User talk:TAnthony/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Newsletters 2006–2009

Archived WikiProject Newletters 2006–2009

Galaxy too small?

Hi. Re the BJ page "universe" vs. "galaxy" thang: Why do you say "galaxy is too small"? This is true later of Leto II's empire ("my multigalactic empire") and anything after the Scattering, but at the time of the Jihad? Do you have a quote you base this on? (Just wondering if I've missed something!) --SandChigger 19:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Butlerian Jihad article, I know that technically a galaxy can contain many star systems or whatever, but I think the word connotes a smaller scale (maybe because own galaxy is a single-star system). Obviously FH never specifies exactly how far apart his planets are and all that, but if they were relatively close, heighliner travel wouldn't be such a big issue! And FH never used the word galaxy (except in your Leto quote); maybe we should use "multigalactic" in the article. TAnthony 20:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...this is turning out to be interesting. You kinda threw me with galaxy "connot[ing] a smaller scale (maybe because own galaxy is a single-star system)." Are you referring to the Milky Way? I'm not getting your meaning. (Of course, I've been up all night and may no longer be rational!) Could you explain?

It's true that FH didn't specify distances, but he did locate some of his planets around known stars, FWIW. (Note that our estimates of the distances to some of these—the best example being Canopus itself!—have changed significantly since he wrote Dune.) A lot of people have commented on how small the area the Old Empire seems to occupy really is when you "connect the dots". But even for a space of only a few hundred light years, heighliner travel IS a big deal. While FH never specifically rules out FTL travel, he never specifically admits it, either. (I personally believe he eschewed "vroom-vroom"—as I prefer to call space-opera FTL like we see in the Legends—and therefore had to come up with space-folding to avoid the story-killing snail's pace of generation ships. Another reason, incidentally, why I think B&K erred in placing Holtzman in the Jihad era; if later Ixian navigational devices can replace navigators, pre-Jihad AIs would have been just as capable of the task. And at least a millennia or two of non-subluminal transportation would have been necessary to create the cosmopolitan galactic culture we see in the Legends. AI controlled space-folding ships are more "Dune-like" than vroom-vroom [internally consistent], and their destruction during the Jihad would have been a strong stimulus for the development of the Guild navigators.)

Finally, FH did use the word galaxy. Three times, in fact: once in Dune and twice in Heretics:

"It's a penal colony," the Baron said. "The worst riff-raff in the galaxy are sent to Salusa Secundus. What else do we need to know?"

Miles Teg knew his history well by then. Guild Navigators no longer were the only ones who could thread a ship through the folds of space—in this galaxy one instant, in a faraway galaxy the very next heartbeat.

(Galactic appears only in the combined form multigalactic that I mentioned before, in GEoD:

This planet of Arrakis from which I direct my multigalactic Empire is no longer what it was in the days when it was known as Dune. )

Not trying to be a pain...just exact. --SandChigger 23:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL, you present your case like I would: dumping a pile of bricks on the opposition! You are so right, I was thinking solar system, not galaxy; I guess I shouldn't make edits at 2 am with a couple of drinks in me!

Obviously, I did see those uses of galaxy but I guess I meant that he didn't ever imply that his whole host of planets was in a single galaxy (at least, I wasn't interpreting it that way), e.g. "in this galaxy one instant, in a faraway galaxy the very next heartbeat." TAnthony 00:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL...I figured it must have been something like that. (Hangover not too bad, if any, I hope.) Btw, any thoughts on the Landsraad point I brought up? (Also...does the name even occur in the Legends books? Some parts of my BoC file are a bit suss at best!) --SandChigger 05:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Landsraad

From Talk:Butlerian Jihad

The Landsraad, by OLD Canon, predates the post-Jihad religious riots by 2,000 years. Please see my comment here. --SandChigger 05:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who recently pulled (what I thought was) the DE material into its own section, and on the top of the Landsraad talk page, I admitted that some info could potentially need to be moved out of that section when sources were found (I don't know EVERYTHING, LOL). You should definitely work the 2000-year item back in somewhere; I'll check back when I have some time and do it myself if you're not able (stealing your quotes, of course!)

I only have text files up to Dune: Butlerian Jihad, but it's probably worth flipping through the end chapters of Battle of Corrin to see if Landsraad is actually used in some way, or if we're just making the logical assumption that the League led to it? It's interesting how we read an article with questionable facts, and then edit another article with those "facts" in our heads as if they're lifted from the books! Hmmm, obviously the Prelude series came first, but could they have alluded to the League origins of the Landsraad there? TAnthony 05:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

10,000 years

OK, what is wrong with me?! Regarding the Butlerian Jihad article, I'm the one that put in the Jihad definition from Dune which clearly includes the dates. Maybe I should give myself a vacation, ;) 06:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

ACK! If you go on vacation, there'll be no activity on the Dune pages at all!!!

Well, OK, probably not but still...don't sweat it. We all have off days! As the locals in these parts say, "Even the monkey falls from the tree." :) --SandChigger 06:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Monkeys?!

Where is it you live exactly? I'm in Los Angeles ... by the way, the more I look at the FH books vs. the prequels and Hunters, the more I see ways in which the boys (BH/KJA) went wrong. Have you been slipping something into my drinks? ;) TAnthony 16:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Where am I? Well...someplace with monkeys, obviously! :)

As the proverb says, 猿でも木から落ちる (Sometimes even a monkey falls from the trees). Here one monkey checks a comrade who has slipped for wounds...and tasty critter morsels!

I really wouldn't know anything about anyone slipping something into your drinks. (BWA-HA-HA-HA!!!)

"Went wrong" is of course a very subjective thing. I don't hate or revile them, I'm just very sad because I think they could have done so much better. Ah well, maybe in a parallel universe? --SandChigger 18:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Religions (Dune)

I take that link edit/redirect as a vote for, then. :)

(I've been watching and waiting, sounding the waters; will steam ahead now. ... No, I don't know why the nautical theme, either.) --SandChigger 00:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dynasty middle names

Please stop re-adding these non-canon middle names; please see the following: Talk:Dynasty (TV series)#Removal of apocryphal character names for as explanation why they are inappropriate. TAnthony 01:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting my additions?

The "questionable" names come from three different sources: 1) the series; 2) The Authorized Biography of the Carringtons by Esther Shapiro; and 3) Judith Moose, author of Glamour, Greed & Glory - Dynasty. To quote her:

"This is information I got from Spelling Entertainment (about ten years ago) while working on a research project.

Blake Alexander Carrington

Alexis Marissa Morrell Carrington Colby Dexter Rowan

Fallon Marissa Carrington Colby

Amanda Kimberly Carrington

Claudia's middle name is Mary"

You might try watching the series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jboy2525 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Watch the series?! You just stated on my talk page that these names are from a companion book and another author. As noted on the Talk page for the article, if these names were NOT ACTUALLY USED ON THE SHOW, they should not be listed in the character section. However, if you reference/quote these books, they may be included in the Behind the Scenes section. I have the Unauthorized Biography at home somewhere, I'd be happy to add the information the proper way for you if I can source it. TAnthony 01:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added information on both books to the article, and mentioned the middle names in the only way which is appropriate — Moose may be entirely correct, but without documentation we have only her word, and that its not enough for Wikipedia standards. The middles names in question are not mentioned in The Authorized Biography (which, by the way, is not written by Shapiro, only has an intro by her). Thanks for your understanding. TAnthony 03:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Renaming Image

Thanks for renaming and then restoring the image for the Fremen article. I didn't know how to do it so I simply removed it instead. For future reference, how did you do that? Thanks. Comatose51 22:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No problemo, I had noticed the filename in the past and chose to ignore it! I did it the only way I know how... I saved the image to my PC, re-uploaded under a new name and linked the new file to the appropriate article(s). Then I tagged the old image for speedy deletion on the basis that it's redundant (using this template: {{db-redundantimage|replacement image name.ext}} and referencing the new filename). You just have to be sure the file to be deleted isn't linked to any articles or the Admin will get confused/kick it back. (I might have actually used a generic db template in this case, and also mentioned that the file was inappropriately named). TAnthony 00:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Family Houses in Dune

Hi TAnthony:
I think the List of Family Houses in Dune article needs to have a better summary, and make it understood that the list contains only houses specifically mentioned. Non-Dune fans that come to this list would get the impression that the number of houses is rather low. In my opinion, this is a disservice to them. Do you have any suggestions to improve the wording to make it implicitly clear that the list is non-exhaustive? Zidel333 15:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey there; since the article is a list of Houses mentioned in the series, I thought the fact that there are many more unnamed ones is immaterial. But there really should be a Landsraad link somewhere on the page anyway, so I added something back in. What do you think? TAnthony 16:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Your addition to the article is perfect. Thank you for your help on clarifying this. Zidel333 02:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies

"Hi, I saw your edits to Tales of the City, and I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies - we're a group of editors who are working together to improve LGBT-related articles. Would you be interested?"Zigzig20s 21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, I've joined up! TAnthony 22:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure.Zigzig20s 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you have joined WP:LGBT but are also into Dune - will you be improving the Baron's article anytime soon? :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Just wanted to drop you a friendly line about disambiguation pages. As per the style guideline for disambiguation pages, only the words being disambiguated get wikilinked, rather than the normal practice of linking all interesting terms. As such, I reverted the non-Oil links you added to the Oil (disambiguation) disambiguation page. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or issues. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Fireplace 17:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject King Arthur

Hey! Just noticed your interest in King Arthur and wanted to invite you to join WikiProject King Arthur. Just add your name to the list of members in order to join. Basically, we are just grouping together to improve and organize wikiarticles about King Arthur. Wrad 20:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Merged pop culture for Gorgons/Medusa

Thanks for doing this... I hadn't gotten around to it yet. DreamGuy 21:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Coordinator

Would you be interested in standing as a Deputy Coordinator for WP:LGBT? From what I have seen on the talkpage you seem suited to the role. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can't say I'm terribly impressed by Satyr's decision to go offline for the entire duration of the election. I'll send out a thing myself on AWB tonight - I just didn't want to message 182 members if I didn't have to. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The deadline for nominations has been extended until May 5 so more people have a chance to stand, I would encourage you to go for it. WjBscribe 19:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bands and WPBio

For your information, bands are in scope of the WikiProject Biography. Errabee 11:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

No big deal but you might want to read this section of the redirect guidelines. IvoShandor 20:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Todd Manning

Some keeps doing damage to the Todd Manning article with Evangeline although I thought it was resolved--Migospia 22:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The Devil Wears Prada as LGBT film

I saw you added the project tag to the talk page. I don't mind as the article maintainer, but it seems an iffy connection given the discussion near the end of the article. Another user did this last month and, after discussing it (her end), she decided just to cat it as LGBT-related (after reviewing this discussion) and leave it at that.

Just letting you know in case you might inadvertently be going against a consensus here. The more editors who might be working on this the better (once I split off the production history section, I'll be nominating it for GA, and hopefully FA eventually), but if it's tangential to a project's scope it shouldn't be on the worklist. Daniel Case 23:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I was just doing some menial tagging for the Project from an automated list of LGBT articles without the Project tag. As far as I know, if it's tagged LGBT in some way it should be part of the Project. But as there seems to have been some discussion about this particular article, I'm going to bring it up on the Project Talk page. Feel free to remove the tag if you wish, it can always be re-added or removed once any discussion conclude. thanks again. TAnthony 00:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'll put the tag in with the other project banners for now and watch how the discussion turns out; in the meantime I'll put it with the other project tags in the meantime. Daniel Case 00:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Kray twins

Hi - I hope this finds you well! I have removed the LGBT category from the article on the Kray twins, but happy for it to be part of the LGBT project. Here's the logic - Ron was Gay/Bisexual, but Reggie was straight - so tagging Reggie as LGBT is factually incorrect. Having placed the correct date of birth/death tags on each blank feeder (Ronnie Kray and Reggie Kray), plus the LGBT tag on Ronnie's feeding page, the three pages that make up the Krays (the two blank feeding pages on Ron/Reg which just contain categories) and this article are now correctly categorised. Hope you understand, have also placed a piece on the article TalkPage. Rgds, - Trident13 09:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, but the article covers both people, so untagging it is as inaccurate as tagging it. AND, the article I referenced (and you removed) quotes Reg's gay lover from prison, so ... anyway, I'm no Kray expert, so I'll leave it. However, you can't have categories on redirects (I removed them from Reginald Kray and Ronald Kray yesterday). You can certainly put them back but someone else will probably remove them at some point without you noticing. I'm readding them to this article until you can find a solution. I understand that two separate articles is probably a waste. TAnthony 14:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I left a message on Talk:Kray twins regarding tha fact that you can't have categories on redirect pages; however, I just thought of an easy solution. You should make each twin's page a short stub, with all the approprate categories, guiding readers to the main article. Like:

Main article: Kray twins

Ronald Kray (24 October 1933 – 17 March 1995) was one of the Kray twins, the foremost organised crime leaders in London's Eastend during the 1950s and 60s. Ronald — commonly referred to as Ron or Ronnie — was bisexual, suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and had the more dominant personality of the two.

I can help you out or clean them up if you wish; also, there needs to be a source referenced regarding Ron's sexuality, or somebody from my WikiProject may remove the category! LOL. TAnthony 14:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Mummy

Just curious why you think The Mummy (novel) is LGBT literature? If I recall correctly, there's not that much of a gay-related theme to it? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I was tagging some Anne Rice novels at the time; Henry in Mummy is gay but at the time there was no Category:Literature with LGBT characters. I'm of the mind that any LGBT content should be somehow noted for navigation/organizational purposes. But obviously the book doesn't need to be part of the Project, I made the fixes.

By the way, I didn't move any items into the Verification section of the Cat Search page because I assumed the bot would do it based on the tags, and that they would also come up on the Project's To Do list. If that's not the case, please let me know, I'd hate to be creating more work for ya. TAnthony 14:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, why isn't the To Do List bot picking up the items in your Category:LGBT articles with unsourced categories? Doing so may widen the pool of people pitching in. I know these are probably higher priority items, so if you're worried about them getting lost in the Verification section you can split them out in their own section. Just an idea. ;) TAnthony 16:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea - don't know when I'll add that code, but that seems like a good thing to add.

