Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Possible policy for soap articles

I've found that users from other nations have complained that there are spoilers in the articles. Since their airdates are years behind ours, I feel this can't really be helped, because these are articles on American shows, so the information should be known as soon as it airs. At the same time, on soap actor articles and the soap articles themselves, the soap bots formerly known as User:B-Movie Bandit have been adding information on casting defections and additions before they even air. I don't feel this is right because this is an encyclopedia, and it's only going to be truly fact when one sees them on the screen. After all, Larry Hagman was scheduled to be on The Bold and the Beautiful until scheduling conflicts caused him to bail out at the last minute. What kind of service are we doing to our readers if we publish tentative information from a soap magazine only to have it be false? That's not facts and not encyclopedic. That's why I propose the policy that cast changes only be posted when they air in the United States (this stipulation included because Canada airs the shows one day ahead). Mike H 07:16, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable to me. Encyclopedias should contain fact, not rumor. Foobaz·o< 07:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The articles should contain spoiler warnings, if they don't already. This isn't just beneficial for shows that have aired years before in a seperate market, but also to someone who recorded the show during a month-long vacation and wants to read an article to freshen up on what happened. As for the bot, I agree with you, Wikipedia shouldn't be a rumor mill. The article should stick to describing plots that have already occurred, at least in one major market. --jag123 07:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Liberal use of the spoiler template is always welcome to give people a chance to look away, we do that for very old books and films too. There is always going to be somebody who hasn't seem something yet, and that's just the way it is. On the speculative material, you may not need a new policy. Wikipedia:Verifiability and related areas pretty muchj cover that, right? --iMb~Mw 07:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Books and films are different than television shows that are still running at five days a week. It's not that the casting moves are speculation (they're well documented in Soap Opera Digest), it's just that you get into the realm of "should this be in an encyclopedia article considering it hasn't aired yet?" I don't think it's unreasonable to hold off on putting a cast change in an article until it actually airs on television in the market it's intended. Mike H 07:43, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
You nailed it yourself with the Larry Hagman example. It's speculation or at best tentative until it airs, so it really doesn't belong here until the broadcast date.
Media isn't the only are where i've got issues with this sort of vagueness. We have an article, for example, on what is believed to be a probable configuratin of the planet's continents in the distant future, with no real explanation of why that configuration is believed to be likely (and at the other end, we have articles on a few past configurations without any real explanation of why those are believed to have existed, in that order). I think that at the very least, when speculative things are written, that some indication should be given of the parts we don't know. --iMb~Mw 07:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree that we should be very conservative on adding speculations. It's the job of Soap Opera Digest and other media to report the daily news and rumors. Zzyzx11 07:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Good one, Mike. Another great idea! - Lucky 6.9 08:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This ties in directly with Wiki policy versus speculation. Providing factual information regarding announcements of future candidates for casting, for example, is perfectly sound in my opinion. Stating that "there has been speculation over who will play.." is also fine, as this will most likely be reported by entertainment magazines too. Directly giving away an unreleased plot or unannounced cast list is not good. --Intimidated 08:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
But that's just it...people will not see announced cast members on screen for weeks or even months, so why should it be in the article proper? I don't think Wikipedia should be a breaking news soap casting site...that's why there are such sites, and that's why there is Soap Opera Digest. jag123 brought up a good example. What if Kelli Giddish were to die? Her few days of scenes would probably not air, and they'd scramble to rewrite the story, since she's a completely new character. Mike H 08:46, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
It can easily be debated whether or not your source is in a position to accurately confirm or deny any facts regarding a project not maintained by them. People who want that kind of gossip can get it elsewhere. I see no real advantage to having that info in the article (especially since it's pertaining to a future event) and many disadvantages, such as turning out to be wrong and spoiling plots. --jag123 08:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Would this proposed rule also apply to *new* soaps which have yet to pilot? Given this proposal that articles should only be written in the past or present tense, this would also affect a readers' ability to find factual information on upcoming programmes. --Intimidated 09:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I personally don't like the way the talk page is factored right now, for one. No other talk pages do the split for each comment. It is quite clear that this has to deal with existing soap operas. Are you trying to make a loophole argument? Because we can have consensus on all soaps, past, present, and future, and make a proposition for each. This doesn't HAVE to be limited to current shows if that's what you're suggesting. Mike H 09:44, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Apologies for the splits, I felt it improved the readability of the comments. I've removed them. My above argument was intended to demonstrate why the suggested rule would be overly restrictive. You can not make a general statement claiming that factual information describing future events regarding soaps is bad for Wiki. For example, I would like to see information in an article telling me the filming location of an upcoming episode. I think you are viewing wiki as a traditional encyclopedia, but it has the flexibility to be entirely more functional than that. --Intimidated 10:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The only thing factual about the network (if it's even them that confirm filming locations, not some second or third-hand source) stating that the filming location for a Fall episode will be at Anytown, USA is that the network intends to film the episode there. Until it actually happens or at least starts, it's not "factual" that the filming location *was* or *is* Anytown, USA. You're inserting information in an article that is being confirmed, by a second-hand source based on information they received from someone they don't reveal. I really don't believe that this follows the spirit of verifying or citing sources. Re: pilots, a very good argument could be made regarding whether or not this is notable. There are probably dozens of pilots being proposed / filmed on any given day, and I doubt any large majority actually make it on TV. There are many current events that have articles written about them, and at that time, are important / media darlings, but get successfully VfD'ed anyway. In contrast to soap pilots, many more people are aware of shootings or police standoffs because when they happen, that's all anyone sees on the news, so I don't think a soap pilot, which interest relatively less people, is a good way to make an argument. --jag123 21:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: For related IRC discussion, see User:TheCustomOfLife/Soap_policy_discussion. Mike H 07:41, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)


These soap pages tend to get updated very frequently according to the most recent information. Cast members that have not already aired are usualy listed as "Starting March 21st" or "Spring 2005" or when they are about to leave they say "Until February 24th". As an online encyclopedia there is a possibility of providing the most up-to-date information to readers.

Linda Dano is an example of an actor who is listed who has not apeared yet. When it was announced that she would be joining Guiding Light the cast list simply read "To Be Announced Character, possibly Felicia Gallant (starting April 2005)". Although the Felicia Gallant part has been proved incorrect, that has since been removed with no harm done.

