Talk:Days of Our Lives

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article Days of Our Lives was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 6, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
December 6, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
May 16, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
May 17, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted
June 10, 2010 Peer review Reviewed
June 23, 2010 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
WikiProject Soap Operas (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Television (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

The Other Days Of Our Lives Prime-time Specials and Storylines[edit]

Hello, I believe that all the linked dool pages are very informative and they help explain alot of the history and what is going on ...but I see that "The Cruise Of Deception" storyline has it's own page telling great details into that storyline..but it also seems like you have forgotten other memorable times go go into great details and layout for us...like for instances..." One StormyNight" "Night Sins" or " Winter Heat" and i think a special page or two should be set up for the running back to back storylines of " The Salem Stalker" and "Melaswen / New Salem " -- DOOL HISTORIAN (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone should add the primetime specials to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.152.247 (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this notable??[edit]

I read on on the article on wiping that this show, Days of Our Lives, is one of only 3 or so 1960's soap operas which survive mostly intact in the archives. Retro Agnostic (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Caps[edit]

Why the heck is "Our" not capitalized on the page? Don't we have a whole guideline on capitalization of titles? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 19:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, check out the logo, it's not capitalized ... — TAnthonyTalk 22:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Irregular or unusual caps, punctuation etc. defer to the series themselves rather than WP guidelines, as in thirtysomething and headLand.— TAnthonyTalk 02:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, those two I can understand since they're from the department of "let's ignore capital letters entirely". But this one just seems weird. Apparently whoever made the title card forgot that prepositions are still capitalized. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 18:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In this article it states that after Jeff Zuker remarked in January 2007 that Days probably wouldn't be on past 2009, and that the following time after that article was published that Days ratings dropped to 1.9 million viewers. This is totally not true. The 1.9 figure is the household rating, not the total number of households. Days has always averaged well above 2,000,000 households. The 1.9 rating is the percent of total households that watched the program not the total amount of viewers/households. This is misleading to the reader. If this was true then Days really would have made a comeback since 2007, since it is averaging just under 3.0 million viewers this season. I will correct this if it is not corrected soon. Please get your facts straight if you are going to contribute to Wikipedia. The show has already received enough negative publicity lately and it keeps on going up with huge increases in viewers despite individuals who either make false statements or give false information in regards to it's popularity. I also cannot find anywhere an average household rating of 1.9 for Days during the time period in question. For the 06-07 season Days had a 2.2 household rating average. This is according to the Wikipedia article about soap opera ratings history. I think that 1.9 might be more the author's perception and not based on any facts. It cannot be validated within the time frame mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telxon04 (talkcontribs) 06:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, it has been stated by NBC officials of Days of our Lives that the "O" in "our" is not capitalized intentionally because it represents all of our lives and not just the lives of the show's characters. Days of our Lives is intended to represent the lives of everyone on the program and for anyone watching the program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telxon04 (talkcontribs) 05:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

dool[edit]

dool is big —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.234.72 (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

someone should hyperlink the characters to their individual pages from the awards section.

Supercouples[edit]

When the article on Days of Our Lives discusses the emergence of the phenomenon of supercouples, it omits Roman and Marlena. Since they were the original supercouple and received huge publicity in soap opera magazines in the 1980's for that reason, it seems like a major omission not to include them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lincolnstreet747 (talkcontribs) 00:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Good article nomination and reassessment[edit]

See Talk:Days of our Lives/GA1 for the nomination, and Talk:Days of our Lives/GA2 for the reassessment. Geometry guy 11:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Senior cast members[edit]

I edited the senior cast members to make it smaller because half the main cast was on them including Lauren Koslow who has only been there since 1996. Only about the top 5 or 10 like susan seafoth hayes, bill hayes, and suzanne rogers who have been there since the early 70's and then peter rekell, james renoyalds, and kristian alfonso who have been there since the early 80's also i put josh taylor in since he has been wiht teh show since 1977 so dont change it please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.5.105 (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Peggy McKay first appeared on Days of our Lives as Caroline Brady in 1983. She has been on the show continuously since 1985 as a contract cast member. You failed to list her as a senior cast member. Alison Sweeney has also been on the program since January 6, 1993, and should be listed as a senior cast member for her 18 years of continuous service as a contract cast member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telxon04 (talkcontribs) 05:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Cancellation?[edit]

There have been multiple updates to the page about cancellation that look rather shady. I can't find anything on it, but wanted to confirm before clearing it out. Johnny51981 (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This information regarding cancellation was false. Days of our Lives was just renewed on November 8, 2010 for another 2 years, which would make it remain on the air through September 2013. There was also a one year renewal option which would make it run through 2014.

