Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Formatting for family relationships

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)

• 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)

Problem article

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)

• I've noticed that a few people have made some changes to the article. I'm not familiar with the character's history, so I may not be of much help in rewriting/writing the character's history, but the page has been cleaned up quite a bit with the implementation of the infobox. If anyone wants to help me out on the character's history, that'd be great. As The World Turns is not my soap opera of choice so I'm a bit blind when it comes to that. —Evaglow 03:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Fowler up for FA again

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)

Rating

There are days when people seem to run around willy nilly rating articles. I think it would be a good idea to get a clearer discussion about how articles should be rated. What if a character's story is done and there is nothing more to add? And when should these articles for minor characters that are stubs with nothing further available be put up for deletion? Some consistancy would be nice. The Jed Stark article's presence is a joke as the character was on for 4 or 5 days with no family ties to Salem, yet there is an article. Why? I think a discussion would be helpful.IrishLass0128 20:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the Jed Stark article, I think people who didn't know much about Willow Stark might not know his relationship to her, but he was only on a few days. I'm not sure if he was recurring, but the character will more than likely never come back to Salem. I don't think he was a significant enough character to earn himself a permanent page.

And, I apologize about the "running around willy nilly" (I like that phrase, by the way!) with the ratings. There are so many soap opera articles without ratings, and I feel I do my duty by adding ratings. I think we have a thousand unrated articles, and, frankly, that's too much. I try and add an accurate rating to each article, but sometimes I miss things. I didn't know that Santo DiMera and Colleen Brady's story was considered complete exactly, and when I saw a rating missing, I thought I was doing my part. Sorry about it! --Miss Burkle 00:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the Jed Stark, in fact the Willow Stark page is a page in Days' history I would love to also see disappear into the sunset (what a wreched storyline), but I digress. I'm glad you like the line, but it wasn't just you. What amazes me is that I started this, as you can gleen from your talk page, so we could talk about this but instead someone comes in with a "my way or the highway" attitude. I thought this talk page was for discussing things, not people telling people THIS IS HOW IT'S DONE. Yes, I have read the ratings and it makes me think things are too subjective. I think "start" and "stub" should be reversed. You start something, but don't finish it, that should be a stub. The order baffles me. But if you look at the guidelines, some articles tagged "start" technically, having all elements, qualify as a B. This is why I wanted to use the TALK page to TALK about this, not be TOLD what to do. And "real world commentary" ~ okay, here's where my speach comes in ~ soaps are fictional, they exist for pleasure only. They do not, should not, have elements of real life. In real life you don't have sex on the desk with your coworker 15 minutes after you left the girl that you really want to be with.

And while we're at it, what is the actual "real world" point of ratings? To a user, not an editor, what does the rating system accomplish?IrishLass0128 12:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

IrishLass, ratings have don't necessarily have anything to do with the "completeness" of an article; whether or not there is any more plot summary to add, the Colleen Brady article doesn't fulfill the requirements of anything beyond a Start. A better quality article has real-world context and commentary, etc. Now of course, in this case none of that may exist and the article may stay forever small or deserve deletion. But please don't remove the entire WP banner over such an issue. And unfortunatly, the project is still coming out of hibernation and it's been difficult for us to mobilize or get consensus on certain issues. There are sooo many articles!

MissBurkle, please don't apologize for your initiative and continue with your tagging and rating efforts; there are so few editors participating in this project right now, and even less who concern themselves with the unglamorous technical aspects like this. Someone can always come along and change your rating.

Finally, in regards to small and stub articles like Colleen Brady or Jed Stark, have you considered doing collected pages like One Life to Live minor characters, One Life to Live minor families and One Life to Live children for Days? These are great ways to consolidate stubs or redundant articles into one central article and provide a place for miscellaneous family member red links to redirect to. These kind of pages exist for soaps, video games, book series and even Star Wars. TAnthony 00:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So what you say goes, TAnthony, or is this a page for discussion? My understanding was that this is where consensus is decided, not where one person dictates to all. Logic dictates if there is no additional information available and an article is small, there should be an additional rating, C maybe, but start does not logically apply especially if you go by the guidelines stated. Start implies there is more to be added and in certain cases, there is not. Start indicates on the ratings page that certain items be included and if an article said items, it moves to B class. This is where, it seems, problems lie. As MissBurke said, Jed Stark will never be back. Why does he have an article? But that question also involves his involvement with the story. Colleen Brady on the other hand starred Alison Sweeney playing a dual roll and was an intragal part of the story. It has all elements of a B-rating, per the chart, but her basic story is short. When editors disagree with the rating, talk should be first, not mandated based on one person's opinions ratings. CelticGreen 01:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're not understanding my point. I am not dictating anything, but have any of you actually read Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) or the multitude of other articles that establish what contitutes an acceptable article? As passionate as I am about this Project, the reality is that probably like 75% of soap character articles just plain fail general notability requirements. Articles like Pauline Fowler and Todd Manning are good examples because the characters have some real world impact or significance. I am agreeing the Colleen Brady probably shouldn't exist, but right now it is technically a stub or start, regardless of whether there is more story or not. Articles are not supposed to be just plot summaries and lists of family members. It is not a B-class article. And as far as discussion, that is fine; my objection was to the wholesale removal of the banner. TAnthony 01:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

TAnthony, as I said above, I started this to "discuss" the rating system. You kind of do come off as dictating what goes. The thing about "reading" the MOS, as you direct people to do, is that there is so much room for interpretation. When the Colleen Brady page was started, it was done so under the impression that there would be more to the story, same with the Santo DiMera page. Problem is Steve Wyman and Hogan Sheffer LIED and when all was said and done, the storyline was useless propping and ruined itself. As to "notability", isn't that as subjective? I mean, to me no basketball player other than Michael Jordan should have a page because he's the only one I have to hear about (he owns part of the local team). But there are a few million fans that would disagree about basketball players, just as there are a few million soap fans that would disagree that these character aren't notable enough to have pages. This is the problem with the ratings, it's too subjective. If you take the list verbatim, some articles tagged as "start" are B class, and that's why I put this here, for discussion, not GO HERE directives because I have "gone there" and it makes things more confusing. So, would you like to discuss or tell people where to go? I prefer to discuss and figure this out for the good of the project.IrishLass0128 12:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

IrishLass, I really do appreciate your passion and your contributions, and I do agree that soap characters are just as notable as minor sports figures (I think there is an article for every single person who has ever played baseball!). But as (purposely) subjective as the ratings system can be, you're still looking at them from a fictional context. The largest part of an article being "complete" is its inclusion of real-world context (see my comments below). You may feel an article is "done" or B-class because there's no more plot to add, but the criteria for B-class includes that an article should have "a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article." How can a plot summary and a list of relatives without press coverage or cultural impact be considered comprehensive? And if these items don't even exist, guess what: that article is not even notable, let alone complete. I am not discouraging debate on ratings for individual articles and won't stop you from tagging whatever you want to as a B, but I want to make it clear that in my experience you are misinterpreting the ratings system. That said, I have rambled on redundantly in many places and will try not to say any more on the issue. Again, I really do think you're a fine editor and appreciate you debating this with me so actively!  ;) TAnthony 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This WikiProject is still fairly new, and the rating system somewhat fluid. CelticGreen, if you see any article that you think has been improperly rated, by all means, feel free to change it!  :) We'll take all the help we can get. In situation where you think it might help to get more opinions, then feel free to start a thread here at the WikiProject talkpage, asking for more eyes to go look at a particular article and offer opinions. Though in general, it's best to be bold, and if you see something that you think needs fixing, go for it.  :) Thanks, and welcome to the WikiProject, Elonka 04:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My comments from Colleen Brady

I'm copying my comment from Talk:Colleen Brady here, as it applies to the above ratings discussion --TAnthony 04:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Colleen Brady: B-Class?!

I'm not going to change it, but this is not a B-class article by any definition, it is not comprehensive in any way. Just because it has covered all the plot the character was involved in does not make it a complete and meaningful article. It would be deleted on sight in a real quality review.

This stub would be better incorporated into the Brady family (Days of our Lives) article, as Santo DiMera could be folded into the DiMera family article. These family articles can then be expanded to become overviews of the family's involvement in the show over its run and become a home/redirect destination for stubs like Renée DuMonde and Megan Hathaway. The DiMera family is more notable as a whole because of their longrunning involvement in and contributions to the show, and the article could be bolstered with quotes and coverage from Thaao Penghlis and Joseph Mascolo, who have been hired and fired so many times there is surely a lot of great material out there in the press.

