User talk:Frickative/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Awards

Hey! I see you're currently working on adding and fixing up awards and nominations: good for you! That page often goes ignored haha. I was wondering if you could add the win at the American Music Awards of 2010 for "Favorite Soundtrack"? The page at the official website is here, but I have a feeling it will be inaccessible by the time next year rolls around, so here's another one below. Thanks in advance! :) Yves (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ward, Kate (November 21, 2010). "American Music Awards: See list of winners here!". Entertainment Weekly. Time Inc. Retrieved December 2, 2010.

Ooh, sure, thanks for the link! I used to be quite on top of the awards list, but after seeing the Grammy Awards added today I realised I hadn't looked at in the four months, so it's a bit behind the times haha. I'll get it added now :D Frickative 21:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much! :D I just added a sheet music section to the merchandise article, but I don't know if you think it should go under the other section since it's short, or stay in its music section? Yves (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh awesome, I didn't even know that existed! Hmm, I think it's fine as a music subsection. The "other" section is a bit chaotic, and when I get chance I'm going to try and expand it and split it up a bit more into games/apparel etc anyway :) Frickative 22:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha okay. Yeah, I wasn't aware of that until I looked up some earlier Glee articles. Oooh that sounds good! :) Yves (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Gleek barnstar

My goodness, thank you so much! It's still a work in-progress, and I've saved some things so I wouldn't lose them, but I figured I wanted to start something new in that there would be a background and/or composition section with the articles so someone who has never watched "Journey[ to Regionals]" could know a bit more about the songs and, in this case, why half of them are Journey ones. For the EP articles, at least, since those are easier: I figured starting with the shortest EP would be good since they're only one episode and therefore easier to work on. Peak charting and new entries would have happened over one or two weeks at the max, and reviews would have to be looked up for only the one episode. Speaking of the reviews, I'm looking at taking the episodic professional comments on the arrangements and/or vocals and leaving out aspects that don't apply like dancing or visual context and presentation. Journey to Regionals also happens to be the lowest-rated article of the Glee GT, so I decided to start there, and I may go to the Madonna EP next. The Grammy nomination also led me to realize how lacking the article was. I don't know if I'm going to do the same with the Volumes, but I figure I'd start with expanding the EPs. The barnstar really means a lot to me, but you deserve recognition, too:

		The Gleek Barnstar
		For your quality contributions to Glee-related articles, including countless GAs and DYKs. I have to say I'm quite impressed with the thing you do of coming into an episode article and writing damn good critical response and music sections. (I suppose it helps when you have a degree in the arts.) You keep it up too, eh? :D Yves (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I second that...thank you so much for all your good work!!! I'll give you a barnstar in short time :-D CTJF83 chat 08:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both very much! The EP rationale makes a lot of sense - I'd honestly doubted whether they'd ever reach the point where GA would be an option, but if Journey to Regionals is anything to go by, even unfinished, then the season one GT seems like a much more feasible goal. (As for the arts degree, I genuinely believe that my essay prep and structuring skills improved as a result of Wiki-ing, which is perhaps not the way round it should be, haha!) Frickative 19:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Charlotte King.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Charlotte King.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 06:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I readded it...the so called free image that replaced this one is from a magazine, so I hightly doubt it is free. CTJF83 chat 06:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for that! I think even if it is free, that sort of glamour shot is definitely more representative of the actress than the character, so wouldn't be suitable for the ibox anyway. Thanks :D Frickative 17:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Holby City Series 13

Today, (06-12-2010) I saw the christmas issue for the radiotimes magazine, however I don't know how to add a reference for adding the writer and director credits on wikipedia. But if you want to add them they are;

Tuesday 21 December 2010 - The Most Wonderful Time of the Year

Writer: Tony McHale Director: Jamie Annett

Tuesday 28 December 2010 - Snow Queens

Writer: Martha Hillier Director: Daikin Marsh

Many thanks.

Thank you! Do you have the page number(s) the info appears on, and the title(s) if there are any? I'm guessing with it being the Radio Times, the titles are probably just the broadcast dates. The completed citation will look like this (with the blank parameters filled in, and 'date' being whenever the issue was released):

<ref>{{Citation | title = | magazine = [[Radio Times]] | publisher = [[BBC Magazines]] | pages = | date = }}</ref>

Then you'd just place it beside the writer/director name. If it's the same page for all the info, you can use 'ref name', so it'll look like:

|WrittenBy={{sortname|Tony|McHale}}<ref name="RT">{{Citation | title = | magazine = [[Radio Times]] | publisher = [[BBC Magazines]] | pages = | date = }}</ref>

and:

|DirectedBy={{sortname|Jamie|Annett|nolink=1}}<ref name="RT"/>

If you get back to me with the title(s), page number(s) and release date of the issue, I'll add it in, otherwise I'll have a flick through the magazine myself tomorrow and sort it then :) Frickative 17:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Super Bowl episode

Thanks for your contributions to the article! I look forward to watching this article expand. Given the amount of coverage this episode may receive, I think there could be potential for FA status. Keep up the great work! --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It's what she does! CTJF83 chat 00:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you! (And no problem, in this instance I was really just pulling in bits and pieces from existing articles :)) Hopefully you're right about the FA potential. Production coverage has been a bit thin on the ground lately, so with this much to work from already, two months in advance of broadcast, it's looking hopeful! Frickative 00:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice update! The article is looking much better and more cohesive. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! And thanks for tidying up after me, I can't believe I remembered US date formatting in the references then forgot in the article itself. Facepalm. Frickative 23:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

MSN

Does yours appear to be down today? I haven't been able to get on since this morning. CycloneGU (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

How odd! I've been logged out all day today, but I just tried to log in and it let me on the first try. Hope yours decides to behave itself soon. Frickative 22:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Very peculiar. I hope it does too. CycloneGU (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Just tried again. Service unavailable. Must be a Canada thing. CycloneGU (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if this is not proper Wikipedia etiquette. (I really don't know.)

Hey, Frick! Are you on? I've updated the thing to add Chord to the Christmas album! Could you check that out please? Thanks! 75.68.52.240 (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for that! Sorry, I wasn't really around much yesterday, but it looks like Yves has taken care of it. Thanks for filling it out! Frickative 17:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ena Sharples

Hello Frick

After reading one of the Coronation Street articles, I wanted to leave a note for any of the regular contributors/editors of these pages. Seeing no clear place to do this, I've picked your ID arbitrarily from the list of contributors and opted to leave a message on your talk page. Apologies in advance if this is unwelcome.

I see that the current article on Ena Sharples makes reference to a couple of songs that mention her name in the lyrics. I don't know how interesting this is to other readers but there is an entire song dedicated to Ena, written in the early 1960s and performed by Max Bygraves on the B&W minstrel show; "Ena, you're the girl for me!" My Dad recorded the performance directly from the TV at the time and kept it for many years. Someone who has the time might want to track the song down and link it or at least refer to it in the article.

202.36.179.68 (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)David C

Hi, and thank you for your message! I haven't looked at the Ena Sharples article in quite some time, but reading it now it seems the entire "Trivia" section (which shouldn't really exist at all) is unreferenced. If references can be found to verify the songs that mention her in the lyrics, they could be kept in a "In popular culture" section or similar. I'll add it to my to-do list, and try and hunt down a reference to the Max Bygraves song so that can be added as well. Thanks! Frickative 17:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Horrible Histories graph

Hey Frickative!! Long time, no see... ... well i guess type.... ;)

Moving on...

Pretty much the page Horrible Histories (2009 TV series) which you helped create has a really screwed up "List of episodes" table and i have no idea why - i was not involved in it at all and after some edit (i havent tracked down which one yet), the table completely went bonkers. Can you help??

P.S if you can think of ways to make the page less of a fan-guide or at least more "wikified", that would be awesome.

Thanks :)--Coin945 (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Woah, that table really was screwed up, haha. It was missing the closing '|}' at the end of the code which must have sent it haywire, but I've fixed it now :) I think the "Features" section probably needs the most work after the episode summaries, which are currently meaningless to anyone who hasn't seen them. Re-writing it as prose would be a good start, so rather than just:

• Savage Stone Age
• Groovy Greeks
• Rotten Romans

it could start out something like: Eras and civilizations featured in the series include the Stone Age, Ancient Greeks and Romans... though I'm not entire sure where sources could be found to verify all of them. It would be helpful to explain what the regular sketches entail as well, rather than just their names, because like the episode summaries they could mean pretty much anything. There's probably not much I can do myself in that respect without actually watching the episodes, though! Frickative 17:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh yes, well that's where i fail to... i havent actually watched that much myself, and merely left the page to the wrath of other users (;D) while i was studying for exams etc. Unbeknownst to me what an awful mes it eventually became. It's mostly lists and trivial detail, much like the horrible histories page. I'm not even sure where to begin. Also as a side note, i have located many awesome review sites for the series, which are probably more extennsive and reliable that those already in your paragraph (and written after the paragraph was put together), although i dont want to contaminate it by putting them in myself... ;)--Coin945 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! Just to check, do you mean the reviews added here, or different ones? A couple of the quotes in that edit are from the same reviews as in the above paragraph, but most of them look new :D I'll go through and sort out the few duplicates after the weekend :) Frickative 20:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ohh! i didn't even mean those little one line reviews. There are a couple of really good reviews that were made after you put that paragraph together, not sure where they are now but they came from around the place when i was gathering information to add to the page. I increased the production section a bit. Thanks so much for offering to do that ;) --Coin945 (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S I increased the production section a bit, and tried to add a lot more information to the page as a whole. For Horrible Histories (2001 TV series), i increased the navbox starting with the official one for tv shows and adding in everything i could find. one quick note: what's the different between genre and format? On another note, do you think we should format the 2009 version in a similar way?

P.P.S Can you teach me how to do reception pages properly? I'm in the process of going back to all the shows/games/books of my childhood, such as carmen sandiego, cluefinders, cuberchase, magic school bus... and getting information to make the oages better, but i can never seem to do reception pages properly. It just turns out to be a section from each review, probably with a large-ish quote from the site each, spaced out from each other and not in one cohesve paragraph. Some examples include Carmen Sandiego#Critical Response and Horrible_Science#Reviews and Horrible Geography#Critical Reception. Can you have a look and respond? Thanks :D--Coin945 (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha even looking at the pages now, it's funny how i named each of them a different thing: reviews, critical respose, critical reception ;) --Coin945 (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The new production info looks good - very interesting to read about the upcoming Stephen Fry remake! Re: the infobox, definitely, if there are parameters missed out of the 2009 one, it'd be great to expand it. (One small thing - I think in the 'Chronology' section, if there aren't any shows that preceded or followed it, it's probably intended to be left blank :)). For format/genre, I can't think how to apply it to Horrible Histories off the top of my head - the only examples I can think of are, say, if a show's genre was crime drama, its format might be police procedural. Or if it was reality television, the format might be talent show. Sorry, I know that's not very helpful! And wrt reception sections, sure! Give me a couple of days, and I'll write out a little guide to how I normally approach it :)

One small thing I've noticed is that you use embedded links (like this) to cite sources. Embedded links quite susceptible to linkrot. There are some helpful templates as WP:CITE where all you have to do is fill in the blanks for URL, title etc, and that means there's a higher chance the information can be verified in future, even if the website happens to go dead. Alternatively, if you go into the 'my preferences' section at the top, then the 'Gadgets' tab, from under 'Editing gadgets' you can select an add-on called 'refTools', which lets you fill it all out just by clicking a button on the editing tool bar. That's what I use, and it saves me so much time :D Frickative 03:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

HAHA!! wowww i had no idea you could even do that!! i've just found buttons to allow all these itching things i previously had to just put up with! thanks :)--Coin945 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What does <ref> name mean?-- Coin945 (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem! There's lots of useful stuff there to make editing quicker :D 'Ref name' is for if you want to use to same website as a reference more than once. That way, after the first time you use it, instead of filling out the entire reference all over again, you can shorten it to <ref name="Whatever you called it"/> and it'll automatically link it to the first one :) Frickative 03:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, wow! I've really noticed the difference. I've been dying to make proper references for ages but I thought it was all too confusing to remember all the little bits and bobs... but now it's soo much easier. Thanks :D (damn... i wish there was an emoticon button at the top next to the bold and italics :P)--Coin945 (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Chris Colfer

I was trying to wait for you on MSN for this, but you aren't there, and I thought others might be able to use the laugh too, so...here. =) CycloneGU (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, poor guy! That's hilarious, thank you, I needed a good chuckle :D Frickative 17:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ken Barlow

Hi, I noticed you said that cut and paste should be avoided, I tried moving, but it kept saying it already exists?? --GSorbyDesroid - (Contribs!) 20:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup, it needs an admin to move it in order to preserve the page history. (I think it involves temporarily deleting the target article, but I'm not 100% certain of the process!) I think the move discussion on the talk page should establish consensus before that happens, though. Frickative 20:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

To my fellow Gleek:

Hey, Frick! Do you have a Twitter? ;D 75.68.52.240 (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I do (same as my Wiki u/n) but I never use it. Looking at it now, I have absolutely no idea what my last Tweet was even about, haha. Why do you ask? :) Frickative 01:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Cause I wanna talk Glee! ;D 75.68.52.240 (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Tweeter you! ;D

And yeah, I have no idea what it means either! ;D 75.68.52.240 (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Tweets are things you say on Twitter. When you say something, whether it be a saying or something about what's going on in your life, it's called a "tweet".

I don't "tweet" myself, but I recently saw Stephen Colbert get the "Golden Tweet" award for the most retweeted tweet of the year. The tweet: "In honor of oil-soaked birds, 'tweets' are now 'gurgles.'" Colbert's comment on the show before being presented with the award: "I have harpooned the fail whale!" CycloneGU (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This HAS To Be A First

Glee's first 4 week charter. It featured Gwyneth Paltrow. It's called "Forget You". It's set a Glee charting record.

