This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Please do not ignore WP:CONSENSUS, and the guidelines that govern pages (specifically WP:WAF). If you disagree with something, then please take it up on the talk page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
You are NOT consensus. You and a few people who aren't even fans of the show have no idea about this character or the fandom. The Jossverse is not just shows, but a FRANCHISE.
Consensus would be going to a group of fandom members and asking if they are aware of faith's name and think it is important. I would be happy to send you to several fan communities to do research. Buffy Forums, Whedonesque and SlayAlive are a few places to start. A bunch of edit bots that have little care about the fandom aren't consensus.
Faith recently used "Hope Lyonne". Joss isn't rescinding the naming process; he's embracing it. Same with turning Cecily Adams/Underwood into the same character as Halfreck (not originally intended, but we got confirmation of it when Halfreck--also played by Kali Rocha--recognizes William). Same as the namings of William Pratt and Kendra Young. All are now canon and need to be treated as such.
Also, Buffy "Summers" was never named that until the show. In the movie, she didn't have a last name. Yet on the 1992 IMDB site, you will see characters named "Joyce Summers", "Hank Summers", etc... all of which were show information, yet are commonly used even when referring to the movie.
What you don't understand is how FRANCHISES work. Canon doesn't stop after the end of a show. Canon is whatever the creator says is canon. The Jossverse is a large franchise that encompasses many kinds of media. It goes beyond two shows (another reason why I reject "Buffyverse"--it's the "Jossverse". That is disrespectful to Angel: the Series as having its own identity and the same importance within the franchise.).
As for common knowledge within the fandom... you will find that Faith Lehane is very well-known and embraced. Faith Lehane has been embraced in canon material (Season 8 and ATF are 100% canon) outside of simple interviews. There is no difference in canon between the shows and Joss' comics. And frankly, he can name characters whatever he wants, same as the right he has to kill any character he feels like killing. That would be like a person who hates Angel: the Series demanding that Cordelia never died because she didn't die on Buffy.
Please stop edit warring AGAINST consensus in the fandom. YOU ≠ consensus. ~~NileQT87
You're the one with the conflict of interest. This is why Wikipedia is getting obnoxious with all the little edit bots running around thinking they are rulers of content. Please listen to others. Obviously, from this page, a lot of people also DISAGREE with you. "Faith Lehane" is encyclopedic information on the canon name of this character. A lot of characters in this FRANCHISE had names, dates of birth, etc... change numerous times. Joss changes information quite a bit.
Don't believe me? Realize that depending on which episode you watch, Angelus was sired in 1757 (according to numerous early Buffy episodes and stated by Angel, himself), 1753 (canon--used in flashbacks), 1783 (one hilarious early season blooper). Angel wasn't even given the name "Liam" until Angel: the Series. William also stated he was 126 when he was only 119. William's mother's name comes not from an episode, but from a script--something that your holy magazine articles are not likely to know, but it is standardly known that William Pratt's mother is "Anne Pratt". Joss is free to do whatever he wants to the characters and changes information frequently. Season 8 has shown that Joss has "Faith Lehane" on his mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NileQT87 ( talk • contribs) 03:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Then should we also delete, say... "Summers" from the Buffy article? Fans in 1992 never got that piece of information until 1997. Nor the names of Joyce and Hank. You'll even find occasional fans come into forums arguing that Spike was sired by Angelus rather than Drusilla. In 1997, that was canon. In 2000, it wasn't. You can find plenty of articles, I'm sure, that will refer to Angelus as Spike's sire pre-Fool For Love. That was canon at one time, until canon was changed and fanwanked to reflect what was shown.
And my opinion on Jabba, being that I was once a big Star Wars fan? His name should be written officially Jabba "the Hutt" Desilijic Tiure. There's a reason those little "" marks are used in names. Same with William "the Bloody" Pratt. Both are examples of encyclopedic information. Just the facts. Those are their actual canon names.
Same with Buffy Anne Summers, Alexander "Xander" LaVelle Harris, Willow Danielle Rosenberg, Faith Lehane, William Pratt, Kendra Young, Rupert Giles, Janna "Jenny/Jennifer Calendar", Cecily Adams/Underwood a.k.a. Halfreck, Aud a.k.a. Anyanka a.k.a. Anya Christina Emmanuella Jenkins, etc... Many of those things were even stated in the shows or in scripts, but to you might seem "trivial".
