if you find that there's so much OOU info there that it's best to separate the subject out, then fine. Do Xander and Dawn exist somewhere other than on their own pages, like a LOC page? If not, then I wouldn't worry about "establishing notability" right now, at least not in defense of some AfD or merge proposal. I'd just go ahead and weed out any relevant information from those sources and begin working it up. I have no intention of doing any proposals or nominations for them, and a lot of time if you can show enough effort to provide OOU information from reliable sources then no one else will either. Worst come to worst you'll just get some cleanup tags for the other sections. The sources look good, but it's all really based on what information they give and how much of it they provide. Like, a lot of the Jason info came from two books, but had I split up that info and put it solely on the film articles then it would have bogged the pages down...worked much better keeping it together. I think Xander and Dawn already have their own pages anyway, right? You might find somethings useful for some other pages, but I reckon that you'll be able to populate their respective single articles with quite a bit of OOU information. OOU information that may help point you into some other directions to look for some different sources (i.e. A book talks about Xander's homosexuality [hypothetical, don't take it seriously] and that's something you never thought about...so you go searching for key words of Xander and Homosexuality, which leads you to more sources).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear lord, I can only see it now. The reason Willow and Xander, and Willow and Oz didn't work out was because they were all gay. What the town of Sunnydale didn't know was that every one of the residence was "in the closet", hoping that no one would know the truth, even though they all shared the same secret. LOL, might have made for an interesting episode. Though I think Faith and Buffy getting it on (total sexual tension between those two) would have been hot. j/k.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Joking about the real reason they all didn't work out was because they were gay, not joking about the thought that Buffy and Faith would be hot. Yeah, I've read the thing about Angel and Spikes "deed". Kind of takes a note from the books of Anne Rice, wouldn't ya say?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't dis MotW setups, it's how a lot of shows make their living before they can expand. Smallville had the same issue; they couldn't delve too deep into mythos until they had the fanbase secure (hence the drop off in ratings for Season 3). Now they are almost full swing into mythos, and I have a feeling that whenever the last season is (if this be it, then maybe the last half of this coming season) it will be a "full tilt boogy" down the Superman lane. I agree, MotW can get annoying, but I find it's a necessary evil to allow for character development of the main cast. You try and have story arcs that run multiple episodes before you care about the cast and you'll run the show into the ground.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There is only so much you can cover in 42 minutes a week, 22 weeks a season, 7 seasons a show. Comics/novels (and the like) allow for a medium with greater access to characterization...as it's a little harder to show internal motivation on screen; writing it on paper is a lot easier. Hence why we generally don't see a lot of television/film characters speaking from the inner thoughts. Ever watch a movie and then, later, read the book it was based on? You generally find a deeper understanding of the character when you can read what they are thinking. MotW serve their purpose, which is to establish the front runners and fill time. That's usually why shows that are not meant to be serialized tend to lessen the use of said concepts with later seasons. Not every show is the same. Heroes has a lot of characters it has to connect, and you'd spend far too long with those MotW episodes establishing each individual character than if you did creating a story arc that go ahead and connect them. The problem with that is you tend to underdevelop a lot of characters (as I've heard mention is one of the few problems with Heroes, like actress Ali Larter's character, or Leonard Roberts). The same goes for Lost, which is why a lot of critics dislike the fact that the show has so many characters that become useless to the series because it takes forever to get to know them. They pop up one episode, you get a bit of backstory, then they're gone. Not every character suffers from that, but when you have a double digit cast in your first season, you're going to stretch yourself thin in the character development arena (unless you make every episode 90 minutes long).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you couldn't like her, I just said one of the things I've read about concerning that show was the lack of character development with certain characters, specifically the ones I mentioned. It tends to be an issue with large casts. Everything else I hear about the show is basically equivalent to it being one of TV God's best creations. I haven't read a lot of EU stuff (like say the comics or young adult novels for Smallville), so I don't have an opinion of them in regards to whether or not they are useless or if they provide good information and are entertaining. I'm sure not all can be good, especially when you have to compete with the stigma of being part of something very popular and held in high esteem by its fans.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Star Wars EU is generally better because I think I read somewhere that Lucas actually approves everything. They generally cannot write anything without his say so. They even have to do that with the games they make. There's a new Jedi game coming out and I was watching a video diary of them discussing how they have to contact Lucas and basically ask him if it's ok to develop certain characters a certain way. They have to basically pitch every little idea for his approval.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Present tense all the way, though I tend to not pay attention and leak the past (as it is kind of natural to write prior events in the past).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I figured I had written something in the past tense and that was why you were asking. It's kind of hard sometimes to not do that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It can be silly at times. I'm trying to go through my university database to find stuff on Michael, but not too much is turning up...just film reviews for the most part and not even a lot of them. I did find this 18 page PDF for Buffy Summers, but every time I tried to copy it so that I could send it to you my computer would begin to lock up. I don't know what the deal was, but I could only get about 5 or 6 pages copied before everthing would lock up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was called Ambiguity and Sexuality in Buffy the Vampire Slayer: A Sartrean Analysis. It depends on what the information is. If it's simply talking about her being in academic studies, then I'm not sure. If it's academic studies talking about her then it would depend on the information given. What is being said about her exactly (some examples)? I'll respond in the morning, I need to get some rest--haven't slept that long in the past couple nights.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

