Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

I've begun a discussion regarding the atrocious state of character articles within the Emmerdale universe. These articles stand to be deleted unless corrective action is taken. Please join the conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Emmerdale#Serious problems across the board; let's start with character articles. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at this proposal for lerging Talk:1st_Soap_Opera_Digest_Awards. I imagine that people in this project will have the most informed opinions. Tia Icarusgeek (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Time has passed, and the articles have been merged.

Icarusgeek (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I am currently reviewing "Kylie Turner" for GA status. The "Storylines" section has no references. I have pointed this out to the main editor (Raintheone) and he replied "Storyline sections are not strictly required to need sourcing per MOS:TV, when the show itself acts as the source." Your WikiProject does not indicate that references are not required for "Storylines".

Similar articles such as "Becky McDonald", "Betty Williams (Coronation Street)", "Bridget Parker" and "Carmella Cammeniti" are also lacking references.

The statement from MOS:TV reads: "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question." The guideline begins "The following is a style guide for those who edit Television-related articles under Wikipedia:WikiProject Television." WikiProject Television deals "with the Television medium and television series or other forms of episodic programs." These fictional character articles are not tagged for WikiProject Television. I do not believe that MOS:TV is applicable to them.

If your WikiProject has agreed that references are not required for storylines, this should be explicitly stated within your guideline. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Manual of Style covers all articles, so MOS:TV will cover anything to do with television, including television characters, regardless of what WikiProjects pages are tagged as being part of. I don't know anyone who is a member of the television WikiProject so perhaps they're not really interested in tagging relevant pages, but I think that's down to members of the WikiProject, rather than editors of the articles in question. –anemoneprojectors– 13:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

MOS:TV does specifically discuss fictional characters, and as part of the MoS, does it not take precedence over the style guides of individual Projects anyway? That citations may be used at an editor's discretion as an optional measure for clarity has always seemed solid advice to me—but advice that lends itself more naturally to a drama format, where episodes are usually titled and parcelled out neatly into seasons/series, rather than the sprawling affair that are soap operas, where it's often the case that reliable sources can't even agree on whether an episode is number 1,38X or 1,38Y. I want to note that Betty Williams (Coronation Street) doesn't lack references (although admittedly the placement could be altered to make that more clear)—the vast majority of the plot is sourced to citation #6, and the few elements outwith its purview are cited separately. That article, to my knowledge, is really an exception rather than norm among soap opera characters; as the essay WP:PLOTSUM notes, plot summaries composed from other, secondary summaries are not ideal due to the risk of risk excessive loss of context and detail. There, a preference is given for primary source citations, which jives with MOS:TV's the show itself acts as the source. Bearing in mind that the guideline doesn't make such citations mandatory, I'd say soap operas are a format where they wouldn't be of much use in aiding verifiability anyway, given the lack of DVD releases and the fact that many are never repeated after the week of their initial broadcast. As a disclaimer, of course if a specific plot element is open to interpretation, then as MOS:TV notes, a secondary source is very much appropriate. Frickative 12:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. Regarding the referencing in existing articles, it is interesting to see that this WikiProject's featured article "Pauline Fowler" has fully referenced storylines, including a couple of episodes with airdates.

In any case, if your WikiProject has decided that references are not required for storylines, would you please add this to your guideline? Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I have invited WikiProject Television to comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOS has never explicitely stated that sources for "Storylines" are not necessary. What MOSTV is referring to are articles on TV episodes, or articles on a list of episodes where the episode itself is present in a table format. As such, no sources is required because the citation itself would be the what is already appearing on the page anyway (e.g., title, director, air date, etc.) When it comes to character articles, where you're going to be summarizing different episodes at one time, sources are required so that people know where the information came from exactly. Now, the source itself is going to be the episode in question (using the citation template for "episodes" would suffice). The fact that the episode does not have an official title is irrelevant. It has an official air date, a writer, a director, and probably a numerical value associated with it. So, there is enough to identify a "source" for that specific event. Since these articles shouldn't be full accounts of everything the character has done, but summaries of major points in the character's "history", it should be easier to cite. But, in the end, there should be references when you're dealing with multiple episode plot points in a single section. Otherwise, we'd never be able to verify where the information was coming from. That is why Pauline Fowler is referenced.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with AnemoneP and Frickative on this one - their views ring true and sound sensible. Also, Just because it has never been "explicitely" stated, doesn't mean it cannot apply for this type of section too. Maybe it is vague to expect someone to verify plot through watching the whole series, but adding the episode cite is just as bad. They would still have to wade through each episode cited to verify.RaintheOne ^BAM 17:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The point of citing is so that if someone WANTS to verify it they know where to look. If you cannot be bothered to verify it, then you shouldn't be adding it. Obviously, the editors for Pauline Fowler didn't think it was too much to cite episodes specifically.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I know those editors and they bent over backwards to get that article promoted. It is the featured article of this project and is used when anyone wants to make a point. Everyone outside this project throws Pauline Fowler in our faces. I could be bothered to add them, if everyone decided it would be for the best. I spend week in, week out adding sources to soap articles - so it wouldn't make much difference. My view doesn't mean I am lazy.RaintheOne ^BAM 19:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with AnemoneProjectors, Rain and Frickative. What if something that only requires a line to summarise it played out over ten episodes that'd mean finding the dates for all the episodes to cite them or references to cite the storyline. WikiProject TV should be applicable or Soap Wikiproject should be changed to suit soap articles better.D4nnyw14 (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For what it's worth, Pauline Fowler only actually cites around 5 episodes specifically - IIRC, the storylines and development sections were combined together, which can work in some cases (and obviously was considered a success here, or it wouldn't have reached FA), but even four years on, I still think it reads awkwardly because of the constant tense changes between in-universe and real-world information. I'm not at all opposed to citing plot points in theory (soap characters are the only area where I don't do it as a matter of routine), but what would you say the benefit is of a primary episode citation, as opposed to a secondary source (eg. to a reliable episode recap site, or behind-the-scenes book)? I think that's what's tripping me up here - for a totally random example, if I read in Kurt Hummel "In the episode "Ballad", Kurt is teamed with club member and quarterback Finn Hudson (Cory Monteith), for whom he harbors romantic feelings" and the citation is to the episode "Ballad", then wonderful, I can pick up the DVD and verify that. If I read in Pauline Fowler that "Pauline's nemesis Sonia is arrested for the murder." and the citation is to the episode which aired on 2 January 2007, I can wait a decade or two and hope it's eventually repeated on a cable channel, or I can look for an episode guide, in which instance it seems more helpful to just use the episode guide as the source. I know that access to sources doesn't have to be easy, but surely it shouldn't be near impossible, which is the case when the source is an episode of TV unlikely to ever be broadcast again?

Apologies, the length of this query has gotten away from me a bit. Essentially, I'm not at all averse to more extensive referencing, but this discussion is something that could no doubt effect hundreds of articles, and I'd just like to be clear of the reasoning. If it was secondary sources that were required I could understand that, but to my mind, when applied to soaps, the use of primary sources barely furthers the cause of verifiability. Frickative 19:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If the source is difficult to access, or never to be broadcast again that does not change the fact that it should be cited. If someone is citing a book that goes out of print and no one can find a copy of said book, would you then argue that you no longer have to cite content from that book? The point is, if every other fictional character has to cite it's plot information (because it's pulling from multiple, individual episodes/films), why would SOAP characters be differently simply because it's more difficult to verify their content? To me, if it's harder to verify the content that's more of a reason to cite it. At least someone knows that it came from a specific point and it wasn't simply just thrown in there by some vandal and it didn't actually happen. No one said the references have to come from the plot either. If you can cite an episode guide, a behind-the-scenes book, or whatever then use that as well. It's probably even better to use than the episode in question. I think that SOAP articles, primarily those on the characters, have tried stretching away from certain guidelines and policies (namely WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, and a couple of others) because of the type of program they are (i.e. everyday shows). Now it's almost as if they want to get away from verifiability by not citing where their plot info is coming from. No one said you had to fill out a citation template. Anyone can provide source information in a basic sense and wrap it with <ref></ref>. I think that was how Pauline Fowler does it. That would allow you to just say, "These events transpired during the episodes that aired on .....".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

