Talk:Jenny Calendar

is that really her?

What a strange picture. Where did it come from? —Tamfang 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• It's definitely her, although I agree it's a strange choice. Most of the pictures for Buffyverse characters are either from an episode or publicity shots. That's clearly a publicity shot, but I don't think it was for Buffy. I find it especially peculiar as the page for Robia LaMorte is a shot of Jenny Calendar that'd be more approriate here. Alpha5099 07:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Voilà, I exchanged the two. —Tamfang 19:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought the picture was supposed to be changed. I'm still looking at a publicity shot (and one of the least flattering I've ever seen -- she's a beautiful lady and has taken much better head shots than this). For a long time, the shot here and the one on Robia's actor page were the same shot, the screen shot of her as Jenny that's currently on her actor page. Why not go back to having the same shot (the Jenny Calendar screen shot) on both pages again? 138.162.5.9 15:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Born-again Christian

The trivia entry regarding Robia LaMorte becoming a born-again Christian is not entirely accurate. It insinuates that Robia did not become a Christian until after her time on Buffy (at a minimum, after her primary run). Robia actually became born again during the hiatus between the first and second seasons. Except for her appearances in "I Robot You Jane" and "Prophecy Girl," Robia was a Christian for the entire time she was on the show.Nolefan32 18:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

To NeilEvans and anyone else who feels the need to delete factual information without bothering to check its accuracy, I give you Robia LaMorte's trivia page from IMDb (http://imdb.com/name/nm0478750/bio), which lists the exact same data I had posted and you chose to delete unfounded. Now, see, I tried to be nice and include some information that made the original trivia entry (about Robia LaMorte being a born-again Christian) relevant, as this is a page about the character of Jenny Calendar and not about the actress who plays her (Robia has her own page). Considering that Jenny Calendar is a technopagan and not a born-again Christian, the entry as it stood (and as you tried to revert it back to) thus has no relevance. I could have just deleted the original trivia entry altogether, due to its lack of relevance, but instead I tried to make it relevant. Now admittedly I don't have the necessary knowledge to create a tag for every single little piece of nit-noid info that I post, and I do apologize for that. Would you rather I just follow your lead and go around randomly deleting other people's entries? Nolefan32 00:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to your comments above, if you want to add info that you say is factual then it is your responsibility to also add a verifiable source. Stating the IMDB page, is not really enough as the info on those pages are added by members and could be false.--NeilEvans 00:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Nolefan. Unfortunately IMDB's trivia pages don't qualify as reliable sources since any unsourced and dubious info can be submitted. Something more reliable, like an interview with Robia, would be required. If that information can be found, it'd probably fit best on the page for "Amends." I agree with you that the comment on Robia's faith is not particularly relevant here, and I've removed it. --Nalvage 00:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a moot point now that Nalvage has deleted the trivia altogether (which, BTW, I'm comfortable with because, as noted, the trivia as it stood wasn't relevant to the character, it's a factoid about the actress who plays her and rightfully appears on her page - my only desire was to make it more relevant rather than deleting someone else's entry). As for the data on the IMDb page, sorry if you didn't think that was good enough. I've known Robia for about six years and have been present on many occasions when she's discussed the topic publicly and privately, but I believe that comes under the heading of "personal research" (I think that's the term) and thus can't be listed because it can't be verified. It is something she has discussed frequently, though, in interviews. For example, she eludes to it (though not as clearly as some might like) in an interview that appears in Buffy the Vampire Slayer Magazine #14 (Aug/Sep 04). She did another interview in the Christian e-zine Infuze in Aug 2004 where she states the same thing, this time more clearly and in greater detail. I just went with the IMDb entry because it was the most readily accessible. Hopefully that's satisfactory for the "delete first and ask questions never" crowd. Nolefan32 02:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the relevance of the actress's religion in an article on the fictional character? None. Glad to see it got deleted. --kingboyk (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have heard that it possibly contributed to her eventual decision not to continue with/reappear on the show, which could be one piece of relevance, but I don't know if that's confirmable.

