Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 3

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Family And Relationship Info

I don't think that the family and relationship info should be in some infobox. it should be out in open like everything else. Somebody please do something about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Gemini (talk • contribs) 07:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually like the infobox idea, as it was something we developed consensus for during work on the Pauline Fowler article, which is now at Featured status. Can you please explain more as to what you don't like about it? --El on ka 08:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I love it. It makes the articles cleaner and it was discussed before it was done. I think TAnthony can find the previous discussion. I know he'll agree that it is in there and looks better (since he took the time to create the infobox). It cleans up the articles and makes them look better and more encyclopedic. I agree with Elonka, it stays where it is. IrishLass (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides being more visually appealing, the endless lists within the article actually negatively impact an article's quality when we're talking about assessments and such. That's how it came about with Pauline Fowler, and that article obviously went up to Featured Status. But really, any important relationships should already be noted in an article naturally, like the character's parents and siblings and spouses as they relate to storylines. It's really unnecessary to list someone's adopted great-grandchild within the article if the fact isn't worthy enough to be mentioned in a plot summary area. Anyway, the info is still available. — TAnthony^Talk 16:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't like it, because it doesn't make any sense to me. For one, Joey Buchanan's article has a lot of space and his family and relationship info should be on the article, not some stupid info box. King Gemini

You are missing the point, which is that according to WP guidelines, lists are discouraged within articles, especially trivial ones such as these. Notable relationship info is already mentioned within the text of the article; the reader doesn't immediately need to know that Cord Roberts is Joey's his adopted brother if they've never even shared a storyline. Soap character articles already strain the limits of notability in most cases (the Kevin and Joey articles have absolutely no real-world references) and if they are dominated by these lists, they risk deletion. Specifically, the Relationship lists were challenged by unbiased editors assessing the Pauline Fowler article, which ultimately rose to featured status. Believe me, I think the information is notable, but we have to present it in the best way possible to preserve our articles. — TAnthony^Talk 05:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the family should be in some stupid info box. it should be a section just like it was before. So all that I am asking is to make it like it was. King Gemini

Help in adding more depth to character articles. It does make an impact.

I wanted to come by here three days ago and state this, but I was kind of lazy at that moment. Anyway, three days ago...I noticed that a new editor started the article Erica Kane and Dimitri Marick (created on January 31 2008). What I was ecstatic about is that this new editor followed my exact setup for soap opera supercouple articles. It didn't have a Background section (filled with how the couple was created, etc.) and the plot summary wasn't written in present tense, but he or she made this article with more than just plot summary in mind. That is awesome. It obviously means a standard has been set for what supercouple articles should look like and this editor followed that. I'm thankful that this editor looked at one of the All My Children supercouples articles for an example, since a few of those are the only fictional supercouple articles I have fixed up so far.

My point is that...if we can fix up all of these character articles or a majority of them to include real world impact...such as concept, character creation, writing, cultural impact, etc., sections such as that, then that means that new editors will follow our lead. They've followed the wrong lead for long enough. They'll surely follow the right one. I'm asking all of you to try and fix up as many soap opera character articles to include the type of real-world context I've mentioned above. Examples would be Bianca Montgomery, Todd Manning, Frankie and Maggie Stone. Of course not all soap opera characters have had a lot of notable impact, but that doesn't mean that we cannot have real-word context for the majority of them... You know what I mean... Something other than plot summary. Anyway, that's what I'm asking of you guys. It would take forever for me to do all this on my own, I'm not as familiar with every soap opera, and I won't be here that often as time wears on. Talk with you all later. Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay I know what you are saying. I should've thought more before I jumped the gun and created the Arlene Vaughan and Gloria Marsh articles as soon as I joined Wikipedia, 6 months ago or so. I see now that those two characters have only small "real world impact." I should've been more selective and now I try not to create any seemingly meaningless articles anymore.

I have looked and looked all over the internet for articles pretaining to soap characters but have found little outside of the biggies like Erica Kane. How do you find an article about say Julia Santos, Olivia Spencer, and Harley Cooper, they just aren't out there. I have found small quotes and added them to articles like Tad Martin and by some storke of luck stumbled onto some about Opal Cortlandt that really worked. I have found some information on Annie Dutton but another user tagged at as unreliable and not "main stream." Because they were from soap sites, ahhhh.

And one final question/observation, Flyer, do you not want a Background section? Is it the title that bothers you or what? I added one to the Opal Cortlandt article is that one okay?

Glo145 (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I want Background sections. I've done that with "my" articles, as you can see above, and I was happy to see what you did there with the Opal Cortlandt article...because it meant/means that another editor was/is adding more depth to these articles and I wasn't/am not alone. That said, not all characters or couples may be able to have a Background section or a good Background section due to the actor/actors or writers not having given an interview on the creation (concept, portrayal, etc.) of their character or couple, or because that particular information is not available online. Ryan Lavery, an article I just added more depth to, doesn't have much on how his character was created in his Background section, but that didn't stop me from adding more depth to his article in other ways.

As for finding impact for certain characters, Google Book Search is a good option. There are several books out there about Erica Kane, and ones that include her or Tad Martin, but I just haven't gotten around to truly improving their articles yet. As you can see, I cited a few books in the lead of Tad's article already as references. A lot of the old characters, or I should say legendary characters, have been written about in books. If all else fails, turn to Google...Google Book Search, that is. In fact, go there before all else fails. Flyer22 (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, a lot of fan sites post scans of magazines of interviews for the fave actors. I have found articles for General Hosptital actors and characters. For example: Laura Wright articles, press on Rebecca Herbst , Megan Ward'sinterviews. All these contain articles from Soaps in depth and other magazines. Also, soapcentral.com and soaps.com have a lot of articles that may be useful for the characters you are looking info for. I basically just search for the name of the actor or the character and, with a lot of patience, search through each site. I hope this helps! If you ever need any help Glo, I love impossible tasks and can help you out look for info. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 13:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay try and find notable information on Annie Dutton and Julia Santos. Currently I'm looknig for info about Reva Shayne, there has to be stuff out there on her!! I just have to finda it. Glo145 (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Family trees and copyright vios

I just realized while still contemplating the whole "soap central" issue that the family trees on at least all of the Days of our Lives pages are direct copies from Soap Central. Doesn't that mean they should be removed. I've removed them from the Days pages but don't feel I can address other shows. Anyone have thoughts? Beyond that, these trees are really redundant to the information above and to the character articles. I'm seeing lots of redundancy on the soap pages, as a matter of fact. IrishLass (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally I've never found a need for family trees because most of that information is already in most character articles, located in the infobox, not to mention their character histories contain most of that info as well.

