Talk:Slayer (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject/canonicity[edit]

Note: For further discussion on canon issues, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buffy/Canon

NOTE: This article was not created as a WikiProject Buffy article, it was only claimed as such in January 2006, months after the creation of the article. Furthermore the claim that this article is a WikiProject buffy article was not made by the creator of the article. Arguably this article does not necessarily have to follow the rules created by the WikiProject Buffy, which potentially might be perceived by some as dogmatic. Note: this unsigned comment was left by User:Paxomen

The article doesn't "belong" to the creator in any sense, and s/he has no more say in what edits take place than anyone else with a broad knowledge of Slayerdom. See the GNU FDL for more details on this concept. Dave 18:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That maybe so, but does that mean it is ok to add the 'WikiProject Buffy article' template thing to Buffyverse articles which others have put time and effort into, and then impose rules on that article which involve deleting the references to the wider Buffyverse not included in the Buffyverse canon? -- Paxomen 22:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It very much means that it is okay. A WikiProject exists to encylopedize content on a broad topic that will cover (in this case at least) hundreds of articles. It is not some sort of sub-ArbCom that exists to stifle good work. The big problem is that there is very little encyclopedic value in the cataloguing of non-canon material, especially when the non-canon material lowers the encyclopedic standards of the article by being either unsourceable or completely produced by primary research, which is what Wikipedia is not. Dave 23:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The view that covering material some view as non-canon is less important is your point of view. However Wikipedia is supposed to offer neutral point of view, not just delete one point of view so that the other can dominate. You don't see a "Wikiproject Catholicism" sticking a big 'WikiProject Catholicism' template on contraception articles, taking over those articles, then deleting all references to condoms because they don't approve. -- Paxomen 00:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like an extreme example, and it's not about POV as much as it about encyclopedism and verifiability. Dave 00:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dave, you say "extreme". I say "not at all analogous". An actually analogous example would be WikiProject Catholicism going around deleting articles about individual sermons that individual priests had given without reviewing the issues with church officials, whether or not they were in line with church doctrine. The issue is notability. We have enough trouble over at WP:B convincing the community at large that most of our articles are notable; excessive non-canon doesn't help the case. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 22:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full Article Clean-up Request[edit]

According to Joss & co the only canonical sources are:

  • Buffy the Vampire Slayer [WB/UPN Series]
  • Angel [WB Series]
  • Buffy Season Eight [Comic]
  • Angel: After the Fall [Comic]
  • Spike: After the Fall [Comic]
  • Spike: Shadow Puppets [Comic]
  • Spike: Asylum [Comic]
  • Tales of the Slayers (with an "s" @ the end. Tales of the Slayer are not canon) [Comic]
  • Tales of the Vampires

Please remove any entries referencing any sources other than those listed above as they are not part of the actual universe, and compromise the integrity of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.95.120 (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General[edit]

Faith's surname is apparently official according to Joss Whedon - details in article <a href="http://www.slayerverse.net/tanet/net_buffy_us/index.php?navi=news.php&id=16378">here</a>. --Lokicarbis 17:29, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

That was announced today, but let's wait until the book comes out before considering it canon. I think it adds confusion for most fans. -- Netoholic @ 19:42, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

There's a potential error in the listing of the potential Slayers near the bottom of the page: "Chao-Ahn (played by Kristy Wu) is a potential Slayer when we first meet her. Hailing from Shanghai, China she arrives without speaking a word of English. Most of her (subtitled) lines serve as comic relief, as none of the other characters understand her Cantonese words or properly interpreted her non-verbal communication. Nevertheless, she survives the final battle in the Hellmouth."

