Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Jason47a (talk | contribs)
420 edits
 
(744 intermediate revisions by 87 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas/Navigation}}
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas/Navigation}}
{{Talk header|wp=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Soap Operas}}
{{WikiProject Soap Operas}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 8
|counter = 12
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(60d)
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-11-13/WikiProject report|writer=[[User:Mabeenot|Mabeenot]]||day=13|month=November|year=2013}}
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot II |age=3 |units=months |index=/Archive index }}
{{tmbox
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|type = style
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
|image = [[File:Crystal128-info.svg|70px]]
|text = {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas/Article alerts}}
}}
}}
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used|link=Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-11-13/WikiProject report|writer=[[User:Mabeenot|Mabeenot]]||day=13|month=November|year=2013}}

== Recreation of [[Joey Rainbow]] ==

I've spoken to [[User:Cirt|Cirt]], the deleter of said article three years earlier and I have been working on it in my userspace for a while and feel it is ready to go as I now have several sources with a large development section and he has no objection but did advise me to consult a few wikiprojects before proceeding. Is anyone opposed to this? [[User:Conquistador2k6|Conquistador2k6]]<small>[[User talk:Conquistador2k6|Talk to me, Dammit!]]</small>

== [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[Maggie Barnes (Dallas)]] ==

[[Image:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|48px|]]

The article [[Maggie Barnes (Dallas)]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]]&#32; because of the following concern:
:'''[[WP:N]] - no mention of notability; nonnotable secondary TV soap opera character'''

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]].

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:Maggie Barnes (Dallas)|the article's talk page]].

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[Special:Contributions/76.65.128.43|76.65.128.43]] ([[User talk:76.65.128.43|talk]])
== [[Talk:Kendall Hart#Date of First Appearance & Initial Age of Character]] ==

There is a relatively new editor at the [[Kendall Hart]] article who needs Wikipedia editing guidance. Anyone from here willing to help out on [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kendall_Hart&diff=570798857&oldid=570798660#Date_of_First_Appearance_.26_Initial_Age_of_Character this matter]? [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 11:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

== WP Soap Operas in the ''Signpost'' ==

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Soap Operas for a ''Signpost'' article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Interviews2|here are the questions for the interview]]'''. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. [[User:Mabeenot|–Mabeenot]] ([[User talk:Mabeenot|talk]]) 12:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

== [[Scott Robinson and Charlene Mitchell]] ==

The relationship is already covered in [[Scott Robinson (Neighbours)]] and [[Charlene Mitchell]]. I wonder if the relationship page is necessary. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 22:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
:As you know, it is necessary if they are notable as a couple and the couple article is not too redundant with regard to the individual character articles. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 22:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
:: In this case, is the page redundant to either? If not, are certain portions appropriate for both pages? --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 23:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
:::These two are probably the most famous couple in the history of Soap opera.[[User:Raintheone|'''<span style="color:blue;font-family:Times New Roman">Rain</span>''']] <small>[[User talk:Raintheone|<font color="green">'''the 1'''</font>]]</small> 21:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
::::Fame isn't a sufficient reason for notability. But must we solely use it for the existence of the article? [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 07:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

== [[Adam Chandler]] and [[Stuart Chandler]] ==

I know that Adam was introduced in [[All My Children]] as Erica's love interest in 1983, although I wasn't born yet. Then Stuart was introduced as nuisance to Erica and sheltered by Adam. Since we can't depend on in-universe notability (especially retold synopses in mags like ''Soap Opera Digest''), we might go for out-of-universe notability. Adam had many children and troubled romances, while Stuart is too innocent. I bet merging both articles is possible, although Stuart had some prominent stories, like his AIDS wife. Explaining their separate stories in one article won't make the page that long, does it? Here's the [http://www.ebay.com/itm/All-My-Children-AMC-David-CANARY-ADAM-Stuart-CHANDLER-KEYCHAIN-NEW-/200940472174?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ec8fc476e keychain photo of both]. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 23:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

