Talk:Andrew Van de Kamp

I just wanted to say I have reduced the summary because it was beginning to get too long and less and less clear. However I added a quote section and left the critical receptions points as they wear. Feel free to help with the quote section or anything else. Siemgi

Please reconsider - I spent seven hours writing that. Also, quotes belong on Wikiquote, not Wikipedia. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I know about quotes, but several articles (especially Desperate Housewives ones) have quote sections anyway. And I understand your point of view, and you can still push the revert button if you want, but I think that it was too different from other Desperate articles so I made it fit in. I'm truly sorry if I offended by doing so. Siemgi

Just because the other articles are like that doesn't make it right. :) I was going to peer review anyway, so I guess I'll ask which is better and get some more feedback. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, the general view from the peer review is that my version is better but needs to be trimmed down. I get that, will do so, and I hope you will not be upset by my revert. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

For the record, I hate all the DH quotations. It's a wiki, not a personal website; the choice of quote will always have an opinionated slant to it.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, you would quote especially powerful parts of a book, wouldn't you? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why is this article so long? Not even the housewives have such lenghty summaries. I love Andrew but this needs to be cut considerably. It also needs to be formatted like the rest of the character bios, agreed? We need some uniformity in here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OnTheCusp (talk • contribs) 09:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

No, certainly not agreed. Just because the other articles are short does not mean that Andrew also has to be so. An article needs to be comprehensive as well as concise. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is not comprehensive, it's meandering. It doesn't make any sense and doesn't tell his story well at all.OnTheCusp 20:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Season 2 certainly doesn't, and there needs to be consistency in tenses. However, to cut it down simply so it looks like the other DH articles is a very bad reason for editing a page. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I edited the description of the character of Andrew as a sociopath because after watching every portrayal of the character I didn't see any strong evidence of the characterization. I replaced it with the word "troubled" because it is sufficiently vague to encompass the possiblity of the character being a sociopath (to respect whomever chose to write that) without the conclusion. My reading suggests that that the character could just as easily be manifesting adolescent behavior consistant with pre-adult frontal lobe developement; not at all uncommon. Given the range of possible interpretations of the behavior, I thought a more inclusive description was more appropriate.

Didn't Marc Cherry describe him a sociopath?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes. And also, do you remmeber when he said "There's a reason my mum threw me out on the streets. You don;t want to meet bad Andrew." Seems fairly sociopathic. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Right, I want to get some serious work done on this article, I need to know, what tense should it be in? The past, or the present historic? At the moment it's a dreadful mixture of both. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The past it is. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Policy is that when writing about fiction, everything is present tense.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

What? Where? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, WP:WAF says that when talking about fiction, everything is (although it gives examples of exceptions).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I found it. Ugh. I'll get on that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why did my family section get removed? I spent ages going through every Desperate Housewives character with their own profile doing that section.

Why? It's in the inofbox at the top. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah but its in at the side and it focusses alot on non blood family as well. Just though i'd do a part focussing on bilogical family. :P

Uh, there are ten people in that infobox and eight of them are related to Andrew by blood. Really, there's no need to repeat it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Um, if this article is a FA, shouldn't there be a little bronze star on the top right corner of the article? :-) And congrats for getting FA! Raystorm 14:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I just hadn't got around to adding it. And thankyou. :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Stepping in as an uninvolved editor... There appears to be an edit war going on about which image to use in the infobox. I have restored the image that appears to be the consensus version from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andrew Van De Kamp. It was nominated for deletion, but the IfD consensus appears to be a Keep. If it is desired to use a different image, please gain consensus here on the talkpage first, thanks. --Elonka 23:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:ATT I request a source that the "promotional" (still no source for that.. btw) image is of Andrew Van De Kamp. I do not believe it is: a) It's apparently not a character image with no verifiable source, b) it's a pose and c) the show has never showed him in that environment. Matthew 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Drivel. We shall wait for the IfD to decide on the identical image. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I'm a bit confused. Could each of you please state which image exactly that you're talking about? --Elonka 15:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Image:Andrewvandekamp.PNG. You've stumbled in on a waiting game, basically. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just to help me understand, would someone be kind enough to summarize the pro's and con's of each image? --Elonka 20:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just read the IfD. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

As requested they're below. Matthew 20:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Matthew's claim that there are no pros to the image is pure lies. Please read the ifd for an accurate idea of the arguments. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Andrewvandekamp.PNG was deleted as a result of the consensus at the IfD, Devon has now nominated it for deletion review: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_March_26#Image:Andrewvandekamp.PNG. Andrewvandecamp.jpg is also at IfD, it appears the consensus there is to keep the jpg image, more so than the discussion for the PNG. The end result clearly shows support for the jpg, but I shan't rub it in anyone's face. :-). Matthew 10:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

For the sake of everyone else just coming to this, I have outlined the pros and cons from my point of view as well. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please feel free to add items to this list, but do not remove any. If you disagree with an item, please add your objection to the opposite side of its list, thanks. For example, if an image lists a pro as "is a pose," and you disagree, you could add a "con" that says, "Is not a pose."

