Talk:Days of Our Lives/Archive 1

Irna Phillips & Cordays creators

There has been some speculation over if Irna Phillips created Days, but in a speech Ken Corday gave, he saids that his parents created Days Irna Phillips (I think Allan Chase might have been involved in the creation, but I will leave it open)

http://soapoperadigest.com/features/days/features/dayscelebration/

re: 80stvthemes.com

I visited the site and could not find the theme to "The Cruise of Deception" so I took off the reference and link to it.

Gordon

Re: The Cruise of Deception There are some oddities in the summary of it. The Cruise of Deception happened over the summer of 1990 (though perhaps it could be said to have begun earlier with the introduction of the Toscanos.) That said, the way the summary is written it cuts abruptly from the "Cruise of Deception" story to the Princess Gina story (citing the unpopularity of the Princess Gina story. These two stories have no connection and are separated by a decade of time as the Hope returns as Princess Gina story happened in the 2000s (and claimed that Hope had been kidnapped by the DiMeras) and the Cruise of Deception had Hope "killed" by Ernesto Toscano (and the Cruise of Deception is actually a very fondly remembered story in Days history and it had good ratings when it was playing. The Princess Gina story should be shifted into the 2000s and/or the James Reilly era and not listed as part of the Cruise of Deception.

ohmigod. miscellania. but then again that's the beauty of it all eh?

My wife points out that Deidre Hall has a real twin sister (Andrea Hall) who played Marlena's evil twin and Hattie Adams.

Yeah, that's true. I don't know when this was posted, but I'm sure it was before someone added her name. She goes by Andrea Hall Gengler now, so I've edited it to say that much. Mike H 15:42, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

style on the "our"

FYI, the correct style for the title of DOOL is lower case on the "of" and the "our", that is "Days of our Lives". I noticed that the Wikipedia entry has a cap O on our.

It's not "correct style", rather, how the show chooses to accentuate the fact that it's our LIVES and not OUR LIVES. Grammatically, however, Days of Our Lives would be correct and is used this way in many publications. Mike H 07:39, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

How does the show spell it's name in it's publicity? If it is with a lower case 'o' then, irrespective of grammar or tv guides, we show use the show's own spelling [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 16:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's already been referenced lots of places with this title. If you're willing to change every instance, then you go ahead and move it. Mike H 20:10, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

But the title they use is "Days of our Lives", right? [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 18:36, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It varies. I've noticed that the lower case o was not used when using the name in an article on the show...I think it's more of a semantics question than anything else. For example, in the beginning, the show did not make a differentiation in capitalization on the title card: from 1965 to 1972, it simply said "DAYS OF OUR LIVES". [1] So, again, as I said, if you want the page moved, go ahead and move it, but be prepared to correct all the links.

I'm also not sure what you mean by 'they'. Do you mean the show? Then we should change As the World Turns to AS THE WORLD TURNS, then, because the title card overrules all other usage. Mike H 20:59, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for being combative earlier. I've found that the O is capitalized in the book All My Afternoons, written by Annie Gilbert, as well as in Soap Opera Digest (before the magazine went to ALL CAPITALS for the shows' names) and in the Days of Our Lives Family Album, written by Lorraine Zenka but published with help by both the Corday estate and NBC. Mike H 22:06, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Days of Our Lives → Days of our Lives

About two years ago, Days of our Lives was redirected to Days of Our Lives. Many people have brought up that since the title card shows a lower case letter on the "our", that it should be named as such in the article. After at first arguing about it and giving evidence otherwise, I feel that the issue is just too trivial to fight. I think the article should be moved because there seems to be quite enough consensus on the talk page for it to be moved. I tried moving it myself but couldn't. Mike H 20:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose: It's perfectly okay where it is. There are scores of internal links, too, and none are through a redirect except on this page, at User talk:Zoe and at Talk:Days of Our Lives. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:08, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. "our" is the case on the official NBC site. Internal links irrelevant (unless more than 500, so they can't be displayed). I'm more than willing to help update the links. Niteowlneils 17:58, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS "Everything" links there because I recently updated all (well, most, anyway) soap opera links to avoid redir messages--check my contribs. Niteowlneils 18:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • Update the links? What's wrong with simply keeping them, and using the redirect like it's meant to be used? --SPUI 00:57, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. If there's consensus on the talk page then let it be done - the only reason it can't be automatically moved is technical so let's not stand in the way of that. Timrollpickering 15:28, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When all else fails, wouldn't it be best to go by what the network does? The network specifically made the request of sites like soapcentral.com and tvtome.com (turned tv.com) to refer to the show as Days of our Lives because that is the title they have always used. It is a minor thing, but it's like Law & Order v. Law and Order. The second is grammatically correct, but the first is the actual title. D'Amico 20:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

POV dilemma

I think it should be noted that DAYS is pretty much de facto one of the soaps with the weirdest plot elements, but it should be mentioned in a fairly NPOV manner that the show pretty much went from traditional story to "weird" in the 1980s with Stefano DiMera and his schemes, and Calliope and her wacky polka-dot clothes and the dog wedding. Mike H 06:42, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Sentence

In 2004, the New Salem volcano erupted. There were no casualties though. :)

I'm moving this here until someone can build on it and make it...encyclopedic, though. :) Mike H 18:34, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

John and Marlena as a supercouple in the '80s

I reverted the recent edits for one simple reason: John Black was not a character on the show until the 1990s. Roman and Marlena would be a supercouple, but only if it's prefaced with an acknowledgement that Wayne Northrop also played the role. Plus, Marlena "died" in 1987, and then Roman was put in a coupling with Diana. Mike H 08:46, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

TV-14 SUCKS, guys!

If it's shown on PBS, it'll get TV-Y7. -- 24.159.186.88

It'll only get a TV-Y7 rating if 99% of the stuff is cut out. Mike H 01:36, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

You mean it'll only get a TV-Y if 99% of the stuff is cut out. Usually shows that are normally rated TV-14 or TV-MA get TV-Y7 the moment they premiere on PBS. -- 24.159.186.88

I don't even know why we're having this discussion. Why would it be on PBS anyway? Are you that same kid who had a lot of his stuff placed on VFD because they were made-up TV shows? Mike H 20:40, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

And why are you accusing me? -- Ryan F

Also, FYI, what the (censored) does VFD stand for? -- 24.159.186.88

Cross or "Deceased"

There has been a slight revert skirmish with the crucifix and deceased. I edited away this crucifix, and it was reverted before there was a de-re-vert-ish-li-ness-ness. Try and work that out!

