Talk:Buffy Summers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

super powers[edit]

I really don't know anything about Buffy. I came to this page wondering what her powers are. I have seen her break steal chains and throw people across the room. This page needs a super powers section.

Fair use rationale for Image:Buffy720.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Buffy720.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Buffy IS gay[edit]

That is not a conjecture or vandalism, it's a FACT.

When we see Buffy and an Asian girl in the middle of a sex scene, she IS a lesbian, regardless of what she says.

This is not "original research". There is a comic book, a canon comic book, written by the creator of the show himself, that depicts Buffy as a lesbian. Thus, it is a fact backed by canon material BY THE CREATOR OF THE CHARACTER.

This is NOT "vandalism", either. Stating a truthful fact, backed by canon evidence, is not vandalism. Thus, I am deeply insulted and offended that you take a truthful contribution as "vandalism".

Now, you may not agree with lesbianism, you may think it degrades the character, but the fact still stands: Buffy is a lesbian.

I'm planning to edit again the article to include this truthful fact.

~~Agustinaldo~~

Why cant people grasp the concept of bisexuality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.228.79 (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Joss Whedon says, and I quote, “We’re not going to make her gay, nor are we going to take the next 50 issues explaining that she’s not. She’s young and experimenting, and did I mention open-minded?”[1] Buffy doesn't identify as lesbian in the issue, her creator states she isn't a lesbian... she's not a lesbian. It is original reseach because it's your personal interpretation of said scene in comic; I interpretate it differently to you and neither of our interpretations go in the article because we're not reliable sources. Find a reliable source describing Buffy as a lesbian and maybe it can go in with the right context. That you consider Buffy a lesbian doesn't make it fact.  Paul  730 14:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
To add to Paul730's statement, Buffy also made it clear to Satsu that it was a one-time deal. She didn't feel about women that way; the girl was lonely and the fact that her knowing Satsu's feelings for her made it easier to release all the sexual tension built within. Don't expect anymore encounters between Buffy and Satsu, or Buffy with any other girl for that matter.--The Scourge (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
If it was a one-time deal and "experimentation", she really doesn't belong in the Category:Fictional LGBT characters. That category is for The L Word characters and Xandir (and Willow) where the sexuality of the character is significant to the character. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it was on newsarama where Joss said that "sexuality is a scale", and everyone has tendencies, but Buffy is straight. Maybe not 100% would-never-kiss-a-girl straight, but she likes men. Not much with the lesbiany. Now, it's not a matter of people keeping the category off having a homophobic motivation, it's simply trying to be true to Whedon's intent and Wikipedia policy. Anyway, "either a lesbian or she isn't"? Does bisexuality not exist at all in your world? ~ZytheTalk to me! 21:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In the wake of #15, perhaps Whedon needs to clarify whether Buffy is bisexual or not.~ZytheTalk to me! 23:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

she fucking a woman over a number of issues - she talks about her lesbianism with her friends - what more do we need? --87.112.16.178 (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There's no hugely important reason we need to nail down her sexuality. All that matters is that we accurately describe events. She slept with Satsu. Whedon made such-and-such comments about it. In issue whatever she sleeps with Satsu again. Done. --Nalvage (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I almost cannot believe that anyone would label Buffy gay just because she had sex with a woman. Have people never heard of heterosexual women sexually experimenting with women, especially in college but identifying as heterosexual (straight)? The Bisexuality article even makes it clear that some individuals who some might call bisexual do not identify as bisexual. Not only that, but we know that Buffy is seriously sexually attracted to men. She didn't boink Angel, Parker, Riley and Spike for the hell of it or out of sexual confusion. She boinked them because she was/is seriously sexually attracted to them/men. Making Buffy a lesbian would not have been believable whatsoever. Yes, some will say that making Willow a lesbian was not believable at all either. But at least Willow only had a childhood and teenage crush on Xander, and had only been with one man sexually. It is true that some lesbian women have had sex with several men before "coming out", like character Maggie Stone (though some state that Maggie is bisexual), and vice-versa for homosexual men, but those women usually knew that they were only having sex with men to "try and be heterosexual" or because they were simply in deep denial about their sexuality. Buffy experienced none of that. Willow? Well, as stated before, Joss had more of an opening to change her sexual orientation on us.
I mean, are heterosexual men who enter into homosexual relationships in prison due to situational sexual behavior gay? Heterosexual women who enter into homosexual relationships in prison due to situational sexual behavior lesbian? No. But in concerns to Buffy in particular, I stated this on the List of LGBT characters in film, radio, and TV fiction talk page, "As for Buffy having sex with a woman and being a little sexually attracted to her, well, I don't believe that anyone is 100 % heterosexual or homosexual. That doesn't mean that I believe that everyone should be called bisexual either. It seems that Buffy was just sexually experimenting/being free with her sexuality altogether in that moment."
More like "moments" now, but still. I don't see Buffy having sex with Satsu twice as "fucking a woman over a number of issues". Zythe said it best when he said, "It was on newsarama where Joss said that 'sexuality is a scale', and everyone has tendencies, but Buffy is straight. Maybe not 100% would-never-kiss-a-girl straight, but she likes men. Not much with the lesbiany."
I don't even feel that the LGBT tag belongs on this talk page. But if Buffy starts having sex with women here and there, then Joss has some explainin' to do. Flyer22 (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure that Joss would have gone this way with Buffy had this still been the series instead of the comic books, but oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You american are so complicated! Here in France, when a girl has sex with a girl, we call her a lesbian, or at least a bi. We don't go theorizing around about experimenting, and so on. She's bi, face it!! Personnaly I love bi girls. They definitely turn me onMitch1981 (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly Joss Whedon's view of human sexuality is less myopic and more in line with the educated consensus.~ZytheTalk to me! 20:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Us Americans? You know, I am actually familiar with different cultures, and I know that you should not speak for all of France. A girl/woman or boy/man having sex with someone of the same sex does not automatically make them homosexual. I was not theorizing about Buffy's sexual orientation; I was simply, as apparently others here were as well, stating a fact that Buffy is not a lesbian, seeing as Joss Whedon himself has stated that she is not, and we were explaining how she can have sex with a woman but not be a lesbian based on what Whedon has confirmed. It was not really theorizing her sexual orientation, since we know for fact that she is not a lesbian. Whedon has not even made it so that Buffy is occasionally lesbian (LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You : "A girl/woman or boy/man having sex with someone of the same sex does not automatically make them homosexual" So, explain me what the word homosexual means. Mitch1981 (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