(current Image for Deletion discussion)

Pros

• Non-pose
• Background is Wisteria Lane (primary setting of DH)
• Better represents the character

Cons

• Requires replacing with an episode capture to be correctly licensed
• The image is well over a year old, and given that Andrew has in that time has a haircut, grown stubble and dresses in leather, the above image is an accurate a depiction of Andrew Van De Kamp as an image of Barney Rubble.
• The image is not a screenshot, it is as "posed" as the below image.

(current Image for Deletion discussion)

Pros

• The image is an accurate representation of what Andrew van De Kamp currently looks like. Anyone who has seen a recent episode of DH knows this.
• The image is clearly intended to be Andrew Van De Kamp, his personal website demonstrated that he looks absolutely nothing like Andrew when he is not filming. Additionally, this downloads section also shows that a similar image from the same shoot is clearly meant to be Andrew, and all the other images are also labelled with their character names.

Cons

• Is a pose for the camera
• Has a background never seen in an episode

To be honest, I don;t much care about the out of date image, it would be fine with me if not for the fact that we have a much better, much more up to date one to hand. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your edit warring managed to get the page protected! From what I've seen the pair of you (Matthew/Dev) are WAY too intelligent and experienced here to have gotten yourselves into this dispute in the first place, and you knew this would happen if you continued to revert each other's decision. As a noob in comparison, may I suggest you do not do anything until you can come to an indisputable conclusion? That just seems to make sense to me, and will avoid embarrassment. *hands out cookies*

For what it's worth, whilst I do see good argument for the .png to be used, I have to say the more obvious choice from the consensus/discussion is to keep the .jpg. Mentality 15:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, reading the season 1 image IfD it reads like it was kept under fair use... which of course no longer counts now I have saveed the other image (which isn't a png anymore, btw), so it should be deleted. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well one of them needs to be deleted, once there is a consensus for which is the better photo (or if a third alternative should be obtained as a compromise)... WjBscribe 16:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

In fact given the sensible objections to both photos perhaps a recent screencap of Andrew would be the best option. WjBscribe 16:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Let me go look. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd be more than happy to take a screen capture from an episode if that's acceptable, would be perfect to me as it would be an in-character image. Matthew 16:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

150px|thumb|left|A screenshot Done. Note that the image Matthew proposes is no longer an accurate image of Andrew, whereas mine is. But hey, what does accuracy matter when you have petty comments to hand, eh Matthew? Does this meet your image requirements? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The above image looks very good to me, I give it a thumbs up. Addendum: Please stop the belligerent tone, I do not believe I have shown you any such hostility. Matthew 17:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Really? "your reverts are disruptive" "you have a serious ego problem" "better than the junk you're inserting" seems fairly hostile. I am fed up that I have had to spend half an hour acquiring this screen cap, which looks no damn different from the one I originally wanted, in order to get a suitable image on this article to which your main contribution has been to try and derail its FAC. Or have you forgotten how you tried to fail it because I wouldn't change every reference to cite episode templates? Or how you added a

tense tag because two words was in the wrong tense? You have your image, stop pretending and go do something useful. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Really? 'your reverts are disruptive' 'you have a serious ego problem' 'better than the junk you're inserting' seems fairly hostile" - They are replies to your belligerency, they are civil and factual. "I am fed up that I have had to spend half an hour acquiring this screen cap" - I'd of happily done it, that is... if it's so difficult. "Or how you added a tense tag because two words" - I could point out plenty more examples, if you so wish. "I wouldn't change every reference to cite episode templates" - I offered to do it, but you clearly believe you own this article. Ad hominem/argumentum ad igornatiam attacks are poor form. Matthew 17:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

You act like a dick, I'm not going to go out of my way to be nice to you. Clearly you couldn't find more examples, or you would have kept that tense tag on there, wouldn't you? I hate cite templates, I am the main contributor to this article and will continue to edit it long after you've gone off to harrass more users, so I see no reason why I shouldn't insist, as I did, that the references be laid out as I originally wrote them. Can I get on with editing now, instead of wasting my time finding images to suit your tastes? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

(after edit conflict) You are interpreting my attempts to improve this article as "being a dick", this is what happens when you put a lot of effort into an article and do not wish others to change it... except this is a wiki. Fundamentally I believe I have been acting in good faith to improve this article, perhaps my actions have not been the best to get my point across - irrefutably nor have your own. Frankly this article is very good, and I was just trying to make it better. I'll take Moreschi's advice and leave it at this. Matthew 17:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

