Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Cast years on soap lists

From a very intense discussion on the talk page of the Days of our Lives cast members list, I found it best to just move the discussion to the entire community, to welcome both U.S. and UK soap editors. There is a large debate about how to list breaks on soap casts. Let's use Suzanne Rogers for exmaple. Several believe that listing her time on the series as 1973–84, 1985-2003, 2004– to showcase her "breaks" from the series. However, others believe it should just read 1973– since she has appeared every year since 1973, and that should visitors wish to see if she did ever depart the role, or took a break, they should visit the character page and read it for themselves, and to de-clutter pages and keep it as simple and easy as possible. Cast lists for The Bold and the Beautiful, General Hospital and The Young and the Restless have all taken claim of the second way of just using the start year, and continuing to present if that character and its portrayer has appeared in the role every year since. So, let's open this discussion to all soap editors to end the warring on editing, and to end the confusion and mass-changes. Which way do users believe to be best to represent this on cast lists? All discussions welcome! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The cast lists that Livelikemusic above said adopted the "no tenure breaks" rule were just changed earlier today by Livelikemusic, before he came here. All of the soap cast lists had tenure breaks on them up until today, until I pointed that out to Livelikemusic on the Days talk page. He then went to all of the soap's cast list pages of GH, YR and BB to remove the tenure breaks himself. Livelikemusic states above "[The soap pages] have all taken claim of the second way of just using the start year, and continuing to present if that character and its portrayer has appeared in the role every year since." May I please be given a link to those discussions (where each soap page "has taken claim" to the no tenure breaks), other than Livelikemusic just going to the pages and making the changes himself? As I pointed out on the Days cast page, I used another example from another topic...the late New York Yankees manager Billy Martin. He was constantly fired and re-hired all the time. On his page, it states "1975-78, 1979", thus listing his tenure break as manager. I think Wikipedia should be as consistent as can be amongst all its topics, not just soaps. I'm not a Wikipedia expert, so I don't know all the rules, however I think the tenure breaks should be listed on cast pages. They definitely do not "clutter up" a page so drastically like others said on the Days talk page. James Reynolds is another good example. He left Days for a year to star on another soap (Generations) and even received a Daytime Emmy nomination for his work on Generations while away from Days. His tenure break should be listed, since he was gone from Days from 1990-1991. Yes, he has appeared in "successive" years (every year since 1981), but if we are talking about "consecutive" years, which is what the "hyphen" (1981-present) denotes, then that is incorrect. His Days tenure is 1981-1990, 1991-present (he was gone a brief time while playing Abe's ghost from 2003-04, but that's a different point for a different time). I can see the point about not listing his brief break from 2003-04, since he still appeared occasionally as a ghost on the show, but when he was gone for a full calendar year between 1990-1991, I think the tenure break should be kept on the page. It in no way clutters up a page to simply have a few actors such as Reynolds and Rogers having tenure breaks listed. Look forward to everyone else's opinions. Please post them below. Thanks! Jason47a (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

In addition, I am confused about SoapFan12 and Livelikemusic's stance on this issue. On the Days cast list page, they keep changing the page to show no tenure breaks. When these changes are reverted to show the tenure breaks, they then revert it back to the no tenure breaks and say that the page has to stay with the "no tenure breaks" until a consensus is reached. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Again, I'm not a Wiki expert, but when editors want to make a change to a certain page (after years of having a page look a certain way) and other editors question them about the issue, shouldn't the talks/discussions/etc. take place BEFORE any new changes take effect? It seems as though both of these editors (SoapFan12 and Livelikemusic) want the changes to take effect immediately before ANY discussions take place on the matter here on this page. That to me is them imposing their personal feelings on the issue, and as I've been told, that's not allowed here on Wikipedia. If we are going with that logic, then couldn't any editor go to a page, make major changes, and then just keep stating "The page will stay the way I want it to stay until a consensus is reached. You may not revert it back to how it was before the changes I decided to make." I didn't think that was how Wikipedia worked. Would love to hear opinions from other editors about this issue. Thanks! Jason47a (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Jason, I've told you, the other pages HAD changed, those characters you mentioned simply hadn't. So please do not turn this into a personal attack on another member. And we aren't talking the Yankees, we're talking soaps. Two separate topics. Character pages have adopted this format, and it'd be nice to bring it to other soap articles, including cast lists. And we explained (which you've carefully ignored) that the discussion was opened when the changes were made, so it seemed as if you and Rm were against the edits prior to consensus being made. And notice, I did not mention a single name in the opening comments, so I think it's a bit of a personal attack to mention myself and another user, while there were other users who mentioned their opinions. Kind of seems unfair, in my eyes. And never was the word "I" used in edit-summaries. If anything, it was told to leave to how it was when discussion was opened. So please, stop making this a personal attack. That's against Wiki policy. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Livelikemusic. I'm not making it a personal attack. We're having a discussion. If I want to mention you or someone else's statements, it's not an attack, it's a discussion here for all the editors to see. In your response above, you said the other soap cast list pages had changed after discussions. In my previous comments above, I asked you (or any editor) to link me to those discussions, so I could read over what was said on the discussion pages of BB, YR and GH. I have checked those cast list talk pages, and do not see those discussions. I have looked on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_General_Hospital_cast_members, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_The_Young_and_the_Restless_cast_members, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_The_Bold_and_the_Beautiful_cast_members and do not see those discussions that you mentioned. Maybe I am looking in the wrong place. So, again I ask, could someone here provide me with a link to those discussions that took place about changing the tenure breaks? As to another of your comments, yes, I realize that this is not a baseball article. I simply mentioned former Yankee manager Billy Martin because he has a tenure break listed 1978, 1979 (which is what this discussion is about). In your last comment, you said that "character pages have adopted this format." So, your opinion is that character pages and cast list pages should have the same format. Why can't my opinion be that soap operas/TV shows and other topics (such as baseball) have similar formats? Is that opinion not allowed here on Wikipedia? Still awaiting word from any other editor(s) about this matter. Please leave your comments below. Thanks! Jason47a (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Admit that I did not read all the comments here, before posting my own.  :-)   Felt a bit guilty and skimmed through them afterwards. Nobody is making personal attacks here... but both Jason and CadetBlue are putting the focus on the contributors, and not on the content. No harm in asking for diffs, of course. No harm in pointing to how 'other places' in the wikiverse do things, of course. No harm in asking questions about policy, ever!

on when and how WP:BRD is applicable, plus suggestions for constructive collabs

And yes, to answer the policy-question, the way it works is WP:BRD, in theory, which means that the folks advocating changes from long-standing consensus ought to back down, and let the old portions of the page stay the old way, just as those pages have always been, while discussion takes place. This is intended to prevent the oft-seen phenomena of some WP:BOLD editor(s) swooping in, making changes, and then insisting their changes *are* the consensus. "The page will stay the way I want it to stay until a consensus is reached." That said, see also WP:OWN and especially WP:NINJA-revert. It is quite possible for the folks defending the long-standing version to *also* be saying exactly the same wrongheaded thing, in exactly the same words. "The page will stay the way I want it to stay until a consensus is reached." The resolution is simple: nobody gets to impose their desires, for a specific layout or specific phrasing or whatever, on everybody else.   Consensus can change. We *are* changing it, right now, in this discussion. Everybody remember to WP:IMAGINE and also to WP:AAGF, please, remember this is friendlypedia. Okay okay, maybe not, but pillar four thou shalt not rubberize! This is not grudge-o-pedia, and there is no pleasure in wikiLawyering, neither for the defense nor for the prosecution. If you cannot amicably work things out, and focus firmly on the content, then immediately call for help. RfC is a good way, or WP:3O, or drop in on the fine folks at the dispute resolution noticeboard (Zhang and Transporterman and Keithbob come particularly highly recommended). Or just pick somebody at random off the lists at WP:ASSIST and WP:RETENTION memberships. Or just ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE, that's the fastest way to get good answers to quick questions. You can also ping my talkpage, if you like, but I warn you that I have so little knowledge about soap operas, you'll have to convince me that they aren't just Italian divas in the shower.