This universe isn't a closed, dead story yet. Information is going to keep changing, regardless if the only people paying attention are die-hard fans. Joss can flip the entire fandom on its head and say Buffy is still in the asylum, even if the media could care less that the continuation is happening. If he does that in a way that isn't vague and left open to interpretation, we could very well have to state that this universe all takes place in a crazy girl's imagination. Joss isn't afraid of big gestures like that (although that particular idea is unlikely to go past Normal Again) and he's not done with the story. Information WILL change even if the media and general viewers don't care anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NileQT87 ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
"Pratt" is canon. It's from the same source as "Lehane" and "Young" = Joss. Those three names were given at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NileQT87 ( talk • contribs) 04:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Various comics, both non-canon and canonically written with Joss' influence have used names like "Lehane" and "Pratt". The Old Times comic got the name "Pratt" from the same RPG source where Joss created 3 new last names. Thus, apparently that author thought it was relevant enough to include Joss' new information.
Also, that "undue weight" thing has nothing to do with this topic of a writer's ability to assign names to his own fictional characters. "Undue weight" has nothing to do with names. For example, Elvis Presley's middle name is "Aron/Aaron". You would think that inconsequential, no? Not quite. Heck, there are forces that practically have turned him into a one-name celebrity like "Cher" and "Madonna", even if he did use his last name. It's consequential because 1) it's on his birth certificate as "Aron" and grave as "Aaron". 2) half of the 'Elvis is alive' garbage comes from the misunderstanding that Elvis changed his middle name in his later years to reflect the biblical spelling. Reason #1 alone is encyclopedic. It just so happens that occasionally these non-commonly known names do sometimes pop up as relevant to understanding a phenomenon like in Elvis' case or to understand part of the Jossverse's Anya character because Anya Christina Emmanuella Jenkins ("lame-ass-maiden-name Harris") represents a very specific part of who she is and her personality. See were I'm going with this? Faith's last name was even used as humor with her secret undercover identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NileQT87 ( talk • contribs) 04:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and with that information, we should say Angelus is Spike's sire (it was true in 1997! It wasn't retconned until 2000!), Angel was 240 when he met Buffy--and vocally spoken in the early seasons of BtVS (which was retconned to 243 when the flashbacks started popping up), Spike was sired 200 years ago according to School Hard (1997) and in 1874 according to the Initiative (1999)--again, it wasn't retconned until late 2000 (to 1880).
Joss retcons. A lot.
If Buffy turns out to be in an asylum, you would need to state that the Jossverse is about a girl in an asylum who creates her fantasy world, and for many years this is the world that she created and was presented as the real universe within the fantasy franchise for most of its history, etc... Wasn't it Dallas that retconned out a whole season as a dream? Yes, you would have to write that... even if the media and casual viewer don't care. It is still Joss' canon and maybe the casual viewers and media will go to Wikipedia and learn what is the current information about characters within the franchise and base their information off of these encyclopedic entries. If you don't give them the current information, yes, they'll indeed keep on writing the old information.
That is why it is necessary to keep these entries (even on fictional characters) up-to-date. I would not be surprised if the media wrote a review about Season 6 of Buffy, they'd mention that Warren is dead. Well, not quite. Joss retconned him into Amy's skinless boyfriend (albeit a shaky retcon, due to his Season 7 appearances as the First). Still, if you didn't change that article (and not like anyone outside of the fandom cares--admit it, these articles on characters ARE for the fans to upkeep), it's not correct.
Then keep plugging away at giving "casual readers" their incorrect information that doesn't reflect the franchise as still growing and still current. ;) By doing so, you are ignoring a quintessential part of who the creator of this franchise is. Joss Whedon is a shameless big nerd who writes for shameless big nerds.
George Lucas is another who has no problem creating new names for old characters. Leia [Skywalker] Organa Solo, anyone? The character is popularly known as "Princess Leia", but information has changed since the original movies hit theaters. Casual readers probably don't care past what happened in the movies.
And BtVS Season 8/AtF are still plugging along as if the shows had never ended. Gunn becoming a vampire isn't relevant to people who only care about what happens until Not Fade Away, but I would DEFINITELY say it was relevant to his character. Same with Angel becoming human. Same with Faith going on an undercover mission as Hope Lyonne, with the viewers casually knowing her name is Faith Lehane--otherwise half the joke is lost without the casual reader understanding that information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NileQT87 ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's say we are currently in the year 1999 and the show is still going on strongly. We have all this information about what we think we know about the history of a character. And whoops! It changes. Let's say something comes to light about an incident or a motivation. Yes, those changes can change something that happened earlier in the franchise. What was commonly believed to have happened, has new light shed on it. When telling about a character in a story, it's not meaningless because it's FICTION. Fiction does not have to be linear. That's why we have flashbacks AFTER the character is introduced in real time. You're just retelling the character's journey that has been patchworked into a linear format. For example: Angel lied when he said he hadn't killed anyone for 100 years. Retcon? Or the fact that it reflects on who the character is and his reluctance to talk about his past with Buffy? For example, he also lies when Buffy saw him with Drusilla at the playground. New information is revealed in a fictional context in storytelling. George Lucas, J.K. Rowling, etc... are no different. When you are writing a character's encyclopedic entry, you tell what has happened to the character using all of the information available, even if it is added later on and even if it throws a big hammer into what was thought to be the story of a character.
