Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Notable past discussions

The following talk pages discussions have been archived to keep this page manageable, but may be of interest to members or helpful in current discussions. — TAnthony^Talk 02:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Too many relationships - the ongoing debate of what is notable and how to list them
• Unified format for soap relations? and subsection Infobox - more on relatives
• The question of tense - past vs. present for fiction, the other big debate
• Rating articles and combining stubs into composite articles
• The new Soap character infobox
• Notice of featured article and comments for Lost episode "Through the Looking Glass (Lost)," a great example for writing, fixing, editing and referencing soap articles as we strive to improve them (added 15:44, March 10, 2008 by TAnthony^Talk)

Question about Soap Opera actors

I'm a The Young and the Restless fan (three years and counting), and while I really like the character biographies, the soap opera actors of which many of them are only stubs. The only Y&R actors that have more than Start-class articles are Adrianne Leon (former), Tammin Sursok and Davetta Sherwood (former). The rest have nothing but a few paragraphs. Is their a WikiProject that focuses on just Soap Opera actors. Hope you answer my question, Thanks! 196.46.106.90 (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

what are bases of strong characters in dramas? strong characters are needed to motivate weak and wicked characters to change themselves and the world by reflrcting religious principles into their damaging lives.. What are dramas with strong characters? in the philippines, may bukas pa with santino talking to jesus and consistently molding beautifully the lives he has associated, this encourages viewers to reach out to God and have a righteous living. Should writers always put wise characters with universally acceptable principles in their yarned stories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.3.185.56 (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The Young and the Restless articles combined + Empty articles problem

In order to get the numerous Y&R articles in order, I created a new site called The Young and the Restless minor characters, where I did include a number of articles that were created for certain characters that were minor and couldn't guarantee their own articles. Also, I've included numerous current recurring characters that needed their articles but didn't have one, so now they will all be in one place. Let me know what you think of this.

There is also a number of articles that have nothing inside except a brief introduction of the character and the infobox. Can someone please try to write something for these characters or at least include them in the minor article with a minor description? We really shouldn't leave these articles empty. It's been that way for too long. (Damon Porter, Christine Blair, Matt Clark, Brittany Marsino, Diane Jenkins, Bobby Marsino, Brock Reynolds, Danny Romalotti, Nina Webster, Isabella Braña Williams) Dmarex (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You're doing some really great work on that article. Since there are characters included in it that aren't minor (Phillip Chancellor II and III, April Stevens, Tony Viscardi, Mary Williams, etc) maybe the article could be renamed to include all The Young and the Restless characters so that any character article that can't be expanded beyond plot summary can be redirected there. Rocksey (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Something like List of The Young and the Restless characters but with plot summary included? I know that Phillip II and III, April, Tony, Mary and others are bigger characters, but their articles were either empty or had a very short summary that wasn't worth keeping. The problem remains that nobody wants to invest time in those articles, additional research and writing synopsis. I did some of that, but I can't do everything. Dmarex (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, like the List of The Young and the Restless characters. That way, there won't be so many articles with just plot summary and no real world relevance. I understand why you did that with those characters. It seems like the main focus with a good amount of editors is updating current plot summaries, which means there's not enough focus on updating past ones or in creating notability for articles. That's why I suggest every article that hasn't established real world notability should be redirected to the article you created. Then if someone does want to expand a certain article, the redirect can be undone. Rocksey (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want, I can merge the The Young and the Restless minor characters and List of The Young and the Restless characters into one topic, The Young and the Restless characters. All characters will be visible there. The characters that have their own articles won't have a description, while the ones that don't will have the description I have written from minor characters. Would that be a good idea? I would be ready to do that. It would make more sense because a lot of characters from the minor list are actually important, or at least they were during the certain storyline they were in. Please let me know what you think so I could start working on it. Thanks. Dmarex (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Merging may ultimately result in a list that is too long, and it may make more sense to keep it the way it is: the main list notes every single character ever to appear on the series with little or no description necessary, and the "minor character" article collects existing shorter articles etc. (not as many characters, obviously). Even if the characters aren't exactly minor in context of the series, until they warrant their own articles they are pretty much just that. Current stubs that just say "John Doe is a character from Y&R just just be redirected to the long list of characters until something significant can be added. But of course, a combined list could be split out into "List of List of The Young and the Restless characters (A-F)" etc eventually as well. Try to think about what makes the most sense for this particular series in the loing run, based on what material exists now and what you foresee being added in the future.— TAnthony^Talk 21:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think it should stay the way it is. In the future, if a certain editor feels that a minor character should have its own article, then let them write it and take care of it. I already have plans to write for a few characters that have empty articles but don't deserve to be in the minor characters.

We could also do that other option, but those articles would look weird (half of the article would have info, and half wouldn't---I can't write for the characters that appeared from 1973 to the 1990s. I say let's keep things the way they are. In the long run, I, as an editor, have added almost everything I had to the minor characters article. Dmarex (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess that would result in a list that's too long. I agree that it might be best to keep things the way they are. That said, I do want to say again how great a job Dmarex is doing with the article and updating all so many other articles to link to it. Rocksey (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

To all those involved in this... do you think we should just move the minor characters article to a new article called The Young and the Restless characters (A-F) etc.? I just found a link that might help me write a description even for the older characters and it would make no sense to have all of them on the minor list. If you want, I can handle the job myself. Please let me know what you think of this. Dmarex (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

date of death for soap opera characters

When a soap opera character dies, should the air-date be listed as the date of death, or the date mentioned on-air? (Examples: Emily Quartermaine (General Hospital) was killed during the black and white ball just before daybreak. Air-date: 11-14-2007; date mentioned on air: 11-01-2007, And, More recently, Leyla Mir (also GH) died on the 02-03-2009 episode, however GH has been in a 24-esque storyline since mid-January and it's been mentioned on air that this is taking place on Emily Quartermaine's birthday, 01-16, which would make her date of death (on-air) either 01-16 or 01-17-2009)--StoneCold  89  04:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I vote for the air date being the assumption, unless we hear a different date in the dialogue. And then both the air date and the in-universe date should be listed. We should also be aware of revised histories (in all areas, not just the dates of characters' deaths). Just because the soap writers change history doesn't mean the Wikipedia writers should pretend the original history is erased. If the air date of death is 1975, but the revised history makes it 1980, then both dates should be noted. Ditto for birthdays, marriage dates, etc. And ditto for any other information. Taylor Hayes the psychiatrist on The Bold and the Beautiful began life as Taylor Ashford the oncologist. Her original name and occupation should be listed, not ignored. -- JustinSpurlin (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Y&R Update

Just to let everyone know the progress on Y&R that I have made and the violation that I have noticed.