== What are the differences between a sitcom and a soap opera? ==

I am not sure I understand the difference between a [[sitcom]] and a [[soap opera]]? Would someone please educate me. Thanks in advance, X[[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|talk]]) 16:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

:A sitcom is a comedy like ''Seinfeld'' or ''Friends''. A soap opera is a drama, like ''The EastEnders'' or ''Days of our Lives''.&mdash; [[User:TAnthony|TAnthony]]<sup>[[User Talk:TAnthony|Talk]]</sup> 19:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

:More precisely, a sitcom has a basic "status quo"; all episodes begin from it and return to it at the end. So, you can watch any given episode, and understand it as a stand-alone story. A soap opera, on the other hand, has a story that is always going on from episode to episode, so you need to have seen them all (or at least most of them) to understand what's going on at the current one. In fact, the division in episodes is just for the watcher's convenience, the sitcom is one big never-ending story (or a single story that lasts for all the duration of the series). [[User:Cambalachero|Cambalachero]] ([[User talk:Cambalachero|talk]]) 20:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

== [[User:Amakuru]] trading out the [[General Hospital]] link for the [[General Hospital (U.S. TV series)]] link across Wikipedia ==

I'm not sure what to make of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amakuru&diff=583309057&oldid=580568781#General_Hospital this matter]. "General Hospital" is the article, while "General Hospital (U.S. TV series)" is a redirect to that article. If Amakuru is planning to move the General Hospital article to "General Hospital (U.S. TV series), while leaving General Hospital as a disambiguation page shared by other articles with the General Hospital name, then Amakuru should start a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] discussion about this. Amakuru and others should also keep [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]] in mind. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 00:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
:Note: I have replied to [[User:Flyer22]] on this matter at [[User talk:Amakuru]]. There is already a requested move in progress, although my actions are not intended to be prejudicial to that at all. There is no effect for readers. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 00:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
::Like [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amakuru&diff=prev&oldid=583311330#General_Hospital I stated] on your talk page, "I feel that you should have waited until the requested move discussion was over before making such a link change on a massive scale. And, yes, I am quite aware of what [[WP:Redirects]] do; that is not the point." To others, the move discussion is at [[Talk:General Hospital#Requested move]]. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 00:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
:::I have continued this conversation at my talk page: [[User talk:Amakuru#General Hospital]]. As I said there, I accept that I made a mistake here, and apologise for any inconvenience caused. Thanks &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 10:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
::::Update: I have now completed the reversion of the pages on which I'd changed the link, so all the affected pages are as they were, with the links directly to [[General Hospital]] rather than piped. Thanks &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 14:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

== Cast years on soap lists ==

From a very intense discussion [[Talk:List of Days of our Lives cast members#Cast years|on the talk page of the ''Days of our Lives'' cast members list]], I found it best to just move the discussion to the entire community, to welcome both U.S. and UK soap editors. There is a large debate about how to list breaks on soap casts. Let's use [[Suzanne Rogers]] for exmaple. Several believe that listing her time on the series as '''1973–84, 1985-2003, 2004–''' to showcase her "breaks" from the series. However, others believe it should just read '''1973–''' since she has appeared every year since 1973, and that should visitors wish to see if she did ever depart the role, or took a break, they should visit the character page and read it for themselves, and to de-clutter pages and keep it as simple and easy as possible. Cast lists for ''[[The Bold and the Beautiful]]'', ''[[General Hospital]]'' and ''[[The Young and the Restless]]'' have all taken claim of the second way of just using the start year, and continuing to present if that character and its portrayer has appeared in the role every year since. So, let's open this discussion to all soap editors to end the warring on editing, and to end the confusion and mass-changes. Which way do users believe to be best to represent this on cast lists? All discussions welcome! '''[[User:livelikemusic|<small><span style="color:#ab83ab">livelikemusic</span></small>]]''' [[User talk:livelikemusic|<sup><span style="color:CadetBlue">my talk page!</span></sup>]] 02:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

