Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Glee task force/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Actual cast vs. citable cast

(Copied from Talk:Never Been Kissed (Glee)#Actual cast vs. citable cast. Hi everyone. To summarise, input on standardising the credits we list in episode infoboxes and under "Production" would be helpful. Thank you! Frickative 12:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC))

When I noticed that Telly and Titus were listed as guest stars under Production, but not in the sidebar—they stood out because their names were red links—I decided to go to the source: the episode (on DVD). I discovered that Josh Sussman was in the front credits along with Telly, and Titus and Ashley (who was the only one of the four already in the sidebar) were in the ending credits. (Front credits are listed as "guest starring"; end credits as "co-starring". Lauren Potter has only ever been credited as co-starring; Ashley Fink didn't graduate from co-starring to guest starring until the second half of season two.)

Now, in Storylines/Plots, I gather it isn't truly necessary to cite the actual episode, because that's a given: attempting a summary by trying to find sources on the web for each plot point doesn't make sense. Can this principle apply to the credits listed in the actual episode as well? Sometimes people receive screen credit without having actual lines: Ashley and Josh in this episode (they're hit up for money by Puck in the busking scene, but not verbally), for example, or Max Adler in "Audition". Sometimes a character may have had lines or a scene that subsequently gets cut, though the credit remains: that might have been true for these, and was certainly true for Telly Leung, whose scene in "A Very Glee Christmas" didn't make it to the screen. And although Riker Lynch and Curt Mega only had one line each in "Special Education", their subsequent appearances as Warblers netted them ending credits despite not having any further individual lines.

There doesn't seem to be any firm rule about making sure that all people listed in the actual credits. The ten stilt people from the Madonna episode, all given co-starring credits, weren't listed, for example. Should there be a firm rule, and if so, what? Fox is notoriously bad about their own released lists; Wikipedia can do better. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact the Fox press releases are so shoddy makes it awkward – I always used to mention everyone with an on-screen guest credit, but it wasn't always citeable with an online source, which I got pulled up for in some of the earliest GA episode reviews. Of course, this was before any DVD releases, so I'm sure we could now reference the DVD directly and that would be acceptable. The distinction between guest-starring and co-starring and whether one set or both should be listed is murky. {{Infobox television episode}} advises for the infobox, "Only guest actors in notable roles should be included in the list." But it could very much be argued that Becky and Lauren (and Jean, for another example) are much more notable "co-starring" roles than some of those that receive "guest starring" credits, eg. random nurses, shop assistants etc. I think this is worth a central discussion, is it okay with you if I copy this over to WP:GLEE? Frickative 15:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Please, copy away. This seems like a good general discussion to have. Addressing recurring role credits for people who do very little in that particular episode should probably also be included. If the DVD can be referenced, then we're golden through the first ten episodes of season two, but will probably have to wait until mid-September...unless we can reference an on-line episode. Even if they cost money to view once they're no longer one of the five, would a Hulu reference work? Or even the Fox site, with a link that is good when posted but breaks later? (The latter probably wouldn't pass GA muster, would it?) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I think a Hulu reference should be okay - WP:SOURCEACCESS stipulates that "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources", which really also covers ownership of the DVDs. Do you happen to know if Hulu run the end-credits? Possibly a silly question, but I can't watch the episodes there in my region, and whenever I've seen one online, it terminates before the end credits roll. Frickative 12:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
There are no silly questions. :) I just checked with the "New York" episode (which is still free), and they run the end credits on Hulu. (They shrink them down and fit other stuff on the side, but you can click to get it back to full size.) Another set of ads usually runs after the show and before the end credits, so it's another opportunity to make money for them or Fox. The URL for the "Never Been Kissed" page (which isn't free, except for a 90 second free preview that isn't working for me today) is ""; you can construct the ref from that. Further refs can be had from However, it seems that they only offer the current season—there are no shows from season one on Hulu—which may make any Hulu links transient. It may be best to stick with the DVD; we can use the Season 2 Volume 1 for the first ten shows; if we need refs for later shows, Hulu can tide us over until September 13, when the full-season DVD becomes available, and could also be a stopgap in future seasons as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to have vanished mid-discussion (frustrating internet outage) and thank you! I'll change the sourcing in "Never Been Kissed" in a moment. I agree that using the DVDs primarily and Hulu until later episodes are available is the best way to go. I've been thinking over the issue of which cast members to list, and can't come up with a firm rule which could be applied satisfactorily for all episodes. On a related note, though, I think the habit of additionally detailing the recurring cast under "Production" originated early in the first season, resulting from a dispute over whether those who appear in almost every episode should be listed in the ibox at all. Given that they are now listed there, I don't know whether it's necessary to duplicate that information in the body of the article. So, while I'm not sure what to suggest with regard to standardising co-star/guest-star inclusion in the infobox, perhaps "Producion" should be more oriented towards one-off guest stars and notable information about recurring players (eg. '"X" marked the final appearance of Joe Bloggs as John Doe', 'Actor filmed scenes as Character, which were cut from the finished episode') rather than another laundry list of the frequently recurring stars? Frickative 00:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I hope your internet connection is stable now. It looks like we haven't been successful in pulling in thoughts from any other Glee project members, which is a shame. On the Production section, another possibility is to only list those guest stars who haven't been already mentioned in the Plot section, though in that case maybe their mention there should be "Lauren Zizes (guest star Ashley Fink)? Or is that getting into details that just don't belong in Plot at all? What the Production section currently adds in terms of information is an indication of who this character is, e.g., glee club member Lauren Zizes (Ashley Fink), Kurt's boyfriend Blaine Anderson (Darren Criss), etc. If each article is supposed to stand on its own, it is useful information. I do think milestones like you mention should appear in Production (final appearances, cut scenes, and the like). BlueMoonset (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick bump; hoping someone new chimes in before the discussion is archived. It would be nice to get a group consensus, or some new thoughts... BlueMoonset (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Season 3 articles without sources

We've had a spate of new articles on season three over the past week. The "List of songs in Glee (season 3)" had an AfD posted, but Courcelles just short-circuited it at the point it could have been deleted, saying at this point it should be a redirect. So I changed it to a redirect to the List of songs in Glee page, and removed a pointer there to the season 3 page.

