AnemoneProjectors (talk | contribs) |
Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) →Permit WP:Red links in WP:Navboxes?: new section |
||
Line 136: | Line 136: | ||
:The term "soap opera", while primarily attracted to daytime daily dramas, has come to include weekly prime time shows like ''Dallas'' or ''Dynasty'', and similar kinds of programming that feature long running storylines with multiple characters usually in a more domestic setting (rather than being workplace-centric). ''[[Twin Peaks|TP]]'' is the David Lynch version of Peyton Place'', but you're right to suggest that the show falls within several categories. Calling non-daytime ongoing dramas "soap operas" has fallen out of fashion in the same way that "miniseries" are now called "limited series" etc., because of the connotations of melodrama and camp created in the 80s, and I think you're falling prey to that. By definition ''TP'' is a soap opera. But the lead calls it a "serial drama" (also correct) likely because of these connotations, and plus that term seems to cover a broader scope that "soap opera", which is very specific in many people's eyes.— [[User:TAnthony|TAnthony]]<sup>[[User Talk:TAnthony|Talk]]</sup> 16:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC) |
:The term "soap opera", while primarily attracted to daytime daily dramas, has come to include weekly prime time shows like ''Dallas'' or ''Dynasty'', and similar kinds of programming that feature long running storylines with multiple characters usually in a more domestic setting (rather than being workplace-centric). ''[[Twin Peaks|TP]]'' is the David Lynch version of Peyton Place'', but you're right to suggest that the show falls within several categories. Calling non-daytime ongoing dramas "soap operas" has fallen out of fashion in the same way that "miniseries" are now called "limited series" etc., because of the connotations of melodrama and camp created in the 80s, and I think you're falling prey to that. By definition ''TP'' is a soap opera. But the lead calls it a "serial drama" (also correct) likely because of these connotations, and plus that term seems to cover a broader scope that "soap opera", which is very specific in many people's eyes.— [[User:TAnthony|TAnthony]]<sup>[[User Talk:TAnthony|Talk]]</sup> 16:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Permit [[WP:Red links]] in [[WP:Navboxes]]? == |
|||
Opinions are needed on the following matter: [[Wikipedia talk:Red link#Proposal regarding redlinks in navigation templates]]; subsection is at [[Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal]]. A [[WP:Permalink]] for the matter is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Red_link&diff=prev&oldid=667593925#Proposal_regarding_redlinks_in_navigation_templates here]. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 06:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:54, 19 June 2015
| |||
Project navigation links | |||
---|---|---|---|
Main project page | talk | ||
Tasks | |||
Participants | |||
Templates | |||
Assessment | |||
→ Unassessed articles | |||
→ Statistics | |||
Useful links | |||
Style guidelines | |||
· changes |
Soap Operas Project‑class | |||||||
|
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Re-directs
Would it be best to create re-directs for all the characters that don't have their own pages but, do have entries at "minor characters" pages (ex: Austin Travers)? My reason for asking is because when a "minor characters" page gets re-named (like the Days of Our Lives cast members page recently did), the #Austin becomes irrelevant and the link simply ends up going to the top of the page, rather than directly to the character's entry. With re-directs, if a page is re-named, it would simply create a double re-direct and a bot would most likely come around and fix it anyways. Thoughts?Cebr1979 (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes this is definitely what should be done, piped links in an article like [[The Young and the Restless characters (2014)#Austin Travers|Austin Travers]] always end up being broken. There is actually an organizational system in place for this, the maintenance category Category:Fictional character redirects to lists under which you can create subcats like Category:One Life to Live character redirects to lists which you populate by using the template {{CharR to list entry|One Life to Live|Blackwell, Ursula}} at the bottom of your redirect (using the show name of your choice and creating the category if it does not yet exist). This has been for a lot of shows and a lot of characters, but not all.— TAnthonyTalk 02:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Irrelevant Characters
The following Y&R characters are so insignificant, they do not require their own pages and should be merged into whatever "characters" page fits based on their debut year:
