Talk:List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters

Literary present

Don't refer to TV or movie characters in the past tense! Caleb *appears* in Season 7, not "Caleb appeared in Season 7."

Kennedy

Kennedy as a minor character: I believe that Kennedy should be removed from this page, as a) Kennedy already has a page of her own, and b) love her or hate her, she's scarcely a minor character. I know she brings out the blood in some people, and I don't want to get into a revert war with anyone, so let's please discuss removing Kennedy from this list. RandyKaelber 22:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is Kakistos?

I added Kakistos to the minor charachters, but it was edited out with the statement "removed kakistos; there is already an article on this". However, the problem is that there is no link to Kakistos from the lists of charachters in Buffyverse (the one displayed at the bottom), not from major charachters and not from minor charachters. I feel he should have a link somewhere.

Kakistos. Kusonaga 13:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I know where it is, I just think it's illogical that not all the characters are linked to from the Buffyverse overview. If there is a charachter with it's own article, and it's not a main charachter, it's not linked to. Perhaps there should be some kind of list.

That's actually quite logical, since the overview would be way too big. The Kakistos article really needs to go into this article anyway. He had one appearance. That's incredibly minor. Kusonaga 18:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. A single-episode villian is really out of place in the list of major "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" villians alongside Warren, Adam, Glory, and the like (where Kakistos currently appears - though he's not among the "Buffyverse" villains, as you said). Merging him into the list of minor characters would be both more accurate and more consistent. Tamora (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Parker's Link is screwy

Hola, I clicked on the link for Adam Kaufman (actor apparantly playing Parker) and it took me to the site of a fictional character from 24. I don't know where this is supposed to link to, but I assume not there. . . . Riverbend 19:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Pike infobox

I've added an infobox for Oliver Pike. I'm not familiar with the non-canon material outside of the film and the Origin comic, so I just used the info already existing in the entry. Some corrections may be required. --Jeff-El 00:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Balthazar is a Vampire?

According to the article, Balthazar is a vampire. However, they never mentioned it in the series. His mystical powers and blubberiness seem to indicate he's a demon. Thoughts? 60.242.31.143 10:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I just checked the script and he's a demon. I'll change it. --Nalvage 16:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are getting balthazar mixed up with the very obese vampire from blade (I'm not sure which movie though i think it might be 3) (80.41.217.121 (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

Ford

I think that Ford's Species in his infobox should be changed to Vampire, because he died as a vampire. For the same reason, it might be best to move him from "Humans" to "Other types of characters". Does anyone agree? -- Noneofyourbusiness 20:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should say Human, later Vampire or something to the extent of showing he didn't have much time as a vampire.

"Sweet"

It was my understanding from the commentary on Once More with Feeling and the episode itself that the demon's name wasn't "Sweet." He says himself he has a thousand names. And in the commentary Joss says that the sweet in the credits was an adjective to distinguish the character, not a name. RoseWill 01:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall that from the commentary, but the published script uses Sweet as his name, e.g. "Sweet whips his head around to his henchmen." --Nalvage 02:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Another version of the rumor is that "sweet" describes the demon's makeup (there is a credit for "Sweet Makeup"). —Tamfang 02:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Other characters

How about including Dracs and Lothos here? They're fairly important, but unlikely to ever recieve their own article. Paul730 22:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Just added Lothos myself. Paul730 23:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Edna Giles

Since Edna apparently is never explicitly identified as Mrs Giles, and is still Edna Fairweather at the time of her only canonical appearance, shouldn't she be listed as Fairweather? — In other news, I'm going through the article and removing language like "X is a fictional character in the universe of Buffy the Vampire Slayer" – if they're in this article, that's obvious! —Tamfang 02:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As the original author of the Edna Giles article, I will freely grant that this is an issue I debated when I was creating it. As you said, the name "Edna Giles" never actually appears in the story (and the story is the only appearance of the character in question). Nonetheless, it goes without saying that she eventually was "Edna Giles" rather than "Edna Fairweather". More importantly, the relationship to Rupert Giles is the main source of relevance for the character. She is, so to speak, more "Rupert Giles' grandmother" than she is her own character. Overall, then, I was inclined to go with "Giles" since it seemed a more apt label.