A couple minor points: a) The bot only runs once a week on this task, so I didn't have it looking for articles to re-verify. b) I noticed you're using the generic {{unsourced}} (though I had no idea you could add the reason like that). I created the template {{Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Category unsourced}} mostly because I wanted the unsourced statement to also put the article in Category:LGBT articles with unsourced categories - the generic one just puts it in Category:All articles lacking sources. Not a big deal. c) Thanks for chomping through the list! It just grows every week, but it's good to get it so small! Thanks! And why didn't you sign up to be a coordinator? You wield a mop well! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I started using the {{unsourced}} template before I realized you'd created one; I like it because it obviously makes the articles come up in the To Do list, but it doesn't add the Category:LGBT articles with unsourced categories, which would be nice. You can totally change or add to the reason as long as the first word is "section" or "article" since that's how it's designed; I've been meaning to see about adding "category" but there may be a reason someone hasn't already.

By the way, I'm not lazy about classifying articles I tag, I just don't trust my judgment if an article isn't an obvious stub (though I'll sometimes rate Starts). And I think I might have tagged a few unsourced articles with the banner because the subjects were dead; didn't think they'd mind, LOL.

I thought about being a coordinator but I really never know when and if I'll have time to do anything; if at least three decent-sounding people hadn't submitted themselves, I would have. TAnthony 18:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I just realized that the To Do List bot is of course only pulling in items already tagged into the project, which the unsourced articles shouldn't necessarily be — so my using the generic template is useless, the bulk of items won't come up on the To Do list after all. So I'll start using your template for people whose sexuality needs sourcing, since that'll separate them out for people in the Project who may actually do the work! TAnthony 20:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That's kewl. Though unsourced people have their own list: Wikipedia:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/To be sorted. That list was generated once and probably won't be again (well, maybe). So maybe we need a better way to figure out a) which LGBT articles are people, and b) which LGBT people are unsourced. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot will do it right next time... Promise :)

I've updated the bot so it's not "Pease"-ing :) And the NPOV issue with Transgender probably should be put on the WT:LGBT page, since the bot won't include that when it runs again. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the bot takes the "requested articles" directly from Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences and philosophy. So rather than adding them back in after each daily update, you could add them to WP:RA once and be done :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, but that "main" article has decriptive bits and article links that don't come through with the bot; I won't add them all the time, but thought it might help/encourage people to start the articles. TAnthony 16:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Bit of help needed

Hi, how you doing? I noticed you have sorted out the Kray twins after some debate - thought I was right on the cats on the feeder articles: nice job! I need a bit of guidance. I wrote an stub article on Nigel Wrench, a radio presenter of a leading LGBT news show in the UK, who has been accused of gay rape. I have put bio and LGBT project tags on the article, but couldn't find an article or section on gay rape. There is a highly suspicious article (looks more like original research) on Male rape research (the title kinda gives it away!), but nothing on gay rape. Is there an article/section I could link to? Thank You! Best Regards, --Trident13 08:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Cats on redirect pages

Hey, I see you've been removing LGBT categories on redirects. I have done this myself because I always thought redirects shouldn't have categories, until I recently read Wikipedia:Redirect#Categories for redirect pages. It does allow for categories if they are not creating redundant listings. As a matter of fact, this has been specifically accommodated by having redirects appear italicized in the target categories. It seems to me that it is important to have Ronald Kray listed in an LGBT category, but his main article is a combined one with his twin, who is not gay (so categorizing that article and thus both brothers as LGBT would be incorrect). As a matter of fact, this exact article is what got me to research this in the first place. This also applies to the Dynasty supporting characters Ted Dinard, Luke Fuller and Bart Fallmont, who are all part of one "minor characters" article (and don't require their own articles) but I feel should be listed under Category:Fictional gay men. What do you think? TAnthony 15:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like cats on redirect pages. If the subject doesn't warrant an article all by themselves, then why should they be in a cat? For instance, if Ronald doesn't have his own page, then why do we want him in the "Bisexual people" category? The article on the twins could go in "LGBT history" or something like that, though.

And the same with the Dynasty characters - if they don't warrant their own page, why do we want them in the cats?

Part of my dislike of cats on redirects is strictly from an order-vs-chaos thing. Redirects aren't pages - they simply point to pages. Categorizing them gives them some sort of fuzzy standing as "almost-page", which just seems wrong. Silly of me, but you asked :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, and it's certainly not worth arguing about! But I think these articles are consolidated to be more efficient — separating the Kray twins would create two very similar articles and the Dynasty guys would be stubs — and you're omitting them from an applicable category on a technicality. Of course, I use categories to find articles, and for me personally it would be helpful to have these items there; I know some people have different ideas about what a category should be used for. Redirects are often for alternate/duplicate names/terms (like J.Lo redirecting to Jennifer Lopez), but that is not really the case here. And I know at least one user objects to the Kray twins article being classified as LGBT in its entirety because that's what got me into this, LOL. In any case, I'm not going to press the issue, but I'm wondering if you see the exception; I think these particular items are notable enough to be categorized LGBT. I don't necessarily agree that to be considered LGBT, and article/reference has to be a certain size or someone/something has to be a certain amount gay. TAnthony 19:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My main issue isn't a technicality - it's notability. If the Dallas characters aren't notable enough to have an article, why have them in the cat?

The Kray twins are a different matter - Ron isn't notable by himself. And if the other editor disagrees with the LGBT banner (or cat), he hasn't seen the movie - talk about homoeroticism! I think that article (not the redirect) could legitimately be put in an LGBT cat - and have our banner. Maybe we should get a third opinion? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't make me split out the Dynasty guys into their own articles just to thwart you! LOL, I'm cool with keeping them as is. And the Kray editor was fine with the combined article being tagged with the Project banner (and it is currently), he just didn't like them both in the category. So, I will let it go and all is well. Boy, you're tough. ;) TAnthony 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Conviction :) I spend a lot of time (too much) on the cats and banners, so I feel strongly about them :) But seriously, shouldn't the Krays be in an LGBT cat? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably, but only one was gay. But hey, do it if you wish and make your argument later if you have to. ;) TAnthony 02:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:TV list class

Hey, sorry for my ignorance on class vs. type in this case, another WikiProject I am more actively involved in puts "list" under "class." Anyway, sorry again for the extra work I created for you, and thanks for the fix. TAnthony 15:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it happens quite often. I specifically changed this for WP:TV because WP:1.0 doesn't have a class=list. And they are right, because List is not a "quality" of an article. This method follows some of the WP:MILHIST conventions and I think it should be more useful in the future. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Television tags

Hmm, in my opinion, the Soap Opera WikiProject is a "child" of the Television WikiProject, so there's no need to list both projects on the talkpages. I see it sort of like categories: If you have a child category on a page, there's no need to also list the parent category. --Elonka 06:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, it's probably redundant to have both the TV and Soap projects listed on soap articles; however, TV Project is currently larger and more active, and I figured adding these articles directly would increase the visibility of the articles themselves as well as the Soap Opera Project, encouraging more editing and participation.

By the way, I'll try to work on a potential barnstart this week, we can discuss. TAnthony 07:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, and I appreciate your work, but I'd still recommend removing the TV WikiProject template. It's already *such* a huge category, it wouldn't make sense for every one of its child wikiprojects to also include that template. We should follow the lead of other television shows that aren't doubled. --Elonka 07:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, so I am not "double-tagging" any articles I have tagged for the Soaps project since you've voiced your concern. I can go back and AWB the WP:TV tags out of the doubled articles, but its a big job and I won't get to it right away. In the meantime, perhaps it will drive a little traffic our way. TAnthony 16:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP Soaps membership

Hey there, before we're at each other's throats over the issue of tense (LOL), do you have any ideas about how to recruit more members to the Soaps project? Many soap articles are such a mess, all kinds of random users are constantly changing and twisting articles — there are so many guidelines and policies that are needed, but we can't really come up with and enforce these things with 13 people. I was thinking about just going through edit histories and inviting people manually, but ... TAnthony 20:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not mad at all. I still think you're amazing, and I can go either way on the tense thing, I just want there to be a consensus.  :) As for other members, I have some ideas, but it might be better if we could chat directly... Do you use IMs? --Elonka 21:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response; I am on IM but hardly use it. My AIM username is xtommy and I'm actually on right now if you're awake. I'm not sure of the time diff ... TAnthony 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Past vs. present tense

Wikipedia:Peer review/Pauline Fowler#Tense

Tenses are incorrect, see MoS (WP:TENSE). Matthew 18:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It happened in the past in an ongoing serial, it should be in past tense. I feel this is somewhat backed-up by the new rule saying that character pages don't need spoiler tags, so therefore it is perfectly reasonable that they are written in the past tense. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That argument is still unconvincing as to why a creative work should be written in the past tense (and I'm unsure what this has to do with spoilers). Matthew 19:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to have this argument with you again, Matthew, I'm going to try and get the policy changed to say that past characters and past TV shows can be written about in past tense, which makes sense according to the language of English. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As WP:TENSE is a guideline, not a policy, I feel that Pauline Fowler should be written in past tense as EastEnders is an ongoing serial, and therefore I feel that pages like Pauline Fowler should not follow this guideline. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why an "ongoing" show warrants past tense. What does that have to do with anything? I understand that past tense "feels right" primarily because of the soap magazines and other summaries we're used to, but the whole point of the present tense policy is to stylistically separate fiction from actual events. This is especially important in articles like this one, where the character's onscreen actions are described along with real-world analysis of the show (casting, impact, etc). Further, the fact that a show exists in a tangible medium (film/videotape) that can be replayed keeps it perpetually "in the present," while by comparison a real-life event can never be relived. TAnthony 03:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If the tense is going to be a serious problem (one that stops us reaching our goals), I will work my way through the in-universe sections and change it all to present tense. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, having made the changes, I feel the policy is correct and all of WPEE's articles should be written this way. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In a quick look-over of the article, I would disagree that the tense is incorrect. I am an advocate of present tense for fiction, and the "Storyline" sections seem to be in present tense. The "Character creation and development" section (especially "Narrative, impact and progression") discusses the character/storylines in an overview perspective, with behind-the-scenes analysis; past tense is totally appropriate here. I think the article was actually carefully constructed with tense in mind. TAnthony 20:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Aha, it seems that I am looking at the article after improvement by AnemoneProjectors. In any case, it looks great, I'll try to do a more intensive reading soon. TAnthony 21:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As I write this, the in-universe portion of the Pauline Fowler article remains in present tense, as it should. See further discussion of the issue (and some mention of this article) at:

• Talk:Pauline Fowler#Past v. present tense
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#The question of tense
• The Manual of Style discussion on tense

Even if you disagree with the tense, if we want this article rise to FA status, it needs to conform to the guidelines for fiction (present tense), even if an "ongoing series exception" is created. Truthfully, a few users can't set this exception and expect it to become policy, especially when there is no convincing argument except that "present tense is awkward." I will say again here what I've written a few times in other locations: it doesn't matter if we're talking about 22 years of storyline, fictional events and references need to be stylistically differentiated from real-life ones. In context, a present-tense summary is not awkward if events are portrayed chronologically. TAnthony 18:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#past vs. present tense

You are all treating the soap operas as if they are real rather than works of fiction. The time something airs is irrelevant; the episodes still exist despite the fact that they have already run. Ideally, the article on that character should include lots and lots of out-of-universe material, which can use the past tense (how the actress played the part, how the character was created, how critics reacted. Any narration of on-screen drama should be present tense. Use phrasing such as "In Episode 21, she does this this and this" to get around any oddness from using present tense. — Brian (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I quite agree Brian, and discussion on this topic seems to reveal some fundamental misunderstandings among a great many contributors concerning the function and use of tense in encyclopedic writing. In my debates on this issue on the Lord of the Rings page, the main defence of past tense for the synopsis is the argument that it should be consistent with the tense of in-universe articles, such as War of the Ring. But to me the difference between these two types of article is perfectly clear, since the latter is about an in-universe event/person/etc. and the former is about a real-world publication. Genedecanter 03:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wanting to write a plot synopsis in past tense is not treating fiction as if it is real, it's just treating the storyline as a past storyline, which it is. Equally, writing in present tense will not make the words that are written appear less real, at least not to me. When i'm reading something in present tense I dont instantly think "oh that must be fiction".

It is just a question of preference, but it's one that is shared by many editors and I think the project should allow for exceptions to the tense rule. Some synopses just read more coherently when written in past tense. Also, using episode numbers in the text is virtually impossible in the case of a long running soap opera. The information isnt avaliable and even if it were the numbers run into their thousands, not to mention that events occur over different episodes, which are condensed in the text — one small paragraph might contain months worth of episodes for instance. The article would be filled with numerous long numbers, which would just break up the text and make it awkward to read.

So long as an article clearly defines the storylines section (what is in universe and what is out of universe material) then it really shouldn't matter. Gungadin 16:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Another reason that soaps should use past tense, is because they're routinely referenced to real-time, not in-universe time. For example, "Pauline Fowler died in 2006," "Luke and Laura were married in 1987." To change that to present tense would sound bizarre: "Pauline Fowler dies in 2006," "Luke and Laura marry in 1987"? We can't say, "In episode 21," because soaps don't work like that. --Elonka 17:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, "Luke and Laura marry in 1987" sounds just fine to me; in context, if you're reading a plot synopsis that spans years, you are following along chronologically. So it is entirely appropriate to write, for example: "Laura arrives in Port Charles in 1976. She does some stuff. She meets Luke, and they ultimately marry in 1987 to much fanfare." (pardon the bad writing, LOL).

As I've just noted at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pauline Fowler/archive2, some of you seem to be missing the point of the present tense "policy," which is to stylistically separate fiction from actual events. I understand that past tense "feels right" primarily because of the soap magazines and other summaries we're used to, but those synopses only cover the in-universe events. In an article here, we are presumably discussing both onscreen action and real-world occurances/analysis/impact. As someone noted above, the fact that a show exists in a tangible medium (film/videotape) that can be replayed keeps it perpetually "in the present," while by comparison a real-life event can never be relived. Laura disappears after the wedding (present tense) because Genie Francis left the show (past tense).