"perhaps my actions have not been the best to get my point across - irrefutably nor have your own." Let us both bear that in mind next time we meet. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Pots, kettles, images whirls, problem solved - so it seems. Might I suggest that you both leave it here? No need for everyone to keep on snarling. As an aside, how do you manage to have an edit war over an FA - the whole point of which should be that there's nothing to edit war over? On second thoughts, don't tell me :) Moreschi ^Talk 17:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Lol, you'd be amazed at what people can fight over... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I've requested unprotection as you seem to have settled the dispute. Mentality 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Given the discussions above I have replaced the infobox picture with Image:Andrew Van De Kamp Screenshot.JPG and deleted the other two fair use images. WjBscribe 23:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

This character is a fictional creation. He is not incredibly iconic, although he is one the few gay teens on television. Few media have mentioned him, though enough have that he is indisputably notable. It would thus follow that his inworld biography would outweigh significantly his out of world coverage. I fail to see why this is a problem. The policy referred to by the original tagger does not apply to fictional characters but published works, and in any case, I have supplied as much analysis without going OR as possible. When I first nominated Andrew for FAC I cut down the plot as much as one reasonably posisble without losing context, and it passed on the basis. I don't see why it has magically become too long now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but there are plenty of policies and guidelines that disagree with you. WP:PLOT comes to mind.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bignole is right. There is an imbalance of in-universe and out-of-universe content. It's acceptable that the character has been noted as one of the few gay teen TV characters, but that does not entitle the article to go into such an extensive plot summary of the character, per WP:PLOT. I would suggest looking at Bernard Quatermass, an article of another fictional character. As you can see, there is a strong amount of real-world context about the character, and there is stronger brevity of in-universe content. Statuses and discussions are often revisited on Wikipedia, and the same goes for articles of FA status. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why is andrew described as a gay character when in the show he is bisexual? eg. in he show he says he sometimes likes one sometimes the other. I was going to just change it but I thought it might have been discussed before. CorvidaeCorvusCorax (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

He stated that way back in Season 2. In Season 4 Bree referred to him as a "happy homosexual" and he didn't correct her at all. Presumably he was just taking a bi-stop on the way to gaytown. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not to mention, as this article notes, he self-identifies as gay, even when he made that statement about going both ways. And this show always refers to his sexual orientation as gay. Flyer22 (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

bi now gay later —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.103.122 (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

that Andrew got married with Alex? In which episode? Michu1945 (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Now I know. Season 7 episode 17. Gracias. Michu1945 (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Andrew Van de Kamp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070309121257/http://www.insidesocal.com:80/outinhollywood/2006/09/marc_cherry_andrew_will_return.html to http://www.insidesocal.com/outinhollywood/2006/09/marc_cherry_andrew_will_return.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061010011019/http://www.sgn.org/sgnnews34_09/page9.cfm to http://www.sgn.org/sgnnews34_09/page9.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090405101131/http://www.afterelton.com:80/archive/elton/TV/2005/2/housewives.html to http://www.afterelton.com/archive/elton/TV/2005/2/housewives.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061010214508/http://www.canada.com:80/topics/entertainment/story.html?id=fdfbd8b1-fe7b-46d6-b2d0-ef67a0a2e166&k=54471 to http://www.canada.com/topics/entertainment/story.html?id=fdfbd8b1-fe7b-46d6-b2d0-ef67a0a2e166&k=54471
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927213400/http://www.expressgaynews.com/blog/index.cfm?type=blog&start=5/3/06&end=5/10/06 to http://www.expressgaynews.com/blog/index.cfm?type=blog&start=5/3/06&end=5/10/06
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061023072128/http://www.parentstv.org:80/PTC/publications/bw/2006/0519worst.asp to http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/bw/2006/0519worst.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070225200607/http://www.insidesocal.com:80/outinhollywood/2007/02/andrew_van_de_camp_stepford_so.html to http://www.insidesocal.com/outinhollywood/2007/02/andrew_van_de_camp_stepford_so.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061010214508/http://www.canada.com:80/topics/entertainment/story.html?id=fdfbd8b1-fe7b-46d6-b2d0-ef67a0a2e166&k=54471 to http://www.canada.com/topics/entertainment/story.html?id=fdfbd8b1-fe7b-46d6-b2d0-ef67a0a2e166&k=54471

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Andrew Van de Kamp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gay.com/entertainment/news/?sernum=1016
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070425123206/http://www.afterelton.com/people/2007/4/16/glaaddish to http://www.afterelton.com/people/2007/4/16/glaaddish
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311015554/http://www.afterelton.com/TV/2006/1/desperate2.html to http://www.afterelton.com/TV/2006/1/desperate2.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.expressgaynews.com/blog/index.cfm?type=blog&start=5%2F3%2F06&end=5%2F10%2F06
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canada.com/topics/entertainment/story.html?id=fdfbd8b1-fe7b-46d6-b2d0-ef67a0a2e166&k=54471

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Van de Kamp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090730033827/http://tvwatch.people.com/2009/07/28/shawn-pyfrom-leaving-desperate-housewives/ to http://tvwatch.people.com/2009/07/28/shawn-pyfrom-leaving-desperate-housewives

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply