Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 2

Formatting for family relationships

Okay, we're getting ready to make another try at taking our first soap opera character article to Featured status, Pauline Fowler. However, we're stuck on one thing before we can proceed, and that's on "how to list family relationships". Some people say we shouldn't list them at all, others say we should list only key relationships, others say to list everything.

In order to try and reach a consensus here, I'd appreciate if anyone else with an opinion on the matter, could pop in to Talk:Pauline Fowler#Family relationships and participate in the discussion? This is an important one, since if we can get this article to FA, its own formatting is what will be used as an example for other soap character articles. Thanks, Elonka 21:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm all for listing as much information as necessary without having a list that includes "maternal half-step second cousin twice removed." The only time that I think it should include those relations is if the character you are reading about interacts with that "maternal half-step second cousin twice removed" on a regular basis. If a character has nothing to do with the distant relation, don't include. But if they deal with them and people would ask "why can't they be involved?" then their relationship should be included. As in, if someone talks to their great niece on a daily basis but the great niece is their age and they are trying to find a coupling, include the great-niece so people know there's a familial relationship. (I hope that made sense)IrishLass0128 20:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem article

Could someone who (unlike me) gives a toss about soap operas please look at Emily Stewart - it has a vast, unreferenced, unwikified character bio, full of "unfortunately"-style editorializing. It's very nasty. Thanks, Cruftbane 10:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've noticed that a few people have made some changes to the article. I'm not familiar with the character's history, so I may not be of much help in rewriting/writing the character's history, but the page has been cleaned up quite a bit with the implementation of the infobox. If anyone wants to help me out on the character's history, that'd be great. As The World Turns is not my soap opera of choice so I'm a bit blind when it comes to that. —Evaglow 03:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Fowler up for FA again

Speaking of Pauline Fowler, we're making another run at Featured article status. If we make it this time, the article will be the first ever soap character article to make to FA status, and will therefore be held up as an example for other articles. This discussion is not just among the WikiProject members, but among all editors across Wikipedia, since if it passes, the article will be considered as one of the top 1,500 on Wikipedia as a whole.  :)

I encourage all interested WikiProject members to participate in the nomination discussion, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pauline Fowler. FYI, Elonka 19:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Rating

There are days when people seem to run around willy nilly rating articles. I think it would be a good idea to get a clearer discussion about how articles should be rated. What if a character's story is done and there is nothing more to add? And when should these articles for minor characters that are stubs with nothing further available be put up for deletion? Some consistancy would be nice. The Jed Stark article's presence is a joke as the character was on for 4 or 5 days with no family ties to Salem, yet there is an article. Why? I think a discussion would be helpful.IrishLass0128 20:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the Jed Stark article, I think people who didn't know much about Willow Stark might not know his relationship to her, but he was only on a few days. I'm not sure if he was recurring, but the character will more than likely never come back to Salem. I don't think he was a significant enough character to earn himself a permanent page.

And, I apologize about the "running around willy nilly" (I like that phrase, by the way!) with the ratings. There are so many soap opera articles without ratings, and I feel I do my duty by adding ratings. I think we have a thousand unrated articles, and, frankly, that's too much. I try and add an accurate rating to each article, but sometimes I miss things. I didn't know that Santo DiMera and Colleen Brady's story was considered complete exactly, and when I saw a rating missing, I thought I was doing my part. Sorry about it! --Miss Burkle 00:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the Jed Stark, in fact the Willow Stark page is a page in Days' history I would love to also see disappear into the sunset (what a wreched storyline), but I digress. I'm glad you like the line, but it wasn't just you. What amazes me is that I started this, as you can gleen from your talk page, so we could talk about this but instead someone comes in with a "my way or the highway" attitude. I thought this talk page was for discussing things, not people telling people THIS IS HOW IT'S DONE. Yes, I have read the ratings and it makes me think things are too subjective. I think "start" and "stub" should be reversed. You start something, but don't finish it, that should be a stub. The order baffles me. But if you look at the guidelines, some articles tagged "start" technically, having all elements, qualify as a B. This is why I wanted to use the TALK page to TALK about this, not be TOLD what to do. And "real world commentary" ~ okay, here's where my speach comes in ~ soaps are fictional, they exist for pleasure only. They do not, should not, have elements of real life. In real life you don't have sex on the desk with your coworker 15 minutes after you left the girl that you really want to be with.

And while we're at it, what is the actual "real world" point of ratings? To a user, not an editor, what does the rating system accomplish?IrishLass0128 12:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

IrishLass, ratings have don't necessarily have anything to do with the "completeness" of an article; whether or not there is any more plot summary to add, the Colleen Brady article doesn't fulfill the requirements of anything beyond a Start. A better quality article has real-world context and commentary, etc. Now of course, in this case none of that may exist and the article may stay forever small or deserve deletion. But please don't remove the entire WP banner over such an issue. And unfortunatly, the project is still coming out of hibernation and it's been difficult for us to mobilize or get consensus on certain issues. There are sooo many articles!

MissBurkle, please don't apologize for your initiative and continue with your tagging and rating efforts; there are so few editors participating in this project right now, and even less who concern themselves with the unglamorous technical aspects like this. Someone can always come along and change your rating.

Finally, in regards to small and stub articles like Colleen Brady or Jed Stark, have you considered doing collected pages like One Life to Live minor characters, One Life to Live minor families and One Life to Live children for Days? These are great ways to consolidate stubs or redundant articles into one central article and provide a place for miscellaneous family member red links to redirect to. These kind of pages exist for soaps, video games, book series and even Star Wars. TAnthony 00:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So what you say goes, TAnthony, or is this a page for discussion? My understanding was that this is where consensus is decided, not where one person dictates to all. Logic dictates if there is no additional information available and an article is small, there should be an additional rating, C maybe, but start does not logically apply especially if you go by the guidelines stated. Start implies there is more to be added and in certain cases, there is not. Start indicates on the ratings page that certain items be included and if an article said items, it moves to B class. This is where, it seems, problems lie. As MissBurke said, Jed Stark will never be back. Why does he have an article? But that question also involves his involvement with the story. Colleen Brady on the other hand starred Alison Sweeney playing a dual roll and was an intragal part of the story. It has all elements of a B-rating, per the chart, but her basic story is short. When editors disagree with the rating, talk should be first, not mandated based on one person's opinions ratings. CelticGreen 01:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're not understanding my point. I am not dictating anything, but have any of you actually read Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) or the multitude of other articles that establish what contitutes an acceptable article? As passionate as I am about this Project, the reality is that probably like 75% of soap character articles just plain fail general notability requirements. Articles like Pauline Fowler and Todd Manning are good examples because the characters have some real world impact or significance. I am agreeing the Colleen Brady probably shouldn't exist, but right now it is technically a stub or start, regardless of whether there is more story or not. Articles are not supposed to be just plot summaries and lists of family members. It is not a B-class article. And as far as discussion, that is fine; my objection was to the wholesale removal of the banner. TAnthony 01:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

