Talk:Guiding Light

Reardons

How many Reardons are on the show? I mean, they brought Nola back for a while, but I'm pretty sure the "Reardon legacy" was effectively killed when Ellen Parker was fired in 1993. Mike H 01:05, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Actually there were Reardons on the show as late as March 2005. Don't forget that Bridget and Matt were Maureen's niece and nephew respectively. Also Bridget's son, Peter (adopted for a time by the Lewises {Billy and Vanessa} and also Roger Thorpe's grandson), is a Reardon, and Matt and Vanessa's daugther, Maureen (named after Maureen) is a Reardon. And Matt (Kurt McKinney) showed up for a few days in March 2005 to try and counsel Vanessa's other older daughter, Mallory Harrell.

I think the spoiler warning should be done away with; GL isn't in reruns so there's no reason for it.

No "The" in 1977

I've seen this printed in TV Guide and Soap Digest, but that doesn't seem to make sense to me. The show dropped the "The" from the title card in late 1975, and kept referring to it on-air as "The Guiding Light" until the autumn leaves opening sequence was discontinued in 1982. Mike H 17:11, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)grju btugtg

Examples: igj vGTRGT%YT%{

• 1979 opening sequence, from The World of Soap Themes. The title card says "Guiding Light" but it is referred to as "The Guiding Light".

• November 1975 closing sequence, also from The World of Soap Themes. You'll see that the title card says "Guiding Light", well before 1977.

Permission to split

Since the show has run for nearly 70 years, and is the longest running show in broadcast history, I wanted to split each decade up (the radio years in one entry, then 50's, then 60's, and so on) so I could write a more detailed history for the GL trends in each of those decades. If I write that under the current entry it would go past the alloted 32K. Would any of you have any objection to my eventually splitting the current information up and adding more information? --JamesB3 01:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd only object right now on the grounds that it isn't there at this time. Write it up, have the page be bloated, and then split it up. So at least we know there's something to cut it all up for. Mike H 03:11, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with this, especially since I added much stuff from the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's that was lacking. Also as the show will now be going into it's 70th year in broadcasting (as of January 2007) this might be a great idea -- Peter B

The article is now split. 1990s is still a horrendous mess, we need a summary for each decade, and some cleanup remains on the other decades. I made the history template to match the GL infobox for consistency.

Also, a decision needs to be made about the weird Cast section - move to 2000s? KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep the cast list where they are. I am going to question again: Why not allow linking to years? Some people might want to know what was going on, besides on the show, during those years. But that's just me as a history major. I do believe that the 1990's is still a mess, but I could be wrong about that. I tried to use as much material from several sources for the cast list, especially soapcentral, but also Julie Poll's 1997 book, and Christopher Schemering's 1986 book. And I do have some memories of the show that aren't in Poll's or Schemering's (I think Schemering's was more superior, even though it was shorter), but I do believe that has been addressed before, that both anniversary books are woefully lacking in content. - cnbpjb (or Peter B.)

The 1990s are indeed a horrible mess, and the cast has already been moved to 2000s. Don't link to years per per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_formatting and WP:CONTEXT. The exception is if the year is from a different decade than the current article, for example referencing something which happened in the previous or next decade. Then, the year should be piped to the appropriate article:

[[Guiding Light (1980-1989)|1982]]

And it is wonderful you have a source, please add it to the appropriate articles. If you are unsure on how to format, I will be more than happy to help. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Woa, Peter - please STOP moving articles without consensus or even discussing it first. What are you doing, and why??? KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Mixing fact and fiction...