More than half of the Y&R articles included false dates (that some user randomly added to the profile). I deleted all the dates prior to 1997 because there are no possible sources found for those dates. I think, if you agree, that they should only be posted if someone adds a source next to it. I went through a few articles and added the dates myself including the source and will do so for all other articles. Those characters that don't have a confirmation will only have the year listed.

Most of the articles that had no synopsis (because I had them deleted after I realized they were all copied from soapcentral) are now filled with the biography I wrote: Nina Webster, Christine Blair, Isabella Braña Williams, Matt Clark, Brock Reynolds, Damon Porter, Diane Jenkins, Brittany Marsino.

The only remaining article is Lauren Fenmore Baldwin, but that one is going to take me a long time to write. I also plan, when I find time, to rewrite some other articles. For example, such a legendary character as Drucilla Winters deserves a great article, not just a few sections with very brief description. Dmarex (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Maayka

Anyone want to take a stab at tidying this up? It borders on incoherent and it's extraordinarily word-heavy. I have neither knowledge nor interest in this, but I saw the page in passing and...ouch. HalfShadow 04:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:41, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Pine Valley Bulletin

Is the website Pine Valley Bulletin considered a reliable source we can use? Rocksey (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Blogspot websites are self published. AniMate^talk 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks! Rocksey (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The self publishing link above spells it out better than I ever could, but a general rule about blogs being sources is that it depends on who is writing the blog. Sites like blogger and wordpress are almost never acceptable. However, Michael Fairman and Sara A. Bibel both have blogs that would likely be reasonable sources, as they are both industry insiders with first hand knowledge of soaps. A blog site like welovesoaps.net or daytimeconfidential.com won't pass the test in many cases, as they are written by fans. However, if they should post interviews with actors, writers or producers those are fine to use, as we'd be quoting the actors, writers, and producers and not the opinions of the blog writers. It can be kind of difficult to navigate the intricacies of these rules, but posting here or no the reliable sources noticeboard is a good strategy if you have questions. AniMate^talk 19:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So as long as it's an interview it's fine? I wanted to use this interview as a source for the Erica Kane article because of the behind the scenes information it gives. Rocksey (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Go ahead and add the information. I'll look over it later tonight, and we can chat about it then. I'm honestly not sure what my read on this situation is, as the site looks legit, but we don't know who is actually behind it. Used sparingly, I'm fairly certain there won't be too many objections to this, especially considering the limited resources available in regards to soap articles. AniMate^talk 21:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I added some of the information to the article. I tried not to use too much of it, just the behind the scenes stuff. Rocksey (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. I'm a bit of a stickler when it comes to sourcing, but what you've done and the content you've included seems to be in step with the reliable sources policy. AniMate^talk 00:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Soap opera episode counts?

In the General Hospital article, I have noticed that in recent weeks, the episode count has been updated almost daily. I understand that this is trivial information, and was looking for some input from everyone else concerning this issue, and how it should be resolved. Thank you!--OLTL2002 (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. It is trivial and not exactly urgent, but if the information is accurate, I don't see any harm. AniMate^talk 17:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no harm in it. But this same exact thing caused many conflicts at One Life to Live, and I am just looking for a resolution. I plan to post this on the GH talk page, but I also wanted to get some opinions here first.--OLTL2002 (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as everyone involved can agree an a reliable source for the episode count, it doesn't really matter how many times a week it is updated. As you stated, this is trivial information, so perhaps it's better to just let it go. Bottom line, there are more important and pressing problems with soap opera related articles than obsessing over episode counts, most of which suffer from no verifiable reliable sources. Perhaps you should focus on them, as this is a trivial thing to have a conflict over. AniMate^talk 19:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Citizens of Springfield, Guiding Light redirected as nn characters

history I don't know anything about the show, just reading for fun, so I'm pointing it out to the relevant wikiproject. TransUtopian (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Overpopulated infoboxes

Many regular soap opera editors realize that character infoboxes tend to be the most edited parts of all of our articles. The fact is most of this information isn't really all that notable. I understand having infoboxes keeps all of this "vital" information out of the body of the articles, but do we really need to know who is somone's paternal step second half cousin? Do we really need to know what there age is, when characters ages are changed all of the time? Do we need to know their address? This information often goes beyond trivial into flat out trivia. When the best sources we can find for this information are the primary source or user generated sources like Soap Central, perhaps it's time to leave it out of the articles. AniMate^talk 21:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

With character ages, I'd rather note them if there are valid sources for them (whether a valid online source or using the show itself as a source), especially when the age thing has been a big deal for the characters (such as in the cases of Erica Kane and Kendall Hart). Soap Opera Central is valid for soap opera news, but I would rather not use it to source other stuff (even though I don't usually have a problem with that). Flyer22 (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