TAnthony, as I said above, I started this to "discuss" the rating system. You kind of do come off as dictating what goes. The thing about "reading" the MOS, as you direct people to do, is that there is so much room for interpretation. When the Colleen Brady page was started, it was done so under the impression that there would be more to the story, same with the Santo DiMera page. Problem is Steve Wyman and Hogan Sheffer LIED and when all was said and done, the storyline was useless propping and ruined itself. As to "notability", isn't that as subjective? I mean, to me no basketball player other than Michael Jordan should have a page because he's the only one I have to hear about (he owns part of the local team). But there are a few million fans that would disagree about basketball players, just as there are a few million soap fans that would disagree that these character aren't notable enough to have pages. This is the problem with the ratings, it's too subjective. If you take the list verbatim, some articles tagged as "start" are B class, and that's why I put this here, for discussion, not GO HERE directives because I have "gone there" and it makes things more confusing. So, would you like to discuss or tell people where to go? I prefer to discuss and figure this out for the good of the project.IrishLass0128 12:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

IrishLass, I really do appreciate your passion and your contributions, and I do agree that soap characters are just as notable as minor sports figures (I think there is an article for every single person who has ever played baseball!). But as (purposely) subjective as the ratings system can be, you're still looking at them from a fictional context. The largest part of an article being "complete" is its inclusion of real-world context (see my comments below). You may feel an article is "done" or B-class because there's no more plot to add, but the criteria for B-class includes that an article should have "a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article." How can a plot summary and a list of relatives without press coverage or cultural impact be considered comprehensive? And if these items don't even exist, guess what: that article is not even notable, let alone complete. I am not discouraging debate on ratings for individual articles and won't stop you from tagging whatever you want to as a B, but I want to make it clear that in my experience you are misinterpreting the ratings system. That said, I have rambled on redundantly in many places and will try not to say any more on the issue. Again, I really do think you're a fine editor and appreciate you debating this with me so actively!  ;) TAnthony 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This WikiProject is still fairly new, and the rating system somewhat fluid. CelticGreen, if you see any article that you think has been improperly rated, by all means, feel free to change it!  :) We'll take all the help we can get. In situation where you think it might help to get more opinions, then feel free to start a thread here at the WikiProject talkpage, asking for more eyes to go look at a particular article and offer opinions. Though in general, it's best to be bold, and if you see something that you think needs fixing, go for it.  :) Thanks, and welcome to the WikiProject, Elonka 04:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My comments from Colleen Brady

I'm copying my comment from Talk:Colleen Brady here, as it applies to the above ratings discussion --TAnthony 04:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Colleen Brady: B-Class?!

I'm not going to change it, but this is not a B-class article by any definition, it is not comprehensive in any way. Just because it has covered all the plot the character was involved in does not make it a complete and meaningful article. It would be deleted on sight in a real quality review.

This stub would be better incorporated into the Brady family (Days of our Lives) article, as Santo DiMera could be folded into the DiMera family article. These family articles can then be expanded to become overviews of the family's involvement in the show over its run and become a home/redirect destination for stubs like Renée DuMonde and Megan Hathaway. The DiMera family is more notable as a whole because of their longrunning involvement in and contributions to the show, and the article could be bolstered with quotes and coverage from Thaao Penghlis and Joseph Mascolo, who have been hired and fired so many times there is surely a lot of great material out there in the press.

For the record, I have started or contributed to plenty of articles even less complete and notable than this one. I hate the idea of soap articles being slashed and deleted but the truth is, notability and article guidelines are very strict and very clear, and most of the soap stuff fails. I personally believe much of this material is relevant and would like to see the restrictions changed. In the meantime, we're just lucky the notability police haven't caught on and nominated everything for deletion. Calling this a B-class article is just asking for it. TAnthony 04:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and placed a note on the talkpage, and encourage other WikiProject members to take a look if they have time. I'll freely admit that I'm not that familiar with Days of Our Lives, but I can at least offer comments on general article formatting and expansion.  :) --Elonka 05:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I realize I may come off sounding like a jerk here, but I really am just trying to educate. There are so many soap articles, and most are of similar format and quality, which naturally sets a standard and gives an impression of what is acceptable. But on the whole, the bulk of these articles are really in a generally unacceptable state by WP standards.

There are a lot of editors who actively work on soap articles, but unfortunately many people think of WP as an extension of Soap Opera Digest that needs to be updated on every plot point and casting rumor. So much time and energy is spent adding and reverting and reformatting tiny details instead of actually improving articles.

The confusion over what "Start class" means is a perfect example. I spend a lot of time living and breathing these soap articles and it's easy to get caught up in their limited scope. But if we step back and look at it from the greater context of WP as a whole, hopefully my point is clear; compare Marlena Evans to Sarah, Duchess of York (which is Start class, by the way).

Quantity may not necessarily mean anything, but Elonka and I have a lot of experience here (about 58,000 edits between us !!) and have both seen and participated in countless article status nominations, deletions discussions, notability debates and peer reviews for many types of articles. Elonka has a more diplomatic approach than I do, but I'm just trying to remind and educate participants in this Project about the realities, and I think she is too. These articles continue to multiply but not improve, and I fear we will hit a wall sooner or later. I think we've all noticed the recent huge crackdown on fair uses images regarding the enforcement of rationales, etc. All it will take is one AfD-happy editor to target a big chunk of our articles, and we really have no grounds to save them. TAnthony 07:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened yet. We've had a few individual articles targeted, but I think it's just a matter of time before someone goes through and starts nominating articles for deletion en masse. So before that happens, I think it would be a good idea if we, as a WikiProject, figured out a way to get a handle on the problem. I'd rather see the articles improved, than deleted! --Elonka 07:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to retype what I said there ~ I am against adding the contents to a Brady page but I am all for, and I will do it if someone tells me how, to get the two individual articles to redirect to a Colleen Brady and Santo DiMera page. That makes much more sense to me and the individual pages could redirect to the new page. I strongly disagree incorporating the characters into their family pages. It's a "just don't ask thing" that comes from being on message boards but a combined article could be a full B class article. Your comments regarding Thaao and Joe, neither have commented on the storyline, only James Scott and Alison Sweeney have (or maybe I'm reading that wrong). And Joe quit the last time, he was not fired. And I agree about the rumours and spoilers, I find them every day and remove them (you would think I didn't have a real job for all the time I spend removing rumours). I'm all for a combination article because there is little left to be added to either Colleen Brady or Santo DiMera. IrishLass0128 12:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't disagree with a thing you've said, and I'll certainly leave the Days decisions to editors more dedicated to the show. But where you (and others) are still going amiss is that you're still thinking "storylines"; when I mentioned Joe and Thaao in the press, I was talking about their possible comments about the show itself, the impact of the DiMeras on the show and ratings over the years, comments about Jim Reilly's (and Hogan's) handling of them and their characters, etc. I believe both spoke in interviews during the Marlena serial killer storyline (and that when Thaao came back in 2002 he had talked about how he had personally added some business with Tony smoking before the character was killed in 1995 to make it possible that Andre was being killed). That's what most soap articles need right now, real-world context. Again, Pauline Fowler is the ultimate example, Bianca Montgomery is also great, even Alexis Colby is decent. Somewhere in WP guidelines it actually says plot summary info should be kept at a bare minimum; we ignore this because we see some notability and importance there, but we have to remember that the scope of an encyclopedia article is supposed to be real-world first and fiction later. This is not always possible and usually undesirable to us, but it is what it is. TAnthony 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines here are WP:FICTION, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF (Writing about Fiction). These topics aren't unique to soap articles... Wikipedia has had extensive, long, drawn out, bloody battles about fictional subjects. For example, Wikipedia is often criticized for having more info on individual Pokemon characters, than about bonafide historical subjects. There are many folks who have tried to use Wikipedia an an info repository for fictional subjects: Plot lines of books, "biographies" of every character in a sci-fi series, extensive "battle" articles about space opera warfare in computer games, even collections of recipes for fictional meals. But the result of all these debates among the members of the Wikipedia community, is that the consensus of Wikipedia editors is that we're here to provide an encyclopedia for a general audience, not a collection of plot summaries that are of interest primarily to fans. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and search on "plot summaries". See also Wikipedia:Fancruft.