New user Zack Music Loves created a page for the first episode under its as-yet-unsourced title, "The Purple Piano Project", and the page acquired some equally unsourced casting information and a summary. It's a mess, and clearly not verifiable. (I added a section to its talk page to basically say that much.)

Although I've been around for four months, I'm just not experienced enough to deal with pages popping up that are being put together by people who don't understand how Wikipedia works. I can handle regular edit reversions, but not this. Can some of our more experienced members keep an eye on things, and make sure new, unsourced pages are being dealt with properly, and their authors informed why their pages are problematic? If we ought to have a discussion about it, or have a place where we can report issues, this may be the place for it. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've WP:PROD'd "The Purple Piano Project". If we knew the title was legitimate and it was just the content that was unverifiable, a redirect to Glee (season 3) would be an acceptable interim measure, but as there's not even a source for the title I think it needs to go entirely. I've got it watchlisted, and if the PROD template is removed, the next step will be WP:AFD. Frickative 13:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks; all that's good to know. And, in fact, I just did the equivalent of an AfD using the "db-hoax" template, my first ever; someone added a fake new character to Characters of Glee as their first post, and then created a page for that character. That one was so blatant I felt justified using "db-hoax" rather than "hoax" and request a speedy deletion. (The character name gets four hits: the Wikipedia article in question, and three over on the French Wikipedia: the character page, one for the supposed actress, and, alas, their version of Characters of Glee. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Good call - I caught the article just before it was deleted, and that was definitely grounds for speedy deletion! It just occurred to me that we're a lot closer to the season three premiere than I thought, so it's entirely possible we might get confirmation of the episode title before the PROD tag on "The Purple Piano Project" is addressed. If that happens and the title is incorrect, the easiest thing will just be to move the existing page, then redirect that to the season 3 page until there are more sources. (This really should have occurred to me earlier, heh). I've done a quick sweep and deleted pretty much all the unreferenced information, so that if the article ends up sticking there aren't days worth of WP:V violations in the edit history. Frickative 03:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

cite web vs. cite news: which source goes where?

The Kurt Hummel FAC and a couple of recent GANs has brought this issue into sharp relief for me. And, with it, what ought to be in italics, and what shouldn't. (Should "IGN" be? "MTV"? "CNN"?) The problem is, I don't know the answers, and I'm wondering whether we're going to be dinged in the question for the featured article.

So far, I've come up with a tentative list of which online sites should be "news", and which should be "web", with a few in categories between the two ends. There is an online guide at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners with citation templates, but it isn't sufficiently rigorous for me to draw the appropriate lines.

news: newspapers and news magazines The Atlantic, Billboard magazine, CBS News, CNN, Daily News (NY), Fresno Bee, Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times, New York (magazine), New York Post, New York Times, NPR, Time magazine, TV Guide

probably news rather than web: Entertainment Weekly, IGN, Out magazine, Vanity Fair

can't tell, but maybe web rather than news?: The A.V. Club, Back Stage, E! Online, MTV, TVLine (and affiliated sites), Zap2it

I don't know whether subsites might cross the line from one section to another. There's a "news" subdomain at MTV; I let that cause me to list all MTV entries as "news" because it didn't make sense to have one vs. the other. But maybe they all should be on the "web" side of the force. Thanks for any suggestions you can make. And maybe this should eventually turn into an official list or reference for people who write or edit articles here? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to get my head around the cite news/cite web divide since the last FAC for Kurt and haven't been all that successful, so I'm glad you've started this. The referencing for beginners page seems to contradict the cite news template, which says that journals and magazines should use cite journal or cite web. Wrt italics, MOS:ITALIC says "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (such as or The Huffington Post).", so I should think that covers IGN, CNN and MTV News. Frickative 14:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Individual episode notability

Can someone explain to me how each episode is notable enough for it's own article? chrisianrocker90 03:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sort of answer you're looking for, beyond the fact that each episode has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If you think there are any articles that don't demonstrate that, please do list them, but even the ones most in need of work at present have reference sections running 15-25 items long. Frickative 11:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The 3 Glees

I was reading some reviews for the Purple Piano Project and stumbled across this idea behind why the frequently criticised tone of Glee IS so uneven. Basically is explores the 3 rotating writers on Glee and is a theory which can be used to "map...the consistency or lack thereof within the show, helping frustrated viewers understand the potential reasons why characters seemed to have multiple personalities."

