Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Active participants - inactive participants

I've noticed other wikiprojects have lists split into two active and inactive. Our list is boasts a whole host of editors, however many have not edited in over three years. Normally I guess editors can decide if they are active, but if they are not around to do so ... what do we do. I have an idea, that anyone inactive for one year could be placed in a seperate list of participants. It would make tasks a lot easy to do, know how much help we really have. Then with the remaining members, we could ask them if they still see themselves as active.RaintheOne ^BAM 02:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I was going to suggest removing very inactive members if you hadn't, but I like your solution. After all, some may return and actually contribute in a substantial way. Ones very unlikely to return (missing in action for three years, for example) should be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Just remember to remove the sockpuppets altogether. - JuneGloom Talk 18:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot about those! :)Rain the 1 18:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've listed those who are inactive - I suspect there are more left who are active, who no longer contribute to Soaps, but I'll have to ask those.Rain the 1 00:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

EJ DiMera and Samantha Brady article

Hi. I noticed that the information about the rape was removed from this article before, but I didn't think much of it then. But earlier I saw that it was back and now its gone again. There appears to be a bias about keeping this information out of the article. The editor who added it back said that is the only thing that makes the article viable on Wikipedia. But a different editor just removed all the information again. This doesn't appear to be in line with Wikipedia policy. Could you guys check it out? 184.239.210.100 (talk) 08:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, no one of this soaps project was willing to help out? I had to revert myself? Sheesh! You should remove this article from Wikipedia if you're going to let editors hide the rape controversy. 66.188.21.122 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I warned the user, and will be keeping an eye on the article when I remember to ("when I remember to" because I don't use a watchlist anymore). Flyer22 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Randi Morgan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Randi Morgan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randi Morgan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --George Ho (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

List of past General Hospital characters

This article has infringed copyrights of Soapcentral.com. Please let administrators check these violations; do not remove these notices until administrators resolve them. If you have data to preserve, make sure that any content is not a copyright infringement of any existing material. --George Ho (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Tom Cudahy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tom Cudahy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cudahy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --George Ho (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Fictional characters nominated for deletion, volume 1

Emma Lavery, Greta von Amberg, and Ellen Lowell‎ are nominated for deletion. Please join discussions. --George Ho (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Emma Lavery should be merged into a children's page or character page. She's not quite verifiable enough for her own page, especially as a young child. The other two I say ditch because there's little-to-no information, unless someone wishes to clean them up and make them worth keeping. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 17:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahem! Would you like me to quote you, or would you yourself post them in AFD? --George Ho (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You can quote me, LOL. As long as it's word-for-word. Aha. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 18:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Ethan Cambias for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ethan Cambias is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Cambias until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --George Ho (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh another article you have nominated - the interesting thing is at this AFD you actually own up to your agenda - cleaning Wikipedia of soap opera articles. He is probably notable considering your previous nominations.Rain the 1 18:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I feel like if, and the key word is IF the article could be better organized and given more information, it should stay. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 18:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Episode counts and updating times

I am interested in updating the episode count on the Emmerdale, The Bold And The Beautiful, and Days Of Our Lives templated. I'm asking at what time should it be done? I need to know the EST time. I'm under the impression that the soaps articles are in a rotten shape. Since I live in Sweden and can't get as much information as to to those who live in the US to update the templates with, I wonder if you please could let me be the one updating the episode counts on the above mentioned templates? Wingard (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be one person's job to update episode count Wingard. If someone gets to it and does it, then it's done. No need to undo it and show signs of WP:OWN. We don't do things that way. B&B airs at 1:30ET. And DAYS is at 1PM. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 17:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I know it's not one person's job. Will no more show signs of bad behavior. You may not blieve, but you'll see. I won't revert it if is done, just trying to reach a consensus here. You're supposed to change the episode after the episode aired or after it started? EST is the first time it airs right?

Wingard please sign your posts. And it has to do when it's begun airing. ET time. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 18:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I forgot to sign, will remember to do so in the future. Wingard (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a fairly reasonable solution to the problem. I would like to add that I hope those interested don't feel this needs to become a race to see who gets there first. I know Wingard has created some less than friendly feelings in some other editors, but there really is no need to get to bent out of shape over the episode counts. AniMate 19:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think due to recent events, the "Episode Count" should only be updated once per week, at the end of every week, after the episodes have fully aired in their timeslots on the east coast, and should be done by someone in the US, to ensure anything like pre-emptions, etc. are accounted for. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 18:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Any conflict from this has stemmed from one user, and with them gone I don't see this being a big deal. AniMate 00:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Nor do I, but it's still good to cover all bases. But I think what I recently recommended today is best. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 00:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Fictional couples

