Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas

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

Recreation of Joey Rainbow

I've spoken to 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? Conquistador2k6Talk to me, Dammit!

Proposed deletion of Maggie Barnes (Dallas)

The article Maggie Barnes (Dallas) has been proposed for deletion 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 deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 76.65.128.43 (talk)

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. --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. 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? --George Ho (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

These two are probably the most famous couple in the history of Soap opera.Rain the 1 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? George Ho (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It is in this case. Not really worth discussing. Like asking if The Queen should have an article tbh.Rain the 1 00:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of why "non-soap" Wikipedians sometimes look at us like trivia-obsessed fangirls. The couple article Scott Robinson and Charlene Mitchell is short and has one citation. Both characters were on the show for 2-4 years. Yes they are individually quite notable (Scott Robinson (Neighbours) and Charlene Robinson) but if all of the relationship coverage is already in both articles, which are each more extensive and well-cited, why a third?? The only people going there are coming from one of the individual articles, I doubt a lot of people are typing out both names in a search. Honestly from the perspective of someone who hasn't watched the show, I'd almost suggest merging the individual articles into the couple article since their tenures on the show coincide so well and their couple status seems so important. I have a problem with couple articles in general because of the redundancy, but with long running characters who have been in more than one "super couple" relationship or have extensive individual notability, I get it. This does not seem to be one of those cases that requires three articles, no matter how many people watched their wedding.— TAnthony^Talk 02:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I propose merger of two articles right now? George Ho (talk) 03:28, 5 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 keychain photo of both. --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, XOttawahitech (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.— TAnthony^Talk 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). 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 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. 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.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Like 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. 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  — 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  — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Cast years on soap lists

From a very intense discussion 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! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 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! 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! 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 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. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 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! Jason47a (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Admit that I did not read all the comments here, before posting my own.  :-)   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!

on when and how WP:BRD is applicable, plus suggestions for constructive collabs

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.   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.

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.  :-)   Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia folks, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

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. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2013 (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. –anemoneprojectors– 15:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

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. Rm994 (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's comments so far. Look forward to reading more editor's thoughts over the coming days. Jason47a (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2013 (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.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 21:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

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. Creativity97 22:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

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. Jason47a (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2013 (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.

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.

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.— TAnthony^Talk 23:35, 3 December 2013 (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! 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.— TAnthony^Talk 02:12, 4 December 2013 (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. Jason47a (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There are no "rules" about contracts etc so I would think Frances should be done in 2007, as both the character and actress pages reflect. Again, this is an encyclopedia and I think it's notable when she appeared on the show, not when her contract ended. Besides, what proof do we have that she was on or off contract until 2010? If a specific mag article said, "They paid Reid her contract guarantee for 3 years until she died" then it's notable, but otherwise it's wishful thinking and editor POV. I see what you're saying about Rogers but, do people then assume that she was on every day/every episode in 1980 and other years? She had a long break but she did still appear in both calendar years. And is 12 months the cutoff? What is the big deal if the casual reader of the list doesn't realize she was gone for a while when the alternative is wondering if someone made a mistake because we broke up consecutive years? I've got an old hardcover soap opera encyclopedia and the only breaks are definitive years. Again, I'm not exactly disagreeing with you and I have no investment in how the Days list is presented, but I'm playing Devil's Advocate.— TAnthony^Talk 06:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of "contract cast", a lot of cast lists have adopted the titles of "Regular/Main cast" and then "Recurring cast", and I think that's a much better option than listing contract, since shows don't comment on contracts, likely due to legalities. I don't see the harm in listing it as a continuous run, especially if the cast member appeared every fiscal year on the series. if anything, we could include a footnote or something saying "Though 'X' has appeared every year in the role, they also had 'Y' departures from '123' and '456'. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Any one who does not appear for one calender year can have a gap in the duration years. Anyone who appears before the calender year is out will not require a break mentioning. They continued to appear each year. If Character X appeared in 10 episodes each year fromm 2000 to 2009 then the duration would be 2000-09. If the character left on 1 January 2000 and returned on 31 December 2001 the duration would still be 2000- because they appeared during the following calender year. It has nothing to do with contracts - they can be mentioned in the article. The field is for listing the years they appeared in the show in the most concise way as possible.Rain the 1 00:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