Unfortunately, Chinese persons from Shanghai generally do NOT normally speak Cantonese--they speak a dialect of Wu (linguistics) known as Shanghaiese, which is its own "language" (or dialect, depending on what terminology you subscribe to) distinct from Cantonese and Mandarin, and all are as mutually unintelligible as the various romance languages. Effectively, assuming that Chao-Ahn speaks Cantonese as a first language is the same as assuming someone from Spain will speak French as a first language. Theoretically, Chao-Ahn or her parents could have emigrated to Shanghai from Guangdong province or Hong Kong--thus Cantonese would be her spoken language--but in reality the vast majority of immigration has been in the opposite direction (Shanghai to Hong Kong -- see In the Mood For Love). In fact, most Shanghaiese learn Standard Mandarin as a second language (see "people and culture" in Shanghai) because the Shanghaiese dialect of Wu is unintelligible to all other Chinese speakers, including other non-Shanghai Wu speakers. Residents of Shanghai are probably more likely to learn English as a third language--not Cantonese. As such, it would really make no sense to have a Shanghaiese character speak Cantonese without further explanation (much the same as you wouldn't have someone from Madrid speaking French or Romanian!). Has anyone actually orally confirmed that Chao-Ahn is speaking Cantonese (and not Wu or Mandarin) in the episodes featured, or was this an assumption made for this page? -CLR, 16:26, 2005 Sept 4

Chao-Ahn is speaking a very butchered Cantonese. It's painfully obvious that Wu does not speak Cantonese fluently or possibly at all. Her sentences barely make sense and have a heavy American accent to it.

You are correct in what you said about Shanghai and Cantonese, but Giles said in First Date, "I was concerned that my Mandarin is a little thin, but as it turns out, she speaks Cantonese, which is thinner." This may be explained by the fact that most Americans have only heard of the northern cities.
One thing to keep in mind is that Giles can't understand a word she says regardless, so whatever he thinks she's speaking isn't necessarily accurate.--MythicFox 09:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slayer Power Problem - Someone has made a tremendous leap of logic, listing a Slayers lifting capacity in the 10 tons range. We have never seen Slayers perform any such acts in the past, and the author has listed some good evidence--but it does not indicate the level of strength that the author of that section has concluded. I'd like to see some calculations to back up the assertion of the 10-ton limit. Majin Gojira

I have to agree. I've never seen anything indicating that any of the Slayers possess physical strength that is anywhere near that limit. I also removed the reference to Spider-Man in the Powers and Abilities section because it's inaccurate. In comic books, a character's strength is measured in how much weight he or she can military press, lifting the weight up above their heads, not deadlifting. I'm not exactly sure what the strength measurement is in the Buffy Universe, or even if Joss Whedon has one. If there is one, however, and it's the one used for comic book characters, then I would have to place even the physically strongest slayers between 1 and 2 tons at the most. Odin's Beard

Anonymous Coward - You have gone back on your word with frightening speed. In our debate in the Illyria Section, you stated to "Agree to disagree. Here, you've gone back on your word. Do you want a repeat of that debate over here? I will post a Compromised statement in place of your biased revert. Focusing only on the facts as they have been shown and not your exagerations. Continue this behavior at your own risk. -- Majin Gojira

My only problem good sir is that you seemed to have changed this one over to your "liking", as you say that I have done. So let's see if I have this straight its ok for YOU to do this but not me. You have a really weird superiority complex. I didn't know who changed the article, I just changed it. I didn't do it to spite you. I don't do things out of spite.

You cut out a lot of information regarding Buffy's reflexes thanks to your last Revert. As I did more than just edit the Strenght entry. I also added information regarding speed, dexterity, senses (IE: the "Vamprie Sense" Buffy has) and other things. When you reverted, that information was lost. Furthermore, since your IP address is the one listed as having changed this article, I can only assume that it was you who made the changes. If you truely want to not be mistaken for other posters, then SIGN UP ALREADY! -- Majin Gojira

Potentials[edit]

Shouldn't they be called New Slayers or something along those lines? They're not just Potential anymore, and we certainly never saw a potential slayer on Angel. Also, Buffy isn't the latest in the line anymore, as stated in the first section... she's more the last of the lone warriors against vampires &c. Dave 15:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Buffy's been the Slayer the longest, and yes, we did. Remember Dana? She was strong enough to BREAK THROUGH the metal gates and her restraints. Pokemon Buffy Titan 11:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Dana was a slayer by that point, therefore she obviously wasn't a "potential" anymore..so no we did NOT see any "potential slayers" on Angel:::71.114.135.136 (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone edit the "pure demon" page?[edit]