Also, I stumbled upon a neat surprise this week: two Christmas tunes made the charts. "Baby It's Cold Outside" is #57 and "Welcome Christmas" is #59. Now to only figure out which track that is...I don't see that title on the soundtrack and it's being listed as such in the discography but it's on the show...interesting. CycloneGU (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Okie, I read that it is a separate single. Gotta get that, then. Wondered why it wasn't on the album. Meanwhile, I counted up the column on the discography page; Glee appearances on the Hot 100 is now up to 104 with this week's rankings! CycloneGU (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Nice observation, but the record for most weeks on the Billboard Hot 100 by a Glee song is actually "Don't Stop Believin'", which marked its seventh week upon its re-entry with the release of Glee: The Music, Journey to Regionals. And you are correct about the Hot 100 appearances! Billboard actually reports an update number pretty much every week and the count is sourced at the top of the discography article. They are only four titles away from Elvis' all-time record! :) Yves (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, they have to wait for part two of the season before they'll smash that to smithereens. =) And I forgot that Don't Stop Believin' got counted under the same occurrence for both runs, I found that silly. =O CycloneGU (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well they pretty much are the same song: same arrangement with the biggest change being the key change. Also, some of the performers are different and there's more belting by Amber. Yves (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Glee: The Music, Volume 1

Hey! I was just looking over the GA criteria, and looking at some reviews of other music articles and such, it seems to be that music clips are almost a requirement, as noted by criterion 6 (and its footnote). Since the article is lacking in images (shame we don't have any pictures of the cast performing in concert), I think that's something they might tell us to work on. I was thinking maybe a clip of "Don't Stop Believin'" or "Bust Your Windows", as they were both praised, or perhaps "Lea Michele" to go with the review that felt the album was mostly to showcase her vocals. What do you think? And going back to pictures, maybe we could add one of Cheno? She was featured on two of the tracks as the only featured artist, and we have pictures of her. Maybe I could add in a sentence or two about her involvement? Yves (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good thought re: adding a Cheno image :D I'm sure you know your way around music articles better than I do, so if you think a music clip is appropriate, then by all means. The suggestion came up once much earlier in the year (I think on the discography talk page), but I held off at the time because I was uncertain about writing a rationale. The existing ones I looked at were like File:Michael Jackson - Billie Jean.ogg, which has a strong rationale but obviously isn't something that could be adapted for Glee, because beyond Anders re-arranging tracks, we don't really have (m)any details on the composition etc. But yeah, if we went with one that has a lot of coverage in reception, that should provide a pretty good rationale. I think the track that's mentioned across the most reviews is "You Keep Me Hangin' On", but that would be because the critics uniformly hated it haha. Frickative 21:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That's true (re composition): hmmmm. Well how about I hold off for now with the sound sample until the reviewer requests one (if at all)? I agree with the justifying a good rationale part, and also, I'm not sure how ogg files work. :/ And yeah, it was definitely one of the weaker tracks on the album (and unnecessary, I found). I'll see what I can do to include Cheno. :) Yves (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Coronation Street: 50th anniversary live episode

Just informing you that this has been created. Nowhere near as good as it should be. AnemoneProjectors 18:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I really cba with the 'Four Funerals' article right now, so that's even more of a disincentive, haha. Frickative 22:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't blame you! I figured someone would try to make it though. I merged my entire baby-swap storyline draft into the 2010 EE character list cos I just cba to work on it. I'm trying to write an article for The Nativity but... I cba! AnemoneProjectors 22:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone's requested that it be expanded to the whole week... maybe we should get working on it. I'll help if I can! AnemoneProjectors 17:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks! It looks as though it's heading in the right direction with the current editing going on... what do you think the best thing to do is, move the existing article to 'Four Funerals...' then expand it in the mainspace? Frickative 17:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Might be a better idea to move it and work on it in the mainspace because if it's being edited in two places it'll be harder to merge them afterwards. AnemoneProjectors 17:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Lol, isn't that what I just said? :p Frickative 17:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you asked what I thought the best thing to do was :-P AnemoneProjectors 18:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ach, sorry, I read your last reply totally the wrong way! Facepalm Frickative 18:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha! I never saw that template before :D AnemoneProjectors 19:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Ah, the 'what links here' function revealed your good start on the article. My thoughts are to initially have two articles: one for the the storyline, and one for the live episode. There should be enough reliable sources and material to sustain both. The live episode could concentrate upon the 'liveness' (context, rehearsal, production), mirroring the excellent EastEnders Live article. The broader FW+aF article could concentrate upon the tram crash (CGI, Doctor Who (Collinson/Harper) etc). So, initially, I think the live episode justifies a separate article, but if it becomes obvious that it would be better as one we can merge it later? The JPS^{talk to me} 13:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Initially I wasn't sure about separate articles, because it seems harder to hold up the live episode and Four Funerals week as separate entities than say, the EastEnders episode and Who Killed Archie? storyline, but seeing the way the existing article is developing (which is very well, btw!), I'm inclined to think it is doable. As you say, they could always be merged at a later date if necessary. I'll keep watching the live ep article as it grows and try to avoid duplication/redundancy in the storyline article :) Frickative 20:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What I was thinking was that because the whole week was an anniversary week, and it was all based around a single event, it would probably be better to keep it as one. Like an article for all the episodes, rather than a storyline, which is what Queen Vic Fire Week is. AnemoneProjectors 20:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a very good point too. I don't really know which way to lean, ha. Maybe we should move to the live episode talk page and request wider input from the Corrie WikiProject? Either way, when I get back round to working on the Four Funerals draft, I'll try to start with sections that could work either way, like general background etc. Frickative 20:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Lists of minor Coronation Street characters

Hey :) Thought this discussion might be of interest to you, would love your opinion. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 19:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Glee: The Music, Volume 1

The article Glee: The Music, Volume 1 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Glee: The Music, Volume 1 for things which need to be addressed. Novice7 | Talk 05:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Good job on the fixes. Just one more section to go, I see. I must say, this is the most detailed and interactive review I've ever had :) Novice7 | Talk 17:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Passed! Congrats! Novice7 | Talk 04:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks very much for such a thorough review, it'll definitely be helpful in moving on to the other articles in the series :D Frickative 13:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep up the amazing work on Glee articles. Just remember to follow the correct format. Also, the charts table can follow the format like Glee: The Music, Volume 2 or Glee: The Music, Volume 1. The former is more widely used while the latter is neat. That's all! Good luck on the other articles :) Novice7 | Talk 13:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, I'm late on seeing this one. Congrats on getting this one passed! Also, pop back on MSN sometime, been a while since I got to chat with ya. =) CycloneGU (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving a page

Hey Frickactive

Thought I'd ask and see if you know the answer to this.

I was going to set up a page for Jack Meadows, one of the characters from The Bill. The only thing is the page is currently redirecting to one of the cast list pages. What I was going to do is to take Jack Meadows off redirect, leave a small portion about him on the page that it currently redirects to but leave a pointer to the Jack Meadows page. But because he's currently in a page containing other characters I'm wondering if I can just move part of a page? I really don't know how to do that, the trouble is the only other way I can see is if I copy and paste his section but I know that that can split pages.

Hope that makes sense! Do you have any advice on what I can do? --5 albert square (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If I may....you could just add to the current redirect and expand it out...however, please note Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Bill#Merge_of_The_Bill_Characters, it use to be an article but was redirected, for what I would guess is a failing of WP:Notability/WP:GNG CTJF83 chat 22:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) as well :-) You can't "move" part of a page, you would have to copy and paste, but just leave an edit summary saying "split from [wherever]". Some clever admin could split the history but it would be WAY too complicated, every edit would have to be checked, and someone might have edited two sections at once. AnemoneProjectors 22:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, no worries, that makes sense! If you're splitting from a list article, it's okay to just copy the part you need, as long as you leave "split content to Jack Meadows" and "split content from List of The Bill characters (M-P)" in the relevant edit summaries. You can also use {{Copied}} on the talk pages so the attribution remains clear in future. (Oh dear, I shouldn't have been so slowwww, but thanks for helping Ctjf and AP :D) Frickative 22:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Hi Ctjf83, yup thanks for that. Don't worry I am going to expand it before I move it, the character was in the programme some 20 odd years, so I shouldn't have much trouble doing that. I'm surprised the article is as short as it is! I might even consider creating in userspace first of all before moving any of it to mainspace. Kinda like what AP did with the Queen Vic Fire Week. AP - thanks for that. I didn't think I could move just part of a page but because Wikipedia don't like copy and paste moves I did wonder if I was missing something. Frickactive - thanks I will try and remember to put that in the edit summary :) --5 albert square (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Glee fix-up: "Journey to Regionals"

Hello, I see you are a member of the Glee task force here, and have made numerous edits to Glee-related articles. So, I was wondering if you could help me with something. Recently, I believe, the article link for the first season finale, "Journey", was changed to Journey to Regionals (Glee episode). I want some help in changing all links in Glee-related articles that link to or mention the episode to the current title. I believe I have fixed the majority, if not all, of the links and mentions. Would you help me in fixing these links and mentions? - Cartoon Boy (talk) 21:44, 3 January, 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'm very happy to help, but when the article was moved from "Journey" to "Journey to Regionals" earlier, it was actually incorrectly disambiguated - it should just be (Glee) in parentheses, not (Glee episode). I've added a template to Journey to Regionals (Glee) so hopefully an admin will fix it soon, but it might be worth holding off the fixes until it's sorted? I'll be glad to double check they're all correct once it's done :) Thanks for fixing all the old Brittany links, too! Frickative 22:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I did your page move for you :D AnemoneProjectors 23:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

But do you know what, I'd be tempted to locate the episode article at Journey to Regionals and add a hatnote to the top of the page for the EP. AnemoneProjectors

Thank you AP! Ugh, I don't know where my brain is today, but you're right, it actually doesn't need the disambig at all. I should probably just add Facepalm to my signature now. Frickative 00:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed the original move request was to move it to Journey to Regionals, shall I do it? AnemoneProjectors 01:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be great, thank you, sorry to have just created more work for you! Frickative 18:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• That seems fine to me. Man, this is the one thing I hate about article titles changing, you're left trying to fix everything. I'll see if I can find any other links that need fixing. Perhaps I'll consider joining the Glee WikiProject. I look forward to working with you, Frick. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you've signed up, and looking forward to working with you too! I don't know if you're aware of WP:AWB, but it has a function that lets you find and replace links etc. within a specific category of articles, so quite useful for this sort of thing. I used to have it on my old laptop, but I might download it again because it'd be quite handy here. Frickative 18:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think I've fixed all the links now. I'm not sure, though. Perhaps someone could check and get back to me. That WP:AWB does seem like a good tool to use. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff! I'll download AWB later and have a check through :) (Also, I've just noticed you adding your name to the task force participants list, so goodness only knows what I was talking about at the start of my last message, but good to have you on board all the same!) Frickative 14:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but truthfully, the title of the episode was simply "Journey". The title of the EP was "Journey to Regionals". So whoever changed that, I believe, didn't make a correct change. I've commented further at the episode talk page. CycloneGU (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the vand reverts to my talk page! I appreciate it! :-D CTJF83 chat 00:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Pity there are so many sad idiots about with far too much time on their hands. Frickative 14:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's my dear friend User:Brucejenner. Hopefully I'll be an admin soon, so I can block him myself :) CTJF83 chat 20:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Dot Branning

Hi Frick, do you rmemeber some time ago we had a discussion about whether or not the image of Ali McGowan dressed as Dot should stay in the article. And you found a source that would allow us to extend the coverage on this? Any idea where we had that discussion and what the source is as I cant find it on the talk page.GunGagdin^Moan 06:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey! I've found the discussion in one of my talk page archives, but God knows what I was talking about (I really don't know why I suggest keeping the 2DTV image and then talk about the McGowan one instead haha). I think the Guardian source must be the one already in the article, where there's only one relevant paragraph: "She has become such a national treasure that Alistair McGowan has spoofed her. He reckons the impersonation is all in the neck: 'a bit like a tortoise … coming out and going back in again'." ...Really not that useful, sorry! I've just searched for anything else that might be useable though, and you might get a few sentences out of:

• The Dot impersonation originating in the 2000 Impressions special
• McGowan on the special: "People's jaws just dropped when I walked out of make-up wearing Dot's wig. This show's about the important people and events that have featured throughout the year."
• On how it was Ronni Ancona's suggestion that he do Dot
• "My favourite is Dot Cotton because I look a bit like her."
• Dot and Nick played as Steptoe and Son
• Dot included in his An Evening With... stand-up show
• as well as his Variety Club Awards act - review: "Alastair McGowan went through his increasingly tiring EastEnders repertoire. Hasn't he Dot Cottoned on that we are getting bored of it?"

More reviews:

• Poor old Dot Cotton (June Brown) has somehow turned into Alistair McGowan - and he does a better job of impersonating the character than June Brown does of playing her. Dot has become a panto version of herself - all raised eyebrows and pert lips. Her whirlwind romance with Jim is a nice touch after years of hurt at the hands of her son, nasty Nick. But without her bad boy son, Dot has gone as far as she can go. The euthanasia storyline with Ethel should have been the final scene of a double act which went back to the beginning of EastEnders. Whenever Dot comes on you can't help but think of McGowan.
• Back with a second series, McGowan mixes and matches the above. His most sublime impressions - Richard Madeley, Dot Cotton/Harold Steptoe, Jimmy Savile - elevate even the weakest lines.
• McGowan brilliantly captures the likes of Richard Madeley - spookily so - and his Dot Cotton is better than the real thing.
• the show was saved by the final sketch - EastEnders: The Musical. Among many gems were Pat Evans singing I Feel Pretty, Beppe with I Was Born Under A Wandering Star, and Dot Cotton's version of On The Street Where You Live.
• The best sketch involved Dot and Nick Cotton acting like Steptoe and Son. Frickative 13:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow thank you. I am going to copy and past these links on to Dot's talk page so I dont lose them. GunGagdin^Moan 14:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Frickz - wondered if you wanted to show your support for any particular option here: WT:EE#Durations. AnemoneProjectors 19:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Glee: The Music, Journey to Regionals

Hey, how are you doing! Haven't really talked in a bit: hope you had a great new year and holiday season! You probably saw Glee: The Music, The Power of Madonna got promoted to GA not too long ago, thanks to my friend Legolas. I guess he's a Gleek now and also a huge Madonna fan, and his help was solid and very much appreciated, and brings us closer to GT! :D I'd like to ask you what you think of Glee: The Music, Journey to Regionals? I'm thinking that could be one I nominate next for GA. I'll probably make some final touches to it, but I think it's about ready. Yves (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, yeah it's been a while! I had a nice quiet holiday period with the family, thanks, hope you had a good one too! I saw the great work Legolas did on the Madonna EP article, a totally well-deserved GA. It's pretty cool that nearly two years after the show launched, we're finally only 3 articles away from a GT. Good stuff! Journey to Regionals looks in fantastic shape, I agree it's pretty much ready for a GA nom whenever you're ready for it :) Frickative 23:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow omg I don't know how I forgot Mike O'Malley was regular cast: thanks for reverting. And I'll get to finishing touches for Journey to Regionals (feel free to contribute if you like)! :) Yves (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL no worries, I figured it was a momentary lapse, easy enough to forget! Frickative 19:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Rouass

My apologies re: IMDB. I reverted your revert under WP:RSEX and then had a second thought, that RSEX might refer only to inline sources. I was aware of WP:EXT. It is one of those really grey areas but I can't be bothered arguing the toss either way. If anyone is daft enough to believe the rubbish on there then that's their look-out I guess :) Sorry for messing you about. Sitush (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries! My understanding is that IMDb is okay as an external link because it's not being used to verify anything specific, so standards aren't quite as rigorous as for inline cites. Good work on the article in general, btw, I hadn't realised how many BLP issues there were before today! Frickative 19:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think most of the BLP was in a couple of sentences. As it stands now the article is still dodgy on the personal life issue because it says that she left Primeval due to being a single parent but there is no mention of a split from Khan in the Personal Life section. However, I don't think we can go around making unsubstantiated comments about her relationship status, eg: she may have reconciled with Khan once again since the interview about leaving Primeval (indeed, when was that interview actually conducted, as opposed to printed? - with TV filming lead-times as they are, she may have been referring to the split in 2007). In any event, I was just doing a bit of tidying up and really have no knowledge of what she did/does nor any particular interest in the content of News of the World stories & gossip mags etc. Someone who is into all that can pick up where I've left off and find verifiable cites. I hope! Sitush (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Article:Mark Sloan

I don't mean to sound rude or threatening but, Unborn children are entitled to be included in the Infobox, as are a brief phrase about the character's relationship status to a significant other. Therefore, I undid your last revision. Please don't undo mine. Amandaxpandax14 (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

On what basis are they entitled, though? There was a very recent discussion at the template page which concluded that unnamed persons shouldn't be listed - perhaps you'd like to revive it if you disagree with consensus? As I said in my edit summary (I think I probably reverted a moment or two before you messaged me, sorry about that), separating relationships into present unions, ex-girlfriends etc. contravenes WP:IN-U - the infobox should, as far as possible, be relevant to the character's time in the show as a whole, not just at this moment in time. Frickative 22:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Defaultsort

A reminder that DEFAULTSORT is a magic word, not a template or a category tag, and uses a colon, not a pipe. For example: {{DEFAULTSORT|Leroy, Paul}} is not correct; {{DEFAULTSORT:Leroy, Paul}} is correct. —Paul A (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Skimming my contribs from that evening, it looks as though I started off using a colon and changed to a pipe midway through sorting - probably a copy/paste error. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I'll rectify that now. Frickative 08:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey!

