Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 1

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper.  We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class and good B-class articles, with no POV or copyright problems.  Can you recommend any suitable articles on soap operas?  Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Walkerma 06:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: I have added a peer review request for Irna Phillips's page.  I am hoping some people can add things. Dowew 02:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  irna Phillips peer review 

message: Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team previously contacted you to identify the quality articles in your WikiProject, and now we need a few more favors. We would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 1.0 and later versions.  Hopefully it will also help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please consider adding to your Arts WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us.  Not sure if this project is still active, but if you are, please get in touch. Thanks! Walkerma 04:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages: 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
*User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. 
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory 

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: I have created a new Days of our Lives category. Please place any articles to do with that show in that category. thanks Dippit 16:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Days of our Lives Category

message: I think it would be worth making a "WikiProject Soap Opera" template, which we could add to the talkpages of all of the soap show/character pages...  Anyone want to take a shot at creating it, per the format of some of the other WikiProject TV talkpage templates? --Elonka 00:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, template created: .  Please add this to the top of the talkpage of all soap-related articles. --Elonka 11:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional template

message: I don't know a ton about soaps (other than that my wife has watched some in the past), but I happened upon this article recently, and it strikes me that it could stand a bit of pruning - perhaps with a machete rather than pruning shears.  Any thoughts on how best to proceed? JavaTenor 17:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that article needs cleanup, and may even have copyright violations on it. Sometimes what happens is an overzealous fan goes to one of the other soap sites, finds their character biography page, and just copy/pastes the entire thing into Wikipedia.  Currently this WikiProject is just coming out of inactive status and doesn't have a large pool of editors for cleanup yet, so the best thing is really to tag the article directly. I've tagged it with  and left a note on the talkpage.  If you want, just be bold and do take a machete to it and chop the plot summary down to a paragraph or so.  And thanks for bringing it up! --Elonka 18:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there an appropriate place to list soap-opera-related articles that could use some attention? 

message: An AMC "supercouple" article is up for deletion: J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey.  What do other editors think?  Does it meet the criteria for supercouples? --Elonka 00:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as any soap supercouple meets the criteria. Generally speaking, supercouples are determined by fanbases more than anything else. If Belle and Shawn on DAYS or Lucky and Liz on GH are supercouples, then so are J.R. and Babe. D'Amico 11:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion debate

message: OK, until the group can create/find a suitable logo image, I just had to put a starter image into , it was so sad without one. TAnthony 00:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me, thanks for taking the initiative!  Where's it from? --Elonka 00:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to worry, Wikimedia Commons.  ;) TAnthony 02:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template image

message: : (copied from Talk:General Hospital)
I think that things are starting to get out-of-hand with the character relationships. I'm seeing lists showing up that are covering tenuous relationships like "adoptive paternal half-cousin", on characters that aren't even in the show anymore!  I think we need to come up with guidelines that specify that only notable relationships should be included. My recommendation is that we define this as:  Immediate family, romantic history, plus relationships to individuals who are or have been part of a key storyline involving that character. --Elonka 21:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many relationships

message: I'd like to provide a list of examples of the "best work" on soap articles, for other editors to look at as templates. Could folks please list a few here?  For example, I'd like to recommend:
* Damian Spinelli as a good example of a character article, but I'm a bit biased as of course I wrote a good chunk of it.  ;)
* Erica Kane is another pretty good one.
* Any of the articles at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Media
* Any of the articles in the Media section at Wikipedia:Good articles
Any other really high quality articles that anyone wants to recommend? :) --Elonka 02:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: Different soap pages have their relationships set up in different ways. Is there a particular format that is prefered, or is it personal discretion? Specifically, I'm thinking of pages like the Felicia Forrester page (where it's in a box on the side), or pages like the Chelsea Benson page (where it's listed below). D'Amico 11:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now it's pretty haphazard, and to be honest, people seem more often than not to be copy/pasting information in from one of the other soap sites.  I like the idea of coming up with a consistent format, which we can list here on the WikiProject page.  Between the two examples you mentioned, I prefer the "list below" method, both because it's easier to maintain, and because it looks cleaner. Then again, putting relationships in the box can be a good way of limiting relationships to only the most notable ones. What do other editors think? --Elonka 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming up with a standard, agreed-upon format template should definitely be a major goal of this WikiProject. I for one like the Infobox approach; this is cleaner and more in line with primetime articles. BUT, it will help when the group has established guidelines for relationships allowed, etc. Step great-grandchildren by marriage don't need to be listed! It would also end up being great to have family trees to link to (like #Carrington family tree) or specialized family templates to replace these relationship lists altogether. TAnthony 00:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the decision is made to use only the immediate family (parents, siblings, children), then the infobox would be a great idea, because it's perfect for short relationships. I'd be inclined (personally) not to include step-children or step-whatevers or in-laws. The only potential exception I can see is situations such as the Shawn/Belle/Philip situation on DAYS, where the courts have given Philip legal guardianship of Claire (who is biological his nephew's daughter, but legally his own). But I'm sure there'll be a definitive template at some time. D'Amico 08:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm so glad you guys are mobilizing on this, some of the soap articles are really bogged down by this stuff. The long infobox would probably be fine as long as it is restricted to a thinner size, I actually like that idea. You'd have to of course put the parameter titles like "children" on one line and the actual info listed below it instead of next to it (kind of like your ) so each line's info isn't cut off as much. Is it too much work for you to do a prototype that we can see before we decide? TheRhani 19:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I just remembered that you created the Dynasty character infobox (see Alexis Colby); I like the "Romances," "Friends" and "Enemies" fields etc., we should definitely have those kinds of things implemented in the new infobox to some degree. TheRhani 19:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unified format for soap relations?

