Talk:Willow Rosenberg

Season Eight image

Shouldn't the issue #3 image of Willow be preferable to the #19 image? It makes it out as if Season Eight is all about Dark Willow, the way her character arc in Season Six was. It also doesn't accurately portray how the character appears issue-by-issue, which is as a flying, old-timey-clothing-wearing witch.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

in charge

Whenever Buffy and Giles are both absent or incapacitated, Willow takes charge. The first time she did that, it was a bit of a surprise. But I (currently rewatching s7) don't remember when that was. Is it worth mention? —Tamfang (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Appearances/Television subheadings removed

I'm still in the middle of something that's going to keep me from paying close attention to commentary and such, but I thought Zythe wanted to remove the High school/College/Season 7 subheadings. I don't really care much about them, but I do think something should be there to make a better point that Willow's character changes with the TV seasons. So I'm not sure what the main objections was: the High School/College subheadings, or subheadings themselves. I'd like to see subheadings restored at least to Seasons 1-3, Seasons 4-6, and Season 7. Makes it easier for readers, a more aesthetically pleasing article, and again the emphasis on the development of the character with specific TV seasons. --Moni3 (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The other thing is the article seems to completely shy-out the non-canon material that was still a substantial part of the character's existence in popular culture during the TV run. Is it not Interesting that Amber Benson wrote a Willow & Tara comic? I mean, it's probably shite, but it's the sort of material that needs to be addressed in a proper Literature section. That's why I preferred the "Appearances/...Television/...Literature/" kind of tree.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an objection to replacing the season subheadings?

As for the non-canon material, I didn't find sources to discuss them, but my sources mainly concentrate on the television series. There's fan material, like the Buffy magazines that I don't have access to. Are there reviews for the Willow and Tara comics? If Whedon considers the novels and comics before Season Eight to be outside the scope of the Buffy canon, how important are they? I admit that I've not read the out-of-canon books and comics, although the one Benson wrote is on my list to get. Have you read them? --Moni3 (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read them and Zythe is right, they are shite. However, they're also an official appearance by the character and therefore relevant in the article, especially since they're the first time she's headlined her own story.

As much as I like and appreciate the rewrite of this article (seriously, well done), I generally prefer having an "Appearances" section separate from development/characterisation info. See the Cordelia Chase and Wesley Wyndam-Pryce articles as examples. Would it be possible to re-jig the layout of this article to match those somewhat?  Paul  730 19:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The non-canon material is in the See also section. Are you suggesting that a separate section be created for this non-canon material if no sources discuss it, its notability is dubious, and their quality is less than stellar? I'm not sure what really this section would include. What beyond the See also mentions should be mentioned?

As for the article layout, I went with the way the sources treat Willow's character. She is noted as the most evolving character in the series so "Evolution" or "Development" follows the way the sources describe her. I understand that other characters have a different layout, but the source material should dictate what is included in the article. Buffy's article would be different because she does not change as significantly as Willow, and her issues are different. I'm concerned that rearranging the article to adhere to "Appearances" and other character article subsections would make this article less coherent. I'm willing to discuss it, but I wanted to make my concerns clear. --Moni3 (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that a "Literature" section be created to cover all the character's appearances in books and comics, similar to the Cordelia article. Canonicity and quality are irrelevant, and we don't need secondary sources to acknowledge that she appeared in a comic.

We could still keep the "Evolution" section largely the same, just have an Appearances section earlier in the article. See Zythe's sandbox as an example, maybe a condensed version of that? (Some good sources lying around that sandbox, btw, if they're not already in the article.)  Paul  730 23:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, "Identities" is kind of misleading. Why not "Characterisation" (a lengthy section discussing the evolution of the character but not in a chronological way), with headings "Sexual orientation", "Dark side" (ie. Dark Willow and Vamp Willow, Season Eight, w/e), "Powers and abilities" (notable with Willow as hers were frequently allegories / plot devices). I get that you're trying to show a "trajectory" for Willow's development, which is admirable, but it means that the area for expansion isn't Sourced Academic Analysis but rather Plot Detail Important to the Character (which should be informed, as in the Cordelia article, by what academics notice). I think Literature appearances are notable enough for a mention as having existed in a certain context, time and place etc., but a no frills "See also" is a kind of disregard that forces readers to click the link and work out how that publication date relates to the Buffy airdates etc.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cordelia's article, which I have read a couple times, is not the standard by which all character articles should be judged. I found some of it confusing and not as tight as it should be, but it's not really the point of our discussion here and if you want my opinion about it, I can give it to you elsewhere.