Seriously, though, I do understand why it was used, and wish to outline my case for replacing it with the word "deceased". In German, use of a cross is standard style, and I believe this to be the case with the German wikipedia. It is, however, frankly unprecedented in English in my view. Not only have I never seen it, it is religiously partisan. Should Dalai Lamas and Saudi Kings have the crucifix for deceased? It is by definition POV: it is religiously partisan. Whilst I do not try and have it ground out of the German wikipedia, the case is different here. Let's keep religion out of everything here.

Thanks, sorry for the sort of cheeky unilateral edit. Zhengfu

Days of our Lives moving from NBC and to ABC?

It's gonna be easier. In March 2009, Days of our Lives will most likely not continue on NBC, but will move to ABC. Days of our Lives will air on ABC right before All My Children, One Life to Live, and General Hospital and will air right after The View. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.57.159 (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Split?

There's a lot of new material which covers stories from the 80's and 90's. Do you think we should split this up into separate categories? It seems to have worked for the As the World Turns page. --JamesB3 12:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It also needs to be cleaned up, what with a POV check and the removal of those silly "enter" and "exit" headings. Mike H (Talking is hot) 21:25, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I can go through and try to edit some of this. I don't know if the soaps section needs another POV or another Peer Review that no one participates in. --JamesB3 02:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I made a lot of changes. It's still not perfect, but I think it's okay now. Tell me what you think. --JamesB3 06:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Eugene Bradford

Would some please add information on John de Lancie's character Eugene Bradford? My babysitter watched this show when I was growing up, and his time travel escapades are the only thing that grabbed my attention. Did Calliope go with him? Didn't they show up from time to time for years after? --Chris Griswold 09:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

list

Maybe someone has an idea as to what to do with this: List of Days Of Our Lives Characters. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete it from the list. That was not a character from Days of our Lives. Copycaat (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Coming and Going Castmembers

Somebody keeps removing Missy Reeves from Current Castmembers in favor of her being in Coming and Going castmembers 'cause she's leaving in September.

She's both. She's currently under contract with the show and is currently seen on the show in a contract capacity, ergo she's still a contract player. She doesn't stop being one just because she soon won't be.

And why is Jensen Ackles included as a coming and going cast member? He's neither coming or going, he's on some WB show now.

Please do not remove Annie Burgstede from the goings section. The most recent edition of SOW/SOD has stated that she will be leaving by the end of summer. Greggyorshuk 20:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

ALSO, Joseph Mascolo is under contract per The May 8th issue of SOD. It is not a temp return. 131.156.240.89 01:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling and Grammar

Both are poor in this article. Irrelevant words are thrown in at certain places. Sentences abruptly end without punctuation. I think this article needs both major reconstructive editing and a code comment at the top to warn people of what they may get themselves into.

Revised the ratings section that needed cleanup

I revised the ratings section. I took out a lot of the information that I think cluttered up the article and made it confusing. Most of it were the specifics on time-slots and so on. I don't really think it is necessary to know in order to understand the ratings game between Days and other soaps. Anyways, I took the cleanup tag off of it but I haven't checked the cleanup list to see if its on there. --Shiaobundan 04:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Kurt McKinney

The star of the 1980s movie No Retreat, No Surrender is currently in this show. The IMDB do not loist him as being in iot but he is. He plays the character who just got married, but the lady he married ex-husband has just turned up after faking his death (as you may be able to tell, I do not watch this show, the first time I saw it was yesterday and I reconised the actor), could any fans of this show please tell me the name of the Character Kurt is playing? Thank you. 74.65.39.59 17:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

With the description you've given, you're thinking of the Frankie Brady character, who is played by Billy Warlock, not Kurt McKinney. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 02:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Intresting. I just saw the show and though it was McKinney (being a big fan of the No Retreat .. movie). They do look alike. 74.65.39.59 11:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

McKinney was actually on "General Hospital" as the first Ned the show Warlock was on inbetween DAYS stints. McKinney has made some appearances on "Guiding Light" in the past year.

Capitalisation in article title

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) states "In general, titles of books, films, and other works are also capitalized, except for articles (a, and, the) and prepositions and conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., to, from, and)." I don't think it's wise to suppose that the show's producers believed not capitalising the word "our" in the title was absolutely necessary. It's just as likely that the show's production company's manual of style suggests against capitalisation of pronouns in titles, in which case that's "correct" for them; ours doesn't, which is thus "correct" for us. The one thing we know for certain is what standard Wikipedia style (and what is stipulated in most major manuals of style) is, which is why I think it's best and safest to use it. Extraordinary Machine 12:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's wise to suppose that the show's producers believed not capitalising the word "our" in the title was absolutely necessary. It's just as likely that the show's production company's manual of style suggests against capitalisation of pronouns in titles, in which case that's "correct" for them; ours doesn't, which is thus "correct" for us.

I don't think that's it at all, really. I think the reason why "our" is not capitalized is to place more emphasis on "Lives," and not "Our Lives." Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ratings history?

Is there a reason we need a list of ratings from years' past on the page? Currently, the 1996-1997 Season ratings are on the page.

I think a well-written paragraph that mentioned high and low points would suffice, and perhaps the most recent ratings results (not from ten years ago). Twice I've deleted ratings lists that were more than a decade old and had no real context, but they have been added back in.

Can we make a decision on listing/not listing ratings results for all the soaps? I don't see why we need to show the data for all the soaps, but if the results are somehow notable (DOOL's best week ever, worst week ever, etc.), I think it makes sense to say how DOOL did. Doc502 21:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Lisa?

Who the heck is Lisa? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blakebs (talk • contribs) 05:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Lisa is a waitress at the Brady Pub, who has been there since its opening in 1992. She is an off-and-on character who isn't seen that often, and hasn't had a story of her own. At first I was skeptical about keeping her on the list, but I think I'd keep her. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

John Black, since 1986?