A lot of the Guiding Light articles were directly copied from SoapCentral, but most of them have been cut down like I did to the Dinah Marler article. Before I fixed it, it was nothing more than a rambling, incredibly long article directly copied from Soap Central. Glo145 (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Any article copied directly from SoapCentral.com should be immediately erased or rewritten. It's a violation of wikipedia policy to copy articles from SoapCentral. At least that's what I've been told more than once. KellyAna (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The family trees are probably redundant in most cases, except for a "family page" that doesn't already have an infobox. If you find one necessary, I don't see why you can't reconstruct it and reference SoapCentral where necessary (most of the info would be available elsewhere). Of course, an external link to the appropriate SoapCentral tree would also work, I'm actually thinking of doing that for some of the articles I monitor. — TAnthony^Talk 03:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's a scanned or copied web image, I don't think just a recreation of a family tree would be a copyvio. Lists are generally not copyrightable. -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Dougie, yes they are especially when they use the same legend as SC does. These lists use the exact formatting, and they are redundant, to SC. Seriously, we shouldn't be using them, only referring people to SC if anything. KellyAna (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you link to one of these and the page it's supposedly a copyvio of? I'm not quite sure what you all are talking about. Thanks. -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually the point is it's not just pictures that are violations of policy, it's any written text including family trees. Just go to www.soapcentral.com and click on their family tree links, they so match up. KellyAna (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To me, it seems these are just non-copyrightable lists. The characters themselves and their names are copyright of the company that owns the rights to the show, but it is certainly fair use for both Soap Central and Wikipedia to use them in commentary about the show. It would be impossible to accurately list a family tree that is correct but doesn't agree with the show or what others have written about the show. It's just like a tree of related animal species. -- Dougie WII (talk)

Dougie, I don't think you're understanding, at least not what I've removed from the Days' pages. The lists were exact copies including the legend and identifiers. That's proprietary property. SoapCentral.com makes up those identifiers and people just copy the lists, which aren't always accurate. They've done the work, their site is copyrighted, doing a copy and paste from their site to here violates that. Just because something is "just a list," (something frowned upon by Wiki - see WP:LISTCRUFT) doesn't give us the right to copy and paste someone else's work. And, just a side note, many genealogists would have a problem with someone calling a family tree "just a list." IrishLass (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! I did many of those DAYS bios and I DID NOT copy them from Soap Central. That was my own research that I had done. Though I know some people had changed some things around and possibly entered material since I haven't been active in months since I got sick of a few people trying to run the show at in paticular the DAYS guide. I did copy the forum that we were supposed to use from here since at least at the time it was the forum we were supposed to use for character bios. I merely inserted family, birthdates that I knew that I had researched through SEVERAL websites and my own information that I have kept track of for several years. These soaps guides are a mess and I pulled my name off the list of contributers before I had read this and I am so glad I did. It is the same person causing the problems thinking they know everything and I am over it. jcar03 —Preceding comment was added at 01:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked some of the bios that I did and it looks like tons of other information was added like neices/nephews and every person they ever met on the show is included which is very much set up like the soapcentral stuff. jcar03

Notice of temporary injunction

I am letting you all know that there is currently a temporary injunction that applies to all editors[1] while this arbitration case is open. The injunction was enacted on February 3, 2008 and it reads:

"For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction."

The arbitration committee would like all editors to hold off on such actions while the case is open. I will also notify you when the injunction ends. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. I, honestly, wish I knew how to vote that this goes down in flames. There are so many minor characters that don't deserve to have pages and this is counterproductive to what this project is doing. This gives every fanatic of soap characters to create pages and allows us to do nothing about it. Just ridiculous.KellyAna (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's great, I'm glad that finally someone noticed that pages were being condensed so quickly and haphazardly with apparently no concern for preserving the images and text content. -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's not really what this is about, it's about basically eliminating "non-notable" episode and character articles and redirecting them to LISTS of episodes and characters (not composite articles). The defenders want to preserve the material in some form, but the others want to actually eliminate it altogether. This is bad for us because in their current state, many/most of the soap character articles flat-out fail notability criteria. — TAnthony^Talk 00:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface is really stretching the bounds of this. The injunction refers to "editors" being warned, not Projects. Unless you've received a notice directly on your talk page, I strongly urge every member of this Project to ignore this lame attempt to "notify" dozens or hundreds of people at once. Pairadox (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Pairadox has a point. This editor gives this blank warning when anyone adds a notability tag to an article. That tag says to "add to the article" yet she's saying something different. There's obviously much confusion on Pixelface's part. KellyAna (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused by your comment. When an editor applies a {{notability}} tag to an episode/character article, they should be warned of the injunction on their talk page. The notice I posted above was not "the warning." I'm sorry, I should have clarified that. --Pixelface (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me you are painfully unaware of what a notability tag means or says. The tag asks for article expansion, why should adding that tag be met with the warning you issue. I find you to be missing the point of the tag. The tag notifies others of the need to expand. You're stating that the tag shouldn't be there but without the tag, how can others help expand the article to make the subject notable? IrishLass (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I know what the notability tag says. It does say please expand the article. But while this arbitration case relating to television episodes and television characters is open, there is an injunction issued by the arbitration committee against editors adding or removing notability tags as well as redirecting/un-redirecting television episode/television character articles in order to stop editors from edit-warring. You can still use the {{expand}} tag. --Pixelface (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just a general heads-up — it wasn't "the" warning. I asked about notifying WikiProject Television on the case page and I saw no objections. You can see a similar notice at WT:TV and WT:EPISODE (which I didn't add by the way). Editors are still free to redirect/un-redirect episode/character articles — but after they do, they will be warned of the injunction on their talk page. --Pixelface (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This injunction will probably only be in place for a few weeks, max. In the meantime, anyone who wishes, may post a statement at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. I also recommend that anyone interested in this, set a watch on that page, and also on the Evidence, Workshop, and Proposed decision pages. We can also participate in the "Others" sections on the Workshop page, plus any of the related talkpages. Definitely avoid the "Proposed decision" page though, since that's for Arbitrators only (but the talkpage is okay). --El on ka 04:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(followup) I have started a thread on this (the scope of the injunction) at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision#Scope, in case anyone would like to participate. --El on ka 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Pixelface. She's not even indicating the exact information she claims to be citing. She says you can't add tags but doesn't link to where it says you can't, just some general gibberish, nothing specific that says don't add notability tags. This is ridiculous to issue a "warning" to an entire project. I'm still with Pairadox on this one. KellyAna (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nieces/nephews