  • The act is a homosexual act, but a person who identifies as being homosexual is someone who has chosen that lifestyle. Buffy did not chose to be a homosexual, she chose to engage in a homosexual act. She even tells both Willow and Satsu that she has not chosen that lifestyle. Buffy is not considered *a* homosexual person until such time as she obviously ONLY has sexual relations with people of the same gender.
The statemnt of "a girl/woman or boy/man having sex with someone of the same sex does not automatically make them homosexual," means exactly that. Just because someone eats all fruits and vegetables for while, that doesn't automatically make them a vegetarian. Going to a church service doesn't make someone a Christian. Picking up a microphone at a bar on karaoke night doesn't make them a singer...
Medleystudios72 (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Homosexuality has nothing to do with the act of sex. Homosexuality is based on the attraction to the same sex. You can be homosexual and never have sex with someone of the same sex; at the same time, you can be heterosexual and HAVE sex with someone of the same sex (this is called down low).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Mitch, think of Medleystudios72's second paragraph about this and Bignole's answer about this as my second reply to you. Flyer22 (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

arson[edit]

This was recently added:

It is mentioned in the Season 1 episode Welcome to the Hellmouth and the Season 2 episode School Hard, that Buffy burnt down more than one building at Hemery High.

I missed any such mention in "WttH". – When Buffy said in "School Hard" that she didn't burn down a school building one time, I took it as referring to the old science lab in "Some Assembly Required", rather than to a second building at Hemery. —Tamfang (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Buffy burnt down the gym at Hemery High, and she burnt down an old disused building at Sunnydale High, that used to house science labs, and that was being used by a pair of teenage Frankensteins to make a girl in Some Assembly Required (Buffy episode). It is no doubt that fire to which Snyder refers in School Hard.Don Sample (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-canon[edit]

Why are we saying that the comic books are none-canon? Joss Wheldon doesn't think they are... --87.112.16.178 (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The season eight comics are mentioned under the title "Canonical appearances". --Nalvage (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite[edit]

I'm being bold and replacing the current version of this article with my rewritten version. I've removed the in-depth character biography because fictional character articles should not be written from in-universe perspective and plot information should be kept to a minimum, and replaced it with a prose "Appearances" section per FA character articles such as Jason Voorhees, Jack Sparrow, Jabba the Hutt, etc. I've also removed various unsourced information and original research from the "Characterization" section, and deleted some sections altogether. The article isn't finished, but it's been sitting my sandbox for over a year now so I figured I might as well move what I have so far on the mainspace. If people want to access an in-universe character bio on this character, they can do so at the Buffyverse Wiki, which is linked on this article.  Paul  730 03:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

From my (somewhat new) experience with WP, I would have to agree with you, Paul. I'm liking the article. I will check out the Buffy in-universe wiki. I would assume that very detailed, in-depth character bios would be there (like wookieepedia does with Star Wars).
Medleystudios72 (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I love the rewrite. Good job, as usual, Paul. Flyer22 (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth[edit]

