Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WPSOAP-Icon.png Soap Operas
WikiProject
Project navigation links
Main project page talk
Tasks
Participants
Templates
Assessment
 → Unassessed articles
 → Statistics
Useful links
Style guidelines
edit · changes
WikiProject Soap Operas (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Discussion at Talk:Sonia Fowler[edit]

After frequently seeing this article in the Pending Changes queue, I have started a discussion about the relevance of the size of the plot summary in this article in relation to WP:PLOT and MOS:PLOT. This is likely of interest to this project. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of RFC closure with regards to use of (telenovela) for TV series[edit]

An RFC was held at WP:VPP with regards to whether (telenovela) was a suitable disambiguator. The full discussion and closing statement can be viewed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 140#RfC: Is "telenovela" a suitable disambiguator?

As a result, no change to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) guideline is in order, and any television series of the telenovela genre is eligible to be moved to titles using (TV series). My suggestion is that for any series (i.e. those that clearly aired on television in first run) can probably be moved uncontroversially - with redirects left in place. If a telenovela name conflicts with another TV series and can't be resolved with WP:NCTV#Additional disambiguation using year and/or country, that too would likely benefit from a full RM discussion. -- Netoholic @ 13:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Days of our Lives is set in a fictitious town - NOT Salem, Illinois. Please help fix character pages![edit]

A while back an editor went round putting "Salem, Illinois" as Residence in the Infoboxes of many Days of Our Lives character pages.

This is incorrect, as the NBC.com webpage says: Days of our Lives is set in the fictitious Midwestern town of Salem.[1]

This fictitious Salem has actually been suprisingly mobile, as the show was originally advertised to be set in New England, but that's by the by. In addition, the word Salem in these entries links to Salem (Days of Our Lives) which now only exists as a redirect to Days of Our Lives, as the page for the !fictitious! Salem was recently considered not up-to-scratch.

I put out an appeal to editors interested in american soap operas to fix this where they see it, and edit out the residence entry where "Salem, Illinois" is used.

Thank you for any help you can give.

Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

During an appearance on The Today Show in celebrating the fiftieth anniversary, it was stated that Salem was, in fact, located within Illinois. In truth, however, I've always found the "home" and "residence" parameter(s) problematic fan-cruft information.
In reply to livelikemusic's unsigned comment above:
No, it was *not* "stated that Salem was, in fact, located within Illinois", as livelikemusic claims. That is a misrepresentation of what happened, and this is not the first time livelikemusic has mis-represented a source in this fashion, by using "stated" and "in fact" to put a gloss of definitiveness which is not present in a source. If you watch the interview you will find that it is one of the interviewers who says "This is not Salem, Massuachussets; this is Salem, Illinois, right" when she interrupts Thao Penghlis talking about his character, André. Kristian Alfonso nods and says "right", and Penghlis also says "right" but not in a very affirmative way (actually, with a cough), and then carries on about his character. Deidre Hall and Galen Gering look kind-of "what-the-f***", and then the interviewers swiftly move the interview onto other subjects.[2] The fact is that the official show line has been from the beginning that Days' Salem is a fictional town. The towns the interviewer mentions are both real places, and therefore the question is a false dichotomy. It is neither! The Salem in Days has tenuous geography (just somewhere in the midwest), because its geography and laws are created (and changed!) for narrative purposes. Just one example: Will and Sonny got married before gay marriage was legal in Illinois. But you could come up with dozens of examples of why the soap's town is not Salem, Illinois, and not in Illinois. The show's Salem is simply fictional. It is not even a fictional version of Salem, Illinois. It is pure invention from start to finish. Salem, Illinois of the otherhand is very real, and should therefore not be put in as "residence" in character infoboxes. It is completely misleading to do this, and instances should be removed. "Salem, USA" would be acceptable *if* linked to an article about the fictional town. But as the article has been deleted, this is not currently an option. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Names, Other Names, and Aliases - Towards a good common policy in lead and infobox[edit]

This was last hotly-debated here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soap_Operas/Archive_11#Middle_names,_maiden_names,_married_names,_birth_names,_etc...

Since then some independent-minded editors have gone through american soap character articles stripping out alternate names and middle names and married names from leads (some of which were important and valuable). There was no consensus for their actions! Indeed, the debate above shows there was several voices calling for their retention, and the arguments to me seemed to be weighted towards their retention of at least some alternate names in the lead.