A little off-topic, but since it deals directly with the years actors have appeared on shows, and since editors here are always about following all the Wiki rules...I've always wondered this: How exactly are these years determined for shows. I don't see many (if any) sources for where all the dates come from on the Days page for example. The last soap opera encyclopedia (if those are allowed here on Wiki) was published like a good decade ago. So, although people can source dates/years from those older encyclopedias for the 1965-1999 stuff, what exactly is used as the sources for the years from say 2000-present. The above editor just commented if someone appeared January 1, 2000 and then didn't appear again until December 31, 2001, then it should be listed as 2000- , but where exactly would those sources for January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2001 appearances come from?? Since I've been told fan sites which keep track of actors' airdates aren't allowed to be used as sources, and a television show's credits aren't allowed to be used as sources, what sources are used for these dates?? And even if Soap Opera Digest lists a date in their "comings & goings" section, I don't see those Soap Opera Digest articles listed as sources for all the actors' years. So, if the cast list pages are so very poorly sourced, how are they allowed to remain on Wiki? As a non-Wiki expert, I've always meant to ask that, so I look forward to the responses. Jason47a (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Your instincts are exactly right: soap articles and lists are generally undersourced, but no one really challenges the facts. Well, people nominate articles for deletion and merging all the time, but that's not the same thing! Anyway, you're also right that there are few print sources for soap data, and most of the readily-available websites are fan sites or at least fan-updated, and so are unreliable. A few years back when I was editing soap articles more actively, I was making a big effort to use any kind of print articles I would come across that mentioned any soap info like that (check out Tina Lord) but it was tough. SoapOperaDigest.com has some stuff, there are sometimes Entertainment Weekly and TV Guide articles, but it's tough. And frankly the lists and articles get created and updated faster than anyone can really keep up with citations. And then there are what I call the fangirls, the more excitable fans who looove adding excessive random info and don't really think about notability and sourcing and anything like that. Back in 2010 the List of One Life to Live characters had 164 citations, most of which I added. This is the first time I've probably looked at it since, and now it has NONE. I'm not sure about the history on that, but somehow it wouldn't surprise me if they were stripped out by one of the fangirls who just don't understand what we're really doing here. Anyway, the sources are out there, but it's a daunting process.— TAnthony^Talk 04:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, TAnthony. Wikipedia has always been curious to me in that regard. As the "Days" unofficial historian, I've researched the entire history of Days for my website, including a day-by-day list of every character's appearance. Yet, as per Wiki rules, my site being a fan site is considered "unreliable." Yet, pretty much all those dates on the cast pages are listed without any sources at all. So, Wikipedia seems to allow having NO sources at all, as opposed to having fan sites as sources. It is certainly a mystery!! It's funny how we are having this discussion about whether or not to use "tenure breaks", when the main issue really is...where are all these dates coming from?? Barely any of them are sourced. With so many people concerned over using/not using tenure breaks, I'm surprised no one is concerned that the cast list pages are barely (if at all) sourced. Jason47a (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah WP is very serious about sources but it's hard to police, especially when you consider that there are thousands of soap-related articles but a dwindling readership for them in the general editor pool. I mean much of the lists and articles get tagged as having little or no sources but luckily most editors are willing to not nominate the basic lists and stuff for deletion in hopes that they will be improved. And let's face it, most people would see the Days list and know the list itself is notable, and even if it was incorrect in places it is not controversial information in any way to warrant slashing parts of it. And yes it's frustrating that your research falls short of usefulness here! I've seen people try to use screenshots to resolve edit wars over credits issues, and of course non-free images on talk pages (even briefly) is a no-no. But the sources are out there and 10% of a list being sourced is better than none.— TAnthony^Talk 06:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, TAnthony. I was alerted to Wikipedia's Days page a few years back when I noticed Wiki editors had posted all of the research I had done on the head writer airdates (they had taken all the info from my website and made a chart of the exact airdates on a Wiki page). When I asked that they give credit to my website, I was told my site was unreliable by Wiki standards and that I couldn't remove the info either. So, after thinking things over (since I was a Wiki newbie), I realized they couldn't have it both ways (both not giving credit to my site, but still keeping the dates up "unsourced"). So, after checking with other Wiki editors about the matter (that if unverifiable information is taken down from Wiki, to be added back, it must be sourced). Since my site is considered unreliable, I simply removed the airdates taken from my site and knew no one would be able to provide a source for those airdates to be able to re-add them, since that data exists nowhere else. I would have preferred the alternative, of course, to keep the dates up on Wiki, but had to take the other action instead. UPDATE: I hadn't checked the head writer page in awhile, and when I did just now, I saw an editor had added the removed info back again last year (without a source of course), so I'm glad I checked the page again. Can't believe it was way back in April 2008 when that originally happened...doesn't seem that long ago!! Anyway, thanks for your input today, and hopefully more editors will stop in over the next few days and voice their comments about the tenure breaks. Jason47a (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I echo what Raintheone said about the one calendar year. And as per Jason 47a's question, you're right it is hard to prove contract years. However, several users are also trying to expand the leads of the articles, and include sourcing within that. And it's partly why people are against having things listed as "Cast" and "Recurring", and we're trying to make a short-change to "Main" and "Recurring". We got soap character articles to become more notable, so it can be done with cast pages. And part of that change is this discussion. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I also agree witih what Raintheone said. Just wanted to note that. Also, in UK soaps at least, it's usually easy to get reliable sources for when a character is joining and leaving, even if it's a contracted break of three months. –anemoneprojectors– 15:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I very much agree with what Raintheone said. I personally think that's a perfectly fine rule to abide by, but that's just me. Creativity97 22:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Almost forgot, I came up with some potential wording for the guidelines:

