Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 2

message: Okay, we're getting ready to make another try at taking our first soap opera character article to Featured status, Pauline Fowler.  However, we're stuck on one thing before we can proceed, and that's on "how to list family relationships".  Some people say we shouldn't list them at all, others say we should list only key relationships, others say to list everything.
In order to try and reach a consensus here, I'd appreciate if anyone else with an opinion on the matter, could pop in to Talk:Pauline Fowler#Family relationships and participate in the discussion?  This is an important one, since if we can get this article to FA, its own formatting is what will be used as an example for other soap character articles.  Thanks, Elonka 21:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm all for listing as much information as necessary without having a list that includes "maternal half-step second cousin twice removed." The only time that I think it should include those relations is if the character you are reading about interacts with that "maternal half-step second cousin twice removed" on a regular basis.  If a character has nothing to do with the distant relation, don't include.  But if they deal with them and people would ask "why can't they be involved?" then their relationship should be included.  As in, if someone talks to their great niece on a daily basis but the great niece is their age and they are trying to find a coupling, include the great-niece so people know there's a familial relationship. (I hope that made sense)IrishLass0128 20:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting for family relationships

message: Could someone who (unlike me) gives a toss about soap operas please look at Emily Stewart - it has a vast, unreferenced, unwikified character bio, full of "unfortunately"-style editorializing.  It's very nasty.  Thanks, Cruftbane 10:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem article 

message: Speaking of Pauline Fowler, we're making another run at Featured article status.  If we make it this time, the article will be the first ever soap character article to make to FA status, and will therefore be held up as an example for other articles.  This discussion is not just among the WikiProject members, but among all editors across Wikipedia, since if it passes, the article will be considered as one of the top 1,500 on Wikipedia as a whole.  :)  
I encourage all interested WikiProject members to participate in the nomination discussion, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pauline Fowler.  FYI, Elonka 19:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pauline Fowler up for FA again

