Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Dual/multiple roles being listed on cast lists?

The American cast lists have taken the approach of listing EVERY role that a performer has ever appeared in within the series on the cast list, even if the actor is no longer appearing as the character. The cast lists have gotten quite out of hand and General Hospital by far is the worst of them all. Days of Our Lives is also guilty of this, but to a lesser extent. I know it's not done on cast lists for EastEnders or Coronation Street and those lists look a lot less confusing -- apart from the fact multiple actors being listed from the same role. For example, Ellen Thomas just made her debut on EastEnders in the role of Claudette last month; however, Claudette is her fourth role within the series. But, only the character of Claudette which she currently portrays appears in the character list. I'd like to go back to having a performer be listed side by side with the role/roles they currently portray but I'd like input on this before I just go editing and causing trouble.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 22:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

My opinion on this is that if it's a list of characters, every person who's played that character should be listed (as in EastEnders), but if it's a cast list, then only the present characters and cast members should be included under a "current cast" list, but if there's a past list too, as there is for General Hospital, then previous roles can go there, even for current actors. Though I have an even better example of what could be done - it's in my userspace at User:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders cast members (but will go live one day). –anemone projectors– 08:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If it's a cast list, then all roles portrayed by an actor/actress should be listed, no matter how small or minimal the role has come to be. It isn't our fault of head writers are unoriginal in their writing, etc. A cast list is a cast list, and all role(s) they've portrayed should be noted. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think the previous characters that current cast members played on the show should be listed. It's not relevant at all to the show presently. It may be accurate to the way these pages are formatted, but still, it generally just adds clutter IMO. Unlike the UK/AUS soap character articles, where the previous actors listed is relevant and useful information, listing every character a current cast member has played? It seems like trivial information. It would be less complicated to simply list these previous portrayals in the previous cast members list. — Ar re 03:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That wouldn't make any sense, though. A current cast member is not a previous cast member so why would we be listing a current cast member in a previous cast member section? The only way your suggestion would make sense is if we created a new "Previous Characters" section but, that would just be clutter.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree with User:Arre 9; I think only the current characters should be included. It makes it less complicated and confusing. --Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 00:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yea, it is. Esp when you sort the table by years and there are all of these random years in between, it disrupts the way you view the table, but thats jmo. — Ar re 03:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It is a list of current cast members and the characters they have portrayed, not current characters and who have portrayed them. Yes, former characters portrayed by current actors should be listed.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Jade Harlow

Dear soap opera enthusiasts: This old draft will soon be deleted as stale unless someone takes an interest in it. There are many online sources, but I don't know which ones are reliable. Is this a notable subject that should be kept and improved?—Anne Delong (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Kyle Jenkins listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Kyle Jenkins to be moved to Kyle Abbott (The Young and the Restless). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Flashbacks

Do flashbacks count as a character appearance, even after the actor has died? Some believe that it counts as one since it's the character who appeared? This refers to Katherine Chancellor page. There needs to be a solution to prevent more edit warring. Jester66 (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Flashbacks do not count. The scene in question was not a flashback, though and you know that. It was 100% new material consisting of Nikki and Jill talking about seeing Katherine Chancellor (and we saw her too). You're being childish about this, Jester, with your senseless, non-explanation reverts. You've made good attempts at deleting info in order to make yourself look right and you're making a good attemp to falsify info now with your faulty explanations but, I put the info back and I'm letting others know now that it wasn't a flashback. This whole conversation you started is absolutely useless and will result in nothing because everyone is answering you about flashbacks which is not what that scene was.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Flashbacks are replays of previous appearances, so by nature they do not count as new appearances. It may be notable to mention within the text of an article if a reliable source has cited it (perhaps it serves an important point in a plotline), but I would guess in most instances this is not the case. I don't know what's going on at Katherine Chancellor but this seems like a perfect example of the trivia-obsessed trying to create new ways to add non-information to articles.— TAnthony^Talk 15:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Flashbacks that use archive footage should not count, but flashbacks using brand new content, such as EastEnders 30th anniversary, when Lucy Beale, Jake Stone (EastEnders) and Rainie Cross all appeared, should. For Katherine Chancellor, no, this doesn't count. This would apply to any character in any TV show, not just a soap, and it happens in Doctor Who all the time. –anemone projectors– 21:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that the footage used when Katherine appeared to Nikki and Jill was not a flashback image; it was the footage shot of Jeanne Cooper for the opening of The Young and the Restless, in other words, it was not footage shot for the use of Katherine, and was instead later on used for said footage. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

AnemoneProjectors' example is what is called a "newly created flashback", and that obviously should count as an appearance. This Jeanne Cooper footage thing is ... interesting. If it's essentially outtakes from the opening sequence then I feel like it's kind of pushing it to say it's a new appearance. If you showed a still photo of Cooper that had never been seen on the show before, is that an appearance? I definitely think the footage use is very notable though in light of her death etc. so it should definitely be referenced in the article.— TAnthony^Talk 04:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's hope we can resolve this soon, because there is a pretty abusive editor basically vandalizing several of the pages. Jester66 (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

OMG! Do you ever tell the truth? There's one page, Jester, not several. And you're the one vandalising with your non-explanation reverts and blatant attempts to mislead other editors.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with TAnthony - don't list this as an appearance in the infobox but do reference it in the article. –anemone projectors– 15:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: I have explained myself time after time when I revert not only the Katherine Chancellor page, but the Ashley Abbott, Bo and Kimberly Brady pages. Part of the reason why we are having these discussions is because of your disruptive editing and rude behavior. Also @AnemoneProjectors: I couldn't agree more. Jester66 (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Category objection for "Twin Peaks"

I do not agree that "Twin Peaks" warrants categorization as a "soap opera". TP was a weekly show, not a daily show, and it had a closed-ended plot line--the murder of Laura Palmer was solved. I also question whether it was a "melodrama"--it was a single camera, post-modern, surrealist/supernatural series drama with significant comedic elements. It was arguably one of the earliest post-modern TV shows, with substantial influence; I suppose that it is understandable that some post-MTV generation editors might mistake its gestalt as "camp" and "soapy", but it was substantially more than that--in fact it wasn't that at all. "The Mentalist" is a contemporary show with a simple linking plot device--the identity of Red John--but perhaps because it was edited to comply with the demands of post-ADHD attention spans, it is categorized as a "police procedural". Clearly, there are substantial quality implications between a police procedural and a soap opera, and I think that TP is being grossly underestimated. Alanrobts (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The term "soap opera", while primarily attracted to daytime daily dramas, has come to include weekly prime time shows like Dallas or Dynasty, and similar kinds of programming that feature long running storylines with multiple characters usually in a more domestic setting (rather than being workplace-centric). TP is the David Lynch version of Peyton Place, but you're right to suggest that the show falls within several categories. Calling non-daytime ongoing dramas "soap operas" has fallen out of fashion in the same way that "miniseries" are now called "limited series" etc., because of the connotations of melodrama and camp created in the 80s, and I think you're falling prey to that. By definition TP is a soap opera. But the lead calls it a "serial drama" (also correct) likely because of these connotations, and plus that term seems to cover a broader scope that "soap opera", which is very specific in many people's eyes.— TAnthony^Talk 16:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Re-directs