(although this blog is not a reliable source, I was wondering if this notion is talked about anywhere else because it is quite intriguing and should be included somewhere in these articles.)--Coin945 (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea was originated by Todd VanDerWerff of The A.V. Club, who mentioned it quite frequently in his reviews of episodes, with Myles McNutt of Cultural Learnings picking up on it and expanding further. It's an interesting notion, and may reflect the typical plotting, but in the first two seasons, all three of them worked on each other's scripts. Most of Sue Sylvester's dialogue, for example, is written by Ian Brennan regardless of whose name goes on the episode. (There's a review with Brennan that reveals this.)
It will be interesting to see what happens this season, with six new writers added to the writing room. Ali Adler is writing episode four; what I don't know is whether Murphy and Brennan have written episodes two and three (in some order), and how soon the other five are added into the mix. It'll be interesting to see if the flavor changes at all, or if there's more consistency in tone. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Glee task force Importance levels

I've been trying to make sense of the importance levels—Top, High, Mid, and Low—as they apply to the 138 articles we're listed for. Here's what I'm inferring the levels are supposed to be, based on current assignments:

  • Series article: Top
  • Lists of characters and songs: Top
  • Creators and Executive Producers: High
  • Season articles: High
  • Individual main characters: High
  • Actors playing main characters: Mid
  • Individual episodes: Mid
  • Soundtrack albums: Mid
  • Individual recurring characters: Mid
  • Actors playing recurring characters: Low
  • Individual (original) songs: Low

Some of the assignments appear to have been pretty random: for example, two of the three EPs (Madonna and Rocky Horror) are at Low, but Journey to Regionals is Mid. Either all three EPs should be Mid with the rest of the soundtracks, or all three should be Low. Other oddities include:

  • Glee Live! In Concert! is listed as Low, but the movie from it, Glee: The 3D Movie, is High, even more important than a Glee episode. Should both be Low, both be Mid, or something else. I would argue that the movie should not be High if actual episodes of the show are not.
  • Ryan Murphy is listed as Top, as opposed to the other creators, who are merely High. Should all these be High? Or even Mid? Since person biographies, by their nature, cover far more of a person's life than their Glee work, Top seems a stretch, unless it's supposed to convey other things as well. (Even if it is Ryan Murphy.)
  • the cast discography is High, while the individual season lists of songs are Top. Is there a reason these aren't at the same level?
  • the List of Awards and Nominations is at High. Is this because lists shouldn't be lower than that, or because Awards and Nominations are very important? (We have no lists at Mid or Low.)
  • I was thinking that The Glee Project should either be Low, like Don't Stop Believing, or Mid, because it did involve the production staff and show actors.
  • At some point, Damian McGinty should be set as Low, because he's now to be an actor playing a recurring character. (Actually, I think I'll do that now, since he's already listed for the task force.)
  • No idea what to do with Cameron Mitchell, assuming his page survives, since he's only affiliated with the reality show, but can't imagine it'd be above Low.

Okay, that's my take. I've already moved Sam Evans to Mid from Low, the episode "New York" from High to Mid, Harry Shum from Low to Mid, and added Darren Criss in at Mid. Other actors to consider adding to the project include Vanessa Lengies, who will be playing Sugar, and LaMarcus Tinker, who will be playing Marcus. Both at Low importance, of course. (I shudder at LaMarcus's page, because last time I looked at it, when he was cast, it was a mess.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

ETA: Do we also want to add others of the production staff? I'm thinking of Adam Anders, music producer, and Zach Woodlee, choreographer and co-producer. I doubt we should add in the director of the movie, because he's a one-shot deal and not affiliated with the TV program. But Adam and Zach are intimately related with every episode. If so, do we add them at Low or Mid? (I wouldn't think they should be rated above the main cast...) Zach's listed on the main Glee template, while Adam's on the Glee Cast template. (As is, it must be noted, his music co-producer Peer Åström; would he be included as well?) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

To help keep this from getting archived before we deal with it, I'm going to add a quick edit, and note that I'm planning on classifying The Glee Project in the next couple of days. As a default, I think it'll be Mid for us—I'll check to see what similar programs rate for Project Television—and I suspect it's at C level. It can be reassessed later, but it's been sitting there at unassessed for too long. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you on this - I wanted to make sure I'd thoroughly checked through similar Projects and Task Forces for precedent. I've used 27 of the relevant groups listed at WP:TV as a sample (all the live-action, non-reality shows) and have found that of those 27, 14 Projects include the actors from their shows in the scope, and 13 don't. From what I could gather, 16 also included crew members. That's really not as clear a split as I envisioned. My personal preference would be to winnow our scope down and focus on the articles that are 100% Glee, leaving the biographies of people who, in most cases have had or will go on to have long and varied careers, to the good folks at WP:BIOGRAPHY. However, after all that tedious searching, I realise there's no broad consensus on this issue, and if that means sticking with the status quo then so be it.
As for importance levels - I think some of them have become a bit arbitrary due to the lack of a formalised structure, so this is an excellent discussion to have. To my mind, those rated Top should be the top-level pages from which all other articles spin out, and decline in importance the further spun out they are. So that would be, as above:
  • Series article
  • Characters of Glee
  • List of episodes
  • Individual main characters
  • Season articles
  • Individual episodes
  • Individual recurring characters (okay, by my own logic above that should be a blanket 'high' for all individual character articles, but I don't know that it would feel right to peg Lauren or Holly at the same level as Kurt or Rachel)
That's the easy bit. Then there are the articles that are ostensibly only one step removed from Glee (TV series) but don't necessarily begat further spin-out articles... I think I'd be inclined to stick them all at
  • Merchandise
  • Discography
  • Song lists
  • Awards and nominations
and then, although they don't really spin directly out from any of the above,
  • Soundtrack albums
  • Singles
I'm happy with The Glee Project being pegged as Mid, and perhaps the two left-over articles (tour and movie) should be at that level too? I'll leave it there for now, because my opinion on the importance levels of cast members is naturally tinged by the fact I'm not particularly keen on including them (or at least scaling back to main cast only.) Frickative 13:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Great. I basically agree with everything (exceptions noted below). That covers everything except the EPs. I'm going to propose that they be treated like albums for this purpose and put at Mid, since the choices are Mid and Low, and they, like albums, have many singles on them. (Madonna and Rocky Horror would move up; Journey would stay the same.) I also think it's reasonable to have the concert, movie, and reality show all at Mid, so let's do that. I also agree with you on keeping a level distinction between main characters and recurring characters. Lauren just isn't as important as Kurt, and shouldn't be treated as such. So High for main, and Mid for recurring.
Now, for the individual actors and producers: I think we should retain them on the list, not so much because we want to develop the articles all the way, but because we want to keep the Glee-related sections accurate and in good shape. As far as I'm concerned, that's as far as we need to go on these. Does that make sense? In terms of importance levels, we still have Ryan at top and the other three executive producers at High, with actors who play main characters at Mid (one level down from their characters) and who play other characters at Low. Even given Ryan's importance to the show, I can't see keeping him at Top. We can maybe justify keeping all four at High (one level down from the series), though I can see an argument for having them at Mid with the main actors in terms of importance to the show. And maybe we should put them all at Low, if my though about what we need to do with those articles is our general view of matters: important to the task force only insofar as the show's information in the article. How do other projects handle importance levels?
I'll take a complete look later today, and update importance levels on all those articles about which we definitively agree. I've just updated one, though: List of Glee episodes. Would you believe it wasn't under the Glee task force, even though it was a part of Television? =:O It's now included, at Top importance. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Ack, I actually intended to group EPs in with the albums, but I revised my reply so many times I must have accidentally cut them out. But yes, I agree they should be Mid-rated. As for the actors and producers, that does make a lot of sense. I must admit I didn't pay too much attention to the importance levels of other Projects (I was unfamiliar with many of the shows, so it was tough enough scrolling through hundreds of names trying to work out which were characters and which were real people. Even in those that included actors, though, there were some pronounced inconsistencies. Eg. WP:Doctor Who includes actors who have played The Doctor, but not main cast members who have played his companions, while WP:X-Files has Duchovny tagged but not Anderson...). I do like the idea of tagging them all as Low, and keeping them in decent shape while prioritising the exclusively Glee articles. Then again, the task force has been so quiet lately, it's hard to know if there are perhaps editors here with an exclusive interest in improving those articles, and might prefer the current ratings to remain... Either way, my off-the-cuff inclination would be to group all the execs as High for now - certainly the disparity of Murphy alone being Top doesn't sit right. It's quite interesting to sort the popular pages list and note that nearly all the lowest-rated pages are for the cast and crew. Frickative 01:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll get with the updates of the EPs and Execs (i.e., Ryan) right away. Let's leave the actors alone for now. I have to confess, I'm having a hard time bumping Merchandise up from Mid to High. It may be irrational, but it feels wrong. Since I suspect it is irrational, I'm going to see if I feel better about it in a few days... Oddly, the article assessment table has gone on the fritz today, so whatever we do won't show on that table until (unless?) they fix it. Oh joy. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Curt Mega