I've corrected this twice and it has been reverted twice by some anonymous IP. Drake Hogestyn has not played the character of John Black since 1986. It should be noted that for five years, he played Roman Brady, because it leads a casual reader to believe that the John Black character has been on since 1986, which is not true. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

TEK

In the comings and goings section "Tek Kramer" should be "TEK" as it stands for "Thomas Edward Kramer" It makes no sense to have "TEK Kramer"

While this is old I just have to say that he went by the name Tek so Tek Kramer is perfectly fine to have put Tek Kramer at the time. Jcar03 21:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hawk

Hi, I'm not one of the regular Days of Our Lives editors, so could use some help. Actor Austin Miller, who evidently played the character "Hawk" in the 2001-2002 season, is now gaining some notoriety as a contestant on the "Grease: You're the One that I Want!" competition. I'd like to link to the DOOY articles, but I can't seem to find anywhere that he's mentioned. Is there a list anywhere, or was his part too small to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia? --Elonka 06:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Its a nice bit of trivia. He was only on for about 20 episodes over the course of year though. 131.156.240.89 04:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Joy Bisco on contract?

Not so much that I'm doubting it, but I can't seem to find any official or truly valid resources that list her as being on-contract with the show -- it's only on some non-official webpages, and seems to have fireballed from there. Does anyone know of an official or sanctioned resource that advises of her status? When she was cast, it was stated at the time to be recurring. D'Amico 06:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, soaps.com got in touch with Bisco's agent and she signed a six month contract with the show at this time. Jcar03 21:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Senior Cast Members

Okay, I happened to notice that Frances Reid is no longer listed as the Senior Cast Member in the info box and that she has been removed from the contract cast portion of the cast list. I know rumors are floating and they are probably true that Reid isn't in good health right now and probably won't be seen on the show again BUT she is still listed in the credits of the show and none of it has been confirmed by the show. It appears the show will have her remain "under contract" for the foreseeable future.

Joe Mascolo/Stefano

I have searched quite a few places and cannot find a reliable source stating that he is returning. Everything I've seen announcing his return is people posting on message boards that they heard from "an insider" or similar. The only half-way reliable information I found was an article (and I didn't bookmark it, darnit) that quoted him as saying that Days had not approached him about a return, and that he was considering returning to B&B as Masimo again. Anyone have any good source for his return announcement or should this be removed? KC0ZHQ 22:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As yet, there has been no official confirmation on Mascolo's return. There were write-ups in the mags as recent as a couple of weeks back where he said he had not been contacted. There is also no official confirmation that I can find on Renee Jones either. There are rumors that Lexie will return, but it hasn't been stated that it will be Jones (or even that it's official). D'Amico 09:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Soap Opera Digest is announcing in the May 8th issue that he has indeed signed a contract and will be returning this summer. KC0ZHQ 15:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Anna DiMera

Has it been confirmed that Anna DiMera is returning. It is only a rumour at the moment. Maybe we sould start a rumoured returning section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.25.255.214 (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

"Thaao Penghilis" (I only put it in quotes because I don't know how to confirm that it's really him) posted to the guestbook on his website confirming that she is returning. Nothing that I see confirms a date though. http://pub46.bravenet.com/guestbook/3882218587/

KC0ZHQ 22:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

John Clarke/Mickey Horton

Has it been confirmed that John Clarke is returning. I cannot find anything on him on the internet (not even rumours about a return). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.25.255.214 (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

I've been unable (as of yet) to find anything valid either. Clarke didn't leave because he was fired; he was retiring. It seems unlikely to me he would return, unless it was for a one-time super-special shot. D'Amico 16:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there has been nothing official. Clarke did say he was retiring though I think the whole thing was brought on because he did not care for the direction of the show.

He was in failing health in 2004, although I don't know if he is better now. Nothing has been announced. I am a big fan of citing web and print sources for the comings and goings section, and I think we should start doing that. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Judi Evans as Adrienne Kiriakis, Recurring or Contract?

When Evans returned to Days as Adrienne, she was always listed as recurring. Has she since been put on contract with the show and is that why she is listed as a current cast member? Recently on the soapcentral.com messgae board, it was said that Evans was put up on contract, but I still am not sure about the whole thing. Can someone shed some light on the subject? Thank you.

She is contract and that is confirmed by the credits that have run the last few weeks. Penghlis confirmed he is contract and Evans falls right before him since DAYS does it by the date they joined the show.

Is there a reliable source that backs this up?

Yes, the credits of the show. Evans comes in before Tanya Boyd who is recurring if Evans was recurring she would fall after Boyd since recurring is alphabetical order why contract is join or return date. Evans also comes before Donovan, Patrick, Penghlis and SOD has confirmed they are contract. 20:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.171.38 (talk)

CORRECTION: Evans is NOT contract. The credits of the show now put her after Penghlis and Mascolo (who both confirmed their contract status in SOD). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.171.38 (talk) (00:19, June 21, 2007)

Futhermore confirmed by the fact that Evans has not appeared in the credits this week or last since she did not appear in an episode. On DAYS contract actors appear if they appear that week or not and recurring only appear if they are in that weeks shows. jcar03 23:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)jcar03

Sorry there jcar03, how many times have we not seen a recurring actor on that week and yet they appear in the credits?! For example, Tanya Boyd, John Aniston, Bill & Susan Hayes, etc? Can you answer that? I dont know what the deal is with Judi Evans. She is contract. That has all ready been confirmed. Thank you so very much!71.255.54.45 04:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Where was this confirmed???????????? She even said when she came back it was not on contract yet AND NONE of the soap magazines have said otherwise. Big point here I saw the credits today Judi Evans WAS NOT there is she was CONTRACT she would be there no matter what. I'm not going to remove her from anywhere cause I'm not playing the editing war game. John Aniston hasn't been in the contract recently. jcar03 22:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's stay peaceful now. I can recall reading that Ken Corday explained that she was contract, and many other people remember, thats why shes listed as CONTRACT here. Okay?71.255.54.45 19:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Article improvement

I was asked to take a look at this article, and see about helping to get it to the next level of quality (maybe even to Featured status, and on the Wikipedia mainpage!). Here's what I recommend:

• The article needs to be switched from a "list" format to "prose" format. Try to change it more of an article, rather than just a collection of factoids.
• Move anything that has to be a list, out to a separate "List" page
• Ensure that the article only uses information that has a clear and quoted source. Anything that isn't sourced, should be removed.
• For the "storyline" section, try to give a brief (maybe 1000 words) summary of what the storylines in the show are about. Not a detailed who-did-what-to-whom, but a more general overview. In other words, how is the storyline in Days, different from the storyline in General Hospital, or All My Children? Who are the major families, what are the most common sets?
• Be bold in making changes, and if you have questions, post them here at the talkpage, or on the talkpage at WP:SOAPS.