I have created this Project proposal that must cover fictional couples of any fixed medium, print or electronic, such as soap opera couples, Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane, and Sam and Diane. I wonder if you can join in the linked title rather than here. --George Ho (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Universal Colour for US Soap Character Infoboxes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am bringing this up to discuss possibly coming up with a universal colour for soap character infoboxes, to stop edits from changing. All current soaps are either continually changing, or are being edit-warred. And if a character crosses over to another show, that infobox is going to be mis-matched. I am suggesting we discuss possibly choosing ONE core colour for the soap opera characters and keeping it as such colour to stop the edit wars and create consistency for these articles. I am recommending either the default soapbox colour (#D8BFD8) or even the colour (#D7B294), maybe even Dodger Blue. And then we would make the box text that says the series and character name, etc. White. What do you all think? _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 23:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea if you use #cccfff as the universal colour - then it matches the other infobox used for soap oepras creating one true universal colour. There are absolutely zero disputes from anyone about colour for ages now with the second infobox. That is why I think it is a good idea for this infobox to have one colour too.Rain the 1 00:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with colour cccfff because I feel it's too light and not unisex enough. But I do agree with universal colour for the US soaps/Infobox 1. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 00:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I know it is light/faded. It is easy on the eye because it is not blinding anyone. Doesn't make the text hard to read. Seriously, Unisex colour picking shouldn't even come into it. It is a stereotype just like pink for girls and blue for boys.Rain the 1 00:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. However, I'm just trying to think outside of us. Yes, I agree, colours are unisex and shouldn't be gender-aligned, however, we have to keep in mind not everyone is going to think. I think it's too much of a light colour for my taste. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 02:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think white should be used... i think #cccfff should be used; nothing to do with gender or anything or the shade, but the UK & Australian Soaps use it, and instead of introducing a NEW character, using #cccfff that shade would be easier as it already stands for majority. DARK DARK colors shouldn't be used, but not light light ones either (just my opinion); DAYS currently uses Black which is really weird and isn't good. I don't believe in using gender colors either (Re2 Rain the 1); Boys can have pink and girls can have grey or brown, doesn't matter one bit. Also im just saying using white will make the info box of Soap character similar to that of an actor (despite them being completely different info-boxes) and a color should be used.. :) SoapJar 06:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Also MF i tested this #D7B294 and i really like that. But #cccfff should be used... what do u mean its too light ? Isn't "white" a light option too? The lightest possible...Just confused :\ Anyway i suggest either #cccfff or #D7B294 SoapJar 13:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried #D7B294 against both White and Black and the Black I feel didn't look good. Though, that number code is my choice. It's a nice neutral-looking colour. Not too light, not too blue, not too pink, not too red, not too anything. Just perfection. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 18:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

When matching colours up bare in mind WP:COLOUR and WP:NAVBOXCOLORRain the 1 18:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

When you put #D7B294 with a white text, it doesn't look too bad. But black I guess could work. But I really like that colour because it's in a neutral colour itself. And it looks very clean and professional. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 17:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

See User talk:Musicfreak7676#Infobox colors, where I stated that I was likely to agree with Musicfreak7676 about using one infobox color for all American soap operas. Musicfreak7676 had already brought it up at this project (in the bigger infobox discussion above), but it came up again because of the fact that some One Life to Live characters have been transferred to General Hospital. It seems odd to have them sporting the General Hospital infobox color when they are first and foremost One Life to Live characters. It is also messy to do so, when other One Life to Live characters will still be sporting the infobox color they've been sporting for some time now. Flyer22 (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, plus it ends the debate on what series sport what colour. It's all equal and uniform. No different shades of the colour, too. It ends the debate and is something that should be seriously considered. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 19:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I would also support a change for consistency in ibox colours - like Rain, I think it would be good to take it a step further and match the colour of {{Infobox soap character}} with {{Infobox soap character 2}}. Frickative 23:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that UK/AU and US should be uniform. They're both different types of soaps and different regions. I think {{Infobox soap character}} should have it's own colour. I still hold my vote for #D7B294. It adds a nice change and looks very professional and clean. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 18:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

At the end of the day they are all the same genre. Why do you think US should be seperated and be different from foriegn soap operas?Rain the 1 18:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Because I feel they're constructed differently than UK/AU soaps. I think if there's going to be two separate soap boxes, there should be two separate colours. Hence why I also mentioned a new soap box, but that was put down. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 18:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally I feel all the infoboxes should one colour whether they are used in a US soap opera character's article or a UK one. If there isn't a consensus for that, then I think the infobox colour most commonly used for the US soap operas needs to be neutral and okay for partially or fully color blind readers. - JuneGloom Talk 01:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• It might be germane to discussion to note that back in April 2010, a deletion discussion on {{Infobox soap character 2}} was closed as "Keep for now, with the hope that this can be merged with Template:Infobox soap character in the near future." Nearly two years on, I'm not sure what steps have been taken towards that, but certainly if we can create at least one more consistency (here in terms of color), that would be a positive step. I would be opposed to selecting a color that creates a further divide between boxes 1 and 2. Frickative 12:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with JuneGloom07 in saying that the colour should compliment those who are possibly colourblind. Any more opinions on the said colour for Infobox One? _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 18:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a universal colour is needed, personally i don't really mind the colour chosen although i think a white or grey is best, i don't really like the blue of Ibox 2. D4nnyw14 (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The blue in infobox two is not that bad - it works and so far has been approved and used for many smaller projects within this one - so potentially it is the best bet IMO.Rain the 1 22:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because it works in one, doesn't mean it should automatically win. I think Infobox 1 should have its own separate colour, since it's used for a totally different set of soap operas. It's too pigmented to what would be referred to as a "feminine" colour and could potentially be off-coloured to those who are colourblind. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 22:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

But per my last reply, the aim set forth by the TfD discussion is to ultimately integrate ibox 2 into ibox 1. Yes, I think standardising the ibox 1 color is an excellent idea, but if the outcome of that is creating yet another distinction between the two templates, IMO that would be counter-productive. Frickative 22:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Then everything should be changed over to Infobox1 and we should dispose of Infobox2 if everyone seems to insist there's absolutely zero difference between US and UK/AU soaps. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 23:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Where has it been insisted that there's no difference between the two? Of course there are differences, which is why the ibox division has become a fairly long-standing one, and would require a dedicated discussion with the widest possible input from Project members to finesse an acceptable union between the two. Frickative 23:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the consensus here btw - certainly one colour for all - but with no agreement on a new colour for the infobox1 and the rest supporting it adopting the colour 2 uses - is there a consensus there guys?Rain the 1 23:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If it's to go to the blue colour, which I strongly object to, it should at least be a bit of a darker tone. But if I'm going to be once again out-voted because everyone disagrees, then there's nothing I can obviously do to change opinions, even though I feel they are wrong. it should be the darker colour of D8BFD8 which is used on the Project Page. It's darker and less apt to be mistake by those who are partially or fully colourblind, I feel that's a fair compromise. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 00:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that we're going to go with one of the purple colours? So is it D8BFD8 (Which I believe is better, since it's a darker tone, and it the default on the main soap project page) or the lighter cccfff, which is a bit tinted to a red hue. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 20:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is even a consensus here for using that one.Rain the 1 21:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, most have hinted towards it. I just want to try and make a consensus so we can move onto new and better things. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 22:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think that #cccfff should be used for consistency
• SoapJar states that she thinks #cccfff should be used for consistency
• Frickative states that she thinks #cccfff be used for consistency
• JuneGloom07 states that she thinks that infoxes should be one colour regardless of their country of origin
• D4nnyw14 states that one colour should be used for all - while he does not mind #cccfff being used - he does not personally like it
• Flyer22 supports universal colour infobox1 - but no colour preference
• You would like a new colour