I was surprised to find any of them even had their own pages to begin with.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- If enough information/sources can be found for characters who were regulars during their time, there is no reason why they can't have articles. You are making up your own rules as to what constitutes as "irrelevant". These lengthy character pages (especially the decade ones) are annoying enough to navigate as it is, so if there are articles that have enough sources, they should not be merged. It has already been agreed upon that the Angelina article remain, so why you choose to target that again, whatever. I think we should focus more working on and adding content to stubs and neglected articles, not merging those articles that do have sources just because you personally find them "insignificant". — Arre 15:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- I do agree that neglected articles do require attention (and I have begun that very thing over the past few weeks) but, I do have to ask, Arre9: for someone who doesn't believe that an actor who appeared for only one year should even have a photo, why should a character who didn't even make it to a year have not only a photo but... a whole page attached to it? I know you created the Angelina page (and did a fantastic job of it, I will add) however, when the word "notability" is brought up by you in every other conversation, I have a hard time justifying a whole page devoted to characters who never went anywhere. Sources and a good layout do not notability make.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Because we don't use non-free images on list-type articles. It was clarified when we started splitting content into these character list-type articles a few years ago.It is unnecessary to have lengthy sections in these articles, when it could just be a separate article. Especially when there is more than enough content/sources. We need to work on or merge stubs and neglected articles not fairly-sized well sourced articles. And technically all characters go "no where" or die. Recurring characters who really don't have their own storylines nor are involved with major characters, that's insignificant. But when there are characters who have been on for around 6 months or more, were regulars in that time frame/involved with major characters, and there is enough content for there to be a full article? There is no issue with that. Our attention should be diverted to articles that need restoring or to be merged like the first and third. — Arre 00:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- So... since Angelina Veneziano never lasted even 6 months... I guess we agree her page should be taken down then? Cebr1979 (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- So we're ignoring notability from now on. I completely understand!Cebr1979 (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- There are numerous articles on Wikipedia (not just Y&R related) that have been created for soap characters who have not been on very long, and they have been up for years with no issues arising. So no, we're not doing anything "from now on". — Arre 00:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- You're also the one that constantly says one page's faults are not excuses for keeping other mistakes around. You're going around in circles to the point that I'm dizzy. I'll drop this... for now. I look forward to our next conversation, I'm sure it'll be a good one.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- There are numerous articles on Wikipedia (not just Y&R related) that have been created for soap characters who have not been on very long, and they have been up for years with no issues arising. So no, we're not doing anything "from now on". — Arre 00:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Because we don't use non-free images on list-type articles. It was clarified when we started splitting content into these character list-type articles a few years ago.It is unnecessary to have lengthy sections in these articles, when it could just be a separate article. Especially when there is more than enough content/sources. We need to work on or merge stubs and neglected articles not fairly-sized well sourced articles. And technically all characters go "no where" or die. Recurring characters who really don't have their own storylines nor are involved with major characters, that's insignificant. But when there are characters who have been on for around 6 months or more, were regulars in that time frame/involved with major characters, and there is enough content for there to be a full article? There is no issue with that. Our attention should be diverted to articles that need restoring or to be merged like the first and third. — Arre 00:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I do agree that neglected articles do require attention (and I have begun that very thing over the past few weeks) but, I do have to ask, Arre9: for someone who doesn't believe that an actor who appeared for only one year should even have a photo, why should a character who didn't even make it to a year have not only a photo but... a whole page attached to it? I know you created the Angelina page (and did a fantastic job of it, I will add) however, when the word "notability" is brought up by you in every other conversation, I have a hard time justifying a whole page devoted to characters who never went anywhere. Sources and a good layout do not notability make.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Dual/multiple roles being listed on cast lists?
