Talk:Fray (comics)

Dicdef

Fray (military): combat area, line of fire. "The officers lead their troops into the fray." Possible origin: The battle order was torn up or frayed under enemy fire.

This is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. —Paul A 08:07, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I pulled his section out, as a dicdef, and not a helpful disambig. -- Netoholic @ 03:55, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

In textiles, fraying refers to the way wovens begin to come apart at the edge: the weave becomes undone and threads pull out easily. See also * pinking shears

My Theory

Here's what I think happened to all those slayers that got activated got dwindled down to one slayer.

Remember that Joss Whedon original wanted the line to run through Buffy and Faith. When Buffy died, Dawn existed as her, possibly the other slayer. But, since Dawn hasn't seen action, the line only went through Faith. So as many slayers were chosen and called, the line only went through Faith. and over the years, the numbers of slayers dwindled. So at one era, there were many slayers until the 26th century where only one existed.

And the scythe may have been in one of the New York Slayers' possession.

-Tommy--AmokMyth 03:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Several things are wrong with your theory: first, Dawn was not a Potential. This was actually addressed in one of the season seven episodes. And people would have noticed if she had become a Slayer, because she would have gained superhuman abilities. So the Dawn=Slayer business? Does not fit, so I'm not sure where you're going with it. It was also made pretty clear that it's Buffy's mystical resurrection that caused the Slayer line to screw up, not her second death (I always wondered if another Slayer was called at her death, but canon evidence seems to suggest that nothing happened, hence, the line WOULD go only through Faith, though why the previous death/resurrection would be any less disruptive than the mystical one, I have no idea). And there's a VERY simple reason for why "the numbers of Slayers dwindled" (btw, please caps Slayer; it's not just a word, it's a title, and it's capitilized in canon!): Slayers do not pass on their powers to offpsring. Robin Wood is proof of this. Heck, the Potentials are proof of this, since even though they show some special signs of being a Potential Slayer (dreams, a bit of instinct when it comes to fighting), they can't become full-fledged Slayers without some mystical trigger, either the death of the Slayer in line immediately in front of them or a spell such as the one Willow used in "Chosen".

In any case, so yes, simple explanation for there being only one Slayer: all the previous Potentials who had had their Slayer powers awakened during Buffy's time simply died, as you'd expect them to eventually do (some probably even of natural causes, since estimates range in the hundreds or more for the number of Potentials). Actual full-fledged Slayer abilties clearly have to be awakened through mystical means, anyway - again, either the previous Slayer dies or there's a spell that does it - so even if there were a "Potential Slayer" gene, it has a very good chance of doing pretty much nothing unless it has the mystical activation, which since there were no demons left in this world, there would not have been a need for.

Side note - this ain't Star Trek. Fray does NOT take place in the "26th" century. It takes place in either the 24th or 23rd century, since it's been two centuries since the 21st century demonic banishment. Please double-check your numbers or learn to count. I just lent out my copy, so I can't check if they listed which century it was, but it was made pretty damn clear that it was about two centuries since the 21st century. Depending on how exact it was and what point of the 21st century they speak of, it could be the dawn of the 24th or it could be the 23rd. Somebody with a copy still on them should double-check.

I do, however, like your theory regarding the scythe. Simple, but actually makes sense. Or perhaps the demons Urkonn gets his orders from stole it or were originally guarding it. 63.21.81.221 09:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a nice theory, but in the Buffy finale, as the Potentials were being awakened, Buffy clearly stated, "From now on, every girl in the world who might be a Slayer will be a Slayer," which tends to make me think that from that point on, all Potentials would become Slayers...so there would have to be another reason for there only being one Slayer. Either that, or Buffy was just wrong...*gasp*

Icthyos 20:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User:63.21.81.221 is right, the simplest explanation is that no Potential Slayers were born for a long time because there was no need for them. However, it is ironic that he or she wrote that bit about this not being Star Trek, since Star Trek actually takes place in the 23rd and 24th centuries, not the 26th. -- Noneofyourbusiness 00:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that confusion happened partly because Star Trek's portrayal of human advancement is much farther along than Fray's - thus feeling like surely it must be set further in the future, even if it isn't actually. A better contrast reference might have been Firefly, which actually did take place in the early 2500's A.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.16.168 (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Apocalypse