I thought you said you were gonna be back on MSN soon. =)

NEway, posting here to point out something I didn't know about. Look at this particular British compilation and see what is listed at track 12. Then notice the original on the second disc. *chuckle* Thinking this might be worth mentioning in the appropriate article if it's not already. =)

(Yves, if you are lurking, feel free to look at well.) CycloneGU (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha, that's great, thanks for linking me! If I recall correctly, some time last Christmas we had both the Glee version and Journey original within the top 5 in the UK at the same time, which was pretty neat.

(I've been on MSN on and off the past couple of days, but I'm keeping pretty odd hours atm. I'm about to get some shut eye so I'll be awake for the SuperBowl episode later - hopefully I'll catch you then if you're around :D) Frickative 19:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Odd hours? Being up until 7 a.m. isn't odd enough? =D CycloneGU (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Heatherminty.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Heatherminty.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Billboard Hot 100

Oh my Goodness: take a look at the third page of this article! Glee is just one entry away from matching Elvis' record, and with the tracks from "Silly Love Songs" set to chart, this is so exciting for the cast! And the last sentence: "Billboard.com will provide extensive coverage of the milestone next week." Hopefully they will have updated sales figures and other facts, which is so exciting! Just wanted to let you know! [In other news, the Billboard Hot 100 is set to have its 1000th number-one song next week, which is exciting in itself, but it's also interesting the they considered a Glee track a possible contender.] :D Yves (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow, that's fantastic, thanks for linking me! It's pretty crazy to think that the show hasn't even been going for two years yet, and is already on the verge of achieving something so huge. Looking forward to seeing what Billboard put together on it, hopefully lots of usable stuff :D (Btw, did you see the news that Ashley Fink has been added to the tour lineup? I need to get tickets even more now, haha!) Frickative 00:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Late seeing this one; I have been waiting for this milestone, and Billboard planning to celebrate it means they already know at least two songs are striking. I will be reviewing the Hot 100 quickly 2morrow morning, methinks. =) CycloneGU (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

WHERE ARE YOU?

I have an awesome exclusive from teen.com for you. =D

Preview of Tik Tok as we previously chatted about while looking at the Wikia article. Turns out teen.com got it, and I'm listening to it as I type. =D CycloneGU (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Glee

Hi, I'm Candyo32. I don't think we've talked before, but I'm contacting you because I believe you to be the so Glee "guru" of Wikipedia. I usually edit, expand and GA-nominate music articles, but I just decided to join the Glee task force after being sick and deciding to watch a marathon of seven or eight episodes of the series. As I see the episode parts is covered, sometime in the future I would like to expand some of the character pages, of the ones I like such as Santana and Finn. Anyway, I see you usually work/expand on episodes right after they have aired, and this week's episode is set to feature music from Justin Bieber. I work heavily on the Bieber articles on Wikipedia, and have completed eleven good articles under his umbrella. So I was wondering if I could collaborate with you on the "Comeback" article, if that is okay. Thanks! Candyo32 02:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, great to have you on board! Collaborating on "Comeback" would be super - I'm finding that this season, there's so much media coverage of each episode it's getting hard to keep on top of it all, so sharing the work out would be really great. There's usually a pretty even split between commentary on the episode itself and on the music within it - writing about music tends to be my weakest area, so your expertise would be more than welcome! It would also be fab to see some of the character articles expanded :D I'll get a stub outline of "Comeback" up, and then we can discuss anything that requires it over on the talkpage :) Frickative 12:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Its all up to what you think is best, since I'm new at this lol. I had just been posting some reviews of the episode itself, then posting some of the music as I came across them. Candyo32 15:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so do you want to concentrate on reception of the episode and me do the music? Btw, I added the Time magazine review, but it seems overly long, so you could condense it if you see as such. Candyo32 15:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Another thing is, usually with music articles I just list reception by reviewers, but I see that with the Glee eps it is more of by the song/plot and what critics thought about, rather. So I'm trying a little now, but if not you could go back and like re-arrange the info, if you get what I'm saying. Candyo32 15:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll get all the information down, then try to put by song, just to keep with consistency with the other articles. And is it ok if with the music-centric articles you gave me that if they have something thrown in about the reception of the episode, add it in to the critical reception? Candyo32 15:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok hows the Music sec looking so far? Good or going on too much? Candyo32 15:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me so far! I still have to view the ep. but I'm in shock that Sue takes over Aural Intensity; she must really hate Will to take over a rival GLEE club. So she doesn't hate the Glee club itself that much, that is hilarious. CycloneGU (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha, agreed there Cyclone! (I've still only seen half of it, but I've pretty much spoiled myself by reading a dozen+ reviews already, doy.) Frickative 16:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The article looks great so far, if I do say so myself. Haha. I'll finish the "Music" section up soon. I also began on the lead, and will expand on that when I finish up all the music stuff. I'm sure you could re-org/re-write it as the Glee expert. Lol. Also I could do some of the Plot or kind of get an idea, then you go back through it. I found a screenshot, I was hoping I could get one better with all of their faces visible, maybe another will turn up soon. I wish there was a free image of Chord Overstreet we could use in the plot. No one else really has a standout plot, so what about using Mark Sailing and the caption talking about him joining the Bieber tribute band to get Lauren? Also I'd just like to say it has been a pleasure working on this so far, and although this is mostly due to my Justin Bieber efforts (hopefully I can get a task force started one day), if another Glee ep sparks my interest one day, I hope we can do it again! Candyo32 22:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You should be able to start that task force. Is that a complicated procedure? Frickative was, I think, the starter of the Glee task force; maybe she can give you pointers? CycloneGU (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

@CycloneGU I don't think it should be that hard, but I think it may be a problem in not many people contribute much to his articles. I've done eleven Bieber GA's and I've only collaborated with someone else on one of them. And when a proposal came up for Taylor Swift, it was noted that her articles were decent enough and organized not to have one, so I don't know. @Frick Ok, the music is about done, and I organized it like the other GA's by the musical number. I also renamed it "Music and performances" as in alot of reviews talk about the comparison to Bieber's video, and Lauren's performance itself rather than the vocals. It seems a bit huge, so prune it a bit if you like. I'm a bit wordy when I write, so it more than likely can be trimmed. lol. Also this article might could be used in the reception, it calls Sue in the hospital one of the most touching scenes on the show has ever set. Candyo32 00:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you weigh in on the bottom of Talk:Santana Lopez, just to verify what the IP is saying. Thanks, CTJF83 22:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Tonite's Glee

How good is your memory of it? I'm on MSN if you need details, but if you didn't see it yet, I won't spoil it. =) CycloneGU (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Comeback (Glee)

The DYK project (nominate) 06:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Volume 5

I already commented at Yves' page, so no need to have separate discussions. Just letting you know I've kicked it off, so you can start doing the magic there too. We have a legitimate source (but as yet no source for the cover, though I'm sure even tommy2.net can't screw THAT up *LOL*). =) CycloneGU (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

MSN

Don't ask. Get on when you read this. You may be pleasantly surprised. =) CycloneGU (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DonnaJackson.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DonnaJackson.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Stalking - I have researched the cause of this for you. Kobio (yes, that is a redlink) has taken the liberty to remove the image from the Donna Jackson article replacing it with another one uploaded only four days ago. I'll let you judge whether it's considered more recent and thus more deserving to be in the infobox as I am not familiar with the article; I just was bored and wanted to help out.

I still have that thing for you on MSN later, but I'm going to bed shortly as I type this, so maybe sometime Monday evening my time for that. =) CycloneGU (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for looking into it! Sorry I haven't been around, typical end of the month mania trying to hit my targets. Thankfully, deadline's 12am GMT tonight, so I'll either be around later, or tomorrow for definite if I crash from exhaustion :) Frickative 20:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Queen Vic Fire Week/GA1

Hi, I was wondering if you could help me out with a few of the issues brought up. Especially the lead, because I'm terrible at writing leads. And maybe the plot if you feel like it, though I don't mind having a go at that later. The thing about the citations in the lead is because I couldn't find anywhere else to put who wrote the episodes! Would really appreciate anything you can help with :-) –AnemoneProjectors– 08:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure! I'll give the lead a go soon, then skim through the plot and see if anything jumps out that could be trimmed. For the writers, maybe you could use the target pages as general references rather than inline citations, or have a 2-col External links section pointing to the BBC Programmes pages? Hmm, I'll read it all back through to refresh myself soon and see if there's anywhere more organic they might slot in. Frickative 16:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! –AnemoneProjectors– 16:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help! The article passed :-) The Highbeam ref won't go dead now will it? –AnemoneProjectors– 21:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, and yay for it passing! You wrote a great article :D Highbeam should be okay, I think it's something to do with it being subscription and Find Articles being free, but I might be making that up. Frickative 22:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Neighbours

Hi, just saw your comment at AfD about the reliable sources for Neighbours writers and directors. And as you said, there are only fansites around or IMDb. If only Neighbours was still on the BBC! I would quite happily welcome something like this, but even getting ratings info is difficult (except for high and low numbers, the papers love them). I did have a look for the Aussie equivalent of BARB and got completely lost. I don't think the source used in the 2011 ratings list is enough on its own as it's a blog. Anyway, nice work with the Glee articles. I always think about getting involved, but there's a good team around already. :) - JuneGloom Talk 23:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I thought that might be the case, but I figured it was worth asking in case there was something out there my search wasn't turning up. I didn't realise the source used there now was to a blog, that definitely makes it even harder to defend. I know what you mean about OzTam though, talk about a PITA to navigate. And re: Glee, thanks! Any time at all you feel like dipping in, it'd be great to have you. Frickative 01:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Holby

I'll put this here. I just had a quick scan through some old inside soap to see if anymore had any quotes from actors, but most are just insidesoap doing an episode summary. I included the Betty Driver interview too, I hope you don't mind. I wrote the issue dates, p no's etc, to make it easier.

• Will Thorp - Inside Soap issue 5, 17 - 30 December 2005, Page 20. (Author of this article is 'Claire Brand')
• Chrissie and Oliver - Inside Soap issue 28, 11 - 17 July 2009, page 35.
• Linden's exit - Inside soap issue 40, 9-15 October 2010, pages 34 & 35.
• Laila Rouass - Inside soap issue 6, 12 - 18 February 2011, page 37.
• Barry Sloane - Inside Soap issue 52, 1-7 January 2011, Page 41.
• Betty Driver - TV Times issue 4, 29 - 4 February 2011, page 7.

Here's the DL link - [1]RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 01:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so so much! Ah, this is such a massive help, you're brilliant :D I'd 100% forgotten about Betty, but this has reminded me I need to watch the documentary and get working on that, too, so thanks yet again! Frickative 02:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It's okay, if there is anyone else you want me to look for, like from any soap I'll see what I have. :)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 14:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops, missed this one when I replied above earlier. Thanks for the offer! I'm not actively working on much soapy at the moment, but if you happen to get hold of this week's Inside Soap at any point, the Jaye Jacobs interview would be really useful for the Donna Jackson rewrite I'm working on. Cheers! :D Frickative 21:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It's Jaye Jacobs. [2] Inside Soap issue 9, 5-11 March 2011, p 40.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 21:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Now I can get that one finished off, hurray :D Frickative 22:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Chart history" sections

Sure thing! I'll take a look at the section right now. As for an answer to your second query, singles released from "The Sue Sylvester Shuffle" were actually an exception for Glee, as the episode aired (and the singles were released on) Sunday. Taking a look at the article for the Billboard Hot 100, one can see that those four singles would have only had one day of sales tracked for the tracking week, so only Sunday's sales were counted. I think it's safe to assume singles see their best sales following broadcast, so most sales would take place Sunday night and later, which goes into the next tracking week. This is contrasted to regular Glee episodes, where singles get a full six days of sales tracked, and chart higher than the ones from "The Sue Sylvester Shuffle" did. I actually think the tracks from the episode were the first ones to all climb after their début weeks. (Though I know songs like "Bad Romance" climbed because Volume 3 Showstoppers was released one week before "Theatricality".) But I digress. Of course I'll take a look and get back to you. :) Yves (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm I didn't realize it was its own level 2 section. There's certainly enough information for this episode with the chart climbs, but I don't think we will see the same for other ones. (Though "Forget You" did chart an impressive six non-consecutive weeks on the Canadian Hot 100!) I'm thinking of episodes where we've seen up to seven singles, and with the five main countries Glee tracks tend to chart on, that may be bordering on WP:INDISCRIMINATE for the article and perhaps better left to the discography. And just a heads-up: Glee returns next week in Ireland, so expect more charting. If you like, I could add it to the article when it happens. And you could have asked me: I would have been more than happy to help! :) All in all, it's looking pretty good, and I don't think there should be any problems when it comes to GAN. I suppose the wording isn't that interesting, but there isn't very many different ways of saying "entered" or "debuted"—trust me; I know. :P But overall, great job! :) Yves (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much! It never occurred to me that the singles must have been released on a different day than usual, but that certainly explains why there was so much chart movement. I know what you mean about episodes with a lot of releases - it felt like poor prose to be writing '"Bills, Bills, Bills" entered at...' etc. so many times, so undoubtedly it would have been worse if there were twice as many to detail. And definitely, if the singles don't tend to climb then there's no point just rehashing the discography. As for it being a level 2 section... lol, basically I just didn't know where to put it. I could have moved 'Music' to a level 2 header and had charts as a subsection, but then there'd be the perennial problem of the majority of 'Music' being reception and ugh. I'm sure a consistent layout will fall into place one day. And thanks, that would be great if you could add the Irish charts when they're out! Haha, it's taken me so long to get round to finishing it off, I would have felt really rude turning up at your talk page all 'Hey, you know that article I've been ignoring for a month? Could you go write a whole section of it please? :D' Frickative 15:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Hummel