Would it be best to create re-directs for all the characters that don't have their own pages but, do have entries at "minor characters" pages (ex: Austin Travers)? My reason for asking is because when a "minor characters" page gets re-named (like the Days of Our Lives cast members page recently did), the #Austin becomes irrelevant and the link simply ends up going to the top of the page, rather than directly to the character's entry. With re-directs, if a page is re-named, it would simply create a double re-direct and a bot would most likely come around and fix it anyways. Thoughts?Cebr1979 (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes this is definitely what should be done, piped links in an article like [[The Young and the Restless characters (2014)#Austin Travers|Austin Travers]] always end up being broken. There is actually an organizational system in place for this, the maintenance category Category:Fictional character redirects to lists under which you can create subcats like Category:One Life to Live character redirects to lists which you populate by using the template {{CharR to list entry|One Life to Live|Blackwell, Ursula}} at the bottom of your redirect (using the show name of your choice and creating the category if it does not yet exist). This has been for a lot of shows and a lot of characters, but not all.— TAnthony^Talk 02:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Permit WP:Red links in WP:Navboxes?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Red link#Proposal regarding redlinks in navigation templates; subsection is at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Legal siblings and parents vs. half siblings and stepparents

It has come to my attention that several soap opera character articles who have listed the parents as one legal and one biological have currently been disputed, for example Bo Brady and Ashley Abbott. Should the siblings who are biologically related though one parent, be put in the full sibling section and do they still need the (legal) next to it? And should the legal parent be under stepfather or stepmother? Jester66 (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

No, certainly not under stepfather or stepmother... because what would be incorrect and we try to keep incorrect info off of wikipedia. In both of those cases, John Abbott and Shawn Brady are not the step-fathers of Ashley Abbott or Bo Brady, respectively. They are the legal fathers of those characters. For John to be Ashley's father, he would have had to marry Dina after Ashley was born, and he didn't. Same with Shawn marrying Caroline: the wedding would have needed to take place after Bo was born, and we all know it didn't. This should be easy to understand. It's 100% the exact same thing as Neil Winters not being Lily Winters' step-father. He, too, is her legal father. John, Shawn, and Neil all hold legal rights to their children and have throughout their children's entire lives. As far as the law is concerned, those people are their kids fathers. Frankie and Max Brady are full-siblings of the other Brady family children (via adoption) because their legal mother and legal father are the same as the rest of them. Bo is as much a full-sibling to Roman, Kayla, and Kimberly Brady as they are. I hope that helped to clear up your confusion.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Even though they are ALSO biologically related through one parent? They automatically go to the full sibling section? Now with no mother and father biologically but legally and legally raised like siblings (Ashley and Billy), I understand to put (legal) next to it. Frankie and Max's cases aren't the same because they were adopted. Jester66 (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, even though! I can't believe you just said adopting is different than legal!!! OMG! hahaCebr1979 (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Who do you think handles adoptions? The law does! As far as (NBC's fictional version of) the world is concerned, they are not half-siblings! That's what happens when two people have the same legal mother AND the same legal father!!Cebr1979 (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It mainly clutters the infoboxes Jester66 (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It keeps them correct.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

We need other opinions, since it seems like you are getting very hostile. Jester66 (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I'm explaining things to you so you understand.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyone else? Would like your thoughts. Jester66 (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The whole "legal" parent thing speaks to the convoluted nature of familial relationships in soap operas (and real life, for that matter). I'm of the leaning that the "legal" parent shouldn't be listed except if the child is adopted on-screen by said "legal" parent, as with Kevin Buchanan and Joey Buchanan in 1982. The whole point of the infobox is to keep it as seamless and comprehensive as possible. FrickFrack 00:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I was invited to join this discussion but have found it slightly confusing. Taking Ashley Abbott as an example, it says in the infobox "Father: John Abbott (legal)". Does this mean he has adopted her (after marrying her birth mother)? If so, why not use the "adoptivefather" field? As for the siblings, if they share the same birth mother but a different birth father, I'd use the "halfbrothers" and "halfsisters" fields, though when the different birth father is also an adoptive/legal father, it does become more complicated. The only example in a UK soap I can think of is Bobby Beale (EastEnders), whose stepmother adopted him, but she had no children with his father. I think in this case we'd still call them half siblings. –anemone projectors– 10:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Anemone. The "adoptive" and "half" [insert family member] fields should definitely be used instead of "Legal" for most cases. I was really confused to see in Johnny Abbott's info-box the term "adoptive" for his sister Katie Newman -- they have the same father, the implication that she is an "adoptive" sister is confusing. I think that and several other instances like it should be corrected. — Ar re 12:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I too was invited to join the discussion; to answer your question about Ashley Abbott Anemone, John did not legally adopt Ashley as his child, he just raised her believing she was his biological child. John's wife (Dina, Ashley's mom) divorced John leaving him to raise their children; however John was never made aware that Ashley was not his child. As far as John was concerned, Ashley was his biological child. But viewers are aware that he isn't. When it comes to the parent, I think IF the parents were legally married then it is ok to include the non-biological parent as a step parent. For example, Shawn Brady was still legally married to Bo Brady's mother Caroline when he was killed of in 2008 -- so LEGALLY he is still Bo's stepfather. So Bo Brady, Lily Winters whose bio parents was still legally married to the non bio parent should list said non bio parent as step-parents. The legal thing has always bothered me. For someone whose parental status is a bit more complicated like John Abbott to Ashley Abbott, we COULD include another set of parameters for that... But I'm not exactly sure what to do with it. I know we CANNOT just remove the non bio parent completely because characters like Ashley and Bo still use their non bio parents' surnames and recognize said parent as a parent. And those connections are important to understanding each individual character. I think the parental component of this discussion needs a separate discussion. As for the siblings, regardless of whether they have the same "legal" parents or not, I always thought these parameters were mainly about biology? I think half siblings should be listed as such, NO MATTER WHAT. Including "legal" really does make things cluttered and extremely complicated. The parent thing I believe is much more complicated and would probably warrant more discussion about what to do. As for siblings, I maintain, "halfbrothers" or "halfsisters" should DEFINITELY be used.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 17:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with every single one of you, you have all made valid points.Jester66 (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the half-brother/half-sister fields should be used as well as the adoptive father/adoptive mother fields. I recall there being a discussion from quite awhile ago where it was said that adoptive parents are the legal parents, and simply parents are the biological parents. In the case of Ashley Abbott, Brent Davis and Dina Mergeron are her parents and John Abbott is her adoptive father. He raised her believing she was his biological child therefore he was legally recognized as her father on her hypothetical birth certificate. Just like when people adopt someone they become their legal parents and vice versa; John is legally Ashley's father, therefore he belongs in the adoptive father field because he is not her biological father. Creativity97 21:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