The consensus therefor is to use #cccfff for both infoboxes - Condisering that this discussion has been ongoing for two weeks - there has been plenty of time for editors to pitch in - Someone should ask an Admin to make this change in the main template.Rain the 1 22:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Guess there's nothing to do then, I don't agree with the colour. Never have, never will. Oh well, once again, out-voted and I can't do anything about it. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 22:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Creating this Projects own notability on soap-related topics?

General notability guideline (GNG) is already mentioned, so I wonder if this Project could create its own Notability guideline based on commonly accepted guidelines, like GNG. If approved, should it mention real-world coverages, such as reception, analysis, and creative development? Would it affect such articles as Starr Manning and Aubrey Wentworth? I haven't created proposals yet, but, if many people disagree, then no proposals necessary, right? --George Ho (talk) 07:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest making the proposal first and then asking for a request. This is just going to waste time because if you have something already for people to consider, then they can give feedback on improvments if needed.Curb Chain (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Can I make a proposal here or somewhere else? --George Ho (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the point.. why can't we just go off GNG. You would like to create this so it will be easier to delete articles via AFD.Rain the 1 15:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• You believe that I'm doing this to just have soap articles gone, don't you? Well... I'm not. I would love to see your proposals to determine notability of soap-related articles. As I told you, I haven't made one yet; this should be a convincing open discussion, shouldn't it? --George Ho (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any need for a soap-specific notability guideline. "real-world coverages, such as reception, analysis, and creative development" can easily be covered in the Project's style guide. Frickative 11:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• This project can do what it likes, either more restrictive or more permissive, or some other direction, but the result has to be accepted by the community as a whole; Wikipedia is one encyclopedia. Some guidelines from projects are; some are not. Some are not accepted, but act as if they were. In this case, I think whatever you came up with would need a community-wide very public rfc, because there's very wide interest and deeply divided opinions. A drastic change in notability guidelines here might also require a change in the wording , or at least the interpretation, of WP:NOT. What no project can do is decide to ignore WP:V, but this project presumably could try to give it its own special interpretation with respect to WP:RS, if the community agreed. My own feeling is that anything to reduce the repetitive and variable AfDs would be a step forward, even if it weren't what I'd ideally like. But unfortunately experience with the fiction guidelines have shown that enough people are unwilling to compromise except on their own terms to prevent anything being adopted. DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice_pages. This group of editors can create a notability essay any time it wants, and that's what most WikiProjects choose to do. If you want to create a formal guideline, then you need to make a WP:PROPOSAL to the whole community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Image sizes in Infobox soap character

I am proposing a change in Template:Infobox soap character to reduce the mandatory image size in the infobox. I think 240px is excessive and as it is non free media, I think 200px is more appropriate. Plus it would then match the second infobox. Plus - IMO - It looks daft and stretches the infobox. Just no need.Rain the 1 05:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think 240px was a fine size. 200px looks too small in my opinion. Especially where the others have remained 240px. And I also don't appreciate the template being changed without an actual consensus having been made. And I don't think it looks "daft" either, 240px looked fine. If anything, go to a compromise of 220px in the middle. But don't shrink it down to 200px which I feel is far too small for the info box. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 03:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Done that. I've already requested it in Template talk:infobox soap character. If you want to increase or decrease image size, why not there rather than here? --George Ho (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I wrote this on the infobox talk page and I'm stating it again here. Just because one editor wrote a proposal in one place, then another editor quoted that proposal here, why is the change immediately performed without a viable discussion? I do not think the change in image sizes look good at all because it is too small, nor do I understand why the change was made so quickly. The image sizes should all (as in image 1, 2 and 3) be reverted back to their original setting at 240px until a consensus is reached. The point here is that this is a community and just because 2 or 3 editors took part in this does not equal a consensus. Wait for more input before making such a drastic change. I vote no on the image sizes being changed to 200px and they should remain at 240px. Casanova88 (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well do not blame the project for one editors actions. It it on your head to raise the concern with the appropriate place - massing the same message around splits the conversation into three different discussions - about the same thing. However - this suggestion did go uncontested for 20 whole days. As this is an active project, some may assume it faced no opposition with it being such a triviality. I did raise the discussion to this active project, you could have put your views in a little sooner - I'm also finding the "drastic" tag attributed to the change a little over dramatic. I do not think it is a drastic change. I think this needed discussion - it was changed without consensus - although I did not forsee this as a controversial request tbh..Rain the 1 16:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Then it should have been on you to go to users to say "Hey, there's a discussion open! Why not join in?". That would have been the proper thing to do and I won't accept an excuse stating otherwise. I say revert the edits until a discussion is had a full consensus is taken, not partial. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 16:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no excuse here. It is not up to me to notify participants of a discussion - that is at the exact same project they participate in. I'd expect them to atleast visit by default, or at the very least have the project talk in their watchlists. Reverting edits is for vandalism by the way.Rain the 1 17:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