"a storyline which was criticized by Charita Bauer herself," Shjome mishtake shurely... Rich Farmbrough 09:58, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, I have it cited in a book, actually. It's a quote from her. I can scan the page and upload it, if you like. Mike H 22:10, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I thought "Charita Bauer" was a character. Reading more carefully I see my mistake. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough 00:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's easily confusing. Bauer was both the surname of the actress and her family on the show. ;-) Mike H 06:08, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Speculation on actors

Actors who have participated in taping but not aired aren't current cast members. They will be when they get aired. What if someone important in the plot dies? How can one be sure the previously taped episodes won't be revised or re-recorded? The same priniciple applies for actors that are leaving. Perhaps something could happen that would postpone the leaving of the character for another month. S/he would still exist, but not be shown. Encyclopedias contain facts, not speculation. --jag123 08:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

POV Alert

I saw words like "obnoxious" and "sleazy" in the newest write-up. I think I'm putting this on peer review to combat the evident POV problem. Mike H 15:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if I put the "obnoxious" but I did put "sleazy" to describe the storylines of 1996. Several of them were panned by the soap press (specifically the one about Gilly lusting after her own father) and drove the ratings to such low points that GL was nearly canceled. I don't think it's a POV violation to consider this "sleazy" - it's a broad opinion of many GL viewers and soap magazine writers at that time. If you look at the entire article I think it is generally restrained and balanced, and not any sort of horrible POV violation. I hope you reconsider this because it seems like a lot over one or two words. If you don't like the words then just take them out. --JamesB3 00:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did not watch GL in 1996 so if I did take them out, I wouldn't know what to replace them with. It just doesn't sound like something that's good for NPOV. Mike H 02:21, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

If you didn't watch GL in 1996, and didn't see the storylines of that time or read what critics at the time said, then I'm not sure if you can state that it is or isn't good for NPOV. There are only one or two comments in there that could be seen as NPOV. But maybe you should try to find some of the episodes and then you can see whether or not you agree it was NPOV. It was the prevailing attitude of that time, in both ratings and in what Soap Opera Digest and Soap Opera Weekly were saying. --JamesB3 03:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Allen3, for removing the peer review. Since Mike H has not discussed the show in almost a month, I had begun to wonder if the review or the reasons for the review had been forgotten. I hope that the next time a peer review is placed on a show, there are actually at least a few people who have a problem with a page and want to discuss what changes should be made. In this case, one person wanted a peer review, and then no one else (besides myself) even seemed to notice. --JamesB3 11:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Are Proctor & Gamble PRODUCERS or SPONSORS?

I don't understand. Who produces Guiding Light? Is it CBS, Proctor & Gamble, or some other company?

As I understand it P&G owns the show and CBS provides the sets and other essentials to create it...P&G has final say on productions aspects though...kinda like the way Bell-Phillips Television owns Y&R B&B...although it is aired on CBS and produced in their facilities it is owned and "produced" by P&G. Hope this explains a little Dowew 16:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

In other words, you're saying that P&G and CBS SHARE the workload. Right? Or is it that P&G owns the show, title, etc. and CBS does all of the work? Because if they share the show, then we should be seeing the CBS Productions logo after the P&G.

Is anyone at home???????

P&G owns and produces GL, and is its chief sponsor. It controls all aspects of hiring actors, writers, directors, and producers, as well as has the final say over storyline choices (hence the "Executive in Charge of Production" for GL as well as ATWT). The budget is also determined by P&G, as the recent budget woes of GL is all the decision of P&G (or, more specifically, its production arm, TeleVest Productions). P&G packages the entire production, then basically "sells" it to CBS, which buys it through ad revenues (some of which is provided to P&G free of charge as they produce the show -- which brings about the "... brought to you by Ivory Soap" or whatever before commercial breaks). The same is true of ATWT. The network, however, has the final say over when the show airs and whether or not to keep it on the air. This was true of Another World in 1998, when NBC decided to cancel the program because of low ratings, whereas P&G wanted to keep it going for a while longer (or at least it said so).

P&G also did this with the murder mystery serial Edge Of Night in 1984. ABC decided the ratings for this one time power house of ratings (when it was on CBS from 1956 to 1975) had dropped to very very low ratings (the only soap rated lower at that time was Capitol on CBS which several of the network affiliates refused to carry for local newscast. Edge also was not broadcast by many network affiliates because it was on at 4:00 pm or it was broadcast earlier in the morning not to unlike GL in the last few years). But P&G was willing to continue to broadcast Edge and tried to shop it to either NBC which rejected it or market it to independent stations (cable was not yet considered an option back in 1984). But when P&G could find no takers for Edge, they lost control of ABC cancelling Edge (which last aired on December 28, 1984). added by Peter on 30 December 2005.