How have we tried to strech away from the MOS on fiction and PLOT? What articles are you looking at for your reasoning behind that comment? I'm quite sure we everyone who has replied so far follows those. I do not think we are all trying to curb WP:V, when we are constantly battling to keep everything secure and sourced... apart from the plot section where the show itself is the source. We have a view on plot sections - that doesn't mean we support writing in universe, adding original research, adding masses of storylines and information that is not notable or trivial in the real world perspective. That is another thing others do, tar us with the same brush because they have seen character articles from US soaps. Bignole, at the end of the day, what do you think needs to be done? Do you think it is fair to want everyone to cite every episode or find a source for every plot detail in a SL Section - for every soap article? hundreds of them.. if so I'd atleast want a big task force putting together to help on that. BTW - I do understand your point, because we do add sourced info by the bucket, so it seems odd we would want to use the show entirely as the source for plot. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place here IMO.RaintheOne ^BAM 20:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Rain, in the past when I've been part of reviews (and I haven't been part of one for SOAP in over a year) long debates sprang up on how much plot information should be in the articles because of the extensive nature of these types of shows. What I came across was huge "biographies" on these characters, that is what I'm talking about when I say "getting away from PLOT and WAF". I still do not know what the justification actually was, other than "this is how we like it". Pauline Fowler took a lot of work, as I recall (because I was part of that one), just to get to the point that it was when it was at FAC. As for moving away from "WP:V", we all know the show is the source. The difference is that WP:MOSTV, when talking about not needing a citation, is referring to episode articles, season articles, and sometimes the parent articles. But it clearly talks about articles where there are multiple episodes being referenced. Do I think character plot sections needs references, yes I do. Do I think there are any number of ways to cite those plot points, yes I do. How it is cited is not a real consequence to the fact that it should be because no one would be able to tell when an event took place. I understand the dilemma of not having episode titles that you can easily refer back to, but what we don't want to see are pages that look like this.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Bignole but what about characters from soaps fro 50 years ago etc. Like Ken Barlow has been on the show 50 years where would we find episode dates for him? I really don't think all events from a characters history or most will be able to be sourced. Maybe more recent characters from 2008 onwards but others especially from soap's that aren't as high profile will be much harder and sometimes near impossible.D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh a Days of our lives character.. That is a terrible article isn't it. I have tried to convince some editors of US soaps to stop doing that, they try to pass them off as notable. I guess another fear is that those such editors of US soap articles may think it is okay to create articles consisting of just episode / storyline recount sources... and pass it off as notable. Most general readers of the lead would just assume that article has sources and is notable and argue at AFD - this article has this many sources. I think with UK and AUS articles, which are in shape and mostly written how they should be from a real world perspective qand following various MOS rules - a lot of the time the development sections discuss all notable plot already. Can we just use citations that are already there to source the plot section?RaintheOne ^BAM 21:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

D4nny, if you cannot source what happened to a character early in his SOAP career (say 50 years ago), then how do you have that information in the first place? Wikipedia hasn't been around that long, so obviously someone must know the character enough to at least know a general idea of when an event took place. Obviously, if you cannot determine the exact date at least knowing the month or year it took place is probably a start. Otherwise, I would question anything older than 10 years because I wouldn't challenge the memory of anyone recalling an event from more than 10 years ago if they hadn't seen the episode lately (if you've seen it lately, then source where you saw it.... e.g., SoapNet on X day). That's the sad reality of these types of shows, it is hard to source things after a certain point. But, the same rule applies to films that are no longer in production. There are a lot of "lost films" and the only way to source their plot section is to provide a reliable source because if nothing exists to access then it cannot be verified by simply "watching" it again. That is where other sources come in. I mean, if you have to cite some website that recounts the character's history that's better than nothing. Personally, I'll take a questionable source over no source any day of the week, especially when it comes to plot information.

Rain, if you have a source in a development section that discusses a plot point then please use that one over an episode source (just make the reference visible in both sections). The point is not that it must be sourced by the episode, it's just that when dealing with multiple episodes/years/etc. you need some form of verification in place to know when something happened. Whether that be in text referencing like, "In a June 2009 episode, Character was revealed to be the long lost daughter of matriarch Y", or in-line citations like we typically do. There needs so be some form of verification in there. Obviously, the more source information you have the better. It just comes down to the fact that sources should be present in character plot sections to verify key points about the character. Otherwise, there's no way to verify any of the information and we have to "trust" that people are remembering accurately.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with those who say that television plot summaries do not normally require citations. This is because the show is the reference. The "no citations for plot summaries" factor also applies to film articles. Hardly ever is there a source in a film plot summary. I understand that there are many more episodes of daytime soap operas than there are of primetime dramas, and it would seem that much more important to source the former, but in either case...we usually have to trust what editors have added for a plot summary. It's true that with soap opera, we have to wait until a fan who knows that particular history comes along to correct errors, while the wrong plot information will usually be quickly corrected in a film or primetime drama article. But does that really mean we should be stricter when it comes to sourcing soap opera plot summaries? I understand the reason behind it; I'm just not sure I entirely agree with it. As stated above, it's also very difficult to source soap opera episodes; they usually don't even have a title. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I meant to add that the Pauline Fowler article is not detailing a simple storyline section. It is incorporating when storylines were created, the creators' feelings on those storylines, etc., so yes, of course references are needed for that. It's not like it's one big section of plot summaries only, which would be against WP:PLOT. It discusses creation and impact. Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a matter of being stricter on SOAP articles, but actually holding SOAP articles to the same standard we hold other others. Look at Jason Voorhees, Troy McClure, Bart Simpson, Superman, Batman or other character articles that have been under review. You'll see that their plot sections are sourced, even the comic book characters with their thousands upon thousands of different comic books. What I'm hearing is: "It's too hard to source them, so we shouldn't have to source them." Being difficult is not a reason not to put some sort of reference in a section. I don't believe in this, "it'll be corrected eventually". That may be true to an extent, but that doesn't mean we should be lazy about our editing in the hopes that someone will fix it one day.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to help source them? I'd like to think your strong view on this would suggest so.RaintheOne ^BAM 01:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't watch SOAPs, so I wouldn't know where to start. But it's interesting that when someone says it needs to be sourced the argument becomes, "Then you're going to source it for us, right?".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not one for those games, I actually thought you had a interest in soaps. Which got me excited. (Like I really wish we had more editors interested in helping - and virtually ask anyone passing through soap articles if they would like to help.)RaintheOne ^BAM 03:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Then I apologize for misunderstanding your intentions. I've experienced a lot of the "why don't you source it" comments in the past, and I assumed that was what you were saying. If I knew where to start I'd certainly help out, but since I don't watch them (cannot really stand them personally), and I don't visit those pages for anything other than FACs (Pauline actually being the only one), I haven't the faintest idea where to look for sources. All I know is that SOAPNET does a lot of reruns of older soaps.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Mainly from memory but that's why only big events are included. Things that will be referenced by the character in normal conversation or making of videos, bloggy type websites, Youtube clips without a year or dvds that don't list which date the episode is from just the storyline. Would it be better to leave a 40+ years out of Ken's history just because we can't find a reliable source or even find a source?D4nnyw14 (talk) 08:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Danny, I don't think the oldest characters are such a worry—it might take an inter-library loan or trawl of a few charity shops to pick up some of the tie-in books, but one of Little's took me right through 1969-2002 on Betty. It's those few characters who fall in the murky years between 02 and aggregator sites like Digital Spy really kicking off around 05 that are likely to be more of a struggle, and even then The Free Library should fill in most of the gaps. Of course, that's Corrie specific—I've no idea how other soaps stand on decent print references. Frickative 13:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hollyoaks is near impossible for less important characters especially earlier characters between 1995-2005ish.D4nnyw14 (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if they are less important they are probably far less notable as well. Remember, not every character will be able to (nor should they) have their own article. Before ever thinking about how you're going to source a plot section you should be working on developing the other real world content sections to find out if the subject is notable enough to have a page to themselves or if they need to be covered on a larger collective page. After that, I think Frickative has provided some possible avenues for finding sources for plot information. If they are going to be talked about, then they will be talked about with regard to their major points anyway, which is what their plot sections should cover.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Danny knows that. He means Hollyoaks is the one that recieves the least coverage in storyline guides compared to other soaps. (It is considered the "fourth" soap opera in the UK media) Though there is plenty of real world info about the characters, or we just simply wouldn't create the article in the first place.RaintheOne ^BAM 14:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that you guys have a better handle on the UK articles than there is on the US articles, which is what I'm referring to. See Hope Williams Brady above...lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Just from a brief look at thefour main U.K. soaps and i see they have a total of 1613 character articles excluding lists. Hollyoaks have about 3 regular editors, Emmerdale have even less and even though Corrie and Eastenders have a few more the task force jut isn't big enough. Even if all editors just concerntrated on that it'd take a couple of years and then everything would be out of date. What about IP's and casual editors, do you think they'll stick to the rules? Unless we can magic up about 50 more editors then it'll take a colassal ammount of time. It's like we're trying to fix something that's not broke but isn't perfect without the right tools. IMO it's not going to work. Too many characters already have the storylines set out that way. Maybe if we did this when wiki started years back but we didn't and now it seems abit late.D4nnyw14 (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't have mattered if you started it back when Wiki started. The number of articles being created would still have outgrown the amount of time any number of contributors could provide to develop articles appropriately. Any work on any article is going to take time. I've been working on Friday the 13th (1980 film) for almost 2 years in my sandbox, and people have come in and taken stuff out of it and put it in the article for the time being, but it's in no where the shape that I want it. It just takes time. I would also question whether there are 1600 notable characters for those soap operas. I just randomly clicked Ashley Cotton from the list and it doesn't scream notability. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but a lot of pages have more issues than simply sourcing their plot sections. That is why I said before that that should be the last thing on your list to begin with. If you're working on developing an article the plot section (sourcing or otherwise) should be the last thing you work on. If you spend all your time focused on just sourcing a plot section then you're missing the bigger issues with 90% of character pages (that's ALL character pages, not just SOAPs). Sources need to be there, it will always hold you up in any GA or FA review. Thus, don't sweat it until you need to. Focus on the real issues and when you've got those taken care of then focus on the other.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Bignole, I see you're talking about fictional character articles (and you know I'm a fan of the work you did on the Jason Voorhees article). But I was talking about the fact that the plot section of television and film articles -- as in articles about the show or film as a whole -- are hardly ever sourced. And plenty of them are of GA or FA status. So why is it that a fictional character's plot summary needs to be sourced...but not a television or film article's plot summary? Yes, I understand that television articles may link to a list of episodes that are sourced, but the plot summary on the main article is still often unsourced and usually has more detail than what is on the list.