Title says it all. -Lil_Flip246

1) Wrong place to discuss this, 2) There is no Pure Demon Page, there is a mention in the generic Old Ones section on "pure Demons". -- Majin Gojira
Done: Old One -- Paxomen 05:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you really shouldn't have. See the talk page of the page you just created for a full discusson. Majin Gojira 14:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canon[edit]

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buffy/Canon for further discussion


Where does the "Origin of the Slayer" stuff come from? It's certainly not anything that's been said (in that form) on the show! Also, I'm not sure we should be taking "canon" names from the tie-in novels (Like Spike & Dru, etc.) Xanfan 21:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also do not read the origin of the Slayer(s) the way it is described in this article. I will try an edit pass to bring it more in line with the series depiction. It's hard to know what is "canon" in this case, since there are several sources that are formally part of the mythology, and the article isn't claiming to only be about the show. However, my understanding from interviews is that the novels are not considered canon by the show's creators. Perhaps we can agree that "canon" only includes sources that were written or supervised by Joss Whedon? (such as the show, "Fray", "Tales Of The Slayers" etc) BarkingDoc

Re: canon: I believe that since there is no official body which decides what is and what is not canon (like Star Wars), any reliance here on canon would constitute original research. I would suggest an alternative: citing sources. Add ", in the television show", "in Fray" or ", in Child of the Hunt" (personally, I loved that novel!) to the evidence for "facts" regarding slayers, presenting possible contradictions. Since there are Buffyverse articles published in newspapers and peer-reviewed-journals, one can add those notable opinions which "resolve" contradictions. I believe that would create what an encyclopedia article about a concept in a series with multiple writers (when different episodes give different evidence, point to specific episodes), multiple sources and no official what is canon authority (no, Joss is not one -- he has specifically claimed he does not care about canon [c.f. commentary to Chosen, where he explains he does not care that the power level of ubervamp is inconsistent by choice]. Thanks MosheZadka 16:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misrepresented statement on the part of Joss. The statement in Chosen was made within a specific inciudent within regards to overall story of the episode in question being more important than consistancy. It was not a grand sweeping statement of "What is canon" as you make it out to be. Here's the statement, infact:
"People complained again that the vampires were too easy to kill. They were supposed to be stronger than other vampires and, the fact of the matter is, it’s true. Like the convenient magic, it’s true, because again, I was more interested in showing the empowerment than I was in the continuity. To make every vampire as hard to kill as the first one would have been too hard." - Joss Whedon
Aside from which, the Fan reaction is far more commonly noted due to the lack of a solid stance on the subject. The common phrase is "Joss' Word" on the subject being canon. Furthermore, the "What is Canon" discussion is better ment for the full Buffy board, not this backwater entry.
That said, the novels are considered to be the least-canonical of all Buffy Tie-ins. I mean, for instance, one novel has Leprechauns in it. Leprechauns! Which have been stated multiple times (on Buffy and Angel) to not exist. Most fans disregard the novels on the basis that most of them, well, suck. - Majin Gojira
An encyclopedia should be able to deal with multiple points of view in a reasonably neutral way else it is a rather poor encyclopedia. Only keeping 'canon' information (which is a very subjective term in the Buffyverse anyway, see Buffyverse canon), is kinda like writing an article on drug users, but only from the perspective of the police and ignoring the perspective of the drug user, or an article on the fall of 'Native Americans' only from the perspective of modern day America. This article should be able to deal with slayers that are mentioned in graphic Tales of the Slayers which is considered by many fans canon. But also prose Tales of the Slayer, which whilst not considered 'canon' by many, surely only enriches the article. The short stories in the Tales of the Slayer volumes do not contradict anything in the show so why not add depth to the article, for example including a link to the article India Cohen. As long as people clearly reference where they get information, that is as long as they don't use information from sources fans might consider uncanon and not mention it therefore giving the impression it might have from the TV show. Aside from that I see no reason to dismiss and delete references to a wider slayer mythology which can be accessed with an open mind??? For example why did the article India Cohen need to be banished from the page, especially as the article is better presented than some of the canon slayer articles. Should wikipedia be confronting uncanon interpretations or deleting them?-- Paxomen 18:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paxomen, I know what you're trying to express. I too believe it's unfair that India Cohen and other non canon are not represented in this page. Although they are non canon, they are still part of the buffyverse in buffyverse merchandise. Can someone please help me fix the non canon slayers section? Thanks. -Lil_Flip246