This is the case for most TV productions, in that a TV production company (unless the network owns the show specifically) produces a show and then sells it to a network, earning revenue in the process.

Hope that helps. TV production in itself is a complicated business, and the whole P&G/CBS thing is a little more complicated as the show is owned by a company that specifically advertises on the network.The Invisible Man 00:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I still think that the CBS Productions logo should come after the P&G logo. 71.111.209.99 15:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand the PGP/CBS setup to be much as it was explained above. This is done to some degree with nighttime - ie, Touchstone Television actually owns and produces "Desperate Housewives" and "Grey's Anatomy". But for most of the show's life, CBS has had more say in it from a creative point of view than most nighttime shows would. NickBurns 01:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Restructure

Currently, much of the article is a run-on essay with actual show history (radio, television stations, producers, shooting location) mixed together with plot developments and trivia. When a character is introduced, there is usually a list of actors who have played the character following after the character name in parentheses: Joe (Tom, Dick, Harry). The article is difficult to follow and is frequently confusing. I suggest a reorganization of the "History" section as follows:

• Decade
  • History
  • Major Characters (with new characters, change in actors, etc)
  • Plot development (with the story)

This will separate the Show from the Story. Unless anyone objects, I will start a Sandbox for a complete overhaul of the article based on this outline. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds great! This article will be the guinea pig and if you're successful, then I'll use the same format in the "As the World Turns" history (which I've wanted to rewrite for a long time.) Juppiter 06:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to have an enthusiastic response, proposing a complete overhaul is always touchy. Hopefully it will make for a more readable narrative, and easier list of who the characters are and who played them, and of course the "nuts and bolts" of who produced and so on just was conflicting with everything else. KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It is started. Take a look at Guiding Light/Sandbox. Please keep talk on this page - I've added a link back here from the top of the sandbox. The table of contents looks long right now, I'll work on formatting and layout of the page later. There are some characters without actor's names, actors names without characters, and unexplained plot developments such as How did Kathy end up in a wheelchair? KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm loving it. The sections you've done already read much more professionally than they did before. Juppiter 19:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! The copyediting was mostly done by Jim62sch, I just did the layout and surgery to get the history, cast and plot seperated. KillerChihuahua^?!?

Day-Behind Airings

I thought that CBS provided a 10:00 AM feed of GL now, and that affiliates airing it at that time were no longer a day behind. Is that not so? Juppiter 03:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Getting on board.

Hi, I'm the one who did a bit of grammar and punctuation "fixin'" late last night to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guiding_Light. It was very late and I couldn't remember my passwd, which is why I didn't log in. Just wanted to explain why.

I'll do my best with the run-ons, but since I was never a soap opera fan, there is a limit to what I can do w/ some of the info. I agree that it needs a complete re-organization, separating the show aspects from the 'real life' aspects.

Now that I can see the link for the sandbox, I'll go there and do what I can. I've studied grammar for the past several years, so I feel comfortable with helping in that fashion. I'm glad to help however I can.

Starr Starr* 17:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, its much appreciated. That makes 3 editors working on this, none of whom are Soap fans. Go figure. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The only bad thing is that now I know that the hour I spent on corrections the other night has probably gone to waste, now that I know the Sandbox is being used instead. *sigh* Oh well. That's what I get for doing stuff w/out logging in. Starr* 05:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope, check sandbox history. I moved the 70s, anyway... I will have to check to see if I moved the 80s but I think I did. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Still a mess

Sorry but the split really should have waited until everything was in order on the main article. Juppiter 19:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The article was already over 167 kilobytes long, and anything over 50kb is reccomended for division, with 32kb of content recommended. Everything has been out of order on the main article for over a year. How long do you propose we should have waited? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Further I see you have seven total contribs to Guiding Light, so unless you change your editing habits materially, I fail to see that you are doing anything but criticizing that which you are not helping to fix. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Correction: WoST is NOT illegally charging fees to view the materials. Its just like any other site that requires members to pay to view content and videos only WoST doesn't require that you be 18+ (21 in some areas) to do so....IFFFFF ya know what I mean.

But the material is copyrighted. When Wikipedia uses a fair use image, it's ok cause nobody is making a profit off of wikipedia. But by charging money he's effectively making money off somebody else's work. Juppiter 04:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

He's blocked about everything to non-members. I don't mean to complain, but that's wrong! 71.111.215.224 00:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Take this to a forum please. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes sir. 71.111.215.224 23:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Notable Actors

I would like to see a list of 'notable actors' who were on or started on the show. There also should probably be some special mention of Kim Zimmer who is arguably the 'star' of the show. Maybe there is more mention of her in the yearly articles. But she's been on over 3 decades so it's certainly fair to have her mentioned in the general article. (possibly a 'vet list' could be included that lists actors who have put a major investment in the show- such as more than 10 years on the show, ie. "Billy Lewis" "Vanessa" "Fletcher" sorry, cant' think of actors names right now.)

plot stuff

alright, i'm 18 years old and i've been watching GL since I was like 6 years old. (i know i was kinda young and now i'm addicted I tape it every day then watch it when i get a chance) but there are a lot of plot twists I know I've forgotten especially from when I was younger. I remember Annie being on the show and Reva turning back up from her stay in San Cristobal but I don't remember what happened to her. Anybody care to give me a summary of that love triangle?

List of affiliates by when it airs

Surely this has been suggested before. I think a list of CBS affiliates athat air it at 3:00pm and 10:00am would be a good idea.--Attitude2000 15:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT TV Guide. It is the responsibility of the reader to figure out when the show airs in their area, not Wikipedia's. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 23:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Guiding Light or Soap Opera Project?

Would it be possible to create a Guiding Light Project on Wikipedia to help with some of the articles linked to this topic? I have started a Bauer Family page and have tried to expand or create certain character pages. It didn't make sence that the Bauer Family is so sadly un-represented on wikipedia when they are the premier family of the show. I don't know all the history of the show though, so there are many pages that I think need to be created or expanded but are not my area of expertise. Any thoughts? amyanda 05:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)amyanda2000

Hi Amy, I think that is a great idea! It seems to me that a lot of the people editing this page don't even watch the show. I agree that there are a lot of things left off of the page.

HA HA HA!

This particular soap opera will run for 2 or 300 years. That's what's so funny. RocketMaster 19:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• In yo' face. 99.184.93.203 (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GL 70.jpg

Image:GL 70.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode Status

It's pretty well known that many 50's/60's episodes are no longer in existance, as they were erased after one broadcast. Shouldn't the article make mention of that? Retro Agnostic (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Record Low Ratings

Record Low Telecasts

• 2,009,000 viewers on Friday, May 30, 2008
• 2,013,000 viewers on Thursday, August 21, 2008
• 2,025,000 viewers on Friday, July 13, 2007
• 2,028,000 viewers on Friday, August 22, 2008
• 2,030,000 viewers on Friday, August 15, 2008
• 2,067,000 viewers on Monday, August 18, 2008
• 2,080,000 viewers on Thursday, May 1, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.103.242 (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

cancellation

I wont believe it, youve all been fooled. The show is not being cancelled and must be an april fools joke. Say it aint so! 69.157.60.100 (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Last soap still surviving from radio?