A decent example is the Alexis Colby article; in-universe events are described in present tense, and it is not awkward. Real-life behind-the-scenes discussion is in past tense. TAnthony 03:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How about if we allow for both styles? After all, a guideline is just that, a guideline, and not a policy. We've suggested a possible way of writing a soap opera guideline on the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#The question of tense, which allows for different ways of handling it. Anyone interested in the discussion is welcome to participate. --Elonka 20:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think y'all are making a mistake (the change to your project guideline will presumably go through with or without my argument against). If you're having trouble avoiding past tense in your articles, it simply means you are including too much in-universe material. If long-running comic book characters can have their articles in present tense, so can soap characters. You simply need to make the occasional reference to the real world. "During this story arc, Luke kills Laura and escapes to Mexico." "In the episodes written by Mayers, Steven is portrayed as a cold, calculating villain." "Jackson and Morgaine first kiss in the holiday episode from 1987. Fans reacted by writing letters of protest to ABC." It's all in how you present information. — Brian (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I just thought I should mention here as well, with regards to Pauline Fowler, I changed the tenses of the storylines sections to present tense last night and I think it works fine, so I now agree with this guideline! — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 10:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Pauline Fowler

Present tense works fine, in fact now that I've changed it all, I think it looks better. If I missed any words, please correct me. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I didn't change the lead paragraph. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added some new guideline wording at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#The question of tense, which will hopefully satisfy everyone? Please comment on whether or not you like it, thanks. --Elonka 20:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Present is looking ok. I do prefer it in past tense but i'm not opposed to it being like this. One thing though, arent we now meant to say Pauline Fowler is a fictional character if we're using present? Gungadin 23:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think so, but as I said, I didn't touch the lead paragraph so other parts of it may require changes. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 08:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting this to past tense, as you did this in the middle of discussions when no cnsensus that satisfies everyone has been reached. It loosk awful in present tense. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it does not look awful, and no consensus is needed because present tense is current policy. I've also noted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#The question of tense. Please see my arguments there and at the Manual of Style discussion. You're missing the point of the policy, which is to stylistically differentiate between fictional and real-life events. This is especially important in an article like this that contains both. Take a look at the starter article Alexis Colby, it's easier to assess the past/present use there. I know your used to the past tense uses in soap opera magazine summaries, etc, but those do not contain real-world analysis, etc. TAnthony 15:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Trampikey, I was the one who changed the tenses, and it does not look awful, in fact I think it reads better. And if you want this to reach FA status then you'll have to get used to it being in present tense. Consensus was already reached when the manual of style was written. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, no edit wars

Folks, please, let's not go around reverting each other. Whichever way the article is, let's just leave it and talk about things. The world won't come to an end because the article's in one state or another for a few days while we sort things out and figure where the consensus is. However, I can guarantee that if this article shows a history of edit wars, it's not going to get promoted to FA status. Stability is one of the key requirements for WP:FA. For now, how about we hold a quick Straw Poll, to see where everyone stands? --Elonka 21:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Please indicate your opinion on the WP:TENSE issue as regards the Pauline Fowler article. This is not a vote, but I would like to get a rough indication to see opinions. Please add your opinion below, in a single paragraph.

• No strong preference, but leaning towards present tense. Personally, I don't care that much either way. But if WP:TENSE says to use Present Tense, and that kind of format will help us to reach WP:FA status, that's fine with me. --Elonka 21:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Present I do prefer past, but it's an uphill struggle trying to get things like this changed, and i'm a little tired of working against the majority of editors who think present tense is better. One of the reasons that Lou Beale failed to get GA was due to incorrect tense, so it obviously has an influence. It's easier just to adhere to the guideline in my opinion.Gungadin 21:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Present tense for fictional portions, as evidenced by my complete lack of restraint in making arguments for it, LOL. However, although I am basically opposed to changing the WP:TENSE guidelines, I will not fight whatever consensus is reached regarding this article. And thanks for your calm head with this, Elonka. — TAnthony 21:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Present tense per guidelines. Although I was originally opposed to this, having seen the article in present tense I now believe it makes more sense to do it this way. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 00:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Past tense. (Apologies in advance for any typos - bad keyboard and limited time - also, I'll try to put across a coherent argument without letting emotions get in the way, but I am really angry about this (for reasons I'll explain later)) It is incorrect English to say that events happening over a 22 year span all happened at once (i.e. in the present). For example, to say that "EastEnders begins" is incorrect. EastEnders began. In 1985. The article as it is at the moment (in present tense) reads like EastEnders is a film - with a set end, which we know it is not - it keeps running. It is my strong belief that events that happened in the past in something that runs in real time should also be written in real time (i.e. past tense for things that hapened in the past) - an argument that I have seen all three editors above use at different times. One of the reasons I am angry about this is that certain editors seem to have such a disregard for our language and the way it should be written, that they are willing to forget all about grammar and write this article (which, in my opinion, and as stated by Gungadin elsewhere) is harder to read than it was before, in past tense - just to get this article to FA status - how glory-seeking is that!? Don't get me wrong, it'd be great for this article to get to FA status, but to totally forget about good grammar just because the policy pushers (may I add that WP:TENSE is a guideline, not a policy) say that it needs to be in present tense juts takes the biscuit. WP:TENSE was obviously decided without taking into account real time series - something myself and Elonka have raised on various talk pages to try and change this, but as soon as I have gone away it seems everyone has changed their minds and are happy to have this article written in bad, hard to read English, just to get it to FA status. I say we should have it in readable tense - past - and screw tha FA status. If the voters can't see this is better in past tense, at least we all know it is deserving of FA status anyway - AND readable. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • When you're watching the first episode (which you can sometimes), EastEnders begins. It's not an issue of grammar and it's no more difficult to read now than it was before. Read the whole page through instead of one sentence at a time and it all makes perfect sense. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I for one, and Gungadin, find it harder and less coherent to read. "She begins to rely on Mark more than ever" doesn't make sense for one, as they're both dead, they don't rely on each other anymore, because they can't. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, now I see, you are reading it very literally, as if we are saying that she relies on Mark in 2007. But in context, it is written "In 2002 Pauline receives an anonymous letter" and then "She begins to rely on Mark more than ever" and then "his death in 2004." Certainly whenever a new year begins the year should be noted somewhere in the action to assure clarity, but to anyone reading that section or paragraph, the chronology is clear. That said, I think we all respect each other's opinions here, and your point ius well-taken. TAnthony 18:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• And saying that I read it literally must mean that other readers will read it that way also. To use a paragraph with a date reference: In 2002, Pauline doesn't recieve a letter, because 2002 will never happen again, 2002 was five years ago. It has already happened. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I do think it's just you; what reader will not realize that 2002 already happened? Look, I know you think it's awkward, but that doesn't make you any more right than we are. We will never agree, and there probably is no ":right" and "wrong." But your argument is flawed. TAnthony 18:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• The major flaw in your argument is that you are saying we should write about past events in present tense. We don't write that "two planes fly into the twin towers in 2001" or "Tony Blair is elected in 1997" - these are past events (albeit non-fiction) but are still written in past tense - and as EastEnders runs in eal time, I see no reason why it should be treated differently just because it is fictional. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is exactly the distinction to be made between fiction and reality; real-life 2002 can never happen again, so if Wendy Richards had a baby in 2002 she can never have that baby in 2002 again. But this is a fictional work that exists in perpetuity, like a book, so at any point when you are exposed to it, it occurs "again." Fictional events are not really events that have an expiration. TAnthony 18:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Only certain episodes of EastEnders are ever repeated - and as the serial has not ended yet, it still continues, therefore creates its own history, which happened in its past. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not about repeats per se; your argument is based on the presumption that the "events" occurred on the day they were broadcast, but these are not real events, they never actually occurred, and conceptually they can "occur" again at any time because they exist in a tangible medium. It is exactly as if it were a book, that may or may not ever be read again. Tony Blair can never be elected in 1997 again.

LOL, we can argue this forever, I appreciate that you're as passionate about your opinion as I am! I said I'd stop arguing this point, and so I will. ;) TAnthony 19:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't the BBC Three documentaries describe events in present tense? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#The question of tense

We've come up with an interesting situation, that I'd like to get other editors' opinions on. According to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Presentation of fictional material and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction, articles about fictional works should always be written in the present tense. See those two links for examples. But in the case of soap operas, this may not be the best way to handle things. For example, should we use, "In 1987, Luke and Laura were married," or "In 1987, Luke and Laura marry"? "Pauline Fowler is a character in EastEnders, or since the character was killed off, "Pauline Fowler was a character in EastEnders"? This is actually a hotly-debated issue on Wikipedia right now, so we need to decide if we want to go along with the "present tense" system, or argue a different method for soap operas. What do you think? --Elonka 21:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the guideline should be changed to consider soap operas and other ongoing serials, as the events have happened in the past and the shows still run in real time, therefore past events should be reported in real time, in the past tense. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the main discussion on this is going on at the Manual of Style talkpage. I encourage everyone to participate there. --Elonka 17:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I recommend that we come up with a guideline specifically for soap articles, which we include here at the WikiProject page. If we have approval here, then we can see about maybe adding a pointer to it from WP:WAF. Here's my suggested wording, please feel free to critique:

In most cases on fictional subjects, the present tense should be used, see WP:TENSE. However, with longterm soap operas, which can often run for decades and never have any repeats, it may sometimes be more appropriate to use past-tense when describing a storyline, since the histories are often tied to "real-world" timelines. As such, our recommended WikiProject guideline for soap operas is to use present tense, but past tense is allowed. Whichever version is used, it should be consistent throughout a single article.

How's that sound? --Elonka 19:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have still not heard a satisfactory argument as to why past tense is more appropriate for longterm series; but of course, I've made my case at the Manual of Style discussion. The guideline above is fine, but I feel uncomfortable about setting "controversial" guidelines like this when we are only a group of about 13, and I'm not even sure all are active. I don't think we can enforce it (or any guideline) anyway with such small numbers.

Maybe I'm also not understanding why there is such a push for this; is it so that soap articles already written in past tense don't have to be changed, or does it have something to do with the Pauline Fowler peer review? It seems like some editors just find writing in present tense awkward, and that's a silly reason to institute policy. Fictional and real-word events need to be differentiated stylistically. Just my opinion, anyone else? TAnthony 20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The core issue right now is the Pauline Fowler article. It's already at GA status (in past tense). When submitted for Peer Review, the "tense" issue was brought up. We'd like to get the article to FA, but if this is going to stop it, then it would behoove us to come up with a clear guideline, and make sure that the article is in accordance with that guideline. --Elonka 20:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a feeling; in that case, I'm not against your suggested guideline for the time being. Also, I've just made the following comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pauline Fowler/archive2:

In a quick look-over of the article, I would disagree that the tense is incorrect. I am an advocate of present tense for fiction, and the "Storyline" sections seem to be in present tense. The "Character creation and development" section (especially "Narrative, impact and progression") discusses the character/storylines in an overview perspective, with behind-the-scenes analysis; past tense is totally appropriate here. I think the article was actually carefully constructed with tense in mind.

I haven't analyzied the entire article line by line, but the tenses actually seem perfectly fine to me. TAnthony 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that AnemoneProjectors has made tense changes to Pauline Fowler, and I was looking at the result. So this may now be a non-issue as far as the review goes. TAnthony 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your guideline looks good Elonka. having seen the conversion on the Pauline article, i dont think it reads too badly in present tense though. It is a little weird and I still prefer past tense as I think it reads better, but I suppose I could get used to it.Gungadin 23:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong feeling either way, and could also live with present-tense. Should we change the guideline to recommend that exclusively though? Or still advise that either form is acceptable? --Elonka 01:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Present tense looks awful, doesn't make sense, and makes it sound as if EastEnders is a film. I have reverted the changes as I am not happy with them and I think they were done prematurely without proper discussion (I'm sorry I haven't been able to have much input, I'm away from home) - present tense looks absolutely ridiulous and reads awkwardly as well. EastEnders is not a film - it happens in real time and to describe 22 years of events as all happening at the same time (in the present) is ludicrous. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start a revert war, but no consensus is needed because present tense is the current policy for fiction. And I know you are a strong advocate for past tense, but it is not as awkward as you make it sound. It no more makes events happen "all at the same time" than past tense does. TAnthony 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I like your thingy up there, Elonka, it seems fine to me - allow past tense - it makes grammatical sense. (Oh God that wasn't meant to rhyme.) -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it may be wise to allow for past tense in specific cases. For instance, the Eastenders project has lists of minor characters (List of minor EastEnders characters 1985-1989) and the information included is not necessarily in chronological order. Describing each character in present would be confusing in this case, especially if a person were to read every bio on the page. I think present tense is fine when the storyline section is exclusively about one character, but it doesnt work so well when there are several combined like this.Gungadin 01:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Here I go again: within each character's section, their storyline synopsis should be in its own chrono order and in present tense, perhaps with the year of their first appearance mentioned in the beginning (although these years are clearly noted in the infobox). It will read fine no matter what order the characters themselves are in; see Dynasty minor characters. LOL, I know this is a painstaking process that may never get done, but I just had to put it out there! TAnthony 03:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Trampikey

Hi, I just left a bunch of comments all over the place about the Pauline Fowler article (Talk:Pauline Fowler, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#The question of tense, the Manual of Style discussion and Wikipedia:Peer review/Pauline Fowler#Tense) and I wanted you to know that I'm not trying to start a revert war or force my opinion. But the truth is, present tense is current policy and the Pauline Fowler article will not make it to FA status with past tense, even if we add some "soap opera guideline." At first I preferred past tense, but with more exposure to Wikipedia articles and editing, I've come to see how important the differentiation of tenses is. Forget what your used to, look at it from an analytical perspective. TAnthony 15:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor quibble: Present tense is a guideline, not policy. But, guideline-adherence can indeed be enough to make or break an article's rise to FA status. I recommend that we work very hard on coming up with a consensus guideline that works for everyone, rather than trying to make a black & white distinction. I'm sure there's a compromise in the middle somewhere.  :) --Elonka 21:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I agree, a compromise needs to be made, but at the moment (as I've said on Talk:Pauline Fowler) I don't care about FA status, I care about good grammar and that the article is readable. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted you to know that I have made my last argument regarding the Pauline Fowler article, and will not interfere with whatever the consensus is. That said, I've just read your comment re: the vote and though I of course understand that you prefer the readability of past tense, I still can't wrap my head around what it being an ongoing show has to do with anything, as opposed to being a film with an and. How is "As Star Wars begins, Princess Leia is putting her hair into buns" OK to you and the same EastEnders phrase is not? And I kind of resent your saying that present tense is "bad English," I could get you a list of novels written in it. TAnthony 15:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Tudors