In any case, this content-issue *is* a difficult question, with a bunch of intertwined complexities. It will require some thinking, and also plenty of tact. How to best serve the readership of this article, giving them the facts, without overwhelming them with facts they don't need? How to best serve the readership, by keeping articles consistent within the soap opera genre, and more broadly, within the teevee/film/entertainment/media supergenre? But the most important question is, how to best serve wikipedia herself, by following both the letter and the spirit of WP:IAR. Which includes, may I oh-so-gently-but-damn-well-firmly point out, making this a friendly place, by really really really assuming good faith, each and every time you are about to click that save-button.  :-)   Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia folks, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkpage-stalker who noticed this request whilst on unrelated wikiBiz, whom has never been a soap-editor, swoops in to say.... Recommend that we keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler. The cast-list page is a place for details. However, that does not mean that we should turn wikipedia into a fansite -- the details presented must satisfy WP:NOTEWORTHY, they must have been mentioned in WP:RS. If it is the case that the breaks in 1984 and 2003 were wikiNoteworthy, then they belong in the article. That said, it is definitely confusing to see this awkward phrasing.

1973–84, 1985-2003, 2004–

For one thing, there is too much information crammed in there. The casual readership, will probably feel their eyes glaze over. But at the same time, there is too little information! How long were the breaks, in terms of months, and in terms of number-of-episodes-not-acted-in? What was the reason for the first break, and the second? What are the sources that covered the breaks? Here is what I suggest.

1973–2013+, excluding breaks[5]

Then, in the text of footnote#5, it can be explained with a couple of sentences that "Actress did not participate for N episodes from Foo'84 thru Bar'85 for $reason, see [src][src][cite]. Also, M espisodes from Baz'03 thru Quux'04 for $reasonTwo, see [src][ref][cite]." This can even be a pop-up that appears when the reader hovers, see the disputed birth-year in the first sentence of Audrey_Tautou ("...born 9 August 1976)[1] is a French actress...") and hover your mouse over the [1] to see footnote#1. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

UK soaps editor here. I'm personally in favour of excluding breaks of less than one calendar year, as is done at List of EastEnders characters. However, other UK soap pages don't do this, such as List of Emmerdale characters and List of Coronation Street characters. Occasionally, EastEnders doesn't do this as well, but it's generally been discussed for an individual character and is probably where an actor wasn't part of the regular contracted cast and came back for a one-off appearance, rather than asked for six months off where their return was guaranteed. I do quite like 74.192.84.101's suggestion but I can't really see it taking off, somehow. Many non-WikiProject casual soap opera editors I come across often seem very adamant that things should not change. –anemoneprojectors– 15:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I think tenure breaks should stay because the actor was off contract for an amount of time and did not appear continuously. It's not that cluttering to write it that way. Rm994 (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's comments so far. Look forward to reading more editor's thoughts over the coming days. Jason47a (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Get rid of tenure breaks: I am in favor excluding tenure breaks. I think it makes more sense to do include specifics like that in the casting sections of each character's article. Just my preference; I think it makes the pages, and infoboxes LESS sloppy which was a big problem with many soap articles a few years back.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 21:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nk3play2, as long-tenured actors who have departed and returned over different intervals get can messy in the duration parameter. Perhaps we could compromise; for example Suzanne Rogers, we could list 1973– and maybe put underneath it "(see below)", which is a link to the casting section? Just a suggestion. Creativity97 22:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That to me sounds like more work for a person who wants to quickly see a list of the cast members and the tenure they have been on the show for. I can't see how a listing for these three people: Joseph Mascolo 1983-84, 1985-etc..., James Reynolds 1981-1990, 1991- and Suzanne Rogers 1973-1984, 1985- (and for other pages, however many people it might involve) makes a page look cluttered and/or sloppy. Those are the only current actors involved in specifics to the Days page. I would want an encyclopedic entry as accurate as possible and would not think seeing those three items above would make a page look sloppy/cluttered in the least. Jason47a (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should effectively eliminate breaks of less than a full year, as in likelivemusic's original example 1973–84, 1985-2003, 2004–. I think this should apply to both infoboxes and full character lists, but we should be sure that whatever consensus is reached specifies how we approach either of these. The casual reader will be confused by a split like the previous example, and as someone else said, these actors were still on the show during that year regardless of often-arbitrary contract lapses and such.

I think as fans we are so trained by the magazines to be aware of contracts, but the infobox parameter (and a duration column in tables) is for "appearance on the series" and not "contract status." Now I agree that some of this break information is interesting and encyclopedic; for example, the Days of our Lives serial murder storyline where longtime contract players were killed off and their contracts ended. Even they didn't know their characters were actually "alive" and that they would be brought back. Or actors leaving to pursue other roles and then returning within months. But this kind of stuff should be worked into a "real world" section covering casting, and with citations from external sources. Anyone looking at a list or infobox for a duration, even a soap fan, wants to know how long the person has been in the role and when, not if they ever were off contract for 5 months. Anyone interested in that kind of tidbit will have to read the body of the article anyway for those kind of details.