message: I was looking at the Ciara Brady page and realized her entire history is all about Hope.  There is no relevant information on the page that could not be incorporated into the Hope Brady page.  There are other children of major characters with the same kind of pages.  Is there a consensus of what should be done or a way to tag these pages other than with a stub tag?IrishLass0128 20:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of no consensus here, and as a matter of fact most of the soaps have the countless stubs you describe. Obviously I'll leave it to dedicated Days editors to decide based on the content, but Jane Winthrop of Passions redirects to her mother (like Ciara, there's not much to say about the child individually) which works. Of course, One Life to Live children is another example of a composite article for longer-but-still-minor entries (individual names like Jack Manning redirect to the appropriate sections). I think that might be a great approach for Days. Be bold! TAnthony 20:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold!  Oh, if only I could.  I do think Ciara should redirect to Hope Brady and not have her own page.  I also think the Zack Brady page falls into the same category of "redirect to the mother" but that list idea is looking better and better the more I delve into this project.  If others agree with the idea, other than you and I TAnthony, I will continue forward.IrishLass0128 12:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well--it's a great idea! There can be little subarticles in the main article on the child(ren). Will the same be done for the other children, Tyler Kiriakis, Claire Kiriakis, etc? I'd be very willing to help out with these aritlces, IrishLass and TAnthony! --Miss Burkle 01:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zack Brady is probably the only child character on DAYS I can see potentially meeting the criteria for having his own page simply because of the storylines that revolved around his character. Unless a child character can have significant storylines that cannot all be found in one place (the PSSN character of Little Ethan could arguably merit his own page), they don't appear to meet the Wikipedia criteria of validity. Other soap kids that could arguably merit their own page could include Michael Corinthos III (in part because the actor is actually on contract -- a rarity for soap children). On the other hand, children like D.J. Craig Jr. (Marlena and Don's son on DAYS who died of SIDS) may not be notable. The only truly notable thing about D.J. (which may not even be) is that he's the only soap child I can think of whose death was attributed to SIDS. D'Amico 07:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: D'Amico, it's funny you mention Zack because even his page is all about Chelsea and others and not him.  In reality, he did have very little to do other than that two month arch.  D.J. I do believe is the only child to have died from SIDS but part of that is because we figured out kids shouldn't sleep on their stomaches thus reducing dramatically that COD.  The Tyler and Claire pages should not exist, IMO.  What about each show having a "Children of XXXX Soap" page and doing it in the format suggested by TAnthony?  IrishLass0128 12:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noted this at Talk:Colleen Brady but wanted to add it here: If you do go for the "table-style" approach, you should use the  commands so that the redirects can point directly to the person on the list. See Dynasty minor characters and Minor characters of Rome for how this is used, or I can help. TAnthony 16:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: For example, the link Caress Morell takes you directly to her listing even though she's far down the list. TAnthony 16:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's unfortunate the page for Zack isn't really about him. If handled properly, it could be a great page and worthy for it's own purposes. A Children of XXX page could be an excellent idea, because it won't need to be renamed when a child eventually gets it's own page. And it can be added to / removed at any time. The one major problem? Users who will constantly create pages for these children. On the bright side, it also gives a place to put the 'children of importance who were never really there' -- like Sarah Winthrop, a stillborn child who has her own page. D'Amico 21:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I really like the idea of creating separate pages for minor characters and children. I plan on implementing this for The Young and the Restless since a lot of the minor characters and children have articles that are very short and contain very little substantial detail to warrant them having their own page. Is there a procedure I should follow in doing this? You all seem more aware about this than I do. I'm up for the challenge but I'd just like to make sure I'm not digging myself into a giant hole. :) —Evaglow 06:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just "be bold" and use any of the composite articles mentioned above as examples/templates. Be sure you are clear about your actions in your edit summary when turning the stub into a redirect; say "Merging stub into The Young and the Restless minor characters" or whatever so that interested parties will know right away that you didn't just "delete" the page. I wouldn't anticipate a lot of complains, but let us know if you have any trouble. — TAnthonyTalk 06:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the advice TAnthony. :) —Evaglow 16:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey there, Children of The Young and the Restless is looking great! — TAnthonyTalk 00:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since no one openly objected and it's been a couple months since I put it out there, today I moved the Ciara Brady information into the Hope Williams Brady page and updated the information to be all inclusive.  It was relatively easy since Ciara's story was all about Hope.  I added the redirect to Hope's page.  Now is the time to start actually working on a Children of Salem page if I can figure out tables.  I may have to go find a table to steal and modify. Thanks for the push. Irish Lass 16:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ciara Brady and other children

message: Obviously at this point this template's use should be voluntary per article, with consensus if necessary. However, I'd like to initiate a consensus to implement it across the board as a standard for the Project. This should, of course, go hand-in hand with eliminating the bottom-of-the article lists (once the listed information has been moved into the infobox). I see no negative to this, as all previous parameters are included, and the bottom-of-the-article lists have been identified as unencyclopedic (though we here within the Project can see the importance of this information). This is a preemptive strike to the lists being slashed by editors following WP policy.
To implement this template in existing article we need to simply replace:
{{Infobox character
with
{{Infobox soap character
and better yet, adding the series parameter as well:
| series = 
I can actually accomplish a mass switchover using AWB when that time comes. Of course, shows with their own infoboxes (like EastEnders) need not be changed unless the applicable WikiProject or group of editors determines it wishes to. — TAnthonyTalk 20:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Implementation

message: Just saw that Flyer22 added a list of character articles nominated for deletion.  All three were nominated or suggested to be nominated by me.  They are minor characters who have no business having a page.  Jed Stark was on a grand total of 5 times.  Ford and Megan just joined and to what capacity no one knows.  They are minor supporting characters with no ties to Days, just college students. Please, delete these articles or at least support the nomination.  Not fishing for comments to delete, just pointing out why they were nominated and expressing my opinion.IrishLass0128 19:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IrishLass, I didn't add a list (character or otherwise) of articles nominated for deletion. I removed a red link to an article that doesn't exist anymore. Flyer22 17:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I guess I should have looked closer at the history page.  I am actually glad Ford and Megan's page made it through, they really aren't worthy of having pages.  They aren't going to be on for more than a month at this point. That could change, but for now I just wish people would stop jumping to create pages just so they are the ones to create the page.  Thanks for clarifying. IrishLass0128 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominated for deletion 

message: I've been doing AWB runs again to add the Project banner to new and untagged articles, and not only have we surpassed 2000 articles, but we're closing in on 3000! Obviously quantity doesn't necessarily mean quality, but congrats to us all! — TAnthonyTalk 15:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations!