Where we're at today is (a) there is not a sound central policy on the matter, because the latest debate did not reach the establishment of such a policy, and (b) because different editors have worked at odds, the representation of names in articles is presently uncoordinated and unsatisfactory, (and differs between american soaps and other soaps), and (c) the infobox's Other names category for some characters has become over-loaded with many names, and is, in itself, insufficient to the task of presenting the most essential information clearly.

Here are ideas to help towards a good solution.

Adding Original name and Latest name to Infobox[edit]

There are three types of name which are of particular importance: WP:COMMONNAME, original role name, and current role name.

  • WP:COMMONNAME is used as the article name.
  • The infobox Original name category would be for use when the original role name is different to WP:COMMONNAME.
  • The infobox Latest name category would be for use when the current role name is different to WP:COMMONNAME.

Both original and current role name are of such importance that it is right that they are identified as such in the infobox where they differ from WP:COMMONNAME and article name.

Examples of their use[edit]

  • Sami Brady would use the Latest name category to present the name Sami DiMera (her latest name in the show's credits).
  • Lucas Horton would use the Original name category to present the name Lucas Roberts (the original role name, and WP:COMMONNAME for many years).

In the infobox these categories should be in the order: Original name, Latest name, Other names. But each would only appear if needed.

In addition, perhaps the year durations of all non-WP:COMMONNAMES listed under Latest name, Original name, and Other names could appear to the right of the listed name. This would be helpful to the reader, and might be considered best practice.

NB: I am proposing "Latest name" rather than "Current name" because, WP:COMMONNAME is current too.

Adding Aliases Used or Identities Used to Infobox[edit]

Currently names appearing listed in Other names include actual role names, full fictional name of characters, and aliases used (or identities used). It strikes me that the latter (aliases/identities used) are different things entirely to a character's name, and they need to be clearly distinguished as such. Currently we have Kristen Blake listed as another name for Susan Banks. Hmmm, well Kristen Blake is a different character entirely who has her own character page! They are *not* the same character! And to add to the confusion Susan Banks is listed as another name of Kristen! It would be best practise, to make sure it is clear as to what is a "real" name and what is an alias, by having a separate, clearly named category for actual aliases. Now, perhaps you think that aliases used don't warrant inclusion anyway, and should just be removed! The trouble with that is that the field name for Other names is (unhelpfully!) alias, so editors *will* put them in! Moreover, I contend that actual aliases are important for several characters, and they will continue to appear in Other names unless a clear new category is created.

In short, pseudonyms need to be clearly distinguished from true names, and a new infobox category would do this best. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

A way to implement[edit]

  • Create new othernames parameter, with the display label Other names:
  • Create new aliasesused parameter, with the display label Aliases used:
  • List alias parameter in Old Parameters list, with instuctions to use the new parameters. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Alternate surnames in lead[edit]

For what is worth, I support the inclusion of important alternate role-surnames in the lead in some form. There are various ways of doing this that work well.

A way forward[edit]

The ideas I present above will improve the situation, whatever situation prevails regarding the opening sentence in the lead. Please voice your support for these ideas if you agree! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliveness Cascade (talkcontribs) 16:53, May 6, 2018 (UTC)

Mark McCormick listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Mark McCormick to be moved to Mark McCormick (Santa Barbara). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Regular character at what age?[edit]

Firstly, my question is more about the likes of those actors/actresses post compulsory school age in like Emmerdale, Coronation Street and EastEnders and really asking if now they can actually be considered regulars? It's just that I've noticed a big difference from when others were in the age bracket and had these "big" storylines like Martin Fowler (James Alexandrou then 17) being responsible for Jamie Mitchell's death, Whitney Dean's (McGarty then 16) being groomed by Tony King or Sarah Platt's (Tina O'Brien then 16) teenage pregnancy).

In Emmerdale and Coronation Street, younger actors are credited inbetween the adults whilst with EastEnders, a character's status is based on their position in credits. Take examples of a few 16/17 year olds: Rosie Bentham, Isobel Steele, Ellie Leach and Maisie Smith, especially the first 3, as I find their appearances no more regular from when they were like 14/15. Here's their episode counts on wikia and they really aren't much more:

Now, outside their acting and the shows, things have changed in recent years with rules and regulations like with education (for example the BBC make considerations for those in further education http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/policiesandguidelines/childprotection/pdf/licensing_guide.pdf)

I just think maybe it needs changing when they are classified as regular because things have changed. Grangehilllover (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Bigg Boss listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Bigg Boss to be moved to Bigg Boss (Indian TV series). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.