Talk:Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Spike's Coats

Does anyone else think that we should include a reference to the fact that Spike taking the coats from his victims is an homage to Frank Miller's Sin City. The coat taking is one of Marv's trademarks (That's a damn fine looking coat you've got there) and I remember reading somewhere (possibly the Buffy Monster Book) that Spike's habit of doing that was a nod to Sin City. I just think we should include it somewhere. Captain JD Sparrow

I agree that the choice of coats is similar, but the parts where we actually see him do it didn't come in until 'Fool for Love' onwards, so it's one of those questionable things. Radical AdZ

I believe it's worth mention that the coat he took off of Nikki Wood was incinerated along with Spike in the last episode of BtVS, and that the coat that was blown up in Italy is either a reincarnation or a recreation of that coat. Spike may consider it to have been "the same coat", but whether that's really true is unclear. 207.31.229.4 18:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Shanshu Prophecy

It is believed that Spike survived this battle and furfilled the Shanshu Prophecy.

By who? It's left purposfuly ambiguous if either Angel or Spike fulfilled the Shanshu prophecy.

The Shanshu prophecy was for Angel. He signed it away so it ceases to exist. The upcoming Spike movie is proof that Spike is still a vampire unless otherwise noted. --The Scourge 00:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It was never stated who the prophecy was for. They made Angel sign that contract incase it was him but they never were certain if it was.

I, Vampire

Something struck me as odd today. When the Inish kidnapped Spike to plant the chip in his head, the basic mechanics of it only (and I use the term only loosely) stopped him from directly harming or killing humans, for food or otherwise, leaving him capable of fighting with non-humans, demons etc. As he says in 'Fool for Love' he can spar with Buffy so long as he doesn't exhibit an intention to actually cause her harm. However, he previously tells Xander, whom he was annoying at the time, that if Xander were to commit suicide as a result of Spike's annoying him, he'd be able to drink his blood without the chip reacting. In 'Where the Wild Things Are', he offers to help the Scoobies find Buffy and Riley, but upon realising he has no particularly good reason to help out, goes off back to his crypt hoping to watch Danger Mouse.

Now, two things come to mind:

1. If he isn't lying, how would he know? Has he tried it?

2. If the Initiative were able to engineer chips to prevent direct physical harm, why couldn't the chip account for death through ommission of action? Was it deliberate, or a limitation of their technological capabilities?

Radical AdZ

Two interesting questions.

1. I remember that he is able to feed on dead humans in "Crush" - Dru returns and kills a person for him to feed on. Crush is after "Fool for Love", so I am not sure how Spike would know at that earlier point. I guess that it would make sense that although he couldn't hurt a human, he could do what he wants with a dead body. And driving a person to suicide through general irritation breaks none of the chip rules - if Xander committed suicide, that would be Xander's actions and Spike would just have been talking, not DIRECTLY harming anybody. I think the key is the difference between "active" and "passive" actions, rather than Spike's subjective motivations, a lead-in to my thoughts on the 2nd question.

2. The possible range of Spike's actions are "active" (he does an action) and "passive" (he stands by and lets something happen). I think it would be a LOT harder for a chip to control passive actions, because I would assume that the brainwaves (do vampires have brainwaves? well, whatever triggers the chip) would be very different for each category, for one thing. Also, I think that the purpose of the chip is just to prevent him from actively harming humans, not to force him to help them - I imagine that it would get highly problematic for a chip to require him to help humans in trouble - what if the threat to them comes from another human? It wouldn't make a lot of sense for the chip to ZAP him for fighting humans but also ZAP him again for not helping one of the humans in danger. I think that the Initiative would LIKE to control passive actions and turn all evil creatures into heroic warriors, I just don't think they're there yet (but were headed in that kindof mind control direction before they were shut down). Riverbend 23:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Character naming issues

Cecily is frequently misidentified as Cecily Underwood. This name is used on numerous fan fiction sites. According to http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/PersonDetail/personid-14778 and the Watchers Thesis referenced on numerous other websites, her name is Cecily Addams. Can'tStandYa 3 Feb 05

Underwood was the name used in the actual show - "Lies My Parents Told Me" IIRC. Addams derives from the tie-in novel "These Our Actors" - the former is clearly more canonical than the other, hence my original edit. Lokicarbis 08:17, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

However, in "Lies My Parents Told Me" when William's mother asks him if his love interest is "the Underwood girl?", he denies this and states that "he wouldn't presume." Therefore, "Underwood" was not established as her name in this episode. Can'tStandYa 9 Feb 05

I interpret it the other way - that he is embarassed to admit his affection for Cecily, possibly because he fears being rejected. Considering that the name "Addams" is never stated on the show and that "Underwood" is, we may as well assume the latter is her real name.