For the record, I have started or contributed to plenty of articles even less complete and notable than this one. I hate the idea of soap articles being slashed and deleted but the truth is, notability and article guidelines are very strict and very clear, and most of the soap stuff fails. I personally believe much of this material is relevant and would like to see the restrictions changed. In the meantime, we're just lucky the notability police haven't caught on and nominated everything for deletion. Calling this a B-class article is just asking for it. TAnthony 04:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and placed a note on the talkpage, and encourage other WikiProject members to take a look if they have time. I'll freely admit that I'm not that familiar with Days of Our Lives, but I can at least offer comments on general article formatting and expansion.  :) --Elonka 05:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I realize I may come off sounding like a jerk here, but I really am just trying to educate. There are so many soap articles, and most are of similar format and quality, which naturally sets a standard and gives an impression of what is acceptable. But on the whole, the bulk of these articles are really in a generally unacceptable state by WP standards.

There are a lot of editors who actively work on soap articles, but unfortunately many people think of WP as an extension of Soap Opera Digest that needs to be updated on every plot point and casting rumor. So much time and energy is spent adding and reverting and reformatting tiny details instead of actually improving articles.

The confusion over what "Start class" means is a perfect example. I spend a lot of time living and breathing these soap articles and it's easy to get caught up in their limited scope. But if we step back and look at it from the greater context of WP as a whole, hopefully my point is clear; compare Marlena Evans to Sarah, Duchess of York (which is Start class, by the way).

Quantity may not necessarily mean anything, but Elonka and I have a lot of experience here (about 58,000 edits between us !!) and have both seen and participated in countless article status nominations, deletions discussions, notability debates and peer reviews for many types of articles. Elonka has a more diplomatic approach than I do, but I'm just trying to remind and educate participants in this Project about the realities, and I think she is too. These articles continue to multiply but not improve, and I fear we will hit a wall sooner or later. I think we've all noticed the recent huge crackdown on fair uses images regarding the enforcement of rationales, etc. All it will take is one AfD-happy editor to target a big chunk of our articles, and we really have no grounds to save them. TAnthony 07:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened yet. We've had a few individual articles targeted, but I think it's just a matter of time before someone goes through and starts nominating articles for deletion en masse. So before that happens, I think it would be a good idea if we, as a WikiProject, figured out a way to get a handle on the problem. I'd rather see the articles improved, than deleted! --Elonka 07:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to retype what I said there ~ I am against adding the contents to a Brady page but I am all for, and I will do it if someone tells me how, to get the two individual articles to redirect to a Colleen Brady and Santo DiMera page. That makes much more sense to me and the individual pages could redirect to the new page. I strongly disagree incorporating the characters into their family pages. It's a "just don't ask thing" that comes from being on message boards but a combined article could be a full B class article. Your comments regarding Thaao and Joe, neither have commented on the storyline, only James Scott and Alison Sweeney have (or maybe I'm reading that wrong). And Joe quit the last time, he was not fired. And I agree about the rumours and spoilers, I find them every day and remove them (you would think I didn't have a real job for all the time I spend removing rumours). I'm all for a combination article because there is little left to be added to either Colleen Brady or Santo DiMera. IrishLass0128 12:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't disagree with a thing you've said, and I'll certainly leave the Days decisions to editors more dedicated to the show. But where you (and others) are still going amiss is that you're still thinking "storylines"; when I mentioned Joe and Thaao in the press, I was talking about their possible comments about the show itself, the impact of the DiMeras on the show and ratings over the years, comments about Jim Reilly's (and Hogan's) handling of them and their characters, etc. I believe both spoke in interviews during the Marlena serial killer storyline (and that when Thaao came back in 2002 he had talked about how he had personally added some business with Tony smoking before the character was killed in 1995 to make it possible that Andre was being killed). That's what most soap articles need right now, real-world context. Again, Pauline Fowler is the ultimate example, Bianca Montgomery is also great, even Alexis Colby is decent. Somewhere in WP guidelines it actually says plot summary info should be kept at a bare minimum; we ignore this because we see some notability and importance there, but we have to remember that the scope of an encyclopedia article is supposed to be real-world first and fiction later. This is not always possible and usually undesirable to us, but it is what it is. TAnthony 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines here are WP:FICTION, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF (Writing about Fiction). These topics aren't unique to soap articles... Wikipedia has had extensive, long, drawn out, bloody battles about fictional subjects. For example, Wikipedia is often criticized for having more info on individual Pokemon characters, than about bonafide historical subjects. There are many folks who have tried to use Wikipedia an an info repository for fictional subjects: Plot lines of books, "biographies" of every character in a sci-fi series, extensive "battle" articles about space opera warfare in computer games, even collections of recipes for fictional meals. But the result of all these debates among the members of the Wikipedia community, is that the consensus of Wikipedia editors is that we're here to provide an encyclopedia for a general audience, not a collection of plot summaries that are of interest primarily to fans. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and search on "plot summaries". See also Wikipedia:Fancruft.

Now, because of the millions of people around the world that are fans of soap operas, we do have a lot of people flooding in to Wikipedia and creating articles about soap characters, where the "articles" are little more than plot summaries. My own feeling on this (and I think that I'm speaking for most of the members of this WikiProject), is that we accept that these articles are being created in good faith, often because there's confusion about just what Wikipedia is for. So we're fairly tolerant of these articles, as long as it's made clear that they're just stubs in place for later expansion into "real" articles, a la Pauline Fowler. But this is a very generous and tolerant view on our part, and we're well aware that to other editors on Wikipedia who are working on more "serious" subjects, they'd probably be absolutely horrified at the amount of crap low-quality information that's accumulating in the soap topics. And the only reason that most of the soap articles haven't been nominated for deletion, frankly, is because other editors don't want to waste the time to do it. Now, having said that, I think we, here at this WikiProject, can definitely do our best to organize the existing soap articles, categorize them and rate them, and do what we can to try and find a middle-ground between what soap fans want, and what the standards of an encyclopedia are. But in terms of ratings, we should stick with the standards of Wikipedia, not the standards of fandom. And the standards of Wikipedia are that a short article, with little information except a plot summary, is really little more than a stub (see WP:ASSESS). To call it "Start" class is being generous. To call it "B" class is not acceptable, and if it causes enough controversy, is probably just going to increase the chance that the article is going to get nominated for deletion. --Elonka 18:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that diatribe completely misses the point of the discussion. We are talking in general about how to rate things, diatribes telling people to go other places don't help. As we are attempting to discuss ratings, I have removed the rating leaving the page in the unrated class for now.IrishLass0128 18:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an open mind!  :) --Elonka 19:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My minds open, there's just not enough room for that much stuff at one time. :) Remember, I pull this editing stuff off at work. No home computer with internet connection.IrishLass0128 19:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I for one appreciate Elonka's well-crafted comment above and think it's spot-on for this discussion; I am actually going to archive it myself for reference. WP has established rules and conventions, and such "go to" references to back up arguments are an important and essential part of any debate on this or any issue. We can decide whatever we want on this page, but without taking actual WP standards into consideration it means nothing beyond this page. TAnthony 19:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks TAnthony. If you think it's that useful, maybe we should save part of it, and work it into a "Mission statement" on the main WikiProject page? --Elonka 23:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a great idea; as always, you're always one step ahead. — TAnthony^Talk 16:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ciara Brady and other children

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 <span id="Name"/> 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)

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)

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)

I also want to suggest that you not name it a "List" as fair use images are usually not permitted for use in lists per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable images. — TAnthony^Talk 21:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. — TAnthony^Talk 06:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice TAnthony. :) —Evaglow 16:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, Children of The Young and the Restless is looking great! — TAnthony^Talk 00:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Soap character infobox

We have discussed in the past the need for a "better way" to present character relationship info, as the {{Infobox character}} doesn't quite meet our needs, and the end-of-article lists are unsightly, often out of control, and hindering the improvement of articles, as made clear by the recent Pauline Fowler peer reviews. I had designed an infobox specifically for the Project with this in mind, but found its potentially excessive length troubling. However, I've adopted the genius "collapsible relationships" idea from Elonka's special infobox for Pauline Fowler (a result of the discussion related to that article's Featured Article nomination) and I really like the result:

{{Infobox soap character}}

If you'd like to see it in action, I have put the new template into use at Tina Clayton Lord and Cord Roberts.

