Talk:Tara Maclay

Not in Main Credits

Tara was never considered one of the main characters on the show, not appearing in the main credits.

Wasn't she in the main credits in season six? --Paul A 02:24 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

I believe Amber Benson's name was only in the main credits in her final episode, Seeing Red. Tara herself appeared in the one-minute thing that comes after the teaser every show, but Amber's name only appeared in this once. I'm 99 percent certain. --Evercat 02:33 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Evercat is right. Joss said he did it as a tease to fans who wanted Tara to be a regular character. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 02:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know this is an old discussion now, but... nearly. Whedon wanted to put a character in the credits and kill them off as early as Jesse in the very first episode; however, the network reportedly weren't keen on the idea. By season Six, Joss had gained sufficient clout to indulge himself with Tara, while couching it as a nod to all the fans who wanted her added to the credits. Kinitawowi 00:57, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Joss Whedon wanted to kill a character and put their credits on at that episode. He teased Amber Benson and Tara's fans by only adding the credits on the episode she died. - Kaleidescope

The First

The article states that Amber Benson did not reappear as the First in Season 7 because she thought it would ruin Tara's image. I heard in a commentary of the episode "Conversations With Dead People" that she just wasn't available. Does anyone actually know? -- Supermorff 16:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing conclusive, but I'm pretty sure that Amber's version is correct; after all, what exactly has she been busy with? ;-) Kinitawowi 00:57, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

She was directing "Ghosts of Albion" in England. Compare shooting dates with the dates on the BBC's site of their filming.Web Warlock 19:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Why a minor character?

Why exactly is Tara considered a minor character and not listed in the main credits? In most season 5 or season 6 episodes, she seems to have as much influence and screentime as Anya or Dawn.

• Because Amber Benson was only ever contracted for sixteen episodes in each season; she was never taken on as a main character. Kinitawowi 17:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that because Amber didn't contract for more than 16 episodes each year, she wasn't included - although the irony is Tara was a much a main character as Dawn was at that point, supporting Willow in many of the gang's investigations, and viscera vera. --MagicPath111 08:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"viscera versa" is where you have your heart on the right and your liver on the left? —Tamfang 19:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Tara IS a main character. She was not listed in the credits because Joss Whedon thought it would be (I believe the word is) ironic to kill someone at the same time as adding her credits. She was a main character during her time though. She was as much a character as Anya, Dawn and Spike were. - Kaleidescope

Ironic isn't quite the right word. Joss had wanted to list Eric Balfour (Jesse) in the main titles of the pilot, to make the point that even regular characters can die, but the budget didn't then exist to make more than one title sequence for the season. So he made the point with Tara instead. —Tamfang (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed

This was removed "Tara Maclay was seen in the third season in the episode "Doppelgangland". Her hair was stroked by Willow who was faking as the Doppelganger Willow. Willows hand got stuck while Tara's hair was stroked." That was not Amber Benson and there is no indication that it was supposed to have been Tara.

But you forgot to change the number of episodes she appeared in back to 47 and remove it from the list of Appearances. It's important to look at the history of edits to find out if anything else was changed at the same time. I got it for you this time. CovenantD 02:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

In "Who Are You?", Willow says Tara has never been to the Bronze before. Ergo, not Tara. (Oh God, I just used the word ergo) Also, I don't think she lived in Sunnydale prior to Season 4.

Revival Storyline

I'm bothered by this section:

Many fans have rejected this story since it does not seem to have existed prior to this point. No other former Buffy writers have confirmed this and Ms. Benson herself seemed unaware that such a storyline even existed.

The phrase "Ms. Benson herself seemed unaware that such a storyline even existed" is too vague and unsourced. When did she seem unaware? When was she asked? Is there a link?

Have other Buffy writers denied it? Have they been asked?

Does the phrase "...does not seem to have existed" simply mean that fans hadn't heard of it?

The subject may have been raised with Amber at Fedcon in 2004 and it appears she confirmed that Joss had mentioned the storyline to her. There's a brief mention here.