message: I created a Soap Barnstar awhile back (its first recipient was the well-deserving Elonka) but never put it into full use; I've added it to the main Project page but will not list it at the WikiProject awards page until I've gotten feedback (or maybe never, it really doesn't have to be listed there). Obviously, the image I came up with doesn't have to be the permanent one. — TAnthonyTalk 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave one to Flyer22 because of the tireless work she's done on the project too.  She so deserved it!! IrishLass0128 19:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Barnstar

message: Admittedly I am no expert on General Hospital but I think I know good articles from kind of messy ones.  Is there some reason why on the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber their respective family histories are repeated just as they are on the individual's page?  I thought we were trying to eliminate the lists and then I find them on a couple's page.  Is this correct?  It seems terribly redundant. IrishLass0128 18:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a perfect example of why I'm against most supercouple articles; they're just plain redundant. And yet, with Luke and Laura, it seems like most of their history is together. And there's so much of it!  So in this situation I'd suggest keeping all 3 articles but with major changes. The Luke Spencer and Laura Spencer article should each cover the individual characters' story without each other (Laura's storylines before Luke arrived, time with the Cassadines and descent into her current state; Luke's adventures in Port Charles during the multiple time periods she has been gone). Then they also each have a short section/paragraph featuring an overview of their relationship with a link to the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article. And the couple article only features their story together.  I sort of did a similar thing with the incomplete Tina Clayton Lord and Cord Roberts articles, where the "Cord and Tina" section in her article is super-short and links to the expanded coverage of their relationship in his article (she has  much more story to be added before he came to town and after they separated, whereas most of this stuff revolves around her). Does anyone agree?  — TAnthonyTalk 06:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I think we need to come up with a positive way of uniforming all the couple and character articles.  It's ridiculous to repeat information like the Luke and Laura article does.  I don't know the storylines enough to do anything with the page, but I think we need to find a way to get every article "on the same page" so to speak in regards to style.  IrishLass0128 12:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not against any of the supercouple articles. Well, I might be against the ones I cannot provide notability for according to Wikipedia policy. But I'm not usually against supercouple articles because they don't have to be redundant, and less redundancy is what I go for when fixing them up. Which is why after I tackle a supercouple article, you will see information about couple creation, actors' commentary about the couple (sometimes), and cultural impact. Stuff that you would not and should not find in their individual articles. Yes, I have seen how horrid the Luke and Laura article is. And the day that I get to it fixing it up, it will be fixed up nicely. They have a ton of real-world impact, and their article can be really  different from their individual articles...and it can excellent. I'm going to go eliminate the Family and relationships section from the Luke and Laura right now, just to further the stance against those kinds of list. Lists are just fine fine on Wikipedia when they are relevant and not redundant and formatted in Wiki-format. This is where the Family and relationships section in the Luke and Laura article fails. Flyer22 02:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luke and Laura page 

message: Currently Jane Winthrop redirects to Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane; however her brother Ethan Crane and her newborn half-brother Jonathan Winthrop have their own pages. Even her sister who died before birth Sarah Winthrop has her own page. The redirect page says that Jane isn't a notable character, but I don't see how she's any less notable than Sarah, or even Little Ethan. Shouldn't there be some consistency here? Dougie WII 12:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See conversations above.  Most of us do not think newborns should have their own pages.  They should redirect back to the mother.  "Little Ethan" I'll have to look at, he is not a newborn and has had some storyline.  I will gladly take care of this issue. IrishLass0128 12:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jane Winthrop

message: The Jake Olsen article should be deleted I think, he's not very notable as he only appeared in about 5 episodes before being killed. I'd suggest replacing with a redirect to Esme Vanderheusen I guess. (I'm new to all this, so if I'm not using the correct procedure, please let me know.) Dougie WII 13:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken care of.  Nominated for deletion, no redirect. IrishLass0128 13:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jake Olsen