I didn't say we shouldn't put references in, but I'm not seeing why it's so much more important that we do for fictional character articles. I'm also not saying, "It's okay to put in incorrect information because someone will correct it eventually." I'm saying we trust that editors are putting in the correct information when it comes to the plot summaries of television and film articles, so why shouldn't we do the same for fictional character articles? If the show or film is the reference and all. Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Clark Kent (Smallville) (just click any of the Smallville character articles for that matter) is sourced. The Simpsons' character articles are sourced. The plot summary for an episode or film article is sourced, it's just not in-line citation sourced. The info you put in those citations is present in the infobox of film and the infobox for the episode article. As for the parent article, they should be sourced, and the ones I work on are sourced, even if they are only sourced by primary references (i.e. the episodes themselves). The same for List of articles. The table contains the information you would have in an in-line citation, so it's not necessary to duplicate it on that page since that page already contains the information (together) for each episode. With character articles you don't have all that information present on the article, thus we have to know where this information comes from. We cannot simply say "the show is the reference" here because, especially with SOAPS, there are so many episodes how can we be sure what information came from where? I know I can verify any aspect of the plot from The Dark Knight by watching that film. I cannot know where to verify a particular event in Ashely Cotton unless I know where to look. Know one has time to look through 30 years of Soaps to verify one aspect of a character if they are reviewing the article. The editors who put that information in know better as to where that even took place and can narrow it down for readers/reviewers if verification needs to take place. If I read an article and a citation says "June 2009", I know about where I need to look to verify it. Maybe I'll find it, maybe I won't, but at least I know where to look. If it says nothing, I won't know if it took place in 2009 or 1975. That is why referencing these individual points is important. There is no double standard here, it's all about how it is referenced. Films, episode articles, lists, and season pages all have the citation information for each individual story present directly on the page to know where to look. Character pages do not have that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not completely understanding what you mean by television and film plot summaries being sourced. Yes, there are generally other references in the articles to validate some aspects of these plot summaries, but...generally...the other stuff can only be verified by watching the show or film or Googling it to see if it actually happened in the show or film. What you stated about the difficultly in determining what material was in what soap opera episode is what I and others are saying about referencing such information. It's also why I have seen the double standard when it comes to sourcing soap opera plots. It's a double standard I understand, but a double standard nevertheless. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this "double standard". If we have other character articles sourcing plot information (I've provided plenty of examples, even ones for pages I don't work on), then it's not a double standard to expect the same from SOAP character articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Having been around soap opera articles more (though I mostly edit other types of articles these days), I have seen the double standard when comparing what has been accepted for prime time television articles. And either way, sourcing plot summaries clearly is not a requirement...given the many GA/FA television and film articles without a single source in their plot summaries. You source your television plot summaries, but others do not. It is really a preference thing. And just like most other film articles, the Halloween (2007 film) article you worked on does not have a source in its plot summary. And I wouldn't expect it to. Using that to go back to what I mean about "trust," however, there are things in that plot summary that I wouldn't know happened unless I watched the film myself or were to Google it and found that information. Thus, we are usually trusting what contributors have added in for film article plot summaries, and generally for television article plot summaries as well. But when it comes to fictional character articles, especially soap opera character articles, it's whole 'nother ball game. And that is a "double standard" everyone who works on these types of articles has seen. Flyer22 (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've had a look at Bridget Parker, Carmella Cammenti and the Betty Williams articles, from what I can see they are all following the MOS:TV guidelines? As a GA reviewer, from what I know, all soaps that are at GA status follow this. Pauline Fowler that you refer to, is a featured article and not a good article, the criteria for a featured article I think is different to that of a good article--5 albert square (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, what are you talking about? Not having an in-line citation is not the same as not sourcing something. An in-line citation for an episode article or a film article is going to ask for the studio that produced it, the people that worked on the film/episode, the title, the air date, and if it's an episode where it falls in seasons/episode numbering. So, the reason you don't see an in-line citation on episode or film articles is because the infobox already has all of that information visible on the surface. There is no reason to duplicate it with an in-line citation. Why are keep comparing a film article to a character article is what confuses me. Character infoboxes do not contain any of that information, thus when you have plot information the character article does not provide any type of sourcing information. That is why individual plot points need a citation for what episode/where it aired so that it can be verified.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Bignole, I'm not sure how it's difficult to understand what I'm talking about. There are typically no sources in television or film plot summaries. I have made that clear. Other links in the articles (such as in the infobox) often times do not back everything that is included in these plot summaries. I have seen it over and over again with good/featured television and film articles. Even with the Halloween (2007 film) above. There are a few things in that plot summary that can only be validated by watching the film or Googling and finding that information. You even said, "I know I can verify any aspect of the plot from The Dark Knight by watching that film." That is what I mean. Some of this material would require a person watching the film to know if what is in the plot summary is fact. As such, with these television and film plot summaries, we are often trusting what the contributors have added to these plot summaries as fact. That is what I mean. I keep comparing this to character articles because I perceive there to be a double standard that some people say the plot summary of fictional character articles should be sourced when we generally don't do the same for television and film article plot summaries, and because this discussion has been about all of that. If you still don't understand me, I don't know what else to say...except that we clearly don't see eye to eye on this topic. Not completely. For example, you prefer to source your television plot summaries (such as Smallville), but I wouldn't bother doing so. Flyer22 (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, this seems to be a confusion over in-line citations and sources. Film articles do not have "in-line citations" for their plots, but their plots are sourced. Episode articles do not have in-line citations, but their plots are sourced. I think what you are missing is that character articles do not have sourced plot sections period. Saying the source is "EastEnders" is not sourcing anything becuase there are decades of episodes and you're not saying where it is from in EastEnders. If I say that "A Streetcar Named Marge" is sourced to the episode, you know exactly where to look....at the episode titled "A Streetcar Named Marge". The sourcing information is in the infobox (e.g., when it aired, who wrote it, etc.). Character articles have no sourcing information at all. It's not a double standard because you're comparing apples to oranges. A double standard would be saying that the Batman films don't need to source their plots, but the Superman film have to source their plots. These are articles on equal playing fields. A character article is not the same thing as an article on an episode or film. It's chronicling years (potentially) of information into a single area, where an episode or a film are only chronicling that single event. I source the plot summaries because people need to know where information is coming from. Source it or not, I'm merely telling you that it will always be held up in FA reviews because when it comes to recounting years of TV or Film plot information in a single section, you will need to be able to source where specific points are coming from in relation to the overall series. You cannot simply say, "Go watch 50 years of EastEnders until you see this single plot point to verify it". If all information that can be challenged needs a source (per WP:V), then what would stop someone from challenging a plot point from 40 years ago if there wasn't at least a citation saying what episode/air date (or however it's measured) the information was broadcast? Nothing would stop them, and most FA reviewers will challenge unsourced plot sections because they typically do not know the show and want to make sure that you know the show well enough to be able to identify where certain information came from.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm confusing anything, Bignole. Not only are these television and film articles generally without "in-line citations" for their plot summaries, parts of their plot summaries are not sourced by anything in the article. I am saying that something that cannot be verified by any source in the article is unsourced. If a film plot summary says "Jim and Becky make love right before Jim commits suicide," and there is no source in the article backing that, that is unsourced. Unless, of course, you feel that it's sourced simply because the film is the source. "A Streetcar Named Marge" is different. That is an article about the episode and provides details in its infobox about it. The information in plot summaries of television and film articles about the series or film as a whole are not always or even mostly always sourced...by anything in the article, and are certainly not adequately covered by infoboxes. A person could add anything to a film plot summary without anyone being the wiser as to whether or not that bit actually happens in the film...unless obvious vandalism or the person who stumbles upon it knows what actually happens. So saying "It's all sourced" is not ringing true to me. I have had to correct plot information in various television and film articles, including GA and FA articles, and there are enough of them that would require me actually watching that episode or film to know that this information happened. Either that, or Googling it and hopefully finding that material. So, again, I am not seeing what you are misunderstanding. Flyer22 (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