Quick overview

Basically, the new infobox supports all appropriate parameters of the old one, with the following improvements:

• Collapsed Relationships section to save space but keep information accessible
• Relationship subcategories like "Grandparents" and "Romances", which only appear if used
• Series name in a colored bar below the main image
• Standardized photo sizing
• Additional photo parameters for alternate performers

Implementation

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. — TAnthony^Talk 20:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

So is this a done deal? While it's okay, in practice I think the end of article lists are much better. Oh, sure on my wide screen lap top they'll look fine, I'm sure, but on my square screen desk top the article is severely squished. You're also assuming people looking at the articles are editors. Why? Because you have the box colapsable but not everyone that comes here understands what you have to do to see what isn't there. You need to step back as an editor and look at it from the point of view of someone just coming here for information. I think that's a problem. If I had not been an editor, I wouldn't have know what to do to get more information on those pages. Do you think that someone who's limited in their skills on the internet or even just limited in their skills when it comes to Wikipedia is going to go they have to click something on the soap pages when they don't have to do it on any other article? IrishLass0128 12:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's not a done deal, and you make a good point — except that the only hidden information are the long lists of relatives, which a casual reader may not see but, really, won't miss a whole lot. Spouses, important family members and lovers will be noted somewhere in the article itself. I don't personally object to the bottom-of-the article lists, but they technically cross the line on policy. I have tried justifying them to non-soap editors a few times, and they always argue that the notable information is already in the body of the article, and any cousin not notable enough to mention in a storyline paragraph isn't notable enough to be listed. And that's assuming you can even keep the storyline text notable! Truthfully, none of the lists are essential in understanding a character, which supposedly the threshold for notability. I think you and I agree that WP should be a complete source for soap characters and storylines, but the reality is that WP policy only really allows for the most notable information. Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas#Style guidelines is a good guide, though I'd like to add references back to appropriate policy pages. I'm looking at the big picture, and just trying to shore up our articles before someone comes in and AfDs a whole bunch. — TAnthony^Talk 15:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but policy is wrong in regards to what people deem necessary/notable (at least in my opinion). When a show has run for 40 years and a new character is introduced, people use those lists to understand relationships and why this new character is here. It's how I was originally lead to Wikipedia. Maybe policy makers should understand that or eliminate (heaven forbid) all soap articles. I really don't like notability as an argument with the soap pages since a show is always changing and to keep the summaries short, you can't list every relative in a plot summary.

This question has just come to mind: what does Wikipedia want in the end? Do they just want to be a stopping point to lead people to other sites or do they want people to come and stay and find vast amounts of knowledge? I would hope the latter. If other sites list all familial relations of a character, shouldn't Wiki? Just a talking point to use, IMO. Television is such a different genre that it's hard to compartmentalize articles about it. If you want a show page to be notable, it's going to be long. Okay, I'm rambling now. I agree, we don't want the pages deleted or even nominated for deletion and we have to do what we can, I'm just looking at it from both sides right now. IrishLass0128 15:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I so agree with you on everything you just said regarding notability and WP policy! It's annoying; you'd think the WP community as a whole would want it to be the most complete source of info possible because it's not limited in size. But like a paper encyclopedia, it is somewhat of a starting point; the cancer article is very thorough but obviously doesn't contain everything on the subject. I can see both sides.

And for the record, no matter what happens with implementing this template, I'm not going to go around moving every list of relatives into the infobox. I'm thinking that editors who focus on certain shows and characters (like you do for Days of our Lives) can kind of decide for themselves until they're compelled to cut the lists based on consensus or peer review or whatever. The new infobox and old lists can coexist within the same article for the time being. — TAnthony^Talk 16:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the collapsible infobox is a great idea. I like how all the relationships have been incorporated. This method will allow us to include the same amount of information, but in an inconspicuous way. This may not be to everyones taste, but it will be a necessity in the long run, because there are many users who would happily see the "relationships" section jettisoned all together. It's only a matter of time til our soap articles get targeted by deletionsists (this is already happening to some of the Manga articles). This method is a great compromise that allows us to keep the same level of information, but keep it unobtrusive.

I cant see a collapsible list being a problem for readers. I think it's safe to assume that anyone who is reading a soap article will also have enough common sense to click on a "show" button. Exploring links is part of what Wikipedia is about.Gungadin♦ 18:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with this new character infobox, except for the color, as I stated on TAnthony's talk page. I'd rather the infobox color stay grey. I really am not for any other color than grey for the character infoboxes, except for the color black, if we must. Also, I don't feel that we need or should put the series that the character is from at the top of the infobox, or in the infobox at all, seeing as I find it redundant and unnecessary.

That said, I also completely understand IrishLass0128's feelings on this new character infobox matter as well, of course. When I was new to Wikipedia, I didn't know much about Wikipedia, and I'm certain that it won't even dawn on most visitors unfamiliar with Wikipedia to click on the Show button of a character infobox...unless they really examine that article they are looking over, or until after a few more visits to Wikipedia. However, I am all for getting rid of the way that the character relationships are listed at the bottom of the soap opera articles. I was going to start applying a Wiki-table format, which I feel is a decent alternative, considering that lists on Wikipedia are better accepted that way. As for deletionists going around and deleting soap opera character articles because of the Family and relationships sections that exist at the bottom of the soap opera character articles, well that is silly. The only difference in formatting between soap opera character articles and most other character articles on Wikipedia are those lists of character relationships, because most character articles on Wikipedia are mostly plot summary anyway. Deletionists would need to give a better reason for deleting soap opera character articles other than "Oh, Family and relationships section!" Flyer22 19:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And this goes without saying, but it is going to be really tough to keep random or newbie Wikipedian editors from re-adding the Family and relationships sections back to soap opera character articles...at least at first...despite the new soap opera character infobox. I mean, the previous (and current for most at this time) soap opera character infobox allowed us to list children and relatives (among other titles), and yet the fact that some of the info was already listed there was ignored, as well as the infobox not being used at all in some cases when listing character relationships. Flyer22 20:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as the color goes, I chose the lilac arbitrarily (it's basically the WikiProject color) but I think we should visually differentiate this infobox from the generic character box (as most do). Perhaps the "standard periwinkle" would be preferred, but the grey is so blah. The series name is no more redundant than everything else in the box, LOL. It appears standard for most show-specific infoboxes to tag the box with "Showname character" on top for identification; I thought character name to be more important but the series name still helpful, and visually the photos look better framed by color on top and bottom (look at Joey Buchanan, yuck).

I wasn't suggesting that the articles themselves would necesarily be deleted, just the lists. But something like Hope Brady, which is only a list with an opening sentence, is totally deletable because the list dominates it. I think you can better defend it as a stub-waiting-to-be-expanded if it's just short and not overwhelmed by a "violation."

I think the only reason newbie editors obsess about the lists (besides the fact that they want this to be an extension of Soap Opera Digest) is that all the articles have them! Once it is not the "norm," I don't think it'll be an issue. Plus, I think you'll find it's the same handful of people who create and update/modify them the most, and once they understand what we're doing, they hopefully won't restore any that have been removed. And like I said, they don't have to be 100% eradicated, I just think they shouldn't be the norm. New articles are created by example, and if the bulk of soap articles are stylistically compliant to policy, the "bad" ones won't be growing exponentially. — TAnthony^Talk 20:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously no one will be able to delete a page based on a relationship list alone, but it just adds to people's criticism of the articles in general. i know this because ive experienced it with many editors myself. They say it gives more in-universe information, and it does it in list form, both of which are frowned upon by policy pushers and deletionists. It's annoying, and I dont agree with them, but unfortunately there are a lot of editors out there who feel this way.