In over two years since the article was created, you're the only person who has thought this to be a detail worth changing, so I must assume that most people agree with my original reasoning. However, since the story itself is technically on the side of "Fairweather", I'm happy to use that name if that's what others prefer. —OverMatt 20:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Anne Pratt

I coulda swore Spike's mum was played by Gemma Jones. Am I going mad or is IMDb conspiring against me? —Tamfang 04:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You've gone mad. Have a sit down and a nice cup of tea. --Nalvage 06:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I didn't care much for tea when I was believed myself to be sane, but now, who knows? —Tamfang 04:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Annebelle

I'm thinking Annebelle should be listed. Sure, she was the First most of the time but as a human being, albiet deceased, she affected the group in big way. Enough to be in the list of minor charaters, IMHO.

Lots42 08:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

whitespace

Isn't there a better way than hard linefeeds to keep picture-boxes from colliding? —Tamfang 05:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Are the info boxes even really necessary? They take up so much space and don't really contribute anything to an article like this which can't be mentioned in prose. Paul730 05:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Info boxes are very useful. It's true that they don't normally contain any information that couldn't have been included in the body of the article. In fact, most of the information they contain usually is reiterated the body of the article. That, however, isn't the point. Info boxes allow for key bullet-point information to be conveyed in a quick, eye-catching, easy-to-read manner; whereas the reader would have to search the complete text to find the same details in the body of the article. They're also aesthetically pleasing and grant a more professional appearance to whole presentation. Overall, articles which feature info boxes are simply nicer to read. OverMatt 18:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

After some research I discovered that there is indeed a tool available to prevent the individual parts of a multi-section article from bleeding into one another.

At the end of a section, add a line containing a hypen surrounding by double curly brakets. This seems to serve as a "section break" and causes anything below the break to be kept separate from anything above the break.

Unfortunately I can't illustrate the command here because it vanishes and becomes an invisible section break when the post is submitted. If you edit this discussion topic you'll be able to see it. It looks like this:

I've already reformatted the article accordingly using this tool. OverMatt 18:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Like this? <nowiki>{{-}}</nowiki> —Tamfang 11:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that's it.OverMatt 14:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Monsters?

Should vampires and monsters really be included in this list? While they are characters, why not create a similar, but seperate article for minor monsters? Characters like Lothos, Balthazar, Olaf, Murk, Kathy, and Absalom should be merged into it, as well as characters like Chaos Demon and Veruca who don't deserve their own article. We could use List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens as a guide. What do you think? Paul730 23:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I was in the process of tidying this list in my sandbox. It's not finished, but I decided to move it over anyway since, in my opinion, it is an improvement on what was already here. I decided to remove the infoboxes and remaining images since they were little more than clutter, and there's no clear criteria for who deserves an image and who doesn't, and why. I've also removed some characters who are villains, such as Marcie, Lothos, Balthazar, the Judge, etc - I think they would be better suited to a List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer villains page. I decided to be bold and redirected some pages here for characters who I did not believe deserved their own page, such as Quentin Travers, the First Slayer, Sunnydale High School students, and Initiative members, etc etc. Anyway, if you disagree with my actions here please discuss them rather than revert. Thank you.  Paul  730 13:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The First Slayer absolutely deserves a place on this left, as do atleast SOME of the Sunnydale High students. Jesse McNally also warrants a place on the list, as he was initially a major character in the first season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.109.36 (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Jesse wasn't a main character, he was a redshirt in all sense of the word. Lots42 (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Redshirts don't normally have so many lines ... Whedon has said that he wanted to put Balfour (Jesse) in the opening credits, to signal that anybody can be killed off, but the budget would not support an extra title sequence to be used only once (or twice). —Tamfang (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Lines tend to not matter when someone is expendable. One of the first, if not the first, expendable Voyager crew people, Ensign Durst, got lines before being offed. Heck, he continued to be plot-important post-death. Lots42 (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Then he was (at least) upgraded/retconned from redshirt status. —Tamfang (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The actor who played Ethan Rom in Lost remarked, "I've been in the show more often since I died than before!" —Tamfang (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Putting a character in the opening credits then killing them off is a joke, not a sign that anyone can die. Properly showing that anyone can die would involve killing a beloved and important character. Jessie doesn't qualify.--24.255.171.220 (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So, er, who would have that status in the pilot? —Tamfang (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Whistler