Also, what's with the "Ms.Calendar is my father" line? Is there a typo? If that's the way it was said onscreen, it doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.144.231 (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

An easy re-direct

I'm going to tighten up this article, make it brief and succinct, so that it can be re-directed to the whichever list of Buffy characters people think it should be on. It won't be as easy to deal with some of the others on the hit list, but I'll get started here.Also, I don't know how to do the re-directing, so will just note here that I'm done, and someone who knows how to do it properly can take it from there If anyone has comments to make re this article, this is the time to do it. --TEHodson 23:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Lists are intended to facilitate navigation to articles, not the reverse. I therefore oppose your proposition. Warden (talk) 07:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a stack of hits on google books, I get lots of previews here in Oz but don't know what others in the US see. However, I've never seen much of the series. There's stuff like gender discussion - her role in developing Giles' character etc. The irony of her death Interesting. If no-one in the US can see these due to copyright, I'll try to add, but it'd be better from someone familiar with the series. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: I'd oppose a redirect too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Another editor has been tag-bombing this article without starting discussion here. The edit summary last time was "we have two sentences of real world info in the article (on is practically trivia) and one reference: unref tag was outdated though, thanks for catching it". These reasons are both false and insufficient to support such indiscriminate banner tags. The article already has more than two sentences of real-world information: it tells us about the actress; the seasons and episodes; the costume; the production reason for the name; the dramatic impact of her death; the authors. As for citations, these are only required when information is controversial or otherwise dubious. Articles do not require inline citations for every word as a matter of course and you will find this fundamental principle well-established in the relevant core policy. It is therefore unacceptable to demand citations without indicating the particular points which require them. This is best done with a {{fact}} tag inline, not by an indiscriminate banner. Warden (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The other bit to add I saw was the symbolism and possible psychological origin behind Buffy's case of the 'flu after Calendar dies (that was in one of the commentaries)...as Buffy is never supposed to get sick. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

At least one of those tags had been on the article for years (2009); no one just "tag-bombed" the article. Please keep in mind that tagging the article with one's concerns is the first step in the process of a possible re-direct, so it would be a good idea to cut out the injured tone, as though someone has done something absurd. If you've read the entire discussion on the Buffyverse page, you know that we have been trying to get everyone to follow the proper steps in this process, and tagging is the first step. They were not "indiscrimminate" either, but very much on point. And I'm not sure they aren't still relevant. Do you have access to any of the books that Moni has listed in the references on the new Joyce Summers article? I have yet to copyedit it, but it's about done.

So far this article does not even remotely reflect the level of scholarship of Moni's new Joyce Summers article, and it is likely due to lack of scholarly material on the subject, which is why it still may end up being re-directed. I have an important thing to add, which I will do tonight when I have the time to get the source info. Re Buffy's flu--are you talking about the "Killed by Death" episode? I have and can check the commentary, too. I don't recall anything about Buffy's never getting sick; she has "accelerated healing abilities" but I've never heard anyone say that means she is immune from disease, and I definitely don't recall any connection to Jenny's death. Please clarify. But I am having a hard time seeing this article as anything but a rather long-winded version of the paragraph I expanded on the List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. I'm not sure it'll ever meet notability requirements.--TEHodson 19:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

And please explain how, even if Buffy's flu turns out to somehow be relevant to Jenny's death, this is of any interest to anyone but the most diehard Buffy fan? It's this sort of fan cruft that keeps getting these articles tagged and criticized. In my opinion (and it's just my opinion), the only really important thing about Jenny Calendar from the point of view of Television Studies or whatever, is her death. It was fairly unprecendented to have a prominent and sympathetic character killed in this manner, i.e. casually, for fun and entertainment, by the show's main character's lover. And the reasons she was killed (and the manner of her death) were important and Joss has commented on them many times. That info is in my paragraph on the List page. I didn't put it in here because I thought we were re-directing this article, but I will get it in tonight, in case the decision is to keep the article.--TEHodson 21:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Article rewrite

I'm going to be working on rewriting this article over the next several days, using a sandbox you can find here.