My thanks to everyone who has commented. Six editors (AnemoneProjectors, Frickative, Raintheone, D4nnyw14, Flyer22 & 5 albert square) indicate that references are not required for character articles, while one editor (Bignole) indicates that references are required. The consensus from WikiProject Soap Operas is clear. Would the WikiProject please make an explicit statement to this effect in the guidance here. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't someone going to add this statement to the guideline? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

To what Guideline? To WP:MOSTV? No, because this was an isolated discussion on this WikiProject. If you're going to change a guideline you need to talk about it on the guideline page and have more than 4 people discussing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure Axl meant this project.RaintheOne ^BAM 13:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. Well, just be aware that a WikiProject cannot "decide" that citations are not necessary for character pages. It can be the accepted practice within the project, but the Project will not supercede any FA reviewer that decides to invoke WP:V during a review. Just to point out, a Guideline like WP:MOSTV cannot supercede a policy either so even if we have a discussion and include a clause in that guideline for character pages, anyone can still "challenge" the info and require a citation during a review. So, make sure you word this page appropriately to alert editors that should any plot info be challenged in a review (and they have been in the past for both SOAP characters and none SOAP characters), you cannot just point to this Project page and say "well they don't require it" because nothing has power over a policy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

To the guideline that I already linked to, i.e. WikiProject Soap Operas' guideline. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It has now been added to the guideline. :)RaintheOne ^BAM 20:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Coming in majorly late to this, so apologies for that, but just wanted to say that I dont have a problem with adding cite episode to plot summaries. The reason I dont do it often is because plots on soaps span months if not years. When we condense storylines, which most regular soap editors do quite frequently these days, we might be condesning literally scores of episodes into one or two sentences. How then can we use cite episode? Should we site every single episode this plot featured in for one or two sentences worth of text? It's a problem. I have tended to use accompanying books to cite plot where I can, because they usually summarise the plots already in synopsis form. But as mentioned by Frickative above, this is not seen as the best way to go about it.GunGagdin^Moan 19:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fusion Cosmetics and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pine Valley (All My Children) for the discussions. I "voted" neutral on the first, and a definite keep on the second. Flyer22 (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting a discussion with the aim of building a consensus of whether we endsorse the use of the Daily Star as a source in Australian soap opera articles. The reason I ask is because it is often seen as the low end of the tabloid sources and is frown upon at WP. However, it does have credibility in this field of use IMO.

My reasoning for this is because it is owned by Northern & Shell - this company also own Channel 5 - the Channel that air Australian soap operas Neighbours and Home and Away. So due to their close affliciation with the soaps - they have exclusive content, advertise with them and interview the production - so therefore what do we think about making it a rule of thumb that they can be used in this context?RaintheOne ^BAM 14:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Gh87 (talk · contribs) has tagged various soap opera articles for deletion, currently mostly dealing with All My Children characters. Some with just prods; others with an actual deletion debate. I don't believe that Gh87 is sufficiently searching for notability in enough of these cases. For example, he or she tagged Zoe (All My Children) as possibly non-notable,[1] when just that one Associated Press reference is enough to establish notability.[2] It's like the editor didn't analyze that source and believed this character was only written about once in a major news source. The simple Google search Zoe transgender All My Children shows otherwise. And there's more than enough about the character on Google Books.[3] and a bit on Google Scholar.[4]

I'm alerting the project about this for those who would like to comment in the deletion debates and/or try to save these articles. Some of the articles don't even warrant the effort of a deletion debate and can simply be redirected to a "list of" article. List of All My Children characters and List of All My Children miscellaneous characters are examples. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Do not try and influence other editors decision. You just have to leave a quick note and do not include your view, because it comes across that you are asking us to vote in the same way. Besides, Zoe is not nominated for deletion, so I'm unsure as to why you are using her as your example. Btw, love the fact you found all of those sources for that character. She has so much potential so maybe if you could post those sources on her talk page or add some?RaintheOne ^BAM 19:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I was not trying to influence other editors' decisions. There is nothing wrong with saying I don't believe that Gh87 is sufficiently searching for notability in some of the cases. That is letting editors know that some of these nominations may be ill-conceived and that it will take careful analyzing before voting "Keep" or "Delete." I gave the Zoe example because it backs what I believe to be insufficient research on the part of this editor. If the editor did not bother to do a thorough search in the case of Zoe, which he or she clearly didn't, then it is not at all unreasonable to wonder just how many more cases he or she failed to thoroughly research before deeming them non-notable and/or worthy of deletion. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. You are letting editors know something they have to weigh up for themselves. That is your opinion that he may or may not be nominating on a whim. But in saying that may influence a decision. We call it Canvassing. Again, Zoe IS NOT nominated for deletion, so why are you assosiating it with this editor's AFDs? Zoe may be notable, but is that to say the others are?RaintheOne ^BAM 20:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Your point is faulty. If an editor is nominating things for deletion on a whim, all because he or she sees no notability established in the article, that is a threat to the project and should be brought to the attention of the project. You mean to tell me that if such a thing was being done with medical articles, an editor would not bring it up at WP:MEDS? I dispute that. You should also read what are acceptable aspects of WP:CANVASSING. I don't appreciate you lying in the Hayley Vaughan Santos deletion debate. Alerting a project that related articles are up for deletion and that they may want to attempt to save any of them is acceptable! I did not say "Save these articles." I reported what I believed to be a threat to the project and said, "I'm alerting the project about this for those who would like to comment in the deletion debates and/or try to save these articles." I already said why I provided the Zoe example. You don't get it, for whatever reason.

Thank you for turning this into being about me and painting me as some corrupt IP address, instead of trying to help. Sarcasm. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should have pharsed it like this "Hello. There are currently a number of articles nominated for deletion by the same editor. Some may be notable others may not. Your comments on the matter would be welcomed." - The line I think you jumped was when you began saying "I believe they are all notable, I think the editor is doing it on a whim, I think this, I think that - please vote with me" Which you openly admitted when you said you wanted to get some WP:SOAPS members to save them. Anyway, probably best to forget about it now, no biggie and no one else has taken issue here. I'm not going to take it any further as you have not got any bad intent.RaintheOne ^BAM 16:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not say they are all notable. Nor did I say "Please vote with me." Stop putting your own spin on what I said and reading so much more into what was said. I know that some of these characters, like Gillian Andrassy, cannot meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I did not say I wanted to get some WP:SOAP members to save these articles. I repeat, I said: "I'm alerting the project about this for those who would like to comment in the deletion debates and/or try to save these articles." See that? I said "and/or try to save these articles." The nominator seemingly does not understand WP:Notability as well as he or she should. If you look at some of his or her other All My Children nominations, the editor asserts that characters from a cancelled show are non-notable, which is ridiculous and problematic. There are many characters from cancelled shows that are notable. Erica Kane will always be notable, no matter what, and the same is true for notable characters from shows that ended their runs naturally. This was pointed out to the editor. Characters do not cease to be notable because a show ceases to dish out new episodes. Furthermore, characters like Hayley Vaughan may not deserve Wikipedia articles, but that doesn't mean the article should be put up for deletion. Redirecting such articles takes care of the problem. This editor, when IPs or new-ish/otherwise inexperienced editors recreate the articles, throws a hissy fit and nominates them for deletion instead of just redirecting again and then reporting those users and/or getting the redirects protected. And that is ridiculous 174.137.184.36 (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Instead of making a song and dance about this, why don't you go and prove some are notable by adding sourced content to them. That is what I'm doing for Sunset Beach. They get deleted because editors claim they are notable but are not willing to put in the effort to prove their claims. Come on, lets atleast add some sources and establish the notability.RaintheOne ^BAM 17:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least I'm not the only one making a song and dance about this. Postdlf has been making similar comments about this user's deletion nominations.[5] That diff-link is just one of the debates that Postdlf has said that in.

I'll do what I can to help soap opera articles, if I can. By relaying this message here, I was trying to help. Got my head bitten off instead. That's life. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And even you recognized the faults in this user's prods and nominations.[6] But still, I guess I'm the bad guy. Yep, that's life. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No I noticed one or two, did I contest the endless list of non notable soap characters? Nope. Sunset Beach and Randy Spelling is what I meant. Postdlf wasn't faulting AFD choices, rather than pointing out that they are not needed if merging is agreed upon. I never said you are the bad guy. People do misundertand each other though.RaintheOne ^BAM 00:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You make it sound like I was contesting the endless list of non-notable soap characters. I wasn't. What I said is right above. And Postdlf was indeed faulting AFD choices. The link shows that. He made the three points I made. That this user nominates articles for deletion that should really just be redirected, doesn't research the cases well and jumps to the conclusion that no sources in an article means the article topic is non-notable and should therefore be deleted, and asserts that the cancellation of a show makes a character non-notable. Everything I said. Postdlf just has more credibility saying it since he isn't some IP that just popped up (not to mention, he's an administrator). 174.137.184.36 (talk) 08:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

RaintheOne: Maybe you should avoid being rude, and maybe we can take this discussion to the direction it needs to go. Thanks.CloudKade11 (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not being rude CloudKade11 - You always accuse people of being rude across a number of talk pages. Please stop disrupting numerous conversations by calling members rude who do not share the same opinion as yourself.RaintheOne ^BAM 19:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You may not see yourself as rude, but to others, you present yourself as rude. I read the conversation above and the reply you left to the IP on my talk page. I don't know about you, but "Stop moaning.." sounds a little rude to me. Hopefully you take this into consideration and reply without anything that may seem remotely negative. CloudKade11 (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

We all see conversations out of proportion at the end of the day. All I want is for everyone to get along and improve wikipedia. :) I'm sure we can can work together cloudkade.RaintheOne ^BAM 04:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Im happy to help to!!!! Touching words, Rain, ;) Joking!!! MayhemMario 12:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I swear you always wink at Rain, Mario o.o GSorby – Ping! 12:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Im preety sure im hearing de ja vu GSorby! Also, I think that in the context I was saying that, it was 'a wink' time! Sigh..... :/ MayhemMario 13:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again but i've recently had a GA nomination failed because the plot was unsourced. I brought up the recent discussion here and the style guidelines but apparently a localised consensus can't override a global consensus. Does anyone know any more on this and does this mean we have to source sl's still? D4nnyw14 (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No I didnt think we had to source storylines nor leads- but maybe I am in the same position as you- what was this GA?! MayhemMario 16:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Darren Osborne, although it was pretty bad and the storylines were too big but i've started fixing the article. The reviewer knows more than me but i wanted to get others opinions on if we need to source plots even though we have the guidelines. D4nnyw14 (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? D4nnyw14 (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There has recently been a disagreement about some aspects of the infobox layout. I'm starting a discussion to build a consensus of which elements should and should not be included. Small text is the first issue I'd like to bring up. Many articles subjected in the filed of US Soap opera, house a great deal of in universe small text. This ranges from listing Romances with extra information after the mention of the character. In which users state (Lovers, one night stand, engaged) In the spouse/husband/wife field it will gain (Divorced, annulled, illegal, false) - Extra dates are presented using small text. I assume that was originally used to keep long detail on one line, but we can use a nowrap.

I do not think the infobox should be the home for this excessive detail, while the dates are fine, I'm not sure it is okay to list additional details as it is an infobox. Meant for the quick fire details, the lead can house more of the information - while the actual body of the article is obviously going to clearly spell out the in and outs of character details. These small text additions also make character sound real, by stating whether the character is alive or deceased. On the subject of small text, what about the visually impaired, it would make more sense to make the information clearly visable as this is meant to be an infobox for vital information. By making the text small, it is signalling that it probably isn't as important as the text that comes before it.

I also would like to know about the view on storyline sections. If the storyline section is just that, a re-hash of plot information - then it should be kept breif and condesned - we already agree on that - but US soaps have taken it upon themselves to introduce many subheadings to hide the fact the storyline sections are exsessive and overly long. So I think they should be removed, and kept for stemming out development sections housing actual real world content, which would benifit from titles. Having said that I think it would be okay for certain sub-sections for dates and a backstory... I.E - Backstory and 1996-98 - that sort of thing.

So some of the things I'd like to know, if there will be a consensus to remove the following from the layout page.

• Removal use of small text in favour of normal text
• Removal extra details such a anulled, deceased etc
• Removal of extra subheadings in an exsessive unsourced storyline section
• Removal of in-universe nicknames that do not show any real world significanceRaintheOne ^BAM 20:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the infoboxes should only include vital information and small text should also be completely removed. Subheadings just make it look messy unless its dates but having rubbish that sounds poetic needs to be removed too. D4nnyw14 (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that small text should be removed. The smaller text makes it look less cluttered and gives a more professional look. It's whats been used on many pages, as for the "Divorce", "Lovers" I feel those, as well, should remain. It brings a better understanding and true telling on the relationships. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That is in-universe - you are a vocal supporter of fancruft and have already said you think Wikipedia Soap Articles should only written for fans. Can you provide any legit reason to ignore the MOS:FICTION on focusing on the real world perspective - by adding excessive in universe information to the infobox.RaintheOne ^BAM 18:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Small text can make the information harder to read for some users with eyesight problems. I think it should be avoided as much as possible. - JuneGloom Talk 19:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, according to the template on the main page, small text is used, especially during a character's run, so I don't see the need to change it. It's not microscopic and makes the template look less cluttered. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The template is all over the place. If you had actually read this discussion you would have noticed that I proposed it with the aim of change. Just because your eyesight is fine, does not indicate everyone will be able to read it as easily. Alls you are saying is you don't want it changed because it has "always" been this way. That isn't the best reason not to change it. Then you say small text hides clutter - yet at the same time you are supporting clutter by approving masses of in universe data.

How about we take a look the US teams work.. pulling up Brooke Logan - it is clear to see many are abusing the infobox to suit their fancruft visions. As long as it suits fans these editors think the job is done. I've bolded out what need not to be there - as their is already consensus not to include it, but it has reintroduced itself somehow - I'll explain more below.

• Portrayed by Katherine Kelly Lang (1987-), Catherine Hickland (temp. 1987), Sandra Ferguson (temp. in 1997)
• Duration 1987–
• First appearance Episode 1, March 23, 1987
• Created by William J. Be
• Nickname(s) Slut of the Valley (by Stephanie), The Siren (by Massimo), Logan (by Ridge)
• Gender = Female
• Occupation = Current - Works at Forrester Creations
• Title = Mrs. Forrester
• Residence = The Logan Mansion, 200 North Beston Place, Los Angeles, California
• Parents = Stephen Logan Sr. (father), Elizabeth "Beth" Logan (mother; deceased)
• Sibling(s) Storm Logan (deceased), Donna Logan, Katie Logan Spencer
• Spouse(s) Eric Forrester [1991-93; divorced; first time] [2005-06; divorced; second time], Ridge Forrester [1994; invalid; first time] [1998; divorced; second time] [2003; divorced; third time] [2004-05; invalid; fourth time] [2009-present; married], Grant Chambers [1995] (invalid), Thorne Forrester [2001] (divorced), Whipple Jones III [2002] (divorced), Dominick Marone [2006-07] (divorced)
• Romances David Reed [1987] (engaged), Ridge Forrester [1988-1989] (engaged) [1991-1992] (engaged) [2003] (engaged), Connor Davis [1993], James Warwick [1994] (engaged), Pierce Peterson [1998], Victor Newman [1998], Deacon Sharpe [2001-2002] (lovers), Oliver Jones [2010](one night by mistake), Thomas Forrester [2011](one kiss)
• Children Rick Forrester (son, with Eric), Bridget Forrester (daughter, with Eric), Hope Logan (daughter, with Deacon, adopted by Ridge), R.J. Forrester (son, with Ridge), Jack Hamilton Marone (biological son, with Nick, carried by Taylor Hayes Marone)
• Grandchildren Logan Forrester Knight (grandson, via Bridget)
• Grandparents Helen Logan
• Aunts and uncles Bonnie Henderson
• Nieces and nephews Marcus Forrester (nephew, via Donna) Rosie Barber-Forrester (great-niece, via Marcus)

What is your opinion on that musicfreak?RaintheOne ^BAM 02:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Requested comment via WP:FICTC - WP:TV - MOS:FICTION.RaintheOne ^BAM 03:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