Hey, Frickative. I've put some work into Kurt Hummel's article. I want to see it reach GA status. What do you think it might need to get it up there? You are the glee guru, and I would really value your input. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, it's looking really good! It's great to have someone polishing up the character articles :) I'll give it a thorough read through tomorrow when I have more free time, but off the top of my head, one thing it could do with is some development on Kurt's relationship with his dad. I'm not sure how useful this will be, but I recall that last year, the Los Angeles Times ran an article about how the Kurt-Burt relationship was based on (or inspired by?) Ryan Murphy's relationship with his father. That would probably be a good starting point. If a Google search doesn't turn it up, I'll try and find it tomorrow :) Frickative 20:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. ;) I love writing character articles. I'll see if I can dig up some stuff on their relationship. HorrorFan121 (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, would you mind if I opened up another move request for Rachel's article? HorrorFan121 (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind at all and fully support it, but I'm surprised to log on to see a string of opposes. I get the feeling I'm about to spend the next half hour crafting a lengthy explanation for my support! Frickative 16:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting it. To be honest, I'm surprised. You provided a great explanation though. Also, thanks for the jump ahead on Kurt's article. I needed to start digging up some more sources for it. HorrorFan121 (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! I didn't except to spend so long going over the Kurt article, so sorry it looks a bit of a mess now, haha. Hopefully that should help with making it sufficiently broad in coverage but still tightly focussed, though, and I'll try and help out as much as I can - if I remember to, I'll expand the accolades bit later on. Also, I think this is the article I was thinking of yesterday - skimming it, there seems to be quite a lot of good stuff in there on the early development :) Frickative 22:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, looks like more people are supporting the idea. The supports are outweighing the opposes now. HorrorFan121 (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff! It's hard to call which way it will go at the moment - might end in another 'no consensus' close - but hopefully the !votes based in policy will be given due weight :) Frickative 21:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you think we could use this as a source for Rajish? (Skip to around 1:00) [3] Can't Hulu videos be used as sources? HorrorFan121 (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I put some more work into the article. What do you think? HorrorFan121 (talk) 07:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, are you still going to add to the accolades section? That's the only section that really needs to be expanded. HorrorFan121 (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ack, I'm so sorry, I totally missed both your previous messages. I need to get into the habit of checking my page history, not just clicking through from the orange bar. 1. I can't actually check that source because it's blocked outside the US, but Hulu videos certainly can be used. Maybe you could add a quote parameter to the reference template and quote a snippet of whatever they say about Rajish, just so non-US editors can easily verify it? It's not a requirement, just a suggestion :) 2. Wow, I reverted an edit at the article earlier but didn't notice at all how much it had expanded. Reading it now, I can't believe how much you've gotten done in just a couple of days! It's looking in fantastic shape - seriously, great work. 3. Sure! I got sidetracked with another project, but I'll get it done this evening :) Frickative 20:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done! Frickative 21:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! ;) I love crafting character articles on here. Do you think it might be GA standard? I should probably request a copy edit at the Guild of copy editors just to check for any mistakes in grammatical issues I might have made. I also really appreciate you finishing off the accolades section. HorrorFan121 (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem! I think you'd get on fine with it at GA - now that it's been expanded, I actually think it's more comprehensive than the Rachel article, so it's definitely in good stead. I don't know how long the copy editors guild typically take to respond to requests, but I'd be happy to check through it for any SPAG issues (though, as ever when I say these things, I'm prone to forgetting five minutes later, so I'll do my best to remember :P). Frickative 22:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. ;) If you're willing to run through it for issues that would be great! HorrorFan121 (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thought you deserved this. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thanks for all your help with Kurt's article. I'm very appreciative. Also, thanks for all your contributions to all the other Glee related articles. You rock! HorrorFan121 (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! You're more than welcome for the help with Kurt, you've done great work on it and will hopefully soon have another well-deserved GA on your hands :D Frickative 01:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Steph Cunningham

That's right, I never noticed your comment because of messages after. Does that mean you are going to do a second review? =D I've had more grief about it today lol. .. Weird too, I just clicked edit to reply to your comment on WP Soap Opera, when your new message popped up. 0_0RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 23:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hee! I think because the first review is so long and intricate, and I've only ever reviewed half a dozen or so GAs, I don't really feel confident enough to offer a second opinion, but from this I'm inferring that the original reviewer's main issues are length and a need for paraphrasing quotes? I think I could definitely condense the storylines down without (hopefully!) losing essentials, and paraphrasing more is something I've been working on a lot lately, so it'd be a good opportunity to practice. Then again, I've just seen that someone's offered to start up a second review, so maybe it would be better to wait and see where that goes before making any substantial changes? Hmm, I keep trying to read the original review to get a grasp of what's outstanding, but there's so much to it that it ends up a bit hard to follow... Sorry you've had such a tough time with this one, but yeah, if I can help out at all then I'd like to :D Frickative 01:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay I'd love the storyline section to be condensed. I didn't write that part anyway, just changed tense. Cut a lot of it out once. there is still a lot of crap in there though. :P Wizardman opened up and entire new review instead of a second opinion, I just hope the eventual reviewer notices that. lolRAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 01:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ohhh, I misunderstood Wizardman's comment on the original review then, I thought he meant he was about to do it himself. In that case, I'll just dive in now :D Frickative 01:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You've done a good job condensing it down, the part about Max, who ever wrote it seemed to add it episode by episode.. Glad that you kept the part about the inherited donkey, there is a page mention from Jim Shelley that mentiones it. lol Maybe something about Zara Morgan though, they did everything together for their first five years.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 14:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, go right ahead and add it back in if she was important :) I tried to cut out bits related to people who were only mentioned once, but I know I generalised a couple of Zara and Abby references to just 'her friends' for brevity, so that's probably why I ended up taking it out the second time I went through. Haha, it was a bit of an odd one with the Max stuff - 7 full paragraphs on that relationship, and then in comparison, 5 sentences on Gilly. Could definitely tell there were different editors at work there! Frickative 17:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I got it failed and renominated because the I felt the reviewers was hacking out too much info.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 13:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair dues, I hope you have better luck next time! I was planning on going through the other sections I haven't looked at yet and giving it a little bit of a copyedit - do you want me to hold off and see how the next review goes? Frickative 16:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's a copy edit yeah. Like actually do what you think's best though, not what that review said. (Sad fact, I was swearing at the PC half the time I read that GAR) I know you can do super stuff with a character articles, so I trust it will come out better.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 18:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, that's what I meant. I didn't make it all the way through reading the review, because it was quite difficult to tell what had been done and what was outstanding, but I was a bit puzzled by the request to remove her co-star's insight on a shared storyline because he wasn't an independent source... Oh well, onwards and upwards! Frickative 18:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

OMG. Wow at Steph's article, it amazing. How did you come across those sources? I typed carly stenson into google archive search and came to a stop at 30 odd sources... The Anthony Quinlan image too. :D I found some Cameron, Max and Niall info in old inside soaps I need to add.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 21:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, thank you! Because info for Holby characters is so hard to find, I've got into the habit of literally checking all the national papers, one by one. I was surprised by how much I turned up, though! There's also The Free Library, an archive site Gungadin introduced me to ages ago, which is fantastic for finding older stuff, and useful info from the regional papers. Ooh, more info on Cameron/Max/Niall sounds great - do you think that combined with the Max stuff already in there, there'd be enough for a 'Relationships' subsection? Just, not all of the Max parts atm are strictly characterisation, and I've got a couple more sources to add on the Dean family that might not naturally fit there either, though I'll try and slant it that way. Btw, do you know who the actress in this is? If she doesn't have a free image already, I'll crop her and add it to Commons. Frickative 22:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oooo, that's Zoe Lister aka Oaks' Zoe Carpenter. She needs one too. =D I can never find any! (Infact I've been hounding someone on Flickr and staff at contactmusic, plus Mr. Paparazzi - to donate a Melissa Walton image, but they won't...) So if there are anymore you find. ;) .. Btw that's a good idea, I'll add the other bit now, but feel free to edit it to fit which ever theme you go for - but I have tried to keep it brief with what I just added about Cameron. I've noticed a slight error in the casting, the article does claim Steph to be longest serving female, but it meant in the serial at the time. Because SJ Dunn who plays Mandy Richardson did 9 and a half years when she left in 2006 - compared to Stenson's 7 in 2007. (Obviously by November last year Stenson was in the serial five months longer than Dunn.. who's now returned again.) Confusing.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 23:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ace, I'll get that up on Commons and in the actress' ibox ASAP - I'll keep a look out for others, too :D Hmm, that is confusing, but as the source article says "on Hollyoaks" rather than "from Hollyoaks", I guess that's an acceptable enough distinction to amend the article with "longest-serving female cast member at the time", or "current longest-serving female cast member", something like that. Frickative 23:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Inside Soap say "If there was an award for the unluckiest character in soap, Hollyoaks' Steph would certainly win" - Is that better for reception than characterisation? Also I noticed that some character and actor wikilinks are repeated in the storylines, I should rectify that right?RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 00:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, I think that could work in either section, but it would probably fit best either immediately before or after Jim Shelley's (brilliant) comments, as they both drive at the same point :D And yup, the links don't really need repeating - the majority are probably my fault, sorry, I was going to go through and check for overlinking when I finished up, but I've been a bit slow editing this evening. I just added that image to Zoë Lister though :D Frickative 00:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		It does not come more original than this - Steph Cunningham - A Hollyoaks article with so much OOU, sourced and quality content. Hands down the best one. You have the golden touch!RAIN*the*ONE BAM 03:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I bet you could take part in a Steph quiz and win now, aye?RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 03:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Aww, thank you very very much! It was my pleasure to help - and actually really fun to see how much work I could put into a character I knew nothing about (plus, what a character. I got to the serial killer part, blinked, thought it couldn't get any more bizarre than that - and then the donkey plot came along!) I really hope it sails through its next GA review :D Frickative 03:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

So glad she has passed this time. But I didn't doubt it would. Another GA to your giant list of works. :)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 05:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh that's fantastic, I'm so pleased it got on fine this time :D It was great working alongside you, we should do it again sometime! Frickative 23:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Nom

I know you and myself basically wrote the "Comeback" article, but I see where some other use has nominated it for GA... Candyo32 03:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I was about to drop you a message about that - I was considering asking DAP388 if they'd mind withdrawing the nom just for now... I'm trying to give it a bit of a copy edit, but I know that the "Critical response" section I wrote definitely needs a fair bit of whittling down and refining. I'd probably prefer to do that without the pressure of an imminent review, but what do you think? Frickative 03:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Also the GA page says only people who have significantly contributed to the article and DAP388 hasn't. Candyo32 03:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that was a requirement now, but that's good :) I'll drop them a message and ask. Frickative 03:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is now for GAN and FACs, only significant contributors should nominate, especially if they haven't contributed to the article. Candyo32 03:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Just let me know if any issues need to be handled for Comeback :) Candyo32 23:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure! I'm going to try and give it a thorough read-through in the next few days, so I'll get back to you then :) Frickative 10:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Please weigh in here Thanks, CTJF83 18:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Image

Hey. Thanks for adding your input on the non-free image discussion. I did some searching and I found a potential image. Do you think if I expanded on Kurt's importance of fashion we could use an image such as: [4]? (cropped and resized of course) HorrorFan121 (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no problem :) I've been thinking about it for a while today, and I think the best bet might be to use an image with an outfit that can be discussed in the article, as a specific example of his fashion/style. I haven't had chance to search too much, but as an example of what I'm talking about, this article examines his Alexander McQueen-inspired "Rose's Turn" outfit, so a screenshot of that outfit has some potential. The very best thing would be if we could find an outfit with commentary from Lou Eyrich, the costume designer, on why she chose it for Kurt. The closest I've found so far is her talking about one of his scarves, which obviously isn't as good as a full outfit. She did this for 10 of Emma's outfits, so something like that for Kurt would be great - I'll keep searching. In the meantime, these few Eyric interviews have bits and pieces relevant to Kurt, that might help with expanding on the importance of his clothing. Frickative 19:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. I uploaded the new image before reading this. My mistake. Thanks for those sources, they'll come in handy.. HorrorFan121 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to try to add some new info into the "Characterization" section soon with those sources. Hopefully, this will help justify the image rationale. I think Rachel's is justifiable as well. HorrorFan121 (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The article passed, and is now a GA. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Great job, well done! Really nice start on Blaine Anderson too :D One quick thing - I know the Billboard source says Criss was signed as a regular for s2/3, but he actually denied that later in the week the story broke. I'm in a rush right now so I can't dig up the links, but there was a discussion about it on the talkpage of Glee (TV series) (with links to relevant articles IIRC.) Frickative 18:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! ;) As for the series regular part, my mistake. I read the section about it on the talk page and removed the part about him becoming a regular. I found this link of an interview with MTV where he confirmed that the rumors were false [5]. HorrorFan121 (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You've got...

well, I don't think there's a template for "I've just tweeted you". But I have. :-) –AnemoneProjectors– 23:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

All Right...

...make the call, who is dying? =) CycloneGU (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Argh, missed this before, sorry! I'm sticking with all the spoilers so far, and Pavarotti. Poor birdie. Will come on MSN in a minute if you're on :) Frickative 22:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about Kurt Hummel

I have a lot to learn about how categories work. I should have realized many more gays were missing from that page.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no worries! I had a really similar confusion not too long ago, when "Preggers" was removed from Category:LGBT-related television episodes because Glee is already in Category:American LGBT-related television programs. It's an easy mistake to make :) Frickative 21:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A Holby Present

They must love Holby now.

Dan Hamilton - Inside Soap issue 7, date 19-25 Feb 2011, page 35

Oliver Valentine - Inside Soap issue 10, date 12-18 March, page 38

Jac Naylor - Inside Soap issue 11, date 19-25 March, page 37

Link - [6]RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 13:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thank you so much! I'd been considering asking if you had the new issue with the Rosie Marcel interview (co-incidentally, I just started re-writing Jac Naylor), but I didn't want to be cheeky after you scanned so many for me the other week. I didn't even know about the others - odd how much Holby there's been lately, but I hope it continues! Huge thanks again! :D Frickative 13:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Jacob Black real world perspective

A few years ago, you added an in-universe tag to the Jacob Black page. Could you take a moment to look it over and decide whether or not we still need the template up? Thanks! Roseclearfield (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I think it would be fine to remove the template now; there's still plenty of room to expand the non-plot based sections, but it's definitely looking infinitely better than it was back then! Frickative 20:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Comig to a agreement

I am trying to round up if Rainie should be split off or not. We are doing a vote to see if she should or not if you would like to vote please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders ‎. Thanks! MayhemMario (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC) =)

Thanks Mario, I'm still mulling it over, but I'll chip back in when I'm decided on what I think one way or the other :) Frickative 00:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Donna Jackson GA

Hello, though I'd let you know that I have reviewed Donna Jackson for GA and passed it. Nice work. -- Matthew RD 20:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much for reviewing, and I'm glad you found everything satisfactory! Frickative 00:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably Not Worthy of Wikipedia, but...

...I thought you'd find a little humour or at least interest in this. That is an iTunes release of what they considered the best musical moments so far on Glee - that is, through the date of release, October 5, 2010. A couple of Season 2 tracks made it on (I noticed "Toxic" and "Empire State of Mind"), but pretty much all the rest is Season 1.