I'll have to re-watch it. BTW, do you know what the source for the Walthrop surname is? I don't recall it ever being specified in the series. Lokicarbis 15:27, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Walthrop is from Lydia's Watcher's Thesis on Spike. Pretty much accepted throughout the Buffy/Angel fanverse. Also the alliteration is boffo. Cheers. Can'tStandYa 9 Feb 05

If it's unofficial, it should be marked as such. I've modified the entry to make it clear that the surname is not canonical. Lokicarbis 03:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Image

Found this image on the Morley cigarettes entry, so presumably there's no copyright issue with it. Lokicarbis 23:59, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Literary Present!

Okay, this is officially driving me batty. You do NOT refer to events on a television show, no matter when that episode occurred, in the past tense! (The only exception is when the character on the show is referring, onscreen, to something happened to him/her earlier.) I've corrected this incorrect usage on many "Buffy" pages here already, but it's frustrating to keep running into the problem again and again. (Take my word for it on this - I'm an English teacher.)

• I certainly don't argue with this, but it leaves me wondering how one would refer to a specific event on a show (such as when Spike first moved to Sunnydale). The information can't be omitted, but no other tense (present, or future) would be appropriate. -Shane Lawrence 03:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buffy. No need for wondering: read my writeup on it. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 12:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Overview

The second paragraph seems a bit verbose to me, and full of speculation to boot. Way too much about a passing Doctor reference. Someone more familiar with it than me may want to rewrite. Turnstep 00:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed the Spike Trivia and Spike AKA's sections, as they were the sort of amateurish thing which might belong on a fan web page, not in an encyclopedia. --24.19.173.27 18:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think if someone is writing a Spike article (in an encyclopedia) you should try to be 'neutral'. Please don't try to reinforce one ship (couple's relationship) and say negative things about another. By writing "Drusilla's relationship with Spike may be seen as a perverted love affair, or the abusive relationship of which many teenagers are at risk." is only ones opinion (which by the way same thing could be said to Spike's relationship with Buffy). Please keep in mind this is an encyclopedia not a debate between Spike/Buffy ship VS Spike/Dru ship. Twilight-Ghost

Section Cleanup: Powers and Abilities

Trimmed and reworked this section due to the fact it was a bit wordy and redundant. Also removed a few references to powers and abilities that were speculative.

I also dispute the last paragraph which I removed entirely. "Game face" isn't really an encyclopedic term, and it's been shown in the series that vampires can drink blood while in "human form", though - yes - not by puncturing the necks of their victims. Further, as far as I've ever seen, vampires' abilities don't enhance when they assume their demon form. At the very least, I felt that the paragraph had no significant relevance/usefulness.

-Shane Lawrence 03:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

On at least one occasion Buffy says to Angel (or Spike?) before action that it's time to put on his "game face". It's fair to infer that "game face" enhances ability somehow. —Tamfang 05:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to concur with Shane, I have yet to ever see a vampire's strength feats any different when hes in game face than when hesnor showing. The power is inside the body regardless. The line that confuses people is in episode 7 of season 1 when Angel says to Doyle that he's stronger in his demon form....he wasn't talking about Vampires too! He was speaking about half-demons similar to DOYLE'S breed.

There ought to be an article Vampire (Buffy), where all the stuff about powers and weaknesses can go; then Darla, Angel, Dru, Spike, Harmony can point to that rather than repeating it all. —Tamfang 00:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There is now I THINK. I made some edits a while ago.

As you can see, I've created that article. —Tamfang 05:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

When did Spike use a computer? —Tamfang 05:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Spike once used a computer to find out which dormitory Buffy was living in whilst she was in college - Tking624 13:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need seven paragraphs, some quite long, discussing Spike's fighting ability? THey seem awfully redundant. Also I think the encyclopedic list of weapons he's used should be taken out since proficiency in specific weapons was never a big part of the Buffy universe. I also question the inclusion of skills such as driving, computer and video game use etc. It seems that the skills section should include unusual skills and not ones which any adult would be expected to have.

There's a huge amount in this section that I think could be removed. Lots of "Some fans..." and "perhaps" and "may have been", which aren't particularly encyclopaedic, a big section on whether he's tougher than Angel which seems so full of conflicting opinions, speculation and caveats that it doesn't really tell us anything, unsubstantiated stuff like "virtually every martial art in the world", or the suggestion that Ilyria wanting to keep Spike as a pet is because of his fighting ability. Plus the unnecessary listing of mundane skills mentioned above.--Nalvage 17:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as the car driving and video game use goes, I think that the point is not that "any adult" would be expected to do these things, but that vampires are not generally shown in buffyverse as doing these things, and that they seemed to make Spike stand out. He drives cars DURING THE DAYTIME, with blacked-out windows; this is an example of him throwing danger and convention to the wind. And how many other vampires are ever shown playing an Xbox? Those elements definitely belong in his biography page, because they are yet another element that set him apart. They also represent tangible links between him and the human world, that sort of represent the limbo between the human and demon world in which his character finds himself. Perhaps some non-encyclopedic sentences could be removed, but Spike is an interesting and complex character who has undergone extensive character development over the 8 buffyverse seasons in which he was portrayed, and reading back through the bio, I don't see much info that isn't deserved. He is a complicated and multifaceted dude, and that is part of what makes the character so interesting - don't cut him short! 71.203.207.7 02:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Tambourineman

I think that the actual point is that while Spike IS a very interesting character, it is important that this is not a fan page that is SOLEY devoted to building him up above every character in the Buffyverse and that it keeps with the unbiased, professional appearance of an encyclopedia. I definitely think that the fighting skills section should be reduced a bit. Spike is a great fighter, but he is not a MASTER of martial arts. He's a proficient martial artist, just like Buffy. What puts them on the playing field is their superhuman strength and reflexes. This is why extremely skilled martial artists such as Robin Wood can fight him for a short period of time, before the power of a Vampire eventually wins over. (Just like advanced martial artists like Gunn can go up against super-powered vampires and Demons and hold their own) Also we don't actually know that Spike would've killed Buffy in school hard. After all, Buffy was able to catch the sword that Angel thrust at her face, between her palms only a few months later. As the saying goes...it ain't over til it's over. The same can be said about Faith. Since it is yet to be decided on the equality of Spike and Angel as warriors, it is ludicrous to say that Spike can EASILY defeat the Slayer who has bested Angel three times. It can be said that in their fight he certainly ended with the upper hand, but she got ALOT good knocks in too, so he certainly wasn't pummeling her senseless. I'm not saying that he couldn't defeat her, but it really is unknown, since they have only fought twice and appeared to be pretty matched. Spike very well was infuriated enough over Buffy that he would've fought anyone there to the death, because if there is one person that Spike will do anything for is Buffy, and certainly her mistreatment ROYALLY pissed him off. This is just anger the "fire" that Buffy told Kendra about that a good fighter needs. However the part in the article saying that his "fighting skills increase" is untrue. Your skills are YOUR SKILLS. You have learned the techniques that you have learned. What happens is that with Spike's anger, his fighting becomes more savage and intense as naturally it would.

And I'm not sure if it is fair to say that Illyria enjoyed Spike because of his abilities, rather than enjoyed playing with a toy that would never break. She could beat him to a pulp because she says "I enjoy hurting you" and he would never die from it. Also due to his superhuman healing ability, he would recover quickly so that she could re-commence with the beating. Illyria wasn't really a being that was impressed by many things of the human plane of existance, and she ESPECIALLY had little respect for Vampires whom she said was the "Muck at our feet." So it's unlikely that she would be impressed by him. No offense to Spike intended.

--UltimateBuffyfan

I certainly don't see the need for the paragraph about whether Spike could beat up Angel/Buffy. I tried to clean it up a bit the other day, but it just still seems somewhat weak and unsubstantial. What do others think? Tambourineman 19:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Tambourineman

I am removing the following coupla sentences from Powers and Abilities: "He manages to hold his own with Buffy, even though she is physically stronger than him. In the last season, when Faith moves to attack Spike, after the gang has abandoned Buffy - much to Spike's open and very scathing contempt - he and Faith fight in a very evenly matched brawl that spanned from the kitchen to the dining room, trading blows until Spike flips Faith over him into the wall and leaves in search of Buffy, with Faith making no efforts to stop him." They don't seem to add much to the already-lengthy section, and it sounds like the whole 'who can beat up who" thing is kinda sketchy and contentious - it looks like a lot of that type of stuff has been taken out already. If anyone really wants it there, then totally put it back in, or maybe find some other way of explaining it. Riverbend 22:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Article name

Should the Spike article really be called "Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)", shouldn't it be something more neutral taking into account his year long stint on Angel Season 5, and also the fact that his character has a long history with Angel (the two spent much of 1880-1900 together)!