The infobox is the most prominent part of a page in my opinion. You notice it as soon as you enter. If a person is in any way interested in the character's stats, then they will no doubt view the infobox, and a person would have to be blind not to see "Relationship" in big black bold writing; therefore, they will no doubt notice the show button next to it. If not, then perhaps we should be linking to an optician instead, lol. Gungadin♦ 20:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Of course, I completely understand what you guys mean, and as I stated before, I want to use the new character infobox for the soap opera character relationships, as well as for other matters, over the Family and relationships sections that are usually (at this time) present at the bottom of the soap opera character articles. But, TAnthony, you cannot sell me on the color-issue. I'd rather it be grey (yes, blah but simple), but if we have to choose, why not black? Flyer22 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm still not down for putting the series in the character infobox, though my objection to that has more to do with it being right up there where a character's name is titled. Flyer22 22:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

How many US soaps are there? Maybe you could make templates different colours for different soaps? We have done that with the British ones, I think it helps differentiate. You could try and match a colour to the soap credit title colour (if possible), or even have different templates colours for girls and boys(pink/blue, black/purple for example) :) Gungadin♦ 22:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm more for keeping all of them the same color, but (there goes the word but again), if we were to use different colors for the different soap opera characters of the U.S., I would be more for color by show than color by sex. Flyer22 22:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The beauty of it is that the color is changeable using the color parameter, so you can do a show in one color or whatever. That said, I can certainly compromise and make the default color something a little less specific. And if you leave out the "series" parameter, you just get a thin colored dividing line, so again, it can be used by choice. Between you and me, I will casually clean up any article I come upon, but the only daytime articles I really focus on are One Life to Live ones (and Passions to a lesser degree), so they're the only ones I'm going to enforce some of this stuff on. — TAnthony^Talk 00:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm late, but that's okay. I am really enjoying the new infobox, but I do agree with the different colors. If I may say, I think Passions would look best in purple (their title credits are in purple, well, some of the time) and Days of our Lives in blue. Maybe General Hospital in red--their title card is red, right? Anyway, the collapsible infobox for relationships is good, too. Although, I have to wonder: are the multiple pictures there to show the different actors/actresses who played the role? Maybe we should have some rule that the same actress shouldn't have two pictures in that infobox because that is kind of overkill. They could very easily fit somewhere in the article, if you ask me. --Miss Burkle 13:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I've made the defualt color grey, slightly darker than the generic infobox, and certainly each show can be assigned its own color using that parameter. The alternate photos are indeed for alternate performers, and this is spelled out in the parameter description table. I was thinking that in some cases it may be difficult to decide which performer to feature in the box based on length of time in the role, notability in the role, most current, etc. — TAnthony^Talk 15:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I'm sorry! I guess I scanned over that little bit. Maybe more the more standard route is the most recent portrayer will be the one in the main picture, but there might be exceptions, like on Tina Clayton Lord's article which can be discussed on the talk page? --Miss Burkle 16:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for changing the newly-created soap opera character infobox to grey, TAnthony. If I had to choose a color for All My Children, it would be red. The opening sequence of this show ends with that book that looks red, and our All My Children template is red (my favorite color). Flyer22 17:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

TAnthony, yeah, I just dropped by your talk page to ask about a way to change the sizes of images within this character infobox, but I need another question answered about this infobox. What does Title represent? The character being a villain, good guy, etc.? Flyer22 16:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The "title" parameter is a holdover from the generic character box, and I believe it refers to an actual professional or official titles, like CEO or Princess or whatever. It's probably not necessary for most soap characters as it can be redundant of occupation and characters change joibs and titles a lot; I definitely don't think it should be for character descriptions like "bad girl" because that is POV/OR.

You can get around the image size restriction by using the old image parameter for the main image (I'll do it to Babe Carey to show you what I mean) but I'm hesitant to make image size totally customizable again because it will then vary greatly among articles. The controlled image size is only problematic for vertical, portrait-style images; promotional images are considered replaceable in favor of screen shots and usually get tagged for removal, and as screenshots are horizontal, the auto-size restriction shouldn't be a huge issue. On a side note, do you think the image size should be slightly larger? — TAnthony^Talk 02:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I figured that the title stood for that, and I had originally put CEO for Bianca in her article, but changed it after not being sure. I'm going to change it back now, of course. I also figured that I could get around the image size restriction by using the old image parameter, but when I tried it, I obviously did it wrong, even though I'm used to dealing with images on Wikipedia. I suppose after that, I figured that it had more to do with the design of the infobox. Thank you for resizing the (current) Babe Carey image for me. I wanted the Alexa Havins image as Babe Carey to be a little smaller as well, so I'll apply it to that also. Oh, and the reason that I didn't have Amanda Baker's image titled as "Amanda Baker as Babe Carey" is because that promotional photograph of her isn't her as Babe Carey, but I suppose I'll leave it like you have it. Once I find a good screenshot of her as Babe Carey, I'll replace that image with it anyway. As for the image size, I don't necessarily think that it should be any larger, no. Flyer22 04:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've tried it again, yes, the image problem that I was having was not in making the image of Amanda Baker smaller, but rather making the image of Alexa Havins as Babe smaller. The approach to making the first image smaller in the character infobox doesn't seem to be working for any images following behind that one. Flyer22 04:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are Parents listed after "other relatives"? I just implimented the box on the Sami Brady page and that doesn't seem right to me. IrishLass0128 19:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I figured it out and have warmed to the box now that I've figured out the issues with pictures and order of relatives. Really liking it now, to be honest. Off to implement!!IrishLass0128 19:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really big on leaving comments... never sure what to say. But I do want to say that I LOVE the new infobox. I've spent the last week adding/expanding the infoboxes on Y&R characters and it makes it look so much nicer. I love it! —Evaglow 04:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take that compliment personally (thanks!), as I pioneered the new infobox, but I must again thank Elonka and the folks that participated in the Pauline Fowler relationships discussion that came up with the collapsible idea (which I believe Gungadin borrowed from the "Awards" section of Steven Spielberg's infobox). Obviously that genius idea is what made all the difference. — TAnthony^Talk 06:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

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)

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)

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)

Congratulations!

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! — TAnthony^Talk 15:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

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. — TAnthony^Talk 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Luke and Laura page

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)

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? — TAnthony^Talk 06:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Relationships in articles