I agree that there should be a spoiler warning when the artical section deals with storyline details, however, If your watching a show in another country, when you reseach the show online you are always at risk of running into spoilers. ( althought why anyone watching cancelled soaps I don't know...but If they started playing Family Passions again I would probably tune in.

If I have made some error in writing this please excuse it as I am relatively new to this. User:Dowew

As an online encyclopedia there is a possibility of providing the most up-to-date information to readers.
Actually, that falls under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia should not offer news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news. Mike H 22:44, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the current cast isn't exactly news. Its just information of the current status of the show. Personally, I like this feature as it is much more simple than imdb which lists everybody who has ever apeared in the show in alphabetical order no matter their contract status.

Perhaps there should be a seperate cast category for actors who have yet to apeare ? I like the fact that the AMC article has a category for deceased cast member ( obviously this should be used sparingly for actors who have mage large contributions to the show).

As long as the actor is listed with an atribute like (Starting Spring 2005) I don't think this counts as too much of a spoiler.

Pherhaps if there is a seperate category for incoming cast that could include a spoiler warning ? Just my two cents. User:Dowew

I can live with a "comings and goings section" as long as it's at the bottom, under recurring cast members (and above dead cast members, where applicable). This is not what I think is best for the article, but I'll live with it since you don't seem willing to try these other suggestions.
See what I've done with Guiding Light. I still stand by my other objection; the comings and goings do not need to be in actor articles until they actually air. My big example is the Linda Dano article; as soon as ANY information was available, the article was edited with "she may be playing Felicia again!" which helps nobody, frankly, since she isn't. I also didn't appreciate knowing that A.C. Mallet will be back on Guiding Light, which is fairly big spoiler news since that character hasn't been on in a dozen years. Mike H 21:54, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Not capitalizing the o in operas

The lack of capitalization on the o looks jarring and just plain stupid. I've moved the page back. Mike H 21:21, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Progress & new Templates section

I've added information on the soap opera character stubs on the main page for this WikiProject. Courtland July 1, 2005 10:09 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class and good B-class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on soap operas? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Walkerma 06:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

irna Phillips peer review

I have added a peer review request for Irna Phillips's page. I am hoping some people can add things. Dowew 02:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team previously contacted you to identify the quality articles in your WikiProject, and now we need a few more favors. We would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 1.0 and later versions. Hopefully it will also help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please consider adding to your Arts WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Not sure if this project is still active, but if you are, please get in touch. Thanks! Walkerma 04:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Days of our Lives Category

I have created a new Days of our Lives category. Please place any articles to do with that show in that category. thanks Dippit 16:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional template

I think it would be worth making a "WikiProject Soap Opera" template, which we could add to the talkpages of all of the soap show/character pages... Anyone want to take a shot at creating it, per the format of some of the other WikiProject TV talkpage templates? --Elonka 00:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, template created: {{soaps}}. Please add this to the top of the talkpage of all soap-related articles. --Elonka 11:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know a ton about soaps (other than that my wife has watched some in the past), but I happened upon this article recently, and it strikes me that it could stand a bit of pruning - perhaps with a machete rather than pruning shears. Any thoughts on how best to proceed? JavaTenor 17:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that article needs cleanup, and may even have copyright violations on it. Sometimes what happens is an overzealous fan goes to one of the other soap sites, finds their character biography page, and just copy/pastes the entire thing into Wikipedia. Currently this WikiProject is just coming out of inactive status and doesn't have a large pool of editors for cleanup yet, so the best thing is really to tag the article directly. I've tagged it with {{in-universe}} and left a note on the talkpage. If you want, just be bold and do take a machete to it and chop the plot summary down to a paragraph or so. And thanks for bringing it up! --Elonka 18:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion debate

An AMC "supercouple" article is up for deletion: J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey. What do other editors think? Does it meet the criteria for supercouples? --Elonka 00:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As much as any soap supercouple meets the criteria. Generally speaking, supercouples are determined by fanbases more than anything else. If Belle and Shawn on DAYS or Lucky and Liz on GH are supercouples, then so are J.R. and Babe. D'Amico 11:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Template image

OK, until the group can create/find a suitable logo image, I just had to put a starter image into {{WikiProject Soap Operas}}, it was so sad without one. TAnthony 00:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Works for me, thanks for taking the initiative! Where's it from? --Elonka 00:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Not to worry, Wikimedia Commons.  ;) TAnthony 02:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


Too many relationships

(copied from Talk:General Hospital)

I think that things are starting to get out-of-hand with the character relationships. I'm seeing lists showing up that are covering tenuous relationships like "adoptive paternal half-cousin", on characters that aren't even in the show anymore! I think we need to come up with guidelines that specify that only notable relationships should be included. My recommendation is that we define this as: Immediate family, romantic history, plus relationships to individuals who are or have been part of a key storyline involving that character. --Elonka 21:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree somewhat. I still think we have to include the family members, grand and great grand parents and all. Also, for some characs, these relationships are kinda imp. For Example, Michael Corinthos has a lot of family members, through 3 different families and I think it is iportant to list them all since he interacts with all of them. Also, for situations such as Dillon or Lulu, their step-bro and step-sis should be listed since they are constantly reminded of it in the show. But in cass of where there have been abortions or miscarriages, I don't think these relationships need to be lsited anywhere except in the Parents' to be articles. Exception to this should be Baby Girl McCall since she should be referenced in the pages of Sam, Sonny, Alexis, Kristina, and Molly. I guess, instead of developing guidelines, we should use our judgment. --Charleenmerced Talk 21:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree on grandchildren. And in terms of Michael Corinthos, if his character is interacting with other characters, then I'd agree that their relationships should be included. I recommend we move this discussion to the talkpage at Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas, and then we can use our judgment to come up with guidelines that can be used on all soaps, how's that? :) --Elonka 21:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I have created some guidelines for soap opera character articles, which I've placed on the WikiProject page. Please feel free to edit, or bring up concerns here on the talkpage. --Elonka 22:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
        • What's the precise definition of immediate family? Would we be simply looking at mother, father, brothers, sisters? (The generally accepted definition.) That makes the whole thing a lot easier. It's going to put some characters into never ending limbo (a lot of characters are cousins, or nieces, or nephews, or what-have-you), but it will make the pages much shorter. D'Amico 12:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Thanks for joining the debate! My recommendation is that "immediate family" mean the same thing as in real-life: Parents, children, siblings, including both full relationships and step/half/adopted relationships. Also, I'm not too worried about the limbo, because our definition would still allow the inclusion of the characters that were in the significant storyline, regardless of whether or not they were related. Or if you don't think that covers it, could you give an example of a character that you think might end up "disconnected"? --Elonka 15:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Every once in awhile, soaps get that throwback character whose only direct connection to someone else is as a cousin or uncle or what-have-you. Petros Cassadine on GH would be a good example. At present he doesn't have a page or much of a mention, but at one time he was a big part of the Cassadine storyline. But he doesn't have any brothers or sisters, no children we know of, and his parents are unidentifiable. He's a cousin of the Cassadine family. In cases like that, maybe just a section for 'notable family also on the show'? I'm not a fan of the 'step' inclusions myself, strictly because these people get married and divorced more often than the average celebrity changes their hair color. With the number of pages out there, that information is accessible (sp?) by going to their parents' pages. The pages for any of Erica Kane's children would be out of control (with just her valid marriages, and would add in Travis' children for her invalid ones). Regarding Baby Girl McCall, I'd say list her on any profiles where it falls into the above categories because she was born and died (same as characters like Sarah Winthrop on PSSN, even though those characters shouldn't have their own specific pages because they were stillbirths). Miscarriages and abortions, though, I would only include on the profile of the original parents since, in the eyes of the show, those were non-existant characters. D'Amico 15:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
              • I agree on the miscarriages/abortions, they should just appear on the parent pages, and not on all the sibling/grandparent pages. As for Petros Cassadine, I would list him on the pages of those characters where he had significant storyline interaction, which would include any Cassadine characters where he was mentioned in their stories. But, for example, if Petros had no clear connection to (say) Helena Cassadine, and his name never came up in any of her own storylines, then I'd be reluctant to list him in her "relationships" category, even though they shared the same last name. However, it would be worth making a "Cassadine family" page, listing him there, and then including a "See also" on some of the other Cassadine bios, how about that? --Elonka 00:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Sounds like a good idea. Petros' storyline is basically limited to a mid-1980s storyline involving the Cassadine brothers and (off the top of my head) Helena, but not much else. There's a lot of one-offs like that who pop up from time to time. ;) D'Amico 03:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • True. In fact, I can think of another good example. While researching Damian Spinelli's article, I noticed that there was another Spinelli character a few years ago, Luca Spinelli, who was only in a few episodes. In that case, I think it is worth including Luca's name under Damian's relationships, even though the relationship isn't clear, simply because there are very few relationships at all on Spinelli's page. So, how about we word the guideline to say something like, "Soap opera characters tend to have complex family and romantic relationships. In order to keep the lists manageable, use judgment on which relationships to include. In the case of a character with few relationships, list their closest known family members and the other key individuals in that character's storyline. In the cases of (common in soap operas) miscarriages or other short-lived pregnancies, list these only on the pages of the parents. For long running characters who are connected to dozens of other characters, list only immediate family, direct descendants and ancestors, romantic relationships, and other key relationships that were significant to that character's storyline. In the case of large families with multiple members, consider making a "family" or "List of" page, which can then be linked with a "see also" from the respective character pages. For example, see GH's Cassadine family." --Elonka 04:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
                    • The only site that references Luca Spinelli is the IMDb, which is notorious for inaccuracies. A lot of users submit fraudulent information, especially to soaps, assuming no one will ever check it. No character name Luca Spinelli appeared in 2004. I doubt DeArmey appeared on the show at all, to be honest. The guideline wording looks good though. ;) D'Amico 13:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
                      • Thanks on the guideline, I'll go ahead and incorporate it into the page. Also, regarding Luca, the information in IMDB looks plausible to me. Specific dates and a specific actor. It looks like a small part (only 4 episodes), but a real one. What source are you using to say that it's not true? --Elonka 16:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
                        • The show. Anyone can add info to the IMDb, and people frequently add bad information. It's particularly bad for the soaps. No character name Luca Spinelli ever appeared on the show, and there was no one character that all four of the listed episodes had in common. D'Amico 05:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
                          • Do you by any chance have files for Days of our Lives, too? I've been wanting to verify the info at the Austin Miller article. --Elonka 07:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
                            • Off-hand I can't recall the exact dates, but he did have a handful of minor guest appearances as one of the high-school students. It certainly wasn't a major role. He appeared primarily in the summer and fall of 2001, and the character (can't confirm the actor for this one off the top of my head) re-appeared briefly in 2002 (one shot, I believe). D'Amico 11:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Supercouple guidelines

I'd like to see us work on some guidelines to define when a "supercouple" article is appropriate on Wikipedia. Currently I'm seeing fans coming in and creating supercouple pages on any pairing that they really like, but I'd rather that we stuck with a more objective and verifiable determination. Perhaps, "Has appeared on a 'List of Top Supercouples'" or "referred to as a supercouple in multiple magaazines." What do other editors think? --Elonka 19:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation for supercouple guidelines, is that a couple must have one or more of the following:
  • Won an award as a "best couple"
  • Been referred to in outside (non-soap) press as a notable couple
  • Have appeared on multiple "best couple" lists
How does that sound? --Elonka 00:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I decided to follow WP:BOLD and I went ahead and expanded the guidelines. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to speak up, and we'll try to come up with a consensus version. --Elonka 02:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
That is reasonable. Probably the main criterion is that some other reliable source defines them as a notable couple, or does in fact use the "supercouple" term. Otherwise, it is original research. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Examples

I'd like to provide a list of examples of the "best work" on soap articles, for other editors to look at as templates. Could folks please list a few here? For example, I'd like to recommend:

Any other really high quality articles that anyone wants to recommend? :) --Elonka 02:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Unified format for soap relations?

Different soap pages have their relationships set up in different ways. Is there a particular format that is prefered, or is it personal discretion? Specifically, I'm thinking of pages like the Felicia Forrester page (where it's in a box on the side), or pages like the Chelsea Benson page (where it's listed below). D'Amico 11:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Right now it's pretty haphazard, and to be honest, people seem more often than not to be copy/pasting information in from one of the other soap sites. I like the idea of coming up with a consistent format, which we can list here on the WikiProject page. Between the two examples you mentioned, I prefer the "list below" method, both because it's easier to maintain, and because it looks cleaner. Then again, putting relationships in the box can be a good way of limiting relationships to only the most notable ones. What do other editors think? --Elonka 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Coming up with a standard, agreed-upon format template should definitely be a major goal of this WikiProject. I for one like the Infobox approach; this is cleaner and more in line with primetime articles. BUT, it will help when the group has established guidelines for relationships allowed, etc. Step great-grandchildren by marriage don't need to be listed! It would also end up being great to have family trees to link to (like #Carrington family tree) or specialized family templates to replace these relationship lists altogether. TAnthony 00:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
If the decision is made to use only the immediate family (parents, siblings, children), then the infobox would be a great idea, because it's perfect for short relationships. I'd be inclined (personally) not to include step-children or step-whatevers or in-laws. The only potential exception I can see is situations such as the Shawn/Belle/Philip situation on DAYS, where the courts have given Philip legal guardianship of Claire (who is biological his nephew's daughter, but legally his own). But I'm sure there'll be a definitive template at some time. D'Amico 08:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

To reopen the above topic of listing relations, I've been thinking about the options.

The bottom-of-the-article lists seem like such a waste of space; I like the infobox because it keeps everything neat and consistent, and was actually thinking about creating a special infobox just for soap characters that breaks out all the "relationship categories" usually covered in the bottom-of-the-article lists in order to replace them entirely. The box would be long in many cases, but in the comfortable right-side position.

HOWEVER, I'm thinking perhaps it would make the articles feel narrow or cramped, especially in the presence of images. My next thought was a differently-formatted second infobox, at the bottom of the page where the current relationship lists are. It would resemble a horizontal navigation template but behave like a standard infobox. In this case, the "regular" up-top infobox would have just the basic character stats and an internal link to the other box, which would contain all relationships. But one issue I have with this option is that two infoboxes may be cumbersome or confusing to some editors.

Perhaps there's another option. In any case, I don't like the current system. Thoughts? TAnthony 06:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm so glad you guys are mobilizing on this, some of the soap articles are really bogged down by this stuff. The long infobox would probably be fine as long as it is restricted to a thinner size, I actually like that idea. You'd have to of course put the parameter titles like "children" on one line and the actual info listed below it instead of next to it (kind of like your {{Soap Opera Navigation}}) so each line's info isn't cut off as much. Is it too much work for you to do a prototype that we can see before we decide? TheRhani 19:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I just remembered that you created the Dynasty character infobox (see Alexis Colby); I like the "Romances," "Friends" and "Enemies" fields etc., we should definitely have those kinds of things implemented in the new infobox to some degree. TheRhani 19:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Article needing attention

The Pauline Fowler article achieved good article status earlier this year, but in my opinion things have gotten out of hand and the plot summary has reached "overwhelming" status. It goes into detail like, "Pauline, stumbled over her packed bags next to the table, knocking over her favourite fruit bowl, which smashed into pieces.Pauline lay on the floor with smashed glass surrounding her, Sonia apologised and begged her to rethink her decision for Martin and Rebecca's sake," or "On the same night, Dot went to the Fowlers' house to find Rebecca's toy rabbit, which had been dropped there. Whilst there, Dot heard someone coming into the house, it was Pauline's husband Joe." I appreciate that there are many devoted fans of the character, since she's a longterm character who just retired in December 2006. But, when I've tried tagging the article with {{plot}}, it just keeps getting reverted. :/ And I've had no luck engaging people at the talkpage. Some help or advice on the situation would be appreciated, as I'd rather see if we can come up with a way to get the article back into Manual of Style guidelines, rather than just pulling the GA status off it. --Elonka 00:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: Things are back in hand, the article is coming along well. Thanks to anyone who helped out with a nudge.  :) --Elonka 21:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Further update: The Pauline Fowler is now undergoing a formal peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pauline Fowler/archive2. After this, our plan is to nominate it for Featured Article status. If successful, this will be the first soap opera character article to make FA, so this is an important step, as it will be setting an example for what other soap opera character articles should look like. I encourage all WikiProject members to participate in the process on this one! --Elonka 16:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Template functionality and Userbox

FYI, I've added rating functionality (and some other options we'll probably never use!) to the Project template, and added a small "Assessment" section to the main page. I also created a standard Assessment subpage, though obviously it's slightly overkill at this point. But I definitely think the sorting will be helpful as more and more articles are added to the project. TAnthony 03:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've gone wild here and created a Userbox for the project (see Participants on main page). It also puts everyone who uses it into a category, which will be helpful in the future as the Project grows. TAnthony 16:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling Issues on Soap Character Pages

I know I am not a member of this group, but I keep finding soap character pages with Spelling issues. I think maybe there is a spelling issue in a template that is being used. In the Marriage section of alot of these pages instead of saying Marital Status it says Martial status, as in martial arts. I keep going thru and correcting, but then it keeps being changed back. I was hoping maybe someone in this group knows how we can it corrected. Darth25 00:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just because the same editor was creating those sections.  :/ It's a common problem on Wikipedia. To speed up fixes, you might want to look at installing one of the semi-automated tools like Auto Wiki Browser, which makes it fairly simple to run through a large number of pages and fix similar typos. You'll see it in edit summaries sometimes like "fixing typos with AWB." --Elonka 02:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The question of tense