In "I Robot, you Jane", about 8:38 there are two screens visible, one showing the birth date "10/24/80" and seconds later the next says "05-06-79", which could mean June 5 (ISO) or maybe May 6. Also confusing is that the first screen shows an overview over various students, here she is labeled as "Senior" with a GPA of 3.4 whereas in the opened "file" it says "Sophomore" and "G.P.A. 2.8". (Furthermore there seem to be only about six students in that database...) Are there more clues as to her "actual" birthday? That's like the movie pi with it's numerous different numbers; so depressing. --79.192.213.139 (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that the primary sources conflict, I'd want to find a reliable secondary source before including her (fictional) birthdate. In the US, 5/6/79 will almost always be May 6th. The only commonly used date format where the month is not first would be 06-MAY-79. Hope that helps! Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Right. Also I messed up, as I see now, as YYYY-MM-DD is the ISO standard. http://www.iso.org/iso/date_and_time_format -- 79.192.213.139 (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep. I use it all the time in naming files (e.g., meeting_notes.20080908.doc) because it automagically puts files in date order when sorting alphabetically by filename. But no one who's not a computer geek actually works that way. :-) Jclemens (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Her birthdate is irrelevant. It in no way enhances the understanding of the character. Plus, she is fictional - she was never "born", nor will she ever "die" (so to speak).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful, again something learned about those non-geek humans. Indubitably highly intriguing indeed. ;-) -- 79.192.213.139 (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
She's 20 in 2000 so I would place her birthday in 1980. 86.145.131.120 (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Buffy Anne Summer's birthday is January 19. 1981:

  1. All birthdays given in I, Robot... You, Jane are obviously false. All given dates and information on those screen displays are inconsistent with each other, the story and with her being 16 at that time.
  2. In the episodes Nightmares and The Gift Buffy's birth year is consistently given with 1981 on her gravestone(s).
  3. In Doomed Buffy tells Riley that she is “Capricorn on the cusp of Aquarius”. Capricorn goes until January 19th and Aquarius starts January 20st . A birthday on the cusp is one which falls on or close to the cut-off line, generally one to three days on either side. From that her birthday can only be on the 17th, 18th or 19th of January.
  4. In Surprise Buffy turns 17. The original US airdate of that episode was January 19. 1998
  5. In Helpless Buffy turns 18. The original US airdate of that episode was January 19. 1999
  6. On IMDb it is stated that Joss Whedon finally confirmed Buffy’s birthday to be January 19th 1981. (BtVS Show page, Trivia, Buffy's birthday)
This is collaborated by the fact that TFAW.com, the official retailer of Dark Horse Comics who publish Joss Whedon’s canonical Buffy Season eight and nine comics, celebrates January 19th as Buffy’s birthday with special offers.
And even to CNN it was worth a note: CNN: Happy Birthday, Buffy!
So the official birthday of the TV show’s Buffy Anne Summers is January 19. 1981. This of course does not apply to the movie’s Buffy which is not a Buffyverse character. ThRow (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Homosexual.[edit]

She should be in the category of "fictional lesbians" or at least "fictioanal bisexuals". Whaddaya think?--80.73.65.51 (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, she shouldn't. Having sex with someone of the same sex does not make you homosexual (or even bisexual). Sexuality is defined by who you are attracted to. Thus, all those stupid girls that get drunk and mess around with their best girl friend aren't actually lesbian.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

But, they were not drunk. Buffy and Satsu in the comics, had sex two times (maybe more), and in the both cases it was Buffy who wanted it! After the intercourse, she says that "it was best sex in her life". --80.73.65.51 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I was making an analogy. But you are missing the point. If Buffy does not identify herself as lesbian or bisexual, and Joss and whoever the writer was doesn't identify her as such, then she isn't. Homosexuality is based on attraction to the same sex in the sense that you want a relationship, not lustful inhibitions. Now, you can discuss her homosexual act (through reliable sources), but categorizing her as a lesbian is completely different.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Just want to say that I agree with Bignole... Well, somewhat, seeing as I don't feel you need to want a relationship with a member of the same sex to be homosexual (because, really, there are plenty of closeted gays and lesbians who are seemingly okay with "just hooking up," though they may actually long for an actual relationship with the sex they truly desire), but I get his point. Then again, I usually do get his point. Flyer22 (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. I completely disagree, but... you're the boss. When Buffy will "come out" (it's inevitable), I shall return.--80.73.65.51 (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "the boss", I'm merely giving you the definition of homosexuality. As to her "coming out", I believe that Joss has, in an interview, stated that she is not lesbian.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Referencing the controversy and quoting this (and other) primary sources on the controversy would be a much better option than merely adding yet another category. Jclemens (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Joss: ""We're not going to make her gay, nor are we going to take the next 50 issues explaining that she's not. She's young and experimenting, and did I mention open-minded?" [2]  Paul  730 23:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the "Swell" issue clarified that this was straight-girl experimentation. And of course, there was Buffy's Spuffel threesome fantasy in #3, if you don't believe the words of Kennedy and Satsu.~ZytheTalk to me! 23:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it’s like this: “well yes, he killed coupla dudes, but it doesn’t make him a murderer, he was just experimenting”. ;)--80.73.65.51 (talk) 04:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I know I shouldn't laugh at that, but it was/is funny. Props to you. Though this discussion has been rehashed more than once. Flyer22 (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Reception[edit]

