Jump to content

Talk:Angel (1999 TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeAngel (1999 TV series) was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 15, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Opening credits

[edit]

There are a few whispered words (in a woman's voice) to the end of the opening credits, pretty much throughout the whole series. Unfortunately I don't understand what they are. Can anyone shed some light on that? Thanks. -- 79.192.208.104 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think its probably the voice of one of the members of band Darling Violettas. The voice is heard more in the complete version Giogiotavares (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Buffyverse objects closing in a few hours

[edit]

FYI Ikip (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plot summary mess

[edit]

The plot summary badly needs cleaning up, or cutting out altogether. I mean take this sentence:

"She arrives in our world through manipulation of Cordelia and Connor, using them as a conduit into our world"

Who would ever know from this sentence that Jasmine was the child of Connor and Cordelia, born as the result of a Rosemary's-Baby type plot? CharlesTheBold (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angels?

[edit]

Is there an article about mythological and biblical angels? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.17.47 (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try angel? If that's not what you're after, try angel (disambiguation). —Tamfang (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subliminal Foreshadowing

[edit]

I'm not really sure if this something to mention in the article, however, I have noticed that there quite a numerous ammount of "forshadowing subliminals" and at least one "Buffy Subliminal" in Season One of Angel. (I only own season one on DVD.) These can be freeze-framed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.95.59 (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you referring to specifically? Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The flashes between scenes/acts in season 1 episodes. They depicted scenes to come in the episodes or later in the season (as with the Buffy example). Kusonaga (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give specific examples of it? Because I just remember the flashes feature shots of Los Angeles. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will reveiew for specific episode numbers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.95.59 (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Season 3 - Angel is NOT in Sri Lanka!!

[edit]

I changed the article about the third season - It's not true that Angel is in SriLanka! I watched the beginning of season three today: Gunn mentioned that a trip to Sri Lanka wouldn't help angel to come over his big loves death. But after the scene where angels is showed fighting he's NOT talking singhalese or any other language spoken in SriLanka. Even the peolpe he talks to don't look like SriLankan People, Tamil or else. to me they seem to be Chinese or maybe japanese, I'm not sure. But he does not stay in Sri Lanka ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.182.217.34 (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well their are not that many SriLankan actors/actresses.

Majinsnake (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And not many Hollywood crew who'd know the difference :/ —Tamfang (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yearly ratings coment pov

[edit]

The statement in the opening section that "In two of the four seasons when both shows were in production, Buffy's overall yearly ratings were higher than Angel's" strikes me as being pov. It is also essentially meaningless, as if Buffy had higher ratings for two out of four years, then equaly Angel must have also had higher ratings for the other two years, making both shows equal in this respect. It would be much more npov to state that both shows had two years of higher ratings. To focus on Buffy in this way gives the impression that it had higher ratings than Angel altogether. I suggest this be changed or removed. Any opinions? 213.246.99.70 (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've always found that last paragraph in the lead a little awkward and unnecessary. First it says the show had a darker atmosphere, in a very small sentence, then says the ratings between the two shows—which is totally unrelated. Any ratings comparisons should be moved to the U.S. ratings subsection in article, it doesn't really belong in the lead. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Why is the reference to the Hero episode in the Season one section done as a citation rather than a direct Wikipedia Hero_(Angel) link? Can someone direct me to a Wikipedia guideline on this subject (assuming it's correct?) Thanks! —Durron597 (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say there's any hard guidelines about that, such as using cite episode for plot summaries. They're useful in a longer plot synopsis (for example, a season) that doesn't mention episode titles. For example, if the article was under review, it's possible the reviewer might want citations for plot. From MOS:TV, "Since the episode is the primary source and the infobox provides details about it, citing the episode explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary." As for the citation itself, it's a bit odd given there's no other cite episode references in the plot summary. If you like, you could remove the reference and simply add a Wiki-link, I doubt anyone would object. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks! I changed it. Mostly I didn't like that you had to click twice to see the referred episode. —Durron597 (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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: page moved. Consensus (and the additional South Korean show in the hatnote) indicates a need for further disambiguation. Miniapolis 12:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Angel (TV series) → Angel (1999 TV series) – There exists an article entitled Angel (1960 TV series). We need further disambiguation for this, as we have two "(TV series)" that "Angel (TV series)" can equally apply to (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply to titles which are already disambiguated or partially disambiguated). Therefore this needs to be correctly disambiguated with the additional qualifier in order to distinguish it from the 1960 show. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A similar conversation happened over on Talk:Lost (TV series)#Requested move, in which it was opposed. This Angel series is clearly the primary topic of the two TV series'. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The editors involved clearly missed the point about disambiguation and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If you disambiguate, then you must disambiguate properly. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC only applies to un-disambiguated pages. Maybe Lost (TV series) needs to be re-nominated. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose This is a legalistic solution to a nonexistent problem. Last month, this page received over 100,000 views compared to 648 for the older series. Even making the absurd supposition that everyone looking for the 1960 show would have looked here first and used the hatnote, that still leaves tens of thousands of readers that got what they wanted here. This is precisely the sort of thing WP:IAR is for. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia"—in this case, following the rule is going to inconvenience a lot of readers. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unnecessary disambiguation; my reading of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC includes "second-level" disambiguation such as this. I could well believe a reader familiar with Wikipedia disambiguation styles would go directly to Angel (TV series), and they'd be much more likely to be looking for the 1999 series than the 1960 one. —me_and 16:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all editors like the idea of sub-primary topics, but they've been upheld in practice. See the recent RM at Talk:Thriller (album). --BDD (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; if an article needs a disambiguator it should be by definition unambiguous. Tassedethe (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Distinguish it from the other one. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if this isn't going to reside at the primary location, then it should not use an ambiguous disambiguator. The current title should become a disambiguation page (redirect to the disambiguation page) -- 17:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.76.126 (talk)
  • Oppose: If Angel (TV series) were to become a disambiguation page, you know how many hundreds upon hundreds of articles would have to updated to rectify this unnecessary change? It's so unbelievably counter-intuitive. I agree completely with the sentiments of BDD. Unless I'm misunderstanding it, doesn't WP:2DAB apply to this? As this is clearly the primary topic of a TV series called Angel, a hatnote on this article leading to the other much more unknown TV series is suffice enough. This article has been titled like this for over a decade, and the 1960 series article has been in existence for over 5 years, and no problems have existed since then. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:2DAB does not apply to this - Angel (disambiguation) would be the relevant disambiguation page, with a redirect from Angel (TV series) to Angel (disambiguation)#Television. Also note the existence of Angel (2007 TV series) (which I was not aware of until I just looked at the dab page then) - there is no easy way for readers to find this currently. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see "hundreds upon hundreds of articles" refers to editing incoming links.
Nevertheless this kind of ambiguous disambiguation appears rather unusual - so far we've only identified 3 more. I could go with BDD's WP:IAR for Kiss (band), but Angel (TV series) is that really WP:IAR territory or just WP:RECENT? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; partial disambiguation is misleading and unhelpful. Powers T 23:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. From a long term histoical perspective, the dominance of hits of one over the other is a matter of temporary recentism. BDD, I cannot see how people wanting tis TV series will be inconvenienced by being taken straight to Angel (1999 TV series); if anything they'll be advantaged because they'll go there with more confidence that they are going where they want to go. –-SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Angel (1999 TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Angel (1999 TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Angel (1999 TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

  • 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) 22:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angel_(1999_TV_series)&oldid=1242226373"