AniMate, I'm with you on this ... the infoboxes have become uncontrolled "triviaboxes." The blame probably lies in their very design, but you would think that a serious editor could show restraint. The frustrating reality is that the most active "editors" in the genre are rabid soap fans who think of this site as a do-it-yourself Soaps.com and/or just want to make edits for the sake of "being part" of the soap world. Sigh, I used to be very protective of the soap articles at large, but these days I'm almost looking forward to some crazy deletionist coming along and enforcing policy hard-core. Ah well. — TAnthony^Talk 05:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the actual character infobox needs depopulating. We should remove age, since characters ages are extremely fluid. If their age is significant we can work it into the article. Same thing with romances. We have people adding "Character X - Kissed" and "Character Y - Flirted with". Ridiculous. Perhaps "significant romances" would be more appropriate. It's subjective, but at least it will put some boundaries on this. Instead of just "Cousins" we should have "First cousins". That way we won't have anymore of these silly ex-step cousins or second cousin by marriage (and I've seen both). Since fans are really into the infoboxes, more so than actually editing articles, why not just take away some of the temptation. AniMate^talk 08:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, this may not be an appropriate use of AWB, and I can't use it as I'm on Mac, but might it be a good idea to send editors who regularly edit soap opera character articles links to our goals or ideals? Look at Todd Manning and Pauline Fowler. We are here to actually write soap articles for an encyclopedia, not for Soaps.com or Soapcentral.com. Why not use some of the automated tools we have at our disposal to let them know what really good or great articles look like. Maybe that way we'll show them exactly what we're supposed to be doing. AniMate^talk 08:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

TAnthony, editors and IPs adding bloated information to the character infoboxes is not the fault of your design for it. It is as you said about these editors and IPs.

AniMate, I am against removing age from the character infobox design, for the reasons I stated above. I mean, if the age is notable enough to mention within the body of the article, then it is notable enough to be noted in the character infobox (unless it is too complicated to note in the character infobox, like Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke's ages which have been confusing people as noted on Marty's talk page and especially now that the show has retconned the 1993 rape storyline to having happened in 1988). We should rather enforce (I mean, really enforce, like making it a "policy" of this project that we will have) no mentioning of the age without valid sources. If the age of the character is SORASed or deSORASed, then the age (along with any ages of other characters it affects) should either be altered with a reference explaining why or removed altogether.

The romances? Well, I'm not really for removing that either. It is a quick way to note the romances without having to create a sourced section with real-world information about it or a reader reading through the Storyline section. Perhaps, changing it to "Significant romances" like you said is a good idea. I would not object to that. The thing is, though, some people would surely interpret "significant" differently than other people would and would probably ignore what it is supposed to mean. They already ignore what "Romances" is supposed to mean in the character infobox, as in not two characters who have simply kissed.

That said, I am in complete agreement with both of you guys about everything else you have stated in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think AniMate's point about the Age parameter is that if it's only notable and useful for a small percentage of characters, it is not worthy of inclusion in an infobox used across the board. And while in the case of Erica Kane it is interesting because her age as been adjusted over time, it isn't exactly notable. I mean, Susan Lucci is Susan Lucci, she started on the show in 1970, what does the number matter? Even the SORAS stuff is kind of commonplace. Looking at these articles from an official, Wikipedia fictional character standpoint, details like age and residence are completely unnecessary for understanding the character, which is a basic threshhold of notability (though I would note that the Residence parameter was added for Coronation Street or another British soap in which the address is of particular importance).

And I am SO in agreement in the Romance department; the "flirted" and "kissed" stuff is so inane and Soap Opera Digest-like, but as you both point out, is subjective.

I used to think this Project had the potential police articles, but let's face it; it's "members" are largely inactive in the genre, and the most active editors in the genre are the Trivialists and, well, the three of us! I have limited the articles on my watchlist because I can only do so much and, frankly, I'm at the point where I can live with the probability that many articles for shows and characters that don't particularly concern me will be destroyed by soap nuts and then deleted per policy. We cannot possibly police the bulk of articles tagged by this Project, so any mass enforcement facilitated by an infobox change is a good thing. I like the idea of informing "new" editors about what articles should really be (I tried a similar tactic for recruiting WP:SOAPS members awhile back), but I've also manually left constructive comments and suggestions for new users that were completely ignored. Am I jaded much? LOL. I'm slightly disillusioned in this area, and I kind of think that all we can do at the moment is perhaps tweak the infobox, and just keep policing the articles that concern us the most.

There was an editor who once suggested that WP:SOAPS be converted to a workgroup under WP:TV because he noticed how wild and unchecked most soap articles were. I feared the idea because I knew it would lead to many articles being deleted; at this point, I've shored up the articles I really care about to where they'd be relatively safe, I'd almost welcome the change just to get some participation.— TAnthony^Talk 06:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still against removing age from the infobox. Maybe the reason I can never see age with this stuff as trivial is because it is one of the most significant things a writer names when he or she creates a character. A writer does not usually say, "Oh, this character can be any age." They usually give that character an age or an age range. And ages are often important to the fans, which is why you see so much tinkering with it on Wikipedia in regards to fictional characters.

If the age is unsourced, I feel that we should simply remove it. Not eliminate the age completely from the infobox.

I'm with you and AniMate on what the WP:SOAPS project has become. I became very frustrated in seeing some (most) editors who signed their names here as contributors not really helping out (at least not as much as needed). But I point out that we occasionally get editors like Rocksey, who initially learned formatting styles and policies here from me...without me even knowing it until I came across her Dimitri Marick and Erica Kane article (which looked like "my" soap opera couple articles in design). At one point, I even felt that she could be pegged as a WP:SOCK of mine (LOL). She is different enough from me, though, and definitely has different favorite characters and couples than I do.