Somebody has sinced deleted the non-canon section, which is ridiculous. It is still part of the Buffyverse and as such should be included, I'll probably revert it later, or somebody else should; just because it is not canon does not mean it should be just totally ignored. Or we could make a new article about non-canon slayers and put a link or a 'see main article' tag on this page. --Cooksey 15:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I check History and Dmlandfair apparently removed the non canon slayers section. I worked really hard to find those slayers. Can someone please put those slayers back? Although they are considered non canon, they are still buffyverse merchandise. I've even put a disclaimer about it. -Lil_Flip246

Dmlandfair has insisted upon deleting the non-canon material. But we really should discuss this, because it is an important issue. The non-canon material is just as important as the canon material; it's not a very good encyclopedia if we just pretend that the non-canon stuff doesn't exist, or relegate it to a hidden away article. It's ridiculous to not include non-canon stuff, this is an encyclopedia and as such we should include everything. As long as we tell people that it is non-canon, I don't see a problem. --Cooksey 20:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed this discussion somehow. I'm all for creating a new List of non-canon Slayers (Buffy) article or even a Non-canon Buffyverse superarticle with links to all the rest, but I think that this article should stay in line with the rest of what people involved in Wikiprojfect Buffy are trying to do, which is to document the shows and other Joss-sanctioned Buffyverse concepts. Dave 20:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are great ideas. But we should have links to those on the buffyverse page. -Lil_Flip246

The page Slayer (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) was not created as a Wikiprojfect Buffy, in fact it was made long before there was a "Wikiprojfect Buffy". The whopping great thing saying: "This Whedonverse-related article is part of WikiProject Buffy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the rest of the Whedonverse on Wikipedia. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page." was recently added by user, Dmlandfair, one of the users who has been deleting all references to articles like India Cohen. i think the whole wikiproject needs a larger discussion about this. It seems unfair to me that the wikiproject Buffy (of which i am a member) can just add its signature to an article created and worked on by others, then start deleting things on that same article? This kind of behaviour reminds me of the medieval Church which would encourage its allies to militarily take over whole territories where heresy existed, then once the Church got more power there, to burn any books within those territries which it found too challenging to cope with.
As someone who has been recently writing a number of articles about the Buffyverse, such as the largely non-canon Buffy novels such as it worries me that I'm wasting my time, if some wikiproject member decides to edit out all references to non-canon stuff.
I totally agree with you, Wikiproject Buffy is just trying to delete all references to non-canon material. This article should contain non-canon material, as long as it is clearly marked as non-canon stuff, which it is, so I don't see the problem personally. --Cooksey 18:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. People keep doing that. I keep reading all the non canon slayers, but someone keeps removing it. Please do not remove it. I've added a India Cohen, and can someone add more names. -Lil_Flip246.

Thank you Cooksey for adding that disclaimer. Now we can stop arguing about it. -Lil_Flip246

Though it would be good if we added in which novels did these slayers showed up on.--Gonzalo84 18:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the novels/comics should be specified -- Paxomen 18:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent some time fixing the formatting of the article and putting markers in place at the parts where some citations could be used. Also, encyclopedic material needs to be not based on original research. The Slayer powers section seems to be just a load of fanboyism, so it needs to be based on some non-primary sources, per WP policy and the template at the top, or I'll edit it down to the verifiable stuff in a couple days. Dave 18:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was a big fan of Buffy. Moreso as the series reached it's later seasons and the mythology of The Slayer was brought to light. My big fandom, however, lied in Xena: Warrior Princess. I've recently looked into the wikipedia articles on The Slayer mythology. And it occured to me, given the similarity in powers, strength, healing, premonitional dreams, sensing when danger is near, I wonder if Xena wasn't in fact a slayer. And given that, when she died, Gabrielle took over her powers. Was Gabrielle a potential? This is just a theory. I haven't done any side by side episode comparissons of abilities. But, having seen every episode of Xena multiple times, and many episodes of Buffy multiple times, I feel confident in putting forth this theory. Xena: Warrior Princess, and Gabrielle, both possible slayers of the past.