This is regarding the friends and enemies section. Although it is mentioned on the official websites (at least in ABC), these lists are so volatile and subject to frequent change (as opposed to family and such) that I think it is not worth to include them. The people are being divided into 2 sections: friends and enemies. Some people may just not like each other, they are no necessarily enemies and some acquiantaces are not really friends. If a relationship is strong and based on something else (e.g. godfather, business partner, etc) then it should be included under a section titled Other relationships. Can we please agree not to continue adding these sections unless there is a strong relationship? We can always add the friendship or other relation in the main article. For example, instead of adding that Maxie Jones and Sam McCall are friends now because they share a common enemy, Elizabeth Webber, in a friend's section, we can just write it in the main article.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 23:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these types of relationships are definitely ever-changing in ongoing series, and not really encyclopedic anyway. As we update our mission statement/article requirements, we can include this so we have something to refer to when reverting these types of additions. — TAnthony^Talk 23:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The NBC soaps do not have any kind of "Friends and enemies" list on their site so it's subjective for those shows but, then again, the NBC soaps don't have the lists here either. As to the relationship lists, those are being incorporated into the info box with no place for friends, enemies, and "other" relationships (like when someone forces a sexual experience or kiss). So those three things remain at the bottom of articles. The goal is to parse down lists or completely eliminate them if they don't have those additional categories. I only ever leave "other relationships" since I don't have to worry about the friends and enemies, but I do know the ABC shows seem to have them. CelticGreen 23:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia has its own notability requirements, so whether or not a show's website or the soap magazines specify these things is irrelevant. Any character interaction qualified as "friend" or "enemy" can be conveyed in the article's text; this also includes listcruft like lists of crimes, lists of former jobs and lists of miscarried fetuses! In any assessment, lists within articles usually impact the article's quality negatively, and especially when they're stupid lists. — TAnthony^Talk 00:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There are very few articles that I think should have "crimes committed" or "lists of deaths" in them. Unless they are uber-villains like Stefano DiMera or Sonny Corinthos a "list of crimes" is not necessary. I also feel the only time an official site and their listing is relevant is for citation. Like the Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald article. The NBC site was used to come to consensus on the article name. This was disregarded by an editor and the article was moved AGAIN. (I digress) Lists are a 50/50 thing with me. In some cases they are fine, in other they are just redundant. CelticGreen 00:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that some lists add something to the articles. But, I really dislike the copy/paste mania of Crimes and Maladies to the character's articles. First, they are not even formatted to look better in wikipedia, they are merely reiterations of what has been already incorporated (or should be) in the main text of the article and are too exhaustive (adultery is not considered a crime anymore in most states of the country). So, I propose that we remove these kinds of lsit unless they are important to the article. I may be a little more willing to let in a list about crimes committed in Sonny Corinthos's or Jason Morgan's pages, as another wikipedia editor suggested above. I have not really used the infoboxes, but can they be edited to include Öther relationships". The reason for this is that some relationships are worthy of being articulated in a specific sections. Examples are: business partners, godfathers, best friends (but only IF it is a vital part of the storyline and there are few, if any that meet this criteria). That said, I don't think we should include godbrother or godsister, or anything of the sort.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 19:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm one of those "can only go by NBC soaps" people. Again, we don't have a list to "copy and paste" (not sure I even understand what is meant by that) for crimes and I think Stefano's lists are appropriate. His article is already longer than most and the lists do help people looking for research on him. I don't like the idea of adding everything to the infobox. What is there now is enough short of adding a "nieces and nephews" field. I, again, going by Days, don't think a "Godfather" or "Godmother" field should be included, that can be incorporated into the text portion of the article. My first reaction when I saw "Godfather" was mob boss, not baptismal. I think others would have that issue too if their particular background or show doesn't address those things. On Days most of those individuals are family members anyway. I do disagree with a best friend field, business partners, etc. There's really no need. Maybe familiarizing yourself with an article with an infobox already filled in would help, Charleen. You might get my reasoning for not adding any more fields. IrishLass0128 19:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi IrishLass0128, this is what I meant by the copy/paste problem...[1]. As you can see, soapcentral lists maladies and crimes. Some users tend to copy and paste this list into the main text of the article. These character profiles also exists for NBC soaps.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 20:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think simple external links in each article to the character's SoapCentral profile or official website profile is enough, every detail about the character doesn't have to be included in an article if it's available somewhere else. For example, most of Stefano DiMera's murder victims are minor and non-notable characters; if this info is found elsewhere, why not summarize in a sentence that "Stefano has murdered two dozen people over the years," and perhaps mentioning anyone notable. Same for the "Kidnappings" section, this is really trivia that does not need to be here. By the way, I'm just using the Stefano article as an example and am not going to go slash it or anything. Additionally, the Manual of Style specifically notes "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs" and Wikipedia:Embedded list asserts that (among other things) "Most Wikipedia articles should consist of prose, and not just a list of links ... In an article, significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed." In the case of Stefano's many "deaths", for example, I don't see why this can't be written into a paragraph of prose instead of a bulleted list. — TAnthony^Talk 20:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Charleenmerced ~ it is not permitted to copy and paste those lists, if it is done, it should be immediately removed. I don't, haven't ever, actually consider SoapCentral as anything more than what it is, a fan site. They don't get special information and half the time their stuff is garbage. They had Brandon Walker, a Days character, living in Harmony, where Passions is set. They are really unreliable and as policy we delete any copy and paste information from there. When people do that, it's call plagiarism.

TAnthony, the Stefano DiMera article is already long, incorporating the lists would triple the size. The lists are fine in his case and I certainly don't want to argue about it. IrishLass0128 15:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Jane Winthrop

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)

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)

Jake Olsen

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)

Taken care of. Nominated for deletion, no redirect. IrishLass0128 13:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessing articles

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)

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)

• Thanks, I actually never did anything with the box, that was someone else. I have made some changes to the article and I hope they are helpful. I think it makes the article a bit more complete.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 18:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Does anyone have pictures or screenshots I can use for Kate Howard's article?--Charleenmerced ^Talk 18:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I left you a message about the article on your talk page. I think you should look there. Normally this type of discussion does not take place here but rather on the articles talk page itself. This is for general implementation discussion about all articles. There's already a picture, why do you need another?IrishLass 18:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I needed the picture to make a point. I am done with that now. Since this discussion page is for general implementation purposes, I think it is important that these comments be discussed here because they relate to general article writing. In my talk page you mentioned that:

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Charleenmerced" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kate_Howard"

I disagree with these statements and I have a few reasons. First of all, I don't think the Luke Spencer article should be used as an example of anything other than to point out that character articles should be condensed. Luke's article illustates this well. Considering his long history in General Hospital, the article is an ok size. I honestly have not read much of it lately, so I can not give an opinion relating to content. But, I do find it lacking in some ways. I think the article, or at least Luke and Laura Spencer, should address their character's impact on popular culture. Afterall, their wedding was the most viewed event in daytime history and they also appeared on the cover of Newsweek. Second, in or attempt to reach uniformity we should not disregard Wikipedia's primary goal: to create articles of quality. Articles of quality should be concise, well written and well sourced. This is what encyclopedic writing requires and Wikipedia is, afterall, an encyclopedia. Third, many editors outside the Soap Opera and Television Project constantly criticize character's articles because they are not sourced and are overly long. I am not trying to "prove that this person exists". Far from that. Instead, I am trying to provide a comprehensive, yet concise article that is well sourced. The purpose of sources, references and footnotes is to provide a basis and a reference for the stated proposition, in this case, the storyline. In the future, this will (1) prevent other editors from questioning the validity of the information claiming that it is not reliable because it is all written from the editor's memory, (2) prevent other editors from editing the article and putting wrong information because they remember things differently and (3) give validity to the article. Four, a portrayer's take on his or her character should go on the character's page because this gives us information as to the character's motivations or personality. The fact that this has not been done in other character's page should not be regarded as the norm. Rather, we should strive to better these articles. Another factor to take into account is that character's article are constantly criticized for being written in an "in-universe" fashion. To prevent this, we should put the character in context with the real world and how that relates to the show. By adding information as to how the character was created, the portrayer's opinions about the character, the character's relation or impact, if any, to popular media or the real world helps the article become more cohesive, notable and well written. An example that is often used to display how a character's article should be written is Pauline Fowler. This article includes a substantital amount of footnotes (understandable she was on East Enders a long time) as well as the portrayer's take on the character. This is an amazingly well-written article, it has been a featured article and should be what every character article should strive to be. As time passes articles like Kate Howard's will be re-edited over and over again. Synopses will be shortened and rewritten (instead of just adding to it) and some sources will be dropped. I stand by the information currently in that article and do not considered it to be cluttered, or overly excessive. I do agree I have to edit it down a bit, I just wanted to put all the relevant information in the article before I edited it.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 21:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Nice ~ very uncool move. If I had wanted my comments on this page, I would have put them there. As they are my comments, they've been removed. The violation of trust of putting something on an article page or user page for personal discussion is, well, I lack the words to express my disappointment in the spirit of working together rather than slamming a person publicly in such a way. IrishLass 21:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• I was merely trying to illustrate something in response to your comments, not trying to offend you in any way. Comments made on any page are public after all and I strongly felt they related to the topic at hand, as well as to the articles where the comments were made.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 21:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• Why would there be different standards for American, Briish or any soaps? I am really just asking, not trying to criticize the above comment or anything like that. Also, I was just using Pauline Fowler as an example, not because I was talking about East Enders or Pauline Fowler, or British soaps for that matter. Also, they are given as examples in the main project page as examples of how to write a good article. So, I assume, these articles are the example to follow.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 21:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may comment briefly: IrishLass, I don't think you should be embarrassed by your comments or Charleen's rebuttal. Also, it doesn't appear that she intended to do that by posting your comments here, but was just looking for the opionions of the group. And while I agree that the Kate Howard article seems a bit overkill for a new and relatively minor character, it is probably only because so many other character articles are sadly underdeveloped. The line-by-line references are technically correct procedure and only help preserve the info for later edits; I wouldn't say this is necesary for all articles and all information and all other soap articles, but if someone has made the effort, it can't hurt. I haven't read the article in detail, but the performer's comments on the character do have a place in the article if they are notable or contribute to the understanding of the character. In this case, you couldn't make the comparisions to Anna Wintour or Miranda Priestly without them. The Luke Spencer should actually have some similar material, as well as documentation of the "Luke and laura phenomenon," but no one has taken an interest in researching it yet. Seriously, there are very few soap articles which should be used as the "standard," because most are basically just plot summary. I will add, I kind of have a problem with the entire "popular culture" section because it's both a rehash of other areas and mostly OR (editor-drawn comclusions and comparisons). But I will document and edits/suggestions I have on that article's talk page. Thanks for listening. — TAnthony^Talk 22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Family trees/naming

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 [2]. 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 [3]. So ~ discuss! IrishLass (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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. — TAnthony^Talk 16:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Days of our Lives GA Review: On Hold

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Image issues

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 {{Non-free image data}} and {{Non-free image rationale}}, which are used in conjunction with each other.