• For appearance/duration dates in infoboxes, showing short lapses is deprecated. For example, it should be 1985-99, not 1985-95, 1995-99 (where there was a 6-month lapse in 1995) because the character/performer appeared within the calendar year. For character lists, short lapses are also deprecated, but lengthier spans may be acceptable if the explanation is notable and cited.

I think we need to set a guideline to keep out the most trivial clutter, but perhaps it's not a bad idea to leave a loophole to allow for the rare notable exception (like Jason47a's examples). — TAnthony^Talk 08:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TAnthony, I think that is a good compromise from both points of view (those against listing any tenure breaks, and those for listing all tenure breaks). I know some editors would like to keep small lengths of absences included, such as Renee Jones' brief absence in 2007 (where 2007 would be listed twice), but I agree with TAnthony that those could be combined and don't need the years noted like that in the cast list. For absences of around a year or so or longer, those should be left in the cast list, such as Suzanne Rogers (1973-1984, 1985-present). It would be much simpler to make a statement on each soap cast list page saying something along the lines of: "Any absences for around a year or longer are listed below in the cast lists", rather than the more cumbersome and cluttering footnotes for each specific reason why people were absent. An example of a "former" cast member would be Charles Shaughnessy (Shane). He appeared for a few episodes in May 2012, and then did not appear again until a few episodes in November 2013. Since his absence was over a year long, it would be best to list him as "2012, 2013," rather than "2012-13." Jason47a (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think a one-calendar year break is a good rule. But it should be one-calendar year from the time the character last appeared. I think that's more than a fair compromise on the situation. That was breaks not notably long enough won't create clutter, and those that are notable enough will be resembled. Do we all agree on this one? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not a calendar year, that's a year. It means you ignore the dates and just look at the year. 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2013 are less than one calendar year apart, as 2012 and 2013 are next to each other, but 31 December 2011 and 1 January 2013 have a calendar year between them (2012), as do 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2013. So if a character left during the first example, it would read (e.g.) 2005–, but in either of the last two examples, it would be (e.g.) 2005–11, 2013– –anemoneprojectors– 17:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh OK. Then I like that one even more! I am pro calendar year even more now! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't sure you knew that already but I was a bit confused by your last reply. The original example in the opening post was sugging that examples such as "1973–84, 1985-2003, 2004–" are changed to "1973–" because 1984 and 1985, and 2003 and 2004 don't have a whole calendar year between them (even though they could have left a show for more than 365 days). –anemoneprojectors– 17:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh it was you, haha! Now I'm even more confused. –anemoneprojectors– 17:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I got confused by looking at Jason47a's post above the original I posted, that's why. But I prefer the one-calendar year requirement and rul. It makes the most logical sense and most fancruft reducing as well. And it sounds like the majority are agreeing with it, as well. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I agree. It's what EastEnders editors agreed to a while back, so I definitely think it should be applied across the board. –anemoneprojectors– 17:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It'll definitely cut down on listings, especially those characters that make once-per year appearances on some series (a-la Felicia Forrester, who normally appears once per year on Christmas). livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to how the final decision was made. Who exactly "decides" what the consensus says above? There were several editors who wanted the tenure breaks to stay, and several who wanted them to go. On December 9, I posted a "compromise" idea that would take both tenure/no-tenure breaks into account. After that post on December 9, only two editors (Livelikemusic and Anemone) replied back and forth between each other. Can some of the other editors reply about my compromise idea? At what point is the debate closed and who decided what changes were to become official on the soap pages? There's an editor at the Days page who is