Does anyoneelse think all the Buffyverse chracters should be named under the same group, a lot of the characters appear on both shows (e.g. Willow, Cordelia, Angel, Wesley, Anne Steele, Andrew, Faith, and Buffy) and they all exist in the same fictional universe?

-- Paxomen 23:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure about other Buffyverse characters, but definitely Spike. Angel is under 'Angel (vampire)'. I believe spike should be under the (vampire) title as well since he was a regular on both shows. -- Frost 5:30, 16 February, 2006 (UTC)

Character's fate

The line at the end of the article "It is believed that he survived this battle." is a bit wierd. Believed by who? what does that line mean? I thought that the ending was rather open ended allowing the viewer to decide what to beleive. Would it be appropriate to remove this line or rewrite it?

I think i know what might have been intended, I'm guessing the editor who wrote that, is expressing the fact that internet fandom widely assumes that at least Angel, Spike, and Illyria survived the battle despite Angel's insistence that they were essntially voting for martyrdom by taking up the challenge of destroying CoBT. especially since Whedon has himself stated a desire to make a Spike movie. It could do with some tweaking or something to make it make more sense. -- Paxomen 18:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

dialogue

The long passage of dialogue added by 213.118.5.221 strikes me as excessive, but I'll restrain myself for now from deciding how to chop it. —Tamfang 00:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• It is still there, I like the quote but it just doesn't seem like it needs to be in there like that. I will work on it, but feel free to change it back if it is inappropriate cutting. . .Riverbend 14:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I cut it down, and I think that it still needs to be cut down more, and just have a few small parts of the quote worked into the paragraph. Any objections if I cut it down further? Riverbend 18:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

affinity

I'll just remark in passing that I don't like that word (which I think I've seen used the same way in about three such articles). It's too cute, and it suggests that tastes and habits are involuntary and unconscious, as if Spike and black leather jackets can be separated with difficulty by centrifuging in a solution of appropriate solvents. —Tamfang 20:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Breathing

This may seem like a ridiculously minor point, if so I apologize. In what I believe was the last episode of Buffy Season One, Angel could not give Buffy CPR after she drowned because he "had no breath"; Xander had to do it. In the Spike article, under Appearance and Personality (when it talks about Spike smoking) it says that vampires are perfectly capable of inhalation and exhalation of air. Are these two things reconcilable (or is this one of those times to say, "It's just make believe"?)? It just seems strange. Tambourineman 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just a continuity error. Angelus happily blows smoke out of his mouth in "Innocence" despite supposedly having no breath. There are various fan theories to explain this away, but nothing on the show, I don't think.--Nalvage 19:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Continuity error is an easy answer. However is the quality/quantity of breath required for smoking the same as is necessary for CPR?

Duggy 1138 10:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Spike's soul

Is there any site/article that explains exactly how Spike's soul works? Is it a curse in which he'll lose it with pure happiness like Angel's soul? Is it permanent, giving him the freedom to be happy without worries? I feel that it differs greatly next to Angel's soul, which denies him of happiness. --DBGFrost 08:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

His soul was a gift that he had to fight for unlike Angel's which was a curse to make sure he is never happy again. Spike can still feel a moment of pure bliss without losing his soul.

What I remember the sould was not so much of a gift but a cruel twist. At the end of the fight he asked to be "better than Buffy" and the he was given a soul with the gift granting creature laughing as he gave it to Spike.

Spike/Angel Shaman battle

Joss Whedon has revealed that because Angel was going through such personal troubles in season 5 he didn't care anymore and didn't fight at his best therefore losing. Whedon has also said that if he had fought to the best of his abilities he would have beaten Spike.

Information removed; no source provided --The Scourge 03:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Supportspike.com Campaign #9: NOT FADE AWAY

Supportspike.com has just started a brand new campaign to target Fox.