Each image should contain one instance of {{Non-free image data}} with all parameters filled in, and then one instance of {{Non-free image rationale}} 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! — TAnthony^Talk 00:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. — TAnthony^Talk 16:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Membership

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)

• I'm obviously a bit behind on the times with this suggestion... but I have an idea. Why not each month, pick a different soap opera/character/storyline/supercouple/unrated article/etc... that's in need of editing and have that as the main focus? Not only will each article get the attention it needs, it may attract viewers of that particular soap opera/character/storyline/supercouple/etc... to join in the project. Plus, it would be a group effort and that's what we're here for. Again, just a suggestion. —Evaglow 03:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. — TAnthony^Talk 15:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

OK, following up on this, I created a banner: {{Soaps Collaboration}}

Wasn't sure what it should say exactly, but ... I'm going to base the Collaboration section on the main page for now so more people are likely to notice it, eventually we can move it to the subpage. Anyway, it's really not much different than the "Articles needing attention" thing (which it will replace) except for the banner. For now people should just list articles, eventually we can nominate or whatever like other projects do. I'm not sure how effective only a monthly article would be, as we don't have a lot of members at the moment and many have particular soaps they know. I also don't think the banners ever have to be removed even after the articles are worked on, any advertising helps. Tell me what you think, I'm just "being bold." — TAnthony^Talk 17:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-head writers/breakdown writers, etc.

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)

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. — TAnthony^Talk 15:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Ages in family trees

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)

I see random birthdates and ages on a lot of articles, and I delete most of them as unsourced. I will sometimes add a {{fact}} 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). — TAnthony^Talk 23:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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. — TAnthony^Talk 23:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Tense, this needs to be reviewed again

Realizing "fiction" is supposed to be in present tense, broadcast/viewed fiction doesn't meet present tense criteria. This paragraph is a joke: When Days of our Lives premiered in 1965, the show revolved around the tragedies which befell the Horton family. The Hortons are led by patriarch Tom, Chief of Internal Medicine at Salem University Hospital, and his wife, homemaker Alice. Together they have five children: Tom Jr., Addie, Mickey, Bill, and Marie. Over time, additional families, such as the Merritts, Hunters, Bannings, and Andersons were brought to the show to interact with the Hortons and serve as springboards for more dramatic storylines. Tom Horton has been dead for nearly a couple of decades. The editorial comment of "pretend it's on DVD" is ridiculous. Broadcast fiction and written fiction aren't the same things. This issue seriously needs to be revisited because the Days article is a joke being lead by a dead man. Tommy, Addie,and Marie are also dead. This "present tense" crud just DOES NOT work in broadcast fiction of any kind. Maybe teaming up with the television project would be a good idea to get this corrected. CelticGreen (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the tense is the issue; the paragraph just needs to not center around Tom and the old families. — TAnthony^Talk 04:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It was just an example. I could give a dozen articles all of which sound ridiculous when attempting to be in present tense but still be accurate. CelticGreen (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably disagree on your interpretation of "ridiculous," but honestly, you can write it the way you want it for now and I don't think anyone will have a big issue. Plenty of articles are still in past tense. — TAnthony^Talk 04:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Go look at the talk page where the editor says to "pretend" the show is in repeats. I don't know about you, but I don't live in a pretend world (if I did I wouldn't be driving a 10 year old car and living pay check to paycheck). We shouldn't have to "pretend" when it comes to articles and neither should we expect non-editors to pretend either. Current tense for a soap should include past tense for past events. And note I say current not present making a definitive difference between a soaps' current status verses trying to make a show that's been on for 40+ years present tense. The idea of "pretending" is just ludicrous. Do we really want people to come here and "pretend" what time frame we are on?? CelticGreen (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he wants everybody to pretend, he's trying to make a point for those who don't like/understand present tense. I know soap fans have the Soap Opera Digest-type summaries in mind and we consider the plots to occur in the past, but I think if an article is well written, it makes perfect sense. — TAnthony^Talk 04:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

TAnthony, aren't you the one always saying "be bold"? Why not "be bold" and address this in the proper manner. I've had this tense discussion with a friend who only edits one article. She has problem adding dates because she feels that doesn't flow with this whole "present tense" issue. Why not be bold and discuss the concept of using true time lines and writing the articles correctly rather than pretending something that isn't true. I read the comments, they do literally say to "try pretending the show is available on DVD." Well, as much as I like writing a good fan fic, I can't pretend to that extent. Why not discuss this beyond the walls of this project? You were bold enough to make a soap character infobox, why not take being bold one step further? IrishLass 14:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've only been editing these things for a short while, but have already encountered these problems. I really think for these soaps you need to play it by ear and try to do what's appropriate in particular situation. Mixed tenses aren't all that bad if it makes sense in this context. -- Dougie WII 14:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

He's saying "try pretending" because editors are having trouble "getting it." You've all seen me argue this before, I think most anti-present tense people are looking at these articles in too much of an in-universe manner, not from an encyclopedic perspective. I am pretty much pro-present tense, so I have no interest in taking it to a higher court. I totally see the argument from the other side and even agree to some extent that the tense thing can be awkward in some cases, but I really think most of the time it's just a matter of fixing the writing. Look at Alexis Colby; the article isn't complete, but I think the tenses read well. You're following along chronologically, it works. — TAnthony^Talk 17:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I completely disagree that she's saying "try pretending." Read the edit summary where he directly says "Tweaking tenses (fiction should be in present tense). It's tricky with soaps, but pretend the episodes are all in repeats or on DVD, and it makes more sense" There is no TRY in that sentence. And, sorry, your Alexis Colby doesn't work for me either. The show is over and on DVD. We are talking about an ever changing shows where it is impossible for everything to be in present tense. I don't have a problem "getting it" in relation to other works of fiction, but on a show that's run for 40 plus years having an article written in present tense and a dead character being the head of the show is a bit insane. PS ~ Elonka is a she. IrishLass 17:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So the tense issue is here again. Guys, when I first showed up at Wikipedia (in what seems like a lifetime ago in Wiki-time, even though it was rather several months ago in real time), I hated the idea of present tense. Now, however, I love it. And I feel that it works accordingly. As you've heard, the tense is meant to flow as if you are viewing those scenes, considering that if you were viewing those scenes, it would be in the present. When I read a plot summary now, and it is in past tense, it doesn't click to me as being the best way to present the plot. If a passage in a plot reads: In 1999, the two get married and live happy lives, that's not off, even if he's dead, because it's going along as if you are viewing what is happening...and it even mentions that it's back in 1999.

As for mixing past tense with present tense, this passage from the Maggie Stone article, for instance, works and is an instant where it can be mixed: After feeling jilted by Bianca a second time in what she believes to be Bianca having chosen Babe as a lover, she enters into a romantic relationship with bad boy Jonathan Lavery. Maggie, unaware that when she found Bianca in bed with Babe earlier, it was a ploy to trap J.R. into confessing that he framed Jamie, wraps herself far into the life of Jonathan. That works.

I know that both of you, CelticGreen and IrishLass, don't really like present tense for plots, or rather in concerns to soap opera, but I just wanted to drop by and state that I prefer present tense on this matter.

TAnthony, I know you prefer present tense as well, so I suppose I'm in your camp about this one. Flyer22 23:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I know Elonka, I didn't notice who wrote it. But she obviously is trying to explain the perspective, not actually telling you to live in a fantasy world. The existence of DVDs has nothing to do with anything — she was, plain and simple, trying to dumb the concept down. Only the 1st two seasons of Dynasty are on DVD, articles like Alexis or Claudia cover many seasons not actually available. And the show is over, but what happened in 2003 on Days is also over. My point in giving those examples is that the tense reads fine, it is not awkward, even though these things "happened" in 1985. The problem with the Days paragraph is not the tense, it's that it's not written as it should be.