FYI, Conquistador2k6 added a "nieces/nephews" parameter to the {{Infobox soap character}}, which I guess I should have added myself months ago. I'm cool with it and I can't imagine anyone having a problem with it, but by all means comment here if you do. I'm sure many of you will want to start using it, but obviously there doesn't need to be some mad effort to update every article immediately, as nieces and nephews are fine in the "Relatives" area until they can be moved at our leisure. — TAnthony^Talk 21:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So who becomes relatives then? KellyAna (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Twin Peaks characters

The Twin Peaks character pages are in pretty bad shape and could use some work by someone knowledgeable about the show (i.e. not me). I have tagged the stubbier ones for merger into the (new) article List of Twin Peaks characters, but it might be better to group them by family or type (e.g. putting all the spirits into one article). I found them after seeing a discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion and while I don't see a need to delete content outright, really do feel that the topic is probably better served by fewer better articles than alot of seperate low quality ones. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Twin Peaks

Why are the Twin Peaks articles a part of this WikiProject? It's not a soap opera. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

That's definitely arguable; what sets it aside from Dynasty besides diamonds and shoulder pads? It's a much-debated isssue, but to me an ensemble drama in which all the storylines are continuing is a soap. Shows like Grey's Anatomy have self-encapsulated stories per episode and so can be better classified as plain dramas. But it really doesn't matter if TP is in the project or not, some extra attention can't hurt. As a matter of fact, I just added FURs to all the remaining TP pics to save them from deletion, the troops at WP:TV don't care like we do, LOL. — TAnthony^Talk 17:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I think we shouldn't put the banner "This article does not cite any reference or sources". I mean, if we are talking about soap operas, the obvious source are themselves. Anyone who has watched it can tell what it is about. What do you think? Magdalena B. (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem to be a problem. The best way to try to solve it is to find as many references you can from TV Guide, Soap Opera Digest, etc. -- Dougie WII (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree in theory, but WP policy demands sources for verifiability. Someone can't really tune into All My Children and confirm the 1970s plot points in the Erica Kane article. But really, the presence of sources is generally only enforced for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged," so I think the "needs sources" template is overused. I do suggest that we all include whatever references we can when we update articles (there are plenty of daily recaps online), and for every character I work on I always try to add a link to the SoapCentral character profile in the "External links" section. — TAnthony^Talk 17:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Scope of List of soap opera actors

Hi all, a week or so ago, I noticed that List of soap opera actors is, according to the list introduction, restricted to US soaps, and left a note on the talk page asking whether the scope of the list should be expanded to match the (implicitly world-wide scope suggested by the) title, or if the page should be moved to a new name that reflects the US-only scope of the list. Any thoughts? -- AJR | Talk 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts - delete entire list under WP:LISTCRUFT as well as categorizing by type of actor frowned up (previous category has been deleted). If the category cannot exist, the list shouldn't either. KellyAna (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm was bold and moved it to List of American soap opera actors ... However, this list seems somewhat redundant of the various "soap opera actor by nationality" categories (which do remain), not much links to it, and it seems like one of those potentially-endless, never-to-be-complete, trivial lists that should be deleted. Most soaps do or can have their own individual lists. — TAnthony^Talk 22:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, categorizing actors by show is not done, but they're still categorized by genre (soap operas). — TAnthony^Talk 23:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

End of the temporary injunction

The arbitration committee has reached a decision in this arbitration case and the temporary injunction related to television episode articles and television character articles has now ended. Thank you all for your cooperation. --Pixelface (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, nothing was settled/changed regarding the somewhat conflicting guidelines/policies covering episode and character articles, offending editors were told to play nice and one editor was blocked for 6 months. — TAnthony^Talk 05:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well one editor was restricted from doing certain things to certain articles for six months. There are discussions going on at WT:EPISODE and WT:FICT and WT:WAF if anyone is interested. --Pixelface (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Linking months in soap articles

Hi. Another user has claimed that months are linked in soap articles, thus "January" instead of "January". Can anybody point me to the consensus and more importantly the reasons for doing this? It seems to contradict WP:CONTEXT and to serve no purpose. Thanks, --John (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely not a soap policy or guideline as far as I'm concerned. Individual months, days and years are usually not supposed to be linked because there is no "value" in linking "2004" by itself. If anything, I've linked combos like "December 2007" (or left them alone) but will try to fix the kind of overlinking in All My Children if I come across it. I don't always agree with KellyAna but her assertions are usually based on legitimate guidelines, policies or ongoing practice; I'm sure she will comment here and let us know where she's coming from.

Assuming I have the attention of other members of the Project, this is a great chance to remind everyone that though we've taken it upon ourselves to monitor and improve certain articles and set style and content guidelines, ours have to stay within the scope of WP policy and guidelines in general. The argument "that's how we do it in soap articles" isn't always appropriate if we're talking about something that blatantly goes against policy. And I also caution editors against assuming certain things based on particular soap articles, because many of them do have notability, format and other issues and should not be used as examples. I've come in contact with some members of WP:TV who would prefer us to become a task force under them for better "quality control" and "oversight," which in our current state would mean a lot of slashing and deletions. We really really really need to work harder at improving articles by adding references and real-world context and notability rather than more plot summaries and trivial detail. — TAnthony^Talk 16:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear. KellyAna has just indicated that she does not care, so I guess that concludes this one. Thanks for your help. --John (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you did NOT put words into MY MOUTH? What kind of person are you making up things others did or did not say? Just because I removed YOUR comments from my page doesn't mean anything. KellyAna (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if John will still be watching this page, but I think he was just assuming in good faith that you were no longer concerned with his changes of the AMC dates. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 16:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the AMC dates, it's the dates in all the list of soap characters and to say I don't care about that is wrong. I just didn't want him on my talk page for reasons you and I have worked through (or are working through). Explain why, when there is an article about each month, it's suddenly wrong to link to those when we've done it all along. I don't think it contradicts anything, I believe that his opinion. KellyAna (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm not sure what he was reverting as far as lists, but per Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Dates and what I know in general, individual months (January) or years (2007) are not linked, I believe basically because it is unlikely that someone would follow such a link in that context. Now obviously, in the comings/goings, I would probably link March 17 alone and January 2007, but that's it, and even that may seem like overlinking to some people. Let me know if I can be of assistance. — TAnthony^Talk 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is linkable, doesn't mean we should link it. Per WP:DATE, solitary months aren't normally linked. And we only link day/month stuff, like [[March 17]] because that makes things work better with people's user preferences. In other words, someone can set whether they want to see "March 17" or "17 March", and us linking the date helps to make that show up properly. Other than that, I wouldn't link a solitary month, unless it's something really essential to the text, where the month is a central concept, not just a time marker. Otherwise it would be like linking the number "3" in the sentence "3 blind mice." See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). --El on ka 18:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

List of supercouples

Opinions are requested at Talk:List of supercouples#Future of the list, as we try to figure out where we want to go with this. There's potentially enough information here that we could make this our project's first Featured List. But first we need to decide on the scope of it. Any and all opinions appreciated. --El on ka 03:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Tad Martin and Dixie Cooney#Controversy

I agree that how AMC fired Cady and killed off Dixie with poisonous pancakes was extremely stupid, but the Controversy section is very POV in some areas.--Silvestris (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Silvestris, I wrote (well, rewrote) that article, and, as someone who was/is not a fan of that couple (nothing against them, I was very young when they started and was not following the supercouple mania), I don't see where it's very POV. There's no way to pretty-up the topic of that section. It's as balanced as can get. The dramatics at the end there, can be tweaked a bit, though, and I'll do that once I get computer access again. At this very moment, I'm communicating with you via the PlayStation 3, Flyer22 (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Soap Operas: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 65 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

AMC editors, assistance please

On List of All My Children characters it states the following:
Devan Bays

(Brad Pit, 1998;)

Step-Mother of Lilly died of aids in the early 1920's.

Now I'm no expert on AMC, but how can Brad Pitt have played a woman who died of a disease 60 years before it was discovered? Can someone familiar with the show fix this glaring error? IrishLass (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This was just added recently here, so I think we can assume it is vandalism (I've reverted it). — TAnthony^Talk 19:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't I look there? Slow getting back I guess. Didn't Pitt star in a soap at one time? Anyway, thanks for fixing it. IrishLass (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with IrishLass, Aids came out in the 1980s in humans! Earlier in primates yes. But, in the late 70s early 80s for humans.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 19:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Days of Our Lives and Dena Higley

As conversation at the talkpage has proven rather unproductive, I thought I'd look for some input from this Wikiproject. KellyAna and I are in a bit of a conflict over whether or not to include Dena Higley as the show's current head writer. KellyAna only wants to put it in the article once the credits reflect the change, where as I think this article from Entertainment Weekly is sufficient confirmation. FWIW, the article states:

THE POWERS THAT BE

"It's official: Dena Higley is now the sole head writer on Days of Our Lives, according to a show publicist. The show wouldn't say when she came on board, but it confirms that she is now at the helm as head writer, replacing Hogan Sheffer. Higley has been a source of controversy recently. Last summer, she left One Life to Live, where she was also head writer, after fans started a petition calling for her dismissal.

Any input would really be appreciated to avoid further conflict. Ani Mate 03:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My opinion: a source is a source; she should definitely be named as head writer, citing the source, and perhaps a footnote explaining that her material hasn't aired yet if necessary (though I don't think it is). Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect a real-world timeline, and at this moment Higley is collecting paychecks for writing the show and they are taping her material. I don't feel it matters what is actually being broadcast. — TAnthony^Talk 03:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor characters of Days of our Lives

I'm going to be bold and start this page, anyone object? KellyAna (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Page naming question

Resolved

An interesting debate is ongoing at the talkpage of a soap character article, which may have ramifications on other soap character articles. The question is: In the case of a female soap character who marries and divorces frequently, how should the article be titled? Under her maiden name, her current (even if temporary) married name, or something else? Opinions are welcomed at Talk:Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald#New move discussion. --El on ka 21:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(update) Page was moved to the character's current name. --El on ka 05:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Obviously, I missed an important debate, as seen in the section right above this one. I hope that that debate has no bearing on future naming conventions for fictional married women. I do not feel under any circumstance that a female character's article should be changed from her common name to her newly married name...unless that married name somehow becomes her common name. I see that the Jessica Buchanan article has once again been changed to Jessica Brennan. I couldn't disagree with that more. I highly doubt that Brennan is as common a name for her as Buchanan. This is not a case such as Blair Cramer Manning or Kendall Hart Slater, where their married names have become as much their common names. And why wasn't the Buchanan part left in Jessica's name if we are going to allow the change to Brennan? I swear I'll scream if I see Krystal Carey's article changed to Krystal Martin or Krystal Carey Martin again, or Susan Mayer's article changed to Susan Delfino again. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle and probably with some of your examples, but I also think that establishing which is the "common" name for a fictional character can be a bit nebulous, as proven by the Theresa debate. I also prefer "Jessica Buchanan," but she's been married for awhile and the website does actually call her "Jessica Brennan." I could easily see that one going the way of an "as seen on the website" vs. "as mentioned on the show today" debate. The bottom line is, redirects make it not really matter. — TAnthony^Talk 05:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I say, pick your battles. Yes, I've had a change of heart. For instance, Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane. Does it really matter that the Crane is there? Nope. I'm more concerned about the length of the article, and the fact that it gets updated every day. Character summaries shouldn't include a blow by blow recap of the daily show. Get the articles up to Wikipedia standards and then worry about the proper naming convention. Ani Mate 06:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what you both are saying, especially AniMate about cleaning up the article first, but I still point out that common name very much matters. I'm certain that Wikipedia wouldn't have a policy about it if it was just more about preference. I suppose I'll let the Brennan issue slide, but we clearly need to stick by the precedent of common name, more so than saying, "Oh, we'll disregard common name for this article, but for that one over there...yeah, let's not." I mean, we'll have a mess on Wikipedia again, with users (unaware or simply not caring of the common name policy) up and and changing a woman's name just because she got married. The same thing has happened on Wikipedia with real-life women as well (see Britney Spears vs. Britney Federline and Sarah Michelle Gellar vs. Sarah Michelle Prinze, for just two examples), which was ridiculous. I really don't want the name of these character articles to start changing again at the drop of hat or rather at the drop of an "I do"...with users giving the simple explanation of "She's married to so and so". Flyer22 (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Supercouple

Just a heads up, but the Supercouple article has been put up for peer review by another user here. It's not solely a soap article, but I'm sure any input would be appreciated. Ani Mate 04:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Soap Character article up for deletion

Per this project's request for AfD notices, the article for Laura Kiviranta, a character in the Finnish soap opera Salatut elämät, is up for deletion. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Kiviranta. The nom has written their intent to make "many nominations" regarding soap opera characters. --Oakshade (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the same user has nominated the rest of character articles from the same soap opera. They are...

--Oakshade (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

BOLD

I changed "Otherwise, the character should simply be listed in a 'List of characters' for that particular program." to "Otherwise, the character should simply be included in a 'List of characters' for that particular program." . We'd almost always want to say a little more than a bare list of names. DGG (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Common Names

What is up with the names? I moved some articles and they got moved back by Flyer22. Hey homie, what's up wit you not liking what I did? You mad that you didn't think of it first or are you always this ignorant? Let me know what's up. The King Gemini (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Read above. And you'll see what's up. Better yet, read Wikipedia's common name policy, as you should have by now, since you have been pointed to it before I even pointed you to it, and you'll see what's up. Calling me ignorant? I'm not the one with complete disregard for Wikipedia policy. Flyer22 (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(both of you, please read WP:NPA.)DGG (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Soapoperaweekly.com was blacklisted, needs to be unblacklisted

Most of us know this site as soapoperadigest.com. I just found out it's been blacklisted when I tried adding a References section for the Liza Colby article for that single source that's currently in it.

That site is one of the best and few sites we have for sourcing American soap opera articles. It needs to be taken off of the blacklist pronto. I'm pretty sure it was blacklisted due to a persistent spammer (I saw that spammer), but blacklisting this site was completely off.

I'm not working on any articles right now because I still don't have full computer access again. Thus, anyone who can take care of getting this site taken off of the blacklist while I'm basically bound right now will be helping out a lot. I will try to get to a computer and get it taken care of if no one else does. Flyer22 (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions

It seems like this debate pops up rather often, usually in relations to General Hospital's Carly and Passions' Theresa. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a simple and easy way to stop the common name vs. current name debate? I'm thinking the easiest and most easily verifiable way to do this is to go by what the official website of the show tells us. Its a secondary source and by going by the website, we'll have something concrete to easily point to, making things much more easy. I realize how many times I've used the word easy, but easy way more easy to deal with than these silly circular fights about common vs. current. Any opinions?

We should not go by the website, because it may or may not use the common name. The website using the current name instead is no excuse to go against Wikipedia's policy, considering that when it all comes down to it, the character is best known by their common name.

We wouldn't have these name debates if all editors would follow policy. Flyer22 (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

New MOS for TV

The television community currently has an MOS guideline under proposal, and would appreciate all comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#MOS proposal in order to have the best possible guide for television related articles. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC on WP:FICT

A request for comment has been made to determine if the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) proposal has consensus. Since this project deals with many fictional topics, I am commenting here. Input on the proposal is welcome here. --Pixelface (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion on Jake Morgan

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Morgan, on the General Hospital baby Jacob Morgan Spencer. --El on ka 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoo, that article was rightfully nominated for deletion. Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Claudia Zacchara/Claudia Antonia Zacchara from General Hospital

Gwernol recently deleted Claudia Antonia Zacchara, after I pointed out that Santos25Q had recreated the article after Neil had deleted the original Claudia Zacchara. Personally, I disagree with Neil's original deletion, but deleting recreated material under a sneaky new name is absolutely justified. If people thing the article should be restored, someone should probably take the original article to WP:DRV. Ani Mate 00:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that on these minor character articles, with no sources, we just immediately redirect them to the "List of characters" articles. For example, I just redirected Claudia Zacchara to List of General Hospital characters#Z. That keeps things from being redlinks, and also drives home that we only really need minimal information on these characters. My hope is that at some point there will be a "Soap Wiki" (maybe at wikia?) where we can direct this energy. For now though, I think it's better to use wiki-fu. Instead of deleting, redirect. ;) --El on ka 01:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I heartily agree that redirects are always a great course of action; as you may know, Elonka, I have long supported minor character stubs and such being redirected and folded into lists. The problem with AfDing everything is that later, when an article may rightfully deserve to be created, it is an uphill battle due to the original deletion. Asserting notability and amassing proper sources for fictional characters and topics is hard enough if we're really following WP guidelines (which we should), but it can be nearly impossible with the "stain" of an AfD and "non-supporters" of fiction weighing in. I acknowledge that there are many, many soap articles which probably do not deserve to exist in their current state or at all, but flat-out deletions only make things more difficult for us later. — TAnthony^Talk 04:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, AniMate, obviously we discussed the Claudia article and I am perfectly satisfied with the current status. In this case, Santos has been disruptive and there probably would have been no end to the recreations of the article without deletion. I believe you also may agree with the redirect-as-first-course-of-action idea due to your attempts with Jake Morgan. I have just seen this happen before, and hate to "taint" an article's chances at valid recreation in the future. — TAnthony^Talk 05:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For the past couple of days I've spent the majority of my time here redirecting articles as discussed above. I used a pretty non-scientific method, so we'll see if there are any major objections. First, I went ahead and just undid the wikilinks for characters that were red-linked and likely to stay that way. I redirected a pretty massive number of articles, most of which had nothing other than an info-box and lists of people they were related to. I also redirected characters like Mary Bishop and Jesse Beaudry who didn't last very long on the show and weren't from major families. I also redirected some characters who were from core families, like Steven Lars Webber, but didn't last very long or make a very big impact. I don't think this was controversial, but we'll see. My next goal is to write some brief character descriptions. Ani Mate 03:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed all the changes, but I support the ones that I've seen. For these brief, minor characters with no solid sources, a simple list entry is sufficient. If more sources do become available, it's easy enough to re-establish the article. --El on ka 04:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made a few more redirects that could be a little more controversial, but I hope there aren't any objections. When I think major character, I think characters who were important and/or related to core families. I redirected Kristina Cassadine and Mikkos Cassadine, for instance, who never had much presence, but whose deaths were major plot lines. So there may be some objections to those. Ani Mate 05:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you might want to redirect those Cassadine articles to Cassadine family. I've done the same kind of thing with various minor One Life to Live characters and stubs. I've made articles like Lord family, Cramer family and Buchanan family (as well as the less-polished One Life to Live minor families) into general overviews of the families and the introduction/deaths of their members, simultaneously being the redirect destinations of minor characters and those long off the canvas, like Tony Lord and Cassie Callison. — TAnthony^Talk 21:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Lily and Greenlee

If Greenlee has a section talking about the controversy over the recasting and ect, shouldn't there be something similar for Lily's article? --Silvestris (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not quite the same situation. Martha Byrne's leaving the show was a big goof on the part of ATWT's top brass, but firing Sabine Singh and promoting Rebecca Budig as the "real" Greenlee was a PR nightmare for AMC. Things were handled much better at ATWT, so it didn't turn into quite the PR headache that AMC suffered from. Ani Mate 03:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

First contested redirect

This one is kind of difficult. The article is Farah Mir. She's clearly a minor character, but she might be notable. She's recurring and the mother of Leyla Mir, and the only reason she might be notable is because she's an Iranian character. There aren't too many of them on daytime television. Thoughts? I'm considering taking this to AfD, though an RfC or 3O might work as well. Ani Mate 18:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and replied at Talk:Farah Mir. My feeling is that if someone wants to genuinely try and improve the article, we should let them. Any time someone is actually adding sources to these, it's a good thing. :) --El on ka 19:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Meg Cummings

During the last few months, I have been trying to do whatever I can to turn Meg Cummings into a good article, but a certain user keeps claiming the article needs more references (but there are) and that the plot needs to be rewritten because it's too long. I've seen many other character articles, with much more text, but all of those articles don't have "too-long-plot warning." Can anyone help out to improve the article? Thanks. Dmarex (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, most of the soap character articles need to have shorter articles. Tv.com isn't a reliable source either, as it is largely user generated. Bianca Montgomery is a pretty good template for how a character article should look, though there are some issues with it in my opinion (but for the sake of peace I'm staying away from the article). I'll take a look, but you should consider looking up some old issues of Soap Opera Digest (pretty sure you can find them in some form at a larger library). Also conisder old issues of TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly, and I'd look for better online sources that don't come from user generated sights. That means no SoapCentral.com or TV.com. Ani Mate 20:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont think you should stay away from Bianca, AniMate. Flyer has said she want to get it to GA, and I would like to help her do that, so if there are issues, then it's better that we can fix them now rather than having to do more work in the deadline of a GA review. Ideas for improvements are never a bad thing, so long as people are sensitive to the editors feelings who work on them. Gung adin 20:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If articles are supposed to be short, why does Greenlee Smythe have such a long plot/storyline text without getting a warning? Just an example. Dmarex (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's okay, I've re-written the article. Dmarex (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ameera Ali Aziz

Ameera Ali Aziz is currently up for deletion. --Silvestris (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll see if there is any notability I can add to that article to save it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see it was just a PROD. She's not really up for deletion. Well, more so that Silvestris already removed the PROD tag, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know I could do that until after I made the post. :o --Silvestris (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Top image for Lily Snyder?

What should be the top image for Lily Snyder's article, a picture of Byrne or of Beck? (This is how the article would look if Byrne was on top, and this is how it would look if Beck is on top).

I believe it should be Byrne; she's the most well-known actress to play Lily, even if Beck is the current one. When Greenlee was recast with Sabine, Budig still had the top image. --Silvestris (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, when images of both Greenlees were put into Greenlee's article, Budig never had top image. She did not (discounting IP changes) until the day she returned to the role onscreen.

As for Lily, I'm not sure what to go with, but it does make a lot of sense to have Byrne as top image. I feel that IPs will just keep changing it, though. Flyer22 (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Article rating

The Santa Barbara article has been rated as Start-class a long time ago. I've been working on the article for several months, and I believe it's no longer in start-class. Is there anyone that can re-evaluate the article and give it a proper rating? Or is there a board of users that decide about that? Dmarex (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You can simply give it a proper rating yourself. The only ratings you wouldn't be allowed to give it or any Wikipedia article without it being reviewed is a GA (Good Article) or FA (Featured Article) rating. Flyer22 (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Empty talk pages of redirects

You may want to check a discussion in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Empty talk pages of redirects about empty talk pages of redirects. They are about characters of List of General Hospital characters. I am proposing deletion of these talk pages in order to make a cleanup in the soap opera project. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Lucky and Sam

Just a heads up, but I've nominated this General Hospital related article for deletion. You can find the discussion here. A ni Mate 05:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ABC Soaps in depth as a source

ABC soaps in depth ain't a reliable source, watch the ads during GH, Over the past year I've seen around a dozen ads stating that either Sonny, Carly or Jason, were going to be killed in a shootout, an explosion, etc. Recently (During the quarantine) they said that Claudia was going to try to kill Jason. She didn't. The people they've said were going to get killed haven't been, the way it was suppose to happen seldomly actually accures, and they have said numerous other things were going to happen, most of which didn't. My point: is this magazine, with it's history of inaccuracy, a reliable source for wikipedia? I doubt it. StoneCold89 (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source per Wikipedia, and is especially reliable for actor/actress quotes, such as used in the Maggie Stone article, which the actress also has at her official site. Probably not super accurate for character plots, but it is for other stuff. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

After looking over wikipedia's article on sources, It seems to me that ABC Soaps In Depth would fall under the category of Questionable source rather then reliable. WP:QS So, I'd look for more reliable sources, (See Flyer22's comment on the Maggie Stone article for an example.) If none can be found whatever the article says should be regarded as a rumor, and not included in any wikipedia articles, as it ain't a place for rumors/celebrity gossip StoneCold89 (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 690 of the articles assigned to this project, or 23.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lily Walsh Snyder

Some anonymous user is trying to push a summary into the article that is littered with spelling and grammatical errors, and just looks unencyclopedic. --Silvestris (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Some sort of plot summary is needed, but that certainly isn't appropriate. Perhaps you'd be willing to include some of the information in an acceptable for? I'd offer, but don't know the character or show at all. A ni Mate 22:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This one guy is taking my summary off. Why don't you just fix it instead of removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.205.111 (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farah Mir

There is a deletion discussion for Farah Mir a character from General Hospital. Feel free to comment. A ni Mate 01:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I say to delete it article because she has not been on the show for a while or just merage it to Leyla and add a section for her mother. --M42380 (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Search for Tomorrow crew

[2] (Similar to List of Santa Barbara crew)

List of Search for Tomorrow crew: Here is a list of the main crew members (producers, directors, and writers) of CBS Daytime's Search for Tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.103.242 (talk • contribs) 08:29, August 12, 2008

I find this, the Santa Barbara list and others of their kind to be trivial and unnecessary. The Exec producers and Head writers are notable could be incorporated back into the main articles; directors, miscellaneous writers and other crew are too numerous and transient to be notable here. — TAnthony^Talk 16:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my position, I will repost a comment I just made here:

I am not suggesting these people are not important to the production of the show, but in the context of Wikipedia they are not really notable (as a whole they fail the criteria). There are dozens of writers, directors and producers that contribute to any show, and Wikipedia is not meant to be a depository for endless lists. Most TV/film articles have links to IMDb for anyone interested in an extended list of personnel, WP is not supposed to be the depository for this kind of trivial information. — TAnthony^Talk 17:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't list every single crew member on primetime shows or movies, so this seems beyond unnecessary. A ni Mate 04:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Senior cast members?

How do we determine the criteria for who is and who isn't a senior cast member in individual soaps infoboxes? For instance: Days' Frances Reid, AMC's Susan Lucci and Ray McDonnell, and B&Bs Katherine Kelly Lang, Ronn Moss, John McCook, and Susan Flannery are all original cast members who haven't left their respective shows. No brainer.

What about for shows that have no original cast members? Do we simply go by an actors first air date or do we go by actors who have been with the show for the longest uninterrupted run?