message: Can someone please review this article (Kate Howard) and give me suggestions to improve it. It is currently Start Class.--Charleenmerced  Talk 17:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than attempting to explain why the infobox wasn't working properly, I went ahead and implemented the new one.  It reduced the size of the picture to a standard size, the original is way too big.  Romances weren't showing because you didn't have an S on the end, not your fault.  I removed the list at the bottom, Sonny was mentioned way too many times, once under marital status when she clearly isn't married, and twice under romances.  Not necessary.  In all honesty, the article is a start.  Making B class takes an act of the gods it seems.  I've seen great articles classified at start.  I have asked why but never get an answer.  Hope I have helped. IrishLass 17:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Trust is still an issue and your comments didn't actually have anything to do with mine. East Enders is their own category.  They even have their own templates.  They are completely different than American soaps.  This entire section should be on the Kate Howard page, not here. IrishLass 21:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessing articles

message: Conventionally we have been naming the family names as such: Horton family (Days of our Lives).  An admin has decided we have done wrong and has moved all the soap family pages that had (Soap Name) and removed the name of the soap as "disambiguous."  See conversation here .  My "logic" of "I'm doing what everyone has done, didn't fly and now we must have a discussion about it before the articles can be addressed/moved/renamed.  As you can see, he's moved many, many pages .  So ~ discuss!  IrishLass (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did notice the moving yesterday, as I have myself also created articles like Carrington family (Dynasty) and Lord family (One Life to Live) to avoid conflicts with potential future articles. However, Wknight94 is technically correct by WP standards; there is no need to disambiguate the page (add the show name or suffix) unless there is another article with which it can get confused, and it doees make the articles names simpler. When the time comes that another Roberts family article is created, the articles can be differentiated this way.  Yes, they're pretty much unnecessary changes (they weren't hurting anybody the way they were), but the format rules are in place to keep everything as simple as possible. — TAnthonyTalk 16:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family trees/naming 

message: Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Days of our Lives GA Review: On Hold

message: The BetacommandBot has been especially annoying lately, as the "deadline" for all images to be compliant with WP:NFCC in a "machine-readable format" (or be deleted) is coming up in March. I wanted to give everyone a little help to get this thing off our backs!
The most common issue with images is that they're lacking certain necessary details; in particular, the article names in which the image is used must be noted on the desciption page (not just auto-displayed under "The following pages link to this file") and each use must have its own fair use rationale. The best way to fix the problem once and for all is to use a fair use template; this allows the bots to detect that all pertinent information is provided. The least cumbersome templates right now are  and , which are used in conjunction with each other. 
Each image should contain one instance of  with all parameters filled in, and then one instance of  for each use.
I've just implemented templates on all One Life to Live images. Since most soap images seem to be used in just a single article, feel free to just copy the code on any of these images for your use (including the purpose/rationale), obviously changing performer, character, show, source and category info, etc. Note that all parameters except "other information" are required. It is recommended to note the uploader of the current version under "source", whether or not an actual source weblink is available.
Here are some suggested examples for copying and study:
*:Image:OLTL David Fumero.jpg - Clean example of a character screenshot which is used in only one article.
*:Image:ToddBlair-TSJKD.jpg - Example of a promotional image used in one article; note that screenshots are preferred to promotional images by the "Fair Use police," so depending on the use you may still get a hard time with these.
*:Image:Super Friends.jpg - Image used in multiple articles; note that the "image data" (blue) template appears once but the "rationale" (pink) template is repeated, and the "purpose/rationale" may be slightly different for each, depending on that particular use.
Hope this helps! — TAnthonyTalk 00:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So does this mean all the stuff we went back and re-tagged in the last couple days is a moot point and we have to redo it AGAIN?  Thank goodness for "contributes" lists. IrishLass0128 13:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you don't have to change anything you've already done, this is just an relatively easy/efficient way to do some in the future, and do preventative maintenance. By the way, in correspondence with Betacommand I learned that his bot only looks for image description pages missing the article name(s) in which the image is used. So just adding that info will thwart the bot, but we all should make sure all images we care about have all necessary info to prevent future bots from tagging them. — TAnthonyTalk 16:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image issues