I'm just not sure what to do anymore to get the WP:SOAPS project reenergized (if it has ever been). As I told, AniMate, I am going to improve as many All My Children character articles as I can with real-world information to further serve as examples as of what these character articles should look like. Just think back to how most soap opera character articles here had Relationships sections before you created the soap opera character infobox. Now, most new editors and IPs editing soap opera character articles here do not add those sections because those sections are not the norm here anymore. My hope concerning the WP:SOAPS project is for real-world information (even if not from big sources like The New York Times) to become the norm. This can be achieved by example (various examples, of course). Flyer22 (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"Ages are often important to the fans..." Fortunately, we're writing an encyclopedia, not a fan guide. Notable ages can easily be incorporated into the actual article, rather than the infobox. Perhaps what is needed is a straw poll. We have a list of people who signed up, why not send them a note and get some input. If no one shows up, we can always mark this project as historical and try to incorporate some of the goals into WP:TV. AniMate^talk 00:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I know we are writing an encyclopedia. I never forget that. The fans part of that comment was simply an addition, just one part of the complete reason I am not for age being removed from the infobox. If we can incorporate age within the article, which would still need to be sourced, then I do not see why it cannot be noted/incorporated in/within the character infobox (which is the first place readers look besides the lead, though ages really should not be placed in the lead in the way we do real people; if fictional character ages are placed in the lead, then they should be like the Bianca Montgomery article. But even so, not all characters seem to click with having their ages mentioned in the lead. It is all a matter of sourcing and making sense in my eyes. If the age is not sourced or is not sourced in a way that the character's current age is actually current or does not make sense in the way it is presented, then it should be removed. That is what TAnthony and I did with the Todd and Marty articles. Their ages are too complicated now to be noted in the character inbox without explanations in their articles about their ages. This is why I am thinking of making a SORAS section for both of those articles explaining their current ages.

As for contacting the people on the WP:SOAPS list, I am more for contacting them about participating more actively in this WP:SOAPS project to ensure that it does not shut down...and for the better good of soap opera character articles. Flyer22 (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting contacting everyone for a straw poll in order to get them more involved. We post the poll, and if no one responds, perhaps it is time to integrate this project into WP:TV. If there is interest, perhaps we can get this project back on track. AniMate^talk 07:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm for you going ahead and contacting everyone else on the WP:SOAPS list. What do you suggest the message relay? Will you type it up and relay it, or just type it up and rather you and I relay it? I'm not that much for shutting this project down, though. Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty cramped for time, so this will likely be put off until the end of the week. I was thinking something neutral basically stating there is an ongoing discussion about how the infobox is going to be constructed in the future and asking for input. Nothing to fancy. AniMate^talk 02:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just coming here to ask a question about the occupation part of the infoboxes, when I saw this. I agree with a lot of the points you guys are making about the trivial information that's constantly updated. Are you still gong to conduct the poll and try to get more constructive involvement from other editors? Rocksey (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone is trying to get all the images from the articles deleted

User:Damiens.rf is trying to get rid of all the images in the Soap Opera articles. --Silvestris (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Damiens.rf's crusade (a crusade mostly against me) is tired and silly at best. Some of the images he has gone after are perfectly valid within these articles. As I stated on my talk page and his: Nominating images such as Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg, which there is significant critical commentary about and is a famous kiss, is ridiculous. He also went after Lnlwedding.jpg, which is also pure absurdity, for the reasons I stated there. I am leaning toward reporting such mass and ludicrous deletion nominations. There has got to be something we can do about this kind of ridiculousness. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents under the title Deletion nominations of images valid within articles. Flyer22 (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Gabby (Days)

I was going through the WP:Backlog and found the orphaned article Gabby (Days). This is not my area of expertise, so I would ask one of the WikiProject's members for their assistance in de-orphaning this article. Thanks. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a relatively minor character. Most likely this should be merged. AniMate^draw 01:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Need editors to help out on the Melrose Place article.

For a show that was as popular and watched as Melrose Place, it's a shame that article is worst than the one of a soap opera. I would like to ask people to help me out in writing a better article for the series. Is anyone willing to help out? Dmarex (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Knowledgeable opinion needed

Could someone who knows more about soaps than me (i.e. anyone reading this) quickly look over the contributions of user:M42380? They seem to exclusively edit soap articles. I just stumbled onto the fact that they're socking, but I need to know if their edits are disruptive, or helpful. If helpful, I'll turn a blind eye. If disruptive, I'll try to get them blocked. Also, if disruptive, if anyone recognizes their modus operandi, the name of the previous account would be helpful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources for soap articles

What has the consensus been, if any, in this project for using newsagent TV magazines on articles concerning fictional characters? I'm thinking of magazines such as "TV Week" and "TV Soap". To explain the background, looking to improve some articles of this kind and wondering if hunting down back issues of these at the state library is a productive or wasteful endeavour. Orderinchaos 21:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Using professional print magazines is ideal, and will make you a hero of the Project! Many online sources of soap-related coverage are technically fansites and are therefore unreliable to varying degrees. Reliable sites like SoapOperaDigest.com are few and only contain so much, and there is not a large amount of soap-related material available at mainstream print magazine sites like TVGuide.com or EW.com. Professional printed publications (barring tabloids) have a greater responsibility for accuracy and neutrality in order to protect their integrity and reputation, and avoid lawsuits. The problem we usually have with even the more reliable soap fansites is that they sometimes report rumors in a way a professional journalistic publication would not; a "real" media outlet will only state for certain what is backed up by reliable reports/sources/statements, and unproven allegations or reports are attributed their sources or implicitly called rumors (and perhaps not reported at all if the source is unreliable or limited, like an individual blog). Also, analysis and criticism of characters, storylines, performers, and series are only credible from individuals/organizations granted some kind of notability or "power" as critics, commentators, or newsgatherers by the publishing or online communities. — TAnthony^Talk 00:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean

The John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean article is up for deletion.--Silvestris (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brot Monroe

i have proposed this article for deletion as it does not have any sources and not enough story to sustain a article and really a non-notable charecter if it wasent for the miltary thing BigPadresDUDE (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Gigi_Morasco

please particapate in the conversation thank you BigPadresDude 04:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Webnovelas

Would webnovelas such as Vidas Cruzadas (webnovela) be within the scope of this project? Derek Andrews (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Criteria For A Characters Page

recently i redirected Alan Quartermaine And Lila Quartermaine both to List of General Hospital miscellaneous characters and it saddend me cause i have watched the show my whole life and these charecters have alot more to tell then the wimsey pages they have and if any one wants to bolster them up they can i thought to myself do we have a critera for a charecter getting a page? im not sure but heres my proposal