Identities is the perfect heading for the section that discusses Willow's original self (a lack of an identity) and her two alter identities. Sources discuss this about Willow's character. There is not really a point to a Sexual orientation section because Whedon made it pretty clear that sexual orientation, lesbian, or bisexual identity was never the focus of the show. Only Willow's relationship to Tara, and subsequently her relationship with Kennedy.

This discussion is the result of a conflict here: I'm using what the sources say about Willow's character, and it appears you're looking to make character articles uniform. I don't see the point in the uniformity if it makes this article less coherent. And without accessing what the sources actually say, I don't know how you can argue to make it one way or the other. (I don't understand what but it means that the area for expansion isn't Sourced Academic Analysis but rather Plot Detail Important to the Character means.) This may just be the result of my not understanding what your vision is. I've had extensive arguments about article layout and what to include in the lead where all the editors were essentially using different words to mean the same thing.

It's ok that Willow's article looks different from other character articles, even other Buffy character articles. It's ok that there are different subheadings and that the article covers different material. Writers concentrate on different areas for different characters. There are no discussions about Willow's constant inner battles between what she is called to do and what she wants to do, her attraction to dark romances, and her simultaneous need for friends and family and her need to distance herself from them. These are Buffy's issues and Buffy's article should appear in such a way to summarize them according to what Buffy scholars write about. While I have not found everything written about Willow's character, the article does reflect the sources I did find.

As for the non-canon appearances, I simply can't see what can be written about Willow's appearances in novels and comics if the quality is "shite" and no sources discuss how these plots are relevant to Willow's character development. What could be said? If the See also links aren't clear, they can be made clearer with a "Non-canon literature appearances" heading in the See also section and publication dates following the titles:

Non-canon literature appearances:

• Willow & Tara (Buffy comic) (2002)
• Wicked Willow trilogy (2004)
• Etc

Secondary sources are always necessary. That's the hallmark of article quality. Anything else opens the article to tags. --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

1) There are sources which discuss the ambiguities of Willow's sexual identity, the ambivalence in early seasons and the full on "Gay" of later seasons, her relationship with Oz, the negative fan reaction, Whedon's hilarious rebuttal etc. 2) Again, if one critic sees Willow as "identitiless" in early seasons and then other information about the casting process finds one thing, what you're doing is moulding these sources into a synthesised account of Willow's development. 3) The article needs to step back and point these things out from afar, objectively, without identifying itself with those positions itself. That would be the (perhaps you might say only) strength of the Cordelia article over this one. 4) Just list the non-canon appearances simply in prose. It's the same as bullet-points without the article identifying canon as superior in itself; the primary sources themselves are testament that the character was published as a titular character in something in such-and-such a year. That's all they need to be, they don't need to be a part of the character's on-screen development, just part of its out-of-show existence.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This article now reads like an essay

I can see a lot of work has gone into re-writing this article, but the result reads like an essay rather than a Wikipedia entry. Much of the article reads like an analysis of the character rather than a factual account. Wikipedia should not be offering opinions, even if those opinions are backed up by references. That simply means that someone else shares the same opinion. The need to use references in an article is not an invitation to offer a point of view as long as an academic can be found that shares that view. Wikipedia can factually report that an authoritative source holds an opinion - but that is a very different thing to positing a view and citing a source which shares that view.