Sorry I'm very new here. I have created a page for actor Curt Mega (Nick the Warbler). It has been proposed for deletion. Can way you guys can help me out? I would be eternally grateful. Mozartchic01 (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Mozartchic01

I hate to say it but I agree with the decision; playing a minor non-speaking character on one TV show, even one as big as Glee, does not make someone "notable." Not every Warbler needs a page. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
In one of life's ironies, the preview clip released today for "The First Time" reveals that Curt as Nick does the solo on the Warblers song in that episode, "Uptown Girl". Doing the lead vocals on Glee has a way of making someone rather more notable than they had been in a very short period of time. ;-) Whether it's notable enough is another question, but he'll have a higher profile come Tuesday night. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that he might, but I think that we should wait to see what the response to that is before deeming him notable enough for Wikipedia. That is funny, though. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
It'll take more than the one lead vocal, I would think. Still, he's got to be jazzed by the opportunity. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Re-opening the relationships discussion

We really need a CONSISTENT set of criteria about what constitutes a relationship worth listing in the "significant others" section versus one that isn't worth listing. From my re-reading of the archived discussion, it seems "lasts beyond one episode" was the consensus, and yet, if you look at the history of various Glee character articles there are lots of "warnings" against multi-episode ships that individual editors have deemed "unimportant," with no supporting discussions on the talk pages or here in the Glee task force. Particularly puzzling to me is the dismissal of Santana and Puck's relationship, which is significant enough to be mentioned as a major plotline on both characters' pages and that Santana would threaten pretty much every girl who tried to date Puck before she came out as a lesbian. Is there a way we can come up with a consistent idea of what counts here? A lot of people seem to be going based on subjective, arbitrary indicators like "significant." Beggarsbanquet (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortuately, you seem to be basing your recent edits on an old discussion. My read of the most recent discussion is that the "lasts beyond one episode" consensus was deemed dead at the time (over half a year ago for most of it), given that it was so old and used a very small episode base, and more nuanced approach was in play. For example, there seemed to be consensus that Sam and Santana was not a significant relationship despite going from the end of "Comeback" through the beginning of "Born This Way". I don't see any way that Santana and Karofsky can be thought to be significant, since it was set up as a fake relationship ("beards") to begin with including Santana blackmailing Karofsky to fake the relationship, and have reverted the Karofsky page accordingly. I will be editing the Santana and Sam Evans pages to reflect this and also the consensus from that discussion. If the consensus changes re Sam and Santana, then an edit to reflect that new consensus would be appropriate.
It does admittedly seem to be subjective—except for the Faberry types who insist on adding Rachel to Quinn and Quinn to Rachel. I frankly think there is an argument for Puck and Santana given how long they were on-again off-again sexual partners and the fact that Santana warned off or went after potential rivals three times—Quinn, Mercedes, and Lauren—meant it had some significance to her. (Also the fact that she expected he'd be willing to pay for jewelry for her.)
So while consistency would be lovely, the fact is that not all relationships fit into nice boxes. We can have reasoned guidelines, but there will always be questions around the edges. It could be useful to codify something: what do you suggest is a reasonable set of criteria? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, my opinion on the parameter hasn't changed from the last discussion: I think we'd be better off not using it at all. Important relationships are mentioned in the lead and body of articles. Simple infobox lists decontextualize matters, and discussions analysing every encounter between two characters are, imo, usually a waste of good editing time, simply because what constitutes a sig. other is so subjective. Add to that the drive-by IPs that flock to Wikipedia purely to argue about their preferred pairings, and getting involved is often more frustrating than fruitful. I'm aware that consensus was against abandoning the parameter last time around, but there's my 2 cents anyhow. Frickative 23:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree somewhat but I think that because other TV shows include that table, it would be strange not to include it with Glee. I can also understand not deeming "one episode" as a criteria for "not significant"; however, I think that until we establish some degree of consistency, that we are going to continue to have this problem of individual editors making up the criteria as they go along and publishing "warnings" with no reason behind them and no discussion to support them. At the very least, people should be getting consensus on the talk page before editing in warnings against adding certain characters to that box. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm with you on the "because other TV shows include that table, it would be strange not to include it with Glee" point. As for many of the warnings commented into the infobox, those have come by accretion and—as best I can tell—informal consensus among the various task force and other editors after various repeated changes. There are a lot of regular named editors watching the pages, and I think there would have been a discussion on a particular talk page if a comment went up that someone had a major objection to. I think it comes under the Wikipedia "be bold" dictum: if someone doesn't like a change, they're likely to say so. But the drive-by IPs that Frickative refers to a very real and most of them are never seen again, which is why we hope to discourage a few of them by saying "no", and if they ignore us, it's easy for anyone looking at the edit to realize that it should be undone. If there are knotty decisions on a few of these characters, or a general criteria list, I'll participate in the discussion, but not if we're going to have to dissect over a dozen individual character pages. Too much time that could (and should) go to substantive editing... BlueMoonset (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Glee season ledes