Please bring the episodes up to the standards set by WP:EPISODE before bringing those back or making more. They need information like reception and development backed by secondary sources to exist. TTN 01:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fox and His Friends

Sure. I borrowed it from my local library as it seemed intringuing, and I'm well glad I saw it. I need to check if they have more of his films! I have to say though, I find it odd that they could release this film back in 1974 - maybe it was censored? A section about the critical reception would be interesting I think.Zigzig20s 05:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

userbox

Thanks I guess. Part of me is wondering whether this is 1984-ish or not (everyone can see how much I've edited), but then most things are these days, aren't they? Oh well. Thanks for that then.Zigzig20s 05:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

hey willpower

Hi. I created the article for hey willpower, and since you're the only other person who's contributed to it, and you're all experienced and barnstarred-out around here, I was wondering if you knew a way to help me with something.  :) I've cited the same articles a few times, and each time they show up seperately in the references list. Is there a way to consolidate those? Can you do something to the < ref > tags or something that'll make multiple citations of the same source to go to the same link in the references section? -- AvatarMN 04:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, category lists that Will Schwartz and Tomo Yasuda are showing up on list them by first names instead of last. Did I do something wrong when I created them? I tried, and found that moving "Tomo Yasuda" to "Yasuda, Tomo" didn't seem right. -- AvatarMN 05:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I can solve both of your problems, LOL. I'll fix the sort thing now, and the reference thing tomorrow. ;) TAnthony 06:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Refs all fixed, it does look a lot better that way. Thanks for writing the article. TAnthony 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Soap Operas

Glad to have you aboard! Please feel free to participate in the current discussions at the WikiProject talkpage. It had been inactive for quite some time, and we're just now trying to get it back up to speed this month. Feel free to move things around as much as you'd like!  :) --Elonka 00:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all your work on the WikiProject! You're also much much better than I am at the graphical stuff. Along those lines, do you think you could put together a barnstar or other award for us to hand out? If you're not sure, throw together a couple different possibilities, and then we can discuss which one we like best? I'm thinking maybe something like a "Hollywood Walk of Fame" star, but if you think you've got the perfect design, go for it! Thanks, Elonka 18:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WP Soaps membership

Hey there, before we're at each other's throats over the issue of tense (LOL), do you have any ideas about how to recruit more members to the Soaps project? Many soap articles are such a mess, all kinds of random users are constantly changing and twisting articles — there are so many guidelines and policies that are needed, but we can't really come up with and enforce these things with 13 people. I was thinking about just going through edit histories and inviting people manually, but ... TAnthony 20:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response; I am on IM but hardly use it. My AIM username is xtommy and I'm actually on right now if you're awake. I'm not sure of the time diff ... TAnthony 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I just signed onto AIM (invisibly), are you available? TAnthony 20:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing you on my buddy list... Try to send me a message? My own SN is "elonka". --Elonka 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

=)

Marc ^Talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

OLTL minor edits

User talk:The Real One Returns
Just a note about your OLTL edits just now; the cast sections are always getting changed/reverted/changed over tiny edits like this, so I try to reach out when I can to stop the madness! To me, adding 2007 after every "coming" or "going" is unnecessary because this is a timely section and obviously the actor is not leaving Summer 2006 (already past) or Summer 2008 (who would care at this point). Also, as far as I know "th" isn't really used anywhere on Wikipedia with dates, probably because of user date preference settings. I'm not going to revert your edits or anything because I don't care that much, but people's watchlists get cluttered with the constant tiny changes back and forth on all the soap pages. TAnthony 06:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop

Immediately cease converting WikiProjectBanners to WikiProjectBannerShell. Raul654 05:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? I'm basically doing it as a means to find non-complant templates and fix them. TAnthony 05:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Because WikiProjectBannerShell clutters up talk pages far more than WikiProjectBanners, and many people (including myself) dislike it greatly. As SatyrTN said earlier, the detente that has been established is that article tagged with one will not be converted to the other. Raul654 05:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you want to find non-complaint templates, copy them to a third page (a subpage in your namespace) and modify them there all you like. Raul654 05:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand it's a preference, and I hadn't realized a "détente" was established, but reverting every one of my like 10 measly conversions seems a little second-grade. I don't think anyone would have cared out of the 3600+ articles that still use WikiProjectBanners. But whatever. TAnthony 06:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Terry McMillan

User talk:68.81.179.222
Hi, I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies; among other things, we monitor for accuracy pages categorized in lesbian and gay categories. In order for you assert that Terry McMillan be categorized as a lesbian writer, you must provide a source (interview in which she says she is, etc.) Normally we might keep the category and tag the article with a request for a source, but the controversy surrounding her divorce indicates to me that she is straight and so I am removing the category again. Please do not re-add it without a reference. TAnthony 08:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

WPBS

If you want, you can compare Category:WikiProject banners with Template:WikiProjectBannerShell/Compliant banner list :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Section heading capitalization

Please note that your capitization of section headers is incorrect per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Section headings; ONLY the first word should be capitalized, unless the phrase contains proper nouns. Also, ampersands ("&" sign) are frowned upon. TAnthony 14:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Falcon Crest

User talk:80.47.254.212
Thanks so much for rewriting some of the newest edits to Falcon Crest; User:Italianlover07 is always adding info which is altogether odd and poorly written. TAnthony 15:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject banners

Thanks for all the conversion work; you beat me to the snooker ones. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, it's actually a calming, near-mindless task that also satisfies my borderline OCD tendencies that have arisen from continued exposure to Wikipedia, LOL. Plus, the bad attitude of certain Anti-WikiProjectBannerShell editors has urged me to make as many templates compliant as possible and thus eliminate their ability to use that in an argument.

Sorry about the snookers. ;) TAnthony 14:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Motorcycling

Can you explain the edit you made to the {{Motorcycling}} template? I don't understand what you did here and would like to learn about it as I don't know much about templates even though I have made a few includinh this one. Cheers ww2censor 00:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My edits to the template enable the use of {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, which allows multiple WikiProject banners to be "nested" on a Talk page. See Talk:T. E. Lawrence for an example which includes {{Motorcycling}}; it's a great space-saver, but the banners are still accessible. And as you can see at Talk:Steve McQueen, the edits have no affect on the appearance of the template when {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} is not used. TAnthony 01:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}

Hey there! I'm glad to see you doing such hard work on the Template:WikiProjectBannerShell/Cleanup project, and I'm impressed to see that you got AWB to do some of your work for you, much like I have with my own browser. However, I'm somewhat concerned about tertiary edits like this one.

Please keep in mind that different WikiProjects have different standards for classes, and you could potentially get into a lot of trouble just applying a given class to all WikiProject banners willy-nilly. Just trying to look out for you; feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or if I'm viewing the situation incorrectly. Thanks! — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 05:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but as you may know, AWB still requires more-or-less manual edits, and I look at/tweak every one. The stub/start classification isn't part of my "replace" formula; I only assessed a limited number of articles to which I added WPBS, and I did it manually (pretty much because I came across funky templates or auto=yes boxes as I applied WPBS). I know diff projects have diff specs, but a stub is a stub and for the most part a start is a start. In the case of Guilford, I assure you it was not an automatic classification. I've got over 14,000 edits to prove I kinda know what I'm doing, LOL! TAnthony 05:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just being careful; it's better to be safe than sorry. Thanks for clearing that up! — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 06:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Soap opera moves

While many of your recent soap article moves may be technically correct, I think you're going a bit overboard. Since characters marry and divorce so frequently, the convention with these articles is usually to stick with names by which the characters are commonly known, and not necessarily change and move them every time they marry or whatever. I'm not going to change Jessica Buchanan back, but she's been married to Antonio Vega for like 5 minutes and they're already apart; all you're doing is making things more complicated. TAnthony 16:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia was designed to deliver facts and considering that soap characters marry and divorce frequently, thats what we are hear to do, edit the profiles and make their names, latest recaps, etc., known to the general wikipedia browser. If (example) Alan Williams marrys Jenny Ray for even one day, it is known that within that day, Jenny Ray will be known as Jenny Ray Williams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBanks (talk • contribs) 16:41, June 16, 2007

Yes, the names are valid and should be noted, but not necessarily in the name of the article. Articles don't need to be moved every time someone marries or divorces, especially since some characters aren't really known by their "technical" married names, etc. Constant moving is a waste of resources and clogs up watchlists. Time can be better spent expanding and actually copyediting the many poorly-written soap articles. That said, many of your moves are probably appropriate at this time, so thanks for that. TAnthony 14:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please help with Evangeline Williamson

There is an edit war with the Evangeline Williamson article with two new users Sorceress06 and Babygurl32, and they keep erasing some of her Lover/Relationships--Migospia†♥ 00:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Links and redirects

Hi, thanks for your contribs to the List of One Life to Live characters, but when you change links (for example, Kassie DePaiva to Kassie Wesley DePaiva) be aware that you are creating links to articles that don't exist. I've created a redirect in this case, but consider using the proper format Kassie Wesley DePaiva to avoid redirects. TAnthony 20:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Soap barnstar

Whoops! Sorry about missing your message, I've been busier than usually lately, and I think your comment got buried by some other messages that came right after it. Sorry about not replying sooner. Anyway, I think the image looks fine, but I'll also freely admit that I'm not an art person... I'd recommend starting a thread at WP:SOAPS (and also drop a line at WP EastEnders), and see if other folks like it. If everyone's okay on it, then we can formalize.  :) --Elonka 19:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Before we get into an edit war

Regarding Rome (TV series), you have twice reverted my inclusion of a link. I don't want to get into an edit war on this and would like to come to a compromise. I believe the link is relevant to the article since it points to a list of shows cancelled (or ended) along with Rome. The list was created because categories are not as easily found as are articles and editors do not always include articles in all of the appropriate categories.

Yes, I created the linked-to article but that doesn't automatically make my desire to build the web somehow wrong (it seems you may have itimated as much in the summary accompanying your last reversion).

If you think the link is inappropriate when associated with "final season", where is a better place? The fact is, no well-written article is likely to contain the term "List of television series cancelled after 2006 season". So, unless it is linked using another word or term, the list is going to be an orphan. --Wordbuilder 13:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm certainly not trying to battle with you, but I thought my last edit was a compromise (despite my snarky edit summary). I listed the link under "See also" because it really is not the expected destination of a "final season" link; I would expect to go to a page for Rome season 2. Frankly, and please don't take offense, I don't think your list is particularly useful; all the same info is already collected in Category:2007 television program series endings. The fact that you can find no better way to link it should tell you that. But I am not the King of Wikipedia (which is why I limited my edits to the Rome article), so if you feel that strongly about it by all means put the link back and see what others think. I will, of course, reserve the right to comment on Talk pages. ;) TAnthony 16:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I didn't notice you had added the link to the "See also" section. (I should pay more attention.) That seems like a fair compromise. Keep up the good work. --Wordbuilder 16:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Vacation

I will be out of the country with limited access to the 'net from June 23 through June 30, though I'll be checking in when I can. Try not to mess up all my favorite articles while I'm gone, LOL. TAnthony 12:34, June 22, 2007 (UTC)

Sandworms m:OTRS ticket

Hiya. Do you have an account for OTRS? I wasn't able to log in to view the information via the link from David.Monniaux. Was just wondering if you have been able to find out where the complaint came from, etc.

Btw, finally had your fill yet at the Smörgåsbord at the End of the Universe? ;) --SandChigger 22:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have OTRS access but I've put in a request for another OTRS person to take a look at it. I'm sure it's on the level but I can't imagine that the authors or publisher would have an issue with it. I don't think they'll necessarily tell us the exact nature of the complaint and who made it, but I'd certainly like a 2nd opinion.