For example, the article states: "From the inception of Willow's character in the first season, she is presented with contradictions", "Willow is malleable, in continuous transition moreso than any other Buffy character", "The dream presents poignant anxieties about how she appears to others, not belonging, and the consequences of people finding out her true self", "Long a level-headed character who sacrifices her own desires for those of her friends, she gradually abandons these priorities to be more independent and please herself", "She is capricious and aggressive, the opposite of Willow's usual nature, her bad behavior so exaggerated that it does not instill fear into the viewer like other female vampires in the series, but indicates more about Willow's personality", "As surprised as Willow is with Vamp Willow, she feels bound to her" etc etc. These are presented in the article as the opinions of the author, or, strictly speaking, of Wikipedia. A variety of external sources, no doubt reliable and authoritative, have been used to give weight to these opinions, but that still constitutes original research as the article appears to be a synthesis of different sources. In general, it needs to make a much clearer distinction between fact and analysis, the analysis needs to be reduced and the source given more weight in the article itself (eg "one academic has suggested" etc) and synthesis needs to be avoided.Hobson (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The notion that no expert, critic, or analyst's opinion should be offered is absolutely incorrect. If so, there would be no articles on literature or film. --Moni3 (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the person means that the article should maybe attribute to academics more than synthesise itself. "As Jennifer Cusie notes", or "So-and-so opines that..." etc., rather than "Willow is full of contradictions."~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. These sources and information should definitely be present in the article, but be worded in a clearer, more neutral manner. Willow's development should not be presented as fact, but the opinion of those commenting on it.  Paul  730 19:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You know, this is one of the reasons Wikipedia just...frustrates the fuck out of me sometimes. And I know y'all probably don't deserve the multitude of my experiences coming out like this, but I really don't know how this attitude permeates and I honest to all fuck just don't know how to respond. I know I'm going to get admonishments to agree good faith, a phrase that I have come to loathe from its abuse, but I don't know any other way to express this.

This has happened before in several other rewrites I have done and I always wonder if my frustration is a result of my narrow-mindedness or a general "slacktivism" where editors find it much easier to comment than actually research. This article sat here in its lackluster state with cite needed tags and shitty to nonexistent sourcing and no one made a peep. I just don't understand: were you happier when it was like that? I don't really think there's any excuse for the way it sat. It offered no justice to the topic. I started watching the article a month or so ago. Here it has been rewritten with the best sources I could find and all the sudden everyone is a critic? I don't own the article, so any of you can go to the library or buy the books from Amazon or wherever and contribute to the article. Instead, because you don't have the sources, you offer opinions on the writing for which you have no authority. By far I don't think I'm God's gift to anything and I think just about anyone can rewrite an article if they're driven enough and they have the sources to do it. I find it rather depressing that I have to depend on myself for my own standards of what good article writing is. I don't know how to say this it's so self-evident: the article is summarized and anyone who insinuates the information is synthesized does not know what synthesis is and has no familiarity with the sources.

The confidence of your criticism is mystifying. The confidence of my approach is the result of writing 19 featured articles. I don't know any of your experience in article writing; it seems limited to gnomish edits. I've attempted to elevate this topic to the way the sources treat it: not just a pop culture blip, but an expression of art that should be placed alongside literary characters from masters. The writing is engaging and it moves while being neutral and accurately representing the sources. Your comments want it dulled for specious reasons that I don't understand and I'm overwhelmed that I'm faced with such misunderstandings of Wikipedia guidelines.

I can't stop you from changing it. So change it. If you do so without the benefit of what the cited authors have to say, however, you are doing a great disservice to the topic and to readers. I think the rewrite I did is not faultless, but it is excellent, and it would be fairly close to passing FA class. I don't even know why I'm posting this. It will obviously alienate those who posted above and virtually ruin any chance of improving the article further. I'm just really frustrated by my experiences. If anything, please...just please...get the sources and read them. Honor the topic. Punish yourself by writing and rewriting it over and over. Seek every opinion you can. Never stop improving it. --Moni3 (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. We welcome your improvements, we are simply appealing to let you be okay with some suggestions for further improvement. But you're not. Clearly I have misunderstood Wikipedia guidelines at every level. I don't want to have upset another editor. Despondency is contagious. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Moni, I've reflected on your reply a bit more. It was quite personal. I apologise if I don't have the credo to offer my advice, that my edits are too "gnomish" and your spate of featured articles means I cannot interpose my criticism, which was only that the article doesn't attribute explicitly enough to its very worthy sources. The prose style is lovely, etc.; it just doesn't seem like an article About Fiction enough, was as far as I saw it. But you know what, if you don't want to take anything I've said on board, then I'll keep my mitts off the article and let you take it as far as you feel you can take it and I'll see if any FA reviewers hit on these same notes. And I am genuinely apologetic if you feel victimised by my insistent, falsely "confident" critique.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's taken me three days to be able to return to this discussion. I have not read it in the interim. I said I didn't think you deserved the full brunt of my frustration. You didn't, Zythe, not you or the other editors. It is a valid frustration, however. Among the 8,000 or so editors about 150-200 are article writers: editors who add substantially more than a paragraph here and there. Wikipedia is hard to take and so new I don't often know what to make of it. I've compared writing here to shopping for bridal gowns at a bargain basement on Christmas Eve. With Bridezilla felons. It can be brutal and not always effective. It makes me really angry sometimes, but I am also gratified by many of the achievements by many editors. The space of the Internet between editors who add content or who putter about doing other tasks is so wide I don't really know what reality is. Perhaps none of us really know. I don't think I'm that hot a writer and I made a lot of mistakes when I first started writing articles. Perhaps the absence of contact and a run of FACs has given me a false confidence that I know what I'm talking about. Without anything else to compare it to, however, all I have are my experiences.