The American cast lists have taken the approach of listing EVERY role that a performer has ever appeared in within the series on the cast list, even if the actor is no longer appearing as the character. The cast lists have gotten quite out of hand and General Hospital by far is the worst of them all. Days of Our Lives is also guilty of this, but to a lesser extent. I know it's not done on cast lists for EastEnders or Coronation Street and those lists look a lot less confusing -- apart from the fact multiple actors being listed from the same role. For example, Ellen Thomas just made her debut on EastEnders in the role of Claudette last month; however, Claudette is her fourth role within the series. But, only the character of Claudette which she currently portrays appears in the character list. I'd like to go back to having a performer be listed side by side with the role/roles they currently portray but I'd like input on this before I just go editing and causing trouble.--Nk3play2 my buzz 22:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- My opinion on this is that if it's a list of characters, every person who's played that character should be listed (as in EastEnders), but if it's a cast list, then only the present characters and cast members should be included under a "current cast" list, but if there's a past list too, as there is for General Hospital, then previous roles can go there, even for current actors. Though I have an even better example of what could be done - it's in my userspace at User:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders cast members (but will go live one day). –anemoneprojectors– 08:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- If it's a cast list, then all roles portrayed by an actor/actress should be listed, no matter how small or minimal the role has come to be. It isn't our fault of head writers are unoriginal in their writing, etc. A cast list is a cast list, and all role(s) they've portrayed should be noted. livelikemusic my talk page! 15:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't think the previous characters that current cast members played on the show should be listed. It's not relevant at all to the show presently. It may be accurate to the way these pages are formatted, but still, it generally just adds clutter IMO. Unlike the UK/AUS soap character articles, where the previous actors listed is relevant and useful information, listing every character a current cast member has played? It seems like trivial information. It would be less complicated to simply list these previous portrayals in the previous cast members list. — Arre 03:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- That wouldn't make any sense, though. A current cast member is not a previous cast member so why would we be listing a current cast member in a previous cast member section? The only way your suggestion would make sense is if we created a new "Previous Characters" section but, that would just be clutter.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- I totally agree with User:Arre 9; I think only the current characters should be included. It makes it less complicated and confusing. --Nk3play2 my buzz 00:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't think the previous characters that current cast members played on the show should be listed. It's not relevant at all to the show presently. It may be accurate to the way these pages are formatted, but still, it generally just adds clutter IMO. Unlike the UK/AUS soap character articles, where the previous actors listed is relevant and useful information, listing every character a current cast member has played? It seems like trivial information. It would be less complicated to simply list these previous portrayals in the previous cast members list. — Arre 03:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- If it's a cast list, then all roles portrayed by an actor/actress should be listed, no matter how small or minimal the role has come to be. It isn't our fault of head writers are unoriginal in their writing, etc. A cast list is a cast list, and all role(s) they've portrayed should be noted. livelikemusic my talk page! 15:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It is a list of current cast members and the characters they have portrayed, not current characters and who have portrayed them. Yes, former characters portrayed by current actors should be listed.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear soap opera enthusiasts: This old draft will soon be deleted as stale unless someone takes an interest in it. There are many online sources, but I don't know which ones are reliable. Is this a notable subject that should be kept and improved?—Anne Delong (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Kyle Jenkins listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Kyle Jenkins to be moved to Kyle Abbott (The Young and the Restless). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Legal siblings and parents vs. half siblings and stepparents