He didn't come, maybe he got shut down. Anyway, you could section it as CI for now, write up and then review it to make sure you labeled it well enough.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Always helpful. :)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, thanks. I'll check it out. You know I was looking at Buffy's ratings, and Smallville's ratings today and they were not too dissimilar. I thought it was kind of funny how close some of their later seasons were.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

When you compare Buffy and Smallville to other primetime shows, they do have crap ratings. 4.5 million viewers a week it not enough to stay on NBC, ABC, or the like...but for the WB (or now the CW) that's their highest rated show. Also, it generally performs well in the demographics that it aims for, as I'm sure Buffy did when it was on. I noticed the same complaints about Smallville, but I actually like the later seasons. When you grow with the characters you have to grow with the stories. I prefer stories that focus more on getting Clark closer to becoming "Superman", and things that deal more with the mythos than anything else. Oh well, there will always be haters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've heard the same thing about DH basically since season 2. I also hear the same thing about Lost, and with its slumping ratings I wonder if they are going to end up putting their foot in their mouths saying that they will have 2 more seasons. Not that I hate the show, or think it's terrible (never seen it, so I cannot pass judgement), but them saying they will have a set number of episodes makes me hope this season's ratings are so far down that the network decides not to go on with the final season. I much prefer shows that live season to season, and don't get cocky about when they will stop.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Angel was good while it lasted. Sometimes you just have to give things a chance, and maybe move them around. Everybody Loves Raymond had horrible ratings the first season, but the critics loved it. The studio kept it on and it became on the top performing shows for the rest of its run. They changed time slots on Smallville twice, giving it the kiss of death when they put it on at 8 p.m. on Thursday nights, but for some reason it managed to perform even better (not as well as its second season though) in key demographics. Everything's funny that way.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Halloween

It wasn't too bad, a lot better than most of those sequels. You can really tell it's a Zombie film because every other word out of most of the character's mouths was "fuck"..lol. That's about the only thing I get tired of in his movies. There was gore, but it was more in the vein of keeping it realistic, instead of just being gratuitous. I was actually surprised to see him use cut-aways in a few instances. I thought the bery beginning (like the first 10 - 12 minutes) was rushed. He spends 40 minutes on young Michael, but even in the beginning it seemed like he was rushing the family life stuff. I have to admit, there were times I felt sorry for Michael, he did actually manage to provide a bit more depth to the character. Sometimes I felt the acting itself was a little forced from most of the characters, but that could have easily been Zombie's dialogue. Laurie certainly lost her innocence. I mean, she's still innnocent, but that prudishness of JLC's character is gone. I was pleased to find that I wasn't watching the original film, in almost anyway. There are certainly homages around, with certain characters reciting key lines of dialogue associated with their 1978 counterparts, but a lot of it was fresh. The more I reflect on it, I think, the more I kind of respect his take on the original film. It certainly wasn't the best Halloween, but it was good enough to be called by that name. Now, I just have to rewrite the plot section of that page and develop the reception section. I abandoned that project awhile ago because people kept fighting me with it...I think I'll return to it after I finish up Batman Begins.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think it was two different films. You kid of see a lot of "big Michael" inside of "little Michael". You also see a method to his madness, like why he stops talking. "Little Michael" comes off as truly damaged mentally. He's like every other kid one minute, and raving psycho another. As for Laurie, unlike the original, this movie is all about Michael...it isn't about Laurie. That was kind of a plus for me, because we've already seen a movie about Laurie (technically 3 of them), it was good to focus on Michael in a fashion that was based around some occult. As for his family, other than the cussing, it seemed to me to be a bigger breeding ground for his psychosis than would one of those nuclear families...especially since the film doesn't take place in the same time (i.e. Michael isn't a 5 year old boy in the 60s, were nuclear families were common anyhow). I have to agree that the male deaths were kind of put on the side, but I also saw a lot of the deaths as a symbolism to Michael equivalent to that of his own family. When you see the film, you kind of pick up on the fact that maybe he looked to the women in his life as nurturers, or at least expected them to be that, and so it was probably more of a betrayal to him to find all these women that do not fit his idea of what a woman should be (like Annie and Lynda only caring about themselves and getting laid). At least, that is how you can look at it in respect to why he attacks them more brutally than he does the males. You'll have to see it to pass your own judgement, obviously. Is it in your theaters yet?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you looking for a new movie, or a shot for shot remake? We've already seen the original, and Michael is Michael in this film...not "The Shape". That's kind of why you have to look at it with a different eye. Kind of like comparing Batman Begins to Batman. They're really two different versions of the same film, one focuses on Batman, one focuses more on The Joker. Loomis was interesting, very different from the Pleasance character. That's all I can say.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