So clearly I'm sensitive. However, the comments above did not seem like suggestions for improvement. They seemed instead a wish for the writing to be mediocre. Maybe because the majority of articles here are mediocre and that's what people are used to. I really want this to be the absolute best article possible. So I need to be patient while y'all need to have much, much higher expectations.

Perhaps our wide gap here is communication. I'm willing to shore up any language that seems confusing or does not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines or policies without making the article duller than it is or inaccurate to the sources. I can't promise not to have another lunar freakout, but I can promise that I only want the article to get better. --Moni3 (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Lesbian?

Bisexual

She is clearly a bisexual. --24.62.109.225 (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've always been inclined to think the same but the character self identifies as lesbian and all real world sources from show creators related to the storyline say lesbian. So that's what we go with. Millahnna (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've an idea: place her under "Fictional LGBT Characters". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.109.225 (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that identifying as a lesbian does not necessarily mean "I absolutely do not like men", it can simply mean that you prefer women to men. Thus explaining why she prefers to date Tara instead of Xander but still has/had feelings for him. So we could just call her both. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:Due weight, Millahnna is correct about how we should treat this. We cannot call Willow both "lesbian" and "bisexual," since, while some fans and authors debate whether she is bisexual and whether Whedon engaged in bisexual erasure by making her lesbian, Whedon has been clear that she is lesbian and not bisexual. Willow has also been clear, after her time with Oz, that she is not into men romantically or sexually. Her having been attracted to males at some point in her life (Xander and Oz), but then realizing that she is lesbian and/or identifying as lesbian is common for many women who identify as lesbian; perhaps the vast majority of them. By that, I mean it's common (oftentimes due to heteronormativity) for gay men or lesbians to have had romantic or sexual relationships with the opposite sex before coming out as gay or lesbian, and it's common for women to identify as lesbian even if their behavior indicates otherwise; for what I mean on that, see this section of the Lesbian article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