But he never adopted her. That's the problem here. Saying he adopted her is not only misinfo... it's LYING! How can someone adopt someone else when he doesn't even know he's not the other person's biological father? I honestly don't understand how you guys don't get this????Cebr1979 (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I could accept the half-siblings thing but... then Frankie and Max need to be half-siblings to Bo. If we're going to say that Victor is Bo's "one true dad" (even though that's garbage and not how the law works, in a real world or fictional one), then Frankie and Max have to be half-siblings too because they were never adopted by Victor.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment — This is kind of why I hate the merging of the Infobox 1 and Infobox 2 parameters because things become too specific, and it defies the point of an infobox. For my stance, adoptive parents have always had "(adoptive)" next to their children and vice versa. As for legal parents, I was always under the assumption that "(legal)" be put next to the parents and singular child that may be the legal child in question. As for half-siblings, I'm somewhat torn on adding it as a separate parameter to {{Infobox soap character}}. I would explain my reasonings behind it, but I know it would be ripped apart and not understood by others.
- I think you forgot to sign but explain it and I'll listen to it.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 02:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Question - Is there a possible suggestion for a new parameter that can be used to solve this issue? I'd prefer "step" parent, but that obviously doesn't work for everyone.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 02:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  - Anything to prevent the edit warring that is currently happening in the Bo Brady, Kimberly Brady and the other Days' character pages. Jester66 (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been abstaining from this conversation because these infobox detail discussions always go on and on ... I am of a mind to eliminate any kind of qualifier at all, because (as any parent will tell you), a child is your child whether they're adopted or biological or switched at birth. And any non-soap editor would tell you this sort of detail is just clutter in an infobox and trivial for our purposes here. You don't usually see these kinds of designations in infoboxes for real people, and these relationship nuances are detailed within the articles themselves.

BUT I get it, long running soap character relationships are more complicated, and perhaps this detail helps eliminate some confusion—but mostly we just love this stuff. Well that's fine, but we should insist on the method that involves the least amount of extra text in the infobox. We have gotten into a very bad habit of making the infobox as much of an abbreviated copy of the article as possible, which defeats the purpose, and I have spoken out against this for many years.

I should also note, I created {{Infobox soap character}} in 2007 with soap-specific needs in mind that weren't being addressed by {{Infobox character}}. Basically, we needed more parameters for different kinds of relations, and parameters for multiple photos of different portrayers (which I'm actually surprised got by the fair use police and is still allowed). I also incorporated the collapsible Relationships section to keep the new expanded infobox tidy and thus protect it from challengers. This was at a time when many many TV series and franchises had their own character infoboxes to suit specific needs. Well, in the intervening years, most of those other infobox templates have been eliminated, because they were either too redundant or too skewed toward trivial information (and several more are in TfDs as we speak). The truth is, most of what sets our infobox apart from {{Infobox character}} would be considered trivia by many editors, and I think the only reason it has not really been challenged yet (except for this 2010 mass TfD) is because it is in such wide use (I used AWB to replace the generic template in every soap character article I could find!). But that day is coming, and the least fan-ish and full of trivial junk we can make our infoboxes, the better.— TAnthony^Talk 17:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Sooooooo, no suggestions? I'd really like your input on this considering you're a veteran editor.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 21:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

So I've actually given this a lot of thought. What if we solve the parental dispute by adding "BIOLOGICAL" parent parameters specifically? For example, the "Father" parameter can be explained in descriptions section as "The person known to said character as their father. Biology is not always a factor and neither is legal adoption. Said parent may have simply raised the child and said child identifies the individual as his/her father." And the "BIOLOGICAL FATHER" parameter would be pretty self explanatory. For characters like Bo Brady, and Ashley Abbott, and Tony DiMera who identify their non-biological fathers as their father and no one else, even though they are very aware of that they don't share a biological connection.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 18:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

We need to decide a consensus on this, since the disagreement on the Ashley Abbott, Kimberly Brady, Bo Brady pages still hasn't been resolved. There needs to be a solution.Jester66 (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

At Talk:Bo Brady, I stated, "What is a full-sibling or a half-sibling is not defined by legality (not usually anyway); it is defined by biology." The way full and half-siblings are being defined by legality in this case is not standard in the least. Flyer22 (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem with Ashley Abbott is: if you're going to say that John Abbott is her step-father rather than legal father, then fine. It's wrong, but fine. However, then you can't turn around and say that Robert Abbott is her legal grandfather or Ivan Abbott is her legal uncle or Billy Abbott is her legal half-brother or that any of his kids are her legal nieces and nephews. You guys can't be picking and choosing how these characters are related on a character by character basis based on your personal preference at that moment! That's absurd! If John's going to be her step-father, then all of those other people have to be her step-relatives as well! She's either a legal Abbott or a step one, she can't be one sometimes and the other the rest based on however you want it to be on that particular day for that particular character. That's just not how things are done.Cebr1979 (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, there are conversations at the Ashley Abbott and Kimberly Brady talk pages that you all need to read and think about before you go deciding on anything. This "half-" business is just going to make a mess when it comes to the Bradys.Cebr1979 (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The parameter of "step-parent" exists for a valid reason; if the parent is married to someone else, it should be included. Removing it is providing false information of a character. The editing conflicts on this issue is horrendous, especially when it's leading to disruptive editing and potential edit-wars between editors on this subject. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

livelikemusic, I agree with you and Flyer22 wholeheartedly on this issue over the whole full/step parent/sibling for the soap opera pages. I just want this unnecessary mess to be over, because it seems like these disruptive edit-wars don't seem to be ending. Jester66 (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The removal of in-laws makes sense, but removing step-parents makes no sense, especially since it is a valid parameter in the ibox, which means that it's intended to be included. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

A step-parent is really nothing more than a glorified in-law, though. With the rate these characters get married and divorced, we'll be forever updating the step-parent field as much as the in-laws. If you guys all want them there, though... fine. Let's have them there. That's not changing or resolving the mess created by (wrongly) stating that legal fathers are step-fathers, however.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