There should still have been proper time allotted before the change was made. That is what the issue is here other than the disagreement over sizes. Casanova88 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't pull the whole "reverting is for vandalism" bull with me. THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS MADE ON THE CHANGE SO IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE. Simple as that. And so I'm supposed to take time out of my busy day from "reverting vandalism" to come here and see what wasteful requests people are making?? _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 17:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not argued that there was no consensus and it should not have been changed. I am refuted your other accusations. Which were at fault. I do find it hard to have a discussion with you too - you appear to be getting irrate (which you want everyone to know about: Block capitals and bold text..) and that is not productive. This type of discussion if usually resolved quick and there is no need to bring the drama class along. You can get back to fighting vandalism if you wish, and if you must carry on then I have to request that so focus on the topic at hand rather than branding other editors opinion as Bull's do-do and excuses. Please take the time to explain why the change is a bad idea.Rain the 1 17:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The change was a bad idea because the images are too small and not easily identifiable. All images in the info box should remain at 240px because it is more accessible and satisfactory. With proper rationale, the images are within proper guidelines at 240px. Casanova88 (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am here to apologize. I had to walk away and calm down to collect myself. I've been under quite a bit of personal stress which I should not have brought onto the site. So I apologize. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 18:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You could still clearly idenitify the subject (In my opinion only). Having many non free images, not trying to make them a low resolution as not to aid reuse elsewhere - but making them as big as possible too. Seems slightly unfair on those who go out of their way to tighten down and comply with fair use as much as possible. I'm just trying to make everything stable - these type of images are always kicked into deletion discussions. Talking of rationales - they are very thin and do not pass. If the rationale explained the size, then I wouldn't have any objection. One of the common fields asks for "potion used" to be indetified after all.Rain the 1 18:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to inform that the images are increased back to 240px. --George Ho (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Use of IMDB ratings

Could you help Charles Dayton out for me. There's been a little editing spat at Aurora (telenovela) - a misunderstanding about motives I feel. And it has raised a question about using IMDB ratings and fan ratings on the Telemundo site as sources for content about...fan ratings. He's asked me for guidance, but I don't edit much in this area - my concern has always been where IMDB is used for BLP data. What discussion there is is at Talk:Aurora_(telenovela)#IMDB_and_Telemundo.27s_official_discussion_forum_as_sources and User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#Is_this_meat_puppetry?. If folks could offer an opinion at my talkpage or at the article if you guys have guidelines on this, it would be gratefully received.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Characters of soap operas

I think I have insufficient energy to be interested in these characters anymore because soap operas in my country are dying and quality is less desirable nowadays, yet I won't say that articles are bad enough to deserve AFD. Nevertheless, officially-recorded opinions, creative development, and scholarly analyses should make these characters more notable; plot and casting are less important, yet people see them as encyclopedic. If Sam and Diane article can cover fiction and reality, why not characters below?

Cara Castillo

Cara Castillo of All My Children would have been nominated for if not for User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions#Cara Castillo; I won't say that she meets WP:GNG because I cannot find real-world reception of her. I wanted to blank out the plot, but I couldn't because soap operas will not be re-aired with SOAPnet going away. If you want me to help edit, then what else should I do, besides basically edit to balance fiction and reality? --George Ho (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have finally redirected a page to a list; any objections? --George Ho (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Simon Frasier and Katie Peretti

I tried finding sources in Google News and Books for Simon Frasier and Katie Peretti, a couple from As the World Turns; no significant coverages are found in terms of real-world critique and analyses. I wonder if there is a chance to improve an article to prove that this topic meets WP:N at any way. --George Ho (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This article was deleted for being listed as copyright violation for more than seven days after listing. --George Ho (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Pine Valley (All My Children) and One Life to Live children

Before you jump to premature conclusions, I did not nominate these pages for deletion; TenPoundHammer did. Nevertheless, I vote delete on both of them. Feel free to discuss in their AFDs. Try to believe what you think about me, but think about out-of-fiction notability first before going "it does exist for many years" argument. --George Ho (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC) Now both AFD are closed. No consensus to delete. --George Ho (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Molly Lansing

What makes this topic notable? 708heytony is a sockpuppet of Dane97, and he turned a redirect back into an article with new content. --George Ho (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Merged already. --George Ho (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Alice Bates

How is this character notable? It consists of only fictional background of the character and a portrayer's background. --George Ho (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional supercouples

Opinions on whether to delete or not? 31.193.133.160 (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Fan fiction vandal

Back in March I had to protect One Life to Live miscellaneous characters because an anonymous IP resolving to Bell Canada had decided to add a lot of unreferenced and frankly awful fan fiction. The bulk of this had to with different characters marrying or being involved with someone with a ridiculous name like Stenlyn Sont-Colson or Sienna Dejo. The have now managed to get a new IP, which is a fairly common occurrence with some internet providers, and moved on to List of past General Hospital characters, creating an awful story about the return of Amelia Joffe and her ridiculously named siblings Aina and Aleon Monroe, Sandi and Ula Joffe, and Cylee Ackles. They were gearing up to do something similar to Serena Baldwin with unlikely names of Sam Haz and Mateo Person. I've blocked the newest IP for a week and would prefer not to have to protect this article, but if it starts back up I may have to. There are a ton of "List of characters from [insert soap name]" and some others may have been hit. Keep an eye out for outright lies and more subtle vandalism in these articles, especially in the infoboxes. If you notice anyone doing this, please report them to me for blocking and possible page protection after you revert them. Don't engage them beyond dropping warning templates on their talk pages as WP:DENY and WP:RBI are probably relevant here. If I'm not around try going to WP:AIV to find an admin to block. AniMate 18:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Week by week ratings updates

Pavitra Rishta and other Indian soap operas have a record of week by week ratings since 2009. I presume this has nothing to do with guideline good practice. Is there a policy somewhere that relates to this? Thanks Span (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

My deepest regrets

Well, I'm now beginning to realize that whatever I did was inexcusable toward soap opera dedicators, excluding reports on copyright violations. I did things on topics out of my personal interest because I had no faith on soap operas, but that led me to being a total pariah of soap opera dedicators. I massively tagged PRODs and AFDs on all American soap opera topics because I have unilateral reasons which turn out to be too flimsy for deletion. There is no excuse, and I made shameful or shameless comments and accusations, especially on Casanova88 for sockpuppetry.