It has come to my attention that several soap opera character articles who have listed the parents as one legal and one biological have currently been disputed, for example Bo Brady and Ashley Abbott. Should the siblings who are biologically related though one parent, be put in the full sibling section and do they still need the (legal) next to it? And should the legal parent be under stepfather or stepmother? Jester66 (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, certainly not under stepfather or stepmother... because what would be incorrect and we try to keep incorrect info off of wikipedia. In both of those cases, John Abbott and Shawn Brady are not the step-fathers of Ashley Abbott or Bo Brady, respectively. They are the legal fathers of those characters. For John to be Ashley's father, he would have had to marry Dina after Ashley was born, and he didn't. Same with Shawn marrying Caroline: the wedding would have needed to take place after Bo was born, and we all know it didn't. This should be easy to understand. It's 100% the exact same thing as Neil Winters not being Lily Winters' step-father. He, too, is her legal father. John, Shawn, and Neil all hold legal rights to their children and have throughout their children's entire lives. As far as the law is concerned, those people are their kids fathers. Frankie and Max Brady are full-siblings of the other Brady family children (via adoption) because their legal mother and legal father are the same as the rest of them. Bo is as much a full-sibling to Roman, Kayla, and Kimberly Brady as they are. I hope that helped to clear up your confusion.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Even though they are ALSO biologically related through one parent? They automatically go to the full sibling section? Now with no mother and father biologically but legally and legally raised like siblings (Ashley and Billy), I understand to put (legal) next to it. Frankie and Max's cases aren't the same because they were adopted. Jester66 (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, even though! I can't believe you just said adopting is different than legal!!! OMG! hahaCebr1979 (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Who do you think handles adoptions? The law does! As far as (NBC's fictional version of) the world is concerned, they are not half-siblings! That's what happens when two people have the same legal mother AND the same legal father!!Cebr1979 (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- It mainly clutters the infoboxes Jester66 (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. It keeps them correct.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- We need other opinions, since it seems like you are getting very hostile. Jester66 (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, I'm not. I'm explaining things to you so you understand.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Anyone else? Would like your thoughts. Jester66 (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- The whole "legal" parent thing speaks to the convoluted nature of familial relationships in soap operas (and real life, for that matter). I'm of the leaning that the "legal" parent shouldn't be listed except if the child is adopted on-screen by said "legal" parent, as with Kevin Buchanan and Joey Buchanan in 1982. The whole point of the infobox is to keep it as seamless and comprehensive as possible. FrickFrack 00:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Anyone else? Would like your thoughts. Jester66 (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, I'm not. I'm explaining things to you so you understand.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- We need other opinions, since it seems like you are getting very hostile. Jester66 (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. It keeps them correct.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- It mainly clutters the infoboxes Jester66 (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Even though they are ALSO biologically related through one parent? They automatically go to the full sibling section? Now with no mother and father biologically but legally and legally raised like siblings (Ashley and Billy), I understand to put (legal) next to it. Frankie and Max's cases aren't the same because they were adopted. Jester66 (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I was invited to join this discussion but have found it slightly confusing. Taking Ashley Abbott as an example, it says in the infobox "Father: John Abbott (legal)". Does this mean he has adopted her (after marrying her birth mother)? If so, why not use the "adoptivefather" field? As for the siblings, if they share the same birth mother but a different birth father, I'd use the "halfbrothers" and "halfsisters" fields, though when the different birth father is also an adoptive/legal father, it does become more complicated. The only example in a UK soap I can think of is Bobby Beale (EastEnders), whose stepmother adopted him, but she had no children with his father. I think in this case we'd still call them half siblings. –anemoneprojectors– 10:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- I definitely agree with Anemone. The "adoptive" and "half" [insert family member] fields should definitely be used instead of "Legal" for most cases. I was really confused to see in Johnny Abbott's info-box the term "adoptive" for his sister Katie Newman -- they have the same father, the implication that she is an "adoptive" sister is confusing. I think that and several other instances like it should be corrected. — Arre 12:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- I too was invited to join the discussion; to answer your question about Ashley Abbott Anemone, John did not legally adopt Ashley as his child, he just raised her believing she was his biological child. John's wife (Dina, Ashley's mom) divorced John leaving him to raise their children; however John was never made aware that Ashley was not his child. As far as John was concerned, Ashley was his biological child. But viewers are aware that he isn't. When it comes to the parent, I think IF the parents were legally married then it is ok to include the non-biological parent as a step parent. For example, Shawn Brady was still legally married to Bo Brady's mother Caroline when he was killed of in 2008 -- so LEGALLY he is still Bo's stepfather. So Bo Brady, Lily Winters whose bio parents was still legally married to the non bio parent should list said non bio parent as step-parents. The legal thing