Now, because of the millions of people around the world that are fans of soap operas, we do have a lot of people flooding in to Wikipedia and creating articles about soap characters, where the "articles" are little more than plot summaries. My own feeling on this (and I think that I'm speaking for most of the members of this WikiProject), is that we accept that these articles are being created in good faith, often because there's confusion about just what Wikipedia is for. So we're fairly tolerant of these articles, as long as it's made clear that they're just stubs in place for later expansion into "real" articles, a la Pauline Fowler. But this is a very generous and tolerant view on our part, and we're well aware that to other editors on Wikipedia who are working on more "serious" subjects, they'd probably be absolutely horrified at the amount of crap low-quality information that's accumulating in the soap topics. And the only reason that most of the soap articles haven't been nominated for deletion, frankly, is because other editors don't want to waste the time to do it. Now, having said that, I think we, here at this WikiProject, can definitely do our best to organize the existing soap articles, categorize them and rate them, and do what we can to try and find a middle-ground between what soap fans want, and what the standards of an encyclopedia are. But in terms of ratings, we should stick with the standards of Wikipedia, not the standards of fandom. And the standards of Wikipedia are that a short article, with little information except a plot summary, is really little more than a stub (see WP:ASSESS). To call it "Start" class is being generous. To call it "B" class is not acceptable, and if it causes enough controversy, is probably just going to increase the chance that the article is going to get nominated for deletion. --Elonka 18:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that diatribe completely misses the point of the discussion. We are talking in general about how to rate things, diatribes telling people to go other places don't help. As we are attempting to discuss ratings, I have removed the rating leaving the page in the unrated class for now.IrishLass0128 18:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an open mind!  :) --Elonka 19:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My minds open, there's just not enough room for that much stuff at one time. :) Remember, I pull this editing stuff off at work. No home computer with internet connection.IrishLass0128 19:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I for one appreciate Elonka's well-crafted comment above and think it's spot-on for this discussion; I am actually going to archive it myself for reference. WP has established rules and conventions, and such "go to" references to back up arguments are an important and essential part of any debate on this or any issue. We can decide whatever we want on this page, but without taking actual WP standards into consideration it means nothing beyond this page. TAnthony 19:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks TAnthony. If you think it's that useful, maybe we should save part of it, and work it into a "Mission statement" on the main WikiProject page? --Elonka 23:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a great idea; as always, you're always one step ahead. — TAnthony^Talk 16:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ciara Brady and other children

I was looking at the Ciara Brady page and realized her entire history is all about Hope. There is no relevant information on the page that could not be incorporated into the Hope Brady page. There are other children of major characters with the same kind of pages. Is there a consensus of what should be done or a way to tag these pages other than with a stub tag?IrishLass0128 20:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of no consensus here, and as a matter of fact most of the soaps have the countless stubs you describe. Obviously I'll leave it to dedicated Days editors to decide based on the content, but Jane Winthrop of Passions redirects to her mother (like Ciara, there's not much to say about the child individually) which works. Of course, One Life to Live children is another example of a composite article for longer-but-still-minor entries (individual names like Jack Manning redirect to the appropriate sections). I think that might be a great approach for Days. Be bold! TAnthony 20:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Be bold! Oh, if only I could. I do think Ciara should redirect to Hope Brady and not have her own page. I also think the Zack Brady page falls into the same category of "redirect to the mother" but that list idea is looking better and better the more I delve into this project. If others agree with the idea, other than you and I TAnthony, I will continue forward.IrishLass0128 12:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well--it's a great idea! There can be little subarticles in the main article on the child(ren). Will the same be done for the other children, Tyler Kiriakis, Claire Kiriakis, etc? I'd be very willing to help out with these aritlces, IrishLass and TAnthony! --Miss Burkle 01:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Zack Brady is probably the only child character on DAYS I can see potentially meeting the criteria for having his own page simply because of the storylines that revolved around his character. Unless a child character can have significant storylines that cannot all be found in one place (the PSSN character of Little Ethan could arguably merit his own page), they don't appear to meet the Wikipedia criteria of validity. Other soap kids that could arguably merit their own page could include Michael Corinthos III (in part because the actor is actually on contract -- a rarity for soap children). On the other hand, children like D.J. Craig Jr. (Marlena and Don's son on DAYS who died of SIDS) may not be notable. The only truly notable thing about D.J. (which may not even be) is that he's the only soap child I can think of whose death was attributed to SIDS. D'Amico 07:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

D'Amico, it's funny you mention Zack because even his page is all about Chelsea and others and not him. In reality, he did have very little to do other than that two month arch. D.J. I do believe is the only child to have died from SIDS but part of that is because we figured out kids shouldn't sleep on their stomaches thus reducing dramatically that COD. The Tyler and Claire pages should not exist, IMO. What about each show having a "Children of XXXX Soap" page and doing it in the format suggested by TAnthony? IrishLass0128 12:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I noted this at Talk:Colleen Brady but wanted to add it here: If you do go for the "table-style" approach, you should use the <span id="Name"/> commands so that the redirects can point directly to the person on the list. See Dynasty minor characters and Minor characters of Rome for how this is used, or I can help. TAnthony 16:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