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

:::In addition, I am confused about SoapFan12 and Livelikemusic's stance on this issue. On the Days cast list page, they keep changing the page to show no tenure breaks. When these changes are reverted to show the tenure breaks, they then revert it back to the no tenure breaks and say that the page has to stay with the "no tenure breaks" until a consensus is reached. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Again, I'm not a Wiki expert, but when editors want to make a change to a certain page (after years of having a page look a certain way) and other editors question them about the issue, shouldn't the talks/discussions/etc. take place BEFORE any new changes take effect? It seems as though both of these editors (SoapFan12 and Livelikemusic) want the changes to take effect immediately before ANY discussions take place on the matter here on this page. That to me is them imposing their personal feelings on the issue, and as I've been told, that's not allowed here on Wikipedia. If we are going with that logic, then couldn't any editor go to a page, make major changes, and then just keep stating "The page will stay the way I want it to stay until a consensus is reached. You may not revert it back to how it was before the changes I decided to make." I didn't think that was how Wikipedia worked. Would love to hear opinions from other editors about this issue. Thanks! [[User:Jason47a|Jason47a]] ([[User talk:Jason47a|talk]]) 05:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
::::Jason, I've told you, the other pages HAD changed, those characters you mentioned simply hadn't. So please do not turn this into a [[WP:PERSONAL|personal attack on another member]]. And we aren't talking the Yankees, we're talking soaps. Two separate topics. Character pages have adopted this format, and it'd be nice to bring it to other soap articles, including cast lists. And we explained (which you've carefully ignored) that the discussion was opened when the changes were made, so it seemed as if you and Rm were against the edits prior to consensus being made. And notice, I did not mention a single name in the opening comments, so I think it's a bit of a personal attack to mention myself and another user, while there were other users who mentioned their opinions. Kind of seems unfair, in my eyes. And never was the word "I" used in edit-summaries. If anything, it was told to leave to how it was when discussion was opened. So please, stop making this a personal attack. That's against Wiki policy. '''[[User:livelikemusic|<small><span style="color:#ab83ab">livelikemusic</span></small>]]''' [[User talk:livelikemusic|<sup><span style="color:CadetBlue">my talk page!</span></sup>]] 14:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::Hi Livelikemusic. I'm not making it a personal attack. We're having a discussion. If I want to mention you or someone else's statements, it's not an attack, it's a discussion here for all the editors to see. In your response above, you said the other soap cast list pages had changed after discussions. In my previous comments above, I asked you (or any editor) to link me to those discussions, so I could read over what was said on the discussion pages of BB, YR and GH. I have checked those cast list talk pages, and do not see those discussions. I have looked on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_General_Hospital_cast_members, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_The_Young_and_the_Restless_cast_members, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_The_Bold_and_the_Beautiful_cast_members and do not see those discussions that you mentioned. Maybe I am looking in the wrong place. So, again I ask, could someone here provide me with a link to those discussions that took place about changing the tenure breaks? As to another of your comments, yes, I realize that this is not a baseball article. I simply mentioned former Yankee manager Billy Martin because he has a tenure break listed 1978, 1979 (which is what this discussion is about). In your last comment, you said that "character pages have adopted this format." So, your opinion is that character pages and cast list pages should have the same format. Why can't my opinion be that soap operas/TV shows and other topics (such as baseball) have similar formats? Is that opinion not allowed here on Wikipedia? Still awaiting word from any other editor(s) about this matter. Please leave your comments below. Thanks! [[User:Jason47a|Jason47a]] ([[User talk:Jason47a|talk]]) 14:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
::::::: Admit that I did not read all the comments here, before posting my own. :-) &nbsp; Felt a bit guilty and skimmed through them afterwards. Nobody is making personal attacks here... but both Jason and CadetBlue '''are''' putting the focus on the contributors, and not on the content. No harm in asking for diffs, of course. No harm in pointing to how 'other places' in the wikiverse do things, of course. No harm in asking questions about policy, ever!
{{collapse top | on when and how [[WP:BRD]] is applicable, plus suggestions for constructive collabs}}
::::::: &nbsp; And yes, to answer the policy-question, the way it works is [[WP:BRD]], in theory, which means that the folks advocating changes from long-standing consensus ought to back down, and let the old portions of the page stay the old way, just as those pages have always been, while discussion takes place. This is intended to prevent the oft-seen phenomena of some [[WP:BOLD]] editor(s) swooping in, making changes, and then insisting their changes *are* the consensus. "The page will stay the way I want it to stay until a consensus is reached." That said, see also [[WP:OWN]] and especially [[WP:NINJA]]-revert. It is quite possible for the folks defending the long-standing version to *also* be saying exactly the same wrongheaded thing, in exactly the same words. "The page will stay the way I want it to stay until a consensus is reached." The resolution is simple: nobody gets to impose their desires, for a specific layout or specific phrasing or whatever, on everybody else.
::::::: &nbsp; Consensus can change. We *are* changing it, right now, in this discussion. Everybody remember to [[WP:IMAGINE]] and also to [[WP:AAGF]], please, remember this is friendlypedia. Okay okay, maybe not, but pillar four thou shalt not rubberize! This is not grudge-o-pedia, and there is no pleasure in wikiLawyering, neither for the defense nor for the prosecution. If you cannot amicably work things out, and focus firmly on the content, then immediately call for help. RfC is a good way, or [[WP:3O]], or drop in on the fine folks at the dispute resolution noticeboard (Zhang and Transporterman and Keithbob come particularly highly recommended). Or just pick somebody at random off the lists at [[WP:ASSIST]] and [[WP:RETENTION]] memberships. Or just ask at the [[WP:TEAHOUSE]], that's the fastest way to get good answers to quick questions. You can also ping my talkpage, if you like, but I warn you that I have so little knowledge about soap operas, you'll have to convince me that they aren't just Italian divas in the shower.
{{collapse bottom}}
::::::: In any case, this content-issue *is* a difficult question, with a bunch of intertwined complexities. It will require some thinking, and also plenty of tact. How to best serve the readership of this article, giving them the facts, without overwhelming them with facts they don't need? How to best serve the readership, by keeping articles consistent within the soap opera genre, and more broadly, within the teevee/film/entertainment/media supergenre? But the most important question is, how to best serve wikipedia herself, by following both the letter and the spirit of [[WP:IAR]]. Which includes, may I oh-so-gently-but-damn-well-firmly point out, making this a friendly place, by really really really assuming good faith, each and every time you are about to click that save-button. :-) &nbsp; Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia folks, see you around. [[Special:Contributions/74.192.84.101|74.192.84.101]] ([[User talk:74.192.84.101|talk]]) 15:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