Whoever it was that contributed this false information regarding Days of our Lives being cancelled by NBC provided 100% false information to Wikipedia and should be removed as a contributor on those grounds. They even listed a false "last airing date" which has been proven to be a complete fabrication of the truth. They failed to provide any validation to this information and it proved to be untrue. Persons who contribute totally false information should not be permitted to contribute anything to this website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telxon04 (talkcontribs) 04:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Best remembered stories[edit]

I was surprised while reading the section on "Best remembered stories" that there was no mentioning of the buried alive storyline in 1992 when Vivian went wacko because of herbs, framed Carly Manning for patient deaths at University hospital, and then faked Carly's death and then buried her alive in a cemetery making everybody in Salem think that she was dead. This storyline was HUGE and I remember it was a big ratings winner for DOOL back in 1992.

Also, what about the storyline in 1996 when Kristin Blake miscarried and lost John's baby, then faked the pregnancy by passing Susan Bank's baby as if it was her own, all just to keep John for herself and away from Marlena? Susan had to impersonate Kristin. Of course, Vivian and Ivan were Kristin's accomplices in crime the entire time. And then when Marlena found out, Kristin locked Marlena in the secret room in the DiMera mansion only to find out that she too would eventually be locked in the secret room while witnessing Susan attempt to marry the man that both Kristian and Marlena loved--- John. And then finally it all backfired as Kristians lies and schemes were exposed, Susan and Edmund moved to England with baby E.J., and Kristin allegedly committed suicide, drowned, and died in a pool of blood even though it was really Susan's sister, Penelope. As it turned out, Kristin has been held captive and in jail all of this time while all those in Salem think she died.

Or how about the big storyline in 1983 when Stefano pushed Roman Brady (Wayne Northrup) off the cliff and making him look presumably dead? And then in 1986 when Roman (Drake Hogestyn) came back from the dead, everybody was then fooled again when the man Marlena thought he was, Roman, turned out to be John Black? And then as it unfolded, the "real" Roman (Wayne Northrup) eventually came back to town in the early 1990s to reclaim his old life with Marlena and the kids only to find out that Marlena had unresolved feelings for John (Drake Hogestyn) , an affair ensued which produced a love child, Belle Black.

Surely, these BIG storylines are worth mentioning.Yoganate79 (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sammie & EJ I think they should be togother they fit the. Sammie trying to be good and can't the same with EJ. It makes the show great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.63.152 (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

ratings: record low[edit]

May 5, 2011: 2,039,000 viewers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.22.56 (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2011[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)



Days of our LivesDays of Our Lives – Reopened, see below. Jafeluv (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:ARTICLETITLE and WP:MOSTITLE, we use standard capitalization rules and do not slavishly follow the formatting seen within the programs themselves. Powers T 23:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about this move. I tried to undo it but I'm having insane issues with my Internet connection today and made a mess of it. I'd like you to undo it yourself if possible. Editors don't get to substitute their capitalization preferences for what a proper title actually goes by. According to the shows official pages at NBC and Sony the correct title is Days of our Lives without the "o" in "our" capitalized. Please see is 5 and k.d. lang for other examples where we don't use standard capitalization. AniMate 20:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
This was a good faith move, but restored the original title, per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:LOWERCASE, or WP:ON; or at least because it could warrant more discussion. —Ost (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree with Ost316 here. We may not "slavishly follow the formatting seen within the programs themselves" but neither are we as editors allowed to dictate what we think the titles should be. For better or worse the name of the show is "Days of our Lives" and the o in our is not capitalized. Clearly this is a controversial move and should have been discussed. Please do ot move it again. AniMate 22:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I've reopened the discussion (which I think you should have done instead of re-reverting the page move, but the result is pretty much the same). As I said on my talk page, in my view the move was in accordance with WP:CAPS, but I'll leave it to others to decide that. This will be reclosed by another uninvolved user in seven days or so. I'll notify LtPowers that the discussion has been reopened. Jafeluv (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I did not see the discussion on your talk page and the original guidelines cited did not make the rationale clear. WP:CAPS—and its link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Composition titles—clarify that title case should likely be used. However, I note that this page was stable at the lowercase "our" location for a while and that the guideline does say "generally", with plenty of pages using non-standard naming. —Ost (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's vital that we remember that this proposal changes merely the orthography of the title, not the actual title of the program. Our Article Titles conventions allow us to use proper title case where appropriate, per our usual conventions. This is clearly a case such as that. The decision to capitalize "our" or not is purely stylistic, not a question of fact. Powers T 13:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should be substituting our stylistic preferences in regards to creative works. Despite our stylistic conventions, the correct capitalization is "Days of our Lives". We could change the capitalization of works by E. E. Cummings like is 5 and anyone lived in a pretty how town to conform to our guidelines, but anyone familiar with his works would definitely revert such changes. I think in regards to creative works we should stick with the title the creator used, and in this case the "o" in our isn't capitalized. This is clear not only from the title sequence but also on the shows official pages at NBC and Sony. AniMate 01:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
e. e. cummings is a unique example because his poetry depended heavily on stylized capitalization for meaning. This, on the other hand, is just a stylistic choice, and WP:MOSTM makes clear that we don't generally hew to whatever fancy styles a brand may use just for the sake of matching. Powers T 13:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I suggest we leave it with "our" uncapitalized in this case. It may not be in accordance with our style rules, but on this point our rules are fairly arbitrary (it doesn't make things any clearer to readers, and isn't any more "correct", to do it one way rather than the other), so we may as well follow the sources, and apply the rule only when the sources show significant disagreement.--Kotniski (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