Without question, if they ever go back and redo the set roughly six episodes from now, I just know the two original songs will make it in there somewhere, not to mention the set itself will get bigger with more songs that just can't be skipped over. CycloneGU (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, just saw the Golden Globe video from Chris's Golden Globe win (Jane Lynch also won). If you have yet to see that, I can't help but laugh at his reaction. CycloneGU (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, I'm intrigued by the first link but sadly can't open it - maybe because I'm not in Canada? I'm sure I've been able to access the Canadian iTunes store before though, so hmm, I don't know. I definitely wouldn't have put "Toxic" on a best of... list though! Frickative 13:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll get you the full list. I am thinking of whether to copy everything into that folder as a separate album on my end, and I might do that. If you want to do the same, you'll be able to. =) CycloneGU (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

EastEnders Revealed: Whitney's Story

Are you watching? it's very very good for adding info about Whitney, Tiffany, and maybe Tony and others. If not, it's repeated tonight :-) –AnemoneProjectors– 20:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ooh thanks, I skipped it because it clashed with Holby, but I'll definitely try and catch it on iPlayer tomorrow :D Frickative 00:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I took notes though missed a few bits. I especially liked the descriptions of Whitney's style. There was also stuff for Ryan and Janine, and Whitney's relationships with both of them. Oh it was just all good! –AnemoneProjectors– 00:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just watched it, that was a good one! I loved the acknowledgement of the silliness of Jacqueline Jossa's first line as Lauren :D And the fact that even the actors don't know how their characters are supposed to be related, haha; there's a good argument for limited family sections in the ibox if ever there was one. I'll have to watch it again properly when it's not 5am, so many articles it'll be helpful for :). Frickative 04:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, were you considering a storyline article for the sexual exploitation? I think it might be better than an episode article, and the info we have about Rob is mostly about the storyline/episode rather than the character. –AnemoneProjectors– 21:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, I hadn't considered that, but it could be quite a good one. Not sure what we'd call it - maybe Whitney's Story after the Revealed episode? Hmm. I'll bookmark some sources and perhaps throw some stuff together in a sandbox. I don't think I've written a storyline article before, could be interesting! Frickative 03:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that, since it's a name that's been given. Though the Revealed episode was about her whole story so far, from arrival to escaping Rob, so maybe not that. While I'm here, can you help at all at Talk:Asher Levi/GA1? –AnemoneProjectors– 17:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I don't know if there's that much need for a storyline article - I'll probably go about it by expanding Whitney's article first, then consider splitting it off if it becomes super long. Rob is likely best handled with a summary style overview section and a Further link to the relevant part of Whitney's article, retaining the few bits and pieces specific to him, like the accent complaints. I can try and expand Asher's lead and give it a copy edit, but I have limited editing time right now so it might take a few days. I'll definitely try and get to it before the end of the holding period though :) Frickative 21:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and I agree about Rob with the link to the section in Whitney's, since that's the main place the storyline can be discussed, and cuts down on repetition. I think Mario's more interested in seeing characters have their own articles than making sure the information is relevant. So yeah. –AnemoneProjectors– 21:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Image

Hey I found an image of Bernard Latham who played Gordon Cunningham, is it ok to use. If so could you do the honours, I still don't know how to link everything together on the upload. [7] He's the old guy.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 15:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, yep, that licence is fine for Commons :D I've uploaded it here for you - I cropped it down to just a headshot and brightened it a little bit, but if you want to do something different with it, the base image is here. If you find a useable Flickr image in future, I use this tool to upload them - you just pop in the image number and it fills out all the information and licence details for you, you just need to pick the categories. Nice find! Frickative 20:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ooo yay and thanks for letting me know how to do that. Big help. :)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 20:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey this just might be the most cheeky thing I've asked. Could you copy edit and expand Steph's lead for me? Apparently it doesn't cover the whole contents of the article and has bad wording.. :/RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 13:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, that's not cheeky at all, of course I will! I'll be out most of tomorrow, but I'll try and get it done in the evening :) Frickative 03:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

To keep you updated, I got in much later than anticipated so I'm not sure I'll be able to get to it tonight, but it's top of my to-do list when I have time to edit :) Reading it just now, I noticed that you've nominated it at FA - I must have missed that on my watchlist, I wish I'd known! Most of the comments so far should be fairly easily addressed, but the close paraphrasing thing could be a problem. Touch wood I didn't do it too much (it certainly wasn't intentional, but ugh, sorry about that! =/) but the only way to be sure it's okay would be to laboriously double check through every source. The end of the month is always crazy hectic for me IRL - is that something you have time to do right now? I don't know how you'd feel about withdrawing the nom for now, giving us both a couple of weeks to make sure everything's perfect, then running it through a Peer Review first before re-submitting? Of course you're under no obligation whatsoever, and if you're perfectly happy to address everything raised then awesome, just thought I'd float the suggestion! Frickative 21:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No your idea is far better =D You know that I cannot wait and get over excited. The second example wasn't that similiar to the text... What does she want me to say, aha. I don't know how I stop myself cursing at some folk.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 21:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL, I know that feeling! Awesome, I'm glad we're on the same page :D Real life is going to be kicking my ass for the next few days, but as soon as April rolls around I'll have plenty of time to go over it all and make sure everything's in order :) Frickative 17:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Good and I hope you enjoy your break and what you are doing goes well. =)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 18:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I See You So Rarely on Here!

NEway, Yves added this to the discography. Wondered if you'd seen it yet. Apparently there are a couple of Warblers tracks we haven't heard yet and will be out in April when this album comes out. For right now, time to rearrange my singles into the new folder. CycloneGU (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Was trying to identify track 11. The article doesn't talk about that track as being an exclusive. I think the release of this album is being intentionally timed with the demise of The Warblers on the show. They sing their swan song before they are eliminated from the series as a group. The question becomes will they reappear next season somehow or will a new competition arise? CycloneGU (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the news earlier - not sure how I feel about it, because I enjoy the arrangements but I'm so bored of the Dalton storyline! It'll probably sell really well, but I hope it doesn't result in the Warblers sticking around longer. Btw, I saw you added "Somewhere Only We Know" to the next episode by process of elimination, but Murphy said at Paley that the Warblers will probably be singing at the McKinley prom, so I don't think we can assume it will be in the next episode. Apropos of nothing, I'm glad VA are back soon :) Frickative 03:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually already removed it for other reasons (and even went so boldly charging into the Glee Wikia editing chambers and removed the song and storyline from there too). It is known that the Warblers sing a goodbye song to Kurt (someone on the cast tweeted about this apparently), and the release date of the album is on April 19. Thus, I am making the ungodly presumption without putting it into the article that the song will be aired on one of either April 12 or April 19. If the album was released April 12, guarantee it's in episode 17; with the release a week later, the possibility exists that Kurt returns to McKinley at the start of "Born This Way", but a rumoured scene between him and Blaine is a serious discussion about the possibility during the next episode. I truly think the song is performed as a goodbye on "Born This Way" and then that whole Karovsky thing happens right after Kurt returns, i.e. a couple of scenes in, and it all ties in somehow. I've been wrong before, however. If the Warblers do return somehow for the prom, it will not be from this album as the others are exclusives. CycloneGU (talk) 04:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, your presumptions sound fine, just remember that they must be verifiable in future :P Frickative 13:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about the source, but apparently "Somewhere Only We Know" is now confirmed for Night of Neglect. Asked Yves for a source opinion, feel free to chip in. I'm not sure myself. CycloneGU (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not sure whether Wet Paint is a reliable source or not - it has a fansite look to it, but I don't have time to dig any deeper into it right now. I think you're right to hold off until something more definitely reputable pops up. :) Frickative 17:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yves seems to agree. In any case, I'm around ATM. CycloneGU (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Born This Way (Glee)

Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ace, I didn't know this way happening, but that's exactly the hook I'd have picked :D Frickative 21:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sue Sylvester

Hey, Frickative. I was wondering if you would like any help in promoting Sue Sylvester to GA status? I'm looking for something to do on here right now and most of the work is already done on it. :] HorrorFan121 (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk page stalker

I am sure she'd appreciate the help. There is no article ownership, anyone can help improve the article. I may give it a read later, too. =) CycloneGU (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks HF! :) I have a pretty clear idea of where I'm going with the article, the main thing is tracking down sources. Interviews with Jane Lynch, or with Murphy, Falchuk or Brennan discussing the character, and for reception any general rather than episodic reviews, ie. where she's been included on 'Best (or Worst!) of...' character lists, or end of year/season reviews of Glee that discuss the character. The sources list at the task force is probably the best place to hunt through. If you fancy something a bit more hands on than gathering sources, I don't know how you feel about working on episode articles, but "Original Song" has been nominated for GA, but I think there are some tweaks needed before it's ready. The plot section in particular is running about 250 words over the ideal target of 450, and the "Chart history" section needs expanding (I left a link to a helpful Billboard article in an edit summary). No worries if you don't fancy it, I'll get to it eventually no doubt, but it's there if you want to have a go! Frickative 17:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the best at hunting down sources but I can definitely try. I'll start doing that in a little bit. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

For you!

I have no idea how and where to do this. So here it goes, my first barnstar!

		The Gleek Barnstar
		I really, really appreciate your work on Glee related articles! You do an awesome job and keep it up! :D Kanavb (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow, thank you so much! Both the barnstar and your kind words of support are hugely appreciated! :D Frickative 15:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hey I was just wondering if you could help with something if you are not too busy? Could you copy edit Carmella Cammeniti's Lead and Storyline section so I can renominate it for GA?Rain the 1 ^BAM 03:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, sure! Has Ohconfucius finished working on it? Just want to make sure I'm not treading on anyone's toes! Frickative 13:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah the previous copy edit finished, though I think as your more familiar with fictional character editing, it will benefit further. :)Rain the 1 ^BAM 14:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff, I'll take a look at it now :D I think I very, very vaguely remember Carmella from when I used to watch Neighbours at uni, though not as anything more than 'that one that used to be a nun' haha. Frickative 14:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This may help - [8] - JuneGloom Talk 17:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, June. I'm a bit confused by the Will/Oliver stuff - I take it that Will explained he'd been living a double life of sorts, but I'm not clear on why he left. Was it because didn't want anyone else to know, or because Carmella broke up with him? & from that, it seems like the "Storylines" section is a bit light on the pre-nunnery stuff - I don't know if you want to expand a bit on it, Rain, and then I'll take another look through afterwards? Frickative 17:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay I'll see what I can add. Will just left quick tbh, the actor quit early on. They just shoved Oliver in his place.Rain the 1 ^BAM 18:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty it is new, actually she was credited too. I don't think we saw it before because Gilly originally binned his copy of Steph's goodbye message. She left everyone she was close to one. The other week Cindy Cunningham returned and watched hers. People were disputing her last app too. I guess the duration should be changed to 2000-2011 too?Rain the 1 ^BAM 21:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks! Yeah, if it was just recycled footage I'd say leave it all as Nov 2010, but as it was a new appearance then the dates should probably reflect that. Do Channel 4 have anything like BBC Programmes do for the EastEnders episodes, so it could be sourced in the relevant OOU section that although she left in 2010, she was credited in a couple of 2011 episodes? Frickative 21:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. Radio times had her listed but they remove there pages or something. [9] credited there for sunday's omnibus.Rain the 1 ^BAM 22:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh and Also I have you a scan. It is Oliver again though, they love him! - [10] - Inside Soap 9-15 April 2011 (5th it was issued) issue 14, Page 40, words by Sarah Ellis.Rain the 1 ^BAM 22:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Rain, you are an absolute star. Thank you so much! (Though boo to the implication that they're about to kill off Penny!) Frickative 22:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I stopped watching in around November... It was my favourite drama too. But they killed my favourite character Maddy off.. then Sam went, followed by Jane, Maria, Daisha, Linden, Faye.. and I felt bad for missing Connie leave, then to read Joseph and Donna were off too.. I thought Oliver was amazing (and fit), has Greg ruined his career by any chance? he started dragging him down when I was watching still.Rain the 1 ^BAM 23:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I stopped watching around the time Maddy died and Kyla left and didn't start again for ages, but IMO this series has been the best in years. Loads of them are gone, but there's some really good new characters too (Laila Rouass and Guy Henry are fab). I couldn't stand Greg to start with, but he's a lot more likeable now he's not trying to get into Connie's knickers all the time. Ollie's just been retconned into an incompetent idiot though, lol. Ahem, ending fanrant in 5, 4, 3, 2... Frickative 23:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Rain, I forgot to watchlist Carmella so I didn't realise you'd done the "Storylines" section already - I'll finish off the copy edit now :) Frickative 18:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Oooo yay! =D The article's lead has been in need of a copy edit since day one. She is my favourite Neighbours character, I could not believe there wasn't that many sources when I started editing it.Rain the 1 ^BAM 19:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to remember her from when I watched it, around 2005 I think, but all that really sticks in my mind is the plane crash, Paul/Izzie, Susan and the Kinskis stuff :( Anywho, I should be done :D I went through the rest of the article in order to get a good sense of it for the lead, and found a couple of issues. There was a verifiability problem with one DS ref, but it's taken me so long to finish up that you've already fixed it hours ago haha, good stuff. Also, there seemed to be an overlap between "Creation and casting" and "Departure and return", so I did some structural rearranging to maintain chronology, is that okay? Last thing, who are the Rosie and Frazer mentioned in "Reception"? A brief clarification and Wikilinks would be helpful for the uninitiated, like moi! Wikipedia is being a real PITA tonight. I nearly flipped when an hour's worth of editing disappeared from the revision history, so with no ill-will to the character, I'm glad to be finished! Frickative 00:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. Well thankyou so much for doing that, more so that I only recently asked for help on Steph.. twice. So it is good of you. It did end up a bit jumbled up. One of the main reasons I didn't do it myself, and I hope I haven't shot myself in the foot for saying it.. is because the user that copyedited it recently also took all of the information from the storyline section and slotted it in each development section and it read like this. Old-ID.. that said I didn't want to change it all myself, because the user did do a nice copy edit, IMO I'd of just took it back to square one. :p I think I am an editor that knows what he is doing, but is let down by my lacking of grammar. I force myself to use thesaurus.com now too, my liking for the words "Stated" and "said" must end. & You taught me the cool word "Quipped". =D I'm after more sources now, I remembered I gave up on source searching before you showed me the amazing "Free Libary". I have learnt so much of my editing from you anyway, back in 08 when I was useless, you guided me with the Corrie articles. I think you may not remember Carmella that much because her 2005 stint was a couple of weeks long. :)Rain the 1 ^BAM 00:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, you're quite welcome! Oooh, I hadn't seen that in the edit history, but it's interesting. I've written a few articles like that in the past, with no separate "Storyline" section, but I think the MOS structure generally has it right. Seeing Pauline Fowler be rehashed like that at length scared me off FA for years! And LOL, I have the "stated"/"said" problem but with "opined". It was so bad at one point that an IP editor started following me from article to article to complain, haha. You're a really great content editor - the amount of sources you dig up is amazing! (Speaking of The Free Library, I've noticed the search function is being a bit wonky recently, so if it ever turns up less than you think should be available, Googling 'site:www.thefreelibrary.com Character Name' should pull up any missing results. Sorry if you knew that, it just took me ages to figure out.) Grammar's never been my strong point either. I don't know whether you'd find it at all useful, but one of my uni tutors once suggested that I read my essays out loud to get a feel for how they should flow, which really helped me with copy editing going forward. Now that you've added that part about Connor and Carmella going clubbing, I remember that happening :D I might have to try and get back into Neigbours... I used to have an awkward crush on Paul Robinson, which I probably shouldn't admit to! Frickative 01:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Also Funny you should say that actually because only a few weeks Junegloom said "You must be mad" when I tweeted that Paul is hot. :P I'll search the website using google aswell as the main site, as I never like to miss out on a source. Actually I really must not - I thought there had to be more info in magazines on a Home and Away character I'm editing. .. Anyway Friday comes around and I've collected over 250 Inside Soap and TV Week scans for the rest of the current cast.. "Oh dear, oh dear" lolRain the 1 ^BAM 02:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Long Time No See

Been waiting for you to show up on MSN again; I've been working on Jackie Evancho (I even created the article for her debut album Prelude to a Dream and, just today, for Dream With Me) and could use some help on her main article in particular. I hadn't visited for a couple of months and today found an edit in my watchlist, so checked it out; someone had put the album descriptions for Prelude to a Dream and O Holy Night in the discography section where they didn't belong, particularly since they have their own articles. XD I've fixed it up and moved them to career as they are summaries of information you'd expect in the artist profile, and want to get this to a GA standard someday, but for right now, can you help me out with the article? A big thing for me is separating notable performances and determining which those are; right now, it's a bit of a mishmash mix including Jay Leno, Oprah Winfrey, and others among what might really be the notable ones like performing at Carnegie Hall, doing the anthem at the New Year's Day outdoor hockey game in Philadelphia, and so on.