message: This Project seems so organized and full of potential, and yet current membership is so low; anyone have any ideas how to get more formal participants? It seems like there are so many people editing various soap articles and yet they are, as a whole, underdeveloped and often poorly written. I suppose there are too many people who just like to update ridiculous details every time they receive their latest issue of Soap Opera Digest. TheRhani 17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea, but many of us don't watch all the soaps. I only watch Passions. - Dougie WII 14:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you can contribute to the Passions articles better than those of us who only catch it when our DVR decides to record it.  I was getting the same ep two-four times and had to take it off the record list.  It was sad.  I only watch Days of our Lives but know how the articles look so I can format and check grammar and what not.  I just defer to others when it comes to plot line.  Like if there's an AMC issue, I know Flyer22 is well versed, just like she knows I'm well versed on Days.  Play to your strengths and don't be afraid to ask questions. IrishLass0128 14:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evaglow to address that ~ I see one issue and that being the "too many cooks in the kitchen" principle.  If you are focusing on one article and have all the project members looking at it, there's potential for conflict and possible edit warring.  I do think picking an article that's good and using it as an example and then having a list of articles needing expansion (like some of the stubs for characters with long histories -- Kayla Brady is an example) is something that needs to be done.  But featuring one article for everyone to work on would cause chaos, IMO.  IrishLass0128 14:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of other Projects do a "collaboration of the month" thing which actually works well; especially in our case, not every editor in the project is going to ven loom at the article in questuion, let alone make edits. We should at least try it. But just a bunch of us make edits to a particular article isn't going to "advertise" the Project any more than the Talk page banners already do ... what if I create some kind of "This article has been selected for improvement by WP:SOAPS" banner template to put on the Talk pages of the chosen articles? Then we're (hopefully) getting people's attention but also guiding them back here. — TAnthonyTalk 15:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of a banner of a some kind to advertise. It may even attract anonymous editors to create an account so they can join in fully. Aslo, when I originally suggested this idea, I had in mind people chipping in on particular articles to format, spell check, add images or relevant templates, etc... I didn't mean for those who don't watch a particular soap to try and write a summary or anything like that. My idea is the same as this project, to work together on improving all articles relating to soap operas. I hope that made sense. —Evaglow 04:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Membership

message: Best title I could come up with.  Okay, an anonymous IP address has created a bunch of breakdown writer pages i.e. Tracey Thomson.  There are many, many more that look just like this one.  Is this something that qualifies as notable?  Should all these pages even exist?IrishLass0128 12:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly think they are not notable; Wikipedia is no more intended to be a duplicate of IMDB.com than it is a duplicate of Soap Opera Digest! I am hesitant to nominate any for deletion, but I imagine someone ultimately will. — TAnthonyTalk 15:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pick me! Pick me!!  If others agree, I'll do it.  I'm getting good at nominating things for deletion. IrishLass0128 15:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say feel free to. Unless they are writers such as Hogan Sheffer or James E. Reilly who are (former) head writers which have articles often written about them, featured in magazines commonly, that sort of thing. It's a good idea. --Miss Burkle 04:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally, I like the idea of providing a list of writers (if we're providing a list of minor characters, we should definitely provide lists of those who wrote the characters).  But in terms of actually having a separate bio on each writer, this should only be done if the writer has been written about, and satisfies the notability requirements at WP:BIO. --Elonka 16:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-head writers/breakdown writers, etc. 

message: I don't know if this is just a bothersome problem in the Days' article or if it's a recurrent problem.  See Horton family (Days of our Lives).  There are dates listed for people's birthdates that cannot be known.  I was under the impression that if someone was not born on screen, the do not have an exact age since age is fluid on soaps.  How is it these pages have exact dates of birth (some of which are just outright hysterical).  Peter Reckell is 50is yet Bo's age is listed as 44 and he's got a nearly 30 year old son that was born on screen.  Is this ridiculousness a common problem and how can we fix it?  90% of just the Horton page is unverifiable information, just stuff someone made up as they went along. IrishLass0128 19:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see random birthdates and ages on a lot of articles, and I delete most of them as unsourced. I will sometimes add a  tag, but usually this info is so trivial that it's not a big loss if you remove something that turns out to be true. Seriously, by leaving them in I think we're inviting critcism of our articles. Two articles I can think of with actual sourced offscreen birthdates are Marty Saybrooke and Marcie McBain (and Marcie doesn't even have a year). — TAnthonyTalk 23:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In defense of some of the dates, they may be based on a comment someone made in the show about someone's age, etc. (the Jessica Buchanan article has an interesting age footnote). But that mention has to be noted in the article or the info should be taken out. — TAnthonyTalk 23:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ages in family trees 