72.231.30.228 06:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Alex[reply]

And it would be a fantheory and nothing more. Ergo, no place on wikipedia. Claiming that simply because they have superhuman abilities, a female character is a slayer is about as good as claiming Wonder Woman or Molly Hayes are vampire slayers as well. -- Majin Gojira 12:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point, but disagree. Wonder Woman has different powers than the slayer. The flying, the magic metal weapons and lasso, the transformation from human to superhero. I put forth this theory because both of their superhuman abilities have similarities. Enough strength to fight off gods. Both were stated clearly to "heal fast" or have "amazing recuperative powers." Both use acrobatics when fighting. Both have premonitions. Both can sense when a personal evil is around. Now, if we take both the Buffyverse and the Xenaverse as entities in the same Universe, one could easilly draw this conclusion. Was this deliberate? Absolutely not as Joss Whedon had nothing to do with Xena and Rob Tapert had nothing to do with Buffy. But if you look at them as mythologies, one could see how they coincide, and could possibly be related.

72.231.30.228 22:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Alex[reply]

Wonder Woman did not fly until the 80s revamp (why do you think she had an Invisible Jet?). In her 30s/40s appearances, she was actually more in line with 'slayer-level abilities', much as Superman was able to be stunned by 30lbs bombs. Having magical weapons is nothing special--Kendra's enchanted sword in "Becoming", the Dagon Sphere and the Troll-God Hammer come to mind. Glory was a Depowered god, and therefore not an accurate judge of what a true god would be like (IE: Illyria the Old One). On that note, the entire natures of their universes are dissimilar, Buffy draws from the Horror Film and H. P. Lovecraft, where Xena is a Sam Raimi/Greek/Christian Mythology hyrid. If you're going to claim that xena and Buffy share the same mythology, there had best be Old Ones there to back it up. Simply having greek and roman dieties (and very few of them) referenced means nothing. And since when did Xena regenerate? It's a flimsy speculation at best. If you really want to work on crossover theory, try the Wold Newton family and attatched theory, I can get from Buffy to Godzilla in three steps (Buffy crossed over with the Cthulhu Mythos in "Night of the Living Rerun", Cthulhy crossed over with Godzilla in the novel "Godzilla at World's End"). I'm not poo-pooing the idea of crossovers, it's just that you have to do more work than "they have similar abilities, therefore they are the same". That would make the more than three-dozen Superman-like characters Kryptonians. -- Majin Gojira 22:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CITING SOURCES[edit]

WHY DOES SOMEONE KEEP PUTTIN CITE SOURCES? IS IT NECESSARY? Lil Flip246 21:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is necessary. This is an encyclopedia. The information contained within should be verifiable and sourced! Dave 21:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
True, but the extent that is required in the article is downright ludicris. I've given several sources and added a few citations, but some of the requested sitations are just plain silly. Majin Gojira
Carl Sagan famously said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." For Wikipedia, articles that are likely to be written wholly from the experiences of the authors — which include subtopics of pretty much any television show, especially ones as popular as Buffy — seem almost certain not to be properly sourced. It is therefore incumbent upon those of us who claim to be writing factual information to prove it by providing verifiable sources. This is actually true of all Wikipedia articles, but the onus is much greater on articles that sound like fancruft; i.e., that incur great skepticism that they actually have published sources. All statements in Wikipedia articles are supposed to be verifiable through reliable sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very True, however, the degree to which the citations were requested were over the top. Do compare the claimed citation rate with other articles detailing entries on fiction. When the basic premise of a series is claimed to need citation beyond the citation of the series itself, it's just becomes ugly to read. Furthermore, you've got a lot of work ahead of you, i you want to apply that form of sitation to all Wikipedia. - M.G.
Most articles on fiction are so lacking in sources that they're obvious delete-bait. I think the amount of sourcing in this article is relatively good. Perhaps the real problem is how the references break the flow of text. Fortunately, we have a solution to that: footnotes. If I have time, I'll take a shot at reformatting with footnotes myself, or someone else can tackle it if they're in the mood. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what it's like elsewhere but here in the UK, wikipedia is not allowed to be referenced in essays at universities anyway and never will be, because ultimately it is not peer assessed but editable by anyone, and as as long as that remains the case it is not compatible with academia. So to be honest I think well written articles that are entirely veritifiable should anyone check on any of the information.. is more important than pasting sources everywhere right left and centre, though I personally think footnotes are OK if they're not excessively used. -- Paxomen 12:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category/Title[edit]