Example: Leslie Charleson joined GH in 1977, and has stayed with the show since then. Jane Elliot has left GH multiple times and even took her character to another soap for several years, but premiered in 1978. John J. York joined the show in 1991, but hasn't left the show. Which of these should be included as a senior cast member? A ni Mate 21:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

just put the ones that have been there for the longest time. --M42380 (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Night Shift images up for deletion

Wikipedia:Images_for_deletion#Image:KyleJulian.PNG and Wikipedia:Images_for_deletion#Image:Ethan Raines.jpg --Silvestris (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Vincent Jones

Ok

According to Soaps.com Vincent Jones is on recurring status, should he stay there or should he not be on the recurring list on One Life to Live? P.J. 23:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As Vincent hasn't been a major player for some time, I see no reason why he shouldn't be moved to a larger list. However, you might get a better response on the article talk page. Also, consider using some of the templates and suggestions found at Help:Merging and moving pages. Finally, it looks like there are several editors who have edited that article in the past few weeks. Why not drop them a note inviting them to discuss a possible move or merge at Talk:Vincent Jones (One Life to Live). A ni Mate 00:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Soap opera

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Temporary recasts

I'm looking for some opinions. Does anyone think that screencaps of characters being played by temporary recasts for a handful of episodes should be included in articles? My main concern is that they really don't help the articles, and according to our fair use policy: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Seeing someone who played a role for two days doesn't really help me understand "Character X." Feedback would be appreciated, as I'm panning on taking one of the pictures I found to WP:IfD in the next day or so as a test case to see what the community at large thinks. A ni Mate 19:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with you on this. Temporary recast have nothing to do with what a particular character does during that time. --OLTL2002 (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point in putting up pictures of temps, as they ain't relevant to the character articles. I'd say only the regular portrayers and past portrayers, (example: Sarah Brown's pic in the Carly Corinthos article.) such be included. --Stone Cold 89 21:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, only notable recasts and replacements need to be illustrated, if any. Onelifefreak2007's suggestion here that we should show what every recast looks like because readers may be curious is misguided because he does not yet understand the boundaries of fair use; as AniMate explains above, images must really enhance understanding. Anybody curious what Ethan Erickson looks like can Google an image of him. As it is, it's hard enough to defend why TV characters should have images (it's really more convention than anything), having images of such minor importance hurts our case even more. I personally would enjoy seeing all 12 Kevin Buchanans, but Wikipedia is not the place for that. — TAnthony^Talk 17:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you can see most of the Kevins (and other OLTL recasts) here. ;) — TAnthony^Talk 15:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, only notable recasts. Flyer22 (talk) 08:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I love that site with all of the recasts, and it even includes my favorite soap opera recast of all time: Blair's transition from Asian woman to blond, white woman. A ni Mate 23:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Coronation Street characters

Does anyone have any idea what's the reason to have List of past recurring and minor Coronation Street characters? They are already

I think we have to put the characters in the correct article and then delete the article or convert it to a disamb page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A AfD has been started here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of past recurring and minor Coronation Street characters. Ced 12:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I informed the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Coronation Street, so please don't express any opinions here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Recurring cast members?

I've been watching a slow moving edit war over at List of One Life to Live cast members that got me thinking. How exactly do we determine which cast members who have been down graded to recurring status are actually still with a show? Are they still considered recurring if they haven't been on screen in a month? Two months? Something to think about so we can avoid messy back and forths like what's occurring on the OLTL cast page. A ni Mate 19:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Article improvement drive

This isn't the most active WikiProject out there, but everyone who watches this page is (or should be) a soap fan. There are some really awful soap character articles out there. Looking at Pauline Fowler and the fine work Flyer22 has done on Bianca Montgomery, clearly we can do better. I'm proposing a bi-weekly or monthly improvement drive on some character articles. The goal isn't to get them to good article status necessarily, but to make them readable. For instance, the article on B&B's Taylor Hayes. What the hell is that? Articles for characters on GH, Y&R, and Days generally get good traffic and user oversight, but the other soaps... not so much. If this is an actual WikiProject and not just a place to sign on so we can put a userbox on our user page, we need to do better. Is anyone interested in an occasional announcement for help on articles that really, really need it? A ni Mate 07:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am interested, and I will help out whenever I can. For example, Nicholas Newman article talks about his marriage to Sharon in one line and then immediately jumps to 2005 and Phyllis. There isn't anything else detailed except too long summaries of recent events. I would be interested in re-writing the article or something when I find time for it. There are many other Y&R articles with the same thing going on. Dmarex (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The article on Nicholas Newman is a great example of an article that could benefit from this. You don't even have to be a fan of the show to improve one of them. Using CBS's website, The Young and the Restless's website, and sites like Soap Opera Digest's, it shouldn't be to hard to find citations and the information we as Wikipedia editor's may not have to improve the article. A ni Mate 08:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I just did a lot of work on the article, but I hope it's better now. I will add some citations later if I find them. I hope Phick fans won't be disappointed there's no picture with Phyllis there. (ducks for cover) Dmarex (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested too. Right now I'm working on the Dimitri Marick character article and trying to improve it with real world content. If there is a weekly/monthly drive, I would try to help as much as I can. Rocksey (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

List of characters in Holby City

Over on the Talk:List of characters in Holby City, we are having a discussion on the list of characters and if the article should be a list of characters with details such as starting episode, position, character and actor name, as per List of characters in Casualty, the article for Holby City's sister show. Could anyone on here have a look at the article and contribute to the talk page? Thanks. Adamiow (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

All sorted now. We no longer need any help. Thanks. Adamiow (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox dates?

I may not be in the loop when it comes to the newest rules, so I would really love it if someone could explain if it's allowed to have dates with links (First Appearance, Last Appearance) in the character infoboxes? Lately someone has been removing the links on the dates and I have no idea if that's supposed to be that way, or if someone is just too lazy to make a link. Dmarex (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As of recently, dates in general all across Wikipedia are no longer linked by default (see MOS:UNLINKDATES). There are bots and some editors going thru articles and unlinking dates, but it should be for the entire article, not just in infoboxes.

By the way, thanks for all your hard work this year! I stumbled across the Santa Barbara character articles recently and was like, wait, these weren't here before?! You've been busy! Thanks again. — TAnthony^Talk 18:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I guess I have a lot of articles to go through and unlink those. And thanks for noticing my work on SB. It has been fun. Dmarex (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair City characters

Hello. I have started a merger proposal, my thought being that many of the individual character articles should have their basic content moved into the article List of Fair City characters, instead of having separate articles for each. My proposal is further explained in the target article's talk page, so please reply there rather than here if you have any interest in the discussion. I'd like to keep all discussion in one place, and that seemed like the best place. Thanks in advance for any input given in the matter. Raven1977 (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Lily Walsh Snyder

Would anyone mind checking out the article for Lily? Thanks to some anon-editor, it's really messed up right now, with a poorly-written summary that's divided by the individual years. The whole style is just very sloppy.