For example, the link Caress Morell takes you directly to her listing even though she's far down the list. TAnthony 16:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate the page for Zack isn't really about him. If handled properly, it could be a great page and worthy for it's own purposes. A Children of XXX page could be an excellent idea, because it won't need to be renamed when a child eventually gets it's own page. And it can be added to / removed at any time. The one major problem? Users who will constantly create pages for these children. On the bright side, it also gives a place to put the 'children of importance who were never really there' -- like Sarah Winthrop, a stillborn child who has her own page. D'Amico 21:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I also want to suggest that you not name it a "List" as fair use images are usually not permitted for use in lists per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable images. — TAnthony^Talk 21:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I really like the idea of creating separate pages for minor characters and children. I plan on implementing this for The Young and the Restless since a lot of the minor characters and children have articles that are very short and contain very little substantial detail to warrant them having their own page. Is there a procedure I should follow in doing this? You all seem more aware about this than I do. I'm up for the challenge but I'd just like to make sure I'm not digging myself into a giant hole. :) —Evaglow 06:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just "be bold" and use any of the composite articles mentioned above as examples/templates. Be sure you are clear about your actions in your edit summary when turning the stub into a redirect; say "Merging stub into The Young and the Restless minor characters" or whatever so that interested parties will know right away that you didn't just "delete" the page. I wouldn't anticipate a lot of complains, but let us know if you have any trouble. — TAnthony^Talk 06:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice TAnthony. :) —Evaglow 16:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, Children of The Young and the Restless is looking great! — TAnthony^Talk 00:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, since no one openly objected and it's been a couple months since I put it out there, today I moved the Ciara Brady information into the Hope Williams Brady page and updated the information to be all inclusive. It was relatively easy since Ciara's story was all about Hope. I added the redirect to Hope's page. Now is the time to start actually working on a Children of Salem page if I can figure out tables. I may have to go find a table to steal and modify. Thanks for the push. Irish Lass 16:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Soap character infobox

We have discussed in the past the need for a "better way" to present character relationship info, as the {{Infobox character}} doesn't quite meet our needs, and the end-of-article lists are unsightly, often out of control, and hindering the improvement of articles, as made clear by the recent Pauline Fowler peer reviews. I had designed an infobox specifically for the Project with this in mind, but found its potentially excessive length troubling. However, I've adopted the genius "collapsible relationships" idea from Elonka's special infobox for Pauline Fowler (a result of the discussion related to that article's Featured Article nomination) and I really like the result:

{{Infobox soap character}}

If you'd like to see it in action, I have put the new template into use at Tina Clayton Lord and Cord Roberts.

Quick overview

Basically, the new infobox supports all appropriate parameters of the old one, with the following improvements:

• Collapsed Relationships section to save space but keep information accessible
• Relationship subcategories like "Grandparents" and "Romances", which only appear if used
• Series name in a colored bar below the main image
• Standardized photo sizing
• Additional photo parameters for alternate performers

Implementation

Obviously at this point this template's use should be voluntary per article, with consensus if necessary. However, I'd like to initiate a consensus to implement it across the board as a standard for the Project. This should, of course, go hand-in hand with eliminating the bottom-of-the article lists (once the listed information has been moved into the infobox). I see no negative to this, as all previous parameters are included, and the bottom-of-the-article lists have been identified as unencyclopedic (though we here within the Project can see the importance of this information). This is a preemptive strike to the lists being slashed by editors following WP policy.

To implement this template in existing article we need to simply replace:

{{Infobox character

with

{{Infobox soap character

and better yet, adding the series parameter as well:

| series =

I can actually accomplish a mass switchover using AWB when that time comes. Of course, shows with their own infoboxes (like EastEnders) need not be changed unless the applicable WikiProject or group of editors determines it wishes to. — TAnthony^Talk 20:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

So is this a done deal? While it's okay, in practice I think the end of article lists are much better. Oh, sure on my wide screen lap top they'll look fine, I'm sure, but on my square screen desk top the article is severely squished. You're also assuming people looking at the articles are editors. Why? Because you have the box colapsable but not everyone that comes here understands what you have to do to see what isn't there. You need to step back as an editor and look at it from the point of view of someone just coming here for information. I think that's a problem. If I had not been an editor, I wouldn't have know what to do to get more information on those pages. Do you think that someone who's limited in their skills on the internet or even just limited in their skills when it comes to Wikipedia is going to go they have to click something on the soap pages when they don't have to do it on any other article? IrishLass0128 12:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's not a done deal, and you make a good point — except that the only hidden information are the long lists of relatives, which a casual reader may not see but, really, won't miss a whole lot. Spouses, important family members and lovers will be noted somewhere in the article itself. I don't personally object to the bottom-of-the article lists, but they technically cross the line on policy. I have tried justifying them to non-soap editors a few times, and they always argue that the notable information is already in the body of the article, and any cousin not notable enough to mention in a storyline paragraph isn't notable enough to be listed. And that's assuming you can even keep the storyline text notable! Truthfully, none of the lists are essential in understanding a character, which supposedly the threshold for notability. I think you and I agree that WP should be a complete source for soap characters and storylines, but the reality is that WP policy only really allows for the most notable information. Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas#Style guidelines is a good guide, though I'd like to add references back to appropriate policy pages. I'm looking at the big picture, and just trying to shore up our articles before someone comes in and AfDs a whole bunch. — TAnthony^Talk 15:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but policy is wrong in regards to what people deem necessary/notable (at least in my opinion). When a show has run for 40 years and a new character is introduced, people use those lists to understand relationships and why this new character is here. It's how I was originally lead to Wikipedia. Maybe policy makers should understand that or eliminate (heaven forbid) all soap articles. I really don't like notability as an argument with the soap pages since a show is always changing and to keep the summaries short, you can't list every relative in a plot summary.

This question has just come to mind: what does Wikipedia want in the end? Do they just want to be a stopping point to lead people to other sites or do they want people to come and stay and find vast amounts of knowledge? I would hope the latter. If other sites list all familial relations of a character, shouldn't Wiki? Just a talking point to use, IMO. Television is such a different genre that it's hard to compartmentalize articles about it. If you want a show page to be notable, it's going to be long. Okay, I'm rambling now. I agree, we don't want the pages deleted or even nominated for deletion and we have to do what we can, I'm just looking at it from both sides right now. IrishLass0128 15:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I so agree with you on everything you just said regarding notability and WP policy! It's annoying; you'd think the WP community as a whole would want it to be the most complete source of info possible because it's not limited in size. But like a paper encyclopedia, it is somewhat of a starting point; the cancer article is very thorough but obviously doesn't contain everything on the subject. I can see both sides.

And for the record, no matter what happens with implementing this template, I'm not going to go around moving every list of relatives into the infobox. I'm thinking that editors who focus on certain shows and characters (like you do for Days of our Lives) can kind of decide for themselves until they're compelled to cut the lists based on consensus or peer review or whatever. The new infobox and old lists can coexist within the same article for the time being. — TAnthony^Talk 16:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the collapsible infobox is a great idea. I like how all the relationships have been incorporated. This method will allow us to include the same amount of information, but in an inconspicuous way. This may not be to everyones taste, but it will be a necessity in the long run, because there are many users who would happily see the "relationships" section jettisoned all together. It's only a matter of time til our soap articles get targeted by deletionsists (this is already happening to some of the Manga articles). This method is a great compromise that allows us to keep the same level of information, but keep it unobtrusive.

