Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas

	Soap Operas WikiProject

Project navigation links

Main project page

→ Unassessed articles

→ Statistics

Useful links

Style guidelines

edit · changes

Soap Operas Project‑class

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Index

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ephemeral content about upcoming cast changes and non-encyclopedic section heading at List of The Young and the Restless cast members

WP:Request for comments was started at WT:What Wikipedia is not § Verifiable future events with no real world impact yet to resolve the matter. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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.

Per my comment on the talk page which User:Musicfreak7676 has refused to actually respond to other than claiming in edit summaries that I need to get permission from the SOAP project,

"Even though the "Comings and Goings" were one of the few portions of the article to be sourced, that doesn't mean that they are appropriate content. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball to be predicting/announcing events which may or may not actually occur in the future, we wait until they happen and THEN record them. Without being able to provide any context or content other than a celebrity is expected to appear the "information" becomes nothing more than an advertisement. For up-to-the minute news about future plans a reader should be going to the original source or gossip sites.

In addition to the content being non-encyclopedic, the section heading as "comings and goings" is non encyclopedic phraseology used by gossip mags and not the straightforward "cast changes" (or since these are NOT changes that have actually happened "upcoming cast changes". -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents, and I will preface this with the fact that I am new here, but I agree with User:Musicfreak7676. From reading the articles this section references, most if not all are stating facts (someone has been hired, a new role/casting call has been sent out) rather than speculation. Even though the actor's film/air date hasn't happened, the event of him/her being hired has occurred. Also, it is a pretty concise and unobtrusive section. As for the title, it seems to be an argument of semantics. To play devil's advocate, if one could say "comings and goings" is a phrase gossip sites use, one could also say that it is a phrase used commonly in the vernacular of the soap world. 174.62.169.104 Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "fact" because it has not actucally occured, simply been announced. Just because something is "sourced" doesnt mean that it is applicable to an encyclopedia article. And Wikipedia does not use the "vernacular" of genre readers, it uses standard, straightforward English. "Cast changes" is a phrase that any English language reader, whether familiar with soap jargon or not, can understand immediately. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no further questions or reasons provided for keeping this material, I will make the appropriate adjustments in the next day or so. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the issue with the wording "Comings and goings" as it literally is as it says, they're COMING or they are GOING. I do not see the need now after years for it to be changed. And I'd wait longer for responses, not all soap editors have made their call to this post. Musicfreak7676 ^{my talk page!} 22:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "comings and goings" wording is really irrel. as there has been no policy brought forth that shows that ANY of the section is appropriate to be included. And so if there is no policy brought forth shortly, I will be removing them. If in some point in the future there is brought forth a policy basis to include the content, then we can wordsmith any section headings. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is "irrel."? And I don't think it should be changed. And since it's built on consensus, two vs. one, it won't be changed. Musicfreak7676 ^{my talk page!} 00:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that attempts to override the wikipedia wide policy consensus is moot. I have shown above and on the articles talkpage how this section violates MULTIPLE wikipedia wide policies - and unless you or another editor is able to cite policy to support the retention of the section, those policies will be implemented. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And per your original comment, I never responded since I never knew of the "original" message on the Y&R talk page. If you allow me time to find adequate sources, I will. And which case, attack every single series protected under this project, not just Y&R or else it seems somewhat personal to the series. Musicfreak7676 ^{my talk page!} 00:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there are NO adequate sources that will address the issues that the "comings and goings" sections are ephemeral transient content about future events which serve no encyclopedic content and instead are merely promotional teaser in nature. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still agree these elements should be kept in the cast articles. The first argument is on WP:CRYSTAL. If the page was about the characters, then yes I would agree the event of the character appearing has not happened. Musicfreak7676 does a great job correcting these instances, for example the Maxie Jones article and Kirsten Storms' return. However regarding the cast, there are reliable third party sources that state that the previous actor has been let go, and that new actor has signed on to return. These casting events have happened and are therefore not speculation as long as they are cited by reliable, third party sources.

To breakdown WP:CRYSTAL:

Quote: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."
Response: Each "coming" and "going" has been sourced by a reliable third party. Examples: [Soap Opera Digest] confirms an actor did not renew contract. [TV Source Magazine] reports an actor has been hired. [Soap Opera Digest] reports Y&R has released a casting call for a new role addition.

Quote: "It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses."
Response: No opinions are written by the editors.

Quote: "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view."
Response: None of the articles shed undue bias.

Quote: "In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims."
Response: This is also TheRedPenofDoom's second point. However, the sourced articles are not spam nor advertising because they are written in a neutral point of view, are not opinions/soapboxes, are not libellous, and are written by verifiable third-party sources.

Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely that third party intervention would be helpful in bringing a resolution. Please join Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_General_Hospital_cast_members. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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?)
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)[reply]

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)[reply]