There's no turning back. Damage is done, and there's nothing I can do to heal the wounds between me and you all here. Even anything I do, such as creating Sam and Diane and causing eruptions in EastEnders pages, doesn't make up everything I have done because I could not figure out how to be productive and social toward you.

Now I realize that "discussions come first" advice is beneficial because it's a greatest social thing to do, yet I still don't do non-deletion discussions because... I don't determine very well how controversial or uncontroversial anything is. I feel so inferior when I feel outsmarted by strong points, but you can think I'm too personal or something. Doesn't matter. I have so much love to give, and I ruined it. But you're not the only ones; in fact, I hurt Dr. Blofeld and some others before block. In fact, I cannot understand anything very much. I depend on words because I want to be superior, and I landed myself without much social progress.

There are problems in Wikipedia that are needed to be fixed, but I demolished all my chances to fix soapy things by letting others do the cleanup. If you feel better that I don't involve in soap topics anymore, say so. However, I am trying to improve my reputation and my social skills, but... maybe even mentioned concerns over notabilities of characters won't help very much. However, if there is such thing as another chance, let me know; otherwise, I'll get away from soapie things if you want me to do so. --George Ho (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Only Soaps

I recently came across onlysoaps.com and they have some great opinion pieces about characters and storylines from British and Australian soaps. I'd really like to use some of their pieces in some articles that I'm working on, but is the website considered reliable? It has a list of authors/editors here - [1] and the site is owned and operated by KBY Media, which in turn is owned by KBY Design. What do we think? - JuneGloom Talk 15:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Having looked over KBY - they seem to be really good and very professional. The website itself appears to have a great editorial - and they liaison with press offices; which is always a good sign! They appear to have employed at a professional/experienced level and only have one freelance journalist. I have also had a look at their published news stories and checked them against other entertainment news websites and news websites - again the information is correct from the handful I chose at random. I'd say this is fine and a good find JG.Rain the 1 19:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The website looks really useful and helpful in improving the standard of soap articles. KBY seems really professional and reputable and the editors for the site seem knowledgable and experienced. D4nnyw14 (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposing a list to confirm dates (births, deaths, marriages, etc)

I've seen several examples of this, but mostly for non-American soaps. Since American soap operas have had such an issue with birth dates, I've compiled a list confirming all dates for characters on specific a series; the list would be similar to this one for characters of the British soap, Coronation Street. Now the list would include birth dates both on-screen and off that can be confirmed and backed up with sources; it would also include revised birth dates for characters who have been SORASed; the list would also have dates of deaths, and marriages for couples (as well as divorce dates). However, before I start the article, I'd like to know what you guys would think of a list like this.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 20:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If it is sourced then it should be perfectly fine - Although I would ignore the SORAS dates - those lists you speak of should adhere the real world date each birth, marriage and death occured. I say should because some are unfinished and there may be outstanding issues. Also try to avoid off-screen deaths, births and marriages - from the real world perspective they never happened in the series.Rain the 1 20:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Question about "List of Cast Member" Pages

I know that per WP:YEAR things are listed as either "1997–2002" or "1997–99", so on cast lists, shouldn't they be listed the same way? And if they're airing, should it be the short dash ("–") or the long dash ("—")

Per example:
Currently Appears As: ACTOR || CHARACTER || 1997–1999, 1999–2001 2003–2010, 2011–

Should It Appear As: ACTOR || CHARACTER || 1997–99, 1999–2001 2003–10, 2011—

I just want to know so we can comply with WP:YEAR, etc. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 18:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep - Your second example is correct - it can be applied for any dates and the long dash used where the duration is still ongoing.Rain the 1 19:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. So cast lists should be updated to represent this, yes? _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 19:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

They should be updated, just cite WP:YEAR when you do.Rain the 1 20:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I am! _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 20:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus Needed for DAYS Cast List

We need your help and views here: [2] I say the recurring years should be added, while another member says they should due to "past consensus" from when the page was created, yet I cannot find such a consensus. Another opinion is needed. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 20:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Lucas Horton should be Lucas Roberts

The character's common name is Lucas Roberts. He has been known by that name for far longer than Lucas Horton. An editor did a cut-and-paste move on this article, which removed most of the article history that is supposed to be under this new title. All of this needs to be fixed. I would go to WP:Requested moves, but I'm about to leave Wikipedia again to attend to offline work, and I felt it should be noted to the project what this character's common name is so that there may form a lookout with regard to this happening again. Flyer22 (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I will put it into WP:Requested moves tonight if someone else hasn't already. And I'm sad you're leaving again. :( _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 19:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I only meant for a few or several hours, Musicfreak, LOL. And thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Doctors characters

I would appreciate some views on List of Doctors characters, as a change of the format for the character list has been made to merge all past and present characters into one list and use a colour coded system to show their status. Any views much appreciated. Adamiow (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey. I did notice this big change - I shall have a look now.Rain the 1 14:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Karen McDonald (Coronation Street)

Hi :) This is a duplicate of a post I left at WP:Coronation Street but I wasn't sure if anyone would see it there as it doesn't seem to be active.

I've expanded the reception section on her article a fair bit, and hope to start sandboxing a development section here with a possible look at developing it to a possible Good Article. If anyone has any advice, improvements to suggest or resources that might help (for a start I'm not eligible for Highbeam) it would be really appreciated :) I'm aware the storyline section needs cut and re-written in places but I think that would be better to leave until the other sections are all up to shape. Thanks, Eshlare (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Could some project members provide some guidance at Talk:List of The Young and the Restless characters (2010s) on the proper use of the {{Infobox soap character}} parameters? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move discussion: Talk:Dimitri Marick and Erica Kane

Stopping by to alert editors of this. Weigh in if you have the time. Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Soap opera character stubs