I cant see a collapsible list being a problem for readers. I think it's safe to assume that anyone who is reading a soap article will also have enough common sense to click on a "show" button. Exploring links is part of what Wikipedia is about.Gungadin♦ 18:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with this new character infobox, except for the color, as I stated on TAnthony's talk page. I'd rather the infobox color stay grey. I really am not for any other color than grey for the character infoboxes, except for the color black, if we must. Also, I don't feel that we need or should put the series that the character is from at the top of the infobox, or in the infobox at all, seeing as I find it redundant and unnecessary.

That said, I also completely understand IrishLass0128's feelings on this new character infobox matter as well, of course. When I was new to Wikipedia, I didn't know much about Wikipedia, and I'm certain that it won't even dawn on most visitors unfamiliar with Wikipedia to click on the Show button of a character infobox...unless they really examine that article they are looking over, or until after a few more visits to Wikipedia. However, I am all for getting rid of the way that the character relationships are listed at the bottom of the soap opera articles. I was going to start applying a Wiki-table format, which I feel is a decent alternative, considering that lists on Wikipedia are better accepted that way. As for deletionists going around and deleting soap opera character articles because of the Family and relationships sections that exist at the bottom of the soap opera character articles, well that is silly. The only difference in formatting between soap opera character articles and most other character articles on Wikipedia are those lists of character relationships, because most character articles on Wikipedia are mostly plot summary anyway. Deletionists would need to give a better reason for deleting soap opera character articles other than "Oh, Family and relationships section!" Flyer22 19:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And this goes without saying, but it is going to be really tough to keep random or newbie Wikipedian editors from re-adding the Family and relationships sections back to soap opera character articles...at least at first...despite the new soap opera character infobox. I mean, the previous (and current for most at this time) soap opera character infobox allowed us to list children and relatives (among other titles), and yet the fact that some of the info was already listed there was ignored, as well as the infobox not being used at all in some cases when listing character relationships. Flyer22 20:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as the color goes, I chose the lilac arbitrarily (it's basically the WikiProject color) but I think we should visually differentiate this infobox from the generic character box (as most do). Perhaps the "standard periwinkle" would be preferred, but the grey is so blah. The series name is no more redundant than everything else in the box, LOL. It appears standard for most show-specific infoboxes to tag the box with "Showname character" on top for identification; I thought character name to be more important but the series name still helpful, and visually the photos look better framed by color on top and bottom (look at Joey Buchanan, yuck).

I wasn't suggesting that the articles themselves would necesarily be deleted, just the lists. But something like Hope Brady, which is only a list with an opening sentence, is totally deletable because the list dominates it. I think you can better defend it as a stub-waiting-to-be-expanded if it's just short and not overwhelmed by a "violation."

I think the only reason newbie editors obsess about the lists (besides the fact that they want this to be an extension of Soap Opera Digest) is that all the articles have them! Once it is not the "norm," I don't think it'll be an issue. Plus, I think you'll find it's the same handful of people who create and update/modify them the most, and once they understand what we're doing, they hopefully won't restore any that have been removed. And like I said, they don't have to be 100% eradicated, I just think they shouldn't be the norm. New articles are created by example, and if the bulk of soap articles are stylistically compliant to policy, the "bad" ones won't be growing exponentially. — TAnthony^Talk 20:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously no one will be able to delete a page based on a relationship list alone, but it just adds to people's criticism of the articles in general. i know this because ive experienced it with many editors myself. They say it gives more in-universe information, and it does it in list form, both of which are frowned upon by policy pushers and deletionists. It's annoying, and I dont agree with them, but unfortunately there are a lot of editors out there who feel this way.

The infobox is the most prominent part of a page in my opinion. You notice it as soon as you enter. If a person is in any way interested in the character's stats, then they will no doubt view the infobox, and a person would have to be blind not to see "Relationship" in big black bold writing; therefore, they will no doubt notice the show button next to it. If not, then perhaps we should be linking to an optician instead, lol. Gungadin♦ 20:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Of course, I completely understand what you guys mean, and as I stated before, I want to use the new character infobox for the soap opera character relationships, as well as for other matters, over the Family and relationships sections that are usually (at this time) present at the bottom of the soap opera character articles. But, TAnthony, you cannot sell me on the color-issue. I'd rather it be grey (yes, blah but simple), but if we have to choose, why not black? Flyer22 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm still not down for putting the series in the character infobox, though my objection to that has more to do with it being right up there where a character's name is titled. Flyer22 22:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

How many US soaps are there? Maybe you could make templates different colours for different soaps? We have done that with the British ones, I think it helps differentiate. You could try and match a colour to the soap credit title colour (if possible), or even have different templates colours for girls and boys(pink/blue, black/purple for example) :) Gungadin♦ 22:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm more for keeping all of them the same color, but (there goes the word but again), if we were to use different colors for the different soap opera characters of the U.S., I would be more for color by show than color by sex. Flyer22 22:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The beauty of it is that the color is changeable using the color parameter, so you can do a show in one color or whatever. That said, I can certainly compromise and make the default color something a little less specific. And if you leave out the "series" parameter, you just get a thin colored dividing line, so again, it can be used by choice. Between you and me, I will casually clean up any article I come upon, but the only daytime articles I really focus on are One Life to Live ones (and Passions to a lesser degree), so they're the only ones I'm going to enforce some of this stuff on. — TAnthony^Talk 00:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm late, but that's okay. I am really enjoying the new infobox, but I do agree with the different colors. If I may say, I think Passions would look best in purple (their title credits are in purple, well, some of the time) and Days of our Lives in blue. Maybe General Hospital in red--their title card is red, right? Anyway, the collapsible infobox for relationships is good, too. Although, I have to wonder: are the multiple pictures there to show the different actors/actresses who played the role? Maybe we should have some rule that the same actress shouldn't have two pictures in that infobox because that is kind of overkill. They could very easily fit somewhere in the article, if you ask me. --Miss Burkle 13:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I've made the defualt color grey, slightly darker than the generic infobox, and certainly each show can be assigned its own color using that parameter. The alternate photos are indeed for alternate performers, and this is spelled out in the parameter description table. I was thinking that in some cases it may be difficult to decide which performer to feature in the box based on length of time in the role, notability in the role, most current, etc. — TAnthony^Talk 15:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I'm sorry! I guess I scanned over that little bit. Maybe more the more standard route is the most recent portrayer will be the one in the main picture, but there might be exceptions, like on Tina Clayton Lord's article which can be discussed on the talk page? --Miss Burkle 16:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for changing the newly-created soap opera character infobox to grey, TAnthony. If I had to choose a color for All My Children, it would be red. The opening sequence of this show ends with that book that looks red, and our All My Children template is red (my favorite color). Flyer22 17:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

TAnthony, yeah, I just dropped by your talk page to ask about a way to change the sizes of images within this character infobox, but I need another question answered about this infobox. What does Title represent? The character being a villain, good guy, etc.? Flyer22 16:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The "title" parameter is a holdover from the generic character box, and I believe it refers to an actual professional or official titles, like CEO or Princess or whatever. It's probably not necessary for most soap characters as it can be redundant of occupation and characters change joibs and titles a lot; I definitely don't think it should be for character descriptions like "bad girl" because that is POV/OR.