Even with that aside, the section appears overly nonspecific to me.--Nalvage 13:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It does seem biased towards the storyline having been a fib by Whedon, and presents no real evidence to support that. Noneofyourbusiness 15:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. "Others have speculated..." and "Many fans..." are examples of what Wikipedia terms "Weasel Words" and shouldn't be included. If someone finds a reliable source to validate the fib-rumour then it can go back in, otherwise it's far too speculative.--Nalvage 16:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well a response to a letter in the Season 8 letter pages (duh) suggests that she may be involved in an upcoming issue. Mostly speculation and interpretation but I added it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.190.114 (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Did Tara's Family Intermarry? I seems like the episode "Family" hinted toward it.

Her father said that demonhood ran in the women in his family. He never states that he married into the mother's side of the family and if he did then why would he believe so feverantly that Tara is a demon. I think that he and his wife were related some how. But I don't think that Tara is defective from the relationship so they could be cousins that married.

That was just a family legend so the men could keep the women under their control. there were no demons in the family, it was all a lie.--NeilEvans 20:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think his/her point is not related to the truth or falsity of the legend, but the fact that Tara's father said she inherited demon from her mother and said "the women in our family have demon in them", which if taken literally would mean that he and his wife were part of the same family. It's not terribly important of course, nor can we find anything out about the subject. N.B. "Intermarriage" is when you marry unrelated people. Inter is between groups, In or Intra is within a group. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

When you marry someone, they become part of your family. --81.149.74.231 (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Death

The part about her death seems rather informal. It should probably be cleaned up bit to look more professional. --OGoncho (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, should we be mentioning her death in the second sentence of the article? Major spoiler for someone just coming to the page looking for the actress's name :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.173.43 (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Tara in Issue 3

Would someone please elaborate as to where Tara appears in issue 3!! I just went through every page and I don't see her. Maybe post a pic.

Is Tara in issue 3 or not? Anybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megharrod (talk • contribs) 22:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Dreamspace scene with all the boxes, if I recall correctly, that's where most of the season 1-4 character are glimpsed.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

seeing black and white

The article mentions three times that A.B. is credited as main cast only in "Seeing Red". Are they all necessary? —Tamfang (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

singing

I removed the mention of Tara's singing voice, because it's really about Amber Benson rather than about Tara. I'd bet money that Whedon would say, if asked, that Sweet gives everyone the ability to sing and dance, even if they otherwise have two left feet and the voice of a crow, and it was only the constraints of the cast's abilities (rather than any attribute of the characters) that made him spotlight Tara and Giles as singers. —Tamfang (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Appearances

Why remove the Appearances section? It is useful, it remains on the pages for other characters, and it's not trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amie17 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

How is listing all the episodes the character appears in not trivia? --Moni3 (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

How is it? The Wikipedia guide about trivia says, "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information". I believe that's true of a section listing the episodes in which a character was featured. It is useful for reference, it's organised, it has a clear theme, and I think that list form is the most appropriate way to present the information. - Amie17 (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What does it add to a reader's understanding about Tara's character? It's a list. The article already says she appears in episodes from the fourth season "Hush" to sixth season "Villains". Without cited discussions of the importance of these episodes regarding Tara's character, the list is trivial and unnecessary. --Moni3 (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I support Moni3's position as appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Found tidbits

Found these in an old revision - they seemed to have been removed due to the rewrite? Benson's description of her character would be valid here, although Hannigan's description would be more appropriate for Willow's article. --Malkinann (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Benson described her character in an interview, "She's quiet. It's mostly because she is shy, I think. I can identify with it in a sense, because I can be very shy too. It's almost like acting is an outlet for me that helps me to not be shy. I feel like Tara's the same way; her witchcraft empowers her and it forces her out of her shell."
• Hannigan was asked how Whedon planned the Willow-Tara relationship, "I don't know if he had any idea that was going to develop the relationship the way he did. He was very hands-on in the Willow and Tara scenes... he only does that when he really cares. But then we started reading the stuff and it's like 'OK, this is clearly going beyond the subtext here.' And he tried to stick to the 'No, no, it's just subtext' defense. Finally it was like 'Oh come on, hit-yourself-over-the-head-with-the-it' text."
• At Comic-Con 2007, Whedon spoke about his intention to film an episode in season 7 of the series in which Buffy is granted a wish, which she uses to bring Tara back to life. The idea did not come to fruition.