Where does it say that his name can only be pronounced by dolphins? It's not in the episode he appears in, and none of his other appearances are canon.--24.255.171.220 (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a cut line from the episode's script. I've removed it from the article. --Nalvage (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Other minor characters

I don't know what Wikipedia's standards are when it comes to deciding when a TV show character is important enough to receive their own article, but there are several Buffyverse characters that have their own articles even though they are arguably minor. These are Annointed One, India Cohen, Dalton, Doc, Hoopy the Bear, Jinx, Kakistos, Rack, Mister Trick, and Veruca. A few of these, such as Annointed One and Mister Trick I can understand, because of the number of episodes they appeared in. But many of the others appeared in 3 or less episodes, and India and Hoopy aren't even canon. I think we need to decide which characters should keep their own articles and which should be merged with this one.--24.255.171.220 (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the standard had been multi-episode appearances, which is probably a good bit lower than it should be under WP:FICTION. Jclemens (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Hoopy is noteable -somehow- because it takes place well before the time that Dawn became real, via the monks, in the show. So basically, Hoopy is a fictional character created by other fictional characters. Lots42 (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tales of the Vampire: Antique

Re: the Dracula section. Does this mean the Tales of the Vampire stories are canon? Because I've read many of the in-canon Season 8 comics and the Tales one, where Xander becomes Dracula's flunky for a year? It just doesn't fit. Lots42 (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, canon is irrelevant to Wikipedia since we're supposed to be neutral, no giving undue weight to certain stories just because they "really happened" in a fictional universe. But to answer your question, yes, "Antique" and the other Tales comics are indeed canon. It fits fine with Season Eight, I don't understand your problem? "Antique" took place in the 1-2 year gap between seasons 7 and 8. They even reference it directly in "Wolves at the Gate".  Paul  730 14:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

??? Canon IS the most important factor in writing articles about fictional people. Xander's article doesn't mention the time his collar bone got busted while surfing...because that happened in a non-canon Buffy novel. As we see here, in our very discussion, canon is essential in figuring out fictional biographical details. Secondly, I did not know 'Tales' is canon. Part of this dispute is probably altered by the fact I think the Dracula/Xander Tales story is just badly written. Lots42 (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Canon is not the most important factor at all. When writing about fictional characters for an encyclopedia, we must maintain an out of universe perspective. We shouldn't be concerned with a character's fictional life, but rather the real-world creation and development of that character. Non-canon stories are, like it or not, a part of that development and we shouldn't treat them as second-class because that's a biased fanboy view. See the Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) article. That page isn't perfect, but it has the right layout (no "Biography" section) and covers both canon and non-canon material in the same sections. We don't not mention that Xander broke his collar bone in whatever novel because it isn't canon, we don't mention it because that's extremely trivial information. We should, however, mention his larger role in that novel if it's relevant to the character. Don't get me wrong, canon's a big priority to me as a Buffy fan, I enjoy writing character biographies at the Buffyverse Wikia and canon is crucial to that. But it's irrelevant here. Finally, "Antique" is not badly written at all, far from it. It's a hilariously tragic character study of Dracula, with a Buffy-style metaphor about the effects of aging and becoming obsolete. I honestly can't understand why so many fans have a problem with it.  Paul  730 19:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it is relevant to the article is not the point of this discussion. As for whether or not Tales is canon, both Tales of the Vampires and Slayers can be considered canon, as they do not directly contradict anything on screen and in some cases provide background information, such as in The Problem with Vampires. Also, almost all the major writers of the TV show, including Joss Whedon himself, wrote these comic books. And also, Antique mentions Xander teaching Dracula how to ride a motorcycle, which is directly referenced in season eight, for which there is no canon dispute. Finally, as for Antique not fitting, there is no reason why it doesn't. A basis for it exists (Buffy vs. Dracula), and it fits perfectly with "Wolves at the Gate". As for the relevance of canon, while information should not be excluded for being out of canon, a clear distinction must be made in the article, even if it is as simple as saying "Out of canon...". Kingdom2 (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, canonicity, absence RS'ing, would be OR and not appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article at all. Verifiability, not truth. Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to the goals of the Buffyverse Wikiprojet, canonicity is the most important thing, therefore a distinction must be made. Kingdom2 (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject goals may not conflict with Wikipedia goals. To the extent that a Wikiproject goal does, it is invalid. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