You can get around the image size restriction by using the old image parameter for the main image (I'll do it to Babe Carey to show you what I mean) but I'm hesitant to make image size totally customizable again because it will then vary greatly among articles. The controlled image size is only problematic for vertical, portrait-style images; promotional images are considered replaceable in favor of screen shots and usually get tagged for removal, and as screenshots are horizontal, the auto-size restriction shouldn't be a huge issue. On a side note, do you think the image size should be slightly larger? — TAnthony^Talk 02:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I figured that the title stood for that, and I had originally put CEO for Bianca in her article, but changed it after not being sure. I'm going to change it back now, of course. I also figured that I could get around the image size restriction by using the old image parameter, but when I tried it, I obviously did it wrong, even though I'm used to dealing with images on Wikipedia. I suppose after that, I figured that it had more to do with the design of the infobox. Thank you for resizing the (current) Babe Carey image for me. I wanted the Alexa Havins image as Babe Carey to be a little smaller as well, so I'll apply it to that also. Oh, and the reason that I didn't have Amanda Baker's image titled as "Amanda Baker as Babe Carey" is because that promotional photograph of her isn't her as Babe Carey, but I suppose I'll leave it like you have it. Once I find a good screenshot of her as Babe Carey, I'll replace that image with it anyway. As for the image size, I don't necessarily think that it should be any larger, no. Flyer22 04:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've tried it again, yes, the image problem that I was having was not in making the image of Amanda Baker smaller, but rather making the image of Alexa Havins as Babe smaller. The approach to making the first image smaller in the character infobox doesn't seem to be working for any images following behind that one. Flyer22 04:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are Parents listed after "other relatives"? I just implimented the box on the Sami Brady page and that doesn't seem right to me. IrishLass0128 19:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I figured it out and have warmed to the box now that I've figured out the issues with pictures and order of relatives. Really liking it now, to be honest. Off to implement!!IrishLass0128 19:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really big on leaving comments... never sure what to say. But I do want to say that I LOVE the new infobox. I've spent the last week adding/expanding the infoboxes on Y&R characters and it makes it look so much nicer. I love it! —Evaglow 04:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take that compliment personally (thanks!), as I pioneered the new infobox, but I must again thank Elonka and the folks that participated in the Pauline Fowler relationships discussion that came up with the collapsible idea (which I believe Gungadin borrowed from the "Awards" section of Steven Spielberg's infobox). Obviously that genius idea is what made all the difference. — TAnthony^Talk 06:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

Just saw that Flyer22 added a list of character articles nominated for deletion. All three were nominated or suggested to be nominated by me. They are minor characters who have no business having a page. Jed Stark was on a grand total of 5 times. Ford and Megan just joined and to what capacity no one knows. They are minor supporting characters with no ties to Days, just college students. Please, delete these articles or at least support the nomination. Not fishing for comments to delete, just pointing out why they were nominated and expressing my opinion.IrishLass0128 19:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

IrishLass, I didn't add a list (character or otherwise) of articles nominated for deletion. I removed a red link to an article that doesn't exist anymore. Flyer22 17:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I should have looked closer at the history page. I am actually glad Ford and Megan's page made it through, they really aren't worthy of having pages. They aren't going to be on for more than a month at this point. That could change, but for now I just wish people would stop jumping to create pages just so they are the ones to create the page. Thanks for clarifying. IrishLass0128 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I've been doing AWB runs again to add the Project banner to new and untagged articles, and not only have we surpassed 2000 articles, but we're closing in on 3000! Obviously quantity doesn't necessarily mean quality, but congrats to us all! — TAnthony^Talk 15:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

I created a Soap Barnstar awhile back (its first recipient was the well-deserving Elonka) but never put it into full use; I've added it to the main Project page but will not list it at the WikiProject awards page until I've gotten feedback (or maybe never, it really doesn't have to be listed there). Obviously, the image I came up with doesn't have to be the permanent one. — TAnthony^Talk 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave one to Flyer22 because of the tireless work she's done on the project too. She so deserved it!! IrishLass0128 19:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Luke and Laura page

Admittedly I am no expert on General Hospital but I think I know good articles from kind of messy ones. Is there some reason why on the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber their respective family histories are repeated just as they are on the individual's page? I thought we were trying to eliminate the lists and then I find them on a couple's page. Is this correct? It seems terribly redundant. IrishLass0128 18:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of why I'm against most supercouple articles; they're just plain redundant. And yet, with Luke and Laura, it seems like most of their history is together. And there's so much of it! So in this situation I'd suggest keeping all 3 articles but with major changes. The Luke Spencer and Laura Spencer article should each cover the individual characters' story without each other (Laura's storylines before Luke arrived, time with the Cassadines and descent into her current state; Luke's adventures in Port Charles during the multiple time periods she has been gone). Then they also each have a short section/paragraph featuring an overview of their relationship with a link to the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article. And the couple article only features their story together. I sort of did a similar thing with the incomplete Tina Clayton Lord and Cord Roberts articles, where the "Cord and Tina" section in her article is super-short and links to the expanded coverage of their relationship in his article (she has much more story to be added before he came to town and after they separated, whereas most of this stuff revolves around her). Does anyone agree? — TAnthony^Talk 06:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think we need to come up with a positive way of uniforming all the couple and character articles. It's ridiculous to repeat information like the Luke and Laura article does. I don't know the storylines enough to do anything with the page, but I think we need to find a way to get every article "on the same page" so to speak in regards to style. IrishLass0128 12:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against any of the supercouple articles. Well, I might be against the ones I cannot provide notability for according to Wikipedia policy. But I'm not usually against supercouple articles because they don't have to be redundant, and less redundancy is what I go for when fixing them up. Which is why after I tackle a supercouple article, you will see information about couple creation, actors' commentary about the couple (sometimes), and cultural impact. Stuff that you would not and should not find in their individual articles. Yes, I have seen how horrid the Luke and Laura article is. And the day that I get to it fixing it up, it will be fixed up nicely. They have a ton of real-world impact, and their article can be really different from their individual articles...and it can excellent. I'm going to go eliminate the Family and relationships section from the Luke and Laura right now, just to further the stance against those kinds of list. Lists are just fine fine on Wikipedia when they are relevant and not redundant and formatted in Wiki-format. This is where the Family and relationships section in the Luke and Laura article fails. Flyer22 02:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Relationships in articles