Apparently she's also doing her first music video, and I am wondering if it's for the title song "Dream With Me", but obviously we have no details yet. =) CycloneGU (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, long time no see indeed! I don't have much experience with working on BLPs - of 55 GAs I've worked on, one was a biography, and I was very familiar with the subject - but with that disclaimer out of the way, I'm happy to help in any way I can! I think you know that my knowledge of US pop culture is pretty limited, so I wouldn't be much use trying to determine between notable and trivial performances, but I'm sure I can be of assistance with the more nitty gritty stuff. I'm having a busy day and I've fallen behind on a couple of other articles I'm currently looking over for others, but if I can be of any use to you tomorrow, I'll try and make sure I'm on MSN throughout the day :) Frickative 21:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm also watching three album articles linked from the main article. I created two of them. =D So I think overall help (over time in the new album's case) would be good, and I also created the discography article for her today. I wonder if she'll get to travel worldwide promoting her album...that would be cool. You'd know who she is then. =)

On an aside, I happened to look at her Twitter. Apparently her parents have edited her Wikipedia article. I'm researching this. CycloneGU (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've identified the user. User:Binlied2 redirects to Evancho's article. Upon turning the redirect off (i.e. clicking under the title) to reach the actual user page, I went to the talk page and followed a link here. Bingo. Went back to her talk page and offered my assistance if she needs help around Wikipedia, and so on. CycloneGU (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess she might be a little young for globetrotting, but that would be cool - I'd certainly keep an eye out for her if she ever did any UK press junkets :) I did notice the ibox image appeared to have been uploaded by her mother, which is great. Very good of you to take the time to explain all the COI stuff. I've watchlisted the main article, and I'll add the three albums and discography too. Very quick thoughts on the layout - should America's Got Talent become a subsection of "Career"? It might also make sense to move "Critical reception" beneath it, as there are comments from Piers Morgan there before AGT has even been introduced. Also, perhaps now there are five related articles, a navbox or category or both might be useful? I'll give the main article a proper read-through tomorrow, when I have time to be more helpful! Frickative 00:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

We'll talk about the article stuff during Sunday, but been doing more research. I took note of the fact that she created the article in her userspace, then later moved it into the encyclopedia, triggering another editor to tag the page for all sorts of things including sounding like a blatant advertisement. While notability remained in question for nine months, it never went to deletion, and the very next editor after the tagging editor took out all but four lines from the article. Comparing the diffs. is like night and day. The article then remained tiny with small fixes until her AGT episode, and I was the first to the article after that and immediately took all tags off of the article with the edit summary, "Subject will be notable within 24 hours" (among more); I created Prelude to a Dream an hour later. The majority of the editing came from anyone but the mother after this (except the picture in February or March, notably).

How I stumbled upon finding that it's her mother is kinda funny. I happened to poke into Evancho's Twitter account as mentioned above (an 11 year old with Twitter, that's new) and found the following comment from what sounded like a relative: "@ngfsp somebody can go in and remove it from wiki if they don't think it's appropriate. I had to edit some misinfo on jackie's wiki myself" Ding ding ding, my mind said, and I was off to the article. That was when I first noticed the picture, and after viewing a few historical edits in the history narrowed down the submitter, checked the user page (linking back to the article), and then the talk page to find what I linked above. She had been to the helpdesk about it (I found them asking her to confirm her name was in fact Lisa Evancho) and managed to figure out how to change the image thanks to that help; that image is further down in the article now, and I was working around it with my own editing. Apparently I'm somewhat decent at detective work. =D Interestingly, I don't know if her mother actually looked at the article until all the work had been done on it; I never picked up on the connection of the article starting in November until today.

Chat with ya whenever you're on. CycloneGU (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Page "grades" in the Good Topics lists

On the Glee Task Force pages (thanks for showing me the way!), the Season 2 and Character lists have a number of topics as Start grade, C grade, and B grade. Who's responsible for giving the grades? If I see a low grade, how can I tell what it's missing to keep it from the next grade level?

It occurred to me that for established pages, it might help to know what's missing or needs fleshing out in order to get to the next grade level. For example, I added or expanded ratings information this weekend for a few second season episodes that were B- or C-level articles. But looking at them, I wasn't sure what more they needed (except "A Very Glee Christmas", which clearly needed more critical responses to the episode, and references for them, in that section of the article). BlueMoonset (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Anyone can change them to start, c, b, or a, not ga or fa (those require official reviews) if they feel the article warrants a regrading. See Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Grades for general guidelines. I'll use Original Song for what I believe is a rough grading scale. This is a stub class, it gives the bare basic info, title, when it airs, who is in it, and a few of the music selections. This or this would be start class or close to it as it has more info then the stub, but is still very incomplete. While it is well sourced, it has no plot info (cause it hadn't aired) or reception info, etc. The problem with using this as an examples, is Frickative and others, do such a good job expanding and sourcing it, it is hard to distinguish between start, c, and to a lesser extent b, cause it really goes from a stub to b so quickly due to rapid expansion and excellent sourcing. This would probably be b class as it has more details and is well sourced. If this exactly link had no or very few sources, it would more likely be a c class, due to lack of sources. This leads us to the current state of the article, which is a GA. It has extensive details and excellent sourcing. It could probably be peer reviewed or brought to FAC, and would be close to becoming a featured article, the top class. Hope this helps some. CTJF83 11:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for such a thorough reply, Ctjf! I couldn't have explained it better myself. BlueMoonset, I'd noticed you'd expanded some of the ratings sections - great work, those articles were sorely in need of some TLC. I know some WikiProjects have 'model' articles, as examples of what's needed to be considered complete. In the case of Glee, I'd probably say Kurt Hummel for the character articles, perhaps "The Substitute" for standard episodes (thought as you rightfully pointed out, the "Production" section needs some updating), "The Sue Sylvester Shuffle" or "The Rocky Horror Glee Show" for "special" episodes, and Glee: The Music, Volume 1/Glee: The Music, Journey to Regionals for album/EP articles. The only subset I can't give an example for is cast biographies, as I think they're currently all C-class or lower.

Using "Furt" as an example for changing grade boundaries: It's currently C-class, and to move up to B-class, most of the non-Plot sections would need expanding. "Production" is a tough call, as I don't know how much more information there is out there, but I imagine there may be at least a few interviews with the cast, providing insight on the developing storylines. If there's nothing substantial to add, it could be merged with the current "Music" section. The article needs to provide an overview of how the episode's singles charted, and how the musical performances were received by critics (Yves left a fantastic list of sources on the talkpage to that end.) "Ratings" is much better now - most episodes also give the Canadian and Australian ratings as well as US and UK (not so many countries as to become an indiscriminate list, but enough to cover the major Western territories for which viewership data is freely available.) Finally "Critical reception" could use expanding to provide an overview of more than three viewpoints (again, there's a list of sources on the talkpage. Not every under-developed episode article has one, but there's also a list of the most frequent reviewers at the task force page, which I think you've seen as you added some helpful resources to it :)). With that accomplished, it should make the jump from C to B.

Going from B to GA class is usually much less taxing, as a B class article should be essentially complete. The GA criteria can be found here. For an article example, "Never Been Kissed" is currently B-class. Before nominating it for a GA review, I've been meaning to give it a thorough copy edit (perhaps reigning in the "Critical response" section a bit, as it's atypically long, though understandably that episode did provoke intense reactions from critics), finish expanding the "Production" section from sources on the talk page, add a brief chart overview, and expand the lead to summarise the whole article. Then it should be good to go.

Yikes, I didn't mean to end up writing an essay. I hope I haven't muddied the waters of Ctjf's explanation, which is right on the money, but hopefully those walk-throughs are at least marginally useful! Frickative 15:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Frickative. Between the two of you, I think I have a better idea, though I'll leave the updating of the grades to others. Your description of B seems to be a bit more stringent than Ctjf83, at least based on the examples given; lacking your explanation, I would have guessed that "Furt" was a bit closer to B. Pointing out that special episodes need extra coverage to make the grade is also important. I imagine that with "Born This Way going to 90 minutes, it's going to be in that category. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ctjf83. The examples are very helpful. As I just said to Frickative, I doubt I'll be changing any article grades, though I may stop by and ask what an article needs if I can't figure out why it's still got a lower grade. (If there's a better place to ask than the article's discussion page, please let me know.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Just poking my nose in

Hello, I just happened to come accross User:Frickative/Lesbianism in British television as a "what links here" - it looks quite good, I was just wondering why it hasn't been posted? Bob talk 16:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow, there's an article I hadn't thought about in a while! If memory serves, quite soon after beginning, I started to worry that the scope might be too narrow to be of value. All the quantitative data I could turn up (in the form of viewing reports from Stonewall, IIRC) grouped LGBT representation together, without analysing the individual entities. Expanding the article to cover the LGBT spectrum as a whole was a bit beyond what I felt capable of taking on at the time. I'm not sure I'm any better placed to tackle it now, but it's certainly worth thinking about. Thanks for the nudge! Frickative 19:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just struck that it was going quite well. I wouldn't say it was too narrow, really - if anything LGBT would be too broad, and keeping it within British TV means that it's very definable. If it's any help, a book I noticed (and was able to use Google Books snippets from) while referencing You Rang, M'Lord? was Alison Darren's Lesbian Film Guide (2000), which has a section about TV portrayals. Bob talk 22:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the source (and the vandal revert, too!). I've used Darren's book once before, but I didn't realise the introduction also discussed television; skim-reading it now, it looks very helpful. I think perhaps next weekend, I'll try and develop the draft enough for mainspace readiness and just see how it goes. I'd almost totally forgotten about it until your earlier message, but the draft is more developed than I recall, so it can't hurt to give finishing up a shot. Frickative 17:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Donna Jackson

Since you seem to be well-acquainted with Holby City, and by extension, the above-named character, I was wondering if you could tell me what is meant by the following. I found this article, which says the producers of Glee are looking to cast "someone to play Becky's (Lauren Potter) Donna Jackson, ...". Now I don't know if it is referring to the Holby City character, but if it is, I am not sure what it means; I don't think "Donna Jackson" is a household name. Or perhaps the writer of the article left out a word, and it is supposed to read "Becky's (Lauren Potter) mother Donna Jackson", as that is Becky's surname. Thoughts? Yves (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Yves, by helpful coincidence I just scrolled through my news-feed, where someone had posted this. So, it looks like we'll be meeting her mother this season. (FTR, I don't think "Donna Jackson" is close to being a household name - at a stretch, I could maybe see a UK TV magazine using it as synonymous with "nurse", but I definitely wouldn't expect that to translate to an international audience.) Hopefully with the spotlight on Becky, we'll be able to expand on her rather insubstantial section in Characters of Glee :). Frickative 16:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks! Yves (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Frickative 18:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Song Beneath the Song

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ken Barlow

Hey there Frick. =D I'm just wondering if you would be interested in a big collaboration on the article Ken Barlow. I think the article is really neglected and could be GA with work put into it - not that just better than it is now. I've also asked another three editors in addition to you - I think quite a few heads would really help. We each work on a different section.Rain the 1 ^BAM 16:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds great! You and Gungadin have done such a brilliant job on Mavis, it'd be good to get involved with a big project. I remember re-writing Ken's storylines way back when, but I don't think the existing version bears much resemblance - it seems oddly focussed on every house he's ever lived in! Frickative 16:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah the stoyline section is kinda annoying. Also I guess we will have to discuss what needs to be mentioned and what doesn't. 50 years is going to be hard to keep breif. There is four of us on baord for this though. :)Rain the 1 ^BAM 21:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I left a quick outline at Ken.Rain the 1 ^BAM 20:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey

I was going to poke you on Facebook to see if you'd seen this, but you seem to have disappeared from my list under your previous name, so I'm poking you here instead. tommy2.net also picked up and posted that list. Check out the album art on the link tho. Awesome stuff...and the big thing I now am eager to see is the cover of "Dancing Queen". CycloneGU (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey hey, yep I've seen it, I love the art! I think I'm looking forward to "Dancing Queen" the most too :D I'm interested to hear what they do with "Rolling in the Deep", but that song is so overplayed now it drives me crazy. (If you tap my name into Facebook I should still come up - I've changed it temporarily, but to such a sci-fi geek thing I don't want it saved for posterity in my userpage history haha!) Frickative 03:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way

Have you seen anything as to why they (supposedly, I haven't seen it yet) cut out the "gay straight or bi" part of the song? This is a pretty pro gay show. CTJF83 06:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no, I haven't seen any explanation for it, though it did seem pretty strange in context. They went back and repeated the awkward racial lines instead of including the orientation ones. AfterElton questioned the decision, but I haven't noticed any other reviewers bring it up (though in fairness, I haven't had chance to read many reviews yet). Frickative 18:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, ok...guess I should give you more than a few days after it airs to add all the relative reviews to the article :) CTJF83 19:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, Frickative. Thanks for doing a copy-edit on some of the Glee character articles. I was going to ask you to take a look at Quinn's earlier, but I felt that would be asking too much from you on my behalf. I'm still familiarizing myself with the way Wikipedia works, and my grammar's not always perfect. I'm trying though. Anyways, thanks a lot! ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you're quite welcome! I seem to have a total inability to complete anything at the moment, so I thought I might as well drift around and do some copy-editing. I love Lauren, so I might try and work on expanding that one a bit later. Really great work getting Quinn to GA! I look forward to seeing which one you work on next :D In fact, at this rate, maybe we should add a Good Topic target to the task force page, like the ones for season one and two :) Frickative 17:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I love Lauren too, but I had a big problem finding sources pertaining to her "Casting and creation" section. That's something I hope will turn up in an interview with Fink eventually. I've also been keeping a close watch on Flickr for any free images for Ashley Fink's article. I think the next article I want to work on expanding is Emma Pillsbury. I've got a few ideas up my sleeve for what I want to do with it. As for the good topic, let's go for it. I can start the template on the task force page. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, if you haven't already started with the template then hang on, I'm actually nearly done putting one together - I just had to run to the store so got distracted from finishing! Frickative 18:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I was just going to start it but that will save a lot of time. Awesome! HorrorFan121 (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I just put it up complete with an array of stupid mistakes. I'll go add a message over there now :) Frickative 18:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hah, that's okay! Knowing me it would've came out worse...I always seem to have a problem getting the code right on the info boxes, etc. HorrorFan121 (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hope I haven't put this in the wrong place, but I was wondering what you were looking for on the Characters of Glee page. I thought this page was a summary about the characters and what they've done (has happened to them), which would be gone into in much greater length on their main pages. It's why I added a few bits, especially from season two, since the page seems very heavy on season one, especially through sectionals, except for those characters introduced later. Were you asking for it to deal more in general character descriptions, or is this a standard template request that just wants general tightening. (Yes, I'm new around here.) One or two of the recent character "analysis" additions are a bit dubious, in my mind... BlueMoonset (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I know what you mean with the "analysis" - I meant to do a little reverting there, but it slipped my mind. Re: the template, it's a bit of both. It's definitely good that you've added season two info for balance, because some of it was getting really outdated. Mainly, the whole article just needs tightening up - some of the recurring sections are the worst in that respect, eg. Shannon Beiste. The central focus there should ideally be on how the characters are portrayed and how their storylines were developed, rather than just what their storylines were. For the main characters though, as you say, that can be expanded on fully in their own articles. All that's really needed there is a summary style overview of the key points, rather than episodic breakdowns of their storylines. The best example I know of is Characters of Smallville, which is a Good Article and so a pretty good model.