When you watch it, all I can say is forget everything you know about the original. No matter what someone does, they cannot please everyone, and Zombie would have been compared to the original even if he had made a sequel. These are two different types of filmmakers. My girlfriend thought the original was slow (which it kinda is). She thought this one was really bloody, but also very "actiony" (her words). This movie is, if that's anything, not a slow movie. At least, I didn't think so. I'm planning for her to watch the original TCM tonight (hopefully) because there is a very obvious homage to that movie at the end of the remake. When you see it, I think you'll know what I'm talking about. Just to let you know, in case you start getting fearful, Michael does not do a dance in the road with his knife..lol, so you can rest easy that I'm not referring to that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't typically take her to see them, but she knows how much I love the 80s slasher movies, so she agreed to go with me. I don't really like going to a theater by myself, I don't care for people all that much. Individuals are usually fine, but people as a whole are annoying. Upon reflection (i.e. me turning around and asking her) I do take her to see a lot of them. Namely, Saw III and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning...most recently. I did make her sit down and watch The Descent with me (I had already seen it and loved it). She about jumped out of her skin the first time she saw the creatures in that movie. It was hilarious. I was laughing out loud because she was literally screaming and clawing when she saw them. Anyway, we're watching 300 right now (she hasn't seen it), so I'll catch ya later. Go see the movie, in the least, you can say that you were able to finally see Halloween (albiet a remake) in the theater. That's kind of why I saw it. As for reviews, I may read them, but when it comes to horror movies I typically go by the belief that critics wouldn't know a good horror movie if it bit them in the ass. Sometimes it's all about entertainment, and they cannot see past that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If you had seen it, you would have laughed as well...well, if you had seen the movie prior and knew what was going to happen. Oh, btw, we watched TCM this morning...lol, she thought it was stupid and boring. She liked the remake better. Don't watch Hostel, that is the sorriest excuse for a movie I've seen. It had a good premise, but the story went absolutely nowhere. It's wrong because pirate copies generally have shitty quality and you kind of miss out. I watched a downloaded version of one of the Harry Potter movies...much better when I could actually see what was going on. Guess what, it seems Andrew Van De Kamp has finally reached the Featured article removal candidate (FARC) section of the review.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it, but I do find that it is sluggish, kind of like Halloween (which she also thought was kind of slow paced until the final act). I kind of enjoy TCM 2, because it's a little more light-hearted. It's a horror movie, and it has its share of "jolts", but it's funnier. I think the original does come off as very "real", in the sense that Sally's screams just drive you crazy. I kind of invision a lot of girls being that way in that type of situation. Just scream their head off because they don't know what else to do. Oh, what was up with LuciferMorgan? Was it me, or did he come off as kind of a dick about that whole "him" thing? Seemed to me he could have simply said "there's an extra 'him' in the sentence," or just removed it himself if that was his only criticism. I don't know. As for Andrew, this phase of the process is the "delist"/"keep listed" part of the process, where it actually gets voted on. I think I'm going to go ahead and give Jason my support. I plan to add some more stuff when I finally get those other books, but the article is rather comprehensive as is, and other than maybe some personal preference in wording, I think it deserves my support.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You should see the first and second sequels, they are pretty good. The one you are thinking of is The Next Generation, which Renee Zellwegger and Matthew McConahay (sp). I think the Living Dead series has gotten better (and by that I mean entertaining) with each new film. I really enjoyed Land of the Dead. Romero really got the shaft when it came to payment on those first few films, I was glad to see him get to make more.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, depends on the director. I've seen plenty of low budget films I thought they should have saved their money on. I'm kind of interested in how Diary of the Dead is going to turn out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You should see Land. I liked 28DL. I know a lot of people who didn't, but that was because they walked in expected one thing and got something else. They got something with a lot of story and human element in it, but they wanted zombies. Cillian Murphy was great (as he usually is). Speaking of, have you seen Red Eye?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a Wes Craven film. You should check that out, it's a good little thriller. One zombie film that I unremorsefully hate is House of the Dead.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