Been On The Characters Show Alest 3 Years
Been On The Characters Show Alest 7 Months (Newer Charecters In Major Storylines with lots to tell)
Been In Alest 2 Major Storylines
Minimum Of 600 Words of Story
Maximum Of 1500 Words Of Story (Can be changed)
Alest 7 Reliable Sources
Casting/Creation Section/Awards Received (Will Need Reliable Sources, and is according to TAnthony is good)
Character Passes WP:Notability

any character that dosent pass these guidelines should be redirected to there respective shows miscellaneous characters until beefed up and passes these guidelines

Characters like Greg Madden fail these guidelines and need to be redirected to the AMC miscellaneous characters page

Speaking of that why isent there a AMC miscellaneous characters page? alot of amc charecter pages are REALLY BAD but a few Might Pass WP:Notability

anyone here is my case feel free to comment and suggest BigPadresDude 20:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, these guidelines don't make any sense. Also, your dogged redirecting of articles in relation to General Hospital has the miscellaneous character article at a whopping 271 kb. It's way too long. AniMate^draw 03:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

i fixed a few things in my guidelines but everyone may change em i just thought like amc needs a misc characters page i thought we should establish a guideliing on when a character gets a page anyone else like to comment? BigPadresDude 03:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Every character is unique. All My Children probably should have a miscellaneous character page. The problem with setting out guidelines is that there are limitless ways to establish notability. Over at B&B there are characters that have been portrayed by the same actors for the duration of the show. They're notable and don't have any sources. They need to be improved, not redirected. Redirecting should actually be a last resort. It's a simple solution, but stops any improvement that we should be undertaking. Instead of trying to find guidelines so we can redirect these characters to these overly long, unwieldy articles, we should be sourcing them. AniMate^draw 03:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

your proboly right i will tackle the amc miscellaneous character page unless you wanna do it but i agree with you we should alest try and improve these articles im gonna tackle alan q as a project and get it to good standerts anyone else wanna comment? BigPadresDude 03:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Do me a favor and let someone else start the All My Children page. I'm not sure you're the best editor for that. Flyer22 is the most active editor in regards to that soap, though I'm certainly not volunteering her. I'll put it on my to do list, though editing Wikipedia is pretty low on my list of priorities these days thanks to a bounty of work. AniMate^draw 03:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

ah ok man i will let you do that im a pretty good editor and not a WP:VANDAL ill tackle alan quartermaine when i have more time or do you wanna do it? BigPadresDude 04:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think the guidelines are quite right either. its not a matter of counting, its a matter of the story: the principal characters and only the principal characters for any considerable part (a season, at least) of a major series should be considered for separate articles, and everyone else should get a section in a combined characters page. How extensive the section should be depends on their role in the story: it could be a considerable section in a combined article, it could be a line in a list. Even if the GNG is technically met, if the character is not very important there can still be a section instead of an article. But every named character should be at least listed, some people who look up the name will find something.

For any substantial soap opera, there will be so many named characters that the character sections should be a separate article--or more, depending of structure and length of run. For some short fictions, the characters can be included in the main article, but I don't see how this could apply to a soap opera without making it cumbersome to write and to read.

All this depends on there being good faith in including sufficient sections about the characters as appropriate, and especially upon people not trying to remove the combined character articles, or merge substantial ones into into main articles, or whittle them down to mere listings about even important characters. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Note about Wikia

Today User:Nk3play2 copied the article on Kristina Davis from Randy's General Hospital Wikia. Several of our more controversial and problematic editors have migrated to Wikia, and there's a lot of rather hilarious shenanigans over who gets to be an admin with lots of retaliatory blocks and merge discussions. I won't link to them, but it is amusing. Anyway, should anyone see more of these articles being imported from Wikia, we have to undo the changes. They are not compatible with Wikipedia's GFDL licensing, specifically all the changes to our articles must be logged and attributed, and we can't import their logs. Technically, they should have a tag on the articles they've copied from here attributing them to Wikipedia, but that's a battle I do not want to engage in. Anyway, keep an eye out and revert any dubious additions. AniMate^draw 01:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The heads up is appreciated, AniMate. Now you have me interested in taking a look at what has been going on over there between that bunch. But, yeah, I will keep a look out. Flyer22 (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not all that interesting, but it's spread over two different General Hospital Wikia's. Everyone really wants to be an admin, and Randy's still pretending that all of his various identities are different people. Mostly it just makes me happy that it's going on over there and not here. AniMate^draw 01:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Carly Corinthos

stupid fans keep adding the unsourced and iane information of Carlys baby name will be Jocelyn John Jacks

i keep reverting it but thses stupid ips keep adding it BigPadresDude 17:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Character pages

I stumbled into some character pages (Lucas Horton for instance) because I was following a series of extremely bad edits by an anonymous user - and doing some cleanup - so forgive me if I ask a question or point something else that has already been discussed. Are Wikipedia Soap Opera articles under a different criteria than other Wiki articles? I ask because I cannot imagine how just about every single main character warrents an article of its own. How are any of these notable outside of the soap opera? I would say about 90-99% of them fail any sort of test against Wikipedia's notability guidelines and most definitely ALL of them fail the writing for fiction in the manual of style. Now, I noticed on the Lucas Horton talk page that someone broached this subject back in 2007 and was shot down because one user felt that the character "...has been a major character for over 15 years. As much as I personally do not like the character at times I would never purpose his article be deleted. He is highly notable in regards to the Soap Opera project and there is no reason to delete or consolidate his article." This user obviously has no cluse what Wikipedia:N means. Can someone enlighten me as to how these characters continue to rate their own articles? Ccrashh (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Soap opera-related articles definitely do not fall under special criteria, and all of the policies and guidelines which apply to other fictional topic articles apply here. The "serious" participants in the Project have made a concerted effort to improve as many articles as we can, police others, and educate newer and transient editors as much as we can, but we are a small group. Unfortunately, a large number of ongoing edits seem to be made by soap fans who enjoy adding trivia, writing lengthy (and misspelled) plot summary, and creating new articles for every character introduced. Not surprisingly, these types of editors are unaware of or not concerned with policy, and don't think about the consequences of creating and expanding "bad" articles until they are up for AfD. There are some tight and well-sourced soap articles in varying states of completion, but unfortunately I'd have to say that most soap character articles are in bad shape in that they are just in-universe plot summary with no sources citing notability. For some shows we have consolidated/merged/redirected various articles, but it is an ongoing process. We would love any participation you could provide, even merely tagging articles for improvement.— TAnthony^Talk 17:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe instead of tagging articles, the ones that fail WP: N should be merged into character lists. Like the notability standards for character articles says on this projects page, "an article should be created about a soap opera character only if the character is notable within the series and has been the subject of third-party discussions." Rocksey (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I tagged an article or two just to see what kind of discussion would result. Some of the Soap articles are looking good. Will try to help out when I can: but I haven't watch a soap since GH when the original Carly was introduced (well, around that time). I know she's another character now...but not much else. See how long it's been! :) @Rocksey - that makes sense - re: third party discussions. Like Luke and Laura, I would guess. There must be others. Ccrashh (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Karl Kennedy