I think this belongs in Category:Buffyverse better than in Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer since Slayers are on both shows and in Fray. Any problems with that? Also, I think we should move the page to Slayer (Buffyverse) to reflect that, too. Dave 05:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth/Edward Weston[edit]

...is a CANON slayer. She appeared in the Tales of the Slayers comic book in one of the main stories. I dunno if she appeared in Tales of the Slayer, but if a site states that without saying she appeared in Tales of the Slayers, they're wrong (it's prolly just a minor mistake). Elizabeth Weston IS a canon slayer! EDIT: I just saw the 'Slayers of the Ages' site, which states that she appeared in volume 1. She may or may not have, but she DEFINETELY appeared in Tales of the Slayers. Also, Helen Jay's site, is a better resource than the other, and states that she appeared in Scott Allie "Ghosts of Slayers Past" from volume 2, along with Tales of the Slayers, the tale presumption. --Ooks

-Eliz appreared in TOS Vol. 2! I should know cause I have the books. End of discussion.

Okay, but she is a canon slayer, so she needs to be added to the list. She appears in the Tales of the Slayers comic. --Ooks

What story does she appear in? Are you sure it's her? DId they mention IT WAS HER?Lil Flip246 03:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am quite positive that she appears in the story and is canon! And I know people who have read Tales of the Slayers, esp. the tale Presumption, know that she was the central character of the story. Go and check out information about Tales of the Slayers and the tale Presumption if you don't believe it...Thank you. -Ooks

Seconded. She's in Tales of the Slayers in a story written by Jane Espenson. It's a good story. Dave 04:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, thank you. --Ooks


Sarah Dinsdale[edit]

I'm not sure whether Sarah Dinsdale is really a Slayer or not...I'm sure Samantha Kane is, just dunno about Sarah....can somebody please verify? Esp somebody who has read Night of the Living Rerun, the book she appears in? Thanks. Mayukhers112 02:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ages of slayers[edit]

'The average Slayer's lifespan is very short. Buffy once implied, though she may have been engaging in hyperbole, that no Slayer has lived beyond 25 (Buffy Season 4, "Doomed"). An exception seems to be Nikki Wood (seen in season 5's "Fool for Love" and season 7's "First Date" and "Lies My Parents Told Me"), who was the only Slayer known to have a child, (Robin Wood). '

I seem to recall that demon-hunting ventriloquist's dummy in the first season saying he'd dated (in his pre-puppet days) a Korean Slayer who was in her thirties. The conversation was when the puppet and Buffy were sitting on the catwalk above the stage.

Can anyone validate this and hopefuly correct this information?

Dodger 12:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it's innacurate. The exact reference is that he dated a slayer back durring the 1930s. The Slayer's age was not mentioned. Majin Gojira 14:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ahh, I must have misheard 'in the 30s' as 'in her 30s', and it fit that he'd mention the age because it was in the same -- err -- 'breath' as him netioning that she was Korean.

Dodger 16:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive linking[edit]

Please refrain from linking to every possible word like demons and sunlight. It is distracting to the reader, who can easily look up the words in Wikipedia or elsewhere.

Victoria Paris[edit]

She was not actually a slayer. Tori was simply a female monster fighter the artist was working before being contacted by Joss. Undoubtedly she is like a slayer, but she isn't from the buffyverse and therefor simply isn't one.

Weapons/Equipment[edit]

I just added a section on the Slayer's weapons and equipment, mostly because I think the Scythe is important to the Slayer mythos - its use in "Chosen" indicates that it's closely related to the Slayer's power, after all. It might also be useful to mention Nikki Wood's "Slayer Emergency Kit," as it contained items that were supposed to be passed down through the Slayer line.