Um, Smörgåsbord ? TAnthony 17:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandworms of Dune copyright violation

• 04:47, July 1, 2007 David.Monniaux (Talk | contribs) (1,638 bytes) (copyvio)
• 04:59, July 1, 2007 TAnthony (Talk | contribs) (3,225 bytes) (Revert/The text is quoted and referenced, it is fine until the book is released and a summary can be written)

I saw your restored a section that had been marked {{copyvio}} and quickly deleted . I have never read any other books, it just happens to sit on my watchlist as naughty page ;-) I would agree that its not direct copyright violation, but maybe change a sentence might help you retain it. Mike33 13:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I get your point, but this is really the only official descriptive information available on the book, and the format and citation make it clear it's a quote. The was written to provide basic info about the forthcoming book and so "is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." I feel like rewriting it kind of waters it down, especially since it is basically a temporary additon. TAnthony 13:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

k I see your point if something is listed as a whole quote (please restrict quote to 500 words or less though) it's useful. thanks for getting back. Mike33 13:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The quote is 197 words. TAnthony 14:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• 09:27, July 1, 2007 David.Monniaux (Talk | contribs) (1,638 bytes) (rv copyvio following m:OTRS complaint)

User talk:David.Monniaux:
you deleted via m:OTRS and I can't find the mention. Mike33 19:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not super-attached to the text, but it seems like a pretty convenient turn of events to get your way. TAnthony 19:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"To get my way?" For the record, I don't give a damn about these silly sci-fi sequels. :-) Ticket is here. David.Monniaux 20:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I wasn't aware of the OTRS before now. I couldn't log in to see the ticket using the link you provided. Could you copy the relevant information to the Sandworms talk page or here? --SandChigger 22:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, emails received by the Foundation are confidential. You are not allowed to see them, but you can ask any m:OTRS member to confirm what I said. David.Monniaux 05:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, I am going to get a "second opinion" for the heck of it but I wanted to say (despite my somewhat snarky note above, sorry) that I am sure your edit was in good faith. I assume that your original edit (the one I reverted) was a result of m:OTRS but not noted as such? TAnthony 17:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The thing is, I sometimes avoid marking OTRS-justified edits as such because that tends to draw attention. David.Monniaux 17:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

m:OTRS edit

User talk:David Gerard:
Hi, I'd like someone to look into a recent edit with m:OTRS as the reason just to get confirmation that the edit was appropriate. The ticket is here. The edit was to Sandworms of Dune; the quoted text was properly cited, is only 197 words and "is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media," so it doesn't seem like a copyright violation to me. Of course, I obviously have no idea what is contained in the m:OTRS file. Thanks in advance. TAnthony 17:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good call to me. The text appears to be a copyright violation but substantially more serious is the concerns expressed in the e-mail we have received that the information presented could negatively effect the ability of the copyright holders to profit from their work. As such, it's not going to fall under our non free media policy and it's removal is quite proper. Nick 22:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response and taking the time to look into this, but ... I think there's some confusion here. It seems to me that the pre-release plot summary rightfully deleted on 30 June would definitely interfere with copyright holders' right to profit from the book, however the book jacket text removed per m:OTRS on 1 July is from the authors' own free website (which was referenced) and is more promotional than anything else. Is it possible that the email received was referring to the summary and that the jacket text was removed in error? TAnthony 00:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's possible the complaint is regarding the complete spoilers which were removed on 30th June. I'm not entirely happy with the book jacket text also being used. It's still a copyright violation regardless of whether or not there's been a complaint about it and I'm pretty unconvinced the text could fall under our non free media policy. We've clearly touched a raw nerve so it's probably best for all concerned just to leave off adding back any further text taken from other websites. Nick 10:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

WP Novels question

Is adding "pp" after the number of pages in book/novel infoboxes an established practice in the Project? I've seen you implement this before, but it seems redundant (and kind of ugly) considering that the infobox already puts the word "Pages" right next to the number. TAnthony 14:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Response, There was a very short discussion ages ago about this. "pp" it the standard literary and book trade abbreviation for "pages" i.e. page count where multiple. Editors were putting various things (just the number, nn pages, nn p., nn p, nn pp., or nn pp) it was thought that the better approach was nn pp - if this is to be reconsidered - then so be it. However just having the number doesn't seem to disuade editors from than adding various suffixes, hence the standard suffix. Thanks for the question. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You

Dude, I am suddenly wondering what you look like, do you have a pic anywhere on the web? We cross paths so often I feel like I should have a clear image in my head; so far I think I've been imagining Mr Tumnus, LOL. — TAnthony 05:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

ROTFL!! That made me laugh a LOT :) my web album - there's some pictures of me in there somewhere... Enjoy :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, there is a little Tumnus there, I guess that means your username is a good one. ;) TAnthony 14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I did indeed change my mind on Slut Night. TAnthony 14:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, it's a pretty apt username :) And Benjiboi did a great job! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Anirul Corrino

Regarding the article, it has been established in other articles that specific page references don't necessarily need to be made for quotes, etc. if the book itself is listed/source novel made clear. Citing every sentence would be cumbersome and problematic, especially when you factor in multiple editions. TAnthony 18:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, although for direct quotations this is pretty much standard citation practice around the world, so I'd recommend they were at least given that sort of information. Coldmachine^Talk 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi TAnthony, the edits to this article are great and certainly improve it. I wanted to say thanks for that. But, I also did want to quietly raise the perception that might come across as WP:OWN from the number of essentially aesthetic edits you are making to the article. This isn't a criticism, or a warning, just a point that it might be coming across that way. I'm assuming good faith here at the moment. Coldmachine^Talk 07:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, I'm not offended but I'm also not sure what you mean by my edits. Yes, I'm a perfectionist, and half of what I end up doing on WP is technical cleanup. But most of my recent edits besides adding the 2 notes were to fix links (only the first ref of a word/name should be linked unless subsequent refs are far off) and change the article to present tense (which is correct for fiction). Oh, and "also" was used in 2 phrases in a row in the DE section. I wouldn't necessarily call that aesthetic; to me, aesthetic edits are based on editor preference/opinion, which links and tense are not. I hope you didn't feel like I was trying to steamroll your edits or whatever, but the article coming up on my watchlist gave me the chance to assess it, and my intention was only to improve it (albeit minutely). TAnthony 14:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi TAnthony, oh, no I didn't think you were steamrollering my edits :) I just meant that the tweaks such as moving paragraph ordering around might just come across to other people as that. But, as I say, the article is much improved as a result IMHO. Sometimes that's the great thing about a watchlist: an article can be picked up by someone months later, with an edit or two, and it reminds folk to look over it again down the line and make further improvement. It's looking good to me! Coldmachine^Talk 14:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

re: Ratings

You make a good point, but obviously your proposal basically encompasses an entirely new system of assessment; I actually envision a multi-functional template with pre-programmed suggestions and room for customized notes. Many editors do make these kind of notations on talk pages in a less standardized way, and the current WP banner options ("needs photo" etc.) are a bit technical in nature. It would perhaps slow things down, but as a separate, related process it could be very helpful for many articles.

However, I think you're missing the (albeit rudimentary) point of the current system. I think it basically serves to classify articles in a basic way for potential editors; if you're looking for something to work on within a Project, knowing an article's status as a stub or a B-class at least lets you choose something that needs the level of work you're able to attempt at that time. Suggested edits and improvement would of course be helpful, but I don't know that editors are really looking at Talk pages for that kind of advice anyway. TAnthony 03:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProjectBannerShell

There's been a recent uptick in the number of article talk pages that need WPBS. If you have the time/inclination, take a look at SatyrBot's listing? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I did a couple today but will def try to hit the list hard over the weekend. By the way, have you ever thought about coming up with a bot that calculates how many talk pages are using {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} vs. {{WikiProjectBanners}}? I don't know if the Banners guys are as mobilized as we are, and I'm just curious which is the more "dominant" shell at this point. TAnthony 22:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As of this particular moment, the numbers are:

WikiProjectBannerShell = 13054

WikiProjectBanners = 6143

:) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh. TAnthony 05:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jessicadune.jpg

Image:Jessicadune.jpg is a great piece of art, and I've given it a fair use rationale to avoid deletion; however, what is the source? Did it come from Stribling's website, or what? If it has not been published in some form, I'm not sure it falls under fair use, and also it may not be appropriate to illustrate the character because it's not a licensed use of the character. Let me know. TAnthony 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The image of Lady Jessica that I have uploaded is from the Stribling website. I am unsure as to whether or not he has given permission for it to be used but I have seen the image on several T-shirts. These may be fan made shirts but if they are not then it must be free-use image. The image was published in a comic book, I believe, but this is only based on the fact that Stribling is a comic book artist. I will look into it and see what I can find. Blurgle Fragle 13:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did find the image on his site and on DuneInfo.com the other day, so I put the link in the image summary. I also created a stub article for Stribling to help with the image's notability. I'm not sure exactly how the fair use rules apply to something unpublished, but I like the image so we'll see if anyone takes issue with it. TAnthony 14:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Knots Landing and Falcon Crest

(Left at User talk:Italianlover07)

I am making a formal request that you please stop adding unimportant and unsourced trivia to these (or any other) articles. This is inappropriate per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections, and the articles already have large trivia sections that need to be edited down or deleted. I am a fan of both shows as well and many of your plot and trvia details interest me, but they are inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. Finally, keep in mind that anything significant enough to be added to the article needs a source if it is not related to general knowledge about the series. Thanks in advance. TAnthony 17:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Banner ad request

Hi, I just put your banner ad for WikiProject LGBT studies on my talk page (love it!), and was wondering if, when you have some time, you'd consider doing one for ikiProject Soap Operas? We're trying to pull the Project out of inactivity, and any advertising would help. TAnthony 05:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, just noticed on the {{Wikipedia ads}} page that you're not taking request right now; sorry to bother you, I'll try to do one myself. Thanks. TAnthony 05:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually am. What do you have in mind? Miranda 05:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Soaps ad and Telenovelas

Hey stranger; I was planning to commission one of those {{Wikipedia ads}} from User:Miranda, thinking that any advertising is a good thing! In case you're not familiar with them, people can put them on their user pages and have single or ever-changing ads for WikiProjects and such. Anyway, I was curious if you had an idea for content. I really don't know where to begin, but was thinking something along the lines of, "Know more about soap opera characters than your own family? Join WikiProject Soap Operas" or something like that. Check out some of the other ones. TAnthony 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, to be honest, I don't much care for them. I think it's plenty to have a WikiProject banner on the article talkpage, and leave it at that. You've been doing a great job of tagging, btw! Building up quite a library.  :) --Elonka 21:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I won't bother. Speaking of tagging, I just remembered that I had left telenovelas out; I'm thinking it's appropriate to formally include them in the Project, what do you think? We're still having recruitment issues, obviously, and I think it can only help. TAnthony 02:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I definitely think we should include telenovelas in our scope, but not for recruitment reasons. More it's a case of, "If not us, who?"  ;) --Elonka 02:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WP Banner sample template compliance

(From Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell)
Thinking forward, is it appropriate for us to add the nesting capability to the WikiProject banner code sample at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Technical notes (and anywhere else it might be for instructional purposes)? It occurred to me that while some editors creating a new WikiProject banner may copy an existing one, others may go directly to the source. TAnthony 03:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The one on /Guide/WikiProject I would, since it has multiple examples, and they support |small (it is a valid analogy.) The other one is just a simple table, though, designed to be as simple as possible. I'd like to add it, but I don't think it would be A Good Thing. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 03:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and make the changes to /Guide/Technical notes. I also added Category:WikiProject banners into both of them, so new banners based on these examples will be more likely to be categorized. Anomie 14:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

CfD closure

Hi, the Cat:Gay Wikipedians CfD discussion you recently closed is not noted on Category talk:Gay Wikipedians, and when if use the "cfdend" template it does not link to the archive properly. Is there another template that will work, or is the discussion somehow archived in the wrong place? Thanks TAnthony 15:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The {{cfdend}} template does not work because it is not suited to UCfD archives (it points automatically to the CfD daily logs). I think the easiest way to record the discussion on the talk page is to simply add a messagebox (based on "cfdend") and manually specify the location, as I've done here. UCfD nominations that result in a keep are often not recorded because it's relatively easy to uncover any previous nominations by looking through the revision history and seeing in what month a category was nominated for deletion. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the fix; I'm obviously not familiar enough with the cfd-related templates to know the proper workaround. And the only reason I care is because this and related categories have been nominated a lot lately (and again today) and I want to preserve previous discussions. TAnthony 16:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nominated again? I hadn't checked the UCFD page yet, but after looking at it, it seems this nomination is heading toward a "keep" result as well. As for preserving discussions, I can understand your point. It's much easier to simply have a link to previous discussions than to dig through archives to find why a category was kept in the past. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Fictional character history

Hey, I'm not going to revert you or anything, but I wanted to note that I don't think the word "fictional" is necessary in the character history headings, it just makes the phrase awkward. All characters are fictional, otherwise we just call them people ;) Anyway, thanks for all your particpation in WP:SOAPS. TAnthony 13:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw it in some articles of characters in Days of our Lives, but not in any Passions articles. It didn't occur to me that I shouldn't put it in. Thanks for letting me know and sorry about this! :) --Miss Burkle 15:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response; hope you don't think I was trying to reprimand you, it's just my opinion that it's unnecessary. TAnthony 16:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT

Hey there, your removal of {{DEFAULTSORT}} (in some of the bio articles you are adding categories to, like Lisa de Cazotte) is inappropriate; perhaps you are unaware that it does the name thing as listing "|De Cazotte, Lisa" after every single category, and that its use is preferred. TAnthony 04:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Class designation of Colleen Brady

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 article 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'd personally rate this article somewhere between "stub" and "start". For further expansion, I'd like to see more real-world context about the character, such as what's been said about her in newspapers or magazines. So far we just have three links to the nbc.com site. Granted, these are helpful, but can we find anything else, such as a profile in Soap Opera Digest or any kind of mainstream mention? To see an example of a high quality soap character article, see something like Pauline Fowler. --Elonka 04:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Rather than rate it a stub or a start or a B class, why not combine the Santo DiMera and Colleen Brady articles and just have one article for both. Both have been a pain to maintain. People have vandalized them and tried deleting them. Since the story has ended and there's really nothing more to add, let's combine the two into a couples page rather than two stubs/starts/not great articles. Tell me how and I'll be more than happy to take care of it.IrishLass0128 12:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a great idea, especially since they are so intertwined and a lot of the info is redundant. But better yet, how about a Brady-DiMera feud page that covers the conflict from the early days up to and including the Colleen-Santos storyline. This might be a home for some extraneous info from the Stefano DiMera article, and that and other Brady/DiMera articles can refer to this new page rather than cover the feud themselves. TAnthony 13:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Gods, no! Please, no! As one in the fire at a message board where people use Wikipedia to further their own agendas, please, do not add Brady-DiMera feud as even a suggestion. I beg of you!! Yes, that is how bad it is. You will have fights over the retcon of Stefano, you will have fights over the retcon of how the feud started, you will just have a whole bunch of fights. Believe me, I had to walk away from message boards because of all the fighting. Just thinking about it gives me such a headache and having dealt with and currently dealing with editors who's sole purpose in life is to change articles to their way of thinking rather than consensus, a Brady-DiMera feud page would just cause further problems. In all honesty this "feud" is the brainless-child of Hogan Sheffer just so Ali and James could be onscreen together. Making a couples page would address the pair without delving into the not so finer points of the feud. Additionally, I have a feeling, nothing confirmed, that this whole "ending" and possibly entire feud may be revealed to be the makings of Stefano and the Colleen/Santo story may or may not be real. I believe the story is supposed to be real since Shawn has witnessed it all, but I don't believe the feud has anything to do with it. But, as I said, it's just a feeling.IrishLass0128 14:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be reluctant to have a "couple" page unless we were sure that we had real-world references. Anything that's got a double-name in the title is probably going to be targeted for deletion unless it's well-sourced (we've already had battles at several other "couples" articles). My own recommendation here, would be to add a sentence or two about each character (including a pic) at List of Days of our Lives characters, and then set up this name as a deep redirect to that list: List of Days of our Lives characters#Colleen Brady. Then if more notable information becomes available later, we can easily split things out to a separate article. --Elonka 17:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Without a long diatribe about why I disagree with that, I'll keep it short. I don't agree with or like that idea at all. I find that negates all the previous hard work that went into the articles in the first place. IrishLass0128 18:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Continued discussion, including Elonka's "Mission Statement"

From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas

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)

Composite article?

The Colleen Brady "article" is just a long paragraph with a list of relatives, it would fit totally into a composite article like One Life to Live minor characters or Dynasty minor characters. These are more than lists and the perfect home for stubs and short articles like this one or Santo DiMera. Be sure to incorporate links to notable relatives in the text and you eliminate the need for the infobox or long family lists. TAnthony 18:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's more than one long paragraph, I should know, I fuss at that paragraph time and time again. It's amazing how such a small article is such a point of contention for those who hate the storyline. Your composite article mentioned would be a solution to many, many character pages I've had contention with over the last couple days. Both Willow Stark and Jed Stark along with Conner Lockhart to name just a couple off the top of my head. Is there a page like that for Days yet?IrishLass0128 18:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Easy enough to make! Here: List of Days of our Lives minor characters. If we do a good enough job on it, we could probably even get it nominated for a Featured List. Here's an example of what such a list could maybe look like? List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni. But the One Life to Live format looks good too!  :) --Elonka 19:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Georgia Institute list is quite nice. But how would it be divided? Families would be too difficult -- a lot of the 'minor' characters never really fit into families. (ie. Marlo, Eugenia, etc) Perhaps organisation by year of first or last appearance if known? D'Amico 07:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The best way is alphabetical by (last) name, and remember, this wouldn't be a list to direct readers elsewhere, it would be a destination for redirects. But if you do go for the table 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 16:21, 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 16:32, 11 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)

Infobox soap character

From User talk:TAnthony

Hey, TAnthony, would you be willing to change the soap opera character infobox you created from the color purple? I haven't read the Wikiproject Soap Operas talk page about your new soap opera character infobox yet, but I'm about to. The reason that I know about your discussing it there is because I have that talk page (that article, rather) on my watchlist, and have seen it be very active lately, but due to being busy with other issues, I didn't pop in over there to read all of the recent activity. I instead observed the title sections that I could see and what was written in the edit summaries at times.

I'll go there to give my thoughts on this matter. The only problem I have with the new character infobox that I see at this moment is the color, as I just saw an All My Children character article that you added the infobox to. I prefer us leaving the color as grey. And while including the series isn't about this new character infobox you created, I feel that having the series at the top of a character infobox is redundant and isn't needed. Anyway, I'm off to the talk page I mentioned above. I have a lot of recent topics over there to read. Flyer22 18:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that there is something else I'd like done to the soap opera character infobox, TAnthony. And that's size. While applying this new infobox to theBabe Carey article, I noticed that there wasn't a way to adjust its size. I know that you already formatted the size of what an image will be within this infobox, but I'd still like the option to adjust size a little when it comes to this. The images in the Babe Carey character infobox look a little big (well, the first one, the one of Amanda Baker, is actually really big in reality when unsized from its original form, but anyway), and I'd like to make them a little smaller.

By the way, do you mind the way that I formatted the relationships in both the Bianca Montgomery and Babe Carey articles? I didn't use the line breaks that you prefer, but rather bullet points. Another thing is... I want to say that I really love this character infobox. Not only is it unique, but you've really taken care of the lists problem that would ugly-up the bottom of the soap opera character articles. Thank you! Flyer22 16:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:Gungadin and User talk:TAnthony

Thanks for your comments on the new box; I was certainly expecting compromises, but I knew the most frustrating part of this would be getting across the point of general notability to a lot of the soap editors. They really don't see sorry state the soap articles in general are in, because they refuse to look at WP as a whole and see how in-universe we are! — TAnthony^Talk 20:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey TAnthony, no worries, I fully agree with what you are trying to do, and I think you're doing a great job of getting the soap project into order. From seeing a few of the messages on the project talkpage, it seems that some editors dont appreciate that you are actually on their side, and that you are just trying to implement a compromise that will help to appease policy-pushers. More ruthless editors would just go ahead and delete all the information without a second thought, and having the relationships in a collapsible infobox is better than not having them in the article at all :) Gungadin♦ 22:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Gungadin, I hope that you know that I appreciate what TAnthony is doing on this matter. I only object to the original color he implemented for the character infobox, and the notion of having the series a character is from in the character infobox, especially at the top. Flyer22 22:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Flyer, I wasnt meaning to be discourteous to anyone with the above message, and certainly not you. Ive seen all the brilliant work you've done on the US soap articles, and I know you are working especially hard to transform the project. All i meant is that some users may not realise that TAnthony is trying to implement changes purely for the good of the project, and not necessarily for his own personal taste. Of course I understand why people are opposed to changing all the hard work they've done, and It can also take someone a long time to get to know fiction policy here. Me included. It took me about a year of editing before I started including out of universe information in my articles. My edit history is littered with tons of articles that contain pure plot summary and no sources. To be honest I would prefer it if we were allowed to just include plot summary. It is so much easier to write, and it's all I'm really interested in , lol Gungadin♦ 22:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Gungadin, I had/have the better sense to know what you meant by the above comment concerning some editors who may not appreciate what TAnthony is doing on this matter. But just in case, I stated what I did. Not sure if I would prefer an article on a fictional character be all plot summary. After having gotten so used to the fact that we should have out-of-universe information included within fictional character articles on Wikipedia, I see it as so much better now, especially with the detail it gives on characters...besides plot. Anyway, you two know that I really appreciate the work you both do on Wikipedia. I'll talk with you guys later. Flyer22 23:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you two, for the thoughtful comments and discussion; obviously Flyer, I know you also "get it" when I'm "pushing" changes. I of course expected changes/compromises/suggestion to the infobox, like your color/series ones. — TAnthony^Talk 00:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the original comment was to me, you took my statements the wrong way. I was offering opinion and asking questions, not criticizing. What you need to understand is how many info boxes I've added using the old form and my gut reaction was having to do it all over again. But I also have the perspective of being fairly new to editing (but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate TAnthony's work). What it means is I see things from the perspective of a newer user and know what confused me when I first came here. That's why I asked what I asked, to be helpful, not ungrateful. I certainly appreciate all the effort, but that appreciation doesn't stop me from asking questions or offering concerns. While I don't mind intelligently going along with something, I do mind being a lemming and blindly following along.

Sorry if you took my words as criticism, TAnthony, it was not meant to be that way. IrishLass0128 16:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:Flyer22

I'm going to implement the new infobox on as many soap articles as I can using AWB (just a simple switch). But out of courtesy to you, I'm going to leave the "series" parameter out of the AMC ones. — TAnthony^Talk 03:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha. I noticed that.

We need to hurry up and get all of their relationships in this infobox then. I really don't want any newbie or random (or, heck, not-so-newbie) Wikipedian editors thinking that this new soap opera character infobox doesn't matter, and that the lists of relationships at the bottom of these soap opera character articles will remain even with this new soap opera character infobox. Flyer22 03:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems rather sneaky and underhanded the way you say it. Not all the editors on the project have weighed in on the new box. Rushing to implement seems rather underhanded and self serving. Sorry, but it has the "I'm right, I'm doing it my way" mentality and having dealt with that carp all weekend in regards to another editor, this move has a very underhanded feel. I really wish you would wait.CelticGreen 03:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

From experience, I know that we probably won't get much more input. Anyway, I'm not going to start getting rid of the lists or anything, so really the switch will not change a thing and basically not be noticable; the basic functions of the two infoboxes are identical. — TAnthony^Talk 03:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if you knew about this new soap opera character infobox, CelticGreen, since I saw IrishLass giving thoughts on the Wikiproject Soap Operas talk page, but not you. I will be getting rid of these lists and will rather place them in the character infobox. I'll leave the Days of our Lives characters for you and IrishLass to decide. The only thing that this soap opera character infobox doesn't allow that the lists at the bottom of these soap opera character articles do is lists about Friends or Enemies, or some other unnecessary list. Flyer22 04:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

TAnthony, you really are applying this soap opera character infobox quite fast. What my watchlist is mostly displaying at this moment is...(Apply new ((Infobox soap character)) using AWB). I'm not complaining though. Flyer22 05:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that you changed the placement of the mention of the series that a character is from; it's no longer at the top. I like that a lot better than it being at the top where the character's name is. Other character infoboxes have it at the top and like I just noted on, I don't like that too much. Now I don't mind the series aspect to this character infobox. Flyer22 06:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And it doesn't state One Life to Live character, All My Children character, etc. It rather just states whichever show it means, without the character part added on, which is a plus. Flyer22 06:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't change it, that's always been the way I designed it ... let me know if you want me to use AWB to insert the AMC ones for ya. — TAnthony^Talk 06:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that must have been a part of the previous character infobox format used within yours in a few that I saw one editor apply soap opera character infoboxes to, or it wasn't your soap opera character infobox at all. And, yes, apply them to the AMC ones. Go for it. I'm about to get rid of all the relationship lists at the bottom of those articles, and then come back to them to add them in the infobox, of course. Maybe in the meantime, seeing no Family and relationships section at the bottom of these articles will prompt some random soap opera Wikipedian editors to add them in the infobox instead, since this infobox has a drop-down list marked as Relationships, which will no doubt draw on their curiosity to click on it to see how or if any relationships are formatted within it. Flyer22 06:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't know if you should remove the lists before adding the info to the infobox, you may freak people out and have them think you're vandalizing the pages. What I've done is say "Merging relationship data into new infobox" or something in the edit summary to spell out what's happening. I'm also assuming that my noting the template name in my switchover edit summaries will encourage interested people to check out the template directly and see what the deal is. — TAnthony^Talk 14:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Though the thought of being mistaken for a vandal briefly crossed my mind on this front earlier, nah. I don't feel that I'll freak people out, not unless the freaking has to do with the want for those annoying lists. Editors who edit Wikipedia often and are familiar with checking an article's edit history should know what's the deal, considering that my edit summaries explain what I'm doing on that front. I may even mention per talk page of Wikiproject Soap Operas to better clarify. I'm certain that I won't be mistaken for a vandal by the more experienced Wikipedian editors. And newbie or random Wikipedian editors should understand if they check an article's edit history, where they will see my edit summary. What I've actually seen is an IP-address editor be identified as a vandal for having added a friends list and an enemies list to the Family and relationships section of a soap opera character article. So it seems to be more so the other way around as far as vandalism is concerned, though that person didn't use an edit summary, and IP addresses aren't as trusted by Wikipedia over a registered account on Wikipedia (obviously due to most vandalism on Wikipedia occuring from IP address accounts). I feel that these lists should be removed with the addition of the new soap opera character infobox to a soap opera character's article. Otherwise, it will still appear as though these lists are truly accepted and that they should be kept, even though the information should be in the character infobox instead. Flyer22 15:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds fine since you monitor the AMC articles and will be able to note any disruption. By the way, I noticed you implementing the color red (looks good!) but I purposely didn't auto-add that to all the AMC characters because I thought it might help you easily differentiate which articles you've worked on and which you haven't. — TAnthony^Talk 16:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, regarding your preference for bullet points within the infobox: I don't have a stylistic issue with it but it seems to mess up the infobox display (see this version of David Hayward. I've removed them where I've noticed them for only this reason. I don't think this should happen, so I'll look at the template to see if I can figure out what's going on. — TAnthony^Talk 18:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So far I've only noticed the issue in "Occupation" (obviously located before the Relationships section), the bullets seem to be fine within the Relationships section (see Bianca Montgomery). It's probably a conflict with the collapsing feature itself. — TAnthony^Talk 19:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed with the Krystal Carey article how the bullet points mess up this new character infobox, so I took the bullet points away from her character infobox for now (or maybe for good). If it's easier for me to just add line breaks instead of you trying to once again re-adjust this character infobox for another matter, then I will. Or I just won't use bullet points for the Occupation part. As for your not implementing the color I've chosen for the character infobox for All My Children, you mean to help me differentiate which All My Children character articles I've cut the Family and relationships sections from, right? For a brief second, I thought you meant that you were going to apply the color red because I mentioned on the Wikiproject Soap Operas talk page that if I had to choose a color for AMC, I'd choose red. And that you didn't apply the colors for me because you felt that it (the All My Children character articles remaining grey) would help me differentiate which soap opera character articles I had worked on in general, but then I shook that off as plain silly that my mind even briefly though that. I mean, as for fictional character articles, you know that I work on more than the All My Children ones, though those are the primary fictional character articles that I work on. Flyer22 21:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Flyer22, yes, I was looking around over the weekend and saw the new info box. Sorry my comments were harsh, I had a bad wiki weekend dealing with rude people and what not. I can't say I like the idea or don't like the idea. Haven't given it much thought. Again, just wanted to say sorry if I came off harsh. CelticGreen 22:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You seemed to be responding to TAnthony, which, yes, I felt was harsh. But if you were responding to me, I accept your apology. If it was toward TAnthony, then I cannot answer for him on that matter. If it was for the both of us, well, I've already stated my half. Sorry about your terrible weekend. Flyer22 23:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The apology was to both. I have nothing against what's happening, I was just really having a bad weekend. TAnthony, sorry to you too. CelticGreen 23:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As I noted earlier on your talk page, CelticGreen, I was not offended/insulted by your comment; you made a good point and I hope I was able to reassure you. — TAnthony^Talk 23:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:CelticGreen