== FAR for Pauline Fowler ==
: Talkpage-stalker who noticed this request whilst on unrelated wikiBiz, whom has never been a soap-editor, swoops in to say.... Recommend that we keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler. The cast-list page '''is''' a place for details. However, that does not mean that we should turn wikipedia into a fansite -- the details presented must satisfy [[WP:NOTEWORTHY]], they must have been mentioned in [[WP:RS]]. If it is the case that the breaks in 1984 and 2003 were wikiNoteworthy, then they belong in the article. That said, it is definitely confusing to see '''this''' awkward phrasing.
::: 1973–84, 1985-2003, 2004–
: For one thing, there is too ''much'' information crammed in there. The casual readership, will probably feel their eyes glaze over. But at the same time, there is ''too little'' information! How long were the breaks, in terms of months, and in terms of number-of-episodes-not-acted-in? What was the reason for the first break, and the second? What are the sources that covered the breaks? Here is what I suggest.
::: 1973–2013+, excluding breaks[5]
: Then, in the text of footnote#5, it can be explained with a couple of sentences that "Actress did not participate for N episodes from Foo'84 thru Bar'85 for $reason, see [src][src][cite]. Also, M espisodes from Baz'03 thru Quux'04 for $reasonTwo, see [src][ref][cite]." This can even be a pop-up that appears when the reader hovers, see the disputed birth-year in the first sentence of [[Audrey_Tautou]] ("''...born 9 August 1976)[1] is a French actress...''") and hover your mouse over the [1] to see footnote#1. Hope this helps. [[Special:Contributions/74.192.84.101|74.192.84.101]] ([[User talk:74.192.84.101|talk]]) 15:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