I'm not sure how much material is devoted to Calendar. I did see some beyond the episode summaries. I guess we'll know in a few days. --Moni3 (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I just saw this--I'm going to bring over the paragraph re her death.--TEHodson 19:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As you know, I've been out of commission but will be back soon. In the meantime I had a friend who has NO knowledge of Buffy or the Buffyverse look at this article because it seemed to me that there were still some "in-universe" bits that I wasn't sure how to solve. The biggest glitch she found was the "cursed with a soul" sentence re Angel. She could not imagine what that meant, nor could she follow the relationship to Angel in general, although by the end of the article she had some understanding of it. But the opening paragraphs lost her entirely. Do you want to take a crack at a brief but more thorough explanation, or shall I do it when I do the editing?--TEHodson 23:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Just in the lead or in the body too? --Moni3 (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It was specifically the question: "How can one be cursed with a soul? Doesn't everyone have a soul already?" So I explained that no, vampires have lost theirs and that therefore feel no remorse about killing, and that after the events with the gypsy girl Angel's had been conjured from the beyond and forced back into him, leading to a lifetime of regret and suffering, etc., you know the story. She said, "And I'm supposed to understand all that from the phrase 'cursed with a soul'? It is a meaningless phrase without all that explanation." I asked her because she's a good critical thinker, and that's what I wanted. She also couldn't follow the "true happiness" bit, either, so I think it might be good to keep that out of the lead altogether and go into it in appropriate detail in the body of the article. That's what I was thinking of doing, but didn't want to make such a drastic change without running it by you first.--TEHodson 23:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. --Moni3 (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I just re-wrote the lead paragraphs, making their focus more about the relationship between Angel and Jenny's presence in Sunnydale. I think it will read more coherently now to those unfamiliar with the show. I'm signing off for the night, but will return to work on the rest of the article tomorrow.--TEHodson 04:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Phew! And that's a short article. I will look at it again tomorrow--I'm about blind. I have a couple of questions, but can't remember them at the moment. Hope you are happy with what I've done.--TEHodson 05:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Moni, you ask that others share in the workload and ask that they share their own point of view, but then revert things you think are unnecessary. This makes working with you difficult. I think the beginning paragraph of the Death section as I wrote it is meaningful. Otherwise you have no explanation for why Giles should expect Jenny to be in his bed (the last thing we've read is that they're not even speaking), and their first conversation supplies one. Also, Jenny has declared her love for him--this is a pretty important thing to note on her character page. You also have no context for Angel's leaving what Spike calls a "gag gift" in Giles' bed. I can't imagine why you should have any trouble following those three or four sentences. I have let you know that I plan to read and start content-editing to a greater degree, but I worry that doing so will inevitably lead to more disagreements between us. You have done much; now please allow me some editorial input. It's what you've been asking for. I am going to put it back as I wrote it.--TEHodson 22:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

By the episode "Passion" it has become clear that Angelus is targeting Buffy's friends and family and has, in Giles' words, "regained his sense of whimsy"; Giles warns Jenny to beware in their first real conversation since estrangement (during which she tells him she has fallen in love with him and they agree to meet later). Despite the improbability of success and without telling Giles or Buffy, Jenny attempts to restore Angel's soul by using her computer to translate the ancient curse.

It's not clear here that Giles is being sardonic. That doesn't translate through Wikipedia--or the Internet. The sentence starting "Giles warns Jenny..." is confusing, even for me and I've seen the series.

It's not that I think there's no value in including this information. Just that it is confusing for readers. I think there's a better way to say it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I added a more clear explanation. See what you think now. Thank you for acknowleding my contribution.--TEHodson 22:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Try this:

By the episode "Passion" it has become clear that Angelus is targeting Buffy's friends and family and has, in Giles' words, "regained his sense of whimsy", demonstrated by petty cruelties that keep them all unsettled and frightened. In their first real conversation since their estrangement, Jenny admits to Giles that she has fallen in love with him, and they agree to meet later before he cautions Jenny to beware of Angelus. Despite the improbability of success—and without telling Giles or Buffy—Jenny attempts to restore Angel's soul by translating the ancient curse on her computer. Upon learning what she is doing, Angelus destroys the computer, taunts Jenny, then laughs as he chases her through the school, finally killing her by snapping her neck. He then takes Jenny's body to Giles' apartment and arranges it as if she is awaiting him in his bedroom for a romantic encounter, leaving Giles to find her dead.

"dead in his bed" makes a serious moment unintentionally funny by rhyming. That's why I took it out. I don't mind "body in his bed", but "dead in his bed" is an opener for a jaunty little tune. --Moni3 (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you scroll down in edit mode to the button that says "Insert" and arrow down to "Wiki markup", there are links for the endash and emdash. I see you're using double hyphens. You can click on the second (what looks like a longer) hyphen in "Wiki markup" to get the emdash. Or see this. --Moni3 (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Moni, you'd be one ghoulish songwriter! Thanks for the emdash info. I have somehow missed how to do it several times when trying (I was looking in special characters). I see it now--there's my old way. Let's see what happens when I follow your instructions:— Did it work? Yes! Also, you should call me Awi, which is what my friends call me (my Cherokee name).--TEHodson 23:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Angel background

Is the third paragraph, season 2 summary really necessary? Seems like a lot of Angel filler background. PUNKMINKIS (CHAT) 13:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)