This article addresses that the apocalyptic battle described in Fray, and how it was never shown on Buffy or Angel. However, its evidence that the battle in Not Fade Away did not herald the beginning of this apocalypse is that comics set afterwards do not show evidence of a cataclysm. However, those comics aren't canon. I'm editing that section to remove the references to the comics. Alpha5099 06:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Buffy Season Eight (canonical post-season seven comics series) is apparently going to address it eventually... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.16.168 (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Expansion?

Would anyone consider making articles for Melaka Fray and Harth Fray, would there be enough information? Zythe 14:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think they both do not justify articles of their own and should be covered within this article. See WP:FICT. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for answering :) Zythe 15:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just fleshed out Mel's article at the Buffyverse wiki and linked to it on the article. That way, fans wanting to see a character page can have one, but we aren't making unnecessary articles on Wikipedia. :)  Paul  730 01:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I just reverted that, according to the policy on External Links, which says they shouldn't be in the body of the article. We're also apparently discouraged from linking to wikis unless they're very stable or edited by a significantly large number of people. --Nalvage (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw. Hmm, I would debate this issue. We're not using the external link/other wiki as a source, so I don't see how the stability of it matters. Buffyverse wiki is far from perfect, but it's a work in progress, as is Wikipedia. We encourage transwiking here on Wikipedia - moving unsuitable material to appropiate wikies (as mentioned at WP:WAF#Alternative outlets for fictional universe articles and WP:FICT#Relocating non-notable fictional material. How can we tell people that some edits are only suitable at whatever wiki if we're not allowed to link there? A Melaka Fray article on Wikipedia is not neccessary at this time, so linking to the Buffyverse wiki is a solution for those who expect one. Not doing so only encourages them to write fancruft/giant plot summaries here.  Paul  730 01:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would say that the WikiProject Buffyverse is a pretty active community, and if it's a wiki that contains duplicate editors (i.e. a Wikia that was established by the Buffyverse editors) then it's probably ok. Buffy is a little harder to measure because they have multiple wikias. There has been some recent debate about possible opening a discussion to reword WP:EL, because of the idea that we don't want to discourage editors from editing Wikipedia when we say "sorry, too much plot, try a wikia", and then say "but don't link it to us." Also, we don't delink Wikipedia pages that have lousy activity. Since Wikipedia articles are supposed to be comprehensive--at least, that's an FA criteria, so that makes it an every article criteria--but at the same time Wiki isn't a plot summary, nor a repository of links, I think if a given WikiProject has consensus on what Wikia is to be used as the "official" (I used that word lightly, given the idea behind officiality) Wikia for that project, then its inclusion would be a necessary one. I say this because, to be comprehensive, that would include a good deal of plot information about the character, but as a converse, that is the type of information not necessarily the most important to an encyclopedia when you think about the readability of an article given its size. So, a Wikia becomes a necessary evil to have. This idea of "if it's really active" becomes illogical, because a Wikia that's active at one moment can be inactive another. If you include it in an article at one point, but remove it later just because there has not been recent activity then it doesn't make sense. People come and go all the time, and if something is good enough to be there at one point--unless standards change, which really only happens to the content "inside" Wikipedia--then it is going to be good enough later, regardless of how many people edit the pages. Now, i don't know which Wikia this is, or if Buffyverse even has a specific Wikia they like to use, but as I stated before, it's a necessary evil to have in order to keep the peace.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Buffyverse Wiki (which is on Wikia) is more active and much better quality the Buffy Wiki (which seems to have turned into a depository for spam). I've readded the Mel link in the "External links".  Paul  730 02:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My main concern was with using links in the body of the article, which has now been dealt with. Having said that, arguing that the Buffyverse Wiki is "more active" than some other wiki is not arguing much at all. The Buffyverse Wiki's page on the show itself has only been edited by six people in the last year, nine in the last two years. Xander's page currently consists of a mere two sentences. With few exceptions, the articles seem to have either significantly less content than here at Wikipedia, or to be simple cut-and-paste jobs from this site. I'm not seeing anything to make it a notable place worth linking to, beyond its role as an occasional pet project for a couple of Wiki editors. External links need to be of a certain standard. I also think it's optimistic to imagine that this will stem fancruft. The inclusion of a link gives no indication of what's inappropriate here versus what's appropriate there. We can of course encourage people to take fancruft to this wiki, but since that encouragement wouldn't be taking place in the article anyway, it hardly matters if we can't add a link there. And you guys are such sticklers for policy elsewhere... ;) --Nalvage (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing that the Buffyverse wiki is active enough that it currently passes WP:EL. I was responding to Bignole's comment that the Buffy Wikiproject should pick one "official" wiki to transwiki to, since there are two. Buffyverse Wiki is better than Buffy Wiki, so I recommend that we continue linking to that rather than the other one, that's all. The reason I support linking to that wiki is because I'm such a stickler for policy. I'd rather see that site serve it's purpose rather than see Wikipedia full of in-universe Buffyverse info. I've already moved info from the current Buffy and Faith articles to the Buffyverse wiki, so that when I'm finished rewriting those articles, fans can still have access to the information that I plan to delete (such as the lenghty character histories and relationship sections). I don't see why both sites can't work in conjuction with each other to provide both encyclopedic information and in-universe detail - provided it's in the right place.  Paul  730 03:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a stickler for policy, and guidelines as well, but when it comes to overuse of IU information, the lesser of two evils is to have a Wikia link for that type of information then getting into pissing contests with editors who want that IU information in the encyclopedic article. It's easier to say, "that type of info really needs to go to this site, here's a link", then battling edits all the time. Of course, you're going to do that regardless, but I like to think that most new people aren't here to cause disruption, and if you tell them once that there is a better place for that level of detail they are usually quick to say "thanks" and go over to that page and add it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul> The Buffyverse Wiki is only better than the Buffy Wiki by virtue of the fact that the latter is a kind of post-apocalyptic wiki-wasteland. It's still in an extremely poor state. As I said, I see no reason to think that the existence of a link to another wiki will prevent people adding in-universe info here, and the removal of such a link certainly won't prevent you from shifting in-universe info there.