message: I removed two pictures (same picture, two files) from three articles due to blatant copyright violation.  The JPI logo was actually on the pictures.  I tagged them with the image copyright violation tag but they are still in existence.  How do you go about getting something like that deleted permanently? ETA links  and .  IrishLass 18:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bot would've caught them soon enough as unused images, and they'd be deleted. But I've tagged them with  to speed up the process (it still may take a few days for an Admin to get around to doing it). — TAnthonyTalk 19:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright vio pictures 

message: I was just wondering if anyone knows if soap opera writers and producers should be included in the project. Agnes Nixon's and Megan McTavish's pages are both included under the projects but many are not, including William J. Bell and the creator of the medium, Irna Phillips. Any ideas? Glo145 22:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a really good question, I don't think we've ever discussed that here. I would think that writers, producers and even actors whose careers have primarily involved soaps (or are particularly notable in the soap world for some reason) should be included. But definitely NOT every actor who is on or has ever been on a soap. The criteria should probably be whether or not a person is notable enough in the genre that improving their article would be a significant contribution to soap articles in general. Like, Irna Phillips and Susan Lucci definitely, and other performers like Genie Francis or Peter Bergman. But I don't think expanding the Grayson McCouch article (as hot as he may be) is necessarily a worthwhile goal for this Project. What does the group think? — TAnthonyTalk 23:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see what you are talking about. So notable writers and producers like James E. Reilly, Lorraine Broderick, Michael Malone, and Jill Farren Phelps should be added but not just some average writer who worked on a soap for a couple of years.Glo145 01:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soap opera writers and producers 

message: I've just declined the speedy deletion of this article, but it does have some notability problems and I thought it might be worthwhile to bring it to the attention of this group.  Anything you can do to bolster its importance (or, alternatively, to recommend its deletion) would be very useful and I hope it's within your mandate.  Accounting4Taste:talk 05:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ryan Serhant]] 

message: See the last comment on this AfD.  Given the desire by individuals that feel soaps aren't worthy, we will need to be dilligent or lose mass amounts of articles.  Thought project members should know. IrishLass (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this; I obviously don't know anything about this particular character, but this is exactly the kind of thing I've been worried about. We should obviously all do what we can to improve the articles within our individual scopes of expertise, but also make sure the bulk of soap articles are on someone's watchlist or another so we can weigh in on any AfDs that come up. — TAnthonyTalk 17:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After seeing Abe Carver on the AfD by the same person that nominated or had a hand in the Matilda Hunter nomination, I put every Days character on my watch list.  What is the whole "real world" issue anyway?  I don't understand that.  To me anything that someone in the "real world" wants to know about makes it real world relevant.  I just think now is the time to truly be vigilant, participate in AfD arguments, as I asked people to do with the Matilda Hunter AfD, and try and improve articles that end up on the AfD.  Everyone needs to be vigilant and we need more help and to be more proactive as a project.  IrishLass (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, we've been "put on notice" 

message: Just wanted to issue a "formal" congrats here to everyone who has worked so hard on Pauline Fowler; as you probably know, that article was finally promoted to FA status. In particular I wanted to give a handshake/pat-on-the-back to the ever-awesome Elonka, who pretty much initiated the FA attempts and guided the article's improvement with her expertise and diplomacy. Congratulations! — TAnthonyTalk 17:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm late in saying this, but congratulations. Flyer22 (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations!