RE is good, but nothing can compare to The Evil Dead trilogy. It's in a league all its own. Matter of fact, I have the three posters above my television area. Bruce Campbell is hilarious. I don't know if it every aired over there, but The Adventures of Brisco County Jr. was one of best, short-lived, television series.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not your typical western, and it was built on the comedy. ED is weird that way. Inside of a few days, Ash basically goes from being a wimp to being a hero (albeit an asshole hero). I thought they were all kind of funny in their own way, but each successive one became more comedic than the last. I love the inconsistent recaps, lol. Poor Raimi not being able to secure the rights to his own movie. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bignole (talk • contribs) 00:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. I've never read the comics, and I don't read comics all that much anyway..as you probably remember. It would probably be interesting enough for a comic, but certainly not for the big screen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you been watching the new Halloween page, or avoiding it so you do not spoil yourself? This guy keep reverting to a plot section that is 1100 words, after I trimmed it to 600, simply because he thinks it's better written.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I admit I was rude (and that doesn't solve anything), I would think that he (and this is me being immature) started the "rudeness" first. If you read his edit summaries and his comment a couple of sections above where I linked to the appropriate guidelines. I'm currently playing it his way and going through his version and trimming that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you read the plot he put up, but there were more issues there than he may want to believe. Like starting sentences with "Also" and issues with possesive punctuations. I won't get into the fact that he screwed up the events he was detailing. As for Erik, I would only assume he was answering me based solely on what I was saying, which was biased by my attitude with the situtation. He might have assumed I was dealing with some anonymous editor who just wanted a longer plot, pure and simple. In those cases, when another editor doesn't want to discuss anything, it may be better to leave it alone till later.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, he trimmed 200 words off the original, and I trimmed about another 200 from that...so we'll see where that leads us. I'm working on Batman Begins right now, but I plan to revamp the reception section of the new Halloween movie afterward. Sorry I dragged you into my petty argument.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Squats not edited since that one day, so I assume he'll be back after the holiday.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Vaughan's Faith 101

...at Wizard. It's interesting, counts as a source for things like "Lehane", too. Discusses her moral complexity. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources

The sources you turned up at Talk:List of Angel episodes look excellent. I was wondering, do you think you find some which offer analysis on specific characters as well as episodes (especially Buffy and Faith, as I'm rewriting their pages in my sandbox)? I'm asking because I'm terrible at finding reliable sources myself, all I seem to find are websites selling the DVDS or plot summaries. Anything which establishes the notablity of lesser known characters like Dawn and Xander would be extremely helpful as well. Thanks, and if you're too busy, I'll understand. Paul730 00:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad my googling was of use :) I recommend you look through Slayage, a peer-reviewed journal for "Buffy studies" first, because there are so many great sources there.

I also used Google Scholar to turn up these sources:

* The book Fear and Trembling in Sunnydale has several chapters devoted to Faith, for example "Also Sprach Faith: The Problem of the Happy Rogue Vampire Slayer" and "Faith and Plato: 'You're Nothing!'"

* The book Fighting the Forces: What's at Stake in BtVS also discusses Faith, for example "Patterns of Mortality in Buffy" and "The Containment of Girls' Anger in Buffy"

* "Tomlinson: Responsibility and Murder in Buffy" contrasts Buffy and Faith's views on murdering humans (accidental or not)

* Sex and the Slayer: A Gender Studies Primer for the Buffy Fan analyses Dawn's role as a "Good Girl" (and Faith, of course, is a "Bad Girl"); Xander is analysed both a "Tough Guy" and a "New Man"

Kweeket 06:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Paul. How are you doing? I've seen you and Bignole work together quite a bit. If you're interested in digging up some academic studies, I can help retrieve some of the subscription-only resources from my university databases and get them to you in a ZIP file. I'd be happy to help with that. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