These "not bisexual" statements from Whedon, do they refer to behavior or to interest? One thing about Willow is she's really nice... so it's hard to tell if she's saying "I'm not into men at all" (or however it got phrased) to Xander/Oz to let them down easy (like "it's not you it's me") or if she really means it. Xena comes to mind, she and Gabrielle get into a lesbian relationship eventually and might have adopted the label if it existed back then (not sure the word ever came up in-universe since not set in the 90s) but I think both of them had male relationships prior to it. There is also the issue of "canon per author" vs "canon per content" too. Sometimes authors make statements about their work which is not actually supported by the work itself. Rowling claiming she never said Hermione was white, for example, even though people quickly found text showing she did refer to her having a white face. In-universe content holds a higher authority to some than accessory comments by creators since they sometimes conflict with the raw canon. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd have to read Whedon's comments on the matter again to be sure. But the vast majority of reliable WP:Secondary sources put Willow's sexual identity under the "lesbian" category (one who has not been sexually interested in men since Oz; that is, if she was ever truly sexually interested in Xander or Oz), which is why I cited WP:Due weight. The way sources generally treat her sexual orientation and sexual identity is also what Millahnna was referring to. After pinging Millahnna, I saw that Millahnna hasn't edited since November 2015, but that is beside the point. And then there's Whedon, who while not initially having Willow explicitly state that she is a lesbian, has been clear that she is, and eventually had her make it clear on the show that she's not romantically/sexually interested in men. Probably in the comics too. All that stated, in the Tara Maclay section, the article does address the contrasting opinion that Willow may be bisexual and that some fans disliked Whedon having Willow choose Tara over Oz. Whedon has also had Buffy have sex with a woman, but insists that she's not bisexual. As you can see, that has been debated at the Buffy Summers talk page, and I weighed in on that too. So did a Wikipedia television editor I greatly respect: Bignole. As for Xena and Gabrielle, the show was never explicit about their romantic/sexual interaction, which you likely know. This is mentioned in the Xena:Warrior Princess article. The writers used subtext in their case, and intentionally left the question of their romantic/sexual intimacy ambiguous. And, yes, they never used the contemporary terms gay, lesbian or bisexual in that show. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This "Willow And Tara - How Joss Whedon Put Lesbian Sex On TV - Lesbian Stories On Buffy" YouTube video, starting at 4:41, comments on the aforementioned bisexual erasure aspect I mentioned and what I noted about Willow being clear at some point after Oz that she was no longer into men. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

And to address the #Term discussion below, the video, starting at 0:17, calls Willow and Tara "TV's first long-standing lesbian relationship." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm walking into this not entirely sure of the argument. It sounds like we're debating if she should be listed as "lesbian" or "bi-sexual". If that's the case, then you go by what is identified, not by what has happened. This is true for real life. Many young ladies do not realize that they are homosexual the moment they walk out the door, because they have been grilled by society that they should like men. Hence the reason why Willow was engaged in relationships with men before Tara. Then, she realized that she really liked women. You haven't seen her engage in a relationship with a man since, because she realized she likes women. She identifies fictionally as lesbian, Whedon identifies her as lesbian, and if you were to ask the LGBT community they would say lesbian as well. Having had a heterosexual relationship prior to her lesbian one doesn't negate the sexual orientation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Bignole, you grasped the argument. Well stated. I moved your comment up (from its original spot), though, since the Term section below is about whether or not to describe Willow and Tara's relationship as the first long-term lesbian relationship on U.S. television. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Term

"Willow and Tara's relationship became the first long-term lesbian relationship on U.S. television" - Citation needed. Ellen has a long term lesbian relationship on ABC in 1997-8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.42.131 (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what one considers "long". Considering the vagueness we would need a source to interpret the timespan's immensity. Also would we be measuring length of relationship in-universe of the shows, or the length in terms of our universe and how much time lapsed between the first and last episode depicting the relationship? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

We need to go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, not our interpretation of what is or is not long-term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

True, but which one does? The next-following source I can see is a 2001 Bill Hoffman article in the New York Post called "Magazine Hails Gutsy Gals who 'Bold' Us Over", no link for reading to check if it refers to this since it's following the subsequent sentence:

"Jane magazine hailed Willow and Tara as a bold representation of gay relationship, remarking that "they hold hands, slow-dance and lay in bed at night. You won't find that kind of normalcy on Will and Grace."

If we could verify which source calls it "longest" and alias it next to the word to address the March 2014 concern above, it could rest the issue. The trouble is since there's no quote in the cite, to know if it does or not. I'll see if I can find an archive from 15 years ago to read. I managed to find a web version on the NYP site, linked it, nothing I could see about relationship length so included a request for a cite there since it's not clear which if anything supports the "first long" claim vs Ellen. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Mistake

Did anybody else realize that the first kiss aired with Tara was not in season five, but in season four. In restless, the last episode of season four, Xander dreams he`s in his ice cream truck and Tara and Willow are in the back. So their is a mistake in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratepop22 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not shown on screen. --Moni3 (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation: Teleportation

I believe that Anya says that Dark Willow can't teleport, only fly. Does anybody know if this correct? (Under the Dark Willow section, it mentions she can teleport.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.7.49 (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's some fine technicality about it's teleporting but not really and I thought it too technical to detail in this article. It would have to get too far into the issues created by the series without much profit in understanding Willow Rosenberg any better. --Moni3 (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