Remember that the infobox is supposed to be a concise overview of pertinent information and not an abbreviation of the entire article. This is why we made the "Family" portion of the info box collapsible years ago; editors rightfully argued that this info was notable enough that it should be included in the infobox for navigation purposes and to avoid having to hunt through the article, but others rightfully argued that a foot-long infobox was crazy (Victoria Lord is like 16 inches fully extended). There isn't really much value in designating the breaks, as the typical Wikipedia reader won't understand the nuance. Adding footnotes and links to the body of the article can be just as messy unless there's a really really notable reason to do so in specific cases. This is an encyclopedia for the masses, not just for us, and we have to remember that when we're presenting information. I was previously very active in this Project and actually involved in shaping much of the current style guidelines. As a soap fan though, I've specified these kinds of breaks myself in the past in infoboxes and lists, and added what might be considered extraneous detail because it often interests me. But over the years I've come to realize that we can't compromise the readability and accessibility of articles for the sake of minutae. That said, if editors can provide some specific examples here of cases that might be exceptions, it will really help shape the guideline.— TAnthony^Talk 23:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, TAnthony. As for the case exceptions you asked about above, I've already mentioned the three I think should stay in the cast lists. I have no problem eliminating the tenure breaks for Peggy McCay/Josh Taylor/James Reynolds from 2003-2004. They all stayed with the show as "ghosts" (although not on contract), but they never really left the show entirely. So, for those cases, I agree. To keep the infobox as concise as possible, those 2003-2004 breaks do not need to be included. However, when an actor leaves a show for an entire year (not just an arbitrary lapse in contract, but actually gone from the show with no appearances for a full 12 months), I think those should be included. Joseph Mascolo (Stefano) left Days in March 1983 and did not return until March 1984. Since he was gone for an entire year, I think it is certainly acceptable to list him as 1982-83, 1964-85, etc... Exception # 2 would be Suzanne Rogers (Maggie) who left the show for an entire year due to her medical condition. She was gone from September 1984-September 1985. The third, and final exception, would be James Reynolds (Abe). He not only left Days for an entire year, but joined another show, Generations, and was nominated for a Daytime Emmy for his role on Generations. He was gone from Days from August 1990-August 1991. Being that these tenure breaks were all basically for a full 12 months, I don't think it would clutter up the page to list them. Perhaps the editors could think this possibility over, and use a 12-month rule for having a few tenure breaks listed on the soap pages. That possibility sort of bridges the gap between those editors who think tenure breaks should be totally abolished, and those who think they should be retained. Thanks for your time! Jason47a (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, while I myself wouldn't have a fit over those exceptions for the reasons you explain (with a brief footnote citation to explain each so the casual reader understands and future editors don't undo it), BUT I think it may be messy to set the guideline as you suggest. First of all, we may not always know (or at least have a source for) the exact months someone came and went, which opens up arguments. I mean, it seems kind of convenient that all three of those actors were gone for exactly a year, I would personally be dubious without a source. And is 11 months enough, or it has to be 12? Do they have to be off-contract, or just not appear? There was a case at Passions where someone was on contract but not onscreen for nearly that long. The bottom line is, Suzanne Rogers appeared in 1984 and she appeared in 1985. It's a year-round series and so the assumption to the common reader is surely the period of Jan 1st thru Dec 31st when we're talking about 1985. The other can of worms is, that's three people on one show, and there are many past and present shows. Suddenly you have more exceptions than not. It's tricky.— TAnthony^Talk 02:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't comment about other shows, since I only follow Days. Editors at the other soaps would better answer the question as to the airdates for the actors on those shows. Your assumption is the common reader would read that an actor appeared in each year successively (for Suzanne Rogers, as an example, 1973- ). My assumption is that the common reader would take that to mean Suzanne Rogers appeared continuously on the show without a year-long break. When I see a date listing for anything, be it a TV show, baseball player, presidential term or historical listing, a date listed as "1950- ", I take that to mean as 1950-present (continuously, not each successive year), with no tenure break for that specific event. In any soap-related book with cast lists that I can recall, tenure breaks are listed. That would be another reason to support doing it that way on Wikipedia. In regards to your Passions comment, that someone was on contract and not seen for years, that happened on Days too. Original cast member Frances Reid was too frail to perform on the show after 2007, yet she remained a part of the contract cast until her death in 2010. I think her Wiki listing ends at 2007, but she did remain on contract for 3 years after that. UPDATE: I just checked and Frances Reid's listing says 1965-2010, which is incorrect. She didn't appear after 2007. However, perhaps Wiki's rules include years someone is on contract, but not appearing. In any event, I'll leave that to other editors to decide whether to change her listing to 1965-2007. Jason47a (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There are no "rules" about contracts etc so I would think Frances should be done in 2007, as both the character and actress pages reflect. Again, this is an encyclopedia and I think it's notable when she appeared on the show, not when her contract ended. Besides, what proof do we have that she was on or off contract until 2010? If a specific mag article said, "They paid Reid her contract guarantee for 3 years until she died" then it's notable, but otherwise it's wishful thinking and editor POV. I see what you're saying about Rogers but, do people then assume that she was on every day/every episode in 1980 and other years? She had a long break but she did still appear in both calendar years. And is 12 months the cutoff? What is the big deal if the casual reader of the list doesn't realize she was gone for a while when the alternative is wondering if someone made a mistake because we broke up consecutive years? I've got an old hardcover soap opera encyclopedia and the only breaks are definitive years. Again, I'm not exactly disagreeing with you and I have no investment in how the Days list is presented, but I'm playing Devil's Advocate.— TAnthony^Talk 06:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of "contract cast", a lot of cast lists have adopted the titles of "Regular/Main cast" and then "Recurring cast", and I think that's a much better option than listing contract, since shows don't comment on contracts, likely due to legalities. I don't see the harm in listing it as a continuous run, especially if the cast member appeared every fiscal year on the series. if anything, we could include a footnote or something saying "Though 'X' has appeared every year in the role, they also had 'Y' departures from '123' and '456'. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Any one who does not appear for one calender year can have a gap in the duration years. Anyone who appears before the calender year is out will not require a break mentioning. They continued to appear each year. If Character X appeared in 10 episodes each year fromm 2000 to 2009 then the duration would be 2000-09. If the character left on 1 January 2000 and returned on 31 December 2001 the duration would still be 2000- because they appeared during the following calender year. It has nothing to do with contracts - they can be mentioned in the article. The field is for listing the years they appeared in the show in the most concise way as possible.Rain the 1 00:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