message: To reopen the above topic of listing relations, I've been thinking about the options. 
The bottom-of-the-article lists seem like such a waste of space; I like the infobox because it keeps everything neat and consistent, and was actually thinking about creating a special infobox just for soap characters that breaks out all the "relationship categories" usually covered in the bottom-of-the-article lists in order to replace them entirely. The box would be long in many cases, but in the comfortable right-side position.
HOWEVER, I'm thinking perhaps it would make the articles feel narrow or cramped, especially in the presence of images. My next thought was a differently-formatted second infobox, at the bottom of the page where the current relationship lists are. It would resemble a horizontal navigation template but behave like a standard infobox. In this case, the "regular" up-top infobox would have just the basic character stats and an internal link to the other box, which would contain all relationships. But one issue I have with this option is that two infoboxes may be cumbersome or confusing to some editors.
Perhaps there's another option. In any case, I don't like the current system. Thoughts? TAnthony 06:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm so glad you guys are mobilizing on this, some of the soap articles are really bogged down by this stuff. The long infobox would probably be fine as long as it is restricted to a thinner size, I actually like that idea. You'd have to of course put the parameter titles like "children" on one line and the actual info listed below it instead of next to it (kind of like your ) so each line's info isn't cut off as much. Is it too much work for you to do a prototype that we can see before we decide? TheRhani 19:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I just remembered that you created the Dynasty character infobox (see Alexis Colby); I like the "Romances," "Friends" and "Enemies" fields etc., we should definitely have those kinds of things implemented in the new infobox to some degree. TheRhani 19:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: The Pauline Fowler article achieved good article status earlier this year, but in my opinion things have gotten out of hand and the plot summary has reached "overwhelming" status.  It goes into detail like, "Pauline, stumbled over her packed bags next to the table, knocking over her favourite fruit bowl, which smashed into pieces.Pauline lay on the floor with smashed glass surrounding her, Sonia apologised and begged her to rethink her decision for Martin and Rebecca's sake," or "On the same night, Dot went to the Fowlers' house to find Rebecca's toy rabbit, which had been dropped there. Whilst there, Dot heard someone coming into the house, it was Pauline's husband Joe."  I appreciate that there are many devoted fans of the character, since she's a longterm character who just retired in December 2006.  But, when I've tried tagging the article with , it just keeps getting reverted. :/ And I've had no luck engaging people at the talkpage. Some help or advice on the situation would be appreciated, as I'd rather see if we can come up with a way to get the article back into Manual of Style guidelines, rather than just pulling the GA status off it. --Elonka 00:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update:  Things are back in hand, the article is coming along well.  Thanks to anyone who helped out with a nudge.  :) --Elonka 21:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Further update: The Pauline Fowler is now undergoing a formal peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pauline Fowler/archive2.  After this, our plan is to nominate it for Featured Article status.  If successful, this will be the first soap opera character article to make FA, so this is an important step, as it will be setting an example for what other soap opera character articles should look like.  I encourage all WikiProject members to participate in the process on this one! --Elonka 16:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needing attention