I have nominated [[Pauline Fowler]] for a [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pauline Fowler/archive1|featured article review here]]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article?|featured article criteria]]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are [[Wikipedia:Featured article review|here]]. 🍕[[User:Boneless Pizza!|<span style="background:orange;border-radius:9999px;padding:1px 8px;color:white;"><span style="font-weight:bold">Boneless</span> Pizza!</span>]]🍕 ([[User talk:Boneless Pizza!|🔔]]) 11:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
::UK soaps editor here. I'm personally in favour of excluding breaks of less than one calendar year, as is done at [[List of EastEnders characters]]. However, other UK soap pages don't do this, such as [[List of Emmerdale characters]] and [[List of Coronation Street characters]]. Occasionally, ''EastEnders'' doesn't do this as well, but it's generally been discussed for an individual character and is probably where an actor wasn't part of the regular contracted cast and came back for a one-off appearance, rather than asked for six months off where their return was guaranteed. I do quite like 74.192.84.101's suggestion but I can't really see it taking off, somehow. Many non-WikiProject casual soap opera editors I come across often seem very adamant that things should not change. –<font color="green" face="Tahoma">[[User:AnemoneProjectors|anemone]]</font><font color="#BA0000" face="Tahoma">[[User talk:AnemoneProjectors#top|projectors]]</font>– 15:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


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


For the past few months, various IPs have continuously been adding unsourced episode numbers to infoboxes despite being asked not to, warned and even blocked. The problem with this is that the episode numbers are unsourced; with most TV programmes they have seasons and a less amount of episodes and thus it is easier to keep track off, but soap operas have thousands of episodes (with Emmerdale and Coronation Street having 10,000+, and some American soaps having even more). Many of the episode numbers in the past have been changed as they have proven to be wrong. Obviously some are easier to source than others (AKA ''Emmerdale''{{'}}s recent 10000th episode) but most are extremely difficult to source. I hence wanted to ask for a consensus on how to move forward with this. [[User:DaniloDaysOfOurLives|DaniloDaysOfOurLives]] ([[User talk:DaniloDaysOfOurLives|talk]]) 17:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks for everyone's comments so far. Look forward to reading more editor's thoughts over the coming days. [[User:Jason47a|Jason47a]] ([[User talk:Jason47a|talk]]) 17:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
:The issue I have is the original research aspect of episode numbers. They are being added by various IPs, sock accounts and grouped edits that appear to have been arranged off Wikipedia. When asked where the information came from, one IP stated it was from Fandom which certainly is not a reliable source. Some episodes are grouped together, broadcast on the same day etc. I would not argue with them being added, if in the development section the information is sourced. The source would need to clearly state the episode number and the first appearance date. These random additions seem harmless but how many errors are we potentially allowing to be introduced? It is easier to just not include the information.[[User:Raintheone|<b style="color:blue;font-family:Times New Roman">Rain</b>]] <small>[[User talk:Raintheone|<b style="color:green">the 1</b>]]</small> 11:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
:'''Get rid of tenure breaks''': I am in favor excluding tenure breaks. I think it makes more sense to do include specifics like that in the casting sections of each character's article. Just my preference; I think it makes the pages, and infoboxes LESS sloppy which was a big problem with many soap articles a few years back.--[[User:Nk3play2|Nk3play2]] <sup>[[User talk:Nk3play2|<small>my buzz</small>]]</sup> 21:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