A little off-topic, but since it deals directly with the years actors have appeared on shows, and since editors here are always about following all the Wiki rules...I've always wondered this: How exactly are these years determined for shows. I don't see many (if any) sources for where all the dates come from on the Days page for example. The last soap opera encyclopedia (if those are allowed here on Wiki) was published like a good decade ago. So, although people can source dates/years from those older encyclopedias for the 1965-1999 stuff, what exactly is used as the sources for the years from say 2000-present. The above editor just commented if someone appeared January 1, 2000 and then didn't appear again until December 31, 2001, then it should be listed as 2000- , but where exactly would those sources for January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2001 appearances come from?? Since I've been told fan sites which keep track of actors' airdates aren't allowed to be used as sources, and a television show's credits aren't allowed to be used as sources, what sources are used for these dates?? And even if Soap Opera Digest lists a date in their "comings & goings" section, I don't see those Soap Opera Digest articles listed as sources for all the actors' years. So, if the cast list pages are so very poorly sourced, how are they allowed to remain on Wiki? As a non-Wiki expert, I've always meant to ask that, so I look forward to the responses. Jason47a (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Your instincts are exactly right: soap articles and lists are generally undersourced, but no one really challenges the facts. Well, people nominate articles for deletion and merging all the time, but that's not the same thing! Anyway, you're also right that there are few print sources for soap data, and most of the readily-available websites are fan sites or at least fan-updated, and so are unreliable. A few years back when I was editing soap articles more actively, I was making a big effort to use any kind of print articles I would come across that mentioned any soap info like that (check out Tina Lord) but it was tough. SoapOperaDigest.com has some stuff, there are sometimes Entertainment Weekly and TV Guide articles, but it's tough. And frankly the lists and articles get created and updated faster than anyone can really keep up with citations. And then there are what I call the fangirls, the more excitable fans who looove adding excessive random info and don't really think about notability and sourcing and anything like that. Back in 2010 the List of One Life to Live characters had 164 citations, most of which I added. This is the first time I've probably looked at it since, and now it has NONE. I'm not sure about the history on that, but somehow it wouldn't surprise me if they were stripped out by one of the fangirls who just don't understand what we're really doing here. Anyway, the sources are out there, but it's a daunting process.— TAnthony^Talk 04:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, TAnthony. Wikipedia has always been curious to me in that regard. As the "Days" unofficial historian, I've researched the entire history of Days for my website, including a day-by-day list of every character's appearance. Yet, as per Wiki rules, my site being a fan site is considered "unreliable." Yet, pretty much all those dates on the cast pages are listed without any sources at all. So, Wikipedia seems to allow having NO sources at all, as opposed to having fan sites as sources. It is certainly a mystery!! It's funny how we are having this discussion about whether or not to use "tenure breaks", when the main issue really is...where are all these dates coming from?? Barely any of them are sourced. With so many people concerned over using/not using tenure breaks, I'm surprised no one is concerned that the cast list pages are barely (if at all) sourced. Jason47a (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah WP is very serious about sources but it's hard to police, especially when you consider that there are thousands of soap-related articles but a dwindling readership for them in the general editor pool. I mean much of the lists and articles get tagged as having little or no sources but luckily most editors are willing to not nominate the basic lists and stuff for deletion in hopes that they will be improved. And let's face it, most people would see the Days list and know the list itself is notable, and even if it was incorrect in places it is not controversial information in any way to warrant slashing parts of it. And yes it's frustrating that your research falls short of usefulness here! I've seen people try to use screenshots to resolve edit wars over credits issues, and of course non-free images on talk pages (even briefly) is a no-no. But the sources are out there and 10% of a list being sourced is better than none.— TAnthony^Talk 06:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, TAnthony. I was alerted to Wikipedia's Days page a few years back when I noticed Wiki editors had posted all of the research I had done on the head writer airdates (they had taken all the info from my website and made a chart of the exact airdates on a Wiki page). When I asked that they give credit to my website, I was told my site was unreliable by Wiki standards and that I couldn't remove the info either. So, after thinking things over (since I was a Wiki newbie), I realized they couldn't have it both ways (both not giving credit to my site, but still keeping the dates up "unsourced"). So, after checking with other Wiki editors about the matter (that if unverifiable information is taken down from Wiki, to be added back, it must be sourced). Since my site is considered unreliable, I simply removed the airdates taken from my site and knew no one would be able to provide a source for those airdates to be able to re-add them, since that data exists nowhere else. I would have preferred the alternative, of course, to keep the dates up on Wiki, but had to take the other action instead. UPDATE: I hadn't checked the head writer page in awhile, and when I did just now, I saw an editor had added the removed info back again last year (without a source of course), so I'm glad I checked the page again. Can't believe it was way back in April 2008 when that originally happened...doesn't seem that long ago!! Anyway, thanks for your input today, and hopefully more editors will stop in over the next few days and voice their comments about the tenure breaks. Jason47a (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I echo what Raintheone said about the one calendar year. And as per Jason 47a's question, you're right it is hard to prove contract years. However, several users are also trying to expand the leads of the articles, and include sourcing within that. And it's partly why people are against having things listed as "Cast" and "Recurring", and we're trying to make a short-change to "Main" and "Recurring". We got soap character articles to become more notable, so it can be done with cast pages. And part of that change is this discussion. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I also agree witih what Raintheone said. Just wanted to note that. Also, in UK soaps at least, it's usually easy to get reliable sources for when a character is joining and leaving, even if it's a contracted break of three months. –anemoneprojectors– 15:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I very much agree with what Raintheone said. I personally think that's a perfectly fine rule to abide by, but that's just me. Creativity97 22:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Almost forgot, I came up with some potential wording for the guidelines:

• For appearance/duration dates in infoboxes, showing short lapses is deprecated. For example, it should be 1985-99, not 1985-95, 1995-99 (where there was a 6-month lapse in 1995) because the character/performer appeared within the calendar year. For character lists, short lapses are also deprecated, but lengthier spans may be acceptable if the explanation is notable and cited.

I think we need to set a guideline to keep out the most trivial clutter, but perhaps it's not a bad idea to leave a loophole to allow for the rare notable exception (like Jason47a's examples). — TAnthony^Talk 08:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TAnthony, I think that is a good compromise from both points of view (those against listing any tenure breaks, and those for listing all tenure breaks). I know some editors would like to keep small lengths of absences included, such as Renee Jones' brief absence in 2007 (where 2007 would be listed twice), but I agree with TAnthony that those could be combined and don't need the years noted like that in the cast list. For absences of around a year or so or longer, those should be left in the cast list, such as Suzanne Rogers (1973-1984, 1985-present). It would be much simpler to make a statement on each soap cast list page saying something along the lines of: "Any absences for around a year or longer are listed below in the cast lists", rather than the more cumbersome and cluttering footnotes for each specific reason why people were absent. An example of a "former" cast member would be Charles Shaughnessy (Shane). He appeared for a few episodes in May 2012, and then did not appear again until a few episodes in November 2013. Since his absence was over a year long, it would be best to list him as "2012, 2013," rather than "2012-13." Jason47a (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think a one-calendar year break is a good rule. But it should be one-calendar year from the time the character last appeared. I think that's more than a fair compromise on the situation. That was breaks not notably long enough won't create clutter, and those that are notable enough will be resembled. Do we all agree on this one? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not a calendar year, that's a year. It means you ignore the dates and just look at the year. 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2013 are less than one calendar year apart, as 2012 and 2013 are next to each other, but 31 December 2011 and 1 January 2013 have a calendar year between them (2012), as do 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2013. So if a character left during the first example, it would read (e.g.) 2005–, but in either of the last two examples, it would be (e.g.) 2005–11, 2013– –anemoneprojectors– 17:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh OK. Then I like that one even more! I am pro calendar year even more now! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't sure you knew that already but I was a bit confused by your last reply. The original example in the opening post was sugging that examples such as "1973–84, 1985-2003, 2004–" are changed to "1973–" because 1984 and 1985, and 2003 and 2004 don't have a whole calendar year between them (even though they could have left a show for more than 365 days). –anemoneprojectors– 17:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh it was you, haha! Now I'm even more confused. –anemoneprojectors– 17:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I got confused by looking at Jason47a's post above the original I posted, that's why. But I prefer the one-calendar year requirement and rul. It makes the most logical sense and most fancruft reducing as well. And it sounds like the majority are agreeing with it, as well. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I agree. It's what EastEnders editors agreed to a while back, so I definitely think it should be applied across the board. –anemoneprojectors– 17:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It'll definitely cut down on listings, especially those characters that make once-per year appearances on some series (a-la Felicia Forrester, who normally appears once per year on Christmas). livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to how the final decision was made. Who exactly "decides" what the consensus says above? There were several editors who wanted the tenure breaks to stay, and several who wanted them to go. On December 9, I posted a "compromise" idea that would take both tenure/no-tenure breaks into account. After that post on December 9, only two editors (Livelikemusic and Anemone) replied back and forth between each other. Can some of the other editors reply about my compromise idea? At what point is the debate closed and who decided what changes were to become official on the soap pages? There's an editor at the Days page who is saying the no-tenure break changes are already in effect. However, I never saw anything posted here about what would be decided. So, again, soap editors please take a few moments and review my December 9 post, which stated this: "Thanks TAnthony, I think that is a good compromise from both points of view (those against listing any tenure breaks, and those for listing all tenure breaks). I know some editors would like to keep small lengths of absences included, such as Renee Jones' brief absence in 2007 (where 2007 would be listed twice), but I agree with TAnthony that those could be combined and don't need the years noted like that in the cast list. For absences of around a year or so or longer, those should be left in the cast list, such as Suzanne Rogers (1973-1984, 1985-present). It would be much simpler to make a statement on each soap cast list page saying something along the lines of: "Any absences for around a year or longer are listed below in the cast lists", rather than the more cumbersome and cluttering footnotes for each specific reason why people were absent. An example of a "former" cast member would be Charles Shaughnessy (Shane). He appeared for a few episodes in May 2012, and then did not appear again until a few episodes in November 2013. Since his absence was over a year long, it would be best to list him as "2012, 2013," rather than "2012-13." Jason47a (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)" Jason47a (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, no such "decision" has been made, and my edits have been reverted. I will revert them back until a consensus has been reached, but it clearly has NOT been. Rm994 (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with Jason's compromise idea. Tenure breaks of a year or longer should be inserted. "Calendar year" January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2001 is too long. That's almost two years that a person could be gone and not be counted. Seems silly when sources can easily verify that people like James Reynolds and Suzanne Rogers were gone for at least a year. Rm994 (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You guys are really trying to make this about fancruft editing. And it isn't. One calendar year is not too long. Look at Felicia Forrester. She only appears once a year and it'd be foolish and really cluttering to list each and every single year. And I am also believing it to be a conflict of interest, especially on Jason's part. I think we need solid consensus on this issue, as it's tearing editors apart, especially those who are against change of any kind. The majority is leaning towards a one-calendar year break; only Jason and Rm seem to be the only two going against that. And TAnthony seems to be in the middle of it all (part one side, part another). livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 19:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I had never heard of the term "fancruft", so I went to the link you provided and one of the first things it says is: "While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and that the contributor's judgment of the topic's importance is clouded by fanaticism. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." I see no need for you to be uncivil towards myself or Rm994. In regards to Felicia Forrester and you calling her many years listed "foolish and cluttering"...isn't that your personal opinion? You seem to be implying that your opinion matters over other editor's opinions, which it does not. I listened to everyone's opinions on the matter above, and I changed my opinion from listing every single tenure break to a new opinion of the compromise idea, which TAnthony said sounded like a good idea. Your statement above made it seem like I was totally for listing all tenure breaks, but I came up with the compromise idea to incorporate all editors' opinions. Now you are also saying I have a conflict of interest, so could you please explain yourself? I follow the Wiki rules as it pertains to the Days Wiki page. Are you saying because I run a Days website that I am not allowed to be an editor on Wiki? I'd like to keep the Days page as accurate as possible. I would change Mark Collier to recurring, and spell his last name correctly as "Frazer" (and not, as you did, list him as on contract and with the incorrect Frasier as his last name), but I've hesitated to do that, since I believe if I make those changes, you would just revert the changes anyway. Might I be able to make the Collier/Frazer change on the Days page, or would you just revert it once I do so? Back on topic, I asked for more comments from editors on January 10, and so far have heard only from Rm994 and Livelikemusic. Other soap editors, please take a moment and share your thoughts on the subject. Thanks! Jason47a (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