has always bothered me. For someone whose parental status is a bit more complicated like John Abbott to Ashley Abbott, we COULD include another set of parameters for that... But I'm not exactly sure what to do with it. I know we CANNOT just remove the non bio parent completely because characters like Ashley and Bo still use their non bio parents' surnames and recognize said parent as a parent. And those connections are important to understanding each individual character. I think the parental component of this discussion needs a separate discussion. As for the siblings, regardless of whether they have the same "legal" parents or not, I always thought these parameters were mainly about biology? I think half siblings should be listed as such, NO MATTER WHAT. Including "legal" really does make things cluttered and extremely complicated. The parent thing I believe is much more complicated and would probably warrant more discussion about what to do. As for siblings, I maintain, "halfbrothers" or "halfsisters" should DEFINITELY be used.--Nk3play2 my buzz 17:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with every single one of you, you have all made valid points.Jester66 (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that the half-brother/half-sister fields should be used as well as the adoptive father/adoptive mother fields. I recall there being a discussion from quite awhile ago where it was said that adoptive parents are the legal parents, and simply parents are the biological parents. In the case of Ashley Abbott, Brent Davis and Dina Mergeron are her parents and John Abbott is her adoptive father. He raised her believing she was his biological child therefore he was legally recognized as her father on her hypothetical birth certificate. Just like when people adopt someone they become their legal parents and vice versa; John is legally Ashley's father, therefore he belongs in the adoptive father field because he is not her biological father. Creativity97 21:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- But he never adopted her. That's the problem here. Saying he adopted her is not only misinfo... it's LYING! How can someone adopt someone else when he doesn't even know he's not the other person's biological father? I honestly don't understand how you guys don't get this????Cebr1979 (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- I could accept the half-siblings thing but... then Frankie and Max need to be half-siblings to Bo. If we're going to say that Victor is Bo's "one true dad" (even though that's garbage and not how the law works, in a real world or fictional one), then Frankie and Max have to be half-siblings too because they were never adopted by Victor.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that the half-brother/half-sister fields should be used as well as the adoptive father/adoptive mother fields. I recall there being a discussion from quite awhile ago where it was said that adoptive parents are the legal parents, and simply parents are the biological parents. In the case of Ashley Abbott, Brent Davis and Dina Mergeron are her parents and John Abbott is her adoptive father. He raised her believing she was his biological child therefore he was legally recognized as her father on her hypothetical birth certificate. Just like when people adopt someone they become their legal parents and vice versa; John is legally Ashley's father, therefore he belongs in the adoptive father field because he is not her biological father. Creativity97 21:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment — This is kind of why I hate the merging of the Infobox 1 and Infobox 2 parameters because things become too specific, and it defies the point of an infobox. For my stance, adoptive parents have always had "(adoptive)" next to their children and vice versa. As for legal parents, I was always under the assumption that "(legal)" be put next to the parents and singular child that may be the legal child in question. As for half-siblings, I'm somewhat torn on adding it as a separate parameter to {{Infobox soap character}}. I would explain my reasonings behind it, but I know it would be ripped apart and not understood by others.
- I think you forgot to sign but explain it and I'll listen to it.--Nk3play2 my buzz 02:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Question - Is there a possible suggestion for a new parameter that can be used to solve this issue? I'd prefer "step" parent, but that obviously doesn't work for everyone.--Nk3play2 my buzz 02:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Anything to prevent the edit warring that is currently happening in the Bo Brady, Kimberly Brady and the other Days' character pages. Jester66 (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I've been abstaining from this conversation because these infobox detail discussions always go on and on ... I am of a mind to eliminate any kind of qualifier at all, because (as any parent will tell you), a child is your child whether they're adopted or biological or switched at birth. And any non-soap editor would tell you this sort of detail is just clutter in an infobox and trivial for our purposes here. You don't usually see these kinds of designations in infoboxes for real people, and these relationship nuances are detailed within the articles themselves.
BUT I get it, long running soap character relationships are more complicated, and perhaps this detail helps eliminate some confusion—but mostly we just love this stuff. Well that's fine, but we should insist on the method that involves the least amount of extra text in the infobox. We have gotten into a very bad habit of making the infobox as much of an abbreviated copy of the article as possible, which defeats the purpose, and I have spoken out against this for many years.