If the parameter exists for step-parents, it should be used. It is obviously there for a reason. Legal parents should not be listed under the step-parent parameter, however... they should be listed under the parent parameter with "(legal)" next to it if anything until we're able to wrap up this discussion (which I doubt we will... too many conflicting beliefs). livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 12:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

That's what I have been saying all along: a legal parent is NOT a step-parent!Cebr1979 (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The only way a step-parent is a "legal parent" is by marriage, and vice versa. In the case of Ashley Abbott, John Abbott was a legal parent, not a step-parent. Oh, and by the way, listing every single step-parent also seems a bit cluttering, especially when years of included. That's getting a bit ahead of ourselves, and making a bigger issue out of something that should not be so big and complicated. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 13:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey! I agree! But: if John is going to be Ashley's step-dad then... he's not the only one she's had so... if we're going to list one, we have to list them all!Cebr1979 (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Where does it need to be said that all step-parents should be mentioned, though? Again, that creates unnecessary fluff to the ibox, which defeats its purposes. John was not a step-parent, he was the legal known parent of Ashley Abbott. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

LLM: Please read this whole conversation from the beginning! You're preaching to the choir here! I agree with you! However, Jester and everyone he meatpuppeted into this conversation disagree and feel that John is Ashley's step-dad. That's the current consensus and, if that's how we're going to do things, then we need to list all of her step-dads the same way we list all of her ex-husbands etc...Cebr1979 (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Cebr, please do not make accusations, such as meat-puppeting. That is a serious offense. As for listing every single step-parent, I feel it is a bit too trivial and cluttering to the ibox. John Abbott is not a step-parent to Ashley Abbott. He was her legal father, much in the way that Eric Forrester is the legal parent to Ridge Forrester, though, Eric also served as his step-father. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Like I said: I agree! But, the current consensus is that John is a step-parent and, if we're going to list one, we have to list all of them.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

"Template:Televisa 2013 telenovelas"

The usage of {{Televisa 2013 telenovelas}} is under discussion, see Template talk:Univision 2013 telenovelas -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not Trevor St. John portrayed Todd Manning

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Todd Manning#Trevor St. John never actually portrayed Todd, that was retconned away long ago. A WP:Permalink for that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You Are the One (telenovela) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for You Are the One (telenovela) to be moved to You Are the One (Argentine TV series). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

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

All About Eve (Philippines TV series) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for All About Eve (Philippines TV series) to be moved to All About Eve (Philippine TV series). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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

MariMar (Philippines TV series) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for MariMar (Philippines TV series) to be moved to Marimar (Philippine telenovela). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Taylor Walker (Days of our Lives) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Taylor Walker (Days of our Lives) to be moved to Taylor Walker (Days of Our Lives). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Talk:MariMar (Philippines TV series)

Hello I wish other members of this WikiProject involved in this discussion. Since apparently or I do not understand very well what I trying to tell the user Howard the Duck or not understand me, I wish to engage users who know a little more about the topic. Thank you.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Kalye Serye listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Kalye Serye to be moved to KalyeSerye. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 09:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

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

KalyeSerye listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for KalyeSerye to be moved to KalyeSerye. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

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

The Color of Passion listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Color of Passion to be moved to El color de la pasión. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Days of Our Lives characters listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Days of Our Lives characters to be moved to List of Days of Our Lives characters. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

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

C.I.D. (Indian TV series) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for C.I.D. (Indian TV series) to be moved to CID (Indian TV series). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

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

In-universe dates in infoboxes

I would like to propose that all dates attached to in-universe events be removed, especially from infoboxes (years of marriage/stepfamilies). Here are my reasons:

We no longer use dates of birth and death in infoboxes, because characters aren't born and they don't die, they're created and introduced and then written out. We also know that all fiction exists in a "perpetual present tense". In EastEnders character articles, the words "née" and "previously" are no longer used in the opening paragraphs, for this reason.

I think it's wrong to state years of marriage in infoboxes. Using Kathy Beale as an example, the infobox states she was married to Pete Beale from 1968 to 1991. But they didn't exist in 1968, they were created in 1984. It also says she was married to Phil Mitchell from 1995 to 1999. But because of the "perpetual present tense", she's (presently) married to Pete Beale, and she's also (presently) married to Phil Mitchell. I wonder if this should also mean removing marriages that are purely part of a backstory (i.e. Cora Cross's dead husband).

I guess what I'm saying is, when something is an in-universe event, there should be no date attached to it, because it can be viewed on any date (therefore didn't happen on that date). Your thoughts please. –anemone projectors– 15:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

We could just list the marriages in the infobox. I'm quite sure that if people wanted to know more information they could read the article.--5 albert square (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. And they will read that one character married another, then later got divorced, without needing to know in what years it happened, because it's not important :-) –anemone projectors– 21:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

How about, instead of putting years, we put (former) or (divorced) just to save the hassle? A lot of spouses have a "TBA" or question mark because a divorce date wasn't stated; it would be easier if we just had one term. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 22:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not sure about this atm. Wouldn't it lead to more editors adding "(divorced)" and "(separated)" notes to the ibox, which would be considered clutter, no? - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If not that, we could just rename the row as "spouse" and only include the current spouse. Or split the rows up for current spouses and former spouses. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 22:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as I was aware, titles such as "divorced" or "separated" were removed as a form of fancruft fluff editing, especially given the ever-revolving door of re-marriages a soap character could go through during their duration on a series. Splitting the spouse parameter into "Current spouse" and "Former spouse" is also a bit fancruft and cluttered, especially if the marriage is a re-marriage, which is common on US based soaps (don't know if it is on UK and AUS ones). I know on US articles years are all that's used, no other terms of form of dates. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