OK I think we need to settle this already hahaha. Jason47a I don't think livelikemusic meant "fancruft" as an insult directed at you, it's a term we use a lot when talking about fictional topic articles because it's a constant obstacle. Also, try not to take these discussions personally, I feel like you may be jumping to conclusions in your above comment. Anyway, livelikemusic's comment spelled out the crux of the disagreement. For the record, I was trying to compromise, but simply put I have an issue with what I'll call "fussy" tenure breaks for one basic reason. The common Wikipedia reader who comes to a list (and is not a regular Soap Opera Digest reader) is going to confused by "1973–1984, 1985-2003, 2004" and think it's a mistake. That performer has obviously appeared on the series every year from 1973 to 2004. If there is situation where someone missed an entire year, like say 1985 in this example, then obviously make it "1973-1984, 1986-2004." Otherwise breaks are trivial in the context of a list. Period. There is no "standard" of how many months away is "too long" or "too short" to be notated, we are creating this trivial idea based on how casting is reported within soap media. The exact nature of a performer/character's comings and goings is notable in an individual character or performer page where it can be illustrated/explained properly, but on a standard list it so obviously creates confusion and clutter. That said, I don't know that we're going to be able to get an overwhelming consensus either way. I made the wording above a little vague thinking that editors on both "sides" could apply it as they interpret it and end most conflicts, but that would also require that editors do not revert instances that follow the spirit of our "rule" but may not be "perfect." For example, upon further reflection I don't think the Days list should have "Suzanne Rogers (1973-1984, 1985-present)" just because she was gone for 13 months or whatever it was. She appeared in both 1984 and 1985. HOWEVER, if there's a footnote that explains the unique nature of the gap, I think we can look the other way and leave it alone, knowing that there aren't going to be 30 other similar situations on the same list because we've come up with an arbitrary year-long span that is "OK." If we're ever going to agree we have to also agree to not fuss to much over the implementation. So do we just vote on a phrasing for the "rule"? — TAnthony^Talk 04:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think one-calendar year is still the way to go. If you appear every year from 1979 to 2004, like TAnthony said, it should be listed as 1979–2004. That just makes the most sense, unless let's say you left in 1991 and didn't return until 1993, then you'd be listed as 1979–91, 1993–2004, etc. I think footnotes to explain in cases such as Suzanne Rogers, to explain the gap, or if in another actor's case where they left in 2013 and came back in 2014, and had been on since let's say 1999, then it'd still be 1999– since they've been on consecutively since 1999. And be free into adding a footnote, or reference note staying "Actor left series in 2013, and returns X months later in 2014, however, appeared consecutively within one-calendar year in the role. I think that'd be the route to go. But we do need to come up with some kind on consensus on this subject. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I asked for more comments from soap editors on January 10, and other than the original 3 (myself, Rm994 and Livelikemusic) who started talking about this on the Days talk page, the only other person who has taken time to respond in the past month is TAnthony. So it seems that we are still at a stalemate. Rm994 and myself feel that absences of a year or more should be included in tenure breaks, while TAnthony and Livelikemusic feel that footnotes should be used in those rare instances when someone leaves in early 1984 and returns in late 1985 (thus more than a year's absence). As I did on January 10, I will ask for other editors to leave their input here, since the four of us who have spent the most time talking about this matter seem to be at a stalemate. So, other than me, Rm994, Livelikemusic and TAnthony, are there any other editors who'd like to comment on this matter? Jason47a (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Others have voiced their opinions on the matter. Most just don't see the point in dragging this discussion along once their points have been made. Others' opinions have been made on the options and what should be done. At this point, it's a dragged out conversation between two users (RM, yourself) who disagree with it, and myself and TAnthony who agree with it. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There were original comments yes, before the compromise idea was discussed on December 8/9, when TAnthony and I discussed the compromise/loophole idea, of doing the tenure breaks if they were more than a year long. Since December 8/9 when that was discussed and input from other editors were asked about the compromise idea, no one besides myself, you, Rm994, TAnthony or anemoneprojectors took the time to post their opinions. So, I've been waiting since December 8 for more editors' opinions, but it doesn't look like anyone else cares about this cast page matter. That's the consensus I was waiting for, until a final decision is made, but it's been 2 months now, and only 3 other editors have commented besides you and I. I'm not "dragging" anything out, I simply asked for editor's opinions on the compromise/loophole idea, since this page of Wiki was designed for editors to toss around their ideas/opinions, but there's been basically no movement on this page now for 2 months. Perhaps other editors don't know their input is being requested. Jason47a (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the bulk of contract breaks within a single calendar year should not be split out. The sticking point seems to be whether or not we can have exceptions. For the sake of compromise I'm OK with some, like perhaps Jason47a's early '84 to late '85 example, providing there are actual reliable sources for the departure and return dates (not just an editor's recollection) and a note as to why this break is notable. Livelikemusic, could you live with that? If so we can probably all vote on something like the guideline language I suggested earlier and be done with it ;) — TAnthony^Talk 01:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Four-paragraph leads -- a WP:RfC on the matter

Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section for the current guideline). As this will affect Wikipedia on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

List of fictional supercouples

More eyes are needed on the List of fictional supercouples article. There are IP editors, and registered editors from time to time, adding unsourced material (including material the sources don't support) and/or faking a couple addition by trading out one couple in place of another; 71.234.104.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) did that minutes ago. There are also poorly sourced additions (additions where the sources support the text, but are not WP:Reliable sources). I would revert and remove the messes, but I haven't edited that article since my brother (Halo Jerk1) began watching over it under his registered account to revert problematic edits to it (in fact, I had stopped editing it for quite a while before he decided to take it on as a registered editor); per this, the two of us generally should not edit the same articles. There is also this. He hasn't edited Wikipedia in months. Flyer22 (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Todd Manning article for possible WP:Featured article status

For those who were not pinged (via WP:Echo) at User talk:Figureskatingfan/Todd sandbox, there is an editor, Figureskatingfan, who is interested in taking the Todd Manning article from WP:Good article status to WP:Featured article status. The discussion started at the Todd Manning talk page and is now taking place at the aforementioned talk page of User:Figureskatingfan/Todd sandbox. The primary aspect addressed in this discussion are sources and what sources are acceptable for soap opera character articles. The discussion has been between me and Figureskatingfan so far, and could definitely benefit from other soap opera editors weighing in on the matter. Sourcing is also a very big deal for WP:Featured articles, significantly more so than it is for WP:Good articles. This is what the article currently looks like, and we will be moving from there. There are currently only two soap opera articles at WP:Featured article status, Pauline Fowler and Poppy Meadow; and if the Todd Manning article achieves that status, not only will it be the third, it will be the first WP:Featured American soap opera article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone, wanted to add that all input is welcome in improving this article. I also wanted to state that discussion has moved to Todd's talk page. I agree with Flyer; I think it would be awesome if this article was the first FA about an American soap character, and the more editors who assist us in reaching that goal, the better. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Portal

I have started the portal Portal:Soap operas and telenovelas, for this project. It is more or less in visible shape (there are no red linked sections), but the lists of selected content should be expanded, and the sections with "In the news" and "Did you know?" should be expandd with info from other countries, not just Argentina. I included telenovelas from my country because those are the ones I know, but that's something that should be fixed with the help of others from other countries.

But have in mind that the idea should be to include only selected content that has already been approved at project pages (I have included the featured articles and lists; there are 105 good articles yet to include), and "did you know?" entries which have already passed through the main "Did you know?" section. As for the colors, I simply used the same colors used at this wikiproject, for consistency. Cambalachero (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Na Bole Tum... Na Maine Kuch Kaha (season 2)

The article Na Bole Tum... Na Maine Kuch Kaha (season 2) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no third party sources, no indication subject meets WP:GNG and is anything other than run of the mill tv series

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair City rating

I think Fair City should be upgraded from Start class to B-class.Tails3333 (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Lee Baldwin

This article consists of only plot background. There is not enough real-world information about the topic. I'm planning to move it to Lee Baldwin (General Hospital) because of Lee Baldwin (ice hockey), but I'm uncertain about notability of this character. --George Ho (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless article can be expanded upon, I say redirect it to General Hospital characters. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 20:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Soap Operas at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Soap character infobox caption discussion

All editors on this project welcome to put in their two-cents, here. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Child actors and their inclusion in the infobox of a soap character

Stemming from the discussion at Talk:Theresa Donovan, there is some discussion on whether child actors should automatically be included in the information box of soap characters. Do you feel, as a collective project, that they should be allowed based on that fact they were cast alone, or that they shouldn't unless their role with the character was part of notability as a fictional character. Discuss! I.E.: Good Article Steffy Forrester omits the portrayal of child actors, given most-recognized portrayer Jacqueline MacInnes Wood and her over-whelming reception in her portrayal of Steffy. Same argument is being used for Theresa and her portrayer, Jen Lilley, as the role was never centrically used until Lilly's casting into the role. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think child actors should be included. They did portray the role, and if the character is notable enough for their own page, their portrayal has contributed to that. But, then again, most child actors are not given many story lines and the characters do not affect plot that much. With that being said, there are Young Artist Awards and other recognition that the actors could get for the role, making their portrayals also noteworthy. At the very least, there should be some indication that other actors have had the role, not just the current portrayer, even if that actor is the most recognizable. Including "and child actors" or something like that under the portrayer field would be enough. But it is simply incorrect to list one actor as the portrayer of a role that was played by many actors.Caringtype1 (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

As wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, I see absolutely no problem with the infoboxes being thorough, complete and accurate. I'm with @Caringtype1 on this, I feel all known portrayals of a character should be listed. Being thorough, complete and accurate certainly does no harm, it only does good. Cebr1979 (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm assuming this debate is specific to infoboxes as a means to declutter them, and that the infant actors etc. would still be noted in the body of the article? I agree that primarily non-speaking portrayers are not as notable as regular performers, but I don't know that you can justify omitting them from infoboxes based on notability. In the case of Kevin Buchanan, a character who was originally portrayed by many, many actors, the infobox covers the last 3 adults that played him and the 9 (!!) previous actors are noted within the article. I personally would have a couple more (adult) actors listed, but obviously 12 performers would be a bit ridiculous for an infobox.

To that end, I can see how the infobox for Theresa Donovan is a bit unwieldy having all of the kids listed, and none of them apparently had an actual storyline before the current portrayer. I'm not familiar with Steffy Forrester but if it is a similar situation then it makes sense that only the one adult portrayer is noted in the infobox. Still, In the case of a character that may have only been portrayed by one child or set of twins before a "notable" portrayal, there's probably no harm in noting the name(s) in the infobox. Like I said, I don't know that we can "enforce" this based on notability. — TAnthony^Talk 16:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, it's not just the infobox livelikemusic wants them omitted from. They're not currently mentioned in the body of the article and livelikemusic wants it to stay that way as well as having them removed from the infobox. In essence, livelikemusic wants them to not exist. Please see her comments on the Theresa Donovan talk page.Cebr1979 (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you're making assumptions, which you've been asked to stop! I am only discussing the infobox, which I mentioned in the title of this discussion. And once again, I am a HE not a SHE. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I definitely don't see why the infant actors need to be in the infobox; they usually are not considered to have portrayed the role. Including them there is clutter and sort of a pretense as to their impact on the role. Flyer22 (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Creativity97, Arre 9, Raintheone, Flyer22, and SoapFan12: Anymore consensus, or discussion on this? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that information about child actors or actors that have no notability in the role should be present in the "Casting" section but definitely should not be in the info-box. Especially in cases where there are a lot of child actors, it's just a lot of clutter. — Arre 21:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, unless their portrayal is notable in a real-world context of the character and its importance to the series, they shouldn't be included. Most child actors are not notable in a role, unless they portrayed the role for a multi-year arc, which most child actors don't do. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment of Fair City

I was wondering if someone could assess the Fair City article. Thanks. It needs some ref cleanup, but other than that, it looks fine to me. Tails3333 (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Are "storyline" sections needed?

I have recently been wondering just how important the "storyline" section is to the articles within this project. I raised my concern with User:JuneGloom07 and she brought up some good points. So I think it could be discussed here to determine if we need them anymore. I would say that they are not needed. My point was that articles should only contain notable and relevant information. Wikipedia discourages trivia sections and certain storylines are trivial. I would argue that removing the section would not detract from the article because if it was notable then it would be discussed in the "development" section. So each important and relevant story to the character is already included in the article - why go and repeat it in the storyline section?