To Kingdom2; what you are doing is original research and not allowed. The non-canon novels DO make an effort not to violate canon. That's just marketing sense. But just because a story provides an explanation for an in-canon fact, doesn't make it canon. It's canon that Dawn and Miss Kitty Fantastico had some sort of incident, but if a comic book details this incident...it does -not- automatically make the comic book canonical. In short, canon is the tv show, the Buffy Season 8 comic book and whatever Joss Whedon says. If Whedon says that 'All the Tales of the Vampire' comic books are canon, then fine. They are. I will have no problem with that. I will, however, ask for a citation. P.S. I made the comment about the 'Antique' story because my opinion that it is poorly written, while valid, also may have affected my discussion on this talk page. Lots42 (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

All My Children [citation needed?]

"Rudolf previously worked with Sarah Michelle Gellar on "All My Children" playing a character named Anton.[citation needed]"

Sarah Michelle Gellar played Kendall Hart (briefly Lang, eventually Slater) in AMC. Rudolf Martin played Anton Lang. IMDb and the Kendall Hart wiki page both confirm this. I don't understand why someone thought this was wrong in the first place, so I don't know if I should change it. Am I just being too paranoid? Animamea (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happened, that bit doesn't sound relevant to this article. Lots42 (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lots42. The article is about Dracula, not some other character the actor played on some other tv show. The actor's name should be mentioned and that's it. Kingdom2 (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Forrest

I don't think the fact enemies on a video game -resembling- Forrest is relevant enough. If dialogue or a game creatore indicates the character does appear in the game, then maybe. But probably not even then. Probably a citation '(Character appears in Game)' but we're back to needing evidence. Lots42 (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Insignificant characters

I think that, in order for a character to be included on this list, they had to have carried some weight in the episode or episodes they were in, if not the arc as a whole. Several of the characters I deleted were one-shot, first name only people, or had no name at all, and some without even having any lines. In order to be included on this list, a character should have interacted and been included in the plot of their episodes, and they shouldn't be so forgettable that one has to completely read their entry to remember who they are. As it states in the expository paragraph in the article, a character needs to be recurring (Detective Stein, Clem) to go on the list, or if not recurring then at least central to their episode (Billy Fordham, Sid the Dummy).Kingdom2 (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

So, er, why did you remove Billy Fordham? —Tamfang (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't fit the consensus criteria below in that he is not a recurring character.--Kingdom2 (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion requirements

I'm tired of deleting characters from this list and debating with myself who should go on and who shouldn't, so I decided to make a list of requirements to go on this list. I felt that a list of requirements was something that was genuinely needed. If a character meets them, they are acceptable. Please comment if you think that I am overstepping my bounds, have something to contribute, have an issue with the list, or simply approve. I try to include examples next to each requirement.

1. Characters must be recurring so they must have either:

• appeared in more than one episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer or shared episodes between Buffy and Angel (most characters fall into this requirement)
• appeared in one episode of Buffy, followed by appearances in other media, whether it be comic books, novels, or video games (canonicity does not matter) (Sid the Dummy and Kakistos are good examples)
• appeared in one episode of Buffy and be regularly mentioned in episodes before or after said appearance (one good example is Janice Penshaw)
• or have had more than one appearance in media other than the television show, such as the non-canon film, novels, and comic books (again, canonicity does not matter) (good examples include Pike and Lucy Hanover)
  • note: all appearances should be cited and include internal links (or only major appearances in cases of regularly recurring characters such as Forrest or Amanda)

2. Characters must have a name or title which they go by. Most characters do have names, but not all do. However, those that don't should have titles by which they are referred. Also, some characters have names but are regularly referred to by their titles anyway, which is how they should be listed. Some examples of good titles include "Cheese Man", "Willy the Snitch", and "Sid the Dummy". This rule is to prevent the inclusion of any possible recurring "extras" and to keep this list from becoming filled with entries like "Frat Boy #2".

3. Also, characters that would normally be considered minor but already have their own page, such as Halfrek, Doc, and Kendra Young, can simply have their name listed with a "see main article" and their link. Kingdom2 (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A very sensible list. Thanks for taking the time to document existing consensus. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone object to adding "or been central to their episode" (like Ford)? —Tamfang (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, that would expand the list by 50-60 people, at least, most of whom have no real world notability or references. Doesn't sound like a good addition to me. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jclemens, and in doing so recant my "insignificant characters" post. The idea is that characters who have qualified for this list are those who have made multiple appearances, usually causing them to have some influence in the show's arc and/or the characters' lives and are easily remembered. Episode central characters are exactly that. A whole episode is devoted to them and then they are never mentioned again. It is only in cases like Janice Penshaw that a non-recurring character can reasonably be put on the list.--Kingdom2 (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Do two consecutive episodes count as "recurring"? I'm thinking of the Judge; there are also the assassins in "What's My Line" (a two-parter). —Tamfang (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should in cases like those where the two episodes either parts of a two-parter, or episodes so closely connected they basically form a two-parter (as is the case for the Judge's episodes). In those cases, the character is usually limited to that episodes' plot arc. The Judge could probably be removed from here I think (a year or two ago he had his own article, which was pretty shocking; I redirected him here to be conservative, but I think even that is too much for him). rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I vote to keep him in simply because Buffy blew him away with a rocket launcher. That wasn't exactly a typical slay. And he was blue. But that's just me.--TEHodson 06:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What constitutes a "typical" versus "atypical" slay? That's not a can of worms we want to open here; under that logic, almost every bad guy could be kept. (What about the vamp that kicks Buffy after it gets dusted--that's not "typical", but that character was only onscreen for a few seconds. What about the demon that she burns with fire in the sewers in "Band Candy"--also not "typical", but also a very minor character. etc.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you got serious on me. Uhmmm...the guys you just mentioned don't have names, for one thing, and weren't part of a big plan by other well-known characters (Dru, Spike, Angelus), and using a rocket launcher is way, way off the beaten path and in no way comparable to any of her other ideas, most of which are opportunistic. The whole episode revolved around getting the rocket launcher, plus it was very cool, and again, I have to say it, the Judge was blue. I think he's worth keeping on the list.--TEHodson 21:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Another reason to keep the Judge listed is that he was considered important enough to be a villian in the board game (along with The Master, The Mayor, and Adam)--he's much more well-known than most short-term villians. I vote keep him.--TEHodson 05:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Can a sourced statement be added to that effect? Doniago (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say appearance in another medium can count toward 'recurring'. —Tamfang (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Catherine Madison

Recently added:

Willow uses her magic to remotely change Buffy's form into that of Catherine's

Not having read that far, I hesitate to touch this, though "that of Catherine's" is ungrammatical: if that means 'the form', then of Catherine's what? How about: Willow magically disguises Buffy as Catherine ? (That she does it remotely seems not important here.) —Tamfang (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Go ahead. kingdom2 (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

India Cohen

This is an incredibly minor character, in that she never appeared in either of the Buffyverse TV shows, or was even mentioned in them; she is only referenced in supplementary material (tie-in novels). But as there's a character or two from the Buffy comics listed here, perhaps she should be mentioned too. Merging into Slayer (Buffyverse) would be another possibility, but she doesn't seem notable enough for a separate article. Robofish (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Inca Mummy Girl?

Should Ampata Gutierrez be included here? She was the central character in that particular episode. Sprout59 (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The episode has an article, which is the appropriate place for any data about a character who appears only in that episode. By past consensus, this article is for characters who appear in two or more episodes and therefore cannot be fully covered in an episode article. You can reopen discussion of that criterion if you like. —Tamfang (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I had not understood the two or more episode criteria. Is there someplace such requirements for inclusion are listed? I did look for that before posting, but must have missed it. Sprout59 (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

...at the top of the article, where it says recurring characters. Doniago (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