Is Guiding Light the last soap opera that began on radio that is still showing on TV? Is anything else that began on radio still showing on TV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.101.105 (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• None of the other U.S. soap operas currently airing started on radio, as far as I can tell, other than Guiding Light. There may be examples in other countries, but I wouldn't know how to go about finding them. As to other U.S. network shows that started on radio, Meet the Press would definitely qualify, having debuted on radio in 1945 before appearing on television. There may well be other examples of radio-to-television adaptations from a more modern era, depending on what you want to count. For example, Larry King Live could be considered a television adaptation of Larry King's former syndicated radio show. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

YouTube continuation

There has been NO word on GL continuing after its run on CBS. No news has been released about continuing on YouTube September 21, 2009 at all. As of now, May 4, 2009, the show will end on September 18 and will not continue on the internet or on cable. It should not be posted that it will be on YouTube when no official announcement has been made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.50.225 (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• I Totally Agree! This bit about YouTube has been posted several times, and in several different locations, by a poster using the same IP address (logical assumption that it is the same person). I'm trying to figure out if it is being done by someone with a delusional agenda, or if it is simply a case of some of the oddest vandalism I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I personally have had to undo his/her posts SEVERAL times myself! It has to stop.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.69.130 (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Might Need To Semi-Protect This Page For Awhile

There has been a pattern of unsubstantiated, bogus, and uncited posts concerning Guiding Light and You Tube. The posts have been anonymous & they have been written in the same language and pattern, though using several IP Addresses. There is absolutely OFFICIALLY no truth to these posts, though I'm not sure if it is vandalism or wishful thinking on someone's part, but, for the integrity of Wikipedia, it has to be stopped. Furthermore, if this is being done by someone who plans on ILLEGALLY posting reruns of Guiding Light, that would not equate to continuing the shows broadcast history, nor would it be considered broadcast history at all, not anymore than any other shows that are ILLEGALLY posted by 3rd parties on You Tube or any other such site, nor does it have any place on Wikipedia. OFFICIALLY, Guiding Light will end it's broadcast run when it ends on CBS in September.....this is per Telenext and CBS.....the ones who would know! Wikipedia, nor anyone who posts there on, is not clairvoyant the last time I checked! Protecting this page so only people who are logged on may edit might end it for awhile anyway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.69.130 (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Senior cast members

Should Maeve Kinkead (Vanessa Chamberlain Reardon) be listed among the senior cast members? She has appeared off and on since 1980. All of the other listed actors, except Tina Sloan, have been off at some point.Rockhopper10r (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Need source for important information...

I hear that a researcher at a major university has found empirical evidence that a soap opera with over fifteen thousand episodes is just plain sad. Can anyone tell me where this was published? Signed sincerely, 12.19.84.33 (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC) (also known as: "Bitter about grandma watching soaps instead of cartoons when I was a kid.")

Is v. Was

A reference marker inside the edit page says to not change "Guiding Light is" to "Guiding Light was" per Wikipedia convention covered at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines. I've looked at that guideline, and see no mention of the "is" versus "was" convention. Can someone clarify or provide a more direct resource why NOT to change to past tense? --CPAScott (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This comes up every time a series ends, so the question is certainly not unique to GL. In a nutshell, the series still exists as a creative work, even though no new episodes are being made. (In a similar vein, we wouldn't describe a book or a film in the past tense.) References to the airing and so on change to past ("it aired on", "it was produced by", and so on) but the show itself still "is". The convention is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Lead paragraphs. Hope this helps. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Number of episodes

The article says that CBS aired 15,762 episodes. Is this TV only, or TV and radio? Is there a good source for the exact count?

Based on broadcast history one can calculate:

• NBC Radio (1937-01-25 – 1941-12-26, 1942-03-16 – 1946-11-29) 502.1 weeks, ~2,511 episodes
• CBS Radio (1947-06-02 – 1956-06-29) 473.6 weeks, ~2,368 episodes
• CBS TV (1952-06-30 – 2009-09-18) 2985.6 weeks, ~14,928 episodes
  • Total CBS (TV & radio) ~17,296 episodes

So 15,762 seems too high for TV only but too low for TV+radio. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 16:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Title?

I always assumed that the title referred to the fact that Springfield had a lighthouse, because of course I didn't watch/listen to the show in the Thirties and Forties. So, I was bold and added the reference to the lighthouse. — AMK1211^talk! 04:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)