The aim is to send postcards in support of a Spike DVD-movie directed by Tim Minear, and to have all the postcards arrive at the same time, on June 23rd 2006 (Whedon's birthday).

The campaign is being discussed here:

http://whedonesque.com/comments/10372

-- Paxomen 17:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Easily bested?

Buffy has easily bested Spike on multiple occasions - When? They fought seriously three times that I recall. The first time (School Hard), Spike won, and Buffy was rescued by her mother; the other times, Buffy won, but never easily - in What's My Line, she double-teamed him with Kendra (and even then, he was able to beat a retreat, only to be struck down from behind), and in The Harsh Light of Day his overconfidence let her get the ring off him, after which he had to run away (because they were fighting in daylight). After that, they never really fought without it degenerating (upgrading?) to sex.

So while Buffy is arguably able to beat Spike, it's certainly not easily. If anything, she's had an easier time against Angel, who she defeated wholesale in Innocence and Becoming, and who declared her to be stronger than him on his own show.

You make alot of good points. I think its hard to go with "easily bested" when it comes to these two superheroes. However in "School Hard" we can't actually say that Spike won the fight. Buffy wasn't unconscious, and with supernatural reflexes we can't know if she could've caught the piece of wood in her hands or rolled out of the way. She was still conscious and just kind of looking up. Against a Slayer, I don't think a block of wood, even struck with Vampire strength, would be enough to kill her. With her mother interfering, (which was for storyline purposes rather than necessary for the battle)we don't actually know how the fight would have turned out.

The next one we ACTUALLY see is Buffy fighting Spike in "Halloween". Where I can say is the only time she dominated a whole fight with him. Even after giving him time to regroup and grab a pipe she still completely overwhelmed him. This is probably the only "easily bested" example.

Now you say in "What's My line" That her victory came because she double teamed him with Kendra. However it is shown that they double teamed him for a total of three blows between them, before Kendra faced off against Spike unsuccesfully and Buffy took on the remaining Taraka assassin. Then they SWITCHED who they were fighting. Buffy and Spike took a moment to exchange a quip then began to fight resulting in Buffy landing the majority of moves, ending in her picking him up and tossing him 20 feet over several church rows. After sneak attacking Buffy, who was trying to retrieve a weakened Angel, THEN Spike was able to escape.

In "The Harsh Light of Day" I have to say this was a true testament to Buffy. Even as a Slayer Buffy was getting worn down by Spike, who was feeling NO fatigue because he was wearing the Gem of Amarra, allowing him Invincibility. "Getting tired Slayer??" I don't think it was his overconfidence that got him, I think it was the fact that he pissed off Buffy. She was feeling down and not in confident fighting mode after Parker, but the comment about Angel pushed her into the fiery frenzy that caused her to pummel him.

In later points, such as Season 6, Smashed, Spike does get angry enough with Buffy that he wants to cause serious pain. The only difference with this and past seasons, is that Buffy gained quite a bit of strength in physical constitution and an even BIGGER leap in fighting skills. Which is why from there on out, Buffy has usually bested Spike FAIRLY easily, with the exception of "the attempted rape" due to Buffy being injured prior to his attempt. (See Smashed, Dead Things, Sleeper)

Spike and Wesley??

On the article for Angel it is stated that "at one point in the series, was also quickly able to smell that Wesley had sex with a bleach blonde". Is that bleach blonde Spike? After all he is the only bleach blonde whose smell Angel would recognise. --NeilEvans 17:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No way. If I remember correctly, Angel said, "You had sex with a bleach blonde last night." This was during the early seasons; around two or three. Also, if it was Spike, Angel would've no doubt called out Wesley on it.--The Scourge 22:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah! I reckon Spike and Wes got down and dirty.--NeilEvans 23:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Angel evidently smelled the hair product, rather than recognizing its user. —Tamfang 05:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Mmm. Spike and Wes. There's an interesting storyline... Don't think it was intentional though. Paul730 07:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Pratt

So, this name Pratt. It comes from Peter David's comic "Old Times", but I can't find any reference online to it being a mandate from Whedon. Does anyone have anything verifiable to show that it's not just another bit of non-notable made-up non-canon?--Nalvage 00:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if Joss did say his name was Pratt, does anyone know if he was serious, or just joking? Anyone who has ever read any of Joss's interviews knows that he peppers them with comments that he doesn't expect anyone to take seriously. Don Sample 08:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit, William 'the Bloody' Pratt would be a classic british put-down.