I just wanted you to know that I appreciate your concern about my mass-implementing the new infobox. I am honestly just trying to "Be Bold" and not sneakily trying to get my way. Sadly, more discussion usually occurs over individual articles than Project-wide issues.
I want to reassure you that when "applying" the new infobox I am simply switching {{Infobox character}} to {{Infobox soap character}} and adding the series name where I can. There is really minimal visual and functional difference between the two templates on a basic level. I will not be removing relationship lists or anything like that on a mass basis, and particularly not in Days articles, which I believe is your area of expertise and not one of the shows I regularly edit.
Also, keep in mind that having our "own" template in the Project gives us more control; so if we decide we want a "step-great-grandchildren" parameter or something, we only have to debate amongst ourselves and not a larger group; the regular character template has to apply to film, television, book and play characters (among others) and so many potential changes are attacked form all sides. — TAnthony^Talk 17:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

List of LGBT characters in modern written fiction

Great quote you added to the article! --BelovedFreak 19:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

AWB Question

So tonight I encountered someone making hundreds of changes using AWB and I see you used it to do the soap infobox. In simple terms what is it because the edits the other editor was making drove me buggy and he made over 100 in seemingly minutes. I want to understand it and maybe combat it in certain incidents. It seems to be a tool that's being abused. Obviously not by you, but by some. Thanks for the help. CelticGreen 00:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically how it works is that you program it to do a task; let's say, replace all incidences of Hope Brady with Hope Williams Brady. Then you choose a group of articles, usually by a category or something, like Category:Days of our Lives characters. then you run it; it opens each page and implements the change, but for each one you have approve or skip the edit. It can also suggest other basic technical fixes, and you can manually make other changes to each page as necessary before proceeding. So it doesn't run unmonitored, but the user can hit "OK" pretty fast. This is different than a Bot, which runs automatically but is more complicated to program and must be officially approved before running. What kind of "bad" edits was this user doing? — TAnthony^Talk 00:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I get the explanation. For your use, it makes sense. It was just severely odd for the other editor's use. I do thank you and give you kudos/much appreciation points for your comments about "top of page". Unsolicited support is always a welcome surprise. CelticGreen 01:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The main "Soap Opera" article and fan boards

It was my understanding fan board, message boards, non-official sites weren't supposed to be listed under "external links" but there are a bunch in that article. I removed a couple that were blatant this morning. What is the official rule?IrishLass0128 12:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy itself is discussed at Wikipedia:External links, which of course is both specific and vague; note #2 (unverifiable research), #11 (forums) and #12 (blogs/personal sites) in the section Links normally to be avoided. I think it's pretty much a common sense thing: a site where anyone can write anything without a source can't be relied upon, and I think your instincts are good. I would argue that there are instances where fan sites or whatever may be notable or useful or of interest, but for the most part the bulk of these sites have limited (if any) encyclopedic value and are increasingly redundant of each other. Good catch! — TAnthony^Talk 15:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use templates

From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas

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)

Alternate to {{non-free media rationale}}

From Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria/Proposal

With the BetacommandBot being especially annoying lately, I thought some of you might find useful an alternate to the {{non-free media rationale}} template. The {{Non-free image data}} and {{Non-free image rationale}} templates (used in conjunction with each other) allow for mutliple uses/rationales without duplicating the image description/source info. They are basically an adaptation of {{non-free media rationale}} using the genius idea of this proposal's mockups. Check out Image:Super Friends.jpg to see them in action. — TAnthony^Talk 01:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternate to {{non-free media rationale}}

I thought you might find these alternates useful: the {{Non-free image data}} and {{Non-free image rationale}} templates (used in conjunction with each other) allow for mutliple uses/rationales without duplicating the image description/source info. They are basically an adaptation of {{non-free media rationale}} using the genius two-template idea from here. Check out Image:Super Friends.jpg to see them in action. — TAnthony^Talk 16:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Téa Delgado

Hey, I see that you internal-linked her name in the Blair Cramer Manning article, which hints to me that you may be getting ready to create this article. I already had plans to create this article. However, if you want to go ahead and create it, I don't object. I'll add to it after you create it. I'm not sure why you internal-linked her as Téa Delgado Manning (though you pipe-tricked her as Téa Delgado), considering that they are divorced and there was no mention that she was still using the last name Manning, but, anyway, I'll talk with you later. Flyer22 22:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I was going off the List of One Life to Live characters and thought that list had used the full name, but it was actually pipe-tricked the other way; I've switched it in the Blair article because on second thought, she's always been known by Delgaos and Manning is a technicality. I was actually going to put entries for Téa and others in the One Life to Live minor characters article, unless you think she really is in need of her own article? — TAnthony^Talk 23:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I most definitely feel that Téa needs her own article. Now, TAnthony (gasps), I cannot even believe that you asked me such. She wasn't a minor character. And as popular as she was/is, her own article is warranted. Flyer22 02:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I don't mean to minimize her importance, but I think as a relatively short-term character (like 3 yrs) who hasn't been on the show in years and isn't connected to a bunch of other people, I can't imagine she needs a whole article. The "Minor character" article is basically a holder for miscellaneous people not part of other families. I mean, I think you can sum her entire run in a few paragraphs, no? I say start her small, and if there is really that much to say, as well as sources asserting how popular she was or whatever, she can be expanded. I can't imagine there'll be a while lot of character analysis out there, like there is for Todd Manning. — TAnthony^Talk 02:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The conclusion that there isn't a lot of character analysis for this character like there is for Todd Manning applies to a lot of soap opera characters, of course. Anyway, three or four years on One Life to Live, I wouldn't call that a minor character if they had as much impact on viewers as she did. To me, that's like calling Babe Carey from All My Children a minor character, since she's been on for four years (at this time). One of the sources in the Todd Manning article even mentions how popular Téa Delgado was. I have soap opera magazine pages in my home from the Todd and Téa mania, when people were just as crazy about that couple as Todd and Blair. Yes, there's much that I can add to the Téa Delgado article besides just plot. However, it may not be soon that I create her article, and I'm thinking that I'll create her portrayer's article first — Florenzia Lozano. When I'm about to start the Téa Delgado article, I'll let you know. Maybe it won't be that long from now that I create it. Flyer22 03:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

But Babe Carey is a current character; and I don't think "minor" means "supporting," it's just that in the bigger context of the show, what impact has she had? What legacy has she left? Victor Lord has relatives all over the place and he doesn't have (or need) his own article beyond what exists. And you're right, most soap articles don't deserve to exist for many reasons, but we love them so they're staying! I don't want you to think I dislike Téa in particular or will fight you on what you create, and perhaps she is an exception, but just because a character is notable in some way doesn't mean they need a whole article. LOL, but I know we agree on so many other things that I can't imagine we won't end up agreeing on this. My argument is probably more of a general one. In the meantime, I may give Téa a destination somewhere, but she can certainly be expanded later. — TAnthony^Talk 03:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What legacy has Téa Delgado left? Scaring the heck out of Blair if she were to ever return. LOL.

Hmm. You can go ahead and give her a home for now, but I would rather you not and just wait until I create her article. I may get on creating her article (as well as her portrayer's article) right after I (hugely) fix up the Tad Martin and Dixie Cooney article and fix up the Leo du Pres and Greenlee Smythe article a little. If it seems that I'm taking too long to create the Téa Delgado article, then, of course, I don't object at all to you giving her a home in the meantime. Flyer22 03:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Truthsayers?

Your edit to the Dune page got me to wondering... It's been a while since I've read HoD & CH:D all the way through, but wasn't there something about a male truthsayer in there? Or was it just a male with truthsense? Rebecca's husband or intended or something? I'll look later for myself, but thought you might know/remember better. Cheers. --SandChigger 22:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think it's reasonable to assume that Bene Gesserit-trained males (Paul, Leto II, Farad'n etc) have the ability, though to be deemed a "Truthsayer" like Mohiam it seems you must achieve a certain level of excellence (the glossary notes, "TRUTHSAYER: a Reverend Mother qualified to enter truthtrance and detect insincerity or falsehood," which indicates to me not all RMs may be able to do it adequately). Of course, Lady Jessica can certainly smell a lie in Children of Dune, and I would think others can as well elsewhere in the series. But in the context of that paragraph in the article for the novel Dune, which is describing the BG at the time of Dune, Frank Herbert had not suggested that there were any male Bene Gesserit "Truthsayers" at this point, so saying "people" instead of "women" didn't seem accurate to me. — TAnthony^Talk 23:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

Regarding this comment: "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". Can you please explain it a little bit? In the Kate Howard article, I researched what was being said on the web and magazine articles and put sources for the conclusions drawn. It is ok then if I did it this way? Can you review it and tell me if I should change it. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Quickly, in a nutshell, the entire list of "similarities" is original research; the comparable list in Miranda Priestly is as well, and I'm surprised no one had taken issue with it yet. Plus, you can't use another WP article as a reference, especially when that section is also unsourced. It is frustrating, but you really have to have a published source that says "Kate is similar to Anna in these 3 ways" when drawing any such conclusion. The section about her name being allusive is the most blatant case of OR. And what I meant by "rehash" was the introductory sentences of the section, which are redundant in the context that I think the bulk of the section will end up being removed. And overall, the entire section is kind of trivial. HOWEVER, I would definitely like to read the whole thing and think about it before I actually make an edit or give you suggestions. It may just be a matter of reorganizing certain things to make other items able to be kept.

By the way, I want to say that I'm impressed with your effort and the overall quality and format of the article, and hope you don't take my criticism as anything other than an effort to improve the article. I don't want to act like I know everything, but I have had my own work edited/slashed/improved in non-soap areas and witnessed many debates/discussions over notability, OR and such, and have learned from it. As I've said a lot in other soap discussions here, so far the soap articles have slipped under the radar, but ultimately they will get noticed and targeted for their weaknesses and violations. I'm all about preventative measures! — TAnthony^Talk 22:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments, I will work on this section. I hope you enjoy the article.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 00:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image categories?

I'm hoping you can help me figure this out... I created Category:The Young and the Restless images a few days ago after seeing how simple it made things like in Category:One Life to Live images. Can you tell me how to sort the category alphabetically (like Category:One Life to Live images) instead of having them all bunched together? It's starting to get on my nerves that I can't figure it out. LOL :) I figured you would be a good person to ask. :) Thank you! —Evaglow 05:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how you went about creating your category, my Days category doesn't do that. I went to an image, added the name to the category [[[:Category:The Young and the Restless images|Fisher, Whatever]]] and it sorted under F. So whatever name you want it under, last name, first name, image name, you have to put that after the category. Fortunately mine sorts all by itself. Not sure how to change that, but that's how you fix it. IrishLass 15:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the sorting is done at the image level. You can manually enter sort keys the way IrishLass suggests, which is ideal but can sometimes be confusing because an image someone else uploaded may be called "OLTL1.jpg" but it's of Viki and you are manually sorting it by her name instead. Adding {{PAGENAME}} to that category like this: [[Category:One Life to Live images|{{PAGENAME}}]] will alphabetize by the 1st letter after "Image" -- right now your images are all sorting by the "I". — TAnthony^Talk 18:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dune notes

Hey there, sorry you had to go back and take out "purportedly" (which I misspelled, clearly) in all those articles; I agree with you and hate all the "claim" and "supposedly" bull, but I was afraid of a mass revert after the recent reverts/changes at Sandworms and Hunters over this old issue. — TAnthony^Talk 00:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It was no problem. I hate when this issue comes up because it is the same thing over and over. "State" seems like a fair compromise to me, I just wish everyone could agree on something fair so we could move beyond this pointless battle. Konman72 (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

El Cor de la Ciutat

Hey there, I came across your new Template:WikiProject El Cor de la Ciutat because I monitor a bot which looks for new WikiProject banners not yet compliant with Template:WikiProjectBannerShell (WPBS is a function which allows WP banners to be collapsed to save space if there are several on a particular Talk page). Anyway, I made the template compliant and fixed the format error keeping the text outside the box.

By the way, to add the banner to a talk page, you should not paste all the code there, just paste {{WikiProject El Cor de la Ciutat}} into the page. It will appear the same, and then all pages are tied to the same template; when you make changes to the template, all pages will be updated.

By coincidence, I am also an active member of WP:SOAPS and perform a lot of our maintenance tasks. When I noticed that El Cor de la Ciutat was a soap, I added all of your El Cor de la Ciutat-related articles and categories to the Project and performed some other basic cleanup and sorting.

I noticed your question about sources above; a lot of soap articles have come under fire on this issue because many articles are undeveloped and of course there isn't a whole lot of coverage in mainstream media. Web searches may help, but is the series covered in any soap or TV magazines like US and British shows are? Anyway, some of your articles may technically be "in violation" but will probably not be nominated for deletion in their current state. If any of them is, let me or the Project know and we will work to save them.

Please let me know if I can help you out in any way in the creation and expansion of your articles. — TAnthony^Talk 04:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, you may want to use {{Infobox soap character}} instead of your new Template:El Cor de la Ciutat character; our template has many built-in fields and functions specially-designed for soaps (like a collapsible Relationships section), but you can still customize the colors. See Tina Clayton Lord for an example of it in use, and of course let me know if you have any questions about it. — TAnthony^Talk 05:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say thanks so much for all that you've done - brilliant work! Will check out all the stuff you've pointed out over time but it may take a while because you've been so thorough! Keep up the good work - Wikipedia needs more geniuses like you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theolimeister (talk • contribs) 10:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Soap character infobox

Just an FYI, since the new {{Infobox soap character}} contains a collapsible section for character relationships, I've reverted your addition of a "Marriages" section to the Jessica Buchanan article. This info is already noted in the infobox, and within the article text as well. This is part of WP:SOAPS' ongoing task of removing unnecessary and excessive lists from articles. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 01:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Alex Olanov

FYI, it's a copyright violation to cut and paste text from another website and present it on WP, as you did to create the Alex Olanov article. Please make sure all your edits in the future are your own original writing. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 16:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:El Cor de la Ciutat

Just a quick note to say thanks so much for all that you've done - brilliant work! Will check out all the stuff you've pointed out over time but it may take a while because you've been so thorough! Keep up the good work - Wikipedia needs more geniuses like you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theolimeister (talk • contribs) 10:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Mr. Honest

Take a look at my recent contributes, there's a user "Drnorth16" that I made a comment to. They went "running" to an admin crying I was a meany who should be "revoked". They blanked half the Days cast list and the Will Roberts page. Was I that horrid to a user that's been around for a while? They also "contributed" to my talk page. Thanks!! CelticGreen (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, I left comments in both places, hope that helps. — TAnthony^Talk 01:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the help and the compliment. Your a good guy!! CelticGreen (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dynasty

I think you're the same editor who's been expanding all the Dynasty character articles; you should create a username and log in so you're easier to contact, your edits stay together, etc. And thanks for the great work, it was sorely needed. — TAnthony^Talk 16:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's me... I always forget to sign in. It's been slow at work, so this is how I fill my time. My user name is michaelcyr when i remember to sign in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.192.210.204 (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL dude, you've signed in only 5 times out of all those edits! (User:Michaelcyr How can u take credit for your work if you keep coming up as random IP addresses? Hahaha. Anyway, as I get time I'm going to clean up and "wikify" all the character articles you've written. Oh, and as far as the Alexis edits I made: I have a lot of experience with TV articles, an in particular the soap ones, and they are constantly under fire because they contain so much plot summary and not enough real-world context (technically, both WP violations for fiction). In general we get away with it if the articles are otherwise well-done, but I try to trim and tighten where I can. I have a friend who's giving me access to a lot of articles about the show so I can build up the character articles with referenced real-world info (the Karen Cellini interview about her leaving the show, for example.

