Talk:John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 August 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hollyoaks task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Soap Operas

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera articles

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Restructure (Too much John Paul Focus)

I think the top part of the article needs a more equal balance, it's too focused on John Paul. If the two character stories can't be merged perhaps two main topics exploring each character instead? 88.105.72.17 (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what happened is the user just pasted the information from JP's article.

I live in the US so I'm really behind on what's happened with the storyline, but if you want to try balancing the information out go ahead. :) --Silvestris (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can balance it a bit. I just haven't had chance to look at it yet. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 14:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fans

To JGXenite, to say that the relevant John Paul and Craig topics are actually the most popular topics ever discussed on the biggest soaps forum around, I say it is appropriate to include this in the John Paul and Craig article as it relates to the success of the storyline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjpuddytat (talk • contribs) 18:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure that such facts (most popular topics) are really verifiable, and as such, suitable to the article. In my opinion, this article seems to very much fancruft - an article that would only be read by fans of JP and Craig. Plus, at least three of the sources on the (current at the time of writing) page are from a fan site - not reliable sources. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 18:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think they are verifiable because you can sort forum topics so that they appear in order of popularity by number of views and number of replies. I'm not the expert on all this linking and what not but if someone could properly source the information and provide the date in which it was last verified (which I tried to do) then what's wrong with it? As you say this article is mainly for fans and as a fan myself what I included was certainly of interest to me and would interest other followers of the characters. I still don't understand why my additions have now been removed twice when they are clearly relevant. In future you should leave a comment on this page before deleting someone else's contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjpuddytat (talk • contribs) 19:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that a page specifically for fans probably falls into the category of pages that Wikipedia is not - meaning they could be deleted at some point in the future. My only revert of your edit - this one - had a comment that explained why I had reverted it. You can view all the revisions to the page through the history link at the top of the article page. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 19:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you some kind of moderator may I ask?... Anyway as long as that table doesn't go anywhere; which took a heck of a long time to do; then I'm not too bothered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjpuddytat (talk • contribs) 19:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not a moderator, I'm just a fairly experienced editor. I have no intention of removing the table - I guess it is quite useful in tracking the progress of their relationship. I'm still concerned overall about whether this article is justified, but I'll leave that to someone else to decide. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 19:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the topic itself is justified, but I think the article should be made so it resembles the other articles on supercouples more. Stuff like the actor's approach, cultural impact, ect.

Examples of other articles: Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer, Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone, Tad Martin and Dixie Cooney. --Silvestris (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Silvestris, I'll look into this :) Btw, are you cylon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjpuddytat (talk • contribs) 20:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. --Silvestris (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gave this article an overhaul

I gave this article a much-needed overhaul; it now more closely resembles the other supercouple articles I've worked on (mentioned above)...and conforms to Wikipedia policy. Flyer22 (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, oh, I also added this couple back to List of fictional supercouples, as well as gave them a mention (shout-out) in the Supercouple article. Flyer22 (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love triangle image in John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean article

Shade of purple, as I stated on your talk page, do you mind explaining why you object to the love triangle image of John Paul/Craig/Sarah and why you removed it? Is it because you feel it gives the wrong impression, since Sarah is in the middle? That the image makes it look as though the love triangle was actually like this: John Paul/Sarah/Craig? If so, I also thought of that, and am not too against trading out that image for another. But, really, I would think that most people who look at this article and are unfamiliar with this couple would not just jump to the Cultural impact section. They would have seen the subject of John Paul, Craig and Sarah mentioned in the three other sections that are before the Cultural impact section and know the read deal. I have currently restored that image. You cannot just remove images from articles without a good reason; removing images like that without providing good reasons for their removal in your edit summary or on the talk pages of those articles can be perceived as vandalism. Before you, an IP also tried removing that image. Was that also you? Flyer22 (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't talk for Shade of Purple, but I'm deleting the image because its not one of Craig. 88.105.126.160 (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then who is it of? I'm restoring it, until you tell me who it is a picture of? If you mean that it's more so a picture of Guy Burnet, well, yes, it's him promoting a storyline of his character. Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, that image came from the jpmq.org website. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, it looks like Justin to me, not Craig... ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Justin? I'm about to replace the image, anyway, due to problems. Flyer22 (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's another character on Hollyoaks.[1] I don't know why he's in that photo with JP and Sarah though.

It's not the greatest picture, but there's a pic of the three together here.

Also, I want to say thank you for really improving the article. --Silvestris (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, Silvestris. I've already replaced the image with a Craig/John Paul/Kieron Hobbs love triangle image. If anyone objects to that one, then it will most likely be a fan of the John Paul and Kieron romance, since it's calling Kieron a Gooseberry. But that's no reason to remove it; it is a valid magazine image, after all.

Oh, and no problem about my fixing up this article. It needed fixing up...and someone has to do it. Either that, or it would have been eventually deleted. Flyer22 (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the new image, why not use the original, or perhaps this one, which I think better illustrates the love triangle? ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 07:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used the original. I suspected that Gooseberry sign was fan altered, but they did not act like it was. If they did not alter it, it must have been altered by Soaplife. Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was most likely Soaplife that did it. As for using magazine pages or covers for the Cultural impact sections of these fictional supercouple articles, that's what I usually do; I feel that it better illustrates the impact these couples had, whether it's the cover or page of a soap opera magazine or a mainstream magazine, and I often mention their being featured in the magazine I have displayed. I'm still not sure that it's better to just have that promotional image of that scene in the Cultural impact section for John Paul and Craig instead of that magazine image of that scene, but I'll let it stay for now. Flyer22 (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an image for the triangle with Sarah (to be used elsewhere in the article, not to replace the Kieron one), one of these might be suitable. --Silvestris (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Silvestris. I might use one of those for this article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot too long?

As I stated in my edit summary, I am not seeing how the plot of this article is too long compared to the rest of the article. Most of this article is in real world-content. And we have to remember that this is a soap opera couple, and, as such, there is more story to summarize than there would be for a prime time television or film plot. The plot can probably be cut down a little more, but expecting the Storyline section of this article to be as concise as a film plot section is off.

What should be removed from this article is the Timeline of events section, for sure, even though I earlier stated that I would not remove it due to the objections from some fan editors here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, when I added that in the plot summary, I meant the whole page really. I agree with you, it should be cut down and the timeline removed. Everything that happens in the timeline, is mentioned in the plot. Whoniverse93 talk? 09:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on my talk page, the article as a whole is not too long, and I am not seeing how or why its Writing and portrayals section should be trimmed. The plot section maybe (MAYBE) can be trimmed a bit without taking out important information, but the timeline section should definitely be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of timeline

It has come to many peoples attentions that the Timeline section has become too long. I wanted to consult other editors on their thoughts before it's removal. It has gone beyond the main storyline and onto every single thing that happens between them. Imagine if Craig and John Paul stayed on for another 10 years, people would keep adding irrelevant info. Most of the mentioned things are already in the plot. Any thoughts? Whoniverse93 talk? 23:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline section should be removed for the reasons you mentioned in the section above this one, and because it is in-universe. Sure, encyclopedias have timelines, but this one would be viewed as unencyclopedic by most experienced Wikipedia editors. Flyer22 (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll remove it unless you, or someone, gets to it before me. Whoniverse93 talk? 01:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]