This was my first Wikipedia edit, so please go easy on me! --Jeff-El 21:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything to back up the claim that "at some point following the destruction of the Sunnydale Hellmouth, the Scythe is lost once again"? You need to reference that. It certainly didn't happen in the show - Buffy still had it in her hand when she leapt onto the bus leaving Sunnydale, and it can still be seen on top of the bus at the end of the episode when all the characters are looking back into the crater.

It comes from the Fray series, which does take place far in the future. It is not a current event. -- Majin Gojira 13:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another look at the Fray comic, Urkonn actually only says that it was "lost for centries," which I suppose could refer to it being lost prior to Buffy's discovery of it. I've reworded the section accordingly. --Jeff-El 03:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slayer history[edit]

Looking at the article as it exists now, it seems to me that the sections on "The Chosen One," "The Legend," "The Future," and "Potential Slayers" could all easily be merged into one section on the history of the Slayer, perhaps with some subheadings to help break it up.

To me, the sections that exist seem to cover a lot of the same information, and it seems a little redundant. I also feel that Potential Slayers are important enough to the mythology that they should appear sooner in the article, especially in light of the several references to them that appear before any discussion of who or what they are. --Jeff-El 21:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done so. I trimmed quite a lot from the existing sections, trying to preserve only the elements directly related to Slayer mythology. The result is much shorter, and I believe easier to read. I also moved the paragraph on the Slayer's dreams to the Powers and Abilities section. Hope you like it. --Jeff-El 21:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good[edit]

I really like the streamlined Powers and Abilities section, it's easier on the eyes already!

I'm not sure I agree with the restoration of the Potential Slayers section, however. I tried to adequately cover the Potentials in the "Slayer Line" section I created, and it seems a little redundant to include the same information twice.

I can understand the desire to give the Potentials their own section, however - honestly, if we had more information they could almost warrant their own article. Does anyone else have an opinion?

I'm in favour of scrapping the section, but if most people would rather keep it, I would suggest moving it to an earlier position in the article...they seem sort of "tacked on" in their current position to me. --Jeff-El 01:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always in favor of streamlining and minimizing, so unless someone else want's to futz with it, I've already taken care of it. -- Majin Gojira 02:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pending tasks[edit]

I feel that the pending task on the to-do list has been adequately resolved. Assuming others are in agreement, what's the procedure for removing the list? --Jeff-El 03:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible deletion of this article[edit]

The Vampire (Buffyverse) article is currently up for deletion and I fear this one could be next. See the Vampire deletion page to see what I mean. It could be deleted because it's written completely in-universe. I unfortunately don't have time to fix the Slayer article, so I thought I'd point this out, so that someone could fix it before this article gets deleted. • Supāsaru 13:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scythe[edit]

I think it is important to note that the Slayer who wields the Scythe gets a tremendous increase in power. If you remember in the episode, Dirty Girls, Buffy and two other Slayers could hardly stand up to Caleb when fighting him at once. This was when his power was waning. Suddenly, in End of Days, Buffy is able to fight Caleb head-to-head after he is fully stoked with power from the First. The display of power that we see from Caleb is inconsistent unless one takes this fact into account. Faith, when holding it, said it was a weapon of great power and felt a personal attachment to it. It seems that any slayer who holds the Scythe syncs with its power on some level. If you have anything that refutes that, please tell me.---User:LeCreuset05—Preceding comment was added at 21:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Could be just self-confidence; the thing is a great weapon for chopping up evil beasties. If any official references say this increases Slayer powers, sure, put it in. Lots42 (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Slayer redirect[edit]

How come the Potential Slayer link no longer redirects to the Slayer Line section. I remember vividly that it used to, which is appropriate, but now it just goes to the page itself. I would put in the redirect myself, I just don't have a clue as to how. Any ideas? Kingdom2 (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scythe[edit]

If we're going to do this page, in one of the in-canon Angel comics, Spike was going through time-shifts. In one scene, with flying cars in the background, he was seen holding the scythe. Lots42 (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

The bit about the bomb shelters confuses me. Bomb shelters are supposed to withstand nuke blasts. I'm not surprised the Slayer couldn't get through it. Lots42 (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slayer_(Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer)&oldid=1206960164"