Bignole> I agree with your comment, and can only refer you back to when I said, "We can of course encourage people to take fancruft to this wiki, but since that encouragement wouldn't be taking place in the article anyway, it hardly matters if we can't add a link there". Saying to someone, "that type of info really needs to go to this site, here's a link" would occur on their talk page, so being unable to add that link to the article hardly matters. The key difference is that the former would be just suggesting a place for them to add their info, whereas the latter implies that Wikipedia considers the site notable/worthwhile. In the case of the Buffyverse Wiki, it currently isn't. And I can't believe I've written so much on this, I must be in a tetchy mood. I'll grab a coffee, see if I can't boost that up to belligerent. --Nalvage (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I know they're both wastelands, I'm not defending BVW's (sick of typing it's full name) current state. Personally, I'm hoping that once I've moved some more Wikipedia stuff over there and then subsequently deleted that info from here, it'll pick up, because there'll actually be something to edit over there. Nobody edits there becasue Wikipedia is currently serving the purpose that BVW should. Currently, links to BVW aren't much use, because there's nothing there. But once we transwiki stuff, there will be a reason. I wouldn't have bothered linking Mel if I hadn't just fleshed out her article over on BVW. I only linked Harth as well for the sake of it, and haven't bothered reinstating that link. If, after info has been deleted from here, somebody comes along looking for, say, a "Relationships" section, a link on that page can take them to that information. By providing them with access to the info they want, they might not feel the need to duplicate it here. Maybe that's optimistic, and it'll take ages to properly impliment (ie, when I've finished rewriting the pages), but that's my plan anyay. :)  Paul  730 04:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Nalvage, you forget about those who just read the articles. If they read the whole thing, they'll see the link to the Wikia and possibly read further. As for the idea that something is considered "notable/worthwile", when it isn't in good shape...have you seen some of the articles on Wikipedia? How about when we link to words or concepts, in an effort have an avenue that explains them when it wouldn't be appropriate to do so on the page it is being linked...but when you get to the intended page, it's fully of crap. Wikia's, when you are dealing with fictional articles, are really just extensions of the Wikipedia article itself. It could easily be considered a "subpage" for that article, one that just needs work. Are we here to say "that's not good enough, so we aren't going to link to it?" We don't hold back other articles that link to horrible Wikipedia pages. The link doesn't necessarily invoke the meaning that we are saying that page is worthwhile, but more that that page contains further, in-depth information on the character that would otherwise be unnecessary in an encyclopedia, but still relevant to the character. If the page sucks, post a note somewhere requesting that some editors go over and clean it up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Paul> Currently, links to BVW aren't much use, because there's nothing there. But once we transwiki stuff, there will be a reason. I wouldn't have bothered linking Mel if I hadn't just fleshed out her article over on BVW.