• I added the third (thanks), but I can't really put the second one in any coherent context. I've read about the hands-on thing before, but without the rest of the article (do you have it?) the quote makes very little sense. Let me think about the first. Thanks again. I wish I had access to the magazines. --Moni3 (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't have the source articles myself. --Malkinann (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources

I've removed the following edits, with an explanation below:

Fans were upset that the show's writers in particular had stated emphatically that Tara would not die, and had made reference to the cliché before.

Doug Petrie (Fandom Shop 2/21/00): "Willow and Tara are going to have a good, happy, satisfying relationship. That's something that we're more acutely aware of and we definitely don't want to touch on 'being a lesbian is bad.' We've all seen shows where if you have any kind of gay tendencies, you must be killed or made to suffer for no other reason other than you're gay. We're hyper aware of that, so we're more predisposed to have things work out for Willow and Tara. In fact, if Tara were a guy, I would predict a near 100 per cent chance of a breakup for Willow. The fact that Tara is not a guy may make things work out better, because we can avoid what we feel is this old cliché."

Steven DeKnight (Bronze Beta 1/25/02): "As for Tara getting killed--OVER MY DEAD BODY!"

Drew Greenberg (Bronze Beta 4/01/02)): "Amber (Benson) and Emma (Caulfield) are both sticking around, neither one is going anywhere, so don't worry." after he had already written the episode where she dies. In a radio interviews afterwards he appeared to be joking about anger from Lesbians[1]

He later apologized online to the fans on the bronze [2] and on a fan site, saying: "I’ve said this in the past and I can’t emphasize it enough: I deeply regret that I hurt anyone’s feelings with my ill-conceived Succubus Club interview. I was very tense over the whole Tara issue and pre-show fan backlash, and tried to defuse the situation with admittedly inappropriate humor. I’m a man that can admit his mistakes, and I don’t mind apologizing repeatedly when I blunder into a big one." [3]

1. The offsite links are primary sources to fansite message boards, which are deprecated here at Wikipedia per the WP:PRIMARY and the reliable sources policies. Basically, when primary sources are used without a secondary source to interpret them, it leaves that up to editors to interpret them. In this case, verbatim text is used without any explanation, leaving readers confused as to what the writers are referring to. But adding explanation violates the policy against original research. Now, I'm not saying that DeKnight and Greenberg didn't say these things. Unfortunately, the sourcing policies here make it clear that we have to use reliable sources that discuss these comments and put them into context for us. There's quite a lot written about Tara's death, which the article covers. I'm not saying more can't be put into the article about the reaction from fans or writers about the decision to kill Tara, but it has to come from reliable secondary sources.
2. At least one source (Stafford) includes the online presence of Whedon, Benson, and other writers on fansite message boards although I haven't read this issue in particular (writers assuring fans they wouldn't kill a character) in Stafford's book. I'm not sure, though. Whedon has stated that he pretty much did the opposite of what fans wanted and characters had been killed off before Tara so how the writers could assure fans that a character would not be killed off seems like bad judgment on those writers' parts. But if you can find a source that discusses these comments, then let's work on incorporating them into the article.

Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As you saw, I cleaned up what the person stuck in there, but it didn't seem to me it should be included. Your reasoning makes sense.--TEHodson 22:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I have just re-removed that stuff, and left a message on drlloyd's talk page, in the hope that he will come and discuss here, as is required at this point.--TEHodson 06:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

from drlloyd

Hi there

You are correct, I am unused to the protocol here. If you note however, I made changes and added sources to the article that address the issues you mention, which I thought satisfied your concerns, my apology. It was ignorance and not malice. There are no links to fan message boards but instead to a source(the VIP Beta Bronze) which almost all of the authors that are cited in this article site as well. There is where I get confused, and your patience is appreciated here. I could link to sources like http://www.stephenbooth.org/lesbiancliche.htm and http://slayageonline.com/essays/slayage13_14/Tabron.htm and http://web.archive.org/web/20030216033230/http://www.xtreme-gaming.com/theotherside/homophobia.html which is a mirror of http://www.xtreme-gaming.com/theotherside/homophobia.html. June 27 2002 and http://slayageonline.com/essays/slayage13_14/Tabron.htm#3 would these count as secondary sources who all make mention to this material.