As you can see from my talk page, I had an encounter with an editor who had a strong enough objection to the lists of characters and actors that begins our Glee (season 3) page, and deleted them, saying that so many could not be "central". When I reverted with an admittedly snippy message, since I'm busy tonight and don't have time to deal with what appeared to be a drive-by deletion, he replied there.

This has been the format of our ledes for all three seasons of the show, long before I joined the task force. The obvious question is whether we agree that such a long list is inappropriate for the lede, whether we call it "central characters" or "main cast" or "cast with starring credits". If so, what should be put there in its place, if anything; if not, is there anything we can or should do to change its readability? I'd like someone else to be point person on this: I just don't have time this week to take on any other projects. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Is extrapolated air date good enough?

I have a bunch of facts:

  • Glee airs weekly on Tuesday nights
  • Episode 6 airs on November 15 (Fox press release)
  • the show is preempted on November 22 due to X-Factor live show (same Fox press release)
  • Episode 8 airs on December 6 (Hollywood Reporter and EW)

There's only one Tuesday left in between: November 29. There's also episode 7, which needs to air between episodes 6 and 8, or it wouldn't be called episode 7. Also, episode 8 is sectionals (same Hollywood Reporter).

The obvious question (and I think I'm not going to like the answer, but I'll continue to live with it): can I conclude—by Wikipedia standards—that episode 7 is scheduled to air on November 29? I don't want to put up a page on "I Kissed a Girl" (episode 7) to replace the current redirect until I have a date I can use, even though I have plenty of information for the article. Saying "after November 27 and before December 6" just doesn't cut it... Of course, if any of you have a reliable source that directly specifies the show's date, just point me in the right direction and I'll get cracking. Thanks! (I'm also looking forward to seeing the title for the sectionals episode, so I can get up the even greater amount of information that's been revealed about it. Sam and both of his parents appear!) Now watch: the information will have already been posted at one of the usual sites, only I missed it... (The best The Futon Critic can do is "projected date".) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be WP:OR. There was one time (I'm pretty sure) that 2 new episodes aired the same night. Guess I made that up...but 2 new episodes could air the same night, or dates can be rearranged. CTJF83 04:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
What I thought. I'll have to wait for that date to be specified. Thanks for confirming it. (They had the double rerun at the last minute when game 6 of the World Series was rained out, and the premieres of "The Sue Sylvester Shuffle" and "Silly Love Songs" ran on a Sunday and following Tuesday, but that's the closest to two in a night...) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Super Bowl episode must be what I was thinking of. CTJF83 06:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Given that we always write "scheduled to air" rather than "will air" anyway (the continuity-bending "Funk"/"Theatricality" switch-up taught me that lesson the hard way!), would it make a great deal of difference to just say "projected to air", pending firm scheduling info? Frickative 11:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems like a gray area...still kinda ORish...then again this is an easily edited encyclopedia, so if you put that, it can easily be changed. CTJF83 17:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
But doesn't OR only apply when editors are putting two and two together themselves? If the Futon Critic website says the projected air date is 29 Nov, then including that wouldn't constitute a "new analysis" of source material - it'd just be what the source actually says. Frickative 17:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm loving this discussion. What The Futon Critic gives is "11/29/11 (Tu.) 8:00 PM FOX (GLE-3??) (Projected Date)", then "12/6/11 (Tu.) 8:00 PM FOX (GLE-3??) (Projected Date)", and then, interestingly, "12/13/11 (Tu.) 8:00 PM FOX (GLE-3??) New Holiday-Themed Episode" without any "projected date" at all, they just state it. Then they give the 20th and 27th as projected dates with reruns. Once TFC has a press release for the specific episode, they'll link to it and add the episode name; it's frequently available there before it's posted on FoxFlash, sometimes days in advance (to my disgust). I rather expect them to have something on "I Kissed a Girl" in six days or so. What I'm beginning to wonder is whether the title for episode 8 is going to leak first, meaning that the episode 8 article could potentially appear before episode 7 (since we have its date).
I suppose I should ask: does "if you put that, it can easily be changed" mean I can go ahead and post what I have for episode 7 using the "projected to air" wording? With a link to that Futon Critic page until we get something more definitive? Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Ohh...I was unaware Futon Critic had a projected date, I thought you were just assuming since episode 6 was this date and 8 was two weeks later, that 7 would be in the middle. I mean in reality, it's pretty obvious that episode 7 airs in between 6 and 8, just not from a Wikipedia stand point. I'd say use the futon date, ya go for it Blue, if it turns out to be wrong, we can always edit it :) CTJF83 00:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll go for it. :-) Thanks. BTW, we just had an example of extrapolation on the Glee (season 3) page, where someone took the new Fox press release about its holiday shows (which confirms the December 13 date given by Futon Critic for the Glee holiday-themed show, interestingly enough), with the person calling it episode 8 rather than 9, and combining the known events from the December 6 eighth episode with this December 13 episode. I pulled it, since the only information we have is the date. But now I'm wondering if I should have, and should instead have put up the eighth and ninth episodes with their (sourced) dates and TBA for their titles, since there's information enough out there for a description for both. Thoughts? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I could be persuaded either way about your revert. It does have a plot description...maybe a good standard is in order for something to be listed it needs 2 out of 3 (reliably referenced), either title, air date, or plot description. If we go by that, your revert was good. CTJF83 01:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If that was the standard, then I could meet it now, with bonus points for the director of episode 8. (I also have the writer for either 6 or 7, but I don't know which of the two he did. Argh.) The problem with the plot description I reverted is that it combined episode 8, Sectionals (and the return of Sam) with episode 9, the holiday episode. To my mind, bad information is no information at all. It does seem to me to be a workable standard, though I might add that the episode number must be known (and sourced) as well; should one of us propose it on the talk page there? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