See also #Inclusion requirements hereinabove. —Tamfang (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

alphabetizing

I think sorting characters by their titles is silly. But if Deputy Mayor Allan Finch and Detective Stein are listed under D, General Voll under G, Principal Flutie and Professor Walsh under P, then why isn't Mr. Trick under M after Miss K.F.? —Tamfang (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd favor moving to a more standard alphabetization. "Miss Kitty Fantastico" might arguably belong under M, but Finch and Stein don't belong in the D's. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's silly; I had to do a page search to find Maggie Walsh :P. I think whatever sorting scheme is chosen (it will be easy to do just by copy-pasting stuff around), it would be good to include headers for any possible orderings, with "see: " links to the correct spot (like what I put here for Maggie Walsh). rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Clem

• He is, at times, Spike's roommate.

Clem is seen tomb-sitting for Spike at the end of s6, but that's not the same. Have I forgotten something? —Tamfang (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge. Unanimous except for the nom. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

---

I propose that Joyce Summers be merged into List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters (after being trimmed). I think that the content in the Joyce Summers article can easily be explained in the context of List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters, and the subject of the article, although there are third party sources available (like at [1]), may not be notable enough for her own article as there is not enough information from reliable sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean List of minor characters in Buffy the Vampire Slayer? —Tamfang (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That would do as well. I am not a Buffy fan, so I do not know if she would be considered major or minor; I am just considering WP:NOTJUSTPLOT and WP:N. If she's a minor character, List of minor characters in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. If not, List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I should clarify my remark. This article appears to be a list of characters who have their own articles. List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters is for recurring characters (i.e., in two or more episodes) who do not have their own articles. —Tamfang (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I have changed my nomination, and shall move this discussion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The content is better in its current location whose title is more appropriate per WP:COMMONNAME. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Once merged, the redirect would point directly to Summers' part of the article, i.e. List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters#Joyce Summers or List of minor characters in Buffy the Vampire Slayer#Joyce Summers. It would not interfere with people looking for the information. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• It would interfere in several ways. The link is absurdly cumbersome. That page is 86K and so too large per WP:SIZE. A person searching for a particular character should not be burdened with information about numerous other unrelated characters as they would confuse and distract. We should keep the information discrete and manageable. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Of the characters who never appeared in the principal credits, Joyce is the most 'major'. I'd trim a few lines from her article, but what remains would not gracefully fit in a list. —Tamfang (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Joyce may not have been in the credits, but she can hardly be called a "minor" character. The character had a major influence of the characters and the show over many seasons.--120.22.245.129 (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I looked at Joyce Summers briefly, and while the article does need improvement (more real-world perspective, which could probably be handled simply by borrowing sourced quotes from episode articles (The Body comes to mind)), I don't believe there's anything to be gained by merging the article at this time. Agreed with above that Joyce is likely the most major of the non-regulars as well...if any of them are going to have their own article, I'd submit that Joyce should be the first. BTW, notification of this merger proposal at the relevant project pages would be nice. Doniago (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose While Crisco 1492's nomination appears to be in good faith, it is incorrect. Looking at Google Scholar reveals any number of independent, reliable sources which deal academically with Joyce Summers. The plethora of independent, reliable sources which deal non-trivially with Joyce Summers as a fictional character in literary exploration of BtVS is the primary reason why merging is inappropriate. There's plenty of room to improve the article, absolutely, but the current state is not so bad that a merger would actually improve things. Joyce Summers is a sufficiently encyclopedic topic for a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Jclemens. The page needs an overhaul but there is plenty of real-world information specific to the character to establish notability and warrant an individual article. Millahnna (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Owen Thurman

This section needs to be rewritten (Buffy's flirtatious what?) with a source for the surname and a better explanation of who Emily Dickinson is. At the moment she could be one of Harmony's gang. Britmax (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Page move?

Thoughts on moving this article to "List of recurring Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters"? Recurring is one of the main criteria for inclusion and having it in the article title may help with some of the issues we've had. DonIago (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927234427/http://slayageonline.com/essays/slayage23/Richardson_Rabb.htm to http://slayageonline.com/essays/slayage23/Richardson_Rabb.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141220181357/http://www.cise.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/hsiao/buffy/get-archive?date=19990117 to http://www.cise.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/hsiao/buffy/get-archive?date=19990117

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)