message: I have looked around and there is no set consensus on family trees, styles, should they exist or not, etc.  I would like to get some discussion going as to the actual need for these and to get a consensus decision as to if all or none of the pages should have them. IrishLass (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I kind of like the way they are done here Crane family tree, although more codes may be needed, such as to disambiguate raper and rapee in such situations. -- Dougie WII (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have issue with rape and affairs even being on a family tree.  Family tree implies FAMILY.  No woman considers her rapist family.  I know, on occassion a rapist and his victim get together (Ethan/Theresa; Luke/Laura; Sami/Austin; EJ/Sami) and either fall in love and /or have a kid but to add rapist to a family tree is just wrong.  To add a "rape" notation is wrong, especially when there's questionable attitudes toward the sexual encounter.  Technically Sami and Theresa raped Austin and Ethan respectively, but a lot of fans look over  that type of rape.  Then there's the hotly debated incident between Sami and EJ.  That's my problem with the Crane and Horton family trees, they are bias.  I agree we need to decide to change all or eliminate all but whatever is done, it should be uniform. 02:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're saying, but if the rape produces a child it has to be there since the child needs to be in the tree. I think noting the type of relationship that the two had to produce the child is informational. Of course rapes and affairs that do not produce children shouldn't be in a family tree. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But if it's a controversial rape like EJ and Ethan, it's hard, if not impossible, to differentiate between rape and controversial.  And as far as soaps go, the majority of "rapes" end up with a child.  KellyAna (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think we should do that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melbrooksfan101 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family trees (general discussion) 

message: Can we create a peer review section to request other members of the project to give feedback on pages you've worked on or created? -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer reviews

message: Please comment. D.M.N. (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the notification.  I'll put it on the front page of the project too. IrishLass (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Cropper]]

message: Just wanted to mention that this article. Through the Looking Glass (Lost), was just made a featured article. I think we should take note of this article and others like it and raise our standard when writing, fixing, editing and referencing soap articles. We can make them better and more reliable and maybe even get them to be Good Articles! If an article about a TV episode can be a featured article so can one about a tv character. --Charleenmerced  Talk 14:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for providing this link, we really do need to look at this and similar articles (Pauline Fowler) to improve the bulk of soap articles. Unfortunately, there won't be as many great sources out there for commentary for soap characters, but even Soap Opera Digest has a lot of valuable information (besides plot stuff) that can be used. I focus mainly on One Life to Live and lately I've been trying to save whatever articles and interviews I can that I think will be useful. And I think everyone should note how well even the plot summary of the Lost article is sourced. Every paragraph of plot summary, and often individual sentences and phrases, needs to be attributed; when adding new info, try to add a reference link to the official site's episode recap or SoapCentral. An article still needs real-world notability to escape deletion, but abundant sources  will at least give an article (and the Project) some credibility. — TAnthonyTalk 17:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: TAnthony, about plot summaries being sourced. You once pointed out that they don't need to be, that the show itself is the reference. And, I mean, if you look at film articles, none of the plot summaries for those are sourced, not even the featured ones. You have now changed your mind on sourcing plot summaries, correct? Or is it just television article plot summaries that you feel need references more so? I sourced the plot summary of an article I've been improving to get to Good Article or Featured Article status, but I don't generally source plot summaries. My sourcing goes more so to the character creation, cultural impact sections, etc., the sections that actually should be sourced. Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should source things that are big events, controversial things and things so old that people have different views  or memories of it and keep changing it. I also tend to source plot summaries because I tend to edit a lot out and people can click on the reference to get the full story. Further, I tend to source "big reveals" (X is Y's real father, P killed D, etc). Generally, I kinda source everything. I am in law school and we are taught that everything must have a source, if it is not supported, it has no validity. I may go over the top sometimes though. --Charleenmerced  Talk 21:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I don't remember my exact arguments at the time, I was probably trying to keep something from being deleted/slashed simply due to lack of sources. In any case, after Pauline Fowler and other articles I see the importance more clearly. As much as sourcing can be a hassle and sometimes seem like overkill, with soaps in particular facts are not necessarily verifiable later because the episodes are basically unavailable, and as Charleenmerced notes above, people's memories do change. It seems like everybody knows about Luke and Noah's plot on ATWT but 10 years from now the details may be a little fuzzy. Films are more readily available, and their plot summaries more easily found online (though it still surprises me that a Featured Article wouldn't have sources for that). Certainly many plot summaries may not be challenged, but I've seen "facts" later proven incorrect by a source. Of course, you are right that sources are more essential for the other sections, it's just that most soap articles are all plot summary (and too much detail) and without any sources they're just asking for deletion. — TAnthonyTalk 23:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Definitely good points. Some old plots, such as Mona Kane Tyler's plot, however, may not be readily available online, and may have to be sourced from memory or having watched on YouTube and then stating "Stated on air" or something like that. But, yeah, you've made good points on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Lost'' episode article is now featured