This is regarding the friends and enemies section. Although it is mentioned on the official websites (at least in ABC), these lists are so volatile and subject to frequent change (as opposed to family and such) that I think it is not worth to include them. The people are being divided into 2 sections: friends and enemies. Some people may just not like each other, they are no necessarily enemies and some acquiantaces are not really friends. If a relationship is strong and based on something else (e.g. godfather, business partner, etc) then it should be included under a section titled Other relationships. Can we please agree not to continue adding these sections unless there is a strong relationship? We can always add the friendship or other relation in the main article. For example, instead of adding that Maxie Jones and Sam McCall are friends now because they share a common enemy, Elizabeth Webber, in a friend's section, we can just write it in the main article.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 23:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these types of relationships are definitely ever-changing in ongoing series, and not really encyclopedic anyway. As we update our mission statement/article requirements, we can include this so we have something to refer to when reverting these types of additions. — TAnthony^Talk 23:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The NBC soaps do not have any kind of "Friends and enemies" list on their site so it's subjective for those shows but, then again, the NBC soaps don't have the lists here either. As to the relationship lists, those are being incorporated into the info box with no place for friends, enemies, and "other" relationships (like when someone forces a sexual experience or kiss). So those three things remain at the bottom of articles. The goal is to parse down lists or completely eliminate them if they don't have those additional categories. I only ever leave "other relationships" since I don't have to worry about the friends and enemies, but I do know the ABC shows seem to have them. CelticGreen 23:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia has its own notability requirements, so whether or not a show's website or the soap magazines specify these things is irrelevant. Any character interaction qualified as "friend" or "enemy" can be conveyed in the article's text; this also includes listcruft like lists of crimes, lists of former jobs and lists of miscarried fetuses! In any assessment, lists within articles usually impact the article's quality negatively, and especially when they're stupid lists. — TAnthony^Talk 00:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There are very few articles that I think should have "crimes committed" or "lists of deaths" in them. Unless they are uber-villains like Stefano DiMera or Sonny Corinthos a "list of crimes" is not necessary. I also feel the only time an official site and their listing is relevant is for citation. Like the Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald article. The NBC site was used to come to consensus on the article name. This was disregarded by an editor and the article was moved AGAIN. (I digress) Lists are a 50/50 thing with me. In some cases they are fine, in other they are just redundant. CelticGreen 00:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that some lists add something to the articles. But, I really dislike the copy/paste mania of Crimes and Maladies to the character's articles. First, they are not even formatted to look better in wikipedia, they are merely reiterations of what has been already incorporated (or should be) in the main text of the article and are too exhaustive (adultery is not considered a crime anymore in most states of the country). So, I propose that we remove these kinds of lsit unless they are important to the article. I may be a little more willing to let in a list about crimes committed in Sonny Corinthos's or Jason Morgan's pages, as another wikipedia editor suggested above. I have not really used the infoboxes, but can they be edited to include Öther relationships". The reason for this is that some relationships are worthy of being articulated in a specific sections. Examples are: business partners, godfathers, best friends (but only IF it is a vital part of the storyline and there are few, if any that meet this criteria). That said, I don't think we should include godbrother or godsister, or anything of the sort.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 19:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm one of those "can only go by NBC soaps" people. Again, we don't have a list to "copy and paste" (not sure I even understand what is meant by that) for crimes and I think Stefano's lists are appropriate. His article is already longer than most and the lists do help people looking for research on him. I don't like the idea of adding everything to the infobox. What is there now is enough short of adding a "nieces and nephews" field. I, again, going by Days, don't think a "Godfather" or "Godmother" field should be included, that can be incorporated into the text portion of the article. My first reaction when I saw "Godfather" was mob boss, not baptismal. I think others would have that issue too if their particular background or show doesn't address those things. On Days most of those individuals are family members anyway. I do disagree with a best friend field, business partners, etc. There's really no need. Maybe familiarizing yourself with an article with an infobox already filled in would help, Charleen. You might get my reasoning for not adding any more fields. IrishLass0128 19:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi IrishLass0128, this is what I meant by the copy/paste problem...[1]. As you can see, soapcentral lists maladies and crimes. Some users tend to copy and paste this list into the main text of the article. These character profiles also exists for NBC soaps.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 20:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think simple external links in each article to the character's SoapCentral profile or official website profile is enough, every detail about the character doesn't have to be included in an article if it's available somewhere else. For example, most of Stefano DiMera's murder victims are minor and non-notable characters; if this info is found elsewhere, why not summarize in a sentence that "Stefano has murdered two dozen people over the years," and perhaps mentioning anyone notable. Same for the "Kidnappings" section, this is really trivia that does not need to be here. By the way, I'm just using the Stefano article as an example and am not going to go slash it or anything. Additionally, the Manual of Style specifically notes "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs" and Wikipedia:Embedded list asserts that (among other things) "Most Wikipedia articles should consist of prose, and not just a list of links ... In an article, significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed." In the case of Stefano's many "deaths", for example, I don't see why this can't be written into a paragraph of prose instead of a bulleted list. — TAnthony^Talk 20:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Charleenmerced ~ it is not permitted to copy and paste those lists, if it is done, it should be immediately removed. I don't, haven't ever, actually consider SoapCentral as anything more than what it is, a fan site. They don't get special information and half the time their stuff is garbage. They had Brandon Walker, a Days character, living in Harmony, where Passions is set. They are really unreliable and as policy we delete any copy and paste information from there. When people do that, it's call plagiarism.

TAnthony, the Stefano DiMera article is already long, incorporating the lists would triple the size. The lists are fine in his case and I certainly don't want to argue about it. IrishLass0128 15:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Jane Winthrop

Currently Jane Winthrop redirects to Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane; however her brother Ethan Crane and her newborn half-brother Jonathan Winthrop have their own pages. Even her sister who died before birth Sarah Winthrop has her own page. The redirect page says that Jane isn't a notable character, but I don't see how she's any less notable than Sarah, or even Little Ethan. Shouldn't there be some consistency here? Dougie WII 12:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

See conversations above. Most of us do not think newborns should have their own pages. They should redirect back to the mother. "Little Ethan" I'll have to look at, he is not a newborn and has had some storyline. I will gladly take care of this issue. IrishLass0128 12:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jake Olsen

The Jake Olsen article should be deleted I think, he's not very notable as he only appeared in about 5 episodes before being killed. I'd suggest replacing with a redirect to Esme Vanderheusen I guess. (I'm new to all this, so if I'm not using the correct procedure, please let me know.) Dougie WII 13:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. Nominated for deletion, no redirect. IrishLass0128 13:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessing articles