message: FYI, I've added rating functionality (and some other options we'll probably never use!) to the Project template, and added a small "Assessment" section to the main page. I also created a standard Assessment subpage, though obviously it's slightly overkill at this point. But I definitely think the sorting will be helpful as more and more articles are added to the project. TAnthony 03:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template functionality and Userbox

message: I know I am not a member of this group, but I keep finding soap character pages with Spelling issues. I think maybe there is a spelling issue in a template that is being used. In the Marriage section of alot of these pages instead of saying Marital Status it says Martial status, as in martial arts. I keep going thru and correcting, but then it keeps being changed back. I was hoping maybe someone in this group knows how we can it corrected.
Darth25 00:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's just because the same editor was creating those sections.  :/  It's a common problem on Wikipedia.  To speed up fixes, you might want to look at installing one of the semi-automated tools like Auto Wiki Browser, which makes it fairly simple to run through a large number of pages and fix similar typos. You'll see it in edit summaries sometimes like "fixing typos with AWB." --Elonka 02:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling Issues on Soap Character Pages 

message: I'm not important or anything, but was just wondering shouldn't most of the character article's have SOME semblence of identity? I mean why have for instance "Awards" on this character's page but not that character's page. To me having it so certain sections are allowed on all character pages or no character pages makes them look better in my opinion. DJ-Siren 01:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of goals here is definitely to standardize character articles, ideally across all soaps. We are just coming out of inactivity and recruiting members, so we hope to move on this and many other goals soon. TAnthony 15:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: With awards, they should generally be on an actor's page rather than a character's page, shouldn't they? It's the actor winning the award most of the time rather than the character. (There are exceptions, but most awards are actor-based.) D'Amico 10:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles.  There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements.  Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Wikipedia:Television episodes.  We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page.  After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles.  See: Wikipedia:Television article review process.  We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage.  Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode coverage

message: I know this is not most peoples' cup of tea, but many of the Spanish-language telenovela articles are in sad shape.  See, for example, Mirada de mujer, La fea más bella and El derecho de nacer (TV series).  Grammar, style, and other basic problems are rampant.  In addition to the usual Wikipedia issues, there is the added problem of working with a non-English culture's pop TV.  Since most of the world's soap opera viewers are actually watching telenovelas, this is an area we should cover in more detail.  Any help would be appreciated.  Mosquera 08:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a "to do" list for myself in mind but will definitely try to help you out; the novela articles are indeed important and in need of work. TheRhani 17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Telenovelas

message: While strolling through :Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2006 I stumbled into Guiding Light (1950-1959) and the subsequent decades. In the course of researching them, I came here only to find that the topic is being discussed in terms of an "annoying" editor. First of all, Charleenmerced, you need to watch the tone and not make personal attacks or assume bad faith. Second, Corpx is correct to remove information that doesn't have references. I've just looked at the articles mentioned above and every single one of them needs a complete rewrite and major trimming - they are horrendously bloated, contain nothing but plot and are written from an in-universe perspective, just to start. If there weren't this raging edit war, I'd have removed most of the text also. Third, you can't just reference the entire history of the series and think that is sufficient under Wikipedia guidelines. You have to cite specific outside sources or, failing that, specific episodes of the series. Over all, these are some of the worst articles I've seen in terms of fannish content and lack of sources. 24.4.253.249 21:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes. You are certainly correct in your assessment based on WP guidelines (and yes, many of these articles are poorly written, which is why we're trying to bring this WikiProject to life), but they are actually guidelines. This is a unique genre in terms of time span and pure volume of material (One Life to Live, for example is nearly 40 years old and will soon air it's 10,000th episode) and its particular nature and needs don't seem to have been taken into account when these guidelines were created. I am certainly not advocating that every character article cover 30 years of events in detail with no sources, but many of the current guidelines that apply to television and fiction go to the other extreme. WP "standards" demand real-world impact and context and yet there are few analytical sources and mainstream press outlets that really dedicate the necessary coverage to the genre. Yes, many fans seem to (annoyingly) assert notability and importance to material that just isn't, and yet much of what is actually notable cannot necessarily be sourced in the conventional way. The historical records just don't exist. Most of us are aware of the sad state some of these articles are in, and as I noted earlier I don't necessarily object to the edits made by Corpx and others, but frankly I am increasingly frustrated by the slash-and-burn methods of editors who refuse to take a thoughtful stance. The moving of the Jason Morgan material to a sandbox subpage by Jossi (and his talk page comments about it) was, to me, the kind of unbiased and productive move that I wish others would employ. TAnthony 01:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard the arguments against providing proper sources and leaving inadequate articles "as is" until they get attention from "knowledgable" editors from other projects before, notably regarding other TV shows, comic books and video games. They all present the case that it is a unique genre and the normal rules shouldn't apply, they aren't really rules, or should be more lax. The problem with such arguments is that such concepts as Verifiability are more than just "guidelines," they are policy to which all Wikipedia articles need to conform. The articles are still not much more than plot elements without any real-world references or relevance. The "leave it alone" crowd makes a lot of assumptions about the future efforts of a specific group of editors, rather than allowing Wikipedia to be improved by any editor that comes along and works on an article at any point in time. Look at the Guiding Light articles highlighted above - they've been without any kind of citations for over a year, and are likely to remain that way indefinitely without some kind of nudge. Jossi may have had the right idea, but if you look at the Jason Morgan article now you'll see that his/her efforts were completely wasted by a group of editors who refused to work with it (and are calling such trimming efforts "vandalism"). No, I think the only viable way to improve these articles is to start complying with the policies and guidelines that are set forth for every Wikipedia article. 24.4.253.249 18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The IP user is referring to notablity and cultural impact, etc. See Pauline Fowler and Bianca Montgomery for good examples. And as much as I hate the deletionist viewpoint, he/she is correct that no matter how much work went into it, a lot of the rambling plot should be removed; it can always be restored from the edit history when someone is willing to undertake rewrites and referencing. That said, I think a reasonable amount of plot can be presented with bibliographical links to official show websites and major soap sites like Soapcentral in a "References" section. If years are cited within the text and the name of the series is clear, I don't see why line by line referencing is necessary. TAnthony 04:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles without references