I've explained this before, but you're all still thinking of the show as something that actually happened. But an episode is an artistic work, created over a period of days, and the day these soap events "happen" is just the day this work is shown for the first time. A soap day can last many real days. Actual time has no bearing on a fictional work like this. The fact that you can or can't actually experience an episode again has absolutely nothing to do with what the proper tense should be. The whole point of the policy is to stylistically differentiate between real world and fictional in-universe events. When you read a book, the events are essentially happening as you read it. The same is true of a plot summary because the events didn't actually happen. Yes, they were performed by living people, but it's like a painting, it's not real. You can choose to ignore the policy but you are never going to get it changed, there is no valid reason to. — TAnthony^Talk 23:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, thanks Flyer, you put it very well and perhaps more persuasively than I did. I will say that I just looked at the Days paragraph again, and it is a tricky one; it's kind of talking about the story from both an in- and out-of-universe perspective at different times, which is why the present tense is awkward in context. I'm not expecting you all to suddenly love present tense, but I'm going to attempt a copyedit of that paragraph and see what you think. — TAnthony^Talk 00:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright vio pictures

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 [4] and [5]. IrishLass 18:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A bot would've caught them soon enough as unused images, and they'd be deleted. But I've tagged them with {{subst:orfud}} to speed up the process (it still may take a few days for an Admin to get around to doing it). — TAnthony^Talk 19:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Soap opera writers and producers

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)

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? — TAnthony^Talk 23:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Ryan Serhant

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)

Well, we've been "put on notice"

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)

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. — TAnthony^Talk 17:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Congratulations!

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! — TAnthony^Talk 17:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm late in saying this, but congratulations. Flyer22 (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Family trees (general discussion)

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)

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)

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KellyAna (talk • contribs)

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)

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)

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

Peer reviews

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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Cropper

Please comment. D.M.N. (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

SoapCentral.com

I've brought this discussion (copied-and-pasted it) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard so that we, as a project, can discuss this topic:

I was going to post this in the ghthesoap.com section above, but decided to give this topic its own section. What about www.soapcentral.com? There really aren't many soap opera sites out there that Wikipedia considers reliable. Soapcentral.com, while some may call it a fansite, is extremely reliable, as seen with articles like As Strike Winds On, Soaps Are a Hot Commodity and WGA Takes Issue With Soap Opinion Column. And Wikipedia's soap opera articles rely heavily on it. It's right up there with soapoperadigest.com in its reliability and I'd like to get some feedback on it now, as I would hate to see it banned (you know, blacklisted) from Wikipedia without most of us who use it knowing. It's considered a reliable source by WikiProject Soap Operas. And it serves articles such as Todd Manning well, where some of the information may not be available elsewhere on the internet in reliable sources, and when access to magazine articles where the same information could be accessed is unavailable to the editor simply because they don't have or know about the article. I'm unaware of if this site has been brought here for discussion before, but I felt now was as good as time as any, if that isn't the case...and so I can know either way, considering that if it has been brought here for discussion before, I don't know about it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

From their Terms of Use: "SOC is a distributor (and not a publisher) of content supplied by third parties and Subscribers. Accordingly, SOC has no more editorial control over such content than does a public library, bookstore, or newsstand. Any opinions, advice, statements, services, offers, or other information or content expressed or made available by third parties, including information providers, Subscribers or any other user of soapcentral.com, are those of the respective author(s) or distributor(s) and not of SOC. Neither SOC nor any third-party provider of information guarantees the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any content, nor its merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose." Just for the curious.... Pairadox (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

All that said, again I point out that this site is extremely reliable and is a great asset to many soap opera articles on Wikipedia, such as reporting the firing of Richard Culliton and what went down with the controversy over character Frankie Stone, information that I cannot find anywhere else in a reliable source on the net but everyone knows about...as it's been stated in several soap opera magazine articles. I don't have access to any of those articles where he responded to the controversy about his character creation Frankie Stone's death...or specific articles on his firing in 2002, but soapcentral.com has information on that. Losing this site on Wikipedia would be a great disservice to many soap opera articles. I've worked with several excellent editors who know Wikipedia like the back of their hand and none felt that soapcentral.com was a source that I shouldn't use, such as when getting feedback on the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article (an article that I will be nominating for GA or FA status soon after a few more tweaks), and soapcentral.com is extremely important to that article when adding information on Richard Culliton's part in writing characters Frankie and Maggie Stone. This site is very important for sourcing soap opera-related articles, and as such I cannot see any good in discontinuing its use. Flyer22 (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any FA or GA soap opera articles that used soapcentral.com at the time of their elevation? That would indicate that a wider slice of the community has already weighed in on the reliability of it. Pairadox (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Pairdox. And, unfortunately, no, because we don't have that many soap opera articles that have been elevated to GA or FA status. We have Pauline Fowler (FA), EastEnders (GA), and Coronation Street (previous Featured Article). And that's all...I think. But neither of those articles need soapcentral.com because soapcentral.com is an American site with no part of their site dedicated to those three British topics I just mentioned. I suspect that any soap opera article that I've worked on to improve, and then I were to nominate that article, with it using soapcentral.com, would be the first to have that source under scrutiny. But, really, there have been other great editors that have "scrutinized" the sources I've used in the articles I've been working hardest on, where soapcentral.com is used and none felt that it was unreliable. Bignole, for instance, who worked on me with the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article, checked that article up and down, and I feel that he would have mentioned soapcentral.com needing to be yanked if he felt that it was unreliable. He elevated the Jason Voorhees article to FA status, and I trust him. Maybe my best bet is to just take one of these articles I've worked hard on to the GA or FA nomination process and see what happens there, with these articles using soapcentral.com as a source. Flyer22 (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I can point to a minimum of four errors without checking for soapcentral.com and it is updated by fans. I know this because I had to contact them regarding one of our trolls from here, a Mr. Grant Chuggle. They base a lot on opinion, their own, and not true storylines. My favorite glaring error is this one [6], last paragraph where Brandon left Harmony. For those unfamiliar with Days of our Lives, the show is set in Salem, not Harmony. Harmony is Passions. If they can't get something so simple correct, I don't feel they are a reliable source. Also, and this is a big pet peeve, they make up SORAS ages. People want to use soapcentral.com ages but they aren't based in fact, they are based on speculation. I am curious where they have no control over content came from, or maybe I'm reading that wrong. They do the editing and even advertise for fans to update the daily summaries. I find that to be a fansite and nothing more. They regurgitate rumours as fact and then respected agents have to run around like mad men explaining their clients' contracts because people think soapcentral.com is gospel. While they are an okay site, they aren't complete and they pick and choose too much. I would say, absolutely no on a reliability level unless we can pick and choose. They aren't reliable on ages, their spoilers are iffy and even some of their character histories are wrong. What are they right on? IrishLass (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

IrishLass, they are right on everything else. Their character bios, like you just pointed out, may be mostly fan-updated. But those editors are chosen carefully. I've also contacted them about such. Soapcentral is seen as the gospel by users because it is extremely accurate in its news reports and articles, like I linked to above. It isn't the most visited soap opera news site for nothing. It's control is no different than a library, as it says, "SOC has no more editorial control over such content than does a public library, bookstore, or newsstand." They are a distrubutor of content supplied by third parties and subscribers...who happen to be very reliable. No different than a library. And soapcentral really is indeed like a library for everything soap-related (American, I must admit). Most of their information is not speculated. They are often the first to report big happenings in the soap world, which turn out true every time. The only thing I've seen that may be a problem is their character bios, but even those are 99.9% correct. Our project, WikiProject Soap Operas, can include to exlude that, but this site should absolutely not be excluded from Wikipedia. Surely, you know how much losing this site on Wikipedia would harm soap opera articles. There aren't many soap opera sites out there that Wikipedia would consider reliable. Soapcentral is one of the more reliable ones out there, and losing it would truly be a sad hit to soap opera-related articles on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree losing it would be bad, for some information. But what about the ages and changing of the dates of birth? How do we address that because they admit they guestimate those. The age issue is really my sticking point on using it. That and the character bios that are blatently wrong. IrishLass (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We clearly need to come up with a guideline at our project, where we exlude character bios from that site. That's the only problem I've seen you have with that site. Like the characters' birth dates, for instance. Although, they happen to be right on the birth date concerning Erica Kane and others, and I'd hate to lose using that site as a means for sourcing birth dates that most viewers, not just soapcentral, have trouble keeping up with. But if we can't trust their character bios as often as we think, then we should exclude the use of that if it will allow us to keep using the very valuable aspects of that site, such as its news reports and news articles. Perhaps we should get Elonka to help us out on this. Flyer22 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think we've reach an agreement point. My issue is not about the day of the birthdates, it is making up the years. They have Bo Brady born in 1963 and that's impossible. He's not 45 with a 30 year old son that was born when Bo was nearly 30. You know what I'm saying. If we can establish that years of birth via soapcentral cannot be used and character history should have a second source (another example is the phrasing of that EJ/Sami night that gives us such fits) when it's not plot point but opinion, I could be persuaded to agree. But, you are completely right, Elonka should be brought in to this and I do have a huge issue with the ages thing. BTW, the Erica thing cracks me up. I'm sure at 61 Susan Lucci thinks it's great someone thinks she's 46.IrishLass (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we've most definitely come to an agreement. We should discuss this further at the project. And, yes, the Erica thing cracks me up as well. But, hey, the show did de-SORAS her. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Continued discussion