B&W and Color[edit]

Question... was Days ever filmed in Black and White, or was it Color from Day 1?

Blozier2006 (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Updating rating information[edit]

This section doesn't have any imformations about the ratings since the 2010-2011 season. We need to keep this section update. If I have the time, I'll try to find myself some informations about the ratings from reliable sources. Farine (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thursday's Show[edit]

I have been watching this show every since it first aired. I have always enjoyed it. When it first started it was a good clean show. I am Very disappointed in yesterdays show with Will and the other boy kissing!!! Our children are seeing enough of this as is . I am almost 65 years old and it is very offensive to me and certainly not scriputral.Why can you not keep Days as it was, why does it have to change with the part of the world that thinks this is ok? If it happens again I am finished with Days Of Our Lives. I know that this doesn't matter to you but, this is my feelings!

                                                           Thanks, Brenda  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.247.23 (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 

Will's coming out storyline is being very well told. Bravo to DAYS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.239.1 (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Days storyline[edit]

I too have been watching Days since it started airing. I have never been more disappointed in the storyline. You have ruined or are trying to ruin every marriage in Salem except Victor and Maggie's.

I also DO NOT like the direction you are writing for Will.

We have a local group of ladies that watches Days every day and we are all fed up with this destruction of morals and family values. If your storlines don't start taking a more positive attitude, we will ALL be through with DAYS. You as writers probably aren't worried about the ratings dropping just because our little group watches something else but remember that word-of-mouth gets you more advertisement, whether is bad or good. At this time, you are getting more bad than good. PLEASE, get your morals back in check and put all those marriages back together. Maybe you need to look at some NEW writers. Whatever it takes to return to the program we are proud to say we watch.

Thanks Rkweaver (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I am thrilled with the coming out storyline for Will. Way to go DAYS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.239.1 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a forum. Please make suggestions on how to improve the article rather than what you like or don't like about the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.42.204 (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Sonny Kiriakis[edit]

Thoughts on giving this character their own page? This was brought up on the TALK page for Minor characters of Days of our Lives. It's the first gay character in 45 years of the show, and has had so many juicy storylines that are still ongoing. Actor Freddie Smith is in it for the long haul. I thought about the possibility of the character getting their own page a year ago but held off broaching the subject wanting first to see if the character continued to play a significant role in the show, and if the character accumulated a decent history. IMO, that's happened. What are your feelings regarding this? Partyclams (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Awards[edit]

In specific awards someone should hyperlink the character's name to their character's article on Wikipedia {if they have one.} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.152.247 (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone should make a Days of Our Lives awards page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.152.247 (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Supercouples[edit]

Someone should design a section about Days of our Lives Supercouples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.152.247 (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

DOCTOR DANIEL[edit]