Can someone please review this article (Kate Howard) and give me suggestions to improve it. It is currently Start Class.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 17:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather than attempting to explain why the infobox wasn't working properly, I went ahead and implemented the new one. It reduced the size of the picture to a standard size, the original is way too big. Romances weren't showing because you didn't have an S on the end, not your fault. I removed the list at the bottom, Sonny was mentioned way too many times, once under marital status when she clearly isn't married, and twice under romances. Not necessary. In all honesty, the article is a start. Making B class takes an act of the gods it seems. I've seen great articles classified at start. I have asked why but never get an answer. Hope I have helped. IrishLass 17:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, I actually never did anything with the box, that was someone else. I have made some changes to the article and I hope they are helpful. I think it makes the article a bit more complete.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 18:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Does anyone have pictures or screenshots I can use for Kate Howard's article?--Charleenmerced ^Talk 18:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I left you a message about the article on your talk page. I think you should look there. Normally this type of discussion does not take place here but rather on the articles talk page itself. This is for general implementation discussion about all articles. There's already a picture, why do you need another?IrishLass 18:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I needed the picture to make a point. I am done with that now. Since this discussion page is for general implementation purposes, I think it is important that these comments be discussed here because they relate to general article writing. In my talk page you mentioned that:

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Charleenmerced" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kate_Howard"

I disagree with these statements and I have a few reasons. First of all, I don't think the Luke Spencer article should be used as an example of anything other than to point out that character articles should be condensed. Luke's article illustates this well. Considering his long history in General Hospital, the article is an ok size. I honestly have not read much of it lately, so I can not give an opinion relating to content. But, I do find it lacking in some ways. I think the article, or at least Luke and Laura Spencer, should address their character's impact on popular culture. Afterall, their wedding was the most viewed event in daytime history and they also appeared on the cover of Newsweek. Second, in or attempt to reach uniformity we should not disregard Wikipedia's primary goal: to create articles of quality. Articles of quality should be concise, well written and well sourced. This is what encyclopedic writing requires and Wikipedia is, afterall, an encyclopedia. Third, many editors outside the Soap Opera and Television Project constantly criticize character's articles because they are not sourced and are overly long. I am not trying to "prove that this person exists". Far from that. Instead, I am trying to provide a comprehensive, yet concise article that is well sourced. The purpose of sources, references and footnotes is to provide a basis and a reference for the stated proposition, in this case, the storyline. In the future, this will (1) prevent other editors from questioning the validity of the information claiming that it is not reliable because it is all written from the editor's memory, (2) prevent other editors from editing the article and putting wrong information because they remember things differently and (3) give validity to the article. Four, a portrayer's take on his or her character should go on the character's page because this gives us information as to the character's motivations or personality. The fact that this has not been done in other character's page should not be regarded as the norm. Rather, we should strive to better these articles. Another factor to take into account is that character's article are constantly criticized for being written in an "in-universe" fashion. To prevent this, we should put the character in context with the real world and how that relates to the show. By adding information as to how the character was created, the portrayer's opinions about the character, the character's relation or impact, if any, to popular media or the real world helps the article become more cohesive, notable and well written. An example that is often used to display how a character's article should be written is Pauline Fowler. This article includes a substantital amount of footnotes (understandable she was on East Enders a long time) as well as the portrayer's take on the character. This is an amazingly well-written article, it has been a featured article and should be what every character article should strive to be. As time passes articles like Kate Howard's will be re-edited over and over again. Synopses will be shortened and rewritten (instead of just adding to it) and some sources will be dropped. I stand by the information currently in that article and do not considered it to be cluttered, or overly excessive. I do agree I have to edit it down a bit, I just wanted to put all the relevant information in the article before I edited it.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 21:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Nice ~ very uncool move. If I had wanted my comments on this page, I would have put them there. As they are my comments, they've been removed. The violation of trust of putting something on an article page or user page for personal discussion is, well, I lack the words to express my disappointment in the spirit of working together rather than slamming a person publicly in such a way. IrishLass 21:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• I was merely trying to illustrate something in response to your comments, not trying to offend you in any way. Comments made on any page are public after all and I strongly felt they related to the topic at hand, as well as to the articles where the comments were made.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 21:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Trust is still an issue and your comments didn't actually have anything to do with mine. East Enders is their own category. They even have their own templates. They are completely different than American soaps. This entire section should be on the Kate Howard page, not here. IrishLass 21:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Why would there be different standards for American, Briish or any soaps? I am really just asking, not trying to criticize the above comment or anything like that. Also, I was just using Pauline Fowler as an example, not because I was talking about East Enders or Pauline Fowler, or British soaps for that matter. Also, they are given as examples in the main project page as examples of how to write a good article. So, I assume, these articles are the example to follow.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 21:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may comment briefly: IrishLass, I don't think you should be embarrassed by your comments or Charleen's rebuttal. Also, it doesn't appear that she intended to do that by posting your comments here, but was just looking for the opionions of the group. And while I agree that the Kate Howard article seems a bit overkill for a new and relatively minor character, it is probably only because so many other character articles are sadly underdeveloped. The line-by-line references are technically correct procedure and only help preserve the info for later edits; I wouldn't say this is necesary for all articles and all information and all other soap articles, but if someone has made the effort, it can't hurt. I haven't read the article in detail, but the performer's comments on the character do have a place in the article if they are notable or contribute to the understanding of the character. In this case, you couldn't make the comparisions to Anna Wintour or Miranda Priestly without them. The Luke Spencer should actually have some similar material, as well as documentation of the "Luke and laura phenomenon," but no one has taken an interest in researching it yet. Seriously, there are very few soap articles which should be used as the "standard," because most are basically just plot summary. I will add, I kind of have a problem with the entire "popular culture" section because it's both a rehash of other areas and mostly OR (editor-drawn comclusions and comparisons). But I will document and edits/suggestions I have on that article's talk page. Thanks for listening. — TAnthony^Talk 22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Family trees/naming

Conventionally we have been naming the family names as such: Horton family (Days of our Lives). An admin has decided we have done wrong and has moved all the soap family pages that had (Soap Name) and removed the name of the soap as "disambiguous." See conversation here [2]. My "logic" of "I'm doing what everyone has done, didn't fly and now we must have a discussion about it before the articles can be addressed/moved/renamed. As you can see, he's moved many, many pages [3]. So ~ discuss! IrishLass (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I did notice the moving yesterday, as I have myself also created articles like Carrington family (Dynasty) and Lord family (One Life to Live) to avoid conflicts with potential future articles. However, Wknight94 is technically correct by WP standards; there is no need to disambiguate the page (add the show name or suffix) unless there is another article with which it can get confused, and it doees make the articles names simpler. When the time comes that another Roberts family article is created, the articles can be differentiated this way. Yes, they're pretty much unnecessary changes (they weren't hurting anybody the way they were), but the format rules are in place to keep everything as simple as possible. — TAnthony^Talk 16:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Days of our Lives GA Review: On Hold

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)