We've come up with an interesting situation, that I'd like to get other editors' opinions on. According to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Presentation of fictional material and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction, articles about fictional works should always be written in the present tense. See those two links for examples. But in the case of soap operas, this may not be the best way to handle things. For example, should we use, "In 1987, Luke and Laura were married," or "In 1987, Luke and Laura marry"? "Pauline Fowler is a character in EastEnders, or since the character was killed off, "Pauline Fowler was a character in EastEnders"? This is actually a hotly-debated issue on Wikipedia right now, so we need to decide if we want to go along with the "present tense" system, or argue a different method for soap operas. What do you think? --Elonka 21:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the guideline should be changed to consider soap operas and other ongoing serials, as the events have happened in the past and the shows still run in real time, therefore past events should be reported in real time, in the past tense. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the main discussion on this is going on at the Manual of Style talkpage. I encourage everyone to participate there. --Elonka 17:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I recommend that we come up with a guideline specifically for soap articles, which we include here at the WikiProject page. If we have approval here, then we can see about maybe adding a pointer to it from WP:WAF. Here's my suggested wording, please feel free to critique:

In most cases on fictional subjects, the present tense should be used, see WP:TENSE. However, with longterm soap operas, which can often run for decades and never have any repeats, it may sometimes be more appropriate to use past-tense when describing a storyline, since the histories are often tied to "real-world" timelines. As such, our recommended WikiProject guideline for soap operas is to use present tense, but past tense is allowed. Whichever version is used, it should be consistent throughout a single article.

How's that sound? --Elonka 19:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have still not heard a satisfactory argument as to why past tense is more appropriate for longterm series; but of course, I've made my case at the Manual of Style discussion. The guideline above is fine, but I feel uncomfortable about setting "controversial" guidelines like this when we are only a group of about 13, and I'm not even sure all are active. I don't think we can enforce it (or any guideline) anyway with such small numbers.
Maybe I'm also not understanding why there is such a push for this; is it so that soap articles already written in past tense don't have to be changed, or does it have something to do with the Pauline Fowler peer review? It seems like some editors just find writing in present tense awkward, and that's a silly reason to institute policy. Fictional and real-word events need to be differentiated stylistically. Just my opinion, anyone else? TAnthony 20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The core issue right now is the Pauline Fowler article. It's already at GA status (in past tense). When submitted for Peer Review, the "tense" issue was brought up. We'd like to get the article to FA, but if this is going to stop it, then it would behoove us to come up with a clear guideline, and make sure that the article is in accordance with that guideline. --Elonka 20:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I had a feeling; in that case, I'm not against your suggested guideline for the time being. Also, I've just made the following comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pauline Fowler/archive2:

In a quick look-over of the article, I would disagree that the tense is incorrect. I am an advocate of present tense for fiction, and the "Storyline" sections seem to be in present tense. The "Character creation and development" section (especially "Narrative, impact and progression") discusses the character/storylines in an overview perspective, with behind-the-scenes analysis; past tense is totally appropriate here. I think the article was actually carefully constructed with tense in mind.

I haven't analyzied the entire article line by line, but the tenses actually seem perfectly fine to me. TAnthony 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems that AnemoneProjectors has made tense changes to Pauline Fowler, and I was looking at the result. So this may now be a non-issue as far as the review goes. TAnthony 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think your guideline looks good Elonka. having seen the conversion on the Pauline article, i dont think it reads too badly in present tense though. It is a little weird and I still prefer past tense as I think it reads better, but I suppose I could get used to it.Gungadin 23:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no strong feeling either way, and could also live with present-tense. Should we change the guideline to recommend that exclusively though? Or still advise that either form is acceptable? --Elonka 01:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Present tense looks awful, doesn't make sense, and makes it sound as if EastEnders is a film. I have reverted the changes as I am not happy with them and I think they were done prematurely without proper discussion (I'm sorry I haven't been able to have much input, I'm away from home) - present tense looks absolutely ridiulous and reads awkwardly as well. EastEnders is not a film - it happens in real time and to describe 22 years of events as all happening at the same time (in the present) is ludicrous. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to start a revert war, but no consensus is needed because present tense is the current policy for fiction. And I know you are a strong advocate for past tense, but it is not as awkward as you make it sound. It no more makes events happen "all at the same time" than past tense does. TAnthony 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I like your thingy up there, Elonka, it seems fine to me - allow past tense - it makes grammatical sense. (Oh God that wasn't meant to rhyme.) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it may be wise to allow for past tense in specific cases. For instance, the Eastenders project has lists of minor characters (List of minor EastEnders characters 1985-1989) and the information included is not necessarily in chronological order. Describing each character in present would be confusing in this case, especially if a person were to read every bio on the page. I think present tense is fine when the storyline section is exclusively about one character, but it doesnt work so well when there are several combined like this.Gungadin 01:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Here I go again: within each character's section, their storyline synopsis should be in its own chrono order and in present tense, perhaps with the year of their first appearance mentioned in the beginning (although these years are clearly noted in the infobox). It will read fine no matter what order the characters themselves are in; see Dynasty minor characters. LOL, I know this is a painstaking process that may never get done, but I just had to put it out there! TAnthony 03:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I do prefer past tense for storylines in which have happened in the past, but if present tense is the way articles on fiction should be written here at Wikipedia, then I suppose that's what must be done. Is the Superman article here at Wikipedia also written that way? I'll look at that again since that is a featured article tackling a fictional character. Also, I'm a little confused on this issue: Do we write in present tense for storylines, but as for real-world context, such as creation or impact, etc., we write in past tense?

And I like the suggestion that we can use either, past tense or present tense, for soap opera articles as well, Elonka. Flyer22 03:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

I'm not important or anything, but was just wondering shouldn't most of the character article's have SOME semblence of identity? I mean why have for instance "Awards" on this character's page but not that character's page. To me having it so certain sections are allowed on all character pages or no character pages makes them look better in my opinion. DJ-Siren 01:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

One of goals here is definitely to standardize character articles, ideally across all soaps. We are just coming out of inactivity and recruiting members, so we hope to move on this and many other goals soon. TAnthony 15:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
With awards, they should generally be on an actor's page rather than a character's page, shouldn't they? It's the actor winning the award most of the time rather than the character. (There are exceptions, but most awards are actor-based.) D'Amico 10:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Episode coverage

The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles. There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements. Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Wikipedia:Television episodes. We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page. After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles. See: Wikipedia:Television article review process. We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage. Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Telenovelas