Radical AdZ

It's been a month, with nothing new coming to light. Unless anyone objects I think I'll either remove it, or create a Trivia section and shift it into that--Nalvage 00:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC).

Done. Gone.--Nalvage 23:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Kalaong

I'd put it back in. It has Whedon written all over it. Not only is it a great put-down, it's the real name of Boris Karloff!--Kalaong 22:08, 11, February 2007 (UTC)

I think you could just as easily say it has Peter David written all over it since there are other, similar references in the comic. Spike visits the grave of Bela Lugosi, for instance, and then in David's Spike vs. Dracula, you get Lugosi again, and Ed Wood. --Nalvage 12:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry-don't have the comic-just recognized the name. Definite trivia material, though.--Kalaong 12:33, 12, February 2007 (UTC)

When I removed it from the main article a few months ago, I was going to make a trivia section to put it in, but Wikipedia frowns on those a bit, and since there wasn't one already, I decided against it. But given how often people want to add the surname, maybe it'd be worth mentioning somewhere. Don't know what other people think. --Nalvage 18:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That's actually a good idea. Adding it to a trivia section would help reduce any confusion towards the last name, plus possibly stop anyone from continually adding it to the main article.--The Scourge 21:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be mentioned somewhere, even if it is not canonical (and Whedon is unaware of it, if David took the liberty of using the name without asking Whedon) it will still be Spike's surname in some people's personal continuity unless a more canonical source gives an alternative surname. - Paxomen 14:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I know there was an interview with Joss shortly after Angel ended where he said he was approached to complete the names of some characters for use in the novels, comics, and role-playing games. He came up with Willam Pratt for Spike and Faith Lehane for Faith. I know he posted on Whedonesque about Faith's last name, but I forget if he did the same for Spike.--JesusSavedin01 12:41, 2 April 2007 (EST)

AARRGHH!!! You people are so anal! His name is Pratt. Deal. Paul730 03:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Romance

the article says "Tarantula, a goth girl, Spike's date to the wedding in "Hell's Bells". " Was a name ever given for the Goth girl?? I don't remember one being given.--NeilEvans 18:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it's from an earlier draft of the script. I can't find any evidence of that, only some discussion on the subject. It's possible she's listed as Tarantula in the end credits, but that's just a guess on my part.--Nalvage 13:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked up the episode on IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0533438/) and it listed her as "Tarantula Girl with Spike". Tambourineman 15:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Spike's height

Do we really need the part in there about his height? This seems kinda sketchy - any objections to my taking it out? Riverbend 19:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed it.--Nalvage 22:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Tax Evasion

Would it be worth the wordspace to mention that Spike spent time in prison in Italy for tax evasion? He just kinda mentioned it offhand in "The Girl in Question", I don't know how reliable his statement was. . . Riverbend 23:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

May as well throw it in. Though a transcript I just checked doesn't have him mentioning that it occured in Italy.--Nalvage 23:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I put it in, I will rewatch the episode tonite. I just seem to remember that Spike was complaining about going to Italy, bad things always happen there (kidnapped by the Immortal, prison for tax evasion, don't ask. . .). Riverbend 23:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he says, "It's him. The Immortal. This is what he does. Every time he shows up, I either lose my girl, get beaten by an angry mob, or get thrown in prison for tax evasion." Doesn't say that these things always happen in Italy.--Nalvage 04:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, you're right. muchas gracias! Riverbend 13:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