A little off-topic, but I've noticed you a few times on my watchlist recently, doing great work on Glee-related articles. You may already be aware of it, but there's a task force at WP:GLEE you might be interested in joining :) Frickative 22:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I tried improving Coach Beiste, but I'm not sure I succeeded in any real way. At best, I tilted the balance a bit more toward character in the same number of words. What made it difficult is that the character doesn't have a main page, so this is the only place she can be mentioned. In fact, as I was typing this, I thought of another character-driven sentence, which means it's now longer than it was. I'm fine with fact-checking, but not much for searching out interviews, assuming Dot-Marie Jones has done any, on the character.

Thanks for pointing me at the task-force page, which I could tell existed from the thread above...but not where it was. I'll probably sign up soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Frickative. I'm going to start working on improving Emma's article tonight. I hate to ask for something again, but have you ever come across a really good source pertaining to her initial casting? I've started compiling a list of sources on the talk page that are really going to help with the "Characterization" section. The casting section has really been my only problem with in finding a source for. HorrorFan121 (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, do you think Kurt Hummel has the potential to be a featured article? I've never had any previous experiences with it, but I'm interested. HorrorFan121 (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Don't worry about asking for stuff, I usually have nothing better to do with my time! I think because the older cast members do less press than the "teens" there probably isn't as much out there on her casting. The only sources that come to mind are the ones already in the article, about her doing Rocky Horror for her audition and being drawn to Emma as a well-defined character with depth. When Glee was brand new, Emma was one of my favourites and I read a lot of the articles that came out, but I don't recall ever reading much more than that. I think perhaps as she was already an established actress before the series, she doesn't have as much of an audition "story" as some of the younger ones, who had rarely or never acted before? A quick search just now didn't turn up much, but this might be of some use with early characterisation.

As for Kurt... well, the only experience I have with getting something to Featured status is Glee (season 1), and I think FL is considered a less intensive process than FA. I'd say it's got a very good groundwork, and in looking to develop it further, I'd concentrate primarily on "Critical response" - trying to find more general stuff, rather than "In X episode, Y thought...", if possible. It might be a good idea to post a message to the task force asking everyone who can to chip in, because it can be a very heavy-going process (I doubt I'd have got through the FL-process without the support of CycloneGU - there's something about inviting editors to tear your work apart that can be brutal, however well intentioned!). It'd also be best to request a peer review first, to get some pre-nomination feedback and suggestions. I think the fair-use image would have to go, because they're very very strict on application of the NFCC. That's all off the top of my head - of course, I'm willing to help as much as I can :) The best time for a nomination might be over the summer, when the season will over and there'll be a lull in keeping episode/music articles updated, so the other task force editors may have plenty of time to help collab? Frickative 01:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Wow, did you really take these photos yourself? I'm very jealous! Frickative 02:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate you replying so quickly. I kind of figured that would be a problem with the adult characters. I've been going through videos on Hulu of the cast which features a lot of the original members giving interviews about their casting, etc. Emma has been my favorite character throughout the entire series. I just hope I can find some way to flesh out that section. Hopefully she mentioned some things about it in a past interview or something like that.

As for the Kurt thing, I think I should familiarize myself more with the featured article candidate process. I've worked harder on Kurt's article than any other character, and want to see it succeed. A peer review is a must and I might end up requesting one after I finish any edits I end up doing on Emma's article. Do you like the new pictures? The Jessalyn Gilsig one I took myself at one of the events I attended. However, the new ones of Jayma Mays and Chris Colfer were taken by my friend Carrie. She's a professional photographer and attends a lot of the Hollywood events. I told her about Wikipedia and I asked if she would upload some of them to Flickr (which she's still learning how to use) and license them with the Commons policy. I've also been keeping a steady eye over there hoping a free image of Ashley Fink will turn up. Anyways, thanks.

PS: I'm glad to see you're putting a lot of work into Mercede's article. It really needed it. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about a lack of casting material - it actually looks a decent length to me right now, but if you feel it's on the short side, there's no reason you couldn't incorporate it with "Characterization" to bulk it up a bit. The pictures are great! I'm super jealous you've been to events and such (I'm hoping to get last minute tickets to the UK tour, but not too likely, boo.) And haha, I'm having fun working on Mercedes - I knew it must be a heck of a task pulling in all the info from elsewhere to the character articles, but I never really appreciated how time consuming it was before I started on it! Frickative 01:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I spruced up some stuff in the casting and creation section. I think that section looks pretty reasonable and that quote from Mays really helped. Her "Characterization" section is going to be much longer because of her mysophobia, wardrobe, etc. I definitely haven't been having trouble finding sources for that. Hah, I'm sort of a pop culture junkie. I like going to all the events and things of that sort. It does initially take some time, but the final product is so rewarding. ;)

Also, do you think a Sam Evans article should be created in the near future? If so, I might end up working on that down the line. HorrorFan121 (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I included Sam Evans in the GT template because one of the criteria is that there must be "no obvious gaps" in the topic, and I think Sam would constitute that, but I'd definitely say only work on it if it interests you enough - it doesn't necessarily have to be the near future :) Frickative 13:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

My thought on Sam is that we'll probably have more material for an article after we get to meet his family in "Rumors" next month...or, at least, that's the reported rumor. Unless there's significant character development in "A Night of Neglect" or "Born This Way". BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, could you take a loot at Emma Pillsbury's article? I finished most of the expansion and additions to it. i think it looks in good shape. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing! It's looking really good from a very quick glance through, great job! It's gone 3am my time and I'm not firing on all cylinders, so I'll give it a thorough read tomorrow. Two quick things - I've been meaning to go through and change this in all the character articles for ages but I keep forgetting - MOS:TV suggests having the "Storylines" section first - for unfamiliar readers, it helps to contextualize the rest of what follows. & the "Reception" section seems to end at "Sectionals" - I know she's been used much less this season, but is there anything out there that could be used to bring it a bit more up to date? "Rocky Horror Glee Show" and "Sexy" reviews might yield some usable stuff. Off the top of my head, I think The A.V. Club's Todd VanDerWerff sometimes devotes substantial paragraphs to her, so his reviews of Emma-heavy eps could be a good place to start. Frickative 02:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, okay. I'll move the storyline section up to comply with MOS:TV. As I was digging up some information for the "Relationships" section there was a lot of reception to her character individually. There will be no problem expanding on that. 3AM?!? Haha, get some sleep. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I keep pretty odd hours, but 3am is never the best time for editing! I should get to Emma within the next hour or so. Re: the infobox colour change - I'm not sure why the Dexter characters have different colours in different articles, but it tends to be the case that one colour will be used uniformly across a programme (eg. The Simpsons and yellow) for consistency. It might be a good idea to start a discussion at WP:GLEE if you think there's reason to vary from the standard blue :) Frickative 18:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The infobox colors can be reverted. I just liked the look of it. Oh, by the way I opened up a peer review for Kurt like you suggested. I'm glad you can get a chance to look at Emma's article tonight. I expanded the "Reception" section, and moved the "Storyline" section up. HorrorFan121 (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Wooh! Thanks so much. You're the best! ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome, great work! I didn't have chance to go through the "Reception" and "Relationship" sections as thoroughly as the rest, but they look good from a skim read, and I'll try and read them properly later :) Frickative 19:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Frickative. I was wondering....if you have any spare time would you be willing to copy-edit Blaine Anderson? I hate asking so soon again after Emma, but it just went through a major expansion and I think it's GA quality. The copy-edit would be extremely appreciated. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that article must have trebled in size since I last looked at it - it completely amazes me how quickly you get things done! Given that I haven't finished anything in weeks, the least I can do is help out with copy editing :) I'll go over it thoroughly tomorrow. In the interim, a few first glance suggestions: "Storylines" is on the long side given his short tenure to date; not all of the critics quoted are introduced - remember to include full name and publication on first mention; I haven't had chance to read this yet, but there may well be some info worth incorporating. If you've already seen it and it's useless, obviously disregard. Looking forward to reading the article properly! Frickative 03:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, again you're the best! I just glanced through it and edited some of the direct quotes to introduce the authors first. Again, the way you dig up these sources amazes me. I just read through it and that definitely has some information that could be included in the article. :) HorrorFan121 (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I haven't got far with it yet. I felt pretty lousy this weekend, so wasn't online much. I'm back on it now, and should (touch wood!) be done within the next few hours :) Frickative 17:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, that's okay. When you're sick, you're sick. The only thing I'm concerned about the article is the choppy "Characterization" section. Do you think it would be a good idea to merge it with the "casting" section, or do you think I should add to it? HorrorFan121 (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think it could be merged if you think it would look better, but equally, it's bound to grow naturally in the future as he becomes more established. Given that he's been in less than a dozen episodes so far, it's probably to be expected that there's not masses to say yet. You could maybe add a bit about him questioning his sexuality, because I know Murphy commented on it at the time, but that could also fit in "Relationships". I seem to recall Murphy also commenting on Blaine becoming so unexpectedly popular that it prompted the transition from mentor to love interest (I'm sure that was in an After Elton interview, I'll search for the link). Actually, I haven't properly read what's left in "Relationships" yet, but another possibility is just subsuming that into "Characterization", as the long quote from Criss seems to cover similar ground to the Vanity Fair interview. Frickative 18:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

So, maybe for now we can merge the "Relationship" section and the "Characterization" section until more information can be added for a full characterization section. I think it would flow better that way. Let me know what you think. ;) Oh, by the way I started drafting something for Sam's article here. It's not much, but I think it's a good start. HorrorFan121 (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that sounds good to me :) Particularly as "Relationships" is really just Kurt so far, so it all ties in together nicely. That's a great start on Sam! I don't think we need to re-iterate Murphy's scouring of Broadway, as that was just for the original cast, but he does expand a little on his actual audition process in the Vanity Fair interview. Actually, that just triggered a thought re: Blaine - didn't Darren Criss take part in the MySpace auditions for the reality show they were going to air before season two started? I'm sure I've read that, and it'd be good to include in "Casting". I'll dig around for sources :) Frickative 19:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha. It's nowhere near complete, but thanks. Hmmm...I'm not quite familiar with the reality show, but I think it could be good for the casting section. Oh, by the way I got some feedback from the Kurt peer review here. She suggested a Copyedit to tighten up the prose, and a few other things. I think it might have a good shot at being a potential FA candidate. Oh, by the way someone deleted Jayma and Chris's images off the commons. I guess Carrie's account was Flickrwashed. I emailed her about it, and she has yet to email me back. Bummer. I'm going to go see if I can find another free image of Colfer on Flickr. HorrorFan121 (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, it seems the image of Jessalyn's been deleted too! Any idea what's going on there? The PR feedback is great. Ha, the "Accolades" section is meant to be chronological by wins, then nominations, but now it's been brought up I'm not 100% certain that it is. As to the apostrophes around the "Best X" awards, I know for a fact I picked that up from a Featured Article, but I've been doing it that way for so long now I have no idea what it was any more. If that's not the status quo now, I've no qualms about them being removed. And I'm so sorry it's taking me so long to get through Blaine. Things have been hectic, but I'm absolutely not going to log off tonight until it's done. Frickative 16:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

PS. You may have already seen this, but if you're still planning on working on Terri at some point, apparently her role will expand again next season :) Source. Frickative 16:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on with the images. She specifically said she took the images of Mays and uploaded the images to Flickr. Now the Colfer ones might be a different story because they can be found on a different website. Maybe she uploaded someone else's without knowing how Flickr works properly? I don't know. I'll try to sort that out later. As for the PR, I was happy with the results as well. I can dig through some FA's and see how they have the awards listed. If they're not supposed to be formatted "Best X" then they can easily be changed. I also requested a tight a copy-edit at the Guild of copy editors. As for Blaine, don't worry about it if you're busy.

PS: Thanks for the Jessalyn source. I started working on Brittany Pierce, but I planned on expanding some of the adult articles after. Oh, I've been meaning to ask you. Do you browse for sources regular? If so, have you found any interviews of Ashley Fink where she talks about her initial casting process, etc? I would love to expand her article. HorrorFan121 (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, well, fingers crossed that gets sorted :) If the copy-edit Kurt gets is as thorough as Quinn, it should be in great stead for an FA nom! I have a pretty low-key night ahead, so touch wood I should be able to finish Blaine. I have a few of the Glee news communities on my LiveJournal list, which is how I come across most new sources, but I check it very irregularly so I miss a lot. However, this should hopefully be of some use for Lauren :D Frickative 18:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I used the Colfer image that's on the Kurt Hummel page for now in the Blaine Anderson relationships section as a stopgap. Incidentally, since that Boston Herald quote on the Kurt Hummel page refers in glowing terms to Darren's acting, not Chris's, I think it would be appropriate for the Blaine Anderson Reception section when "Original Song" material gets added in. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Agreed on the Boston Herald review. Scanning it quickly, some of the other responses to their pairing documented in Kurt's article might also be good to carry over. Frickative 16:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wooh! Frickative, you are amazing! The article looks fantastic. HorrorFan121 (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, thank you very much! I really hate to ask after how long I've taken over it, but would you mind holding off the GA nom for just one more day? I'm only about halfway through the sources I wanted to check over for possible inclusion, but it's just gone 3am here, so I don't know if I'll get through much more tonight. I'll definitely finish up tomorrow though - it all started to move a lot quicker once I began expanding on, rather than tweaking the great stuff you'd put together :) Frickative 02:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, of course. I'll go revert my edit right now. Haha, thanks. I think the Glee character articles are in pretty good shape right now. I love working on them. HorrorFan121 (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree, though I think bar Sue, this is the most work I've put into one of them since they were created - which is odd, as I'm not even that keen on Blaine! Frickative 02:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha. Well I'm glad you did. I just hope I'm not pushing the limit by constantly asking for copy-edits (For example, Emma Pillsbury, Kurt, etc.) Did you ever manage to find some sources to create an article for Lauren Potter? I still haven't been able to find much on her past, birthdate, etc. I wouldn't mind starting something like that. Becky's role on the show seems to be expanding, and I love her little one-liners. HorrorFan121 (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: Have you heard anything saying that Ashley Fink might be upgraded to a contract player next season? I could have sworn I saw a rumor about that at some point. HorrorFan121 (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all - I feel like I've hit a slump with the episode articles this season, so pitching in on the characters at least makes me feel useful :) I never did turn up much on Lauren - a nice piece on her boyfriend here was about the extent of it. Oh! I just did a quick Google search to see if anything new had cropped up, and found this which is tiny, but at least finally a reliable source for her date and place of birth :D Alas I haven't read anything about Ashley Fink being upgraded, but skimming Glee (season 2), it seems the news about Naya and Heather broke at the end of April 2010, and Mike O'Malley in July, so hopefully announcements of that nature should start being made soon. Frickative 03:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...okay. Just wondering if that was actually true. I think both Fink and Criss will be promoted to regulars on the next season, and like you said we should be hearing about it soon. That could be something to add to Lauren's casting section.