I should also note, I created {{Infobox soap character}} in 2007 with soap-specific needs in mind that weren't being addressed by {{Infobox character}}. Basically, we needed more parameters for different kinds of relations, and parameters for multiple photos of different portrayers (which I'm actually surprised got by the fair use police and is still allowed). I also incorporated the collapsible Relationships section to keep the new expanded infobox tidy and thus protect it from challengers. This was at a time when many many TV series and franchises had their own character infoboxes to suit specific needs. Well, in the intervening years, most of those other infobox templates have been eliminated, because they were either too redundant or too skewed toward trivial information (and several more are in TfDs as we speak). The truth is, most of what sets our infobox apart from {{Infobox character}} would be considered trivia by many editors, and I think the only reason it has not really been challenged yet (except for this 2010 mass TfD) is because it is in such wide use (I used AWB to replace the generic template in every soap character article I could find!). But that day is coming, and the least fan-ish and full of trivial junk we can make our infoboxes, the better.— TAnthonyTalk 17:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sooooooo, no suggestions? I'd really like your input on this considering you're a veteran editor.--Nk3play2 my buzz 21:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
So I've actually given this a lot of thought. What if we solve the parental dispute by adding "BIOLOGICAL" parent parameters specifically? For example, the "Father" parameter can be explained in descriptions section as "The person known to said character as their father. Biology is not always a factor and neither is legal adoption. Said parent may have simply raised the child and said child identifies the individual as his/her father." And the "BIOLOGICAL FATHER" parameter would be pretty self explanatory. For characters like Bo Brady, and Ashley Abbott, and Tony DiMera who identify their non-biological fathers as their father and no one else, even though they are very aware of that they don't share a biological connection.--Nk3play2 my buzz 18:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Flashbacks
Do flashbacks count as a character appearance, even after the actor has died? Some believe that it counts as one since it's the character who appeared? This refers to Katherine Chancellor page. There needs to be a solution to prevent more edit warring. Jester66 (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Flashbacks do not count. The scene in question was not a flashback, though and you know that. It was 100% new material consisting of Nikki and Jill talking about seeing Katherine Chancellor (and we saw her too). You're being childish about this, Jester, with your senseless, non-explanation reverts. You've made good attempts at deleting info in order to make yourself look right and you're making a good attemp to falsify info now with your faulty explanations but, I put the info back and I'm letting others know now that it wasn't a flashback. This whole conversation you started is absolutely useless and will result in nothing because everyone is answering you about flashbacks which is not what that scene was.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Flashbacks are replays of previous appearances, so by nature they do not count as new appearances. It may be notable to mention within the text of an article if a reliable source has cited it (perhaps it serves an important point in a plotline), but I would guess in most instances this is not the case. I don't know what's going on at Katherine Chancellor but this seems like a perfect example of the trivia-obsessed trying to create new ways to add non-information to articles.— TAnthonyTalk 15:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Flashbacks that use archive footage should not count, but flashbacks using brand new content, such as EastEnders 30th anniversary, when Lucy Beale, Jake Stone (EastEnders) and Rainie Cross all appeared, should. For Katherine Chancellor, no, this doesn't count. This would apply to any character in any TV show, not just a soap, and it happens in Doctor Who all the time. –anemoneprojectors– 21:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the footage used when Katherine appeared to Nikki and Jill was not a flashback image; it was the footage shot of Jeanne Cooper for the opening of The Young and the Restless, in other words, it was not footage shot for the use of Katherine, and was instead later on used for said footage. livelikemusic my talk page! 00:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- AnemoneProjectors' example is what is called a "newly created flashback", and that obviously should count as an appearance. This Jeanne Cooper footage thing is ... interesting. If it's essentially outtakes from the opening sequence then I feel like it's kind of pushing it to say it's a new appearance. If you showed a still photo of Cooper that had never been seen on the show before, is that an appearance? I definitely think the footage use is very notable though in light of her death etc. so it should definitely be referenced in the article.— TAnthonyTalk 04:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- I would agree with TAnthony - don't list this as an appearance in the infobox but do reference it in the article. –anemoneprojectors– 15:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Cebr1979: I have explained myself time after time when I revert not only the Katherine Chancellor page, but the Ashley Abbott, Bo and Kimberly Brady pages. Part of the reason why we are having these discussions is because of your disruptive editing and rude behavior. Also @AnemoneProjectors: I couldn't agree more. Jester66 (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- I would agree with TAnthony - don't list this as an appearance in the infobox but do reference it in the article. –anemoneprojectors– 15:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
In-universe dates in infoboxes
I would like to propose that all dates attached to in-universe events be removed, especially from infoboxes (years of marriage/stepfamilies). Here are my reasons:
We no longer use dates of birth and death in infoboxes, because characters aren't born and they don't die, they're created and introduced and then written out. We also know that all fiction exists in a "perpetual present tense". In EastEnders character articles, the words "née" and "previously" are no longer used in the opening paragraphs, for this reason.