It shouldn't just be all look at how healthy we are, we aren't fans! We don't actually just tell you the character profile with the correct and current information. We understand what is fiction and non-fiction. I understand perfectly well what is fiction and non-fiction. Which is why I think you've overlooked that next to Faith's name, you see "(Buffy, the Vampire Slayer)", which used to read "(Buffyverse)" and should have read "(Jossverse)".
When you tell the story of Luke Skywalker, you don't say in the STORY part of his entry that Luke and Leia were supposed to get together romantically because that was what George Lucas intended back before he realized that he wasn't going to do episodes VII-IX. Encyclopedically, he's the brother of Leia and the son of Anakin and Padmé. Information changes. Again, a retcon that left some very amusing residue on Star Wars (later retitled A New Hope) and Empire Strikes Back. But in the part where you tell about the character, it's filled by information that tells the character's story. The other anecdotes are left for another section.
Faith Lehane belongs right at the top with the main part of the article, which chronicles the journey of the character. The anecdotes are in a different section, where one can talk all they want about historical changes coming from a real-world perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NileQT87 ( talk • contribs) 05:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I certainly prefer "Jossverse" to "Buffyverse", which ignores half the canon and the idea that Buffy is the end-all be-all and center of the universe. AtS is just as important as BtVS. We could do "Bangelverse", but that's too 'shippy. Other options are "Buffy/Angel 'verse", "Buffy/Angelverse", "Slayerverse" (still too Buffy centric for my taste, but it certainly would fit better if, hypothetically, Fray got a series or if Eliza had done the Faith series) or just "Buffy/Angel" in parenthesis. One could do that for characters who just appear on both shows (as does Faith) or both anyways. Or you can list Buffy, Angel, Serenifly and Dollhouse all under the Jossverse(s) banner. Jossverse is used much more (in popular usage) to combine just Buffy/Angel, whereas Serenifly and Dollhouse don't have two shows that share the same universe equally and can be called under their show names. Buffy/Angel blurs a lot of lines between them while maintaining two equally important counterparts. "Jossverse" and possibly "Slayerverse" (which is inclusive of all the expanded universe and spin-offs like Fray) are the best options other than just "Buffy/Angel". NileQT87 ( talk) 06:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)NileQT87
I'm going to spell this out in a very straightforward way that all editors should be able to understand. On the Buffyverse Wiki, the article is and should always be Faith Lehane, but on Wikipedia is cannot ever be anything other than "Faith".~ Zythe Talk to me! 21:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I'd say that the Lehane should be shown, as this is the character's full name, from a notable, well-cited source. Just because her surname was not mentioned in the series, that does not mean it did not exist and as it does exist and is notable it should be included. By the way, I'd never heard the surname prior to today, and as such I agree with the article name staying as it is. -- Worm | mroW 14:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I read the above discussion, and I support the usage of "Faith" without the surname in the first sentence. The fact that her surname is bolded later in the lead section seems to be an acceptable compromise. The majority of existing references seem to refer to the character exclusively as "Faith", so it seems a stretch to extrapolate the surname into the content provided by these references. With this in mind, the usage of the surname in the lead sentence seems like undue weight. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 14:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment: This article is about a character from a multimedia franchise, not just about any one episode, season, or media. Within that franchise the character's name has been established as Faith Lahane, and the article should lead with that. However, since the character's surname is less well known there should be a footnote giving the specific source. — MJBurrage( T• C) 16:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Regarding the Buffy article mentioned by MJBurrage - Buffy is actually called Buffy Anne Summers in the show. .Only from Season 3 Episode 1 so there is a parallel here to a name being added later on and it being in the lead sentence . Garda40 ( talk) 01:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment The article title should remain the same but merge the sentence with her last name into the first sentence, removing how she got the last name as it is meaningless triva. Regarding the point about how relevant the last name is to non fans, well the majority of the article wouldn't be known by most non-fans. The source for her last name is the creator himself and including the last name in the article in a second sentence doesn't make sense when you can use just one. 122.104.165.13 ( talk) 06:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment I would keep the intro as is. The fact that you ever only know Faith by her first name during the entire run of the Buffy TV series is a significant element of the character, who wanders into the series without a family or known background. That a role-playing game recently introduced a last name for the character is comparatively trivia, and despite being "canon" it doesn't mean that the character actually had that name in the television series. Fictional characters don't possess qualities or elements that exist independently of or prior to their depictions. They have no existence outside the works that portray them, so if it isn't