saying the no-tenure break changes are already in effect. However, I never saw anything posted here about what would be decided. So, again, soap editors please take a few moments and review my December 9 post, which stated this: "Thanks TAnthony, I think that is a good compromise from both points of view (those against listing any tenure breaks, and those for listing all tenure breaks). I know some editors would like to keep small lengths of absences included, such as Renee Jones' brief absence in 2007 (where 2007 would be listed twice), but I agree with TAnthony that those could be combined and don't need the years noted like that in the cast list. For absences of around a year or so or longer, those should be left in the cast list, such as Suzanne Rogers (1973-1984, 1985-present). It would be much simpler to make a statement on each soap cast list page saying something along the lines of: "Any absences for around a year or longer are listed below in the cast lists", rather than the more cumbersome and cluttering footnotes for each specific reason why people were absent. An example of a "former" cast member would be Charles Shaughnessy (Shane). He appeared for a few episodes in May 2012, and then did not appear again until a few episodes in November 2013. Since his absence was over a year long, it would be best to list him as "2012, 2013," rather than "2012-13." Jason47a (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)" Jason47a (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, no such "decision" has been made, and my edits have been reverted. I will revert them back until a consensus has been reached, but it clearly has NOT been. Rm994 (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with Jason's compromise idea. Tenure breaks of a year or longer should be inserted. "Calendar year" January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2001 is too long. That's almost two years that a person could be gone and not be counted. Seems silly when sources can easily verify that people like James Reynolds and Suzanne Rogers were gone for at least a year. Rm994 (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You guys are really trying to make this about fancruft editing. And it isn't. One calendar year is not too long. Look at Felicia Forrester. She only appears once a year and it'd be foolish and really cluttering to list each and every single year. And I am also believing it to be a conflict of interest, especially on Jason's part. I think we need solid consensus on this issue, as it's tearing editors apart, especially those who are against change of any kind. The majority is leaning towards a one-calendar year break; only Jason and Rm seem to be the only two going against that. And TAnthony seems to be in the middle of it all (part one side, part another). livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 19:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I had never heard of the term "fancruft", so I went to the link you provided and one of the first things it says is: "While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and that the contributor's judgment of the topic's importance is clouded by fanaticism. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." I see no need for you to be uncivil towards myself or Rm994. In regards to Felicia Forrester and you calling her many years listed "foolish and cluttering"...isn't that your personal opinion? You seem to be implying that your opinion matters over other editor's opinions, which it does not. I listened to everyone's opinions on the matter above, and I changed my opinion from listing every single tenure break to a new opinion of the compromise idea, which TAnthony said sounded like a good idea. Your statement above made it seem like I was totally for listing all tenure breaks, but I came up with the compromise idea to incorporate all editors' opinions. Now you are also saying I have a conflict of interest, so could you please explain yourself? I follow the Wiki rules as it pertains to the Days Wiki page. Are you saying because I run a Days website that I am not allowed to be an editor on Wiki? I'd like to keep the Days page as accurate as possible. I would change Mark Collier to recurring, and spell his last name correctly as "Frazer" (and not, as you did, list him as on contract and with the incorrect Frasier as his last name), but I've hesitated to do that, since I believe if I make those changes, you would just revert the changes anyway. Might I be able to make the Collier/Frazer change on the Days page, or would you just revert it once I do so? Back on topic, I asked for more comments from editors on January 10, and so far have heard only from Rm994 and Livelikemusic. Other soap editors, please take a moment and share your thoughts on the subject. Thanks! Jason47a (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Taylor Forrester