When we finally get around for the Reception section (a massive task for the main character of a very well- and widely-received show), we should include a mention of 2004 XR190.~ZytheTalk to me! 12:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Please answer this question if you can. What is Buffy's complete address in Sunnydale? (street and street number) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.49.86 (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

1630 Revello Drive. I think it's stated in "The Body" and probably several other episodes.  Paul  730 11:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Full name[edit]

I recently added Buffy's full name and it was removed. The explanation was that it was, and I quote "trivial detail". Since when is someone's full name something trivial?--Sgv 6618 (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Becase she's a fictional character, only her common name is really important, the name she's most often identified as. "Anne" is only mentioned in a couple of episodes, it's a trivial in-universe detail, not an important part of the character. See also Faith, whose last name only appears in apocryphal material and is therefore trivial as well. Buffy's full name is still listed in the infobox as a compromise though.  Paul  730 02:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I also disagree with it being trivial. It is explicitly mentioned and shown in the show. It adds to the article to communicate it to the reader for completeness. I does belong in the lede though, much as is done in real person bios - name in infobox should reflect common usage/article title. 71.221.96.49 (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
She's not real. This is not a biography of her life, as it would be a real person. This is an encyclopedic coverage of a fictional character. Her middle name, which is only ever mentioned a couple of times, is irrelevant. The lead opening is meant to identify what she is commonly referred to as, and "Buffy Ann Summers" is not what is referred as.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Supported by a full episode based on that middle name. Strongly relevant to character in real world context. Name on grave marker is authoritative. This is census info and should be here for completeness. It is not trivial. Strongly does NOT belong in infobox either way - info box is for common usage and should reflect article title. If you are making an argument for removal it can't be justified in info box either. 71.221.96.49 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree, I see no reason to exclude it. Mention it once in the lead, like we would for a real person, and ignore it for the rest of the article. Jclemens (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
You're treating it like it is the commonly used name, and it isn't. Fictional characters are not real and should not be treated like "real people", as you are suggesting. The middle name is only mentioned in a couple of episodes, and not a significant part of the character's identity. It's a trivial fact that has no bearing on understanding the character. This has been discussed at length in the past, not just the recent discussion above.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Where do you draw the line between trivia? Should "Summers" be excised from the article because it isn't part of the show title? It's sourced undisputably within the primary sources, so why keep it out? Jclemens (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Been known as "Buffy Summers" from episode 1 to the series finale. Always known as that. "Ann" was something introduced in season 3, and only mentioned like 2. It's not how she is commonly known. It's fancruft, that does not benefit the average reader in anyway. Knowing that her name is "Buffy Summers" is important, because there are 2 main incarnations of the character, and the film version isn't known as "Summers". "Ann" is trivial in nature. Next you're going to say that we need to say when she was born, because that would be "complete" as well. She isn't a real person. Including trivial details just for because they exist is not what Wikipedia is about.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
First of all this has NOT been discussed at length in the past - I did check the archives for this article and this is the only discussion that pertains to this. Second it still does NOT belong in the info box as the header over the image - at the very least be consistent. If you insist on removing valid well referenced pertinent info then at least be consistent in what you do and not just revert. The middle name IS a significant non-trivial, non-fancruft, part of the character's identity as it is the complete basis for the name of one of the episodes - S3E1 "Anne". That is real world context outside of writing a in-universe character bio, which I agree this is not. If you don't want the name as part of the first sentence at the very least include something in the lede, similar to what is done in the Faith article, that gives reference to the fact that the creators of the show thought it important enough to GIVE her a middle name which by itself is unusual, based an episode on that middle name, and what that middle name is. There is no justification for completely excising that info from this article - it is what the creators of the characters chose to name her. Again this it NOT trivia. 71.221.96.49 (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
This isn't the first time we have discussed this. It may not have been on this page, but I have taken part in previous discussions with regard to the middle name. I wasn't actually aware it was in the infobox, because I rarely look at the infobox's title. Next, a primary source is not a "well referenced" source. The middle name is not the basis for a single episode, it was merely the title of the episode. The middle name is not what the episode is about, but merely what she is pretending to be called while she hides from her friends. The episode is about isolation, not her middle name. The middle name is ancillary. That's all. If she went by the name "Sue" in that episode, and that was deemed to be a simple alias, would you mention it when it's only ever used once? No, you wouldn't because it isn't significant enough to be mentioned more than that. "Anne" isn't significant enough to be used more than twice. You are applying undue weight to a minor aspect of the character that doesn't get mentioned beyond a couple of episodes. That wouldn't even be classified as a "recurring" name. The creators also chose to give her an address, but that isn't important enough to mention in the article either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
This is not important enough to me to continue to debate this and I don't intend to be an active editor (again) on wiki. If you have an editorial vision for how you want the article, go with it. I would just like to push back on the assertion that a primary source does not count as well referenced. As per WP:PSTS a primary source can be used to support the fact that the primary source said something - a bit of a tautology but if that is all the the source is used for it is "well referenced". Anyway - carry on. 71.221.96.49 (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, what's clear is that local consensus is 2:1 for inclusion so far. Bignole, you haven't cited any policy-based reason for your objection to its inclusion, nor have you pointed to previous discussions, so there's no reason it shouldn't be reinserted right now. But in the interest of collegial editing, you're welcome to go find the previous debates that you remember but don't appear to have taken place on this talk page. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Well I decided to do a bit more looking after all. Assuming that featured articles are a relevant source of comparison and best practices see Martin Keamy and the state of that article at featured article promotion [3]. Adding full name in a similar manner to this article does not seem to be frowned upon in featured article review. Also, for chuckles, see Sideshow Bob, also a featured article. 71.221.96.49 (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