I was looking at the page of Karl Kennedy recently and notice that someone has added a family tree section to this page. However this section doesn't seem to state anything different than what appears in the relationships section in the characters info box. I was just going to delete this, but thought I'd ask for a second opinion on it before I do this --5 albert square (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete it. Those pop up from time to time on various articles, just another offshoot of the same group of people who obsessively edit infoboxes and nothing else. AniMate 20:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that AniMate. I'll delete it from Karl Kennedy just now, and gradually work my way around the entire cast of Neighbours this week doing the same to the rest of them :) --5 albert square (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Fish and Kyle Lewis#Cancellation

Does anyone want to try adding to this section, since it's gotten a lot of news? --DrBat (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Telenovelas: capitalization question

How should the titles of Spanish telenovelas be capitalized? In Spanish, grammar rules call for sentence-style capitalization, i.e. Sin tetas no hay paraíso, but this is, obviously, the English wiki, and English grammar rules require title-style capitalization, i.e. Sin Tetas No Hay Paraíso. Since we're not translating novela titles into English for article names, should we also keep Spanish capitalization rules as well? And if we decide that title-style capitalization is best, how do we decide which Spanish words are "unimportant" and are therefore left lower-case? Those that translate into "unimportant" English words (i.e. El Privilegio de Amar, Las Tontas No Van al Cielo)? I've checked WP:Capitalization, but I didn't find any guidelines pertaining to this situation, and the status quo within novela articles leans towards title-style, though there is still quite a bit of sentence-style capitalization as well. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that we should stick with the original title-style. Changing capitalization seems like we're changing the name to me. AniMate 19:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This is my inclination as well, and as there hasn't been any opposition to the idea in the past two months I'll start moving title-style-capitalized articles to sentence-style-capitalized pages. — 02:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Livesy

Could some editors who are more familiar with exactly what does and does not go into a plot and character summery take a look at the Aaron Livesy article? Right now it reads as a episode by episode summary of the character, which to the best of my knowledge is not a good thing. I'm not used to dealing with soap operas, though, and am afraid that if I go and attempt to cut down the article to a reasonable amount I will axe parts that are needed. Thanks. Sodam Yat (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The British Soap Awards

Could someone please reply to the message I left here. Thanks Paul2387 16:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Telenovelas Are Not Soap Operas

There are a number of names used for series from different countries. All these name should be clarified as to whether they are Soap Operas or Telenovelas. Soaps are never ending, telenovelas have endings. Thus the same persons who hate soap operas may love telenovelas. A telenovela typically lasts less than a year and solves conflicts. IMO Soaps are exercises in eternal frustration, which telenovelas are not. If one is to use a category to include both, it would be, for example, Drama Series, which would include situation comedies. But telenovelas need to be clearly distinguished from Soap Operas. These are distinct genres.(EnochBethany (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC))

No one is saying that they're the same, so I'm not sure what your issue is exactly ... as far as I know, all telenovela articles on Wikipedia are categorized as such, and even categorized by country or origin. The fact that all soap opera/novela categories are collected under the Category:Soap operas is an organizational technicality, though obviously the novela is a form of soap opera, with the differences you describe.— TAnthony^Talk 16:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Home and Away Help needed

Could editors of the project help decide what is best for List of current Home and Away characters on The talk page. It's conflicted that the list should be in tables or cucnks of character information.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 15:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Updates to TV#MOS

I'm not sure how many people monitor WP:MOSTV or even WP:TV (the basic WikiProject for all of us), but we've been trying to get some feedback on additions to the TV Manual of Style. It largely has to do with the inclusion of "Overview" tables at the start of the page, the order in which season lists are presented (currently, there is no concrete order), and what is considered too much info for DVDs (i.e. should we be placing every detail about the box set in the article, from each interview to the aspect ratio, or should be keep it more generalized). Please see discussion at WT:MOSTV#Updates to the MOS. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Lee (director)

An AfD that may be of interest to members of this project...Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Lee (director). J04n(talk page) 17:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Soap opera articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Soap opera articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Coronation Street infobox colour