Hope that helps, Elonka 07:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 3000 miles, use 3000 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 3000 miles.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): doesn't, doesn't, isn't, isn't, doesn't, wasn't.
• You may wish to convert your form of references to the cite.php footnote system that WP:WIAFA 1(c) highly recommends.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Elonka 07:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Female Characters & their Maiden/Married Last Names

Lately there has been a lot of switching around among Sami Roberts' pages. Originally Sami Brady, she was redirected to Sami Roberts, Samantha Brady Roberts, etc. Why can't we just have her remain at "Sami Brady" like all the other female charcters on Days? Hope goes by "Hope Brady," although she is on the page "Hope Williams," Kayla goes by "Dr. Kayla Johnson" when she is on the page "Kayla Brady," then the same issues with Adrienne Kiriakis, Jennifer Deveraux, and Julie Williams. They all are on pages with their maiden names, so why should Sami be different? Let's keep her at "Brady."

Days Page New Look

Who came up with this new page idea? I wish we would return to its old format! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.123.180 (talk • contribs) 18:51, June 9, 2007

Information is not being removed so much as moved to other locations. We are trying to upgrade the quality of the page, to see about getting it to Good or featured article status (and maybe even on the Wikipedia mainpage!). The old version of the page did not comply with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Discussion about the new format is of course encouraged though. Can you please be more specific about what you like or dislike? --Elonka 20:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Elonka has summed it up rather perfectly. If you're looking for the "trivia" and "other media" sections, though, those are out for good because Wikipedia articles are not supposed to have those, which is why the big "TRIVIA" notice was on the top of the page for about a month. Someone added back "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," and if someone doesn't give me a reason on the talk page why it should stay with the likes of "Friends," who mentioned the show for 10 years straight, I'll remove it tomorrow. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 20:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The main part of my question became ignited when I saw that there were no listings of the families in Salem, as there was on the original format. The new format seems confusing. There is too much information at the beginning! I am also upset that the Cast members are on a different page now, with a new part of prior charcters/actors. It should be put back to normanl, with a less confusing format! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.123.180 (talk) 23:58, June 9, 2007

Thank you for participating in the discussion, we're glad to have you.  :) The opening in the old article was actually much too short by Wikipedia standards. According to WP:LEAD, a good opening is supposed to have a summary of the entire article, within a few paragraphs. We're definitely still working on it though. As for the list of families, I thought that was just moved out to a "List" article. Mike, do you know what happened to it? In any case, 71.246.12.180, don't worry, the article's going to be in a bit of flux for a few days, but it should turn out even better in the long run.  :) --Elonka 00:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If you go back to a previous version, you can find the lead with the list of families. Right now, I don't see where we can put that without it being too much information, or redundant. As for the cast list, Guiding Light does not list its cast list in the main article either, and I think it's beneficial to split it off and write prose; after all, that is what Wikipedia looks for in good and featured articles. If you have any more suggestions, please, don't hesitate. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 00:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could make a List of Days of our Lives families? --Elonka 03:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that list of Days families can hold a family tree or a listing of its members. That's a good idea, Elonka. By the way, can we also settle the dispute of Chelsea Benson/Brady's real last name. Lately she's been referred to as "Chelsea Brady," so I guess that is her real last name. Also, why is Sami being switched around among pages (view my section above with female characters last names). Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.123.180 (talk) 04:05, June 10, 2007

I need an actual citation or transcript where it says "Chelsea Brady." So it's verifiable. With Sami Brady, that's staying where it is. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 05:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I know that you Halterman and you Elonka promise that the Days page will get better, but I'm sorry, I still miss the old one. I don't think I'm goning to like the new format. It's just how I feel. My other favorite soap and wiki page is The Young and the Restless. I like that look, so let's make it look like that one! It's organized in a complete and proper manner, so everyone should check it out to see if you agree with me! Thanks. User:71.246.123.180

Sorry 71.246.123.180, but I have to disagree. I think the new page is 1000% better, and is much more in accordance with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas guidelines. It's my hope that with a few more tweaks, the page can get to what's called "Featured" status, and actually be eligible to show up on Wikipedia's mainpage. :) BTW, when you sign posts, use four tildes: ~~~~ That will automatically sign and datestamp whatever you write.  :) --Elonka 04:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I must say that I much prefered the old look. It was simple and to the point and you didn't need to go to so many different pages for info on days. I think we should change it back very soon. Just look at all the other soap pages, they all list the cast members on that same page and the first paragraphs are not nearly as long and confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.13.191 (talk) 11:41, June 11, 2007

Can you be more specific about what info you are having trouble finding? If you want cast info, just go to List of Days of our Lives cast members, which has all the same information. As for the other soaps pages, many of them are in the process of being changed as well. You're welcome to join the effort if you think the information can be better organized. Feel free to create a username, and join the participants list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas.  :) --Elonka 15:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting crazy. Why does this page have to be different when mostly other soaps have everything on ONE page? Its too complicated. I dont feel like jumping from one page to another. It looks like Y&R and ATWT are the only pages that are under control and simple, so Days should be the same. I'm tired of this so lets come to an agreement quickly!- 71.246.123.180.

Our plan at Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas is to try and update all major soap opera articles, but we obviously can't do all of them at once. Currently the most work has been done on Days, GH, and I think work has started on Y&R. If you'd like to bring ATWT into line with the Manual of Style format, that would be most appreciated!  :) For more info, see Wikipedia:Summary style --Elonka 22:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you are only trying to make the page better but, could currect cast members, recurring cast members, comings and goings and deceased cast members please by re-added to this article. It is so stupid and I hate having to go to so many different articles. All my freinds also agree. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.105.48 (talk) 11:13, June 13, 2007

As stated before, we are editing to make the article correspond to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and also to get the article featured, which means it will embody some of the best work found on Wikipedia. One thing I have not noticed is any special reasoning why the cast list HAS to be on this article. If there really isn't anything substantial other than "we just like it that way," I'm inclined to keep it split off into the daughter article, like the style manual suggests. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 05:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Mike that we're trying to improve the article per Wikipedia's style guidelines. I am trying to keep an open mind though, as to why some people want the cast list back on the main page. Can you please try to better articulate why this is important to you? There may be some compromise we could find, if we could better understand what the problem is. For example, we might be able to do something creative with an infobox or navigational template, as is done at the bottom of the General Hospital articles. Would that help address people's concerns? Elonka 17:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does Elonka and Mike Halterman the only ones who make the decision? Why can't anyone else have a say in this whole thing? Can the two of you answer this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.123.180 (talk) 22:52, June 15, 2007

It's not just us, it's a consensus decision of any editors who care to participate on the talkpage. Mike and I are just two of the more active editors here, and we're also active at Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas. Our voices also have a tiny bit more weight, since we're established editors who have experience working on many different Wikipedia articles. Whereas voices with the least weight, tend to be anonymous editors who have no history of working on more than one article. To give yourself a stronger voice, I would recommend (1) sign up for an account so you have a consistent name; (2) sign your posts with ~~~~ which will automatically timestamp what you say; and (3) show that you're interested in more than just the Days of our Lives article by working on other stuff around Wikipedia. But even without that, you can still have a say in things, by simply presenting your thoughts in a civil and reasoned way. In other words, not just "I don't like it", but give actual reasons why your method is better. We really are listening.  :) --Elonka 23:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? I always gave a reason why I disliked the new Days page, so please don't put words in my mouth and say I did not. Thank you, so very much. Anyway, when so many people are disagreeing with the new format, do'nt you think it should be changed. I still do not think that Elonka and Mike are on "our" side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.123.180 (talk) 04:43, June 16, 2007

I'm sorry, but I'm still not understanding why you dislike the changes, other than that you want to keep all the information on one page. However, there is a limit to how long that Wikipedia articles can be, so if we want to expand it, it is necessary to branch out to subpages, per Wikipedia:Summary style. In any case, if you strongly disagree with the changes, you are welcome to follow one of the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Elonka 20:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Days page was fine how it used to be and at least the cast members were on the same page. Who cares if it is not a featured article and placed on the front page. Did you ever consider that not everybody that reads wikipedia wants to view the Days page. I think we should change it back to the way it used to look or at least re-add the cast lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.80.51 (talk) 09:30, June 17, 2007

How dare Mike and Elonka just come in and take over this page. It works perfectly well the way it was before. Who gives a fuck if it is a featured article or not. Could the cast members please be added to this article. And why don't you stop asking everybody what the problem is. Are you blind or something can't you read what they write? And by the way the new page is so god dam confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant Chuggle (talk • contribs) 09:37, June 17, 2007

Please stay civil, as angry comments aren't going to help us find a compromise.  :/ How about this though? I have created a template, which we can add to the bottom of every Days of our Lives page. It will allow for a quick way to click to any Days character. I've started a version here, and we just need to fill in the rest of the characters, and then we can add this to all the Days pages. Feel free to expand: Template:Days of our Lives. --Elonka 19:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, I think that Victor Kiriakis, Celeste Perrault, Will Roberts, Ciara Brady, Anna Fredericks, Bart Beiderbecke, Dr. Wilhelm Rolf, and Theo Carver should be on that Days Template you created. Even though they are recurring, they are all still very important to the show! Doug & Julie Williams are recurring and you have them on there, so the other recurring characters should be too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.123.180 (talk) 18:56, June 20, 2007

Fine by me, and I'm very glad that we're finding a compromise!  :) Are you comfortable enough with the template technology to add them yourself? Or would you rather that I did it? If you can handle tables, you should be able to handle a template. Just go to Template:Days of our Lives and edit it like a normal page.  :) --Elonka 00:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'll try! Thanks for getting it started!71.246.123.180 03:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I added, I included each of the recurring characters (from above!), and Supercouple in Related Info. Do you think I can add SoapNet in Related Info?71.246.123.180 03:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks really good, thank you! As for SoapNet, I'd say no, we should stick with just links that are entirely (or mostly) Days-related. What do you think of the idea of alphabetizing the list though, like by last name? --Elonka 03:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking! Can you do that? I don't have the patience. Also, can we add a list of supercouples instead of having Supercouple at the Related Info? It would look really nice! Is it possible to change the color on it from orange to blue or purple?71.246.123.180 04:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Before Elonka, or anyone alphabetizing the character list at the bottom of the page, the first name should be Alice Horton, followed by Maggie Horton, then Dr. Marlena Evans as they are the three characters who have been on the show the longest. After their names are shown, then the alphabetizing of the list should begin by last name. Thank you. I put Alice, Maggie and Marlena in the beginning, for my reasons here.71.246.123.180 19:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Just butting in here regarding a comment I read on this page that "established editors carry more weight". I couldn't help but comment about seeing this, as that is not true at all. Anyone can edit an article and be bold in editing, as long as they follow policies. No one owns an article, I don't care if one has been editing for 10 years. New blood is actually good, may provide very good ideas and become an excellent contributor. Remember do not bite the newcomers, even if it's just a teeny tiny nibble.  :) - Jeeny ^Talk 03:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

unclear part of article

"Since the 1990s, with the introduction of writer James E. Reilly, Days of our Lives has moved from traditional plots to supernatural and science-fiction-themed stories, in conjunction with the rivalry of good vs. evil (Bradys vs. DiMeras). [14] Under the tenure of Reilly, ratings, which were in trouble in the late 1980s and early 1990s, quickly rebounded to second place."

it should probably be clarified as to what second place refers to. Second place of daytime ratings? What constitutes the daytime genre? Enigmaman 22:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, second place in the soap ratings. "Daytime" is a more broad term, and also includes The Price is Right, which is traditionally always #1 and would push all the soaps down one notch. I will clear it up. Thanks! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 00:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

just a reminder. You did what's hot when? Enigmaman 22:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I said "That's hot" before she did. ;) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

The Brady/DiMera feud link is dead. Just so you know. 76.5.154.109 16:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I've removed it. Don't be shy about editing the article. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 17:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's so weird. I visited that site last week and really liked it. Now its gone! Why!!!!!!! :sobs: :cries: Grr!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.54.45 (talk)

Sorry. :( I would have liked to have seen it myself. - Jeeny ^Talk 04:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Before They Were Stars & Notable Guest Stars

I thought that it would be an interesting idea to have a chart for "Before They Were Stars" for actors who hit it big after appearing on Days of our Lives. Some actors may include, Charles Shaughnessy (Shane Donovan), Amy Yasbeck (Olivia Reed), etc. Also with Guest Stars such as The Rolling Stones, Smokey Robinson, and some more, it is necessary to include a list of names of these stars. Thank you.71.246.127.190 07:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there not one on the cast member list? If there isn't, I fully support starting one. If you want help, I can do so. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 18:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no cast list like the the Before they were stars and guest stars. This is a great idea and it should be added to the page as quickly as possible!71.125.212.188 03:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am busy formulating a Wikimania bid, but I can help with suggestions. Shannon Tweed played Savannah Wilder, Marilyn McCoo (who was already famous) played Tamara Price, Mary Frann played Amanda Howard, and right now that's all I can think of on that end. Clay Aiken, LeAnn Rimes and Al Jarreau all played themselves. Ruth Buzzi played Eugene Bradford's crazy cousin Letitia. Melinda O. Fee, who had a career in TV long before Days, played the last Mary Anderson. Likewise, Charles Cioffi had a career in films before playing Ernesto Toscano. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Salem, USA

I have tried to fix the page, Salem (Days of our Lives). I added, Notable Residents and DiMera's in Salem, among making other stuff on the page more presentable. All other people should contribute to that page, adding all much-needed information and pictures. Port Charles (General Hospital) is a good example for a fictional town on a soap opera. We should model Salem by Port Charles.71.125.212.188 02:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC) :)

Harper Deveraux

Harper Deveraux links directly to the Days of our Lives article--and I don't think it should! He was on the show 1987-1988 and 1990-1992. Isn't that notable enough to get him his own page? Why does it even redirect to Days anyway? --Miss Burkle 02:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review: On hold

I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria and have placed the article on hold at this time until the following issues are addressed:

1. "Since the 1990s, with the introduction of writer James E. Reilly, Days of our Lives has moved from traditional plots to supernatural and science-fiction-themed stories, in conjunction with the rivalry of good vs. evil Hatfield/McCoy feud like (Bradys vs. DiMeras). [27]" Remove the space in between the punctuation and the inline citation. Go through the article and fix any other occurrences if applicable. DONE. A few more had that problem, so I fixed those too.
2. Remove the space between the "Cast" and "Executive producing and head writing team" sections. DONE?. I don't see the extra space, would you clarify a bit more? Someone else might've changed that, I don't know.
3. "In 1974, the show was planned to expand to an hour in length..." Consider rewording to just state that was an hour in length ("the show was expanded to an hour in length") as it currently reads a little awkward. DONE, changed to "In 1974, the show was expanded to an hour in lenght..."
4. "During the late 1970s and early 1980s, high writer turnover was commonplace. In the early 1980s, Margaret DePriest helped stabilize the show and kill off dead wood in the cast via a serial killer storyline." Either reword "dead wood" to something more encyclopedic since some readers may not know what it means or if it is from a quote, add quotation marks and add an inline citation.
5. "His tenure, which lasted for four-and-a-half years, was credited with bringing ratings up to the second-place spot in the Nielsens." Add an inline citation for this.
6. "Not long after its introduction in 1965, Days of our Lives became a successful part of NBC's attempt to dethrone daytime powerhouse CBS." Again either reword powerhouse or add source if somebody directly used the word. DONE, removed "daytime powerhouse" portion.
7. "His tenure, which lasted for four-and-a-half years," and "which became TV's first-ever hourlong soap on January 6, three and a half months earlier." Hyphens are used in the first instance but not the second statement, change one and keep it uniform throughout the article. DONE.
8. "However, this first golden period for NBC daytime proved to be short-lived, as Days' ratings began to decline in 1977." Add inline citation for the decline.
9. "By 1986, ABC and CBS followed suit, under the intense pressure of lucrative (and cheap) syndicated programming offered to affiliates." Add inline citation for the mention of intense pressure.
10. "In the mid-1990s, however, the show experienced a resurgence in popularity and the show reached number two in the ratings, where it remained for several years before experiencing another ratings decline beginning in 1999, the year that Days became NBC's longest-running daytime program (upon the cancellation of AW)." This statement is quite long, consider including the final clause in parenthesis as well. Ex. "In the mid-1990s, however, the show experienced a resurgence in popularity and the show reached number two in the ratings, where it remained for several years before experiencing another ratings decline beginning in 1999 (the year that Days became NBC's longest-running daytime program upon the cancellation of AW). "
11. "On September 10, 2007, due to Passions' cancellation/move to DirecTV and The Today Show's extension to four hours, in some areas, Days moved to 2pm weekdays, taking over Passions' former timeslot. Some areas still air the show at 1pm, while a few others moved the show to 12 Noon." Wikilink the full date, add italics for "Passions", and "noon" should be lower-case. Also go through the article and keep the time measurements uniform (some cases used 10pm or 10 p.m., go through and make sure all are the same).
12. Add inline citations for the figures in the "Budget" section and add a dollar sign before 1.9 million and the other monetary figures.
13. "According to Variety, Days is the most widely-distributed soap opera in the United States, with episodes not just broadcast via NBC, but also via cable (SOAPnet), and as of June 2007, episodes are offered via iTunes." Single sentences shouldn't stand alone; either expand on the sentence or incorporate it into another paragraph.
14. "From September 3, 2007, UK viewers will be able to watch Days on the female-skewed..." Days should be italicized. DONE.
15. "Since April 1966, the late Macdonald Carey has intoned the legendary epigram..." Remove legendary. DONE
16. "In "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", after his family flees the house, Roy Neary's UFO sighting drives him to recreate Devil's Tower in his living room. As he tries to reason with his distraught wife over the phone, a scene from "Days of Our Lives" plays on the TV." Add a wikilink for the film, along with Devil's Tower. Also DOOL should be italicized, the quotation marks are unnecessary.DONE
17. Incorporate the television episode references (Simpsons, Scrubs, & Greek) into one paragraph. Also "Dr. Cox" should have character in front of it and also include a wikilink to the character page for the show (do the same for "Cappie").
18. "Best-selling horror novelist Brian Keene has said in interviews with The New York Times, Rue Morgue Magazine and elsewhere that he has been a fan since the early Eighties and never misses an episode." Italicize NYT and RMM and eighties shouldn't be capitalized.
19. Go through all of the external links and make sure that they are not dead links, and update the accessdates to the present (if applicable).
20. Unless you have a valid explanation for inclusion, remove the external links "Beth's Days Page", "Prevuze - Day ahead satire", and reword "Days of our Lives @ *soapcentral.com" to DOOL "on" soapcentral. Also all of the DOOLs in the external links should be italicized.

Address the above issues within seven days and I will pass the article. If you have any questions, or when you are done, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Soapcentral is a website therefore it would be AT not ON. But that's all I can address. CelticGreen (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have done some work. I will continue to work on this article a bit more later. FamicomJL 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Saw your edits, had to fix them as this is a US show and New Zealand is a couple years behind on their viewing. A NZ reference is not appropriate. This article, I still maintain, was/is far from ready to be nominated for Good status. Also, try making sense in your edit summaries. Yours made none. CelticGreen 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean about the edit summaries? "m ref fix" is a shortened way of saying "minor reference fix". I only did three edits to the article, two having to do with fixing citation spaces, and one involving re-wording something, and removing something. I did not add any new references to the article. Please make sure to keep a cool head. FamicomJL 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My head is completely cool. You try not being assumptive and condescending. CelticGreen 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Also, try making sense in your edit summaries. Yours made none." - No matter how you put it, that does sound very un-civilish. Where am I being condescending? I am in no way a soap opera expert. I simply nominated it because I thought it looked like a Good Article, that's it really. FamicomJL 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You're being a bit over sensitive assuming things. I stated fact, your edit summary made no sense, that's not uncivil, it's fact. You, however, flat out said for me to keep a cool head. Assumptions again. As someone who isn't a soap expert and who knows obviously nothing about this show, you never should have put the review admins through this. CelticGreen 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: your last sentence. The point is to get someone who isn't a soap expert to review the article. Everything else I replied to you on your talkpage. FamicomJL 01:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

Since the above issues were not all completely addressed within the seven day period, I have failed the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the rest of the points are ever addressed, please nominate again at WP:GAN, as it should have few problems passing. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. If you disagree with this assessment, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Tense

Nice to see the show is lead by a dead guy. In all seriousness, the project needs to revisit written fiction verses viewed, non-repeatative fiction. This article is a joke with the recent edits (no offense to the editor just the tense issues) making a dead guy the leader. As a Days fan and editor it's almost embarrassing that this article was nominated to be reviewed. Soaps AREN'T present tense. It's just impossible. CelticGreen (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I know it's tough to process, but it actually does make sense when you think it though. Many soaps are shown in repeats, in which case present tense is more appropriate. Think also about image captions, where present tense makes more sense. And in some cases, television shows are re-released in DVD compilations. When I'm working on soap articles, especially when discussing plot elements that were first aired many years earlier, I find it helpful to imagine that the entire series has been re-released in a series of DVDs, named by year. The "1993 DVD", the "1994 DVD", etc. Then it becomes much easier to grasp when something should be in present tense (meaning you may be re-watching the show on the same day) vs. past tense (when there were outside news articles or fan reaction in a particular year). See also WP:WAF. --Elonka 03:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Forget the process, it's a joke!!! Tom Horton/MacDonald Carey has been dead nearly two decades. This article doesn't deserve a good rating because it's in sad, sad shape trying to make dead people in charge. No offense, but I don't live in "pretend land" and most people don't. It's time to address the issue, not pretend things are what they aren't. And, no, many DAYTIME soaps are not shown in repeats and none are available on DVD. CelticGreen (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And here's a wrench to your theory of not using articles....REFERENCES? Soap references come from articles that address what has happened in the past. It just doesn't work to tell people to live in pretend land and forget outside references. CelticGreen (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Writers fired

No legitimate source can confirm that this has happened therefore adding it is adding unsourced information. [2] says they can't confirm the firings. KellyAna (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Dena Higley

The show has confirmed with Entertainment Weekly that she has is now the head writer of Days. Does anyone have a problem with me adding this information into the article? AniMate 23:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