You could...but unless something has changed in the 3 months I've been slacking, you and Frickative are the main contributors. CTJF83 12:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Just because I'm a main contributor doesn't mean I'm always right. :-) I'm still new enough that I still trip over some real doozies when it comes to not knowing the rules.
As for the season 3 page, I've done both: put the subject of what should be required on the Talk page, and added episodes 8 and 9 sans titles. Turns out that Matthew Morrison's September announcement that he'd be directing episode 8 was not correct; he's directing episode 9, which started filming today. (No, I don't think they're completed episode 8, but I have no definitive evidence one way or the other. I expect more data in the next week or so.) So at least I have that right, thanks to the ever-tweeting Lea Michele... BlueMoonset (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Rory Flanagan

I went ahead and created an article for Rory Flanagan, currently re-directed to List of Glee characters. Feel free to use the talk page for notes relating to the character. Given the character's (and actor's) background, description and storyline I think there is potential for this re-direct to become a completed article, such as the one for Dave K. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Going forward, I think it would be a good policy not to have character redirects to the Characters of Glee page until there is actually a section on that page specifically for that character that the redirect can directly point to. Absent that—and such a section should not exist until after the character's first episode has aired at the earliest—I think it's better to have nothing at all. The Karofsky article was months in the making, as was Holly Holliday (and it came from someone not even in the task force!), and there are many on the Characters page that will never graduate to their own space, much less escape a quick summary in a paragraph with several other characters. Warbler Sebastian, or the new football recruiter Johnny, might not ever get their own paragraphs. (Azimio didn't get his until the end of the second season, and Shane doesn't have one after two appearances.) Heck, it took Sam almost an entire season before he finally got his own article, and even with two seasons behind him, it was hard to flesh out a Mike Chang article into something that, even now, is only just adequate. So in the character space, it doesn't make sense to get ahead of ourselves. Just my opinion, of course, but it's how we've been going at it so far. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there is potential that an article for Rory could be expanded similar to the one for Holly Holliday:

--Another Believer (Talk) 15:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I created a stub for Rory. I realize this may seem premature but I think there is enough content to warrant a space for expansion, especially given the coverage McGinty and his character have received even prior to the airing of his first appearance. Please feel free to assist with the expansion of this article even if you are skeptical of its existence. This article deserves development, character, storyline, and performance, etc. sections similar to those for other characters of the show. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly that there should be an article, then I think it's incumbent upon you to write it. I look forward to seeing what you come up with. I'll be happy to help edit once the text is there, but as far as content creation is concerned, it's your baby.
Frankly, I think it's far more appropriate to start with an section in Characters of Glee, and then when it threatens to overflow its space there, take that as the basis for the character's page and expand into development, character, storyline, performance, reception, and so on. The Rory Flanagan page does indeed seem premature to me, but if it grows into a full-fledged article in the next week or two, I'll have to change my thinking in the matter. (Let's hold off on creating any other pages for new characters, such as the ones being introduced in episode five, until we see how this experiment pans out, okay?) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It is way to early to create an article for Rory. There is no guarantee that he will ever be notable enough to get his own article, especially since the episode just aired. Unless by some miracle you manage to find enough sources to expand the article into a decent size by Saturday, I will redirect it. JDDJS (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I will try to expand the article tomorrow. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Even though I think it's too soon for this article, I also think Saturday is an unreasonable deadline for expansion: there's no reason why an entire weekend can't be given (I'd have been inclined to give a full week from initial creation, but maybe that is excessive), say until Monday at 1200 UTC. I've seen enough material out there that I'd bet it would be possible to have a fair Start-level article by then. Also: as long as the article remains, so should the pointer to it from the Characters of Glee section on Rory. If the article does become a redirect, only then should the pointer disappear, since pointers shouldn't ever be redirected back on themselves. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll agree to wait till Monday. JDDJS (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