I also view the section as being a hindrance to editing. Each day you have users and IP edits returning to the articles to devotedly update the plot as something new happens on-screen. The result is a large amount of plot detail that has to be condensed at a later stage. I think it would encourage those interested to contribute to the development section and drive forward sourcing and expanding Soap articles in the way the WP community has come to expect. They obviously want to help, but it is all to easy to just update a plot section that require no effort and no sourcing. What does everyone think?Rain the 1 11:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A Storyline section can be a good addition to a soap opera article, especially if it is done similarly to the way that the Character development and impact section of the Pauline Fowler article, a WP:Featured article, is done. Our Examples of quality articles section also shows some nicely designed Storyline sections, such as the short one in the Sharon Newman article. And the Nick and Sharon article has a section (with subsections) summarizing the storylines with sources and sourced analysis (similar to the Pauline Fowler article). In some cases, WP:Reliable sources won't cover important plot points, and that is where the Storyline section can fill in. Sure, one can state that if WP:Reliable sources don't cover it, then it's not worth mentioning. But editors of this WikiProject know that sourcing soap opera material, especially for American soap operas, is not as easy as sourcing the creation/development and storyline details of primetime television characters and/or film characters. Daytime soap operas usually have far more episodes than the primetime television genre, and news sources usually are not interested in documenting those details or recounting all of them. And I don't view these details as necessarily trivial. So, even though Storyline sections can be a pain for soap opera articles, for the reasons that you mention, I vote against getting rid of the Storyline section for soap opera articles; we can instead treat whether or not to have one on a case-by-case basis. Flyer22 (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on - we bridged the UK/US gap in this project a long time ago. I would argue that many of have proven that US soap operas are well documented in sources. Newspapers, books, websites and worldwide magazines cover their storylines. Australian magazines focus on US soap operas more than their own. Those who have access to HighBeam would have been surprised by the amount of news articles it stores and does cover US soaps more than UK ones. I have used it in the past when I have rescued a couple of articles for fun. If no sources cover a storyline then how can it be that important to the character. If so it can be worked into the development section and cited to an episode guide. But surely all important information would have some mention out there. It would be mentioned in an interview with the actor if it were important. I think a case-by-case basis works well too though.Rain the 1 13:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "we bridged the UK/US gap in this project a long time ago." In 2011, you were at my talk page seemingly agreeing that it is a lot easier, or simply easier, to source United Kingdom soap opera material than United States soap opera material with good-quality sources (meaning not just Soap Opera Digest type sources). I have not seen a change in that factor between the soap opera mediums. And on the storyline point, there are many films that don't have their storylines documented play-by-play in WP:Reliable sources; a lot of WP:Reliable sources leave out a decent summary that is required by WP:FILMPLOT (meaning text that is more than just a premise), which is why readers might find material in a plot summary for a film article at Wikipedia that they won't find at any other site. The fact that only Wikipedia has included that material does not make it trivial. I see that matter as similar to Wikipedia documenting soap opera plots, except that, again, daytime soap opera plots are usually going to have a lot more to cover because there are usually so many more daytime soap opera episodes than primetime drama episodes. But whatever the case regarding what I've stated in this paragraph, I already offered my opinion on the matter above. Others are of course free to agree or disagree with that, or this post. Flyer22 (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

My views changed since 2011. I did used to think that. But we bridged the gap - US editors have come up with some fine work since then. Fully sourced articles for the win.Rain the 1 15:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Examples? I only know of a few Wikipedia soap opera editors who edit soap opera articles like that; some are named in that aforementioned discussion from my talk page. The major movement I've seen regarding Wikipedia United States soap opera articles are The Young and the Restless soap opera articles, which is why I pointed to the Sharon Newman and Nick and Sharon articles above. The other significant ones are General Hospital character articles like the Sonny Corinthos article. Largely, everything else regarding United States Wikipedia soap opera articles, with the exception of articles such as the One Life to Live Starr Manning article, is pretty much the same as it was back in 2011, 2012 and/or 2013. Flyer22 (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Sonny Corinthos's storyline section is exactly my point. That storyline section is massive. Like woah!Rain the 1 15:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Compare how that article looked back in 2011, to what it is now. It has improved significantly. As for the Storyline section, there's a lot to cover about Sonny. I consider that Storyline section similar to the WP:Featured article Jason Voorhees's Appearances section, except that (unlike the Jason Voorhees Appearances section) it could do with more trimming. Another significantly improved General Hospital Wikipedia article is Jason Morgan (General Hospital); I don't consider that Storylines section massive; it's a section that is divided into short subsections that summarize the character's years on the series. Flyer22 (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that many many soap character articles have bloated story sections and the daily fan/IP updates can be very annoying. But that happens in any area of particular fan interest. And the concept of actually "outlawing" storyline sections seems a little unrealistic and overkill. And every fictional character article, soap-related or not, relies in some degree on a plot summary. Obviously if there are articles that adequately cover story in other sections the way Ranitheone describes, that's great and we shouldn't add a "Storylines" section just for the sake of having one. A lack thereof probably would discourage trivial edits. But I think most articles aren't at that level, and most will never be, haha. That said, we probably need to do a better job keeping plot sections trim and tight. It's hard with long running characters but a lot of the stories and details we as fans may think are interesting are not as encyclopedic as we might like.— TAnthony^Talk 20:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree TAnthony. There has to be a balance and thought put into asking whether the section is needed. Perhaps it is too brutal to try and decide here. I think Ken Barlow, a 54 year old character is a good example of the balance. His storyline section isn't that bad because all important information is sourced in his development sections.Rain the 1 21:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it all depends on how well written the storyline section is written; I believe it is needed, but if it's found it should be removed, then I wouldn't object. Sometimes it's a feeding ground for fancruft editing to include details overly or that don't pertain to a certain character exclusively. Storyline sections have definitely become much more managed on U.S. soap articles in the past few years. But some do need clean-up and can be overly detailed. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Soap Operas articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 06:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The aforementioned category has been moved to Category:Soap opera articles needing expert attention per proper WP naming standards.— TAnthony^Talk 15:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Should martial names be included in opening paragraph?

In question, should marital names be included in the opening paragraph, especially if it differs from the character's commonname (a.k.a. the title of the page)? It's borderline fan-cruft editing and can cause a storm of edit-warring, especially when some characters — especially in United States soaps — are known for multiple marriages (ex. Nikki Newman, Erica Kane, Victoria Lord). It would be simpler and easier to just mention their commonname in the opening paragraph, which would also become their name in captions (which due to married names can also lead to edit-wars over fan-cruft beliefs). livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: I brought up this topic at WP:TVMOS earlier this year: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 3#Married names in the lead of fictional character articles. There, I listed valid reasons why including the married names in the lead can be problematic; do see what I stated there. At that time, livelikemusic did not seem completely on board with what I was stating; by that, I mean that livelikemusic stated that the married names should not be included, but then stated that they should be included in the lead. I was confused by what livelikemusic was stating because the statement seemed to be a contradiction. livelikemusic did not clarify. I didn't get around to proposing specific wording for the WP:TVMOS, but I still intend to; any chance of enforcing such a matter has to start there since that, unlike WP:SOAPS, is a guideline page. Flyer22 (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22: I apologise for not explaining then; I had mis-typed what I said. Ultimately, I believe it should not be included on the opening lead, because of the statements I made up above concerning commonname and fan-cruft editing. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologize, livelikemusic. And no need to ping me since I have this talk page WP:Watchlisted. Regarding married names, I noted in the previous discussion that I think that a married name should only be included in the lead if it is the WP:Common name. Either that, or a significant WP:Alternative name. Flyer22 (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Okie dokie, and I agree. Especially in cases such as Sharon Newman and Nikki Newman, whose commonname happens to be their married name, but not the name they were introduced with, etc. U.S. soap characters are notorious for their marriages, and names can become a battle. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Characters with names different from their birth names