portrayed, it doesn't exist. Information about fictional characters is not "revealed," it's introduced. To put it yet another way, don't confuse what would be significant about a real person with what is significant about a fictional character. A last name is a fundamental fact of a real person, but obviously not necessarily so for a fictional one. So don't give undue weight to recent additions or modifications to a long-standing character made in peripheral media. Postdlf ( talk) 14:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment, as the primary work is the television series, and it is the most common name, both the article and the lead should only use the name "Faith." The addition of a last name in the RPG would be appropriate to mention, with source(s) in the "Appearances in other media" section, if/when the current "Appearances" section is modified to be that rather than being limited to the television and books. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 15:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Keep the introductory line as it is, without the mention of the last name. The character is knowns primarily from the television series. The surname was added after the television series ended. Keep it in the "Concept and Creation" section. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 18:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Omit the last name from the lead. It has not been used in the series itself, and thus it would clearly be undue to state it in the lead (or in the page title, for that matter). Kindly note that this is not a matter of taste, but of accuracy. user: Everyme 20:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
comment I'm a non-zealous buffy fan, and would consider the character to be commonly named Faith, hence the aticle title and lead sentence should use that. The surname should definiately mentioned later in the article, or even linked to a note in the lead, but "faith Lehane..." in the lead just makes article confusing to the vast majority of readers who will know the character as faith. Yobmod ( talk) 11:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
omit as per above; "common usage" should override jargon right off the bat. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 13:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Surely the "commonly known as" also applies to Xander Harris, whose full name appears in the lead (albeit he was - I presume - fully named during the show). The logic not to include "Lehane" seems to hinge on it being a later addition, and an implicit suggestion that the Faith in the series was not called 'Faith Lehane'. That's interesting reasoning, but since the surname was devised by the character (and series) creator, it's not "undue weight" to list it initially, since it's a creator-approved addition. Equally it's bizarre logic to imply that "Faith Lehane" did not appear in the TV series - "Faith (Lehane)" clearly appeared in the TV series, just without her surname being clearly stated. A further example: The Batman villain Two-Face was created as "Harvey Kent," but "Kent" is unmentioned in the lead paragraph because his name was changed fairly swiftly to "Dent." If Faith's surname had changed, this would be a more controversial issue (although Two-Face's example might still make it easy to determine). Since, however, the character has only been added to, the parallels to "Summers" and "Anne" are surely well made regardless of whether the names arrived in the film, series, a comic or an RPG. "Faith" should be identified early and briefly as "Faith Lehane," and then the surname should be ignored until its specific creation is mentioned later. (Incidentally, it makes no difference to my thoughts but... a query: Is it not conceivable that the RPG information was formulated earlier, and that it has always been her full name? Or has it been deliberately stated as a later addition? For another example, The Prisoner's village guardian is known as "rover" despite the dubious origins of it being named in-show, thanks to the scripts and widespread acceptance.) ntnon ( talk) 15:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Despite being a rabid Firefly fan, I'm not familiar with Buffy and I hope that tangential connection though doesn't make my input "coloured". That being said, using a character or person's full name in the first sentence of the lede seems more appropriate than the current compromise of elabourating later and bolding there as well. Thinking about it, and circumstances when I might need to, I would find myself expecting either the introductory sentence or the infobox to have the right-off-the-bat full and correctly sourced name. While there may be precedent for the current style, I've never seen it. On the other hand, Whedon's own Derrial Book was unnamed for 99.7% of the franchise but is named so in that article (indeed, possibly at the wrong article location as the character was better—possibly, only—known as "Shepard Book, but I digress), and despite an ambiguity as to its meaning or intention, Dukat (Star Trek) opens with Dukat, S.G. There's obviously tons more precedent with non-fiction biographies; see Douglas Adams (Douglas Noël Adams), Calvin Coolidge (John Calvin Coolidge, Jr.), Anne Frank (Annelies Marie "Anne" Frank), etc. While somebody's already mentioned that character articles aren't biographies in the same sense, I like the continuity. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I agree with the reasoning of Postdlf and AnmaFinotera above: use just "Faith" in the title and lead, and explain the "Lehane" elsewhere in the article. Full disclosure: I was a fan of the Buffyverse TV shows but am unacquainted with the spinoffs in other media, so I had never even heard the name Lehane associated with this character until now. Deor ( talk) 22:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb ( talk) 16:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)