To Jclemens, please read WP:CONSENSUS, as it clearly states that it isn't a majority vote situation and 2:1 is not a consensus anyway. Secondly, WP:WAF talks about including only essential information necessary to understand the character. You haven't actually provided any reason why this middle name is so important that it needs to be mentioned other than "it's the title of an episode". That means nothing, because the episode wasn't about the middle name, it was about Buffy isolating herself from her friends and family for shame over killing Angel. The middle name was ancillary. Here's another problem. There are actually 3 versions of the character, 2 main versions, and this page chronicles both. Just because it is heavier with the TV version (which lasted longer given that films are only 1.5 to 2 hours) does not mean we ignore the film version of the character as well. Personally, I think the lead should be just simply "Buffy", and then we can follow that with, "known primarily as Buffy Anne Summers in the television series". As right now the opening sentence is inaccurate, as "Buffy Summers" is a fictional character from the TV series, not the entire franchise given that her first appearance anywhere she was known simply as "Buffy". And no, I'm not also arguing for the moving of the page, as "Buffy Summers" is probably the most searched version of her name - film or otherwise.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus at FAC is that middle names of fictional characters belong in the lead sentence FA quality articles about such characters, as our IP brought up, above. There is exactly one person, you, attempting to establish a local consensus to override that normative, if not global, consensus. Your arguments, that the character isn't always known by that name, fail to persuade me, as other fictional franchises deal with names that were added to their canons late, c.f. Mr. Sulu and Uhura for a couple of such. Saying WP:WAF precludes writing about an unimportant aspect of a character presumes that the middle name is less important than all of these examples--You're absolutely entitled to hold that opinion in good faith, but you're asking that the interpretation of (so far) one editor be held to be normative. 2:1 is indeed consensus when the precedents are on the side of the 2, and not the 1. I'd still like to be pointed to the previous discussion which supposedly settled this, and I'd welcome inviting previous participants to this discussion. If you can't locate that, please consider acceding that consensus has indeed changed, and that previous discussions are at odds with the best presentations Wikipedia has of fictional characters--our fictional character Featured Articles. Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not established either way, because it isn't bought up at the FAC. Just because something isn't mentioned doesn't necessarily mean that the consensus is that it must be that way. If no one thinks about it either way then it's ambivalent. Again, 2:1 is not consensus for anything and you are more than inclined to do a RfC for that matter. As for the discussion, it appears that my recollection is from a user's talk page and not from this article's talk page with regard to the usage of the middle name, as the this article's current appearance was created from another user's sandbox - as the original removal of the middle name came in August 14, 2008. By default, as WP:CONSENSUS talks about and how you would say, lack of argument against something means that there is consensus for it, and in 2 years that have only been a few of instances (spaced far a part and easily countable) where anyone has argued with the readding of the middle name and only last year when someone asked about it on the talk page and then never returned to discuss it after Paul responded to them. So, in theory it is the two of you that are disagreeing with the consensus of this specific page and 2:1 ratios wouldn't really be cause for a "new consensus" for this specific page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
A part of this debate is being missed: how do sources handle first introducing the character? In the official companion guide for the series, The Watcher's Guide, she is introduced as Buffy Anne Summers (p. 20). In a search of "buffy anne summers" of Google scholar, which brings up many articles from slayageonline and similar sites that generate scholarly content, she is also introduced as Buffy Anne Summers. In determining what is trivial, that would depend on how sources treat a fact: if it is rarely mentioned, it's a safe bet that it's trivial. --Moni3 (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This Google Scholar. The one where almost all of the instances where "Anne" is referred to is not as an introduction of the character, but when referring to those specific episodes. For example: Buffy.CD writes: "This final

episode of the season closed with the camera lingering on a gravestone that reads “Buffy Anne Summers | 1981-2001 | Beloved Sister | Devoted Friend | She Saved the World | A Lot.”" - That's the only instance of "Anne". This source uses it exactly the same way. This source is merely identifying the "Summers Family" is a pseudo-real life look at the characters. It is not using "Anne" in typical identification of the character when discussing her from a true real world perspective. The other sources as the same. When treating it from an in-universe perspective, they do list "Anne", but when looking at it from an OOU perspective (which is how we are supposed to), it's not mentioned.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Following over from the talk page for WAF...