So to do with what I posted above - There is no point listing her as Female as she is refered to as such throughout the article. This field is particularly useful for Transgender characters only really.. You have listed "Current" in the occupation field, which is suggesting the present tense, usually used in BLP's - she is a fictional character and will have always held that job regardless of what happens to the soap - because the theory is, as it is a work of fiction - you can watch the work back multiple times. The same with including whether character are alive or deceased - how does that aid the readers knowledge about the character? It suggests that the other characters were once alive and now dead, fictional character will always exist from the real world perspective. Listing that the characters are divorced or anulled - then going on step further by stating the obvious - "first time, second time, third time" - I'm assuming the general reader will have the capacity to realise what order the are in, as you'd probably list them in some chronological order anyway, more so there are dates included, so the reader is going to understand the chronology without everyone spelling it out for them after... Romance fields are typically housed with in universe information - US Soaps always, without a doubt include characters in this field that havenh't been in a relationship with the other chaarcter. I.E Brooke looks at Thomas a little sweet, and he is straight into her infobox... It says "one kiss" - while others are saying mistaken one night stand.. lovers.. this is all because five years ago a group of editors decided some layout suiting the fans,m ignoring the real world perspective - now look where we are - fancruft central. This is why the UK and AU editors made a new information box. So I think using infobox 2 might be a good idea too.RaintheOne ^BAM 03:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the template parameters, parentheticals like (one night stand, half-sister, divorced, etc) are useless redundant clutter. The article itself should supply those details. They do nothing but clutter up infoboxes. Without the clutter, small font isn't needed either. Rm994 (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mick Dante is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mick Dante until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. George Ho (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone in the US watched Dirty Soap as it could hold some real world information on soap opera characters.RaintheOne ^BAM 04:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I watched every episode from start to finish. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Did any of them speak about their characters?RaintheOne ^BAM 00:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Several did. Their characters were discussed, and they were on-set quite a lot. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This project has so many participants yet very little substantial edits for a while. Some GAs are no longer GAs, such as Days of our Lives, and its guidelines does not mention how topics of soap operas and their relations must meet WP:GNG. Even WP:Notability (fiction) is not a policy but an essay. Are there any objections to adding WP:GNG in and/or substantially editing and/or changing guidelines of this WikiProject? --George Ho (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by little "substantial edits" - to the Wikiproject or articles in the project?RaintheOne ^BAM 00:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops... I should have inserted, "to the WikiProject". --George Ho (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:GNG should be added. - JuneGloom Talk 00:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I also think it should be added - it is kinda odd that it was never added TBH.RaintheOne ^BAM 02:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how it isn't mentioned since the Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas#Style guidelines says: All articles within this Project's realm of influence should follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style guideline for fiction and Wikipedia notability guidelines for fiction, among other guidelines and policies, but the following recommendations relate some of these rules specifically to soap opera-related topics.

Yes, it does not link to WP:Notability specifically, but WP:Notability (fiction) does and fictional topics are handled in a different way than topics about non-fiction. WP:Notability is a guideline, after all, not policy. Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Can unsourced plots also be an original research? If "Notability (fiction)" is an essay, neither a guideline nor policy, then why does this guideline follow this essay? Also, this WikiProject's guidelines lacks an ability to mention the considerations of non-essay notability guidelines, avoiding original research, and identifying reliable sources. As a result, you see a flood of articles about non-notable topics, such as "Ruth Martin", "Phoebe English", and "Mona Kane" of All My Children. Even "WikiProject Days of our Lives" was deleted due to creation by a sockpuppet without further substantial edits. --George Ho (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You do realise that this is the wikiproject for soap opera. Members of this project are going to be quite likely in the know - about who is notable and who is not. So when you name drop some fictional ladies who have spent more a decade on TV... an alarm bell rings. Just because there arer no sources in the article, does not mean they are non-notable. They were all redirected despite there being sources. I recently removed a prod notice from a movie article, because I saw multiple sources. Please, I ask you to check via google for sources next time want to delete soasp articles. The reason I say this is because you are trying to find the connection between "non notable" articles and the guidelines forgetting to link to GNG (Which is something most with an account should already be aware of)... So I do not understand what you mean, because the subjects you name dropped pass GNG.RaintheOne ^BAM 04:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll rephrase my own: articles of non-notable topics were created because... I don't know why. If it is mainly the guidelines of WP Soap Operas, then they may be likely responsible for this. I think: did those editors follow merely these guidelines that failed to mention GNG and original research? If it is not the guidelines, then why was "Gillian Andrassy", a non-notable character, created with copyright violations? --George Ho (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Almost forgot, articles of notable topics, such as Den Watts, may contain originally-researched storylines and trivia without citations. I was going to tag it with OR and trivia, but I might discuss it here. Even this guideline that has no reference to OR may be responsible for this, but what else is responsible if the guideline may not be? --George Ho (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think many editors who create articles without sources, are not following any guideline - let alone WP:SOAPS - You say Gillian is non=notable, I've never heard of her because I didn't watch the soap - but [7] proves there is something about her. That is without book, journal, general web search and offline print research... Your second point is more at the stage many editors here are at. Articles with notability established in the article, with storyline sections not sourced. Well this was discussed here previously - a lot supported that in universe aspects such as storylines were verified by watching the series itself. Whether that is right or wrong is currently still ongoing.. but generally storyline sections are being sourced when new articles are created. There is often a lot of flack here for articles being in bad shape - but editors of UK & AU soaps obviously have a handle on things - as you can see from vewing any number of articles.RaintheOne ^BAM 13:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

May I tag Den Watts with OR and trivia then? Also, at some point, Gillian Andrassy may have passed the "Notability" test (excluding the "fiction" one), but this does not guarantee a stand-alone article. If guidelines are irrelevant, then editors must have been too angry or stubborn to know what is encyclopedic or not, in my own words of your view, correct? By the way, I have PRODded Randi Morgan for deletion; you may remove if you object, but I may sooner tag it with AFD if removed. --George Ho (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2011‎

Maybe you could have merged Randi to a list - A quick search doesn't look promising though - [8]. In comparison to many articles you PROD - she is a character of three years, not over ten. Guidelines being irrelevant? Well I think you are replying to my comment about new editors, most new editors do not automatically see the guidelines - or know that they need to follow them... I've alerted as many as possible who take to editing many soaps, but US Soaps are a different story. Tried and failed. Also, it is up to you if you want to tag Den Watts.RaintheOne ^BAM 21:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Due to "Gillian Andrassy", copyright violation, and vandal incidents, WP:ATD is too risky for me nowadays. --George Ho (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

George Ho, see the #Storylines sections lack references section above about sourcing plot sections. No, plot sections generally do not have to be sourced because the show serves as the source, the same way that you usually do not see sources in the plot sections of film or prime time television articles. I am not going to explain it all to you. Read the section I just linked to.

You call characters like Ruth Martin, Phoebe English and Mona Kane non-notable when, in fact, one or all of these characters are notable. I see that a major complaint about your editing in the past has been that you often base notability on the state of an article, do not check whether a character is notable or not via Google searches such as Google Books or Google Scholar and that, if you do, you only base notability on Google searches. I see that since you have been unblocked, you have been getting some mentoring for your Wikipedia editing. Hopefully, you take the complaints about your editing to heart and are not doing the same things you were criticized for before...because this will lead to your being blocked again. It was refreshing to actually see you address the notability and article cleanup concerns about the Starr Manning article on its talk page instead of prodding or nominating this legacy character's article for deletion. I knew you'd get around to other One Life to Live character articles eventually. But understand that a lot of soap opera editors simply create articles without adding notability. Some of these articles can be significantly fixed up with notability, but the editors who created these articles either are not aware of Wikipedia guidelines for creating such articles or do not care. Often times, it's both. The Erica Kane article, for example (though having partly been sourced with notability once I came along) used to be a shell until it was significantly fixed up by a new editor at the time (Rocksey) who learned just by watching my editing of other soap opera articles. There are only several soap opera editors here at Wikipedia who know how and/or are willing to significantly fix up soap opera articles. Most of the others are just fanboys/fangirls who are more interested in updating images, adding plot, detailing trivial matters, but these "bad editors" are no reason to punish articles that need improvement instead of deletion. It's also no reason to go around saying that soap opera editors or editors of WikiProject Soap Operas do not care about these badly-shaped articles in your AfDs. Flyer22 (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree Flyer. It is a shame that we all get the blame from the actions of fancruft editors. We are just some a small group that have tried to improve things. George Ho, you have often gone on the hunt to remove as many soap articles as you can. The most memorable so far is the time you nominated a mass of Sunset Beach characters for AFD - then I pulled up 70 sources and added the information from them to the articles. You did the same to various soap actors too. You still nominated them for deletion. It was time consuming, but I added the information, because only then you changed your mind - but moved onto notable characters. You also mass nominated images, without giving any time for the projects to adress the issue.. so I had to spend three hours writing out rationales. It is right that the issues should be fixed, but slightly unfair when they are subjecting to mass deletions, afd's and prod's - some go unoticed when they could have easily been rectified. If I hadn't of given a day of my life, Wikipedia would have lost a bulk of notable content because the nominator was not willing to carry out a correct evaluation of whether the subjects passes GNG. There are some articles that really do not pass GNG, but you do not seem to take issue with those. From the notification below, it appears that you are "still on the prod" ... In my view, there is not much good faith in this project.RaintheOne ^BAM 22:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

...Look, I didn't mean to put a lot of stress on all of you. I just... I assumed these editors were part of this project, weren't they? If they weren't, then I must have accused the wrong people. Name one topic that does not pass GNG; then I may tag it with PROD or something else. I did stop tagging soap-related articles and move on to other things that... you know... because I was afraid that I may put Soap Opera editors into more stress than I had already.