Some help would be appreciated, in cleaning up some of the stub-class articles for soap opera characters. In tagging the appropriate articles and making sure that they are part of the project, I found several that were not much more that a few sentences, and could easily be merged into a list of characters for that soap opera. An extreme example is William Hughes (As the World Turns), but a lot of these stubs have not been expanded in years, and are not notable enough for individual articles. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi - I'm new and not sure how to do this on my own, but the stub for Leyla Mir can be merged or deleted as she's included on List of General Hospital Characters (2000s) - Leyla Mir. Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind - I figured this out and merged/redirected. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

User TheRedPenOfDoom

They are removing comings/goings from cast pages of soap operas, claiming them as not following encyclopedic Wiki policy, what do we do? This, in theory, ruins soaps operas when they're removing SOURCED, THIRD PARTY materials. It appears they are a newer member, attempting to disrupt an article, though under what appears to be good faith. Musicfreak7676 ^{my talk page!} 18:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

see below Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#ephemeral_content_about_upcoming_cast_changes_and_non-encyclopedic_section_heading_at_List_of_The_Young_and_the_Restless_cast_members. But, third party sourcing is merely the minimal requirement. The content from the source must also be appropriately encyclopedic. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Assessment Questions

Hi - I'd like to help with the uncategorized and start-class pages but am not sure I understand how the assessment categories descriptions relate to soap-world pages. Any guidance on how to assign a class to a soap character page is greatly appreciated. For example - what is the purpose of the "category" class? What class is the goal for a soap character page? Thanks much! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

the guidelines are here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas/Assessment -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you know what the "Category" class means? Is it another group of "to be assessed"? Let me know if I'm missing something but I don't see it on the guidelines. Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

as a navagational/sorting/association tool, articles generally have one or more "categories" assigned to them (you can see them at the bottoms of the pages) - that is the list of "categories" that are associated with Project SOAPS. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Twitter

Just curious as to why an actor's OFFICIAL Twitter account is not recognized as a legitimate source. I would think that would be the best source possible coming from the actor himself. Colton hockey11 (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

it would only ever be suitable for WP:SPS content; and because they can be deleted, sources that can be expected to be around to be verified for a long time are much preferred for any content. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it is not a third-party source. Musicfreak7676 ^{my talk page!} 14:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirects

Do we tag redirects as part of these project? I think WikiProjects are in mainly improving pages. Redirects can't be improved further so they should not really be part of this project. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

depends upon the nature of the redirect about whether or not it can or has the possibility of being improved. If the character article [Sam Jones] is being redirected to [Samantha Jones] its a completely different kettle of fish than if the character article [Sam Jones] is being redirected to [List of characters in X] because there is not currently sufficient third party content about the charater to support a stand alone article and that is different still from character [Sam Jones] article being redirected to [List of characters in X] because an AfD determined that result. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As stated above - some are for house keeping. Others are because the character is covered in a list - because there is not scope for an article. These are ongoing serials so that could be subject to change. In some cases redirects are in place simply because no one has bothered to find sources and write about what is notable about the fictional character - therefor it is contained in the list.Rain the 1 01:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

2 Things associated with Doctors

After a recent notification by a user, I have come to know that Doctors does not have it's own official colour - Emmerdale has green. Can Doctors have purple (Like the 2012 list here?). I just think it would be god for differentiation. Also, Doctors is ordered by seasons. Does that mean, and would people agree with this when I say, that the lists should be infact seasons? Season 1 and 2 both started in 2000, but 2 runs over to 2001, so it only makes sense. Thoughts? — M.Mario (T/C) ~

Emmerdale doesn't have green, it has the standard colour every other soap opera has. However, there might still be some articles that haven't been updated yet (no one really edits the Emmerdale pages). I think there may have been a Project consensus to remove the individual colours from the infoboxes, but not sure where that is at the moment. - JuneGloom Talk 18:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice try but most are aware that Emmerdale is the untouched soap. They have not been changed over - aside from a select few June and I worked on. I do not think Doctors needs "differentiation" - why should it be any different. A mass of editors have long been in agreement pretty colour schemes have little use and no value. I think the years are fine too. It is an ongoing show with breaks - I can think of a few other soap operas in the world that do it. If two seasons air in one year - why not keep it simple and containable.Rain the 1 22:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

But characters which were introduced in 2000, are from Season 1 & 2, but characters which were introduced in 2001, are from Season 2 & 3. Shouldnt we keep all the season's together? Im just saying that there is this crossover. I just wanted to ask. It's hard to explain. — M.Mario (T/C) 11:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources for Cast Pages

Hi - I've heard here and there about certain sources not being reliable for cast lists, i.e. soapcentral.com, daytime confidential, and was wondering if there is a list anywhere or if might be helpful to put a list somewhere on this project page?

Specifically, I'm wondering about Soaps She Knows, but raised the question on others.

Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Soapcentral is nothing but a fansite and has poor editoral. I have always advised against using it. There are many more just like it too. Sheknows Entertainment is part of the Atomic Online network and they aim to deliver "premium" content - It is certainly one of the better choices. Daytime Confidential is fine IMO - Zap2It is trusted among many media angencies and they have good editorial.Rain the 1 23:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

My soaps.com source additions were reverted as unreliable... so I guess it isn't? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Depends - is it one editors preference - or a revert based on a newly formed consensus? I'd request an explanation, maybe they know better and were involved in a discussion that they could point you in the direction of.Rain the 1 09:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Input on Cast List

Hi - looking for some input/opinions to see what consensus would be on some proposed clean up changes to GH Cast page - talk page link is here. Questions are about whether or not to separate deceased cast from the former cast list into their own section, and how to categorize which characters go in "before they were stars" section (in general, what is the best way to list the actors under former cast, before they were stars, and celebrity appearances, as some are listed multiple places and some aren't). Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi again - this discussion has expanded and opinions are requested again. The main questions are:

1. How to define "celebrity" appearances (are they included under former cast, as well as a "celebrity" section, or is it split between former cast and celebrity/notable guest appearances? If included in both lists, how is "celebrity" defined?)
2. What constitutes inclusion in former cast list - is it any actor that's been on the show other than extras, or only former recurring or contract players.

Any input is greatly appreciated. Here is the link. Thank you! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Definition of rape at EJ DiMera and Sami Brady article

Hi, everyone. There is currently an editor there ignoring sources and saying that coerced sex doesn't count as rape/that it's WP:FRINGE. You can see this discussion here. Will any of you help out by commenting? Given what I've stated to the editor about this, he is not making any sense. 218.108.168.130 (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Well, you're going around accusing others of being socks. They are accusing you of vandalism. This has all the makings of a bad soap, but in the meantime I note that the article and its sources leave little wiggle room: it's rape. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Expanded "See Also" Section

I've added a couple subsections to the "See Also" section, taking the idea from a couple of similar projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hollyoaks and Wikipedia:WikiProject_EastEnders. One section is a start of a list of sources generally considered reliable for sourcing articles. I feel some sort of centralized list here could help in some of the individual talk page discussions. The other section is a place we can provide links to any discussions that may come up again, to avoid rehashing the same topics. Please feel free to edit/provide feedback for either section. Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Expand Template:Infobox soap character

I am proposing that we add another parameter for characters who have appeared on more then one soap opera (soaps that aren't spin-offs of the original). The series parameter seems to get a bit crowded for certain characters, most significantly Skye Chandler who has appeared on all three ABC soaps. The series parameter could just include the soap where the character originated and the "cross over" parameter could include the other soaps the character has appeared on with the duration.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 18:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it would just have to be explicitly defined as to what constitutes the main soap versus crossovers. For example, the OLTL characters that are better known for their length of time on OLTL but are currently GH characters. Or Skye Chandler who originated on AMC but spent the most time on GH. Would the main soap be whichever they are currently/most recently on, even if they are better known for another soap? I think multiple soaps in the series parameter doesn't look awful if its less confusing to keep as-is. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the main show would be the soap on which the character was originated; for example Skye Chandler was first introduced on All My Children in 1986, so All My Children would be the only series to appear in the parameter; while One Life to Live and General Hospital (the other shows she appeared on) would appear in the cross over parameter, because they are separate shows as apposed to a character like Scott Baldwin who originated on General Hospital, but also appeared on series' spin-off, Port Charles.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 02:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with having the originating show as the main one. I think it might be best to leave it the way it is. For spin-off shows, they can go in the "spin-offs" parameter. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

We should not make a project wide change to suit an article about this Skye character. Plus who is to say the series a character "originated" from is the reason the character is even notable? I dislike proposals to suit such in universe trivial matters.Rain the 1 03:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Skye Chandler is not the only character that this would apply to, she was just an example I thought of off the top of my head; I can name a bunch of others like Angie Hubbard, Frankie Hubbard, Ashley Abbott, Lauren Fenmore, Sheila Carter, Tracy Quartermaine, Anna Devane and several others; all of these characters originated on one specific show and then crossed over over to other shows that were not spin-off's of the original show. Most recently, several of the One Life to Live characters have started appearing on General Hospital and I think another parameter would be helpful.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 02:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it would raise too many issues separating the originating show from future cross-overs. For one, the cross-over show may be more notable for the character than the originating show, or they both could be equally notable. In those cases I don't think it would be best to have the crossover later in the infobox. If anything the current show should be in the main parameter, but I think it's best to leave it the way it is. I don't think multiple shows looks that bad. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Redirect categories

Can we please discuss the value of the redirect class banners? As discussed a few sections above, there are a few different situations where one would be used.

1. Redirects to a list of characters. I definitely see value of tagging those talk pages with redirect class banners, especially since viewing this list would show opportunities to create new articles.
2. On some character pages, when there are multiple pages with different names for the character, there are redirect class banners on the pages that redirect. I personally don't see the value here. Can someone explain?

I have been going through the different class lists today trying to clean up in general, and when I found examples such as #2 I removed the banners and redirected the talk page to the talk page of whatever main article the article was redirecting to. I thought this kept the list cleaner and also allowed the list of redirect class articles to be those that are opportunities for growth. Thank you Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

One more comment on this - the articles in question (and not that large of quantity) were mostly to Hollyoakes and Neighbours, and a lot of other shows don't currently do this. So if we keep them do we need to add them to all the other soap redirects that don't have them? (again, for same character name variation pages, not redirecting to lists which seem to all have them already). Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Echo Beach

I have started a discussion at Talk:Echo Beach (TV series)#Was it a soap or not? about its soapiness. Please take a look if you're familiar with the show. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

More Assessment Questions

Can an article be start class if it does not have any reliable sources? Thanks. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What constitutes "soap"?

Hi - another question, is there a specific list of soap operas we include in the project? I noticed the soap banner was removed from a couple characters from Twin Peaks and the O.C. These seem like they could go either way with being considered a soap or not? Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello - after not receiving feedback here, and realizing the OC related articles were both labeled with and without the soaps project banner, I was bold and removed the remaining articles. I have received a complaint from an editor so would like to ask for opinions again. My thoughts:

1. I don't disagree that they are a type of soap-opera like show, but I think the scope of the project does not include many other similar shows that should be added as well if this show is included.
2. I noticed the discrepancy when seeing articles delisted by another editor, so this is not just my sole opinion.
3. They are not included on List of soap operas, so all these types of shows should be added to that article. Please do not confuse this as me saying that WP is a source, I just simply think the article should be consistent and came across it while looking into this issue.
4. The OC has their own task force under the TV wikiproject.
5. While the OC is the show in question of this disagreement, I think there are others that are in similar situations (Twin Peaks, Melrose Place) where a few articles have the banner but others don't. So if a larger consensus could be made about what is and isn't in the project, that would be helpful. Thank you Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I always thought they were dramas, in fact the articles themselves even call them dramas. Are there any references to say they are soap operas? Some shows do have a soap opera type feel to them (Revenge jumps to mind), despite not actually being a soap. - JuneGloom Talk 13:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the two shows in question are dramas. They are billed as drama online. As JuneGloom has asked, if there are any sources referring to it as a soap opera, or producers, crew or the network calling it as such - now would be a good time to highlight them.Rain the 1 21:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The editor who voices opposition commented on my talk page that reliable, third party sources call the show a soap opera (although did not name specifics). While I do not disagree that it has soap qualities and some sources may have called it a type of soap, I think the bigger question is if these types of shows are soaps, there are a lot of similar types of dramas that can be argued "soap-like" and should be added as well. As this isn't the most active of projects, I vote to keep them off. Especially in cases like the OC which already has a task force under the TV wikiproject. But I have similarly wanted to know about Twin Peaks, Melrose Place, etc, where the articles are inconsistently including the soap banner. OC I started with since I didn't think it would face opposition. Thanks everyone. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually they are soap operas, primetime soap operas, but soap operas none the less, so I say include them. Jester66 (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not understanding this distinction between "drama" and "soap opera"; soap operas are dramas, hence "daytime drama" for the ones that come on during the day. And Jester66 is correct about them being primetime soap operas, which is what I mentioned to Kelly Marie 0812 when referring her to the Soap opera article. Like I also told her, one thing she (or someone else) could also do to achieve WP:Consensus on this is leave a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television and direct them to the discussion here about this. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/The O.C. task force is extremely inactive, so there's not even a point in bringing that project up. We can go by reliable sources regarding what shows are considered soap operas, but not just random comments by a source's author that a show is a soap opera; rather how often a show is referred to as a soap opera by reliable sources. The O.C. is called a soap opera by many sources, and was even included on SOAPnet as one. Before that, the reason that I didn't refer to any specific source calling The O.C. a soap opera is because it's easy enough for anyone to Google and see that it is often categorized as a soap opera. The same goes for Melrose Place, especially Melrose Place. 212.156.123.106 (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that this discussion all wittles down to if there is reliable sources to say that it is a soap opera, and if the majority say it is. For instance, if only one source says it is, but then another 4 say it is a TV drama, then you should go with the latter. — M.Mario (T/C) 16:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There are some primetime series that are considered soap operas (Dallas, Melrose Place, The OC, Beverly Hills 90210, etc.) so I say series like that should be included. However, there are some other primetime series that have been called soap operas when in fact they're not (Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, Revenge, etc.), so I don't think those should be incorporated. Creativity97 19:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

What about putting a list on the main page, or updating List of soap operas to reflect whatever consensus is (including sources)? My main concern/question is consistency, most these pseudo soaps are half included, half not. I don't mind cleaning them up either way but don't want the changes reverted when another opinion comes along. My own opinion is keep this project to daytime and let the nighttime dramas be under the TV project. But I'm open to anything that will end the discussion in a consensus that will stick. Thanks everyone for taking time to comment. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think they should only be classed as soap operas if there are reliable sources calling them soap operas or if they are billed as soap operas by official material. I think that list is out of date too, some soap operas aren't inlcuded and some that are dramas are. D4nnyw14 (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Abi Branning

Hello there. I just wanted to request if someone who has enough time to review Abi Branning for GA status. I nominated it over four months ago and I just want to get it out of the way. Is anybody able to do this for me? Many thanks in advance, George^Ping! 22:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done — M.Mario (T/C) 22:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Last appearances

Hello. I would like to reach a consensus concerning last appearances with characters who have made afterlife appearances (i.e. ghost, dream or hallucination). Many users have said that it should just be their final appearance overall and not their final appearance alive, some have said it should be just their final appearance alive and some have said list both. I believe that an afterlife appearance is still an appearance of the character, but at the same time I think their final appearance alive is important to be listed in the info-box. Please list your opinions here! Thanks, Creativity97 22:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the afterlife appearance should be considered the final appearance of the character, since even though they passed on it's STILL the character, it shouldn't matter if it's them as a ghost, dream or hallucination. Like Cassie Newman she died on May 24, 2005, but she made her "final" appearance as the character on March 15, 2010. Jester66 (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It is really simple, the final time a character appears in the show is the last appearance. As this is a work of fiction the character can be depicted alive, dead, a ghost, a vision, appear in a dream etc... the character is still on-screen and part of the show.Rain the 1 01:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jester and Raintheone. It's their last appearance, so it should be written in as their last. It doesn't matter if they are alive or appearing as a ghost. However, I don't think flashbacks from years ago should count. But there should be brackets e.g. (as a ghost) clarifying. Arre 02:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree the last time the character appears should be listed, even if they are "dead." I could go either way on listing both... ideally it would be less clutter to use death date, death cause, and cause parameters and not need to list both dates and reasons in brackets on the same parameter, but a lot of characters are complex so it might not work for everyone. Whatever's decided, I think it would be a good idea to expand on Template:Infobox_soap_character#Relationship_parameters to make it clear. Arre makes a good point about flashbacks, we should specify that too so people don't keep changing the date any time historical clips are shown.

As a side note - if anyone is interested in giving a little more detail on some of the relationship parameters, I think it would be really helpful. I don't mind helping - I don't think I know as many common practices as you guys do though. I do think there's a good amount that aren't spelled out there. (i.e. no small text, use of "former" in occupation, etc). Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you to everyone for contributing their opinions. I understand everyone's points of view. Now, because the general consensus is to list the last date the character was used, I do not believe that in the "Cause/reason" column it should be, for example, "Appeared to [someone] as a ghost". That is not their reason for leaving the show, so I believe that even if their last appearance is as a ghost, the Cause/reason should remain their initial reason for departing. Discuss! Creativity97 22:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that if it's non-death related it could stay as the reason why they left the show, but if it was their cause of death that should go in death cause and then cause/reason would be the ghost, etc? At least the way the parameters are written now I've always assumed to use death cause if they died and leave the other blank/fill it with whatever reason they appeared after dying. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kelly. if they appear as a ghost/spirit, their cause/reason should be "Appeared to [someone] as a ghost", and they would already have their death stated under "Cause of Death" Jester66 (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)