I know this is not most peoples' cup of tea, but many of the Spanish-language telenovela articles are in sad shape. See, for example, Mirada de mujer, La fea más bella and El derecho de nacer (TV series). Grammar, style, and other basic problems are rampant. In addition to the usual Wikipedia issues, there is the added problem of working with a non-English culture's pop TV. Since most of the world's soap opera viewers are actually watching telenovelas, this is an area we should cover in more detail. Any help would be appreciated. Mosquera 08:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a "to do" list for myself in mind but will definitely try to help you out; the novela articles are indeed important and in need of work. TheRhani 17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi, I tried to do what I could with Mirada de Mujer, but could not find enough sources. But now, I have the DVD, and when I have time and have done some of my Wikipedia to do list, I will try to help out more. Also, Mirada de Mujer 2, needs even more work. I added the article but do not have much info (Id didnt see a lot of it).--Charleenmerced Talk 13:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


The very annoying user know as Corpx

THis person keeps deleting the complete storylien section out of articles. Has done so with: Jason Morgan, Alexis Davis, Sam McCall, Emily Quartermaine of General Hospital (and this are just the one I have found. More than being annoying, this is detrimental to our efforts to fix the Soap Opera related articles. It slows down our work because we have to fix it, plus edit, plus add infoboxes, etc. I have asked her to stop and I hope she does. But, I think people should take note and check what else she has deleted (she or he seems akin to deleting storyline sections out of articles because there is no original research nor sources). So, check around and please fix all the articles you find that are missing info.--Charleenmerced Talk 14:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I can agree that Corpx (and other editors who have been involved in some of these edits) can be annoying with their merciless cuts, etc, but the truth is that they kind of have a point. In the case of Jason Morgan, there is indeed a lot of POV, unsourced comments and original research ("Jason was was the intelligent, kind, and sensitive son...") which most likely called attention to the articles in the first place. WP:PLOT is very specific about what is appropriate for plot summaries; though I believe that guideline is a bit strict and I think most current soap articles have an acceptable amount of plot stuff, the Jason article is a little too detailed at times and can use some editing. I think the article needs to be tagged and improved, not slashed.
As far as references, I would add that for basic plot details I am personally of the mind that, as the show itself is noted, specific references are unnecessary. But any comments about Jason's personality, etc need sources or sourced direct quotes from dialogue. The line-by-line sourcing in articles like Andrew Van De Kamp is great, but somewhat overkill and certainly all but impossible for a daytime show with so many episodes and limited resources for citing historical material. TAnthony 16:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, Andrew Van De Kamp article IS excessive. Back to the topic, I am also of the mind that some articles are overly excessive and POV (I'm always trying to fix this, but constantly removing stupid spoilers takes a lot of time!). Whereas some articles barely have a paragraph (e.g. Bobbie Spencer, Lila Morgan Quartermaine, considering their large history), other contain an entire dissertation (point in fact, Jason Morgan). My point was just that this Corpx editor just removed the entire section rather than attemting to fix it or bringing it to the attention of anyone that could (aka the Soap Opera Project). Whereas I am all for sources for important information (names, imp facts, revelations, parentage, etc), I don't think, as you stated, that we can be too specific considering the thousands of episodes that exist. I guess this is jsut a call for us to be more active and edit better the articles.--Charleenmerced Talk 17:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Articles without references

Guiding Light
Main article

While strolling through Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2006 I stumbled into Guiding Light (1950-1959) and the subsequent decades. In the course of researching them, I came here only to find that the topic is being discussed in terms of an "annoying" editor. First of all, Charleenmerced, you need to watch the tone and not make personal attacks or assume bad faith. Second, Corpx is correct to remove information that doesn't have references. I've just looked at the articles mentioned above and every single one of them needs a complete rewrite and major trimming - they are horrendously bloated, contain nothing but plot and are written from an in-universe perspective, just to start. If there weren't this raging edit war, I'd have removed most of the text also. Third, you can't just reference the entire history of the series and think that is sufficient under Wikipedia guidelines. You have to cite specific outside sources or, failing that, specific episodes of the series. Over all, these are some of the worst articles I've seen in terms of fannish content and lack of sources. 24.4.253.249 21:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yikes. You are certainly correct in your assessment based on WP guidelines (and yes, many of these articles are poorly written, which is why we're trying to bring this WikiProject to life), but they are actually guidelines. This is a unique genre in terms of time span and pure volume of material (One Life to Live, for example is nearly 40 years old and will soon air it's 10,000th episode) and its particular nature and needs don't seem to have been taken into account when these guidelines were created. I am certainly not advocating that every character article cover 30 years of events in detail with no sources, but many of the current guidelines that apply to television and fiction go to the other extreme. WP "standards" demand real-world impact and context and yet there are few analytical sources and mainstream press outlets that really dedicate the necessary coverage to the genre. Yes, many fans seem to (annoyingly) assert notability and importance to material that just isn't, and yet much of what is actually notable cannot necessarily be sourced in the conventional way. The historical records just don't exist. Most of us are aware of the sad state some of these articles are in, and as I noted earlier I don't necessarily object to the edits made by Corpx and others, but frankly I am increasingly frustrated by the slash-and-burn methods of editors who refuse to take a thoughtful stance. The moving of the Jason Morgan material to a sandbox subpage by Jossi (and his talk page comments about it) was, to me, the kind of unbiased and productive move that I wish others would employ. TAnthony 01:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