details about fights

Some really detailed stuff about fights has been added/deledted/added/deleted. I really don't think that all that belongs on this site - yes, they may be objective details but are unnecessary to an understanding of the character, etc - this page is WAY longer than a lot of charcter bio pages and I think that we probably need to work on curbing this page - it could be indefinitely long if we added every single (even objective) detail. A lot of that stuff was already on the page before - who beats up who - and it was discussed on this page and removed (some of it by me) - it is not necessary or appropriate for this site. That's my 2 cents, anyway, of course if folx disagree then maybe we can discuss it, rather than go back and forth. Riverbend 18:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who deleted a large chunk of recent edits by TheRedFear, and it was perhaps overzealous of me to remove so much without bringing it to the Talk Page first, but I obviously agree that the info was unnecessary. My feelings are probably best summed up by something I added here. The problem is that if we say, for instance, "Puppet Angel beat up Spike, but Spike was laughing too much and probably not trying his best", or, "Buffy beat Spike in "School Hard" but only because Joyce helped", or, "Spike decisively beat Angel in "Destiny" but Angel was not at his most confident", what notable point does that make about either character's powers? None. It's an excessive amount of detail that I don't believe illustrates anything clear about their abilities. Hopefully other people will pitch in on this--Nalvage 18:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was overzealous, you left in some of the stuff that fit into the page better. There is a HUGE section for Powers and Abilities already and similar stuff had been there and deleted awhile ago. It crosses the line into speculation and doesn't really add to the overall quality of the article (and I think detracts from it as unencyclopedic and stuff that belongs maybe on a fan site). I agree that I hope other folx will chime in one way or another. And I don't know where the appropriate place to say this is, but since I am in on this discussion it is probably important to acknowledge - the comments by Tambourineman are mine above - when I first started editing Wiipedia I had intended to have a work account and a home account, but then shortly after creating my other account (this one) I read about sockpuppets and decided to just stick with the name I liked best (haven't used the other in months). Since I had commented about that issue above from my old account a long time ago, I figured it would only be right/ethical/whatever to mention it. Riverbend 19:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Where his strengths come from

Was it ever stated that his strength came from his bloodline/age? I may have just forgotten, but if it wasn't explicitly stated then this seems like speculation and should be removed, and just say something like "he exhibits more strength, endurance, whatever, than average vampires in Buffyverse", and leave it at that? Any thoughts? Riverbend 22:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not explicitly stated in regards to Spike personally, but it has been confirmed that Buffyverse vamps get stronger with age. The Master and Kakistos are the most obvious examples. Not only is their appearance drastically altered by age, but they are harder to kill. The Master does not dust completely, and Kaskistos survives a staking. "You're gonna need a bigger stake!"

Since the Scourge of Europe (Spike, Angel, Dru and Darla) are all pretty old vampires, that might explain why they can survive attacks such as being set on fire or direct sunlight, whereas your average graveyard is dusted in a second. It's worth keeping in the article. Paul730 07:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Succession Box

I've screwed it up terribly. I confused something in the formatting, and I don't know what. Hopefully someone will fix this. the intended edit was meant to note that Spike is NOt the incumbent love interest, The Immortal is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.147.60.57 (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

No problem. I've actually reverted your edits though, because a sneak preview of the upcoming Buffy Season 8 comic states that the whole Buffy& Immortal thing was a ruse. The comic's not out for a month or two, but we've been including the info early.--Nalvage 03:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Excessive in-universe detail

I really appreciate the amount of work that's gone into this article, but the plot summary section has gotten out-of-hand.  :/ I recommend trimming it down to about 500-1000 words. Remember the article is here not for the use of fans of the show, but for the use of a general audience. See also WP:FICTION and WP:CRUFT. Thanks, --Elonka 05:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's an acceptable length, considering that Spike has been in the show for seven years, has one of the most complicated histories, and is one of the most important and popular characters in the show. The article is split into different sections (Early history, Sunnydale, LA) and is, IMO, very clear. Surely anyone who wants to research the character will want details, and not just a basic summary. If you want to pick on articles that are too long, why don't you check out Bree from Desperate Housewives' page... Paul730 06:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out. And yes, many articles on Wikipedia are in violation of WP:PLOT. Another reason to trim the Spike article down though, is because it's so high-profile. Other editors look at it and think, "Ah, that's what a Wikipedia article about a character is supposed to look like," and then the problem intensifies. For examples of what the Wikipedia community does think are good character articles check the list of articles at "Good" and "Featured" status, in the "Media" categories. In order for this Spike article to ever get to "Good" status, or have any hope of being featured on the Wikipedia mainpage, the plot section would need to be trimmed down considerably. --Elonka 13:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Ah, yes, I am one editor who looked at the Spike (Buffyverse) article and thought "Ah, that's what a Wikipedia article about a character is supposed to look like," and, well, then the problem intensified.

• I was a huge fan of the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I wouldn't call myself as fanatical about that show as I once was, but I'm still a fan of that show. And I love the character of Spike as well -- his romance with Buffy too. Yes, I would call that a romance, at least that second time around with an en-souled Spike, but I'm not here to debate that matter.