Should a character's birth name be included in the opening paragraph? For example, characters like Victor Newman, Tyler Michaelson, Hilary Curtis and Ronan Malloy all have different names from the names they were born with. I think it looks a bit odd to emphasize the birth name in the opening paragraph especially when the character isn't really known by that name. For situations like that, I prefer that birth names be included in the "alias" parameter of the soap character infobox, but a birth name doesn't necessarily apply as an alias/pseudonym. Editors, myself included often get into editing wars adding the birth name to the opening paragraph, with others removing it and putting the name in the alias parameter. I've also thought about suggesting a birth name parameter for the infobox because a person can only have ONE specific birth name, but I'm not really sure how to handle this, so I'm asking for suggestions and feedback. --Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 20:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This kind of fits into the discussion I opened above. It should be noted, a birth name or marital name should never be listed in the "Alias" parameter, since a martial name or birth name is not an alias; but most names, in the fictional world, are not permanent. They change from time to time, especially given how often soap characters are known to re-marry. And same with the discussion I opened above, the common name should be the only name listed in the opening paragraph to avoid fancruft editing and edit-warring. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Graduados

There is a current FAC for the Argentine telenovela Graduados at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Graduados/archive1. Reviews would be welcomed. Cambalachero (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Two discussions concerning soap articles

There are two discussions currently at the talk page for the {{Infobox soap character}} template. Please refer here and here to involve yourself in said discussions. All opinions are welcomed to be voiced! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 19:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Departures for maternity leave

I've noticed that when an actress goes on maternity leave, the character classification stays as "present regular". However, when an actress goes on maternity leave the character would need to leave, albeit temporarily. Wouldn't it be better (and more accurate) then to change the character classification to "former regular (returning)" and update the relevant soap pages to show the same?--5 albert square (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

When an actress goes on maternity leave, they are still employed. They aren't physically at work but, they are technically still present.Cebr1979 (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Are people actually updating the "status" of characters in this manner? Cebr1979 is correct that maternity leave is like a vacation in that it does not change contract status. An actor could also be on contract and be paid but not appear in a series for a period of time due to the writing. And as far as I'm concerned, a character/performer is either on contract, recurring or no longer employed on a series. Any status should only be updated if one of those situations changes. I think the need to keep articles stable outweighs the need for short-term updates that will ultimately be reversed when the leave of absence is over. That said, an extended absence may be notable and, if sourced, may be added in prose to the article.— TAnthony^Talk 14:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

See case by case. In some cases, the actress may take a small break and then return. In other cases, the actress may prefer to simply resign for the time being and raise her child, and return to television at some undefined point in the future (and so, her character should either be gone for good, or given to some new actress) Cambalachero (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess the character's duration could be changed to reflect the character was off-screen for a certain amount of time but, the actress' tenure shouldn't be altered.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – An actress' departure, on a maternity leave, is usually a temporary instance. The show does not revoke their contractual status (if they are under contract), and the character is merely written out temporarily with the intent of returning. Legally, a series cannot fire a pregnant actress. Unless said-actress in question states she's leaving the show on a permanent basis of time, then the character's duration and actress' (if its applicable as its own data) should not be altered. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The character's duration has nothing to do with legalities, though. That's 100% whether the character was on-screen or not. In the case of Krista Allen on Days, she pre-taped all her scenes before going on mat leave so Billie's duration would stay consecutive. In the case of someone like Kristian Alfonso, Hope left Salem for a time when the actress was on leave, so Hope's duration should reflect that (even though Kristian's tenure wouldn't be changed).Cebr1979 (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The character is still current, regular because they are still part of the show. They plan an exit, they plan a return. The actress remains contracted to the show and the character remains part of the show and the productions plans. Only change the duration should the character be absent for more than one calender year.Rain the 1 22:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

^^Doesn't that completely negate everything done recently to Cassie Newman's duration then?Cebr1979 (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not a viewer of that show. Explain the background and circumstances around this particular case of character and I can offer my opinion.Rain the 1 00:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It's all there in the page's edit history. I've gone and fixed it as per your direction.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You did the correct thing. If a character appears each calender year, it should not be changed and gaps added. I have this problem with Amy Barnes. The character was a regular on the show from 05-12 ... but has appeared each year since. So it is 2005-14. If she appears this year she will not have broken the calender year rule and it will be 2005-15 etc.Rain the 1 00:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant Characters

The following Y&R characters are so insignificant, they do not require their own pages and should be merged into whatever "characters" page fits based on their debut year:

• Scott Grainger, Jr.
• Diego Guittierez
• Cassandra Rawlins
• Sam Gibson
• Angelina Veneziano

I was surprised to find any of them even had their own pages to begin with.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If enough information/sources can be found for characters who were regulars during their time, there is no reason why they can't have articles. You are making up your own rules as to what constitutes as "irrelevant". These lengthy character pages (especially the decade ones) are annoying enough to navigate as it is, so if there are articles that have enough sources, they should not be merged. It has already been agreed upon that the Angelina article remain, so why you choose to target that again, whatever. I think we should focus more working on and adding content to stubs and neglected articles, not merging those articles that do have sources just because you personally find them "insignificant". — Arre 15:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I do agree that neglected articles do require attention (and I have begun that very thing over the past few weeks) but, I do have to ask, Arre9: for someone who doesn't believe that an actor who appeared for only one year should even have a photo, why should a character who didn't even make it to a year have not only a photo but... a whole page attached to it? I know you created the Angelina page (and did a fantastic job of it, I will add) however, when the word "notability" is brought up by you in every other conversation, I have a hard time justifying a whole page devoted to characters who never went anywhere. Sources and a good layout do not notability make.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Because we don't use non-free images on list-type articles. It was clarified when we started splitting content into these character list-type articles a few years ago.It is unnecessary to have lengthy sections in these articles, when it could just be a separate article. Especially when there is more than enough content/sources. We need to work on or merge stubs and neglected articles not fairly-sized well sourced articles. And technically all characters go "no where" or die. Recurring characters who really don't have their own storylines nor are involved with major characters, that's insignificant. But when there are characters who have been on for around 6 months or more, were regulars in that time frame/involved with major characters, and there is enough content for there to be a full article? There is no issue with that. Our attention should be diverted to articles that need restoring or to be merged like the first and third. — Arre 00:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

So... since Angelina Veneziano never lasted even 6 months... I guess we agree her page should be taken down then? Cebr1979 (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

So we're ignoring notability from now on. I completely understand!Cebr1979 (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There are numerous articles on Wikipedia (not just Y&R related) that have been created for soap characters who have not been on very long, and they have been up for years with no issues arising. So no, we're not doing anything "from now on". — Arre 00:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You're also the one that constantly says one page's faults are not excuses for keeping other mistakes around. You're going around in circles to the point that I'm dizzy. I'll drop this... for now. I look forward to our next conversation, I'm sure it'll be a good one.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)