So I believe time is up, and the article has only section with more than three sentences is storylines. So I do believe it should be redirected now, however I shall wait for conformation here before I do redirect it. Another Believer might want to create a sandbox for this however, cause there is very good chance that he would eventually be notable enough for his own page. JDDJS (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I did not get as far along as I had hoped. Life happens. I did, however, put together a collection of articles on the talk page that I believe establish notability. Given the number of article views, the amount of reception (especially re: stereotyping), future album appearances, Glee Project, etc., I think there is plenty of material in reliable sources for future expansion. My preference would still be to leave the article alone, but I understand if others disagree at this point in time. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Well I redirected it for now, but I do believe that it can be a good article one day, just not yet. I think it would best if you created a sandbox and started editing it from there. This way once there is enough information, out there the article will be ready right away. JDDJS (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, well I still very much disagree but I will leave the re-direct alone until I have time to expand the article further. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that you think Rory's worthy of an article now. Many of us, however, think "not yet"—we even said so before you went ahead and started it anyway—so we're hardly going to step in and work on something we think is premature when we have other projects that interest us far more.
BTW, are you a member of the task force? I don't see your name on the list, and expected to, given how active you are. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I rarely add my name to task forces / WikiProjects these days even when I am an active contributor. I very much enjoy and respect successful collaborative projects and try to contribute when I can. Different projects operate in their own way and I have learned from "Extraordinary Merry Christmas" and Rory Flanagan discussions that my edits did not follow expectations, and I apologize if I ruffled any feathers. I can assure project members that my intentions were good and I hope I can continue to assist with the project's goal(s). I still feel the Rory article is enough to exist without being re-directed but I acknowledge that others disagree. Character / biographical articles are not my specialty so I will leave it to others to expand (or leave alone) the article. Perhaps I can find the time to work on an album article, so I have quite a few of those with GA status under my belt. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm so glad you decided to join. Welcome! The Glee task force is the only one I participate in—I don't have time for more—so I'm not well acquainted with how others operate; I've done my learning here, and ran up against a few expectations myself when I started in the spring. I'm excited by the notion of you working on an album article: there hasn't been anyone taking the reins of getting articles to GA since Yves left, and we only have one album, two EPs, and two original songs there; all the rest from the first two seasons are C-level (with one dubious B-level), and now the two new stubs. I don't have a feel for them at all, and the episodes are more than enough to keep me busy. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome. I am working on a few projects at the moment but hopefully I can get around to an album article soon as it would assist with completing the Good Topics started above. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Extraordinary Merry Christmas for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Extraordinary Merry Christmas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extraordinary Merry Christmas until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that this is an article that is merely a redirect created in advance of reliable source information. I'm as much interested in the wider implications of this recent trend of such creations—this one is article/redirect number four of nine episodes in season three—and whether it is or should be okay to create articles based on title information from the fan sites, IMDbs, and TV.coms of the world, which have been fairly accurate this season in the title department, mostly stumbling over punctuation (e.g., "Mash-Off" vs. "Mash Off", "Pot of Gold" vs. "Pot O' Gold").
I've been holding back on publishing Glee episode article material because my understanding of the rules—reliable sources and verifiability in particular—is that we don't create episode articles absent a reliable source for the title. Whatever your understanding, I think this is a worthwhile discussion to have, and hope you'll stop by the AfD and contribute your thoughts. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
BTW, this has been overtaken by events (i.e., an early Fox press release as republished on The Futon Critic), so if you know how a proposer can get his AfD to end early, let me know. I've posted there that I thought it should be, and the "Extraordinary Merry Christmas" page now has an "under construction" template immediately under the AfD template. Looks rather odd... BlueMoonset (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure how to get the AfD closed, but I image it will wrap up soon. Sorry again for the trouble. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
With luck it'll be closed in under 48 hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Puck (Glee)

User:Beggarsbanquet thinks that his name should be spelled out as "Noah 'Puck' Puckerman" in articles under significant others, even though the page is titled Puck, and that is ridiculously long. Thoughts? CTJF83 15:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me two different things. We go by "common" name for the page title, with the lede starting out "Noah 'Puck' Puckerman" to give his full name. The thing is, he's "Puck" to some people, and "Noah" to others. (Although not quite significant, he was "Noah" to Rachel, and I hope it doesn't turn out to be significant that he's the same to Shelby.) But more important, I think we should include the known last names of all characters listed in infoboxes. If we do that, the choice is between " 'Puck' Puckerman" and "Noah 'Puck' Puckerman"...and the former doesn't cut it for me. I don't think length is an issue, and wouldn't favor "Noah Puckerman" on its own, because the common nickname is important for this character. That's my two cents. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why we need last names. We are linking to the character and to me it is cleaner to just link say, Puck, Rachel, Finn, and Blaine, then Puck Puckerman, Rachel Berry, Finn Hudson, and Blaine Anderson. CTJF83 14:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Whereas to me it's clearer to give the full name rather than force the user to click to get more information. To my mind, the infobox is there to give basic information at a glance. Links are there if the reader wants to find out about the character. Right now, the standard is to use the full name, and Puck is the exception. I'd be very much against dropping last names as a matter of policy, since logically that would extend to every other infobox parameter, including parents and siblings. That starts getting quite messy. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems a bit much to me, why do we need last names for family members, with the possible exception of the Hummel/Hudson family. It's implied family members have the same last name. CTJF83 15:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the preference for first names vs. full names in infoboxes. For the Glee infoboxes, the articles should, I think, follow whatever the WikiProject Television standard is for them, regardless of what either of us thinks. My guess is that it's full common names (e.g., Will Schuester rather than William Schuester), but I don't know for sure. Anyone? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I always go on what I know best, how WP:DOH does it. Well have to hope Frickative and other project members weigh in. CTJF83 18:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll caveat this with my increasingly-standard disclaimer that I hate this parameter with a passion ;) Firstly, I'd say surnames should be used in the ibox for the same reason they're used upon first mention in the body of articles, because the alternative ('Rachel does this, Finn does that, blah blah blah') is rather informal and assumes a familiarity with the characters that readers might not have. To the best of my knowledge there isn't a WP:TV standard, but the example entry at Template:Infobox character uses full names. Whether they're common names or not is impossible to tell, because the example character from Criminal Minds is made up - but I certainly wouldn't want to have William Schuester, Susan Sylvester, Michael Chang, Noah Puckerman etc. in the iboxes; I think that would be worse than just using common forenames. So by the power of elimination, I suppose that leaves Noah "Puck" Puckerman, irritatingly long as it is. Frickative 14:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
So you think Noah "Puck" Puckerman is better than just Puck Puckerman? CTJF83 14:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd guess that "Puckerman" is used in the show about as often as "Noah" is, so I'd be inclined to use both rather than exclude one - I don't have much of a stake in the outcome, though. Frickative 15:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Of all the alternatives, "Puck Puckerman" is the one I actively dislike on a number of levels. I wasn't clear about that above... ;-) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok CTJF83 15:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I just saw this discussion, and I agree that we should not only list the full name but keep it as "Noah 'Puck' Puckerman." Listing just "Puck" just seems sloppy in an aesthetic sense along with going against the guidelines established by WikiProject Television. And since some characters have referred to him as Noah, I also agree with "Noah 'Puck' Puckerman" as the way we should spell it. Sorry I didn't weigh in earlier; I thought Ctjf83 was directing me toward the discussion on Puck's page name. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