How would re-marriages affect splitting between current/former spouses? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 23:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd be against adding "divorced" etc, as although, for example, Kathy Beale and Phil Mitchell are divorced in the latest episode, they're not divorced in episodes where they're married. I'd also be totally against listing only the "current" spouse for the same reason. All spouses are "current" because fiction exists in a "perpetual present tense". All I want is the in-universe years removed. The reason for the marriage ending is usually explained in the storylines section. –anemone projectors– 10:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, we no longer put durations for jobs (at least in EastEnders pages) for pretty much the same reason, so I see no reason for in-universe dates for any part of the infobox. –anemone projectors– 07:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd quite like to reboot this discussion - does anyone else have any thoughts? I have more proposals I'd like to see as well, such as only including characters in the family section of the infobox (i.e. they have made an appearance) - often parents are named but never appear as a character, so this isn't notable. –anemone projectors– 13:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem is wider than just dates. The problem stems from the fact that many editors see the infobox as containing complete information about a character in-universe, which is what they would see if that person were real (all family members, all dates etc.). So, I think the problem lies in how the infobox is presented - perhaps there should be two, a 'real-world' infobox (containing portrayers, creators etc.) and a fictional infobox (for all fictional information)? It would certainly mean we could solve the "drive-by" IP editing of infoboxes to ('completestly') include all family members, notable or not in the real-world, because they would be OK for a fictional universe infobox, and it would also be clearer for readers, too. Stephenb (Talk) 14:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to see that happen, as this other infobox would then contain way too much information - for example, Liam Butcher has about 76 named relatives, most of whom are not notable to him. It would mean birth and death dates would return, and would just be a nightmare really. At the moment, it's only really the occupation, home (not used in EastEnders, for example) and family (cut down to the most relevant) that are the in-universe stuff, and I think that's all that's needed. And where would such an infobox be placed in an article? –anemone projectors– 14:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said in this conversation here, we (basically) already have two infoboxes. We have the real-world main one that treats the character as fictional by noting the portrayers, the durations, who created the character, etc... and we have the collapsable family portion of the infobox that is done in an in-universe style by showing who the character is related to, whom they were married to (and when), aliases/other names, etc...Cebr1979 (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Liam is related to everyone :) It could be argued that he infobox should represent that, of course. Family is hidden by default in the current infobox, so it only clogs things up when opened. But my point doesn't come from the angle of trying to be neat and tidy, which is fine, but from a non-technical viewpoint: that is, many (mostly IP?) editors clearly seem to think that the infoboxes should contain complete in-universe information rather than being concise and 'lossy'. Infoboxes are supposed to only contain the relevant/notable information, but there's clearly some disagreement as to what it relevant/notable. Is it worse to continually revert editors who add (in good faith) information they believe is missing or to accept that some in-universe information is applicable within infoboxes? As to whether there is one of two infoboxes, or whether you could somehow split the single infobox into identifiable "real-world" and "in-universe" sections, I don't know. Somehow, the level of information required for the infobox needs to be clarified.

Most of the time I am on WP, I am reverting vandals or editors who are not following the style guide(s), but then why should they do the latter (since it isn't obvious there is one, when simply editing an article)? I've been considering dropping EE articles from my watch list because it's becoming too difficult to determine what, exactly, is the correct level information for the infoboxes (and I was considering that before the Vincent Hubbard discussion!). Probably 90% of my recent EE article edits are reversions based on something I'm not completely convinced is correct, appropriately applied or widely known outside of a small number of editors. Stephenb (Talk) 14:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The Color of Passion listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Color of Passion to be moved to El color de la pasión. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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

né/née in the lead

Many soap pages have started using né/née in the lead (such as here). Leads of articles are not written in an in-universe style, they are done in a real-world context and, in the real world, characters are not born, they are created by writers. Stating "Sage Newman (previously Warner)" would make more sense. "Né/née" means the character was born with that name but, like I said: in our real-world, characters are just not born. They aren't real.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. You are exactly right that character articles should be written in a real world context, and as biographical articles of real people do not use this corny "née" business, neither should fictional character articles. This "née" thing popped in several articles a few years back and editors started to replicate it, thinking it was the norm. It was quashed, but I've noticed a small recurrence recently as well. — TAnthony^Talk 00:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a small recurrence at all. In the last week or so, it's been popping up an awful lot (for American soaps at least).Cebr1979 (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I've seen it lately from IP editors, so it is likely one rogue. Have you noticed who has been doing it? I'm hard pressed to believe a series of editors is simultaneously reviving this corny old thing.— TAnthony^Talk 02:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I recently saw it added to Alexis Colby here, but looked at your recent fixes and, for example, né was added to Cane Ashby in 2013. So I'm wondering how many instances have been there for awhile and how many are new.— TAnthony^Talk 03:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The new ones are all this person using multiple IPs. Unfortunately, we can't have every soap opera-related page protected and wikipedia, as a general rule, doesn't like blocking IPs so... we're just sorta stuck with it. As for any old ones, I don't know. I can't say as I've ever noticed it until now.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, very annoying. Drucilla Winters is another one added in 2013, but it looks like you're going thru all the Y&R articles so that's good.— TAnthony^Talk 03:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The more I do this, the more I'm starting to think the lead of the article should mention the common/page name only. Something like this is just ridiculous since the character has never been known by anything other than Katherine Chancellor. Even a character like Ronan Malloy's page saying "(formerly Aiden Lansing)" in the lead is false. Within the context of the stories, we've been told he once went by the name "Aiden Lansing" but, in our real-world, the character has never been known as anything other than Ronan Malloy. Perhaps with a character like Chloe Mitchell, stating "(previously Katherine Tina Valentine)" would be okay since the character did debut with that name (except it should be shortened to just "Kate Valentine") but, as for other characters like Leslie Michaelson or Victor Newman... In our real-world, they have never, ever been known as anything other than Leslie Michaelson and Victor Newman. Any other names are retcons only used within in-universe, fictional storylines.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

That thinking is touched on here as well.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Or... What I now think would be even better: simply having the pagename in the lead and moving the maiden/married names to the storylines section. It's just that a character like Katherine Chancellor was never previously known as "Katherine Shepherd." As of the character's first appearance, she was known as Katherine Chancellor. "Previously" is only in-universe, not real-world.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

On the subject of "née", I removed all uses of this from EastEnders charcter articles some time ago, because as we say, they are not born, but created by writers, and the lead is written from a real-world perspective. However, for the reason that all episodes still exist out there somewhere (or are shown in other countries weeks after the original broadcast, or old episodes are repeated on other channels), I also don't use the word "previously", but "also". For example, Tanya Branning, Pat Butcher, Jean Slater. But all other British soap articles I've seen are using both "née" and "previously". And we only use names used in the credits - so Pat Butcher doesn't have the names Pat Beale and Pat Harris shown, as both are part of her backstory but not used in the series. I think it's right to use all credited names, but nothing else. –anemone projectors– 12:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

AnemoneProjectors: I hadn't read your comment yet, I agree except for the "also" thing: If we allow "also" in the lead... If we give IPs even an inch, they will take us for a mile and we'll be right back where we started (aka: with all our pages becoming one giant mess lately). Cebr1979 (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: All I know is this seems to work for EastEnders, and we haven't had much of a problem with people mass-changing it back. It's just the odd one here and there, but with every page on my watchlist and others also watching, we just revert and that's no big deal to me really. But "née" should definitely go. –anemone projectors– 08:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Editor insisting that married names should be in the alias (other names) field

As seen here, Cebr1979 is insisting that we include married names in the alias (other names) field based on this discussion. Like I told him on my talk page, "There is no WP:Consensus that states that we have to use that 'alias' field. And using it for married names is completely redundant. That discussion you linked to shows editors' dissatisfaction with it being used for married names." And like I told him at the IP's talk page, "See how many editors [here at WP:SOAPS] agree that married names should be in that 'alias' field, which is now known as 'other names' mostly because the editors didn't think that the married names should be listed under that field. There was no agreement that married names should be included in that field. Editors renamed the field so that it wouldn't be so ridiculous when people used it for names that are so clearly not aliases -- you know, like married names." Cebr1979 has interpreted the discussion to mean that the field should be used and that married names should be placed there. From what I see regarding that discussion, it's optional, and certainly not preferred.