A few things strike me:

  • The lead section should be a nutshell of the important points about the article topic. For a character in a work of fiction the name is an important point, but only in so far as what is commonly used in the work. If the character is given full name - 3+ names - but that is used either only once or in extremely limited context, then the full name isn't overly important. In the case of a television show, and the titular character, 2 episodes is "extremely limited".
  • The infobox can be a little wider in scope as far as importance goes, but it is still a nutshell. Most fictional character 'boxes provide a space for the "full name", "alter ego", and/or "alias". The 'box title should be the same as the article title or the commonly used name. The "full" name can be listed in the in-'box field, preferably with a cite for why it is different than the commonly used name.
  • Citing the episodes is fair in this case. Essentially the ref would be "Full name as given in episodes 'X' and 'Y'".
  • Google hits on what sound like fan sites is shaky justification, at best. Remember, fan sites tend to be listed as unreliable sources.
  • Related to that, this is a general use article, not an article a Buffy or Whedon focused reference work. The in-universe minutia is not necessarily that important to include in the lead section. Some of it isn't even important enough to include in the article as a whole.
  • As far as the other published reference material goes, that may be worth mentioning in a section within the body of the article.

- J Greb (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

    • What "fan sites" are you referring to? Slayage is a peer-reviewed academic journal.
    • Please show a precedent in an FA article of a citation for a fictional character's full name appearing in the lead (rather than, say, in the body, as general uncontroversial sites tend to go).
    • Please show a precedent in an FA article of a fictional character's full name not being used in the first sentence of the lead, assuming it appeared at least once in the primary source. For bonus points, please show when such an issue has been decided on the number of times that full fictional name was used in that source material.
    • Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
So your basic argument is other articles have it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. You see, the FAs trump the MOS, which simply describes how our best work is done. To the extent that there's a disconnect between an FA and the MOS pages, either 1) the FA should be revisited, or 2) the MOS pages are wrong. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
"slayageonline" looksl ike it's a borderline fanzine. Or has it been found to be a scholarly, reliable secondary source wiht regard to WP:Television?
Can you cite an article where GA or FA was denied by the non-inclusion of all rarely used parts of a character's name not being included in the article title and/or lead section?
- J Greb (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Burden would be on you to seek to have it declared a non-reliable source. WP:RS/N is thataway if you really want, but I'd recommend just perusing the site. It may be pretentious navel-gazing, but it is a peer-reviewed scholarly source. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't have to. The fact that it IS done in FA articles is reason enough to keep it. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
"Anne" doesn't belong in the lead or the article, since it's really not that important. However, I support having a "Full name" field in the infobox and listing it there.  Paul  730 23:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Please provide examples of fictional characters (Outside the Buffyverse and not edited by any of us) where the full name is included in an infobox, but not in the first sentence of the lead. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. Do not split other editors comments with you responses. At the least it is bad for. At worst it shows point blank disrespect to the other editors.
  2. If you don't want to have to provide example to support your point , do not ask others to.
  3. Yes, other articles exist. We're dealing with this article and the guidelines and policies for articles for elements in works of fiction. If it is consensus that they do not allow it here, it is very likely that the other articles will need to be reviewed.
  4. It is less than honest to try and justify and edit to include information about an element in fiction with a manual of style guideline tailored for articles that are biographies of real people.
  5. It is also less than proper to make that edit while a discussion is ongoing. Again, this looks like a disregard or disrespect for the other editors involve.
- J Greb (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I would say that maybe the FAs need to be reviewed (not for FA status, but for that one little aspect), because I cannot find where it was ever actually brought up in the FACs for those articles. No where did anyone say, "this won't pass because the full name isn't listed". The fact that it is listed just says that no one really thought much of it at the time. We're clearly thinking something of it. I also believe in a case-by-case basis. Saying "James Tiberius Kirk" is different than "Buffy Anne Summers", as the former has a well established history of his middle name being used regularly to introduce him. The former does not. It was an ancillary item added to the character for a single purpose (providing an explanation for how she chose her "alias" while on the run) and subsequently never mentioned again beyond its inclusion on her gravestone (which was more for continuities sake than anything).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I for one, came here to help me remember if her middle name is "Anne" or "Ann", and I am extremely annoyed that I have to take a peek at this page to learn it, rather than simply being able to take a quick glance at the start of the article to see what her middle name is. Regardless of whether or not she is "fictional or factual", is irrelevant! I have yet to see any logic pertaining to the exclusion of her full name in the article. It is logical to include it, no matter what someone's emotional state is regarding why it shouldn't be included. I hope that I don't have to come back here and get all emotional about why it should be included. But to the person who first did the edit, thank you very much for doing so! I encourage her middle name to be reinserted!LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC) ("UTC"? I'm in the Central Time Zone!)