I'm wondering what everyone's opinion on Coronation Street's infobox being bright yellow? There is a standard colour already in place for this infobox. Editors/fans have previously claimed they want their own colour so they are unique from the other soap opera's... but that's just decoration, not one simple layout for all. They are all soap opera articles at the end of the day. Emmerdale is another branch of this, they have opted for a bright green so they look different from Home and Away, Hollyoaks, Neighbours and Eastenders.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 22:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not really bright yellow, is it? My opinion is as long as it's consistent within each series then it's ok, but other people might have other ideas. AnemoneProjectors 23:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I kinda agree with AP. The Corrie and Emmerdale colours aren't bright as to distract from the text. If the colour field wasn't meant to be used, why would it be included in the infobox template? Btw, it's not just the British soaps that do it, the American ones have different colours too. - JuneGloom Schmooze 13:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well that's two people on the fence then, anyone not wanting it to change to blue? At present there is one editor who wants yellow, two that want blue. If no one else oposes or supports, I guess we can change as we please, right? After all that's two comments above that say aslong as theyre all consistant, then it doesn't matter what colour they are. I'd really like to hear more though. Happy editing. =) RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 02:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that the infoboxes should be blue, the yellow doesn't look that professional, niether does the green on Emmerdale, so i'm all for the blue.--AcidBrights (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think they should all be blue, but I guess each WikiProject has its own opinions. :) LostHavoc(talk) 14:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well firstly, if this is soap-specific, it might be best bringing it up on their Project page rather than here - but I really don't see what the problem is. If the colour function was not to be used it wouldn't be there, and it's not as if it's just the two ITV soaps that use it either. It doesn't detract from the content, it's in-keeping with every article in the Project and I completely disagree that it doesn't look 'professional'. I don't think Betty Williams (Coronation Street) would have reached GA status as it is if it was that bad. Ooh, Fruity Ooh, Chatty 18:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe you need to reach a consensus before you make any changes. If there isn't one, you'll probably have to wait and then propose your idea again. When I said I kinda agree with AP, I meant about the colours not being bright (apologies for not being clear about that). I'd still like to know why the colour field is in the template for the infobox, if it isn't meant to be used in this way. What else could it be for? This "it doesn't look professional" quote keeps coming up, could I ask where it is from? Is there a particular policy/guideline/essay mentioning it? I'd just like to know, as there are so many to look through. Also, if the default colour of the infobox was yellow instead of blue, does that mean that it wouldn't have been "professional" from the start? Would we be having the same discussion if some soaps changed it to blue? Sorry, I didn't mean to ask so many questions. - JuneGloom Schmooze 20:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there are any policies or guidelines when it comes to the ibox color - the closest I can think of is the essay on navboxes, which says they shouldn't be arbitrarily decorative and there "should be justification for a template to deviate from standard colors and styles". I think that should equally apply to infobox coloring, but a recent discussion at Template:Infobox television didn't really go anywhere. Frickative 20:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the links, Frickative. Perhaps that infobox colouring discussion should be reignited? Btw, we seem to be just discussing the colours used by Corrie and Emmerdale, but there are a number of other soaps that use different colours in the infobox. I think we're going to need their editors to come and discuss this too. - JuneGloom Schmooze 21:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the field is there because it was included with several other fields that many soap WP's have decided to drop... that don't really add to the article. I've brought this one up because Oh Fruity said it is nice for Coronation Street to have a seperate identity, so why should one soap be different. Why not channel this one, get everyone opinion in from the other soaps around the world, see if there can be a good consensus. But, are they editors that contribute as much as we all do in this thread, or do they just keep logs of storylines? Those who write these articles like Jane Doe is a living person and fancruft - are bound to want a seperate colour for their chosen soap. I don't think that the artist template has a different colour for each genre. I want the universal colour here.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 22:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be universal actually. Musical artists have different colours for solo, groups etc, and albums have different colours for studio, EP, live, etc, but I don't think that kind of thing applies here. They're all fictional characters and that's it. AnemoneProjectors 00:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I know I just used the single artist having the same colour, like I'd like all the fictonal characters. The singles, albums etc and the Serial's spin-offs, books etc can do be any colour. I was just using an example, to make my suggestion more clear.. is there any way of more members getting to know about this talk?RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 18:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the different soaps having different color infoboxes, but that's just my preference and if others prefer uniformity, I cant say I care enough to argue one way or another.GunGagdin^Moan 23:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed something, the example infobox on the main WP:SOAPS page isn't the default blue colour. ;) - JuneGloom Schmooze 00:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah you're right, but then again who last updated this thing? The WP is from ages ago without anyone updating..RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 02:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD

See Wikipedia:TFD#Characters templates 3. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox soap character new parameter

I was wondering if it would be possible to add a family parameter in relationships panel; similar to the Template:Infobox soap character 2. I think it would be very useful seeing how most of the characters on soaps are related to a family. --Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 17:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"Family" is a catch-all parameter that was left over from a time before categories like "sister" and "cousin" were split out. Clearly someone has repurposed it to reiterate a character's primary familial connection in that version of the infobox, but that use is redundant.— TAnthony^Talk

GAN articles are waiting

There are quite a few Soap opera articles in the "Theatre, film and drama" section that are awaiting a review. So if you're interested in Neighbours, Hollyoaks and Eastenders articles, Why not go and review one fellow soapies! ;)RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 16:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ooh look, I'm third on the list. I wonder if I can get to number one again. ;) - JuneGloom Talk 22:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Number two now. If I get some other things out the way, I might pick up a couple of articles from that section to review. - JuneGloom Talk 16:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Two articles for deletion!

There are Home and Away lists up for deletion... Should they go or stay? These have been put up for deletion as part of the clean up drive currently going on for this soap opera, so if you have an opinion or if you've come across a similiar AFD, go and include your thoughts. Here are the links.. List of Home and Away cast members and List of Home and Away children. It's always good to gain a clear consensus so the more the merrier.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 01:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

By the time I saw this message, both AFDs had closed... AnemoneProjectors 08:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Another article for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Home and Away characters is up for deletion as part of the clean up process. Get involved everyone please if you love soap opera!RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 20:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK Nom needs reviewing

Ruby Buckton was expanded by me and nommed for DYK.... can someone review the hook and check it's true etc... Here's Ruby's entry on the page. No one wants to review her because she isn't an airliner, capital city or a packet of medicine.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 22:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Non Free Content Discussion

There is a discussion Here about the use of screens shots in character articles, we need more views, to see what the consensus is.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 15:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Inside Soap