You also apparently linked Willow, Xander, Giles, Cordelia, Spike... and possibly more pages, months ago, when those articles hadn't been remotely fleshed out (and they still haven't). And I completely agree that links are pointless because there's nothing there.

Bignole> have you seen some of the articles on Wikipedia?

So because poor articles are linked in other cases, that supports poor articles being linked now. I bet you a shiny nickel that's a type of argument you have derided many times when made by others. Wikipedia has policies designed to improve poor articles on its own site. It can't have policies to improve poor articles on other sites, so instead it has a policy to not link to them.

Are we here to say "that's not good enough, so we aren't going to link to it?"

Undoubtedly yes. External links are removed every day for reasons of policy or quality, and the notion that any site should be included if it provides "further, in-depth information", regardless of quality, opens the floodgates to nigh on every bad external link people want to shoehorn in, including my forthcoming opus detailing every time Tara used a word beginning with a vowel, and what facial expression she had while doing it. Speaking of in-depth information, here's the wiki in question's page on Buffy's first episode. Soak up that knowledge. That's not in-depth information, and nor is it the fancruft utopia we're hoping to dangle as a carrot in front of people. It's a barely-touched page on a half-assed little wiki that Paul's taken a personal shine to and wants to improve. In the last day he's made precisely eleventy billion edits over at that wiki, and they're needed because it's very much in its useless infancy. Maybe it'll eventually match the criteria that policy demands, and maybe one bright day Xander's article will get that elusive third sentence. Who knows. Live the dream. Thankfully I'm rapidly closing in on the point where I stop caring either way and cheerfully let the whole thing go, but it's very clearly an instance of policy and value being ignored, purely because a Wikipedia editor spends some time at that site and hopes to divert traffic there. Tsk.

What's with the sarcasm Nalvage? I'm trying to be polite here, but it's like you're trying to make this personal. Yes, I've been editing that other wiki in the hopes of improving it. Yes, I'm trying to delete innappropiate material from here and move it somewhere where it is appropiate. That became a bad thing, when exactly? Like I said before, why can't the two sites work in conjunction with each other to serve their respective purposes? Yes, I linked Willow and Xander months ago, because that was before I was aware of WP:EL. Now I'm trying to improve the wiki articles before I link to them, what's the crime in that? I'm trying to please everyone because I know there's going to be uproar from Buffy fans when the gazillion-word plot summaries get deleted from Wikipedia. We link to sites like Wikiquote and Wiktionary all the time because they provide info Wikipedia doesn't or shouldn't.  Paul  730 03:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nalvage, you're making a mountain out of a mole hill about this, you are aware of that right? Just because the Wikia page isn't in good shape doesn't mean that it should be neglected until it is in better shape. If the link is present, you're more likely to draw editors to it, than you are if you reserve it for only talk page discussion. Also, keep the snive comments to yourself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Any sarcasm should be construed as a result of my general personality, and an attempt to make this discussion lighter than a tedious policy squabble. No insult intended. Moving inappropriate info elsewhere is a very good thing, and I've never suggested otherwise. The existence of a link to a currently-poor wiki will not prevent gnashing of teeth when content is deleted. The existence of those links on the pages of Willow, Xander, Cordelia etc. for the last few months has not had any noticeable effect on either the level of fancruft or the quality of the articles being linked to, and I still don't see why it would. Maybe it'll be a great wiki at some point in the future, it's not now. And linking to sites we *know* are poor in the hope that we can help them improve is not how to approach external links. I think we've all been shovelling onto this molehill, but I'm happy to step off. --Nalvage (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If the Xander/Willow/Cordy links bother you so much then delete them. I'll reinstate them later when there's actually something on those pages. Maybe a link to the deleted content won't help, but I'm trying to compromise because fans will still want access to it and I want them to have that access. I can understand your point that links are currently pointless, I said as much myself above. That's why I was making "eleventy billion" edits over there, so they're not pointless and will eventually have some use.  Paul  730 04:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul, I think your edits over there are the only things giving it the scrap of value it currently has, and I apologise if my tone made it seem like I was pinning my opinion of that site on you. My first comment here was an incredibly brief reminder of a very innocuous wiki rule, and in response, yikes, hundreds of words from yourself and Bignole, editors whose contributions I've seen numerous times (since our interests seem to overlap) and who are always very strictly in keeping with the rules, even more so than myself. That response, to something so unimportant, surprised me, and so I tried to match it in terms of how in-depth I made mine in turn. The sarcasm kicked in at the point where I became embarrassed for us all being here. --Nalvage (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fyral?