If you don't mind some exposition, the reason for the inclusion of these elements is that it represents a different interpretation from "Homophobe/Censor". It talks about courting a fan base, calming their nerves, and then essentially acting in a manner to aggravate fan reaction. I also wanted to mention that the "Cliche" reference did not come from thin air, but was mentioned by the writers along time before hand. I am eager to work with you on this matter, and your guidance is appreciated. Thanks and I look forward to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlloyd11 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Drlloyd11, and thanks for responding here.

To reply to a comment on a talk page like this one, put a colon (:) in front of your comment to indent it. Put two colons to indent it further. Getting used to article talk pages and links to policy pages was quite overwhelming for me when I started here. Please ask if you do not understand something. I'm going to post links for you so you can check out the policies here. You don't have to read all the policy pages, but it helps to gain a greater understanding of--if not the way things are consistently done--the way the should be done on Wikipedia.

So, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has to explain concepts to readers and put those concepts in perspective based on expert opinion. But we can't make up our own explanations and we can't insert our own opinions. We have to base material in the article on other reliable published sources. Not everything published on paper or the Internet is a reliable source, so the Reliable Sources policy defines for us what kind of source we can use, and which ones we cannot. As for the NOT pile: self-published commentary, fansites, message boards, or anything else that does not receive 3rd party editorial oversight--like how a newspaper story gets fact-checked by an editor at the newspaper whose job it is to call people and ask "Did this really happen?".

Furthermore, we're not supposed to interpret the importance of what we write about here. Sure, I like Buffy as a show and I like watching it and whatnot, but I cannot insert how "freaking awesome and totally rad Buffy the Vampire Slayer was" based on my own opinion. I have to quote an expert in television or media, screenwriting, network executive, or people who really know much more about what it means for a TV series to be successful. I can't insert my opinion into any article. Even for historical events that have a lot of documentation about them, we cannot depend on primary sources, like diaries, letters, and more technologically advanced stuff like message boards, to prove a point about that event. We have to depend on experts who interpret those primary sources and put the primary documents into perspective. This is explained in the WP:PRIMARY policy, which you can read for greater clarification.

So the material you're inserting is being removed for a few reasons:

• It uses primary sources and does not interpret what they mean for readers.
• It does not explain the context in which the comments are being given, or even explain who is giving the comments.
• The comments were left on Internet message boards, where anyone can post as anyone else. This is why we need a secondary source--to guarantee for us that the people making the comments are the actual people they represent. As in, it wasn't me posting as Drew Greenberg, but it was Drew Greenberg posting.
• The article already says fans were upset. In fact, the reaction to Tara's death is already a large part of the article because source information indicates a lot of material was written about why she died and how fans were affected by it. Joss Whedon said in a DVD commentary (and I really hate that I can't remember which disc I saw this on, but the first or second season Buffy DVD commentary I saw last month) that he listened to what fans really, really wanted, then he did the exact opposite. If fans liked Tara and begged the writers not to kill her, well...that's pretty much what he did. Whedon and David Fury had quite a few long conversations about whether to kill Tara (this is in the article, sourced to a published book) and flip-flopped about the decision until finally Whedon decided to go through with it to push Willow over the edge. So inserting other writers' message board comments that promised they wouldn't kill Tara is confusing to readers. If we hypothetically accept that the Internet message board comments don't fail WP:PRIMARY and WP:Reliable sources, Joss Whedon is the boss of the show and what he intended for the characters is what the characters got. We have to defer to the highest authority when discussing the intention of the character's trajectory. There is more room here to include other perspectives from writers, but we first have to overcome the fact that the writers' opinions were posted on sites that we cannot use as reliable sources. --Moni3 (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

A quick read of your history reveals a good deal of acrimony in the past with other posters so I have a strong desire to avoid any of that (I am not imply it is your fault! Just that these things get far too emotional, and you seem very willing to help me on aspects of this process I do not understand. So I am grateful for that.