I don't know how likely it is anyone can help, but I figure it's worth a shot asking - is there anyone who regularly buys Inside Soap and has access to a scanner or similar? There have been a couple of long interviews in the past few weeks that would be really helpful for articles I'm working on, but I usually have to make do with a quick flick through in the supermarket :) Specifically, the Jaye Jacobs interview in this week's edition, the Laila Rouass one that was either in last week's or the week before, and (probably in the bin by now, but I can't be the only magazine hoarder out there!) the one with Barry Sloane from 28 Dec 2010. I'd really appreciate it if anyone could help, thanks! Frickative 22:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have all three of those and a scanner. - JuneGloom Talk 00:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't brought the latest one with Donna in yet.. but I interviews with Sloane and Rouass. (I've got an interview with Will Thorp who played Woody in Casulty talking about the crash he and Donna were in, got a bit on Linden's murder and Oliver and Chrissie's fling if they could be of any help?) They never really include big articles on Holby do they.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 00:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh lordy. That'll teach me keeping an edit window open, the edit conflict with you JG brought up the page's text in two windows and made firefox non responsive. Who's doing it then.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 00:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, fantastic! If either of you could scan them in whenever you have the time, that would be absolutely brilliant. Those other ones would be amazing as well, thanks Rain! Haha, no, I stopped budgeting for it because the Holby section is usually only a paragraph long. :( Frickative 00:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Just gotta upload to mediafire them but it'll take about 15 mins cus I got slow connection on the desktop. Can unzip folders on your PC?RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 00:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow, that was fast, thanks so much! Yup, I can unzip no problem :) Frickative 01:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Days of our Lives storylines pages on AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Days of our Lives storylines (2010s). They were split off a year ago into decade pages. All are bundled into the AFD. TransUtopian (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Penn (Tamil drama)

The article Penn (Tamil drama) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published (gBooks) support for the content of this article, fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Need help with Brooke Logan article

Hey everyone! First up, I don't normally edit soap opera articles, I just happened to come across this one following the trail of an IP vandal. When I did come across it I discovered it was in terrible shape by Wikipedia standards. There was not a single source supplied and it was thousands of words long filled with fans talking about all the different story lines the character has been involved in. I checked with WP:SOAPS to make sure some kind of exception wasn't being made for soap opera character articles to find that these articles are being held to the same standard as with the rest of Wikipedia. A little over two weeks ago I left a note on the talk page pointing out the problems and asking for help here. No one responded to the talk page but another editor did cut out most of the cruft here. Since then there has been a somewhat slow-burning edit war between me and USER:Traditha with that editor adding back in tons of story elements about the character without any sources and in general ignoring the instructions at WP:SOAPS and me reverting all of it. I know that a lot of articles in the soap opera project have these same problems but I figure we should just fix them as we come across them which is why I'm now committed to this one article. What I'm hoping for now is that some other editors will get involved, invite Traditha to discuss the article (so far the editor has refused to discuss the article with me in spite of my several requests), and either get it up to Wikipedia standards or least keep it clean of the fan cruft and original research. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bold and the Beautiful character articles are extremely bad. I've cleaned up and condensed the plot summaries on a few pages, but the articles still do not meet Wikipedia standards. See: Ridge Forrester. I did an enormous amount of work on it: condensing material; removing repetitive links; correcting the verb tense, misspellings, grammar, syntax, etc. And it's still way too long. Meanwhile, regular soap editors are already fighting me and adding more garbage to other pages. Why is it difficult for you to get this particular editor removed? If Wikipedia is that slow to ban someone who refuses to work with other editors and who adds egregiously inappropriate material, then maybe this site is not for me. -- JustinSpurlin (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Telenovelas, flag icons and a question

Greetings and salutations. I recently started trying to clean up some of the telenovela pages (generally just applying TV and SOAP MOS stuff to what's already there) because they have some really awkward formatting that I followed over from some TV and film articles. Recently, I've stumbled onto something I'm unsure about. The site-wide MOS says we shouldn't be using flag icons in the infobox generally. Given the exceptions noted in the MOS, I can see putting a flag icon for a telenovela's country of origin. But I've noticed that for shows broadcast in multiple countries, some editors place the flag icons next to the broadcast dates in the infobox. I'm not sure that this is entirely the right thing to do (we don't on at WP:TV) but I wasn't sure if it was something with an exception here at SOAPs. Since the list of countries can get pretty long, I can see why some editors might think it helps with visual identification of the information presented. Should I be removing these or leaving them be, in this instance? Millahnna (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment ... WP:Soaps is a derivative project of WP:TV and has not asserted any content rules of its own which contradict ongoing WP:TV policy. I would definitely say follow whatever current policy is at WP:TV, especially since a) WP:Soaps isn't particularly active and hasn't kept up with wider policy changes and b) as much as I hate to admit it, many soap and telenovela articles go directly against policy in some ways because they attract a lot of "fans" who are not well-versed in guidelines and policy. If you're not sure if the flags in these articles can be considered exceptions to the rule, I would bring it up at WP:TV and see what they say. Thanks again!— TAnthony^Talk 00:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply but I've pretty much given up on trying to clean these and have just started tagging them instead. Every time I remove the flag icons, correct a section heading to standard (including improper capitalization), remove inappropriate italics and bolding, or clean up the casts lists (plagued with problems ranging from unneeded tables to pointless bolding to horrible grammar), the same handful of users come along and undo it. I've tried reverting with clear edit summaries, pointing users to applicable MOS standards, etc., all to no avail. They are determined that these articles will be non-MOS compliant. I'm guessing that there is a language barrier but I've received no replies when I've tried to start conversations. Soon I'll likely move on to where my efforts aren't wasted. (sorry for rant, very frustrating) Millahnna (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism? by 98.149.130.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This person was blocked a month ago for vandalism on San Diego TV and radio articles and returned in the same way making these edits. But now seems to have branched off into editing articles on telenovelas. Given the users history I would assume these are vandailsm but I don't want to assume about a subject area that I am unfamiliar with. Can I have some assistence here /? ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 04:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)