Okay, how do we know that Fray's mentor was a Fyral demon? Was it ever actually mentioned? From what we've seen on Buffy, Fyarels are dim-witted hired muscle to other demons, including vampires. Urkonn hated vampires. Also he seemed to be pretty smart, coming up with createve ways to get the job done. Sure Urkonn looked similar to a Fyarrl demon, but the personality just doesnt match.

I aggree, and actually the only thing Urkonn really has in common with a Fyral are the curving horns. Urkonn had cloven feet and goat-like legs and knees. The only Fyral we've ever seen possessed neither of these qualities. Besides that, it was never mentioned specifically and should be stricken simply because we don't know if it's true. (for some reason my account won't work, but my name is StarlightFalling)

Fair use rationale for Image:Longwayhomeandrew.jpg

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Twilight

Other references include the first opening line in the first issue the FRAY miniseries comic, in which the big bad of Season 8 (Twilight) is referenced by name, in a line depicting that he is responsible not only for the death of all slayers (possibly including Buffy) but also the so called "death of magic".

This new paragraph cries out for my copy-editing skilz, but first I wanted to check its accuracy. Now, in my copy of Fray the only entities mentioned by name in the first four pages are Urkonn and Melaka. Where is Twilight mentioned? —Tamfang (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's rubbish. Possibly someone adding their vague memory of reading Fray in light of Season Eight. I'll remove it completely.  Paul  730 10:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no cover

It's not even a link!----occono (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Original publication date of Issue #1

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote an e-mail to Dark Horse Comics asking them for the date of the original publication of the first issue since this information wasn't available on their website (unlike the other dates). Well, I just received the answer (June 1, 2001) and updated the article accordingly. I meant to put it here since it can't be directly referenced like the other dates.
• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ ^{KLAT} • 19:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Loo being a mutant

I just reverted the word "mutant" from Loo's description, as it's never stated that she is one. Yes, she has one fully developed arm and one not fully developed, but she's never described as being a mutant. I think it's OR to describe her that way. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 18:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with characterizing Loo as a mutant (or "radie") is original research. Other observers describe Loo as "mutated" (Blogcritics) & (Buffy Wiki) or as "radie" (Buffy Wiki about radies) & (Buffy Wiki about Loo) or as "severely affected by the radiation" (The Watchers' Guide "Loo" entry). The problem would be finding a reliable source instead of a wiki or blog that outright states "Loo is a radie/mutant." Not sure if Blogcritics is a reliable source or not (though I assume that the Buffy Wiki is not).--Shearonink (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 16 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

---

• Fray → Fray (comic)
• Fray (disambiguation) → Fray

– How many issues did this comic have? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - no evidence of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support not primary 76.120.162.73 (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fray (comics). 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/20070824134352/http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=12394812 to http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=12394812

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)