• Since this article needs to be significantly edited down, perhaps this article can be split into two different articles, sort of how the Xena article and the Xena: Warrior Princess article are split...although those articles have good reason to be split, considering that one is about the show "Xena: Warrior Princess" and the other is about the star character..."Xena."

• Number 4 in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) criteria states: It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own. In some cases, sub-articles and lists are created when the potential for an encyclopedic coverage is hindered by the recommended length guidelines of one article...All in all, I don't find it that much of an insane notion to create two articles in tackling the Spike character, as long as a good enough reason is given.Flyer22 10:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the way that things were handled in articles about the Star Wars characters, such as Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker. There's a brief overview of the plot on the character article, and then a link to the main show article for a more extensive plot summary. --Elonka 17:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I tried to use that as an exmple too, Elonka, when I first began, though I was still progessing in learning how to properly present a work of fiction article on Wikipedia. Of course, I'm still learning. Flyer22 21:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• What are people's opinions on the article Wesley Wyndam-Pryce, I tried to add more real-world perspective by considering the views of the actor and the writers responsible for the character throughout. -- Paxomen 20:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• I like it, Paxomen. Good work. Flyer22 01:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Relationships

I agree that Andrew should have been moved to the "Other" section, but why were Anya and Buffybot? Spike may not have been in love with them, but he did have sex with them. Also, maybe Angel should be moved to "Other" since it's never explicitly stated whether he and Spike had sex or were in love (although I personally think they had an awkward one-night stand back in the day). Paul730 01:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Last Appearance

Shouldn't Spike's last appearance be "Long Way Home" #3? I know it was just a dream/fantasy, but Oz's last appearance is "Restless" and that was a dream. It doesn't really matter; Spike and Oz will show in the comics eventually. Paul730 06:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Accept

The article says he adopted "a working-class North London accent". This seems a little precise, given that it is an accent that makes Dick Van Dyke sound like Leslie Grantham].

Personality section - possible addition

I'm certainly not bold enough to post it myself, not least because I'm not sure how to footnote things correctly, but I was wondering whether this quote from David Fury (a prolific Buffy writer), taken from the audio commentary from the 7th Season episode "Lies My Parents Told Me", could find its way into the section about Spike's personality:

"Spike is an anomaly in the vampire world. He has some facet of his soul, even if it was removed when he became a vampire, [that] is still there. He has more humanity, as a vampire, than most vampires do. We haven't explained why that is. But ... perhaps [it's] something about the character of him as a man."

Anyone have any thoughts? Satchfan 11:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that looks great. :) When I get around to fixing up this article, I'll be sure to include that. Any more out-of-universe info like that is very helpful, thanks. Paul730 12:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:S203 Spike.jpg

Image:S203 Spike.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 02:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:S203 Spike.jpg

Image:S203 Spike.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 (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:S410 Spike.png

Image:S410 Spike.png 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 (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• fixed--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:S618 Spike.png

Image:S618 Spike.png 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 (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• fixed--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:S5 tgiq.gif

Image:S5 tgiq.gif 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Spike 70s.gif

Image:Spike 70s.gif 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

While most of the images in this article fail FU, if someone can rustle up an appropriate image of Billy Idol to include as a side-by-side comparison, this one is easily salvageable. Steve ^{T • C} 09:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Spike soul.gif

Image:Spike soul.gif 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Buffy720.jpg

Image:Buffy720.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(Spike/Angelus: their history)

I feel I must comment on the intimacy angle between Spike and Angelus. Am I the only person who has concluded that the 'one time' was when Angelus sired Spike? Now I know you're thinking that that was Drusilla, but was it? Yes, we saw her bite him but we didn't see the rest happen. Why couldn't it have been Angelus that finished the job? Spike refers to him as his sire and what could be more intimate than that? --Felidaelily (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The ONLY one?

Are we sure that Spike, as it says right now in the "Powers and Abilities" section, is the ONLY vampire to have killed two slayers? I don't remember them ever saying that specifically, and given the (relative) ease with which he did it in only a century, it doesn't seem that likely... In ALL the millennia that slayers and vampires have been doing battle, are we sure he's the ONLY one?

If not, we should take out that phrase. If so, can we get a citation for the episode that is mentioned in, for those of us with less of an encyclopedic knowledge of the Buffyverse?  ;) Nerrolken (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed this is OR. I trimmed it, but the section probably needs better cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)