Let me talk about each piece of "evidence" (for lack of a better term) that I want to introduce the statement from Steve Deknight about "Over my dead Body".

If I put the statement here, and cite the beta bronze archive, and then cite an author like Wilcox referring to it as the official posting board of Mutant Enemy (The VIPs were issued special accounts and passwords to allow them to post "As themselves" for verification to avoid impostors) then I have-> Entered the evidence the Beta Bronze is official by invoking Wilcox calling it such, and and then by linking to the exact statement by the writer, I have introduced a chain of reliability? So the statement Harold Hill(10/21):"I said this" on the Beta Bronze(link provided) which is referred to by Rhonda Wilcox (reference here) as the official ME board. is acceptable?

If I quote Bob Blacks self published essay but then cite its use by slayage.com in a journal I may mention the material if I ensure it is presented as opinion? for exampe So in volume abc, of the journal of whedon studies , the writer refers to a self published article by Bob Black, in which Bob States so and so" That is also an acceptable chain? Is this the correct method of presentation? let me know before I continue my reasoning.. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlloyd11 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As to your first point, my talk page often isn't very pretty, but it does its function. Wikipedia is unfortunately and fortunately a part of the Internet, where rudeness is a second language and the one folks often have to resort to to be understood. This site has policies, most of which attempt to give Wikipedia some semblance of credibility while simultaneously reminding its readers and volunteers that no source should ever be trusted as the absolute truth. I recall the first 6 months I began editing here and I made many mistakes. Other editors were sometimes kind in assisting me, some weren't. I understand not being familiar with the policies in place to make this a better encyclopedia. Sometimes my patience wanes, but most often when I can see other editors obviously have enough experience to know better and insist on remaining ignorant for one reason or another and the quality of articles deteriorates as a result.

I don't like enumerating my experience here because it seems like presenting an identity to you and I don't really stick too closely to an identity, but I've written 20 Featured Articles on Wikipedia (two of them associated with Buffy) and I've also written seven Buffy character articles (so far) if only to save some of them from being deleted. Two of them were this article and Willow's. This is just to illustrate that I am very interested in the series, and very much interested in making sure articles related to Buffy are some of the highest quality on the Internet. This doesn't mean what I've done is perfect. All articles can be improved to some degree. But there are standards here on this vast site that define how to present information neutrally and simply about notable topics, such as Buffy. Even if the majority of editors on Wikipedia don't stick too closely to those standards, every once in a while very good articles can be excellent examples of what Wikipedia is capable of producing.

As to sourcing the writers' opinions about Tara's death, the best way to do it is to find a secondary source, such as Wilcox, or any author of an article found at slayageonline.net, that references the discussions the writers had with Whedon, each other, and with fans that illustrate the decision process about killing Tara and what it would mean for her character. If the secondary source quotes the original, you can cite the original for the quote (or not--either way), but only if the original source is also a reliable source. So, here's the strange part for now: if a source uses online message boards as indication of fan reaction--and a few Buffy analysts use online message board sites for this purpose, you cannot cite the online message board. You can only summarize the points made by the secondary source. For instance, one source I used to write Willow's article used evidence of fan message board comments to indicate how Willow and Tara's relationship affected young women. I had to summarize the book chapter's points, not quote individual comments from the message board. If the analyst says young women found their relationship moving and important, I summarize that. The exclusion to this is Whedon's own words (or any other series writer) in an interview, either with a newspaper or magazine, or on DVD commentary or on camera, where it's obviously Whedon or David Fury or such, stating his intentions for the character.