I refuse to talk to him any further about this, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone. I leave this matter up to others, including to Drmargi, another editor he reverted on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the whole conversation (which also links ***multiple times*** to the current consensus talk on the matter).Cebr1979 (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I personally use the alias field for married names, as long as the character has been credited with that name. But it can be optional and rules can be tweaked for individual characters; sometimes it's best to discuss individual cases on the article's talk page to come up with an individual consensus. In the case of Erica Kane, there are a lot of names, but I don't think the fact that all her spouses are listed is a reason not to include them, as long as those names are actually used at some point. –anemone projectors– 11:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

That it's optional is exactly my point. There is no way any reasonable person could view it as required or mandatory. I personally find it silly to include Erica Kane's married names in the "other names" field when her marriages are already listed in the infobox, and when we don't even clarify in the other names field that these "other names" are her married names. And if we did clarify that, the matter would be even more redundant to her marriages being listed in the infobox. And how do we even know that she took all of these last names when she married? That's another factor: Editors assuming that the woman automatically took the man's last name, which is WP:Original research (OR). Erica was a famous figure within the series and was commonly still known as "Erica Kane" to the masses within that fictional realm even after her marriages. And what if an editor added Erica's married names to the lead as well, which some have done (only to be reverted by me or others because it's unnecessary clutter)? My aversion to married names in the lead, with the occasional exception, is explicitly explained at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 3#Married names in the lead of fictional character articles. I never did get around to proposing a guideline addition on that matter, so that Millahnna, Cyphoidbomb and others could see it and weigh in on it, but it is on my to-do list, and it will eventually be done. For example, I recently noted, "Regarding the addition of married names to the lead, this is what the infobox is for. Sooner or later, I will kill this convention of adding a lot of married names to the leads of fictional characters articles." Flyer22 (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

So, in other words, you insist that married names be put in the infoboxes when it suits you and then decide that married names not be put in the infoboxes when other editors (namely: me) "insist" it as well simply because that's what happens to suit you that day? That's weird, Flyer. Really weird.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Having said everything I have said on the matter (here and other places)... In thinking about it... Believe it or not, Flyer: If you were to start some sort of consensus talk on having married names for female characters not included as "aliases/other names" in the infobox (and even in the lead, with the exception of characters whose married names become their common names like Nikki Newman and Maggie Horton), I would support that! If a female character is married, common sense would/should dictate that the female character, at some point (whether it be by her own dialogue or the dialogue of another character or in an outside real-world source), would be referred to by her husband's last name and, being common sense and all, wouldn't/shouldnt need to be noted.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

That thinking is touched on here as well.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: The "Regarding the addition of married names to the lead, this is what the infobox is for." edit summary is specifically about married names that are already in the infobox because the marriages are listed there. That aspect is exactly what my above posts complaining about the married names being added to the alias field is about. These married names are already in the infobox due to the marriages being listed there. Flyer22 (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

And yet... that's only what you're saying now.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: "I personally find it silly to include Erica Kane's married names in the 'other names' field when her marriages are already listed in the infobox." is perfectly clear to anyone with a shred of common sense. And why I called the matter of "married names in the infobox via the alias field" redundant in the aforementioned section on my talk page should also be clear: The marriages are already in the infobox; they allow readers to know what the married names are. That is, if the woman actually took the man's last name. My making these two notes in this section due to Cebr1979's comments is exactly what I mean by "I refuse to talk to him any further about this, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone." I will be making no further notes in this section based on his comprehension skills or anything else he states. It is not surprising that others are not commenting in this section. Because of their past experiences with Cebr1979, editors clearly think that it's best to let him have his free rein instead of challenge him on anything. Flyer22 (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And yet... that's still only what you're saying now.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

And... as I've told you in the past, stop using words like "clearly" when you're so obviously wrong. As per this conversation you started on October 2nd... only one person had joined in (and that comment sounds like a general passerby who doesn't watch that show). I did not enter that conversation until today (5 days later) so, if you need one editor to be at fault for others not taking part in your conversations...it would appear the only one they're avoiding... is you.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment — This is why I was against changing "Alias" to "Other names", and why I think included every single name that is not the common-name of the article is a mistake. It leads to potential original research and a way of a way of adding in fan-cruft information within the article. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 13:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Philippine television series

Hello. Step over here to ask if the Philippine television series are actually telenovelas?. I see that all references accredit as "TV series" rather than "Telenovelas". Even in several articles in the introduction is credited as follows: "is a 2015 Philippine television series". As far as I have understood the word "telenovelas" are used most of all in Latin America and Brazil. But I have no idea.--Philip J Fry (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

What a mess all our pages have become lately!

A lot of the infobox parameters need to be taken out so this IP hopper stops using them!Cebr1979 (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Which ones, and why? Should they be removed just because they're being used? I'm afraid I don't understand the request. –anemone projectors– 10:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Article setup

There seems to be two different ways soap character articles are setup, and it is becoming quite inconsistent, so I'm bringing this up here. Some are setting up articles like:

== Storylines ==
== Development ==
== Reception ==
== References ==

While others are setup as:

== Casting and creation ==
== Character development ==
== Storylines ==
== Reception ==
== References ==

Having two different setups, especially within American soaps is inconsistent. Which is the proper format that should be used? Discuss here. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 13:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Either is the proper format, just as in the case of non-soap opera character articles; it is a case-by-case matter, with the setup being the decision of the editors involved in significantly formatting the article, especially if they formed a WP:Consensus on the matter. MOS:TV is the guideline, and it is clear that no character article has to be set up exactly the same way. Flyer22 (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The actual names of the sections and their specific content can be determined case-by-case based on the needs of the article and material available. Livelikemusic, the noticeable difference I see between your two examples is the placement of "Storylines", either before or after the creation/development/casting material. In the spirit of real-world context I think storyline sections should go after the other character stuff, as in your second example.— TAnthony^Talk 02:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