HE'S SUPPOSE TO BE A DOCTOR, YET HE LEAVE'S PERSONAL RECORDS LAYING AROUND FOR ANYBODY TO LOOK AT. HIS SON KNOCKED SOME PAPERS ON THE FLOOR, KRISTEN WAS THERE. SHE PICKS UP A SHEET WITH LAB RESULTS ON IT FOR ERIC. SHE LOOKS AT IT AND HE'S WATCHING HER READ IT. HE'S A JOKE AS A DOCTOR. I KNOW, HE'S SOMEBODY THE HONEYS WANT TO LOOK AT BUT BETTER SCRIPTS IS A MUST, YOUR WRITER'S SUCK. EVERYONE ON THE SHOW ARE IDIOTS. MAKE SOME OF THE SHOW BELIEVABLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.219.55.120 (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2013[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. The arguments against using MOS:CT here do not seem convincing or have any particular policy basis. It is always worth paying some attention to the style used in sources but MOS:CT usually wins whenever the two disagree. One editor asked for 'nuanced interpretation' but it's not easy to see what that would be. The word 'His' is named in the guideline as one of the words to be capitalized. Is 'Our' in a different class from 'His'? If we were voting based on personal preference I'd favor lower case 'our' myself. Proposals to change the style guideline should be considered elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)



Days of our LivesDays of Our Lives – "Our" and "our" are commonly used. But per MOS:CT and WP:NCCAPS, "Our" should be used. I wonder if the outcome of A Boy Was Born should influence this request. And WP:COMMONNAMES says that a title doesn't have to be official. George Ho (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. I think that word is capitalized by Our style guide. Red Slash 06:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In this title, "our" is an unimportant word, as indicated by the non-capitalization in the original. The group referred to by "our" is undefined, and variable. "our" is an unimportant determiner, and determiners are not even mentioned by the MOSCT. Capitalizing the "our" causes the title to be read with emphasis on the "Our", creating an implication of a division between an "us" and "them", a division that is not the case. It is better to use whether ordinary editors decide whether or not "our" is an important word, with the default falling to that used in reliable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. NBC and Sony Pictures Television lists the series as our, not Our. And in how the series' title is stylised in its official logo. livelikemusic my talk page! 00:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per MOS:CT. We rely on external sources for content, not style. If we wanted to defer to sources on matters like punctuation and capitalization, there would be little need for a MOS. --BDD (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The reason for the MOS is that without the MOS there would be no reason for the MOS?
The MOS could exist to offer guidance, to be used to assist in decision making. We should not defer, neither to sources, nor to a MOS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm really struggling to phrase this without being sarcastic and condescending. So I'll just say that I ask this in all earnestness: do you understand the purpose of a style guide? Or perhaps you just don't agree that they should be used, generally or on Wikipedia? If we defer neither to sources nor to a MOS, how on earth are we supposed to make these decisions? --BDD (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. I understand style guides. And they are good. Wikipedia is better with its style guide. The question is how tight the style guide must be adhered to, and to what level of detail the style guide should go to.
We could rely entirely on sources for title styling, which would result in poor consistency, and occassional ugliness, such as ALLCAPS titles. The look becomes sloppy, unprofessional.
We could have a style guide that is rigid and prescribes everything, such as what the chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) tries to do, which would result in a stle guide that is so extremely detailed that becomes a burden on editors in complying, and in the style guide prescribing styles that in rare cases sit very ill with topic-interested editors, leading to conflict.
Or we could use a style guide that incorporates flexibility, or doesn't speak to every possible detail, allowing decisions to be influenced by styles in sources.
I think you make an erroneous assumption, that style and content can be perfectly separated. I think that is erroneous because in a title like this, the capitalization of Our/our affects the meaning of the title.
On this occasion, I challenged you !vote because it is in essence devoid of substance. The question at hand in this RM is whether this title should be titled in exception to MOS:CT and WP:NCCAPS. I recall the general advice: If somebody asks "Why do we do this?" the answer "Because there is a rule" is not a good answer. A good answer will cite the reasons for the rule, or the benefits of following the rule.
You and Red Slash support per a rule. Livelikemusic opposes per sourcing. These !votes do not address the question of whether the rule, on this very particular question, should be set aside due to prevailing source styling, and nuanced interpretation (my !vote).
Do you think that the reasons so far presented are not sufficient to allow an exception? Why, why are the reasons presented weak? Or do you think that the style guide should have no exceptions, the reasons are not even worth examining? Why? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

AWARDS[edit]

71.114.152.247 (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Put Awards into a Table to look like other TV series.

  • Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please put awards into tables to illustrate Daytime Emmy Award wins, Writers Guild Awards, Directors Guild Awards, and the others — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.152.247 (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources for episode counts?????[edit]

Episode counts are generally not sourced as they are incremented counts. If they had to be sourced then the US count in the info box would be invalid. So should all non-cited count be removed???Helmboy (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Episode count is right. According to NBC's web count of episodes, the number is correct as of the last Friday of last week. So I don't know how you can say it's wrong. Also, sign your posts when posting! livelikemusic my talk page! 04:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The NBC site shows the daily production number that Sony uses, it is technically not the count. Also since it is a production number it does not need referencing due to such numbers generally only being referenced internally by studios or on end of credit production slates.Helmboy (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
That's not the production number that Sony uses for "Days" (Sony uses a six digit production number for "Days", such as 185940). Soap operas do not have episode titles, they only have episode numbers, which is what NBC uses. The NBC media site lists the episode numbers for the past several years of "Days" episodes on its site here: http://www.nbcumv.com/mediavillage/networks/nbcentertainment/daysofourlives/episodes Jason47a (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Given those numbers aren't published I challenge you to cite a source to prove that statement. The only production companies that publish publicly accessible and accurate numbering are Fox, Warners and some Canadian producers who burn thee number in on the end credit copyright slate. There is the Library of Congress copyright site that sometimes lists the numbers, however the details are submitted by company legal departments who care more about procedure than accuracy. Also regardless of the numbering system those numbers still aren't technically a running count nor reliable enough to cite.Helmboy (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
No need to challenge me. They are published on the script covers and other paperwork. You commented above, as though you knew for a fact, that the NBC site was using "production numbers", but you were only guessing. If you aren't sure of something, don't make others assume you know what you are saying to be true, when in fact, you were in error. UPDATE: As requested, I scanned in a sample script cover from episode # 4939, which shows the Production # to be 184323. You can access the image here: http://www.jason47.com/jason47b/images/script4939.jpg Jason47a (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The point still is that scripts and marketing are generally internal documents and not made publicly available for regular reference. As for the numbering, the episode number is the production number used by Sony when distributing the show. Without seeing other sample scripts in order, the other production number is either a script revision number or the code for the series or season.Helmboy (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
No, the point is you asked me (or as you put it, challenged me) to provide a source for the production number, and I did. As per Wikipedia's verifiability page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability, it states this: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible...some print sources may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf." So, as Wikipedia itself says, "Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access." I scanned in a script page for you to see the production number, and you yourself may access all the other script pages at the many libraries they are available in if you'd like to see more production numbers. But, per Wikipedia's verifiability page, I have provided the source necessary for the episode numbers to remain on this page. Jason47a (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
You don't seem to realize that most production scripts generally do NOT see the light of day outside of production environments for regular use in encyclopedia referencing. Reliable and accessible sources is a must for the continuity, accuracy and checking of such numbers. Odd scripts surfacing, does NOT constitute a reliable source.Helmboy (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Also without a large number of scripts in sequential order it would be impossible to detect any typographical errors in the codes used.Helmboy (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I do realize that many Days scripts are available at various libraries across the US. You, or anyone else in the public, may access them (and there are decades and decades available, in sequential order, so you could compare each one's production code to check for any typographical errors). As I stated above, Wikipedia's rule regarding verifiability is this: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible...some print sources may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf." I see no need for any more discussion on this subject, as it has been settled. If you can get Wikipedia to change its stance on verifiability, and stop sources that are available off-line in libraries from being used, then I guess the matter can be opened again. Until then, however, the source and relevant Wiki policies I provided prove the difference between the "Days" episode # and "Days" production #. Jason47a (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Per what Jason has provided, he is right. Per Wiki policy, there is a difference between episode number and production number, and NBC's website seems to verify that. At this point, Helmboy, you are baiting another member by challenging them, which is against Wiki policies. The civility in your tone also seems very pointed to own your point on this page and not accept another's proof as valid. And the "old" script DOES constitute a reliable source, no matter its date of age. That's like saying a newspaper article from the 70's or 80's is not reliable in 2014. Also, I have yet to see you provide any kind of sourcing for your claims, which Jason has (alongside Wiki policy). livelikemusic my talk page! 02:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Days of Our Lives Awards & Nominations[edit]

Can someone make the awards more organized, possibly creating a whole page for the awards?

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Days of Our Lives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Days of Our Lives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Days of Our Lives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Days of Our Lives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2016[edit]

Parodies: How I Met Your Mother episode Third Wheel (Season 3 Episode 3) features Barney Stinson displaying a crown he bought himself for sleeping with a girl from Days Of Our Lives 93.185.28.29 (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2017[edit]

222.217.113.84 (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done No request made. 97198 (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Days of Our Lives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Days of Our Lives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)