When her name appears in the credits, that is when she can be added. Just like when actors come and go. Her name isn't in the credits yet and other sources are saying it's still rumor. EW rarely reports on soaps so they don't have the reputation for "getting it right" and since it says "no one will say since when" she can't be added until her name appears in the credits and it doesn't as of today. KellyAna (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I currently have an extremely reliable source (EW.com) that has said that Days confirmed this. Are you saying that the show's publicist didn't say this or that statements from a show's publicist are gossip? I'm very interested in seeing sources that are saying that as of April 1st this is still a rumor. AniMate 23:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The show's ending credits do not indicate she's the head writer. As I was repeatedly told on Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald, the ending credits trump anything in the magazines as they are confirmation from the show. Until the show's credits reflect her presence, even this Proud Higley Ho can't see it as addable to the article. Let others weigh in but I say no. KellyAna (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that the threshold for verifiability between the facts about a real world head writer and a fictional character are very different. AniMate 23:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion. Until her name appears in the credits, there's no way to verify she really is writing. That's what credits are for.KellyAna (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So we ignore what show publicists say in reliable print magazines? AniMate 23:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable anonymous publicists? Yeah! If it was truly the publicist the article would have a name. Having dealt with many, many "show publicist" comments, including the one that swore up down over and under that Drake H's character of John was "dead, for real this time, we want fans to mourn" I don't believe "anonymous sources" no matter who is reporting. That's why until it's seen on screen, it's generally discounted. This is the same show that swore half the cast was killed off and they ended up on "Melaswen" alive. This particular show's publicity department LIES LIKE DOGS WITH FLEAS. Days has a storied history of having publicist that can't tell the truth so until it's seen on screen or in credits, it can't be believed. Just last weekend, James Scott and other actors from the show said she wasn't writing. And what about a couple weeks ago where same said publicist said Hogan wasn't fired??? This is why "on screen confirmation" is so important with THIS SHOW. KellyAna (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your standards are too high. This is a great source, and frankly publicists are rarely named in articles. Occasionally a spokesperson might get their name dropped, but it's rare. Keeping storylines secret isn't the same as lying about the status of a head writer. James Scott and the actors... not a reliable source. Entertainment Weekly... very reliable. You've explained why you don't trust the department, but you haven't explained why Entertainment Weekly isn't a reliable source. AniMate 01:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, give me a break. They are not too high. This is not a "great source", no more than it was when Drake was supposedly gone. Do you actually watch the show? Do you have 42 years of history watching the show and seeing many, many "dead, dead, dead" people come back to life? Do you have a history of reading multiple publications that state X actor is fired only to see them back after being manipulated into believing they are gone? My standards aren't too high, they are real. I wait for credits and seen on before changing anything. Really, these are the same people that said a couple weeks ago that Hogan wasn't fired. Now they say differently. As seen in the credits is at least reliable. As for James Scott, when I personally speak to him two weeks ago, I choose to believe him. When I speak to Alison Sweeney in Charlotte NC three weeks ago, I believe her. Entertainment Weekly reliable? It's just as much a gossip mag as TMZ. KellyAna (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes KellyAna, I watch the show. Entertainment Weekly is a great source for show business related articles. I'll agree that Days has done its fans a great disservice with it's "creative" deaths and the actors as well. However, all of those actors in the dreadful Melaswen plot (with the exception of Frances Reid) were in fact fired. They all had to sign new contracts when they came back, except for Alexis Thorpe who was on a recurring basis. Drake Hogestyn was fired as well, but the show also re-hired him. Now, we are not talking about storyline dictated hirings or firings, we are talking about a show confirming that they have hired a new head writer in an acceptable reliable source. I'm sorry, but something in print from a reliable source is almost always better than what "editor X" sees while he or she is watching TV. AniMate 01:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, one of my offices is on the Warner Bros lot, and some of the people I work with work at NBC as well. I can easily get in touch with someone on the NBC lot to confirm what the EW article said. It's not admissible, because it would fall under original research, just like your conversations with James Scott and Allison Sweeney. AniMate 01:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, how convenient, now you work for Bugs Bunny. This is where you fail to "get it." SOD confirmed one thing and then recanted that why we go by WHAT'S SEEN ON SCREEN. Soap Opera Digest reports things all the time and half aren't true. ON SCREEN. That's what soaps go by because soaps are in the business of deception. KellyAna (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't work for Bugs Bunny, but one of the animation firms I work with has offices on the WB lot. I've always been open about my work in the entertainment industry and have made strides to avoid any COIs. Secondly, please don't edit my talk page comments. It's acceptable to outdent long conversations. Soaps do engage in deception in regards to storylines, and I even think that Days has gone to great lengths to hide the fact the Dena Higley is their head writer. After all, she's a scab, and as someone who was out of work for the duration of the writer's strike, I have no great love for her or anyone who crossed the picket lines. That having been said, this is still something that the show confirmed with a reliable source. Typing in all caps won't change that either. AniMate 01:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dena is NOT a SCAB. How dare you!! If you are any part of the entertainment industry your opinions and edits are point of view, original research, and confilct of interest. I live in NASCAR country. I see and talk to Robby Gordon, Dale Earnhardt Jr., Kurt Busch on a weekly basis so I don't touch their articles. Working in the industry means you shouldn't touch the articles. As for anyone that strikes, don't even get me started. You obviously, if you are calling Dena a scab, you have personal issues with her. Your objectivity is in question so editing the page is unacceptable. KellyAna (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a stretch about objectivity. I'm in animation. I've never edited anything I've worked on in regards to my work in film/television. I've also never edited any of the comic work I've been involved with. Dena likely is a scab. It's likely she and Days will receive some sort of sanctions as a result of her writing during the strike since I'm fairly certain she did not go fi-core. Any writer who worked during the strike without going fi-core is a scab, and that's why the show is being so evasive about when she started. If I had real "personal issues" with her I wouldn't be arguing for her to get credit for her work. AniMate 02:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious you have a personal feeling in this. Dena passed the "scab test" and your claims are false and personal. You should check more facts. Her husband took fi-core. HAIL, Hogan and Kelly took fi-core and Corday laughed at them and told them to go away. Dena NEVER EVER EVER EVER took fi-core and the WGA had to swallow it over the fact that she didn't. This is why we go by "seen on screen" because all these different publications say all these different things. SOD say two weeks ago Dena never took fi-core and now you claim CLAIM she did. This is why we wait for SEEN ON SCREEN to edit the article. I still maintain and believe you have no objectivity working on set. Even TAnthony who worked on Passions never intruded on Passions articles because he was honest about his connections. KellyAna (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I said she didn't go fi-core. Read what I wrote again. Because she didn't go fi-core and allegedly worked through the strike, that makes her a scab. People who took fi-core and worked through the strike aren't scabs, though they've lost any voting power they had in the union and have to pay some penalties. I never worked on Days and never claimed to, so I don't see where this supposed COI is. I don't even work for NBC. AniMate 02:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, where's your proof she worked through the strike??? OH, you have none. She didn't work through the strike, she didn't scab, you are seriously bringing your personal feelings about her into this. KellyAna (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the actual article, all I'm saying and all I'm trying to put into the article is the fact that the show has confirmed she is working for them as the head writer. I'm not trying to say she was a scab during the strike, and even if she was that would belong in her article not the one for Days. I'm just not sure why Wikipedia should only trust what KellyAna sees over what reliable sources write. AniMate 02:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the show HASN'T confirmed she's the head writer. The credits today DO NOT show her as writer. And stop calling Dena a scab, that's rude and a personal attack against Dena. KellyAna (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've asked for more input from Wikiproject Soaps. Maybe it's a personal attack, though it is the accepted term for someone who has (allegedly) crossed a picket line. As this has gotten rather pointless, I'm going to wait for some outside opinions. AniMate 03:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is your proof she went scab?????????? Even the mags haven't proved that. KellyAna (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Were I to offer any of my proof in an article, it would be original research. It's way off topic for this particular discussion anyway. AniMate 03:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)