GT idea

Hello, I've barely seen Glee but I am aware of this successful project (congrats, guys, the articles are fabulous) and I was once wondering why season 1 was not a good topic, as all the episode articles were GA. Then I came to this page and noticed you were waiting for the songs and albums to reach GA as well. Today I had an idea: what if you had the season 1 GT consist of the main season article and the episodes, while you could have a separate GT with "List of songs in Glee (season 1)" as the main and consisting of the albums and songs. What do you think? Glimmer721 talk 02:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that all articles associated with the season should remain together. I am sure we all want to see a Glee-related GT as soon as possible, but it's worth finishing the remaining articles and having one very strong GT for the encyclopedia. Patience, difficult at times, is indeed a virtue... --Another Believer (Talk) 22:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

New "Songs" section on character pages

User is currently in the process of inserting "Songs" sections in the various Glee character pages with a list of their songs on the show. The format is basically that used for the "List of songs in Glee" pages (e.g., List of songs in Glee (season 3)).

My questions are as follows:

  • Is this section useful?
  • Does it meet with the standards (rules?) for fictional characters?
  • If both of the above are true, meaning we should make it a standard section on character articles going forward, has it been placed correctly?

My tentative answers are:

  • I don't see any particular need for it, but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise.
  • I have no idea. I hope someone with more experience than I does.
  • It is not placed correctly. Having a potentially huge table that early in the article means the other, more important sections for the character—such as development and characterization and relationships and even reception—will never get seen. In my view, this is a supplementary table, and I would place it last assuming we keep it.

What does everyone else think? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that is not needed. For one, it is debatable which songs are notable. But the main reason I'm against it is that it serves no real purpose. There is already a section labeled "musical performances" which includes any song that got notable reviews. JDDJS (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with above. CTJF83 21:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm in agreement - not necessary. For one, it would be exhausting deciding on what the criteria would be for crediting a song to a particular character. I also agree about the hugeness of the table. I remember seeing it first on the Santana page and thinking "What an eyesore." Beggarsbanquet (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Season 4 info showing up

Since the Television Critics Association winter press tour included Fox's Kevin Reilly (entertainment president) talking about season 4, information has started appearing on the List of Glee Episodes page. To my eye, the problem is this: though Reilly talked about it, Fox still hasn't actually formally renewed the show.

So, what do we do? My thought is that until the show is formally renewed, the table should not be expanded beyond season 3. Any attempt at an article on "Glee (season 4)" should probably be redirected at least until there is a renewal announcement. There's a new section on season 4 on the List page, but I'm wondering whether that could stay, as long as it talks about what Reilly (and, by extension, Murphy) discussed, and perhaps which graduating seniors have been confirmed to stick around for a fourth season. (I wasn't around last year at this time, so I don't know the arguments pro and con.) Whether rumors on status upgrades (e.g., the one about Grant Gustin becoming a season 4 regular) should be included I also don't know. Your thoughts? I've started a section on the List's talk page, but I wanted to mention it here to get more eyeballs and opinions. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

GAN instructions changes

For those of you who will face the Good Article Nomination (GAN) process in the future, there is a recent change you should know about. This affects both the "Theatre, film and drama" subtopic we typically use for Glee episode and characters, and the "Music" subtopic we use for Glee soundtracks and singles.

Both of these now have sub-subsections attached to them, and these named sub-subsections are what you should now use if your article fits one of them, and the original subtopic if it doesn't. Here's what you use for the "subtopic" field depending on the article:

  • Individual episode: "Episodes"
  • Character: "Theatre, film and drama"
  • Soundtrack album: "Albums"
  • Soundtrack EP: not sure, but my best guess is "Albums", though it might be "Music"
  • Individual original songs: "Songs"
  • Other articles about the show and movie, excluding the concert tour: "Theatre, film and drama"
  • Actors, directors, et al.: "Theatre, film and drama"
  • Concert tour: "Music"

If there are any questions or corrections, this is where to make then. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)