*Response to 24.4.253.249 First of all, I am one to use sources most of the time in the articles I edit. I am all for sources. I think they provide important support for articles, especially the soap opera ones since things can become confusing. But, as TAnthony said, the sheer number of episodes and sources make it impossible in the soap opera world. Yes, the Soap Opera articles as overl long and in a sad state, but we can work from there. We can improve them instead of just deleting the info! I may regret the heading of this section (aka annoying...) but I spent the btter part of my day fixing the articles she/he deleted and I am sure I have not found them all. It is just frustrating to see so much work and info jsut removed. I spend a lot of time, prior to my brief hiatus, fixing POV< removing spoilers, adding some sources, and rewriting articles. So, I guess I was just frustrated at having someone just delete the content when I spend so much time editing articles. In my mind, I thought why couldnt she/he have contacted someone in the Project and brought this to our attention instead of deleting the info. It would have been the right and responsible thing to do.--Charleenmerced Talk 03:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've heard the arguments against providing proper sources and leaving inadequate articles "as is" until they get attention from "knowledgable" editors from other projects before, notably regarding other TV shows, comic books and video games. They all present the case that it is a unique genre and the normal rules shouldn't apply, they aren't really rules, or should be more lax. The problem with such arguments is that such concepts as Verifiability are more than just "guidelines," they are policy to which all Wikipedia articles need to conform. The articles are still not much more than plot elements without any real-world references or relevance. The "leave it alone" crowd makes a lot of assumptions about the future efforts of a specific group of editors, rather than allowing Wikipedia to be improved by any editor that comes along and works on an article at any point in time. Look at the Guiding Light articles highlighted above - they've been without any kind of citations for over a year, and are likely to remain that way indefinitely without some kind of nudge. Jossi may have had the right idea, but if you look at the Jason Morgan article now you'll see that his/her efforts were completely wasted by a group of editors who refused to work with it (and are calling such trimming efforts "vandalism"). No, I think the only viable way to improve these articles is to start complying with the policies and guidelines that are set forth for every Wikipedia article. 24.4.253.249 18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The IP user is referring to notablity and cultural impact, etc. See Pauline Fowler and Bianca Montgomery for good examples. And as much as I hate the deletionist viewpoint, he/she is correct that no matter how much work went into it, a lot of the rambling plot should be removed; it can always be restored from the edit history when someone is willing to undertake rewrites and referencing. That said, I think a reasonable amount of plot can be presented with bibliographical links to official show websites and major soap sites like Soapcentral in a "References" section. If years are cited within the text and the name of the series is clear, I don't see why line by line referencing is necessary. TAnthony 04:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about Sections

  • THis may apply to all ABC soaps, but I only wdit the GH ones so: ABC has this thing in their website where they put who are friends or foes of each character...well, these lists have found their way to Wikipedia. I think they are pointless and I suggest that we should delete them and stop adding them. The section of family and relationships should only include family and romantic relationships or business partners (maybe). The rest can be inferred from the storyline or referenced to inthe body of the article. Any comments>?--Charleenmerced Talk 17:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Add to that the fact the friends and foes can change, whereas family is more permanent (usually). While some of the articles might be updated when aliances change, it's almost inevitable that many would contain outdated information at any given time. And lists in articles are usually seen as unencyclopedic, so I'd be in favor of text over lists anyway. 24.4.253.249 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • So, can we put it to a vote - remove the Friends and Foes sections and integrate into basic info where applicable?
    • I vote to remove.--Charleenmerced Talk 17:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Remove. Friendships change all the time, faster than relationships. --Yllianos 18:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Neutral. Yeah, my stating that I'm neutral on this matter doesn't help this matter too much. But it's just that adding a list of enemies and friends to these soap opera character articles has become so ingrained into Wikipedia, that I'm certain when we start removing them, it's going to be a battle to keep them removed due to other, mainly newbie, Wikipedian editors and or IP Wikipedian contributors adding them back. Not that we haven't already fought against other matters and are winning, but as mentioned above, it's pretty simple to just change an enemy or friend on these lists when an enemy or friend changes. As for us not getting to these articles in time to update them when an enemy or friend changes, most newbie Wikipedian editors and or Wikipeian IP contributors will most definitely take care of that. If a character is still on their show, and central to it, we don't really have to worry about these soap opera character articles here on Wikipedia not being updated quick enough. And the articles that aren't edited often will most likely have up-to-date information as well; it's just that the characters of those types of articles either aren't on their show anymore or are rarely seen on their show lately. Flyer22 02:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This is sort of related, but if the character doesn't have any children or spouses, do we need something like "Past marriages" and "Children," with the only information being "None/unknown"? --Silvestris 20:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we don't, why clutter an article unnecessarily? TAnthony 02:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I misunderstood in my hasty reading. I thought you meant that since character has not had any children, we should not put what their previous marriages are. I still think we should put Marital Status as Single/Never Married.--Charleenmerced Talk 15:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article

*I have requested that the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article be peer-reviewed, and I would appreciate any comments from you all concerning this article. Here's the internal link to its peer review...Wikipedia:Peer review/Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone/archive1. Flyer22 00:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

André and Tony

Ok, on Days of Our Lives it was recently retconned that the Tony DiMera for the last 20 years was really his cousin André DiMera impersonating him.

The articles on the two characters are in-universe, and while I don't have a problem with Tony's retconned history being in Andre's article, I think there should be more of a real-world explanation explaining how this was a recent development and André's prior history was originally meant to be Tony's. --Silvestris 20:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

EJ Wells and Samantha Brady screenshot?

Should a screenshot of the incident when EJ had Sami have sex with him to save Lucas's life be included in the EJ and Sami article (specifically, the section discussing said scene)?

The image is Image:Ejsami.PNG. The caption is "EJ and Sami on December 29, 2006." It doesn't make any judgements about whether or not he was raping her. --Silvestris 15:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Only if some of the other pics are removed. The article already has too many. 24.6.65.83 17:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

AFDs you might be interested in

*The Young and the Restless storylines - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Young and the Restless storylines.