If someone came looking for her address or her favorite color do you think we should include that stuff as well? It's probably mentioned as often as her middle name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I've started an RfC on the issue, since a vocal minority here seems intent on one particular interpretation of WP:WAF. Jclemens (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that, at least in this case, using her middle name is appropriate, because it was used as one of her aliases. In other cases, however, use of a character's middle name might not be appropriate, such as if the character in question's middle name was never mentioned in the actual series, book ,etc., but rather mentioned only by the author in an interview or whatever. --- cymru lass (hit me up)(background check) 18:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you talking about mentioning it somewhere, or mentioning it in the opening sentence? We don't mention anyone else's aliases in the opening sentence of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not talking about mentioning the alias in the opening sentence, just the middle name. --- cymru lass (hit me up)(background check) 18:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
That's my point. The middle name isn't the common usage (only mentioned twice), thus attributing significance to it simply because she chose to use it as an alias once doesn't really mean it's common usage, which is what the opening sentence is supposed to identify for fictional elements.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
You've got me there Face-grin.svg I see your point; so why don't we just include her middle name in the infobox instead of the lead? I think it's a nice compromise. That way, the opening sentence will satisfy guidelines, but people looking for her middle name, like LeoStarDragon1, will still be able to find it without having to "slog through" material Face-wink.svg How does that sound to everyone else?
Pointless. Mention it in the lead, be done with it. Arcane ideas of importance are not sufficient to overcome style guidelines: our fiction FAs use middle names in the lead only, and there is no good argument that they're wrong. Bignole has a CONLIMITED insular view of how names of fictional characters should be presented. Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
To Cymru, I've been open to compromise and putting the middle name somewhere other than the lead sentence. To Jclemens, why are you yelling (i.e. the ALL CAPS usage, which is a signal for yelling)? Just because others were doing it does not necessarily mean that it is or was correct. For many years, trivia sections were allowed and often a staple of every film and TV related page. They are no longer allowed. Based on the discussion at BIO, ignoring the glaring inability to recognize that fictional character articles are not biographies (they aren't written as such in any way shape for form), there isn't even consensus that they way the FA character pages are doing it is the correct way. It's a basic split right now. So to suggest that I have some limited viewpoint that no one else shares is clearly inaccurate and seems more to be a personal attack at me simply because I'm arguing for something different than yourself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Again, no substantial reason, just a lot of your own preferences. WP:CONLIMITED is the wikilink to the essay in question--please don't play dumb and assert that you didn't know that's what a single all caps word means. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't playing dumb, wasn't aware of that link (especially since you didn't link it originally or put a "WP" in front of it). Again, consensus can change and silent consensus (which is what has happened with these pages) does not automatically mean there is "wide community" consensus. You cannot show that anyone agreed or disagreed with the usage of the middle name, because we've never actually addressed it before. Had it been brought up in the FAC you may have seen a different reaction (no one knows for sure because it's not something brought up). Again, community consensus a few years ago used to be that trivia sections were expected. That's not the case now. That is why consensus can change - Clearly, based on the BIO discussion, there isn't clear belief one way or the other.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Ahem! Hmm. Uh, duh. Ah. Let me see here. How often it is mentioned isn't relevant, what is relevant is that it is her full name! In Real Life, I always sign with my full name, and when someone tries to stop me and tell me to use just my first name and surname, I argue with them and ask for clarification! Emotionally wise, I don't want to ever be confused as being my paternal grandfather, who other than our middle names, we share the same name. He was an abusive person, hence the emotional aspect. Now putting childhood issues aside, it is her full name for crying out loud and it isn't an embarrising one! (I'm always annoyed by people who ignore their full names because they find it embarrasing, like in "The Vicar of Dibley".) But for the sake of this article, let us keep emotionalism out of it, like Ive just used, and get back to what passes for "reason" here. Not including her full name is as bad as not mentioning that the "T." in "James T. Kirk" is the intial for "Tiberious". Having to see the movie that first mentioned it and made it official canon, when it is simpler for some of us to click on the saved-to-desktop icon for "Wikipedia" and look it up this way, is faster. I'm only here now, because I couldn't recall if her first name ended with an "h" or not, because I'm trying to write a story while the mood is hot, but then I saw this and I was reminded that I'd posted here before. For me, using "Wikipedia" is easier than asking a nearby person and hearing them stammer until he or she can remember it. Now, all of that aside, what kind of encylopedias would this be if it wasn't encyclopediac enough to tell us everything?! Well, shoot, I've stayed on long enough to catch a virus while I was here! Argh! Leo Star Dragon 1. 70.129.174.55 (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"IRL"... Stop right there. This is not a person. This is an element in fiction. The three common terms used to reference it are "Buffy", "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", and "Buffy Summers". That's it. Of the three, "Buffy Summers" is the best fit for article title, infobox, and lead.
Now, is there room for a "full" name mentioned in the remainder of the article? Yes. Just not in the lead.
- J Greb (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The movie is not an official part of the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" TV shows & comics franchise (Buffyverse canon). Joss Whedon has actually excluded the movie from the canon. As such it is even debatable if both characters are the same.
In the show Buffy’s full name is mentioned at least twice. It is introduced in Anne and then in the season 5 finale The Gift shown on her gravestone. As such I find it worth mentioning.
Wikipedia is meant as a source of information and I find it very annoying that valid information is suppressed because someone thinks fictional characters do not have middle names, birthdays or other biographical details. It is up to the author of a show, film or novel to decide that. And Joss Whedon decided that Buffy has a full name with middle and last name, a birthday, parents and a sister. Based on that I find it relevant to included all those details in the article.
There are people who are looking for precisely those information that are not mentioned over and over but rather hard to find. Alone for that reason I find it should be included here at some point. ThRow (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not about the "real" or "canonical" version, it's about the public consciousness of the character.Zythe (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Excluded the movie from canon? The pilot episode somewhat acknowledges the movie and continues on from where it left off. Flyer22 (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Pre-GA review[edit]