And now it looks like the same editor who's screwed that article up is moving on to Craig Montgomery's article . --Silvestris (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Idol drama = Soap opera?

The context of several articles seems to indicate that an "idol drama" is the Taiwanese equivalent of a soap opera, but there is no article and no section in the main Soap Opera article. Does anyone know anything about this? I think the term "idol drama" is a little confusing, and it would be nice to be able to link it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Actor Names in Storyline summaries

I've noticed some of the articles include the actor who portrays each character next to their names in the plot recaps, like in the Colleen Carlton, Amber Moore, and Lily Winters articles. Sometimes every name of every actor that ever played the character is added. Is that the way it's supposed to be done? Rocksey (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This Project has never established that as a style one way or the other; I personally feel like it should be decided on an article-by-article basis, based on the way the particular article is written. The addition of actors' names may bring a real-world aspect that may feel awkward in a section written strictly as plot without other real-world references. And if actors are included, in most cases the multiple actors in the same role shouldn't be listed all at once, but rather in context of the plot, as in: "In 1987, Cord Roberts (John Loprieno) is horrified as his estranged wife Tina (Andrea Evans) plunges over the Iguazu Falls ... Cord and Tina (Karen Witter) remarry for the third time in 1991." Stylistically, I think it may get cumbersome and distracting for the plot summaries in soaps, which are presumably longer as they cover many years and characters.

Looking to fictional character articles which have reached Featured status for a guide, the inclusion of actors' names within the text of plot summaries is inconsistent. Pauline Fowler references actor names much of the time (not every time), but what would be considered the plot summary sections of this article are written very strongly from a real-world perspective, to be expected in the case of a character of such cultural significance. Nikki and Paulo doesn't note other performers at all in the plot section ("Appearances"), but Khan Noonien Singh and Jack Sparrow do.— TAnthony^Talk 16:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me those examples. Though the actor names in the plot can be distracting I do see how it does add some real-world perspective. I guess I'll edit the ones I see that cite multiple actors at once.Rocksey (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Page Move Request

I requested the page Chloe Mitchell Ashby be moved to Chloe Mitchell since the character is still known as by her maiden name on the show and I don't feel that Ashby is her common name yet. Here's the discussion: Talk:Chloe_Mitchell_Ashby#Requested_move.Rocksey (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Salatut elämät characters

Hi! I just happened to notice that all articles about characters of a Finnish soap opera Salatut elämät (one of the most popular TV series in Finland) have been changed to redirects: articles about Ismo Laitela (who has been on the series since the first episode in 1999 and is maybe the most popular character of the show BTW) and Jenni Vainio (who has been on the series since the first episode, almost ten years now). Apparently there were no discussion before this move; in May there were deletion discussions (for example: Seppo Taalasmaa and Ulla Taalasmaa) but none of the articles were deleted. Just wanted you to know. I personally don't understand, why articles about characters of this show couldn't be included to English Wikipedia. There were only eighth articles before redirecting and the series really is still very popular in Finland (as you can see from here, for example: [3]). ,,n (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that User:Eusebeus was the one to redirect these articles, I would ask him/her the rationale for doing so. I suspect the editor was "being bold" and redirecting based on the discussion brought up in the AfDs you noted, although there was no consensus to do so, based on his comment here. This is a tricky situation that we have struggled with in the Project; technically many of these articles/stubs fail WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT (as many soap articles currently do) so it is difficult to argue for their existence in their current state. I haven't examined every Salatut elämät character article in detail; some may be better than others and may be easily improved, I'm not sure. The basic "problem" with the articles seems to have been too much plot and not enough (or any) references.

The notability of the series itself is not in question, though its own article is sadly lacking references itself. I would suggest that anyone interested in adding more character information for the series to Wikipedia start with either a section in the main article discussing some of the soap's most notable characters over the years (not overly large, and with citations) or a separate List of Salatut elämät characters that includes brief plot info for notable characters and, of course, citations. The most notable characters can then be split out of that as more sources are collected.— TAnthony^Talk 02:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see the point. Yes, the quality of those articles was pretty bad and all lacked references. Lacking references really seems to be a problem with the clear majority of articles about soap opera (or any TV series) characters. I just checked category Emmerdale characters (Emmerdale happens to be one of the rare soap series which central characters I know) and articles with any references were very rare. The fact that articles about characters of a one Finnish TV series seem to be especially targeted is quite odd. But, I'm not going to strongly oppose redirecting; I was just wondering :). ,,n (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, anyone who reads this page regularly has seen me talk about this over and over; lots of people like updating casting changes, characters' married names, and those kind of tidbits, but not many people like the unsexy tasks of researching and adding references ... and then they're surprised when the articles get AfDed (not talking about you, obviously, but some of the "regulars.") Unfortunately, this leaves many many articles vulnerable and it is just a matter of time before more and more are noticed and targeted. But half the battle is just being available to participate in future discussion; I urge you to add the Salatut elämät articles and redirects to your watchlist so you can be aware of future activity. Actually, I urge everyone reading this to add soap articles they are concerned with to their watchlists, and to note andy pending AfDs here to garner participation.— TAnthony^Talk 16:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Guiding Light characters

a whole bunch of GL characters just got prodded. see WP:PRODSUM for 14 January. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Guiding Light: Can anyone help?

I am a lifelong fan of Guiding Light. I was dismayed that their were so very few articles about the Bauer Family (Guiding Light) and Dr. Rick Bauer so I created them. However, now thay are tagged for deletion because notability has not been established. Perhaps somebody with more time and resources than me can establish nobability and save these articles. If the Bauer's are not notable, how can any soap character be notable? They were created to be the premiere family to the first soap and longest running program in broadcast history. I know that Guiding Light is strugging right now, but it is a show with a glorious history- the forerunner to the genre. Please help if you can! amyanda (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyanda2000 (talk • contribs)

Carly Corinthos

At the Carly Corinthos article we're having a dispute over how the article should start. Right now it starts out with "Carly Corinthos Jacks(née: Caroline Leigh Benson, formerly Quartermaine and Alcazar)". I think that's inaccurate because it's inferring that Caroline Leigh is a former name instead of her current (though not common) name. I feel that it should start with the character's formal name and have her nickname in between quotation marks like this "Caroline Leigh "Carly" Corinthos Jacks". That way it would be in accordance with other articles that start out similarly with formal names followed by nicknames like Jerry Jacks, Babe Carey, Bobbie Spencer, etc.

Input from other editors on this would be appreciated so we can get a consensus on whether the article should start out the way it is or if it should be changed.Rocksey (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)