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The point I want to make make is there seems to be a group forming that wants to seriously crack down on articles that do not comply with WP:NOT, WP:WAF, and WP:FICT – not only soap opera articles, but any articles about fiction in general. So if anybody wants to save these articles — even before they get tagged with {{afd}} or {{prod}}, they should start get working. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, and you might find you're fighting a losing battle. They've been obliterating episode articles. Personally I think there's better things to be doing that destroying others' work, but if they are incapable of doing anything else. Point out that the modal verb "should" is a recommendation, not a necessity. The JPStalk to me 23:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
True, but in my experience, WP:CCC. In the end, I will probably do what I have always done during the past few months regarding deletion discussions: I just post my comment and then do not pay attention to it anymore. The problem with these articles today is that we currently have a lack of notable citations and content to pass WP:NOT, WP:WAF, and WP:FICT. But if in the future, someone has the time and access to references, you might see these articles in some form re-appear again (and remember that WP:CSD#G4 does not apply to content that addresses why it was previously deleted).
        • I didn't know that the Sonny and Carly Corinthos article had been nominated for deletion. I clearly put a note within my edit summary of that article and on that article's talk page that I was going to re-write it soon. Jeez. Well, that saves me one less article to give a complete overhaul. I'm going to address this editor, however, as to why this editor nominated it for deletion when I stated that I would fix it up, and when they could have waited after I fixed it up to see how they felt about it then. Flyer22 11:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
You can always ask the admin who deleted it to transfer the text to a sandbox page for you to work on. Then either recreate it, or better yet, take it Deletion review with the changes. 24.6.65.83 18:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, yes Deletion review, I'm aware of that. Well, I'll certainly do that for some other soap opera couple articles, if the editor who nominated the Sonny and Carly Corinthos article decides to nominate any of the soap opera couple articles that I've saved from deletion, two of which were already judged by an administrator here at Wikipedia to meet Wikipedia's policy of notability. The editor who nominated the Sonny and Carly Corinthos article expects me to hurry up and fix up all the other soap opera couple articles on Wikipedia, as seen with this discussion on my talk page, and not even just that, but also doesn't accept multiple mentions from outside (non-soap opera) press for a soap opera couple being stated as notable to actually be notable enough to include on Wikipedia, which, of course, we all know, when a soap opera couple is mentioned in outside (non-soap opera) press as a notable couple, that does prove notability for that soap opera couple, considering that it's rare that a soap opera couple is mentioned in outside (non-soap opera) press. I feel that when that happens significantly one time or rather less-significantly multiple times, then, yes, their article belongs on Wikipedia. As for me hurrying up and fixing up these soap opera couple articles, I certainly won't fix up all of these soap opera couple articles within a week, and if this editor does go on some delete-all-soap-opera-couple-articles plowing, I can only hope that if any of the soap opera couple articles that this editor nominates for deletion is spared from deletion, that this editor doesn't yet again continue to try to get whichever one of these soap opera couple articles deleted from Wikipedia. Flyer22 03:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

** Another AfD (deletion debate, of course) a few of you might be interested in is...Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConFusion (All My Children) Flyer22 19:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

|| Cast Lists ||

Do we have any official format for cast lists? All shows follow the same format but Guiding Light where one person over there insists upon doing it by families which is really hard and confusing to read. Also I was wondering if anyone thought it would be nice to keep someone departing in the current cast list as well as putting them in the Coming and Going section. I know I perfer them to be still in the cast list since they are still part of the cast. jcar03 02:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Supercouple article is up for deletion

Just letting you guys know that the Supercouple article is up for deletion...here. I already weighed in my thoughts on this matter, of course. Flyer22 18:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Adam Chandler, Jr. (AMC)

I started a conversation on the J.R. Chandler article regarding this, and Flyer22 suggest I bring the topic here for further discussion because the topic is up for so much debate. I had asked why the spelling of the page was "J.R." and not "JR". The AMC website and the AMC end credits both list Jacob Young as "JR" Chandler. But as Flyer22 pointed out, there are many occurrences when he is referred to as "J.R.", particularly in some soap magazines and other fans. I only subscribe to SID, and in their latest issue, they also list the spelling as "JR". I know I'm new here, and it might seem that I'm causing trouble, but, I'm really not, honest. Just like everyone else, I'm trying to make Wikipedia the most accurate source of information it can be.--KnowsSoaps 23:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm too lazy at this time to type up a dfferent response to what KnowsSoaps originally posted on J.R.,'s talk page, I'll post here basically most of what I stated there, which is:

Well, on most sites, the periods are present within his nickname. And it's how most editors spell his name here at Wikipedia. I feel that changing it to JR instead of J.R. would be too uncommon for how his name is usually spelled. Some people have periods in their nickname of initials when the initials don't really stand for anything. The periods of his nickname are just another variation of Junior.

It's perplexing, on whether to change the name of his article to JR here at Wikipedia or not, because his name is spelled J.R. so often, even by some soap opera magazines at times. Again, some people's initials really don't stand for anything. I feel that it's best to keep his name at J.R. instead of JR. I'm not sure that my mind will change on that.

His name being spelled as JR on the official (ABC) site does not mean that his name cannot be spelled as J.R., that there are not two ways of spelling it. The caption of television screens spells his name as J.R., though some could state that the television's computer chip is only being technical. But I say, if the television is being technical, it should know that, technically, that the periods should not be there. Also, I've looked over a few official All My Children scripts...and though I have never paid much attention to the spelling of his nickname on those scripts, I think that I saw an All My Children script where his name was spelled as J.R., not JR, as well. I know what you mean on this matter, but I really don't feel that there is any way of truly knowing if his nickname has an official spelling...unless we either taik to the show's creator, or the people running the show now, of course. Flyer22 23:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald (Crane Casey Winthrop)

This article should be under just Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald, not under her multiple married names. It's got two redirects and it doesn't find just Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald on a search. Previous discussions have decided that woman should stay their maiden names. This article needs to be fixed, please.CelticGreen 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Additionally, this article needs some serious clean up. I'm trying but all help would be appreciated. It's huge for no reason.CelticGreen 00:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    • CelticGreen, that article has been moved so many times, that first, to even be able to properly move that article again (as in without a copy-and-pasted move, which is the wrong way to go about "moving" an article here at Wikipedia), you'll have to go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and ask one of the administrators there to move it back to its more well-known name. Flyer22 01:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly false information added to British soap articles by User:Non-gayboy

I've noticed a couple of obvious hoax articles from this user here and here. From his talk page it looks like he's created some hoaxes before. He's also made numerous changes to other soap-related articles, so i wonder is someone who knows a bit about British soaps could have a look through his contributions and check whether he's added any more incorrect information. In particular this series of unexplained changes to The British Soap Awards looks like it needs checking - unfortunately my quick Google didn't bring up a reliable list to compare it to. Best, Iain99Balderdash and piffle 00:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll contact Gungadin about this and see how Gungadin can help out on this matter. Flyer22 01:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey flyer, I dont watch the soaps this user has been editing, so I dont know if the information he has added is incorrect or not. It appears that most of his edits have been changed or removed anyway. Ive changed the incorrect information that has been added to The British Soap Awards, so hopefully that should be accurate now :) Gungadin♦ 11:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Gungadin, for what help you could give on this matter. I, of course, appreciate you looking into this matter either way. Flyer22 09:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soap_Operas/Archive_1&oldid=1238840031"