Move request is made seven days ago, so I need your comments there. --George Ho (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Home/residence in Template:Infobox soap character

Dear all, please see discussion at Template talk:Infobox soap character#Home/residence and comment there if you so wish. Thanks. –anemoneprojectors– 16:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Cast members who have had multiple roles

Some cast lists have begun listing actors who've held multiple roles in a separate section from the main/current cast, while putting who they currently portray in the current cast section. Do you agree it should be listed in its own section, or should it just be listed in the current cast section where the actor may or may not portray a role currently? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 19:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Like was discussed on the days cast page, there is no point having an entry in two places. The cast member page is for cast members, not characters. We have the duration column that clearly shows a character is not being portrayed anymore. The Current cast member part is for current cast members, not current characters. Rm994 (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. IMO, if it's a list of characters, then all actors that played one character should be listed; if it's a list of cast, then all characters played by one actor should be listed. –anemoneprojectors– 12:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, too. But people are arguing it's "cluttering" to the main infoboxes. I, however, disagree. It's a list of cast members, not characters. And with "years" column, it should be more than known who they played and for how long. Dividing it seems very fancruft to me. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Are we talking about in infoboxes, or in "list of" articles? Infoboxes should contain a link to the list of cast, rather than list the entire cast. I personally think a cast list should look more like this draft I've been working on: User:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders cast members –anemoneprojectors– 17:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

List of cast members is what we're talking about. See List of General Hospital cast members for example. And that page looks nice, however, I do feel like American soap editors will totally hate it. They seem to be anti-change. But I like the idea. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

There was a large discussion about this topic at the General Hospital cast members talk page a while back. Some were arguing that actors who played a role in the past, but now play a different role, should be listed twice, in both past and current. And others, such as myself, argued that they are current cast members, they only need to be listed with the current cast. The solution was to create a new section, I never thought that a particularly good solution to the problem, but that's what was decided then. But I completely agree the section isn't needed and think sections like that should be merged back into the current cast (or past if they are't current).Caringtype1 (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That discussion was about characters, which it shouldn't have been. The solution was a temporary fix, but shouldn't be permanent. It's cluttering and cast lists aren't about characters; it's about cast members. And if a cast member portrayed more than role, it should be noted as such in either the current or past cast member section. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Days of our Lives

Requested move ongoing; comment to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Richard Hatch

Requested move ongoing; comment while it lasts. --George Ho (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)