message: * THis may apply to all ABC soaps, but I only wdit the GH ones so: ABC has this thing in their website where they put who are friends or foes of each character...well, these lists have found their way to Wikipedia. I think they are pointless and I suggest that we should delete them and stop adding them. The section of family and relationships should only include family and romantic relationships or business partners (maybe). The rest can be inferred from the storyline or referenced to inthe body of the article. Any comments>?--Charleenmerced  Talk 17:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add to that the fact the friends and foes can change, whereas family is more permanent (usually). While some of the articles might be updated when aliances change, it's almost inevitable that many would contain outdated information at any given time. And lists in articles are usually seen as unencyclopedic, so I'd be in favor of text over lists anyway. 24.4.253.249 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we don't, why clutter an article unnecessarily? TAnthony 02:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about Sections

message: *I have requested that the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article be peer-reviewed, and I would appreciate any comments from you all concerning this article. Here's the internal link to its peer review...Wikipedia:Peer review/Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone/archive1. Flyer22 00:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review for Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article

message: Ok, on Days of Our Lives it was recently retconned that the Tony DiMera for the last 20 years was really his cousin André DiMera impersonating him.
The articles on the two characters are in-universe, and while I don't have a problem with Tony's retconned history being in Andre's article, I think there should be more of a real-world explanation explaining how this was a recent development and André's prior history was originally meant to be Tony's. --Silvestris 20:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  André and Tony 

message: Should a screenshot of the incident when EJ had Sami have sex with him to save Lucas's life be included in the EJ and Sami article (specifically, the section discussing said scene)?
The image is :Image:Ejsami.PNG. The caption is "EJ and Sami on December 29, 2006." It doesn't make any judgements about whether or not he was raping her. --Silvestris 15:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if some of the other pics are removed. The article already has too many. 24.6.65.83 17:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[EJ Wells and Samantha Brady]]'' screenshot? 

message: <Strike>*The Young and the Restless storylines - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Young and the Restless storylines.
*Sonny and Carly Corinthos - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonny and Carly Corinthos</Strike>
Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point I want to make make is there seems to be a group forming that wants to seriously crack down on articles that do not comply with WP:NOT, WP:WAF, and WP:FICT – not only soap opera articles, but any articles about fiction in general. So if anybody wants to save these articles — even before they get tagged with  or , they should start get working. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and you might find you're fighting a losing battle. They've been obliterating episode articles. Personally I think there's better things to be doing that destroying others' work, but if they are incapable of doing anything else. Point out that the modal verb "should" is a recommendation, not a necessity. The JPStalk to me 23:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but in my experience, WP:CCC. In the end, I will probably do what I have always done during the past few months regarding deletion discussions: I just post my comment and then do not pay attention to it anymore. The problem with these articles today is that we currently have a lack of notable citations and content to pass WP:NOT, WP:WAF, and WP:FICT. But if in the future, someone has the time and access to references, you might see these articles in some form re-appear again (and remember that WP:CSD#G4 does not apply to content that addresses why it was previously deleted).
****I didn't know that the Sonny and Carly Corinthos article had been nominated for deletion. I clearly put a note within my edit summary of that article and on that article's talk page that I was going to re-write it soon. Jeez. Well, that saves me one less article to give a complete overhaul. I'm going to address this editor, however, as to why this editor nominated it for deletion when I stated that I would fix it up, and when they could have waited after I fixed it up to see how they felt about it then. Flyer22 11:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can always ask the admin who deleted it to transfer the text to a sandbox page for you to work on. Then either recreate it, or better yet, take it Deletion review with the changes. 24.6.65.83 18:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFDs you might be interested in 