In EastEnders character articles, we agreed to put storylines first, to give context to the rest of the article. This also follows articles about films and television episodes, where the plot section is first in every single example I have seen on Wikipedia. However, there doesn't seem to be anything about this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, and the person who wrote Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Style guide put the storylines section after a "Concept and creation" section. There was a discussion at that project when it was just being set up (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters/Archive 1#Setting a basic style), where I said it was unlikely there would be a standard layout. Also, the majority of soap opera characters fall under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television, though I don't have time to check that right now. –anemone projectors– 10:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking for help with Colleen Bell

Hello, I'm looking for someone to help with updates to the Colleen Bell article and I wonder if anyone on this project might be willing to help get things started. In addition to being the current U.S. ambassador to Hungary, Bell is also a television producer known for working on The Bold and the Beautiful. The Producing career section of the Colleen Bell article says she is producer of the show, followed by a few sentences about the show itself. Since the Wikipedia entry is about Colleen Bell, not the show, I think it best if this section focuses more on her work with the program. (You can find the request here.) Please note that I have a financial conflict of interest: I am working on behalf of Ms. Bell through my firm, Beutler Ink, and SKD Knickerbocker, so I won't make any edits myself. Can someone look at my request and make the changes if they seem appropriate? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This has been

Done. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking for help with Liz Sanbourne

Hello, I was wondering if anyone from this WikiProject could look at an article that I recently revised. I am not sure how to ask for that sort of assessment as it looks like this WikiProject has become inactive Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that is a great makeover/expansion! I'm especially impressed with the citations, many soap articles get expanded by well-meaning editors who just add plot. Thanks!!— TAnthony^Talk 20:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the response! I wanted to make sure that I was doing everything correctly since I just started making edits on Wikipedia this month. I would love to revise and expand the other Passions characters as well. If possible, I would really like to join this WikiProject as a participant to help expand all the pages related to Passions in particular and to learn from all the editors in the project. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

List of supercouples listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of supercouples to be moved to List of fictional supercouples. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Just to be clear: This move discussion concerns whether or not real-life people should be on the list. If you really have no problem with the list reverting back to how it was years ago (the inclusion of real-life people), then (going by the current lean of the move discussion) there is no need to comment. If you do have a problem with it, then now is the time to comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Question about Reassessment

Hello everyone! I am new to the WikiProject and I was wondering if there was a section to reassess pages related to the topic (in a similar way to other WikiProjects). I have updated a few character pages that I would like reassessed but both WikiProjects for Television and Fictional Characters are very backlogged and neither appear to be very active so I was curious on how this WikiProject treats page reassessments. Sorry for the intrusion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Years besides Step-mother, Step-father, Step-daughter etcé...

Why are we doing this? What is the point of having for example the parameter Step-mother= [character name] (2015-). Why is it necessary to put the years when a character was someone's step-mother? All the extra clutter for no reason. Articles that have this: Hope Logan, Wyatt Spencer, Noah Newman, Summer Newman, Paul Narita, and Dylan McAvoy. Especially Dylan's page, so much clutter. The years should just remain in the husband/wife area, no need to put it in all these other parameters. It is completely useless. I did not want to remove them because I want to discuss this issue beforehand. — JJakathestrength (talk, contribs) 12:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Because other editors decided that legal parents had to be step parents from now on so if John Abbott is going to be listed as Ashley Abbott's stepfather... then the rest of her stepfathers need to be there too and without dates they'll all end up looking like polygamists, which they're not. The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous but, John Abbott just absolutely needed to be a stepfather. Cebr1979 (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I know I use it because these characters typically develop relationships with their stepparents, and in many cases, when the marriages end, said character often maintains a parental relationship with that former stepparent. Hope Logan is one example but I wouldn't list every stepfather for her, I'd likely only list Ridge since he's had the biggest impact on her life. For example, when it comes to Noah Newman's stepfathers -- I agree with everyone on the list except Victor because Sharon and Victor's marriage didn't have any impact on Noah. The same with Michael Corinthos, Jasper Jacks was his stepfather for years and had a hand in raising him but Lorenzo Alcazar didn't. I think parameters like that should be based on relationships and the years should be included when to indicate when the connection was established.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 16:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You can't pick and choose which characters count as step-parents based on your own personal preferences. That's actually a Wikipedia policy (no original research). If we're gonna have a step-parent parameter, it needs to be correct. Victor was Noah's step-father... whether it impacted him or not. You feeling a character didn't impact another for whatever reason and deciding that nullifies his step-fatheriness lol is total original research on your part. If we're gonna have it, it's gotta be right. The question is: why do we have it? If someone wants to know how many step-fathers Noah's had, can't they just click on his mother and see her marriages? For people who constantly say the phrase "it cutters the infobox," Wikipedia's soap opera editors are the ones who create the most cluttering of infoboxes.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm against using in-universe dates for anything in the infobox, including spouse and step-family. I've brought it up before, see Template talk:Infobox soap character#Durations for spouses and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 10#In-universe dates in infoboxes. There are many reasons. I shall list some of them here:

Fiction exists in a permanent present state
It's in-universe information that doesn't need to be presented in the infobox
The character may not have existed in that year (i.e. the show hadn't been created, or the character hadn't been created by the writers yet or hadn't appeared yet). Especially confusing if one character did exist in that year but the other didn't (e.g. Vincent Hubbard and Kim Fox, and peope still can't decide what year they are meant to have got married).
Some editors think when a character signs divorce papers on screen, the marriage is over, when it actually takes a lot longer to be legally divorced (and indeed they could change their minds). Removing dates would avoid any confusion in that area
Often the end of a marriage is never mentioned, for example, we don't know when Roxy Mitchell and Sean Slater divorced, but they must have done as Roxy remarried but Sean has never returned. Additionally, if both characters leave and are married, it is assumed that they are married until the end of the universe.
If two characters are married when they arrive and still married when they leave, it's a bit daft to include years when it applies to their entire history
I read recently that American viewers are about 10 years behind on EastEnders, so the years are complete and utter nonsense
And of course, step-relationships often outlast the marriage.