Once those sources are in hand, the information should be incorporated into the existing article in such a way that it does not repeat points that have already been made and flows well with the rest of the prose. It may help to work on incorporating some information here on the talk page, honing it and working on it, then placing it in the article once it's ready to go in. As I said, the article can stand to be improved. There is source information about Tara I found after I wrote most of this article, but I haven't had the opportunity to come back and add it all in in a meaningful way. --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi DrLloyd. Thanks for coming here to talk about this. First, I'm not sure what you're doing to create those text boxes, maybe putting in unnecessary spaces? but look at your post with the Show Preview function before you save to make sure your post is readable. Also, please use the signature and time-stamp option each time you post here or on any other Talk page. See the icon up there that looks like a pen? Let your cursor hover over it and you'll see it says "signature and time stamp." Then make sure your cursor is at the end of your post so the signature goes in there. Or you can type four of these ~ and your signature will appear. Use the Preview function to make sure you did it correctly before you save the page.

Now, about your point--after carefully re-reading what you said above, it sounds as though your biggest concern is high-lighting that the series' writers deliberately misled fans in the weeks leading up to her death--is that correct? Or is it something else? Can you tell me what the most important issue is for you and why it is important? Thanks.--TEHodson 21:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I had just written a long and detailed followup and it seems to have vanished, so I hope you both forgive if my reply takes a few more hours. The quick version of my reply was that I in no way view this as a "pissing contest" but I am genuinely glad that you both have taken the time discuss this with me especially given the poor initial impression I made. I view your goal is to improve the page and I hope you see mine as the same but with a lot less experience (as my initial blundering showed). Let me rewrite or recover my full reply to your questions and hopefully post it a bit later. Thanks Drlloyd11 (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlloyd11 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC) 

No problem. Let me know if you have any clarifying questions. I know about losing replies. It really sucks when you lose massive edits to articles. --Moni3 (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

My apology for my absence. There was a a lot holiday rush and children's school breaks to delay me. I will get back to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlloyd11 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

offering help

The biggest issue here as I see it is we have a new editor who has taken the time and effort to add to the knowledge of an article he/she feels passionate about, does the research, and then has all the material deleted and a bunch of policy thrown about. I find that very disappointing. What happened to basic civility? Maybe offering to help? How about Being Bold? Well, we were all new here once and someone was nice enough enough to show me the ropes here and navigate all of this. So I'll help out Dr. Lloyd. There is a lot of good material here, and even my quick research tells me there is something here that needs to be said. Either way, it is our jobs as editors to also foster other good editors. Web Warlock (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Birth and death

Tara's birth and death dates are given in on her gravestone.Leutha (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

How is this not trivia, particularly for a fictional character? --Moni3 (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well as I was born on the self same cusp of Capricorn and Aquarius as Buffy, I suggest you reconsider the role of astroloy in the script writing.Leutha (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not what Wikipedia is for. Information in articles reflects what has been published in the best possible reliable sources. In all the information I've read about Tara, I've never seen anything pertinent to anyone's cusp of aquarius or astrological anything. There are dozens of academic treatments of Buffy. Unless you can find something in one of them--and they're listed at the bottom of the article, and they do not include angelfire, delcarsdungeon.com, or other wikis--this is completely trivial information. Find something that pertains to how Tara's birthday addresses something about her character. Also, once more, this is a fictional character and fictional characters do not have birth and death dates like living people. If there is substantial information in reliable sources discussing how old the character is or in what time frame s/he lived, that is good reason to address the character's age.

Wikipedia is a collection of summarized information from reliable sources. Please check this link to read what constitutes a reliable source.

I'm reverting this once more. Please furthermore familiarize yourself with the rules against 3 reverts. You can get blocked for continuing this. --Moni3 (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tara Maclay. 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/20100612174841/http://www.afterellen.com/people/2010/6/amber-benson to http://www.afterellen.com/people/2010/6/amber-benson
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716084029/http://www.slayageonline.com/PDF/locklin.pdf to http://www.slayageonline.com/PDF/locklin.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823080407/http://www.whedonsworld.co.uk/interviews/buffy/main/amber/gaywired.html to http://www.whedonsworld.co.uk/interviews/buffy/main/amber/gaywired.html

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) 20:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)