Hi. I signed up to do the GA review for this article. I wanted to make some comments here before initiating the formal review process. Primarily, I'm concerned that the majority of the article is sourced to episodes of the series. There are 16 citations from the TV series, 14 from the graphic novels, and various other cites that do not fall within the criteria of reliable sources because they are user generated (Whedonesque.com), or their authorship is questionable (scificom.au). I was recently surprised to find out just how much scholarly material is available on the Buffy series that describes this character's impact on culture and feminism. I think the article does a great disservice not to use commentary and materials from books and the Online International Journal of Buffy Studies. I wanted to ask you what your intentions were with this article. What are your thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts on it? Well, in my opinion with a little work this article can be a good article here on the English Wikipedia. It's very well written, reading through it several times myself. I would like to see it a GA, and maybe in a period of time, a Featured Article. But right now I'm shooting for GA. HGraphite (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Right now it's missing the "broad coverage" criteria for GA. There's nothing on the character's reception. Basic GA character articles will have a recap of their in-universe storyline, some info on the actor portraying them, some info on development of the character, and some info on how that character has been received. This article is currently missing the last thing and the bit about the actors.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Right, HGraphite, but can you address the poor sourcing for the article? Are you prepared to obtain better sources and replace the ones that I have called into question? --Moni3 (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am. This show was extremely popular, dominating the television world for nearly a decade. Sources should generally be easy to come by. HGraphite (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
They are easy to come by. I'm asking you to replace more than 30 of the article's 51 citations. This is a significant amount of work. What's the time frame that you can accomplish this? If you will not be able to complete it within a week, I suggest rescinding the nomination and working on the article, then renominating after you have worked on the sourcing and prose. --Moni3 (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, if I put in the work. I might be able to have that done by tonight. Which citations are you asking me to replace? The ones cited for episodes, and novels? HGraphite (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Third party editorial reviewed sources should replace the citations from individual episodes and graphic novels. Sources from scholars that discuss the character's traits and her major story arcs should be used in their place. I'm really doubtful you can read the amount of published information about Buffy Summers and do the required amount of work in 24 hours, but I'm interested to see what you can do. --Moni3 (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll get to work on it right away. HGraphite (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, www.buffyguide.com is a user-generated site, just like Wikipedia. It is not a edited by a third party or written by scholars. It is not an acceptable source to use for GA criteria. Examples of acceptable sources for summarizing what occurs in what episodes would be Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Watcher's Guide by Ruditis, Paul or Bite Me! The Unofficial Guide to Buffy the Vampire Slayer by Nikki Stafford. --Moni3 (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, you know...page numbers are required for book sources. I did not know I had to make it this clear. See How to present citations at WP:CITE. It would be a good idea to read that entire page. --Moni3 (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I know. I'm waiting to add that in later. HGraphite (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I think most of them are now fixed. Check them out please. HGraphite (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. HGraphite was blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. If anyone has any interest in taking this article on, I do not believe the sourcing problems were fixed. Please respond within the next couple days if you think you can bring the article to GA status. If no one responds I'll close the nomination. --Moni3 (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

New Picture[edit]

I'm aware that the picture being used here has been used here for three years. In my opinion it is too dark, and can be better. I went ahead and replaced it. Promotional Images are allowed here on Wikipedia, and are used in other articles such as Willow Rosenberg and many others. HGraphite (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Buffy Summers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Buffy Summers. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Buffy Summers. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buffy Summers. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buffy Summers. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)