I believe a list of spouses and (notable) step-family can be listed, without years and durations, without it being confusing. Anemone Projectors 19:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The thing that makes things confusing for you is that you create these weird things and then, even after having it explained to you, you still go around as though those other conversations never happened lol... Vincent Hubbard has existed the whole entire time he's been married... and you know that. He was an unseen character... and you know that. We knew his name. We knew he was married. As a work of fiction, he existed... and you know that. The fact you hadn't seen his face yet is what (still) makes you claim he didn't exist is proof of just how many editors can't separate real vs. fictional people. Cebr1979 (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

All the better to remove the years then. Anemone Projectors 19:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ya, no. Not until this whole "Legal means step" nonsense has been straightened out.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I actually have no idea what the whole "Legal means step" thing is about. We don't seem to have this problem in the UK. Anemone Projectors 09:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Really? You "have no idea?" 'Cause... uhm... you've commented on it so you clearly have some idea...Cebr1979 (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 10#Legal siblings and parents vs. half siblings and stepparents? The discussion I started is nothing to do with "legal means step". Anyway, all I was saying is I don't know if I can help you straighten that one out, as it's not a problem I've come across in any of the UK soap opera character articles I edit - in the UK, when a step parent becomes a legal parent it's because they've adopted a child, and the template already has a perfectly good parameter for that. Anemone Projectors 00:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I meant this conversation we're having here. You have some idea because we're discussing it.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually re-looking at part of that discussion, there are examples in soap when a character believes they are a child's parent but they're not. It happened with Kevin Wicks, he brought up two children as his own that were not his, and he was unaware they were his. In this case, he was married to the mother so is their stepfather. Jason Grimshaw was told he had a daughter that turned out not to be his, though he took custody of her for a while before he knew the truth. He wasn't married to the mother, but was listed as her adoptive father. I removed this as people don't legally adopt a child they believe to be their biological child. They are no longer listed in each other's infoboxes, he essentially brought up a stranger. Is that the kind of thing you're talking about? Sorry if this has gone off topic. Anemone Projectors 00:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not what this thread is about (though I agree with you on the unrelated points you made). We're talking about a man who raised a daughter believing she is his. He died believing she is his. However... Biologically, she's not. He was her legal father but, everyone else believes he should be referred to as the step father. she had other step-fathers, though, and, if we're going to list one, we have to list them all.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I can see how it's tricky. As John Abbott was married to Ashley Abbott's mother, it would make him, from my point of view, her stepfather, even after the divorce. Why not explain the relationship in the lead where his three children are listed? Something like, "John's children are Jack, Traci and Billy Abbott, and he also brings up his wife's daughter, Ashley Abbott, though he is not aware that she is not his biological child." Anemone Projectors 16:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Cebr1979

I just got back from a few days away to find that Cebr1979 has been indefinitely blocked. No surprise that he continues to edit anyway, and I would ignore it if he was not being disruptive, but he cannot help himself. I just opened up a new sock investigation for his most recent IPs. He is admitting it and vowing to continue editing. Please let me know if you witness further disruptive edits you suspect may be him, we can keep reporting them until perhaps a range block is placed on the IPs he is likely to use. Cebr1979, I know you are going to see this and probably comment. I don't think anyone here would object to you editing if you could be more collaborative and less argumentative. I would think your continued blocks would teach you play nice in the sandbox, but ... — TAnthony^Talk 21:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you think this page should be semi-protected considering the amount of disruption? Anemone Projectors 22:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

In fact I've gone ahead and done it. Anemone Projectors 22:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Good call!!— TAnthony^Talk 22:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Dates and tense

I'm assuming that most active editors in this Project realize this, but as explained in our own guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas#Tense, "Dates should be used when possible to establish the relative passage of time and establish real-world context". As you know, the ultimate achievement of any article is Featured Article status, and the two soap opera character Featured Articles I know of, Pauline Fowler and Todd Manning, show this practice in use. This is standard for fictional character articles across Wikipedia, like Featured Articles Jabba the Hutt, Khan Noonien Singh and Nikki and Paulo, either within the text or using citations dated to the related film, episode etc. As you know, fictional characters are topics like volcanoes and the White House, and should be discussed as such. Plot summaries obviously confuse the issue, but without real-world dates they tend to read as in-universe in tone. And from a common sense perspective, it's helpful to readers to explain in which years or even decades these fictional events were depicted.— TAnthony^Talk 22:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I was actually unaware that "Dates should be used when possible to establish the relative passage of time and establish real-world context", and have been removing them as in-universe dates that might not necessarily follow the real world (depending on how you watch). I dislike them but I can see the point - it's the same as, for example, in Clara Oswald: "In "The Bells of Saint John" (2013), the Doctor finds Clara...". I write EastEnders articles and always try to cite the episode in which the events happened, which is something I prefer to seeing a long line of "in 2013 this happened, in 2014 this happened, etc". For example, Mick Carter has a number of citations in the storyline section but the problem here is when storylines aren't updated until months later and I have no idea which episode something happened in, and other people aren't interested in citing episodes (or also have no idea, they just update from memory). Perhaps I shall refrain from removing these dates in future. However, my preference to "in 2016..." would be "in episodes broadcast in 2016...", as it is clear that it relates more to the real world than the fictional universe. Anemone Projectors 08:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I brought this up because our friend was so adamant yesterday that dates should not be used. But look at, for example, Lauren Fenmore: there are no citations and almost no dates in the storyline section. This is a character that has been around for 30+ years, and though the actress' comings and goings are nicely explained, it's impossible to tell how that overlays on the story. Your approach is fine to me in that you're actually considering the real world LOL. The point was always to frame the plot events from the perspective of the real world, and this can really be accomplished in a few different ways. I've cited individual episodes myself but that can be difficult on an ongoing basis. Your "episodes broadcast in 2016" approach is exactly right and probably better than how it is currently done in the Tina Lord example. I also discovered yesterday the Featured Article Poppy Meadow, which does not use blatant dates but is well cited. So I think the core group here understands the reasoning and improves articles with this kind of thing in mind, even if we all do it a little differently. And I think we naturally present longrunning characters a little differently than newer ones if only because have to cover decades in a minimal amount of space. I'm not saying we should necessarily be adding years to every storyline section, or even preserving them if citations are working better. Our guideline could perhaps be reworded/expanded to accommodate other methods that accomplish the same goal.— TAnthony^Talk 15:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Everything you say is spot on. I have nothing to add! Anemone Projectors 15:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup list

I have added this project to the CleanupWorklistBot. It should soon generate automatic article alerts for this project (pages nominated for deletion, for GAN or FAC, etc.). Cambalachero (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Aaron Livesy listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Aaron Livesy to be moved to Aaron Dingle. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Make profiles for new characters

The Following DOOL Characters need profiles Fynn Thompson, Deimos Kiriakis, Eudardo Larson (Also needs to be changed to Hernandez), Dario Hernandez Summer Townsend, Helena Tasso, Hal Michaels, Adriana Hernandez, Simone (Also Needs last name added, which is Michaels), Jade Michaels, Mark McNair, Harold And Petrov (Also needs first name added). These Along with the new cast joining need to be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyxo (talk • contribs) 00:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to an online editathon

You are invited...

Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon

Host: Women in Red
June 2016
#wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)