Yes, SoapCentral is not 100% accurate, but other sites we rely on — like IMDB.com — are equally prone to flaws. As a matter of fact, even Soap Opera Digest makes mistakes (I'm looking at one now) and — shock of all shocks — I've got screenshots of at least two errors One Life to Live made in its own onscreen credits recently. I think SoapCentral strives for accuracy, and usually its assertions are based on something, not just a wild guess. Any plot errors can easily be contradicted by recaps on the show's site or Soaps.com.

In the case of Erica Kane, the entry explains how she is suddenly 46 and this information is repeated in the article as a footnote. It is very specific about her age in relation to her daughter, and her daughter's changing age. This is not a flaw with SoapCentral, this is the show rewriting its history, and we can't take the ages of the actors into account. I don't see a birthdate in the SC.com entry for Bo Brady, but if Shawn-Douglas Brady was born onscreen in 1987 and you're saying he's 30, that does create an issue that can't necessarily be ignored. I agree we shouldn't be calculating years based on assumptions (like how old Bo might have been when he fathered S-D), but certainly presenting the conflicting info and letting the reader decide is OK.

Condemning Soap Central altogether for such trivial stuff is a big mistake. — TAnthony^Talk 02:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking at SC and noticed a lot of the dates of birth for Days characters are gone. I don't know when that happened but I do know people have used SC in claims of date of birth but I don't see the dates for a lot of the characters I looked for. Even Jennifer Horton and Shawn-Douglas Brady didn't have a date of birth and both were born on screen. They do have dates for Hope Williams which are questionable but I find it really interesting that the dates now seem to be gone and I'm sure I looked up Shawn-Douglas within the last month. Maybe we could err on the side of caution and encourage people to find second sources for ages but for the rest I don't see why it can't be used. KellyAna (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that their character bios are "blatantly wrong" as a whole. IrishLass' "Harmony vs. Salem" example is a harmless typo, and though it may suggest carelessness, it's not as if these bios are necessarily inventing plot points. Are there any examples of glaring misinformation? There is certainly some POV mixed in, but that shouldn't invalidate the site as a whole. If the site is used as a source for an arguable "fact," there is nothing wrong with challenging it on an item-by-item basis and even using other sources. Again, the birthdate thing is very trivial; I'm sure you can keep out any controversial birthdates, but I also see no problem with a footnote explaining the rationale behind the source's date: "SoapCentral.com suggests that Bo's birthday is in 1963 because though he was born onscreen in 1960, he was abducted by aliens in 1970, and Alice Horton noted in the May 16 1970 episode that his skin 'looked three years younger' when he returned." LOL. — TAnthony^Talk 05:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Because this discussion was copied from another location, instead of being linked, comments are continuing to be posted there as well. PLEASE don't fork discussions - it only adds to the general confusion. Pairadox (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Pairadox. I just felt that it would be better discussed here. And I didn't want to remove it from there in case someone on the outside of WikiProject Soap Operas wanted to comment.

As I stated there, the news articles on that site are most definitely needed for Wikipedia soap opera articles. Those are reported by people such as Elizabeth Albanese and Dan J Kroll (the site's creator), etc., and are always reliable.

Birth dates are something that most viewers have trouble keeping up with when it comes to soap opera characters, not just soapcentral. Soapcentral isn't used for the majority of Wikipedia soap opera articles in concerns to birth dates. It's usually some random IP address filling in the ages of soap opera characters on Wikipedia, without any sources. As for soapcentral, their articles don't usually include stuff about a character's birth date, unless it's character bios we're talking about. Soapcentral's articles are usually either news articles or critical commentary articles. Their character bios, which are written more so by fans (though well-selected fans), have more of a chance of being wrong. Although, from what I've seen of them, they are often right. I mean, it's not like any of the character bios are blatantly made up. I'm sure soapcentral would throw out any editor who was making up a character's history. The thing is, though, their character bios can be wrong about things such as a character's birth date. I had never seen a character bio there wrong about the town a character lives in, but IrishLass has pointed out above where that has happened. I look at it more as a typo, however. Either way, it seems that the best thing to do is to restrict or somewhat restrict using soapcentral when it comes to character bios, but to continue using it for news information.

Another thing... IrishLass, are you sure that the matter over what seems like soapcentral's confusion over Bo's age doesn't have to do with him or his children having been SORASed? Like his children having been SORASed, which in turn de-SORASed him, no matter how much of a young age we are to believe he conceived a child. Flyer22 (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've been looking around. I know at one time there were birthdates on some character profiles. I know there were because I used to use them ages ago and up until recently. I did have a few emails going with one of the site owners and mentioned the age thing on EJ Wells imparticularly and that's gone. They also neutralized the wording of the controversial night. At this point my concerns are far less than they were 24 hours ago. I have some minor concerns but nothing to protest usage as a reference within reason.

Flyer, regarding the Bo age thing. Who knows, but I think for de-SORASed characters we should call that the "Erica Kane" instead of "de-SORASed" We could start our own new term. =) IrishLass (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL. So true! Flyer22 (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad you like that. I could just see it ~ Bo Brady, a fictional character on Days of our Lives originally born in 1954 he was "Erica Kane-d" in 2006 and his birth date changed to 1963. We could be trend setters. IrishLass (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I just wanted to say that agree with the use of soapcentral and the other sources. I mean, they are the only sources we have besides the soap and it's nice to have something to reference to. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 14:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That comment totally ignores the "are the sources reliable" issue. Being the only source is not a substitute for being a reliable source. Pairadox (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that comment does ignore the real question at hand concerning this topic. But it seems that that question has been answered, as all of us here familiar with soapcentral.com agree that it is a reliable source, more so for news information. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

When I made the comment I had assumed that, due to the long discussion, there seemed to be a sort of consensus that the sources were reliable. Thus, I did not address that issue.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 21:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that. Flyer22 (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Lost episode article is now featured

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)

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. — TAnthony^Talk 17:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I also wanted to mention that a lot of actor's fan pages have copies, pdfs, etc of whenever their fave actor appears in any soap opera magazine. They are great sources for actor's interviews, plots or plot changes, and actor's impressions about their characters and the current storyline. So, look at the picture galleries of the web pages. Also, there have been a lot of (featured articles in the media section). Some notable examples:

• 200 (Stargate SG-1)
• Padmé Amidala - article about a fictional character
• Animaniacs - article about a television show

--Charleenmerced ^Talk 22:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. — TAnthony^Talk 23:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Bennett Family

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)

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)

Flagged for major cleanup: Jason Morgan

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)

• And I had also added this article to the soap's project collaboration page. I have been cutting out quite a bit. But, it is soooo long, it takes a lot fo time. Help? --Charleenmerced ^Talk 13:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

• • It is excessively long with parts described by the scene and entire paragraphs repeated again in other sections. It only has references in the first parts because tjat is as far as I got in referecing. It needs a lot of work. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 01:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Proposed tasks

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)

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 JPS^{talk to me} 18:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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. — TAnthony^Talk 19:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Amigas y Rivales Broadcast History

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. — TAnthony^Talk 15:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)