Guidelines of WikiProject Soap Operas... I just do not have enough will or mind or interest to change the whole page, especially... after what happened to me. "Notability (fiction)" is followed, but it is an essay, not a policy or guideline; this guideline considers following it, anyway; I don't. "Original research" and GNG are not mentioned in the page; no changes have been made to address them currently. If I have lacked "good faith" on this project, then I'm a failure or a destructor. ...I mean, do I misunderstood or misuse "general notability guideline"?

As for the section you gave me, I see mere backlash about what is right and wrong about researching the Storylines. Television shows themselves are primary sources, but I guess they are useful, aren't they? However, I realize that third-party and independent sources and real-world context must come first, right? --George Ho (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No, most of those editors are not with this project. See the list on the main page for editors who are associated with this project. Most of them don't know what it takes to have a soap opera article on Wikipedia either and/or are inactive.

I already told you that WP:Notability (fiction) points to WP:Notability...and that, for fiction, it's WP:Notability (fiction) that we are supposed to follow. That's why there are a lot of articles about fiction (such as split-off character lists) that do not provide notability. But if you want to add WP:Notability directly, then do so.

Like I stated at Talk: Starr Manning: [The Storylines discussion I linked to] is left with consensus because most of the editors in that discussion I pointed you to agreed that no sources are directly needed in the plot sections of such articles, except for in rare instances. If you did not grasp why that is from reading the discussion (reading, not skimming through it), then I don't know what else to tell you and I am not about to debate this with you. It was already debated, and most agreed "no sources needed for plot sections." This is standard practice all over Wikipedia, for articles about plays, films and prime time shows. With the exception of four, there are no sources for the Plot section in the Avatar (2009 film) article, for example, because the film serves as the source. Not to mention, that most of what is there is sourced in other ways throughout the article. The only thing you need to be worried about with regard to plot information is if the plot is copyrighted or is too much, as you have been worried about before. Still, plot sections for soap opera character articles are going to be longer because new soap opera episodes debut every day, with few exceptions (usually holidays), and therefore will consist of more plot information than films or prime time shows. Flyer22 (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So you do accept that I will add the WP:Notability, correct? Unfortunately, I cannot reword the guideline of notability in this Project; it said: "All soap-related articles, and character articles in particular, must meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fiction.". Should I change it to "All soap-related articles, and character articles in particular, must meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fiction is optional yet recommended. --George Ho (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Why can't you reword it? You have our permission to change it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas&diff=468181446&oldid=467410795. --George Ho (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Almost forgot, I must include the "original research" concerns if approved by consensus. --George Ho (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine too -- mentioning original research. Flyer22 (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

 Partly done. I have added only one Wikilink, but I haven't added the section of "No original research" yet. I must also mention the WP:PLOT; should I, and should I use Mark Dalton (All My Children) as an example? --George Ho (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

George, the Style guidelines section already covers WP:PLOT. But if you want to link to WP:PLOT there specifically, that is not an issue. Flyer22 (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

 Partly done. Included the general "What Wikipedia is not" policy. --George Ho (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Flyer22 asked me to come over and comment. Looks like a good discussion. Couple of notes from a more general perspective on notability, sources and such. First, plots are actually sourced to the show itself, which is the primary source. This is one of the acceptable uses of primary sources. Second, and this has come up recently in other places, notability guidelines for athletes or professors or whatever are a shorthand - if the athlete has competed at national level, if the professor holds a chair, then it is likely that there are sources about them, even if these are not immediately available. Meeting the guideline doesn't remove the need for sources, and of course articles about soap stars are BLPs and must meet WP:BLP especially with regard to sources.

• George has also been having conversations about images - I see it came up here again. I do understand the annoyance when images uploaded years ago are suddenly listed for deletion because they are non-free and there is no Fair Use Rationale, but it is a requirement that a non-free image has a separate FUR for each use. Something that has been causing some problems is whether you can use an in-character screenshot or publicity shot to illustrate the article on the soap star. In most cases you can't - it doesn't meet Wikipedia's fair use guidelines. The character really does have to be as iconic as Spock. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting, Elen of the Roads. Yes, what you stated about sourcing plot sections is what I stated above...:"...plot sections generally do not have to be sourced because the show serves as the source, the same way that you usually do not see sources in the plot sections of film or prime time television articles." Also thank you for the rest of your commentary and for any help you will provide on these matters from here on out. For the publicity photo issue, are you speaking of publicity photos for the main image or in general? This has come up at the project and in my editing of soap opera character articles as well. Some editors will prefer to use a publicity shot as the main image instead of a screenshot. There was some debate about this among the wider Wikipedia community, I think. Although it was stated that a screenshot is preferable, it was not prohibited to use publicity shots as the main image representing the character. Publicity shots might also be used to illustrate images and/or topics, such as a magazine or book cover, if the images are supported by substantial critical commentary. But I agree that publicity shots should generally be avoided. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You should not use a non-free image of a living person in the infobox for that person's article. You can use a non-free image of the character in the infobox for the character. The NFCC guidelines overall prefer publicity stills (not images from the likes of Getty or Associated Press, but from the company or individual) to screenshots. The reason is twofold - first, the copyright holder for the publicity still consented to its use as publicity, even if they retained the license, and relatedly, since the publicity stills are put out there by the individual or the company specifically for reuse, so their commercial value is inherently lower. With a screenshot, making the screenshot was itself probably a breach of copyright, even before it was uploaded to Wikipedia.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I thought you were talking about character articles. For some reason, I originally didn't process all of this part of your statement: "...to illustrate the article on the soap star." I'm definitely aware that publicity images or screenshots shouldn't be included in the infoboxes of the actors' articles. But this is the first I've heard that the NFCC guidelines prefer publicity shots to screenshots for character articles. From the issue that arose over using publicity shots instead of screenshots a couple or few years back, it was stated that screenshots are preferable. Maybe the policy changed since then? Flyer22 (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Umm... may the "Images" either be changed or merely include the guideline of WP:Non-free content? --George Ho (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Maybe you should ask Elen? Flyer22 (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I must clarify: "Images" section of this page. --George Ho (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, include the mention of WP:Non-free content there. Flyer22 (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

 Partly done adding examples of policies and adding another rule based on one guideline: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas&diff=468342873&oldid=468341714. Any objections, help me reword my edits. --George Ho (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well George.. I suppose you are only adding what we already know so it cannot do any harm..Rain the 1 22:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Flyer - Seeings as there are changes to the main page - Above I requested discussion about the removal of clutter and small text from the information boxes - 4 editors generated a consensus that it is not needed, while one opposed. It was open for a while, is it reasonable to change it yet?RaintheOne ^BAM 01:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree to remove the clutter. Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I don't mind if these things are kept, they are not needed. For example, if a character is better known by a nickname, that should be covered in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Where could I include the second infobox, soap character 2? It is not mentioned on the page while over 10 soaps use it.RaintheOne ^BAM 01:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Flyer22 (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Currently only Template:Infobox soap character is displayed, but Template:Infobox soap character 2 is used also. So is there a way of including that on the project page without streching it too much.RaintheOne ^BAM 02:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I was going to question why we still have two, but I see that Infobox2 is used for the EastEnders series. If there's room without looking messy, and you feel that both should be on the main page, then go for it. Template:Infobox soap character is completely locked, though, so it's going to take administrative action to change it. Flyer22 (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think US editors were keen on it. We do not include things like romances, gender and stuff. Coronation Street, Emmerdale, Hollyoaks, Home and Away, Shortland Street, Neighbours and Doctors also use it. So I'll try to figure out a way of including it later.RaintheOne ^BAM 03:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to correct myself and state it is used for British soap operas, not just EastEnders. Why don't you include gender? It's not always evident from just looking at the characters. For example, Zoe (All My Children), whose article can be significantly fixed up with real-world context; I just never got around to doing it. Zoe is a rare case in soap operas (and television in general, for that matter), though, so I don't mind much if you remove gender. But "gender" is listed in the infobox for non-soap opera characters. I also prefer that we keep the romances field. It's not really that trivial. Romance makes up a significant part of a character's history on soap operas. The marriages aren't always (or even mostly) the most important, and not all characters get married. One thing that was removed from our template that yours has is the date of birth (age) field. It was removed because it was seen as confusing and trivial, considering how often soap opera characters' ages change on American soap operas due to Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome. A character's age can change because they were rapidly aged from a child to a teenager or adult or because their children were rapidly aged. Editors, including myself, were calculating ages and some of it was considered to be WP:Original research, even if going off what the show was telling us. Flyer22 (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think InfoBox1 should be continued to be used for US soaps; there is a big difference between US soaps and UK soaps. Both infoboxes cater to specific kinds of series, and I feel that US soaps are very different from those of UK ones. InfoBox1 is too overly detailed, while I feel InfoBox2 is too simple detail-wise. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Flyer - I think we have been able to be more contructive with infoboxes because the socks, disruptive and fansite editors went a while ago. The romance field is useful for long term relationships... but not so for short term, sometimes they are not that notable to the character. My view is that it stops IP's adding masses of fancruft. In my exp, they'll add just about anything they can if there is a field for it. The US version is proof of that - the romance field is totally abused to the point you have "Character X (stolen kiss), Character Y (one night stand), Character X (one date), Character Y (looked at each other sweet)" - So I think you guys could do with tightening the rule about inclusion right there. I guess gender could be useful for Transgender or androgynous characters.. I don't think the DOB field has caused us much problem lately, a source or episode citation is required for its inclusion - while UK/AU soap operas do not SOARAs their characters like US. Well only a few did in special cases, so it wasn't an issue unlike US soaps who always age their child characters.