== Requested move at [[Talk:Stephanie Scully#Requested move 3 July 2024]] ==
::I agree with Nk3play2, as long-tenured actors who have departed and returned over different intervals get can messy in the duration parameter. Perhaps we could compromise; for example [[Suzanne Rogers]], we could list '''1973–''' and maybe put underneath it "(see below)", which is a link to the casting section? Just a suggestion. [[User:Creativity97|'''<span style="color:ri;font-family:Century Gothic">Creativity</span>''']][[User talk:Creativity97|'''<span style="color:Purple;font-family:Century Gothic">97</span>''']] 22:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] There is a requested move discussion at [[Talk:Stephanie Scully#Requested move 3 July 2024]] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:SafariScribe|Safari Scribe]]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/SafariScribe|'''''Edits!''''']] [[User talk:SafariScribe|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 23:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


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


I have nominated [[Poppy Meadow]] for a [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Poppy Meadow/archive1|featured article review here]]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article?|featured article criteria]]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are [[Wikipedia:Featured article review|here]]. 🍕[[User:Boneless Pizza!|<span style="background:orange;border-radius:9999px;padding:1px 8px;color:white;"><span style="font-weight:bold">Boneless</span> Pizza!</span>]]🍕 ([[User talk:Boneless Pizza!|🔔]]) 12:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree that we should effectively eliminate breaks of less than a full year, as in likelivemusic's original example '''1973–84, 1985-2003, 2004–'''. I think this should apply to both infoboxes and full character lists, but we should be sure that whatever consensus is reached specifies how we approach either of these. The casual reader will be confused by a split like the previous example, and as someone else said, these actors were still on the show during that year regardless of often-arbitrary contract lapses and such.


== Requested move at [[Talk:Pablo Escobar, The Drug Lord#Requested move 1 November 2024]] ==
I think as fans we are so trained by the magazines to be aware of contracts, but the infobox parameter (and a duration column in tables) is for "appearance on the series" and not "contract status." Now I agree that some of this break information is interesting and encyclopedic; for example, the ''Days of our Lives'' serial murder storyline where longtime contract players were killed off and their contracts ended. Even they didn't know their characters were actually "alive" and that they would be brought back. Or actors leaving to pursue other roles and then returning within months. But this kind of stuff should be worked into a "real world" section covering casting, and with citations from external sources. Anyone looking at a list or infobox for a duration, even a soap fan, wants to know how long the person has been in the role and when, not if they ever were off contract for 5 months. Anyone interested in that kind of tidbit will have to read the body of the article anyway for those kind of details.
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] There is a requested move discussion at [[Talk:Pablo Escobar, The Drug Lord#Requested move 1 November 2024]] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 01:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


== Names in article leads ==
Remember that the infobox is supposed to be a concise overview of pertinent information and not an abbreviation of the entire article. This is why we made the "Family" portion of the info box collapsible years ago; editors rightfully argued that this info was notable enough that it should be included in the infobox for navigation purposes and to avoid having to hunt through the article, but others rightfully argued that a foot-long infobox was crazy ([[Victoria Lord]] is like 16 inches fully extended). There isn't really much value in designating the breaks, as the typical Wikipedia reader won't understand the nuance. Adding footnotes and links to the body of the article can be just as messy unless there's a really really notable reason to do so in specific cases. This is an encyclopedia for the masses, not just for us, and we have to remember that when we're presenting information. I was previously very active in this Project and actually involved in shaping much of the current style guidelines. As a soap fan though, I've specified these kinds of breaks myself in the past in infoboxes and lists, and added what might be considered extraneous detail because it often interests me. But over the years I've come to realize that we can't compromise the readability and accessibility of articles for the sake of minutae. That said, if editors can provide some specific examples here of cases that might be exceptions, it will really help shape the guideline.&mdash; [[User:TAnthony|TAnthony]]<sup>[[User Talk:TAnthony|Talk]]</sup> 23:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
{{Discussion interlink|L1=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soap_Operas/Archive_8#Middle_Names_&_Strings_of_Other_Names Middle Names & Strings of Other Names|L2=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television/Archive_3#Married_names_in_the_lead_of_fictional_character_articles Married names in the lead of fictional character articles|L3=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soap_Operas/Archive_9#Should_martial_names_be_included_in_opening_paragraph? Should martial names be included in opening paragraph?|L4=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soap_Operas/Archive_11#Names,_Other_Names,_and_Aliases_-_Towards_a_good_common_policy_in_lead_and_infobox Names, Other Names, and Aliases - Towards a good common policy in lead and infobox}}


Bringing back this discussion about the use of names other than the [[WP:COMMONNAME|common-name]] in the lead of the article. Some suggest the present martial name be used over common-name. Yes, [[ WP:OTHERNAMES|other names exist]] in-fictional universes but, at what point, does it cross from [[WP:FANCRUFT|fan cruft of a Fandom article]] and of something more useful and supported, via [[WP:Verifiability|reliable sources]]. [[WP:NAMECHANGES]] could also apply, as that states: {{xt|Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable, English-language sources ("reliable sources" for short) written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match.}} and while we wouldn't necessarily change the article, a notation of said-name would be made outside of the {{Tl|Infobox soap character}} mention in the<code>| alias =</code> parameter. '''<span style="font-size:95%;">[[User:livelikemusic|<span style="color:#2980b9">livelikemusic</span>]]</span>''' <span style="font-size:95%;">([[User talk:livelikemusic|<span style="color:#8e44ad">TALK!</span>]])</span> 20:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks for your input, TAnthony. As for the case exceptions you asked about above, I've already mentioned the three I think should stay in the cast lists. I have no problem eliminating the tenure breaks for Peggy McCay/Josh Taylor/James Reynolds from 2003-2004. They all stayed with the show as "ghosts" (although not on contract), but they never really left the show entirely. So, for those cases, I agree. To keep the infobox as concise as possible, those 2003-2004 breaks do not need to be included. However, when an actor leaves a show for an entire year (not just an arbitrary lapse in contract, but actually gone from the show with no appearances for a full 12 months), I think those should be included. Joseph Mascolo (Stefano) left Days in March 1983 and did not return until March 1984. Since he was gone for an entire year, I think it is certainly acceptable to list him as 1982-83, 1964-85, etc... Exception # 2 would be Suzanne Rogers (Maggie) who left the show for an entire year due to her medical condition. She was gone from September 1984-September 1985. The third, and final exception, would be James Reynolds (Abe). He not only left Days for an entire year, but joined another show, Generations, and was nominated for a Daytime Emmy for his role on Generations. He was gone from Days from August 1990-August 1991. Being that these tenure breaks were all basically for a full 12 months, I don't think it would clutter up the page to list them. Perhaps the editors could think this possibility over, and use a 12-month rule for having a few tenure breaks listed on the soap pages. That possibility sort of bridges the gap between those editors who think tenure breaks should be totally abolished, and those who think they should be retained. Thanks for your time! [[User:Jason47a|Jason47a]] ([[User talk:Jason47a|talk]]) 01:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
:::::OK, while I myself wouldn't have a fit over those exceptions for the reasons you explain (with a brief footnote citation to explain each so the casual reader understands and future editors don't undo it), BUT I think it may be messy to set the guideline as you suggest. First of all, we may not always know (or at least have a source for) the exact months someone came and went, which opens up arguments. I mean, it seems kind of convenient that all three of those actors were gone for exactly a year, I would personally be dubious without a source. And is 11 months enough, or it has to be 12? Do they have to be off-contract, or just not appear? There was a case at ''Passions'' where someone was on contract but not onscreen for nearly that long. The bottom line is, Suzanne Rogers appeared in 1984 and she appeared in 1985. It's a year-round series and so the assumption to the common reader is surely the period of Jan 1st thru Dec 31st when we're talking about 1985. The other can of worms is, that's three people on one show, and there are many past and present shows. Suddenly you have more exceptions than not. It's tricky.&mdash; [[User:TAnthony|TAnthony]]<sup>[[User Talk:TAnthony|Talk]]</sup> 02:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


: I've always listed four previous discussions, including one that was held of [[MOS:TV]] in 2014 (ie: {{xt|Married names in the lead of fictional character articles}}). '''<span style="font-size:95%;">[[User:livelikemusic|<span style="color:#2980b9">livelikemusic</span>]]</span>''' <span style="font-size:95%;">([[User talk:livelikemusic|<span style="color:#8e44ad">TALK!</span>]])</span> 20:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::I can't comment about other shows, since I only follow Days. Editors at the other soaps would better answer the question as to the airdates for the actors on those shows. Your assumption is the common reader would read that an actor appeared in each year successively (for Suzanne Rogers, as an example, 1973- ). My assumption is that the common reader would take that to mean Suzanne Rogers appeared continuously on the show without a year-long break. When I see a date listing for anything, be it a TV show, baseball player, presidential term or historical listing, a date listed as "1950- ", I take that to mean as 1950-present (continuously, not each successive year), with no tenure break for that specific event. In any soap-related book with cast lists that I can recall, tenure breaks are listed. That would be another reason to support doing it that way on Wikipedia. In regards to your Passions comment, that someone was on contract and not seen for years, that happened on Days too. Original cast member Frances Reid was too frail to perform on the show after 2007, yet she remained a part of the contract cast until her death in 2010. I think her Wiki listing ends at 2007, but she did remain on contract for 3 years after that. UPDATE: I just checked and Frances Reid's listing says 1965-2010, which is incorrect. She didn't appear after 2007. However, perhaps Wiki's rules include years someone is on contract, but not appearing. In any event, I'll leave that to other editors to decide whether to change her listing to 1965-2007. [[User:Jason47a|Jason47a]] ([[User talk:Jason47a|talk]]) 04:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:16, 29 November 2024

Soap Operas
WikiProject
Project navigation links
Main project page talk
Tasks
Participants
Templates
Assessment
 → Unassessed articles
 → Statistics
Useful links
Style guidelines
edit · changes

FAR for Pauline Fowler

[edit]

I have nominated Pauline Fowler for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Episode numbers

[edit]

For the past few months, various IPs have continuously been adding unsourced episode numbers to infoboxes despite being asked not to, warned and even blocked. The problem with this is that the episode numbers are unsourced; with most TV programmes they have seasons and a less amount of episodes and thus it is easier to keep track off, but soap operas have thousands of episodes (with Emmerdale and Coronation Street having 10,000+, and some American soaps having even more). Many of the episode numbers in the past have been changed as they have proven to be wrong. Obviously some are easier to source than others (AKA Emmerdale's recent 10000th episode) but most are extremely difficult to source. I hence wanted to ask for a consensus on how to move forward with this. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I have is the original research aspect of episode numbers. They are being added by various IPs, sock accounts and grouped edits that appear to have been arranged off Wikipedia. When asked where the information came from, one IP stated it was from Fandom which certainly is not a reliable source. Some episodes are grouped together, broadcast on the same day etc. I would not argue with them being added, if in the development section the information is sourced. The source would need to clearly state the episode number and the first appearance date. These random additions seem harmless but how many errors are we potentially allowing to be introduced? It is easier to just not include the information.Rain the 1 11:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Stephanie Scully#Requested move 3 July 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Stephanie Scully#Requested move 3 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Poppy Meadow

[edit]

I have nominated Poppy Meadow for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Pablo Escobar, The Drug Lord#Requested move 1 November 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pablo Escobar, The Drug Lord#Requested move 1 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Names in article leads

[edit]

Bringing back this discussion about the use of names other than the common-name in the lead of the article. Some suggest the present martial name be used over common-name. Yes, other names exist in-fictional universes but, at what point, does it cross from fan cruft of a Fandom article and of something more useful and supported, via reliable sources. WP:NAMECHANGES could also apply, as that states: Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable, English-language sources ("reliable sources" for short) written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. and while we wouldn't necessarily change the article, a notation of said-name would be made outside of the {{Infobox soap character}} mention in the| alias = parameter. livelikemusic (TALK!) 20:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've always listed four previous discussions, including one that was held of MOS:TV in 2014 (ie: Married names in the lead of fictional character articles). livelikemusic (TALK!) 20:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soap_Operas&oldid=1260263282"