message: <Strike>Just letting you guys know that the Supercouple article is up for deletion...here. I already weighed in my thoughts on this matter, of course. Flyer22 18:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supercouple article is up for deletion 

message: I started a conversation on the J.R. Chandler article regarding this, and Flyer22 suggest I bring the topic here for further discussion because the topic is up for so much debate.  I had asked why the spelling of the page was "J.R." and not "JR".  The AMC website and the AMC end credits both list Jacob Young as "JR" Chandler.  But as Flyer22 pointed out, there are many occurrences when he is referred to as "J.R.", particularly in some soap magazines and other fans.  I only subscribe to SID, and in their latest issue, they also list the spelling as "JR".  I know I'm new here, and it might seem that I'm causing trouble, but, I'm really not, honest.  Just like everyone else, I'm trying to make Wikipedia the most accurate source of information it can be.--KnowsSoaps 23:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I'm too lazy at this time to type up a dfferent response to what KnowsSoaps originally posted on J.R.,'s talk page, I'll post here basically most of what I stated there, which is:
Well, on most sites, the periods are present within his nickname. And it's how most editors spell his name here at Wikipedia. I feel that changing it to JR instead of J.R. would be too uncommon for how his name is usually spelled. Some people have periods in their nickname of initials when the initials don't really stand for anything. The periods of his nickname are just another variation of Junior. 
It's perplexing, on whether to change the name of his article to JR here at Wikipedia or not, because his name is spelled J.R. so often, even by some soap opera magazines at times. Again, some people's initials really don't stand for anything. I feel that it's best to keep his name at J.R. instead of JR. I'm not sure that my mind will change on that.
His name being spelled as JR on the official (ABC) site does not mean that his name cannot be spelled as J.R., that there are not two ways of spelling it. The caption of television screens spells his name as J.R., though some could state that the television's computer chip is only being technical. But I say, if the television is being technical, it should know that, technically, that the periods should not be there. Also, I've looked over a few official All My Children scripts...and though I have never paid much attention to the spelling of his nickname on those scripts, I think that I saw an All My Children script where his name was spelled as J.R., not JR, as well. I know what you mean on this matter, but I really don't feel that there is any way of truly knowing if his nickname has an official spelling...unless we either taik to the show's creator, or the people running the show now, of course. Flyer22 23:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adam Chandler, Jr. (AMC) 

message: This article should be under just Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald, not under her multiple married names.  It's got two redirects and it doesn't find just Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald on a search.  Previous discussions have decided that woman should stay their maiden names.  This article needs to be fixed, please.CelticGreen 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald (Crane Casey Winthrop)

message: I've noticed a couple of obvious hoax articles from this user here and here. From his talk page it looks like he's created some hoaxes before. He's also made numerous changes to other soap-related articles, so i wonder is someone who knows a bit about British soaps could have a look through his contributions and check whether he's added any more incorrect information. In particular this series of unexplained changes to The British Soap Awards looks like it needs checking - unfortunately my quick Google didn't bring up a reliable list to compare it to. Best, Iain99Balderdash and piffle 00:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll contact Gungadin about this and see how Gungadin can help out on this matter. Flyer22 01:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey flyer, I dont watch the soaps this user has been editing, so I dont know if the information he has added is incorrect or not. It appears that most of his edits have been changed or removed anyway. Ive changed the incorrect information that has been added to The British Soap Awards, so hopefully that should be accurate now :) Gungadin♦ 11:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Gungadin, for what help you could give on this matter. I, of course, appreciate you looking into this matter either way. Flyer22 09:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly false information added to British soap articles by [[User:Non-gayboy]]