MusicFreak - I think you have hit the nail on the head and being simple and concise should be the positive - We cleared out the hoo-hah and made it simple. I really think you should consider changing some of the family fields in Ibox1. These are parent, children and siblings. You could just have mother, father, sister, brother, adoptivemother, adoptivefather, son, daughter, adoptiveson, adotpivedaughter - cuts out the need to stretch the inbox by then going on to state what they are.. and well it works so well for ibox2.Rain the 1 21:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Both templates have upsides and downsides. I feel I-Box1 really suits US soaps; while I-Box2 suits UK/OZ soaps. Let's face it, US vs. UK/OZ soaps are very different in many ways. Both boxes bring something that others don't, but they both lack. I need one is overly done, while the other isn't done enough. I feel like if we could compile a joint box, I-Box3, that brings the better qualities of both boxes to the forefront, it'd be everything to a more conclusive feel for the soaps that continue to air only. And maybe even make a universal colour scheme, to avoid colour wars. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

MusicFreak, I don't think that there is a big difference between US and UK soap operas...although there is a little difference (like the rapid-aging issue which becomes very confusing). And while maybe a little detailed, I don't feel that InfoBox1 is too overly-detailed. We cut back on some details before, and soon got the box protected from any further edits.

Raintheone, yes, with the exception of the romance and gender fields, I agree to removing the other fields you feel are unneeded. It is of course true that some IP editors, and even registered editors, will add things that don't necessarily constitute a romance, but I feel that it is best to just revert those additions instead of getting rid of the romance field altogether. Like I stated, I don't mind much if the gender field is taken away, but I also don't see why it shouldn't stay. Most times, we don't use it, but it's not hurting anything by being there and could be useful for the examples mentioned above...even if transgender and/or androgynous characters are likely to be stated as such in the lead of their articles. One thing I like about the U.S. box is the Relationships show button; the option to view the relationships or not. Flyer22 (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I do think that a discussion need taking place about what is acceptible and what is not. I'm all for what is in the best interests of these articles. It is all good and well saying we can revert these IP's - but the proportion of willing and constructive editors to Soap articles is out weighed by fansite editors and IP's who have in the past been vocal in their support of using the field in the incorrect manner. It is like the case right now, in which a registered user is including additions of romances, in brackets they are putting (ONS) which stands for "One night stand" - now unless that night of sex hit the headlines or was a pivitol role in the character's development, it shouldn't be there. I 100% understand your view Flyer, some romances are key in the grand run of the character, they are important. Even after warnings etc, you cannot keep reverting because it just takes from the stability of the article, they cannot be stopped because it is a content dispute, even though their is a consensus and a guideline at the infobox's guideline - it does not appear to be that simp0le. Without it though, time is better spent on working on the articles rather than battling those who show no interest in expanding these articles and would rather spend their time cluttering the information box. I'd totally agree with you if you had the manpower to keep track of all these edits - I think you and TAntony were detrimental in the ensuring the stability of these articles, but you've both said yourselves that the amount of socks, IP's etc became over powering, not to mention your only human and do have other interests on Wikipedia. So if I've suggested that this parameter go, I'd prefer it was rested for a while. Atleast then their can be some sort of a drive foward in the articles and one less thing to worry about. I don't think the general reader is robbed of any information in the long run because if they are important, then you can betcha they will be mentioned in the lead - that if we take our minds of the crazy world of infoboxes, many do actually read the lead section too. I think this needs some mad conversation though, I hope their are people willing to join in, because I'm not ignorant to the fact their must be an alternative to what I'm suggesting.Rain the 1 03:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well said, Raintheone. I understand your point of view very well, and can't argue with it much. To add on to battling such editors, even when articles are locked, they will eventually be unlocked, and fictional topics are not typically granted protection for as long as non-fictional topics. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Should the guidelines of WikiProject Soap Opera acknowledge both real and fictional persons as the same person, even when fictional characters have different portrayers? --George Ho (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. File:Wendy Richard Pauline Fowler BBC 2006.jpg, my own image, treats real and fictional people as the same, but File:Pauline Fowler.jpg treats this image as if it is of merely a fictional character. Also, it replaced my file in Wendy Richard. Do image descriptions and guidelines have to treat images of people as if they are merely of fictional characters? I have discussed this in User talk:GSorby, User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions, WP:Media copyright question; I hope I'm not canvassing, am I? --George Ho (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not like people using copyrighted images in actor's articles. If you are planning to do so, you need to justify using a rationale. You have to have a separate justification for the use of the image in each page it is displayed on. This is what GSorby seems to have done. You are using the image in each article for different reasons. In Pauline Fowler's article, you are using it to portray the character, and wikipedia is more lenient about the use of copyrighted images in such pages. In Wendy Richard's article, you are using a copyrighted image of Pauline to display what Wendy Richard looks like, presumably because Wendy Richard is dead and the argument being no free image can now be taken of the actress. A separate justification for its inclusion in her page is needed, because the claim to use fair use in this article is questionable under wiki policy. That the article already has a copyrighted image of Wendy Richard in character weakens teh case for using this Pauline image significantly. Just so you know.GunGagdin^Moan 02:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I just looked at the files, and I think George Ho's rationale is more fitting with policy if that image is being included in both articles. I had originally thought GSorby created the dual purpose rationale, but it was George Ho who did. I think what you should do George Ho, is copy and paste your rationale to the second file, because you have added it correctly from what I can see.GunGagdin^Moan 02:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have another idea: May I replace File:Pauline Fowler.jpg with File:Wendy Richard Pauline Fowler BBC 2006.jpg? Therefore, all is done. --George Ho (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I understand that this seems the easiest option, but the reason GSorby updated his original file is because he wanted to keep the file history, which includes all former images that have been used. The file that GSorby updated has a long history with many different images, which you cannot see because they have been deleted. But administrators can see deleted files on wiki, and keeping the file history in tact is useful for that reason. If you add your new image filename to Pauline, it doesnt maintain the file history. Does that make any sense? GunGagdin^Moan 03:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

How about this? His file in Pauline Fowler; mine in Wendy Richard?

What's the point in that? That would be keeping two fair use images on wikipedia, of exactly the same image. They are trying to reduce fair use, so that would be frowned upon. Why are you opposed to adding your rationale to GSorby's upload? His image is better quality anyway.GunGagdin^Moan 03:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Mine has lower resolution to meet "fair use". His is superior, but I don't know. Mine has rationale for Wendy Richard; his doesn't, but I will add it if you want to keep the history. My description acknowledges solely real and fictional person as the same, but it is considered incorrect by GSorby; his treats fictional as merely fictional, even if it mentions Wendy Richard once. I don't know which rationale is superior, but it is up to you. By the way, I have preserved that screenshot into my image page. --George Ho (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If the image is going to be used in two separate articles, it needs two fair use rationales, one for Pauline, one for Wendy. Yours is correct because it is being used in two articles and you have given rationales for use in two articles (though I havent read what you have written in great detail yet). There would be nothing wrong with GSorby's rationale if the image was only being used in the Pauline article. But once the image was included in Wendy's article, the rationale needed altering to one like you constructed. Maybe ask GSorby to comment here, though you likely wont hear from him till tomorrow.GunGagdin^Moan 03:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll give you some time to read image descriptions slowly and carefully. You can reply once you will have finished reading them. --George Ho (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have preserved old revisions of file:Pauline Fowler.jpg into my own image pages for history sakes. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced GSorby's description with my own from the other file. Would it infringe anything? --George Ho (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Also, it was discussed at User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions. --George Ho (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)