An e-mail address would be necessary, but you can register a free e-mail address such as Yahoo! Mail. I use such an address myself for registration and keeping e-mails separate from my main account. Do you want me to see about retrieving Buffy-related items from Google Scholar? Anything specific that you could look at? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's my pleasure to help out. I've dug up academic studies for Memento, Aguirre, and Schindler's List. (I'm going to undertake a big task at User:Erik/Interpretations of the film Fight Club -- it's gonna be a doozy.) I've sent you one PDF so far, and more will come. Just busy today and wanted to give you something to work with. I'll follow up with more! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at what you had to read -- it did seem like a lot to take in! Hopefully, since you're a Buffy fan, you should be able to understand all the events that the academic guy mentions. Trust me, though, Fight Club is a bit nastier... I tried to read about Fight Club in relation to the philosophy of space and time last night, but it was just a lot for me to digest. Do you want me to keep sending the PDFs? I can do so (just not tonight, I have to go live the college life), so just let me know! And I'm happy to help a friend of Bignole's! Collaboration's a must if an editor's to accomplish great stuff on Wikipedia. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

After the Fall panel

Blog.myspace is blacklisted so the link will say "sillybilly.myspace" and you can change it. Ahem.

Gwen, Connor and ... not sure. Possibly Nina or Harmony.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, so not fayr... anyway. Gwen will now presumably become a Black Lightning style character. I can see Connor being dead cool. Sadly there probably won't be any Connor/Dawn interaction anywhere.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It was because I misspelled Brian "Bryan" on his blog. Err, by "interaction" I meant "dialogue" lol. And you're right, Victor Mancha is damn cool. In the end I was glad his dad was Ultron and not Magneto - who has too many kids as it is, but some of the other possibilities (like Doom and Electro) seemed entertaining too.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

He has a share of grandchildren too. I wonder if Wiccan and Luna will get militant one day. I would love to be a writer on any major comics series - An X-book or a Justice book or something. The fans would hate it, probably. Except one. Me. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I would make ONE major character bi. Like League / Avengers material. I wouldn't touch the Big Three of DC or the flags of Marvel. But I'd make possibly a Green Lantern or a Robin bi. The rest would all be sexually ambiguous and flirty. Not as bad as Joss where even the random faeries are lesbian. Oh, and I'd use Batwoman and Question appear more frequently. Wonder Woman has a gay cousin. ANYWAY. Yes, I'll watch it now.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(Runaways/Young Avengers are my fave Marvels... after Black Adam etc. :P) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Didn't bother me really. I saw it as a means of storytelling. It wasn't loaded in anyway. I think a fan should detach themselves to just enjoy what they're watching when it's being written well.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you just have to accept canon as canon. Unless for example, after Season Eight, Joss died, and Lynch took over the whole thing... I might consider THAT non canon. But I don't understand what about UPN/a-storyline-some-lameos-don't-like makes it non canon. Meh. There's a thing on in comics at the moment called "Death of the New Gods" where basically all these characters are assassinated by a mystery killer. People are quite pissed off when they're faves die. But when the bisexual/lesbian New God Knockout is killed... it suddenly becomes Lesbian Death Syndrome? Lol. The writer, Tony Bedard, declared he'd never kill another lesbian again. Funny interview.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't recall any Doctor/Rose. 9 or 10? And which page? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Red! The chameleon circuit clearly works in Joss's world.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I did sort of suggest it be put up for nomination. I just abstain from voting either way in this case.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I decided when it was first nominated on account of my knowledge of Wiki policy being limited. I couldn't say anything of worth that Bignole couldn't phrase better. I didn't realise it had gotten ugly. I do remember her being very aggressively opposed to the errr... oppositions, at FAC.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to, but I'd be scared it's still not FA quality.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You can always join me at User:Zythe/Jack lead while we put something together. The good thing about leads is, you don't need to cite stuff unless it's controversial, if it's sourced in the main article. If you decide any points need citing however, it would make sense for the sake of consistency to cite the whole thing.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I had in mind from the start, although I found it hard to summarise. The fact that the character is popular should go there - although citation can be covered in the further section, I should think. Beyond that, what to and not to choose is iffy. The gay stuff could be mentioned... but I think it would take a lot of eyes to get "right", might needs bits about "first non-heterosexual character..." to be moved lower down, etc. It's just picking which bits and in which style to summarise it. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's basically going to be a case of adding a new paragraph and making sure it doesn't sound repetitive next tot he first two. No one else I know does this with Wiki... I'm such a geek. The coward-to-hero stuff should go in paragraph two, or in three as a comment on the successful introduction/initial arc of the character?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I just didn't wanna go out on a limb and earn a second FAC failure.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrew

Because I can't be bothered to argue about it, it's a waste of my time. You don't not want the article made better, you want it entirely rewritten when it doesn't need to be. Bignole started the FAR expecting I would fight him every inch of the way, but I'm not going to. I invested hours of my time into that article, and I will not participate in its destruction. Let it be delisted. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)