message: I'm deeply disturbed by the recent mass redirects to the "Bennett family" page. Especially the Standishes. Aside from Grace and her children with Sam, the Standishes have nothing to do with the Bennett family. Charity Standish, Faith Standish, Prudence Standish, etc. I plan on moving these back to their original state. -- Dougie WII (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I guess it wasn't mass.... it appears most of the articles are intact, but I did restore Prudence Standish. If you want to get rid of the page, please take it to AfD since I oppose any redirect, prod, etc. -- Dougie WII (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bennett Family

message: All I wanted to do was add a disambiguation for an ice hockey player, but noticed the article was really really really long for a fictional character (108KB). I have thus flagged it for cleanup. Most of the information appears to be in-universe too, so I have added a tag for that as well. (→Zachary) 10:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He's been a character for 25+ years, it should be long, at least it has references. KellyAna (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, but my opinion is it's not too long for a 25+ year character.  It may need some clean up but it's at least far more comprehensive than other longer running characters.  I offered my opinion, sorry if you don't like it. KellyAna (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, sorry if I seemed rude or anything. It's just that I have been trying to edit that article for a long time and I am tired. Also, the article is very very repetitive, often repeating the same storyline in different sections and I have been trying to cut that out. --Charleenmerced  Talk 01:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's cool and all but your comment after mine made it seem like I'm absolutely wrong for my *strictly* opinion.  I think long running characters should have a decent amount of background, that's all I meant.  I've got many a Days characters that have been on for 20 or more years with horrid pages missing so much. KellyAna (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with that. I hate that Lila Quartermaine has just about 3-4 lines even though she was in the show for decades. --Charleenmerced  Talk 06:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagged for major cleanup: [[Jason Morgan]] 

message: An editor added the following tasks:
*Remove overcategorization. For example, an article should not be listed in :Category:Television writers if listed in :Category:American television writers.
*Remove :Category:Screenwriters unless there is evidence that someone was written a feature film.
I feel it should be discussed as, in general, I was under the impression the project is not about the writers just the shows. KellyAna (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I just found the nearest project. Still, if editors could please bear issues of overcategorization in mind -- I'm sure editors in this project would encounter these articles. The JPStalk to me 18:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't think JPS was "targeting" us specifically, but this is a general issue for many articles where people add subcategories (American TV writers) without removing the parent categories (TV writers). There were many articles in both "Soap operas" and one of its subcategories before I did a cleanup awhile back. I don't think it's necessarily a huge problem with our articles but it's definitely something people should be aware of. — TAnthonyTalk 19:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed tasks  

message: If anyone knows... I mean if anyone knows the dates of broadcast of the 2001 Mexican telenovela in Brazil (SBT), Poland (TVN and TVN Siedem), Mexico (TL Novelas), Venezuela (Venevisión) and any more countries that aired the telenovela??? Please let me know immediately!!! I would really appreciate it!!! WIKIVUE Detroit (talk) THU FEB 28 2008 2:41 AM EST | 7:41 AM UTC
I also want to point out there are two versions of the telenovela. Please be careful and do try your best not to get it confused with the Brazilian version, called Amigas e Rivais. WIKIVUE Detroit (talk) THU FEB 28 2008 2:57 AM EST | 7:57 AM UTC
:I imagine you want start and end dates, but I just wanted to make sure you'd seen the IMDb release date page for the novela. — TAnthonyTalk 15:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Amigas y rivales|Amigas y Rivales]] Broadcast History