Don't forget to log in (or sign your posts, for that matter)! Membership has its privileges, LOL. — TAnthony^Talk 20:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

references

I see you've changed the reference code for Giovanni's Room - what difference does that make and why is it better?Zigzig20s 01:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The template I added makes them smaller; it is preferred and it's included in AWB's common automatic changes. — TAnthony^Talk 01:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another question back at you: why have to changed the category from Bisexual to the more general LGBT parent category? The fact that the LGBT category was previously all-but empty tells me that it's just meant to contain the other, more specific ones. — TAnthony^Talk 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the James Baldwin novels? If you are, then that is under the assumption that bisexuality is heterocentric, as Judith Butler has shown. Really the academic term 'queer' would be much more appropriate for Baldwin imo. As for A Visitation of Spirits, I have not read the book (yet) and so I thought it would be a safer bet to change the category to LGBT for the time being - but this has to be checked through a minute reading.Zigzig20s 02:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, though it seems a little hair-splitting, LOL. Carry on, my good man! — TAnthony^Talk 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Another question - why does the stub bracket have to come after the works template?Zigzig20s 02:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL, that one I don't know! AWB suggests changes, that must be an established convention. I would guess that the "powers that be" like to keep the order of things consistent to make it easier for editors to find them, as in the case of the preferred relative placement of the "References," "See also" and "External links" sections. AWB also like adding and removing blank lines in certain places, even though they're not really visible/noticeable when the article is displayed, and I will often skip such an edit if that's all it's suggesting. — TAnthony^Talk 02:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

At least I'm funny apparently...Zigzig20s 02:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, The start and end dates that I post are first and last air dates in articles from magazines that I have collected over the last five years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.172.89 (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Chris Stack

whoever is deleting Chris Stack's name from the comings and goings page, don't do it til after the show on Monday December 3, 2007, which is two days from now. Don't put John Rue's and Januarary Lovy's name in red letters, it looks stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onelifefreak2007 (talk • contribs) 14:01, December 1, 2007

It looks stupid?! Red links are acceptable and preferred for links to articles which may be created. It saves the effort of finding and creating these links later once an article is created. The links are red to stand out, and encourage editors to create the articles. These are contract roles on a network series, they are bound to eventually have articles. For example, Charlie Banks (OLTL) was redlinked for awhile, and when the article was recently created, the link was instantly active. If he was de-linked in the first place, someone reading or editing the list wouldn't know he had his own article. Your time would be better spent actually expending an article rather than constantly playing around with the cast list. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk

Michael McBain picture

Hey

Somebody needs to update the picture of Michael McBain since Nathaniel Marston is not playing him anymore and Chris Stack is.

PJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onelifefreak2007 (talk • contribs) 12:12, December 3, 2007

Hey there, I fixed the image problem by re-uploading it; your original upload should be deleted. Keep in mind that you should name images more specifically, and include a fair use rationale template, copyright tag and categories. Also, we don't necessarily remove old performer photos, we move them; see the Michael McBain article. Finally, did you capture the image any bigger? The soap template automatically resizes it to like 210px, and yours is smaller so it comes out slightly pixelated. If you have it in a slightly higher resolution, you can upload it over Image:MichaelMcBain-ChrisStack-2007.jpg. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 21:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dates

By the way, there is no need to change dates between European/American designation (like 3 December 2007 to December 3 2007) — as you can see, they appear exactly the same way, based on each editor's date display preferences. — TAnthony^Talk 22:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm an American and I prefer it the American way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onelifefreak2007 (talk • contribs) 15:37, December 3, 2007

I'm American too, but those kind of useless edits waste resources and bog down watchlists. If you're entering info, you can do it any way you want, but there's no use changing what's already there because it displays exactly the same. Anyway, I'm very appreciative of your recent edits and addition of valuable information; you should join WP:SOAPS and monitor our discussions. Finally, as a reminder, please indent your comments and sign all your talk page posts using the four tildes, "~~~~" Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 00:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Anthony I like you do you have AIM or something cuz I would like to get to know you and this, I think you can help me out with uploading images and such. Hey if you want my screen name it's Skynyrdfreak05, my Yahoo: THSTrojan2006 and MSN: Kennychesneyfan2005@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onelifefreak2007 (talk • contribs) 17:25, December 3, 2007

Dates

Out of curiousity, where are you getting all your actor start/stop dates? It is usually recommened that you add references for this kind of specific information that cannot be easily checked, especially when in some cases you've changed the information that's already there. — TAnthony^Talk 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, The start and end dates that I post are first and last air dates in articles from magazines that I have collected over the last five years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.172.89 (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I assumed that, and didn't necessarily doubt that they were correct. But considering that other online sources may differ, you should document the source of your information if the dates in question aren't already found somewhere else. For example, both of the references for Paige Miller (Alexandra Neil profile - SoapCentral.com and Alexandra Neil profile - ABC.com list her start date as 1/27/06, while I believe you changed it to 2/6/06. Your date is probably correct, but anyone checking the facts wouldn't be able to find your date. — TAnthony^Talk 21:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

Hey there, my edits to One Life to Live minor characters and other articles are to fix errors in grammar and tense or add missing links, not just because I like to rewrite everything. Please don't blindly revert them because you like it your way. For example, plot summaries should be written in present tense and the first mention of any proper name must be linked. Also, I often clean up unnecessary detail because plot summaries are supposed to be as brief as possible and soap articles are constantly under attack for having too much plot summary and not enough real-world information. I always assume errors like this are unintentional, so don't take my edits personally. I'm very appreciative of your recent edits and addition of valuable information; you should create a username, join WP:SOAPS and monitor our discussions. Finally, as a reminder, please indent your comments and sign all your talk page posts using the four tildes, "~~~~" Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 02:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Headings and redirects

Hey there, I just noticed you changed the heading "Brennan Buchanan" in One Life to Live children to "Bree Buchanan." You probably don't realize this, but if you change a heading that notes "This section is the destination" of a link, you must go to each redirect and change it too. Otherwise, that link won't point to that section, since it's looking for the old name. I went ahead and fixed Bree Buchanan, Brennan Buchanan and Bree Brennan, which all redirected there. — TAnthony^Talk 18:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Children of Salem

I added a cool banner that Flyer22 introduced me to tonight to the Children of Salem, Days of our Lives article and listed you as a contributor. I know you haven't contributed per say, but you have been essential to the page with your encouragement and your knowledge of these list pages. If it's not okay, let me know. CelticGreen 02:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the props, I'm always glad to help out. And that banner is cool! — TAnthony^Talk 18:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael and Marcie's wedding

Michael and Marcie married on May 5, 2006. Their reception was drug on until May 10 due to the tornado storyline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OLTL2002 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

OLTL minor characters

Listen, I don't want to be a jerk, but you keep reverting my fixes of incorrect links and such. For example, it is Paris, Texas, NOT Paris Texas, because your way the "Paris" link doesn't go to the right place. My adding "Victoria Lord Davidson" to the hiddden portion of your "Viki Davidson" link avoids the redirect, which is always preferred. Also, your continuing to change the Renee Buchanan heading messes up the redirects, about whuich you seem not to care. I've compromised on that ene, even though she is noted as "Renee Divine" at the start of the paragraph because she was unmarried when she arrived. Finally, you must accept that some of your writing may be awkward, or contain point-of-view phrasing not acceptable for an encyclopedia entry. Please defer to those of us with more experience here. If we keep reverting each other's edits, the article will be locked to stop or "edit war." — TAnthony^Talk 21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi,Might I add that I edit some of your pages to increase accurate information. I have been writing for six years "Mr. Perfectionist", so I don't need somebody telling me how to write. I am quite aware of proper grammar and spelling, which is why I use it. The only different between my paragraphs and your paragraphs is NOTHING. I come here because there are so many sites with in-accurate information, which I have always wanted to improve. I am not a person that goes around causing trouble, but there is a limit before I snap back. I work hard on the things that I write, and I don't write things for people to trash. I have experience. Maybe you'll take into consideration that you aren't the only person on this planet and that your crap stinks, too. Trust me, with the mood that I am in today, I am surprised I haven't said any kind of vulger language, which is why I am both going now, and never editing anything here again. I will go elsewhere where my work is appreciated. Have a nice evening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OLTL2002 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, fixing links is not being a perfectionist. Part of our responsibility as editors is cleaning up sloppiness and ensuring technical accuracy, which is actually more important thatn fictional dates. I appreciate your many factual additions, but in addituion to your technical errors there have been some style issues. Like, you can't say "it is obvious he's having an affair." That's called POV on Wikipedia; I know it seems silly, but the style of writing is asserting an opinion. If I don't remove it, someone else will, or it will compromise the article. Too many "bad things" in an article, and it gets nominated for deletion. This is how Wikipedia works. Soap articles are constantly under attack, we in the Soaps WikiProject are trying to save them. Just because you don't understand something or see the difference does not mean you should revert it, I have like 28,000 edits worth of experience here. I do not want to scare you off, I have always tried to be polite to you, but you have repeatedly ignored my advice/warnings.

AND SIGN YOUR POSTS! — TAnthony^Talk 22:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, your not the only one who can be mean and vulger. I am not "Attacking" the soap articles. I am improving them. Your not scaring me off, I am going on my own accord.

Signed by: MY BIG FAT ASS

Hows that for signing my post?

P.S. You are a VERY rude person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OLTL2002 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I didn't mean that you were attacking the articles, I meant that other editors who don't care about soap articles are constantly trying to delete them with any excuse. This is why myself and other editors are constantly monitoring and "fixing" the articles. I don't expect you to know every stupid detail about Wikipedia that I do, which is why I have made changes myself and given you advice for future edits. I don't believe I have been rude at all. You are the one that takes my edits personally, and reverts things without reading edit summaries or considering logical actions. And that fact that a bot has to keep signing your posts for you should tell you that you're a little behind. Leave if you want. — TAnthony^Talk 23:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Always have to have the last word, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OLTL2002 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

OLTL/Mark Solomon

Thanks for fixing my mistake of leaving two of the same paragraph in the One Life to Live minor characters article. Sorry if you got accused of vandalism! Anyway, just saw your other edits as well and you think like I think; you should create a username and join in the fun! — TAnthony^Talk 23:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the mistake concerning Mark Solomon. Granted I did not read both paragraph to see the differences, but I noticed it was practically the same wording, So I erased it, but then Alexfusco saw it as vandalism which I thought it was not. I thought that this was odd. I also added a link to the actor's page. Thanks again 69.90.207.137 (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC) samusek2

Yeah, good catch on the incorrect actor's name; not sure who originally added it. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 23:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I just saw your other note. It was no problem. I do edit on Wikipedia from time to time. I will think about getting an account here, however there are certain contributors on Wikipedia, who do not take kindly to some of my edits for whatever reason, unlike you. Thanks.69.90.207.137 (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC) samusek2

From User talk:70.17.178.143

• User talk:70.17.178.143

Margaret Cochran

Regarding your reverts to Margaret Cochran; WP specifies present tense for fiction (dies not died), though I still need to convert the entire article to present tense as well. Also, the year is required even for current dates. You're assuming the article will be edited in 2008, perhaps it won't and the date would be confusing/inaccurate. I don't see why you insist on deleting it. — TAnthony^Talk 19:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please also leave red links alone, they allow for future articles to be created and are perfectly acceptable. — TAnthony^Talk 20:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

List of One Life to Live cast members

Please stop removing sourced information from List of One Life to Live cast members. I have provided references for the spelling "Stuart" and you continually revert the information with no source of your own. — TAnthony^Talk 23:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC) This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

Date format

FYI, you should note that full dates are displayed the same (based on user prefs) whether you include the comma (December 25, 2007) or not (December 25 2007) or if they're presented the Euro way (25 December 2007). So there's no need to do an entire edit just to rearrange an accurate date. — TAnthony^Talk 01:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Dune

Hello! thank you. Well i first read it in the most recent iron maiden Fan Club magazine that there was an error in the printing of several versions of the Piece of mind album, and meant that they were very collectable. I then went to google the information to see what was the controversy behind the name, and found this source http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=2348 Is this credible enough? cheers. [[User:Jim Sniper|Jim_Sniper]] [[User talk:Jim Sniper|talk]] (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thanks for fixing one of the linked IMDb references from my edits to the Princess Leia article. I'm not exactly sure how I got that link wrong, but I'm still grateful. — Cinemaniac (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I just took a shot at re-writing the said info. See if it works. — Cinemaniac (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to you, TAnthony, for cleaning up my edit to the Leia article and for improving the citations. I went ahead and added the Friends episode reference for you. Hopefully, this vigourous adding of references (to just two sections!) will spur other Star Wars Wikiproject members to add more in the other sections. — Cinemaniac (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi!! Name change

I wanted to let you know I did a name change. I was tired of being assumed to be the same person as IrishLass. She's cool, but.... Anyway, just wanted to let you know CelticGreen is now KellyAna (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)