While I entirely agree that it's probably too technical in nature to describe in detail, the point is that it's misrepresenting Dark Willow as having a power she does not technically possess. Perhaps the sentence should be edited or stricken for accuracy. 75.85.7.49 (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

She possesses the power to move herself with her mind. In everyday vernacular, that's teleportation. In the Buffyverse, that's something technically separate from teleportation. I'm ok with the way it reads now. If you can find a good source that describes whatever Anya calls it, it can probably go in a footnote, but I think it's a really bad idea to get so technical in the article prose. --Moni3 (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm fact-tagging it, I do not believe mental movement through space in a continuous fashion is what is meant by everyday vernacular in teleport. When I think of teleport I think of a discrete spot A to spot C transport not A>B>C. Kind of like Nightcrawler's BAMF. The ability to move yourself through space is better described as telekinetic flight if you want to substitute it. To refer to it as teleportation to simply fly should require a quote from a reliable source. If we can look to a transcript of the episode in question it might help if a character quote about the behavior could be located. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the bit you contested, altered, and added to, I'm going to have to agree with Moni3, who is currently retired. From what I saw, Willow could teleport. And there are reliable sources that state that she could teleport; it seems to me that the teleport aspect is supported by the Driver source or Ruditis source. Moni3 was a big believer in not engaging in WP:Citation overkill, so it makes sense that she didn't add a citation for each portion of that paragraph. And it was one paragraph before you split it.

Side note: I altered the heading of this section by adding ": Teleportation" so that it's clear as to what this section is about. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I changed it from teleport to fly because the above commentary implied that 'teleport' was used to imply the act of flight, and Anya's commentary indicated Willow could only "go airborne" not teleport. It's been years since I've watched Buffy and I couldn't remember how much stronger Willow got so I'll take your word for it. Which episode does she teleport in though? Perhaps "Grave" if Anya is thinking she can't do it in "Two to Go" ? Ideally if dialogue in the show actually says she could teleport that would be awesome but if not (perhaps she is shown doing it but nobody comments) then a reference describing this would work.

Which page of the Ruditis source mentions it? It only gives a range of 145-153 ... perhaps a specific page and excerpt? That cite confused me until I searched it and found Paul Ruditis' volume 3 Watchers Guide in the bibliography. Without an excerpt it's not totally clear how much of what precedes it it is supporting though.

Driver page 81 is cited 4 sentences prior to the "she floats" sentence so re-referencing that page again next to the claim wouldn't hurt if it does support it. Anya's quote in TTG makes it clear that at that point she hadn't personally seen Willow teleport if she was already capable of doing so. Perhaps the fly>Tport thing is a power upgrade which is exhibited at a specific moment, in which case it's ideal if we can make sure it's properly placed in the order of events. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Public pencil practice

Is it worth a mention of Willow practicing her telekinetic abilities by levitating and rotating a pencil? I saw a clip of her doing this out in public with people milling around next to Buffy who is doing crunches. Not sure what episode it was since it happened during a fan music video on YouTube.

It seemed odd since if anyone looked in their direction and payed particular attention they might have noticed it. Like for example if either had a stalker or secret admirer or even someone taking a casual interest in the more-noticeable crunching Buffy.

I suppose nobody noticing might be explained by some kind of protective charm pre-cast to hide it but without evidence of that (would have to see if Willow mentions anything to that effect in the ep) it looks like she is recklessly displaying her supernatural powers where anyone might notice. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Willow Rosenberg. 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/20110716083945/http://www.slayageonline.com/PDF/battis.pdf to http://slayageonline.com/PDF/battis.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717034222/http://slayageonline.com/PDF/McAvan.pdf to http://slayageonline.com/PDF/McAvan.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afterellen.com/TV/2010/3/top-fifty-lesbian-bisexual-characters?page=0%2C1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afterellen.com/content/2012/02/afterellencoms-top-50-favorite-female-tv-characters?page=0%2C13

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) 20:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Willow Rosenberg. 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/20120309225549/http://www.ugo.com/tv/best-tv-nerds to http://www.ugo.com/tv/best-tv-nerds

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) 22:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)