Umm, do you know what happened with all the images being deleted? What the heck? Is there anything we can do about that? Some of those images we had established fair-use on. HorrorFan121 (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope she is, she's fabulous :) I have no idea what happened to the images! I asked at WP:GLEE and tried searching to see if there had been an FfD we weren't notified about, but nada. All I can think is maybe they were all originally uploaded by the same person, who forgot something necessary like a source? Actually, if that were the case, at least the Kurt one shouldn't have been affected so... not a clue. =/ I guess we could ask the user who operates the bot that removed the links, but I don't know if they'd know, either. Frickative 01:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I agree! Lauren's been my favorite part of this season. Hmmm....most of them were uploaded by me. Do you think I would get in trouble for re-uploading the fair-use ones we agreed on at WP:GLEE? I think we settled on Kurt, Emma, and Rachel (who's image surprisingly stayed put) because the actors don't resemble their characters. That's quite odd. I think Lauren and Blaine's were left because the articles didn't exist during the previous discussion. Lauren's should be kept anyway because as of right now I can't find a single free image of Fink for the commons. HorrorFan121 (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that as we have no idea why they were deleted, it would be okay to re-upload those three with the appropriate rationales. I'm sure if there was anything badly wrong with the originals, you should have received a talk page message explaining what the problem was an how to rectify it. It's very perplexing! I'll watchlist them once you're done, just to keep an eye out for any problems in future. Re: the Lauren image, one of the stipulations of the NFCC is that no free equivalent could be created, so as a free picture of Fink could be taken and released, it's not an automatic pass. One option is perhaps emailing some of the Flickr users with copyrighted photos of her and asking if they'd be willing to release them under a free license. There are some sample letters here. I don't know how successful that would be, but hopefully once this season's wrapped and the cast are out on press jaunts and the concert tour, a free one will make its way online anyhow :) Frickative 02:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I re-uploaded Emma (File:Emmapillsbury.JPG) and Kurt (File:KurtHummelseasonone.jpg) if you want to put them on your watchlist. That's what I had in the summary's before they were deleted. Not sure if more should be expanded on it.

Oh, I actually did that for a few Chris Colfer images on Flickr. I could probably go back and ask for some on Fink explaining that they would receive credit for their work, etc. HorrorFan121 (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The images were deleted under WP:CSD#G4 (repost of deleted material), there's a request for their deletion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. But clearly they should not have been deleted in the first place because there was only a single vote to delete at the original FFD, and following this there was a massive discussion at NFC about it that went on for weeks and ended inconclusively. –AnemoneProjectors– 10:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot AP, that explains that one. I don't mind the majority of them being zapped - per discussion at WP:GLEE, we'd largely decided to do the same anyway - but the editor involved can't have gone though them individually to check they were all " sufficiently identical and unimproved", otherwise they'd have noticed that the one of Kurt is now supported by material in the article, after fairly extensive discussion about retaining it and improving the rationale. (Side note to HorrorFan - I still don't think it will fly at FA, though ;)). Frickative 14:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Anemone Projectors. While I think the lot of them should have been deleted, some of them can be justified as fair use. Like Frickative said, Kurt's article has significant coverage on how important his wardrobe is to his character. The free image of Colfer isn't generally going to justify that as well. Both Emma and Rachel can be included in that as well. There's a passage about her wardrobe in Emma's article, and Rachel's dress has often been regarded by characters on the show as being "the mixture of a toddler and a grandmother combined". As for the image flying at FAC, I don't think it will either. I'm going to try and search for a free image that might represent the character more than the current ones we have. HorrorFan121 (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff :) While you're online, could you take a quick glance at Characters of Glee? I'm not sure if it's just my browser/resolution, but the change in image alignments has made everything bunched up and hard to read. If it is just me, I'll leave it alone. Frickative 15:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I just glanced and it does kind of look bunched up. I don't necessarily think it's hard to read. Hmmm...maybe you could use the smaller image of Lea Michele, and the smaller image of Agron to make it a little less stuck together? HorrorFan121 (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. For me it's like that throughout, with images running on into the next sections and pushing the headers into the middle of the page, but thinking about it, I recently changed my thumbnail settings to the default 220px, which no doubt has something to do with it! Frickative 15:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Just seen what you both said about the images for Kurt, Emma and Rachel and restored the images that were deleted per G6 or whatever, as I feel that no longer applies. A fresh FFD would be necessary to delete them, which shouldn't happen if the costume etc have been discussed. –AnemoneProjectors– 23:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, AP. If someone wants to start a fresh FfD, fine, it can be discussed further there, but the deletion in this instance didn't follow due diligence in ascertaining that these images were equivalent to the ones deleted before. If it was just a different picture and filename, fine, but it's not - it's a different rationale, with different content in the article to support their inclusion. That said, HorrorFan, it might be a good idea to look at the rationales for fair-use images in recent FAs to get an idea of strengthening them further - and as I think I said back when Kurt's image was changed, it would help to have pictures of outfits that can be discussed individually, alongside the characters' costuming generally. For instance, the section in Rachel Berry says "We try to have her buttoned-up or wearing a nerdy sweater over a cute dress, like she doesn’t quite get it right. Or she takes that sweater and tucks it into the skirt and pairs it with knee highs and flats", but the image is just Rachel in a jumper. Off the top of my head, one idea might be Rachel in her Janet costume, with the comments about how she was so perfect for that role because the clothes the characters wear are so similar. Looking at Emma, as well - the section talking about her costuming is good, but the picture is mostly a headshot that hardly shows her outfit. One of the images from that 'Top 10 Emma outfits' Eyrich wrote, plus her commentary, would be good. Finally, be careful about making statements like "Rachel's wardrobe is central to understanding her character." - without a source, that's a pretty POV statement. Frickative 18:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...good points. Do you mean her Janet Weiss costume from "The Rocky Horror Glee Show"? That could work if we could expand on your idea of similarities between Janet/Rachel in terms of clothing style. I also thought that her original image before the first FfD ([11]) could work as well because it's a better representation of her wardrobe. Maybe something like this could work for Emma ([12])? I think promotional photos from press-kits count the same as a screenshot right and are able to be used in character articles?

PS: Are you finished with any edits on Blaine Anderson? I was just wondering because I noticed you haven't added anything in a couple of days. HorrorFan121 (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I meant the Rocky Horror one, because I recall that the interview on costuming for that drew the comparison between Janet and Rachel's regular wardrobe. But on second thoughts, as it was a special occasion costume, it would probably be better to have something from her own wardrobe. I think the original image is good - it seems to have the whole awkwardly tucked in thing going on that the quote talks about. Press-kit photos have a different licensing (non-free promotional) but can still be used with the same rationale. I like that pic of Emma because it even has the gloves in, but as the article says they altered her image after the pilot, it would probably be best to avoid a pilot photo. And yep, I just needed the one more day to finish up on Blaine. The lead might need a few sentences expansion to reflect the expanded article, but it should be good to go. Frickative 23:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice work on expanding the lead. It can most certainly be a joint nomination. You put A TON of work into it and it really shows. Fabulous work. ;) Oooh, the images I wanted to talk to you about. I messaged the user on Flickr and she was extremely nice and willing. I don't think she would mind changing some more licenses around. I also found another user with a nice image of Colfer here [13] and one of Mays as well [14]. She said that she would be definitely willing to change the licenses to allow usage for Wikipedia. HorrorFan121 (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Of course I'll pitch in if the GA review brings up any problems, but I should hope it won't :) Ooh, that's fab about Flickr! Both of those images are super, I love the one of Mays in particular. Great effort reaching out to people, and lovely that they're amenable to changing the licenses! Frickative 23:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Both are uploaded on the commons now, along with an image of Jayma/Jessalyn. Hmm...do you know anything about a supposed Glee character death? HorrorFan121 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff! All I know is the basics - that it happens in episode 21, and is supposedly a "beloved" character. Most of the spec I've read seems to think it will be either Jean or Becky, but I'm really not sure =/. It all sounds a bit glum for Glee! Frickative 01:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Becky or Jean? How depressing. :(. Apparently, a "major couple" will split up in the episode as well. I haven't seen "Born This Way (Glee)" yet, but I don't think the name "Lucy" should be added on Quinn's page. WP:Name obviously dictates that. Oh, shoot. I just opened a new window and realized you reverted it already. The same editor added it at Characters of Glee. HorrorFan121 (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone else has done it at Dianna Agron, agh. I'm trying to find the relevant guidelines before reverting, because I predict unless semi-protection is applied, there's going to be a lot of IP edits of that nature tomorrow. I just can't remember where the lead/article body equivalent of WP:COMMONNAME is, or if I'm just conflating it with general consensus at WP:TV. (Ooh, interesting about a couple splitting. I would have guessed Finn/Quinn, but I think they're meant to still be together at Nationals?) Frickative 02:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

ETA: I'm thinking there's probably not an official guideline that extends beyond article titles, but this recent discussion supports it, particularly Bignole's comment: "if you got a character who was only ever known by one name for most of a series then then one episode they "reveal" a surname or something then it's good to note but that article title and the lead sentence should reflect historical accuracy and not recent events. We don't treat characters like they've always had the characteristics they display if they have not always had them. Since they are not real, the argument of "well it was always there they just didn't show it" isn't accurate and does not apply". Frickative 02:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay. That makes it clearer. I don't think it deserves much more than a line in the "Storyline" section. Also, Kurt's article got a copy-edit today. Not sure where else we go from there. I removed de facto from the infobox, as suggested by the peer review and it now just reads " a male lead". I'm going to go un-quote the awards, because I've goon through a few GA/FA's and none of them are in quotations. HorrorFan121 (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Great! While you're doing that, it might be a good idea to have a quick check through the award refs and make sure that they are chronological. I'm pretty much certain they should flow from 2009 through to 2011, but I don't know that they're necessary in the right order wrt the months the ceremonies were held. Or I can do that if you like, as I threw the section together, but I'm tied up solid with work until Sunday. Hmm, as for what else, a close check of the references in general can't hurt, to make absolutely sure everything is sufficiently verified. One very minor thing - images should either all be on one side, or in a left-right-left pattern. Make sure everything is closely focussed on Kurt - for example, is this: NPR's Linda Holmes found it "absurd" that a teenager as deeply in denial as Karofsky would transition from bullying to kissing Kurt so quickly and described it as "emotionally and behaviorally unsound". strictly relevant? It probably couldn't hurt to leave a message at WP:GLEE asking if any of the task force members have FA experience and would be willing to give it a once-over as well. Frickative 21:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the events are chronologically correct now. I'm going to go over the references, and drop a note off at WP:GLEE. Haha. Wow! This section has gotten extremely long! ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Dream With Me

...the most anticipated album of the year, is nominated for deletion. =O I'm not the absolute best article writer or source locater, so based on what you can find, do you think this article will be able to escape deletion? After all, it's released in only seven weeks and - while I usually avoid my crystal ball - will probably be the biggest album event of the year, or close to it. Bits I found today include a production announcement of her concert and a press release from Sony, but mainstream media obviously won't pick it up until at least the week before release. CycloneGU (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. Glancing at the AfD, if Yves thinks it should be deleted, I'd honestly be inclined to ask to have it userfied until more sources are available. That said, and with the proviso that music articles are a long way from my forte, I'll scout around and see if there's anything I can do Sunday/Monday. (Work up to the ears until then, sob!). Frickative 19:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, Major Glee Spoiler

John Kubicek writes it, and comments that Sarah Crowther got fired from the show - being told not to look for any more work in entertainment - by Falchuk. so I think this is something that can be confirmed to be true. If you don't want to know, don't look it up. It's regarding who is going to be prom king and queen. I already read it. And trust me, you're better off waiting for the show. I certainly didn't see this one coming.

On the other hand, it's such a juicy tidbit that I can't decide whether, out of respect for Falchuk, to put it in the related episode article or just to wait for the show. As Kubicek writes: "Do I write about the spoiler, thus giving it even more exposure, or do I leave it alone and pray that fans are smart enough to avoid it on their own?" This is a major ethical decision for us, and I also keep thinking Brad himself could pop in as an anon. and remove it NEway. CycloneGU (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, yeah, I read all the Nicole Crowther stuff as it unfolded - very dramariffic! I share your uncertainty about including the reveal itself in the episode article. On the one hand, Wikipedia has a long-established guideline whereby spoilers aren't censored, but on the other hand... it's only 6 days until the episode in question airs anyway, after which point it won't matter. The actual mechanics of the Crowther scandal are already documented, so I sort of lean towards it not hurting the article just to keep that bit out until broadcast? Frickative 15:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Images

Ok, removing all unnecessary non-free images. I'll uncheck the "notify user" on images you uploaded, so a bunch of the templates don't come up. CTJF83 20:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I left:

• File:Glee gaga kiss.JPG, because you said there was a lot of commentary on it
• File:Pilot Glee.PNG, because the song was #4 on the Hot 100 (not sure if that is a good reason or not)
• File:GleeBornThisWayperformance.jpg cause the whole episode was focused on acceptance

Thoughts on leaving these? CTJF83 20:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice work! I think the Gaga image should be substituted with one that showcases the Gaga costumes more, but I keep saying that and not actually getting around to doing it, oops. I am in favour of keeping it in general, though. I'm not certain about the other two - the "Pilot" scene was a pivotal one within the episode, so maybe? For "Born This Way" it would be pretty easy to describe the T-shirts textually, but... ack, it's late here and my head is cloudy. This is a pretty useless reply, sorry, but I'll look at both again tomorrow with the NFCC open, when I can think a little more alertly :) Frickative 00:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

By funny coincidence, this pertinent discussion just started up. I know Masem is a strict upholder of the NFCC, and if he says that the scene pictured in the ibox "needs to be, at minimum, discussed in the article in a critical / commentary manner; the more about that scene, the better" then I'm happy with keeping the other two. I'm not sure whether the content at present reflects that (haven't had chance to read "Born This Way" since it was expanded), but there's definitely tonnes of critical commentary out there, so that's good. Frickative 00:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good, as always I highly value your opinion. CTJF83 00:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Italics

Hey, just wondering if you know why we put titles like Mattress (Glee), the "Glee" part in italics, but not the Mattress part in quotation marks, like a title normally would be? CTJF83 02:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm, good question! I have no idea why - it says not to at WP:TITLEFORMAT, but doesn't give a reason. Sorry I can't be more useful! Frickative 02:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's ok, thanks! CTJF83 02:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)