I think it's wrong to state years of marriage in infoboxes. Using Kathy Beale as an example, the infobox states she was married to Pete Beale from 1968 to 1991. But they didn't exist in 1968, they were created in 1984. It also says she was married to Phil Mitchell from 1995 to 1999. But because of the "perpetual present tense", she's (presently) married to Pete Beale, and she's also (presently) married to Phil Mitchell. I wonder if this should also mean removing marriages that are purely part of a backstory (i.e. Cora Cross's dead husband).
I guess what I'm saying is, when something is an in-universe event, there should be no date attached to it, because it can be viewed on any date (therefore didn't happen on that date). Your thoughts please. –anemoneprojectors– 15:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- We could just list the marriages in the infobox. I'm quite sure that if people wanted to know more information they could read the article.--5 albert square (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed. And they will read that one character married another, then later got divorced, without needing to know in what years it happened, because it's not important :-) –anemoneprojectors– 21:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- How about, instead of putting years, we put (former) or (divorced) just to save the hassle? A lot of spouses have a "TBA" or question mark because a divorce date wasn't stated; it would be easier if we just had one term. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 22:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Not sure about this atm. Wouldn't it lead to more editors adding "(divorced)" and "(separated)" notes to the ibox, which would be considered clutter, no? - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- If not that, we could just rename the row as "spouse" and only include the current spouse. Or split the rows up for current spouses and former spouses. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 22:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- As far as I was aware, titles such as "divorced" or "separated" were removed as a form of fancruft fluff editing, especially given the ever-revolving door of re-marriages a soap character could go through during their duration on a series. Splitting the spouse parameter into "Current spouse" and "Former spouse" is also a bit fancruft and cluttered, especially if the marriage is a re-marriage, which is common on US based soaps (don't know if it is on UK and AUS ones). I know on US articles years are all that's used, no other terms of form of dates. livelikemusic my talk page! 23:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- How would re-marriages affect splitting between current/former spouses? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 23:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'd be against adding "divorced" etc, as although, for example, Kathy Beale and Phil Mitchell are divorced in the latest episode, they're not divorced in episodes where they're married. I'd also be totally against listing only the "current" spouse for the same reason. All spouses are "current" because fiction exists in a "perpetual present tense". All I want is the in-universe years removed. The reason for the marriage ending is usually explained in the storylines section. –anemoneprojectors– 10:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- How would re-marriages affect splitting between current/former spouses? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 23:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- As far as I was aware, titles such as "divorced" or "separated" were removed as a form of fancruft fluff editing, especially given the ever-revolving door of re-marriages a soap character could go through during their duration on a series. Splitting the spouse parameter into "Current spouse" and "Former spouse" is also a bit fancruft and cluttered, especially if the marriage is a re-marriage, which is common on US based soaps (don't know if it is on UK and AUS ones). I know on US articles years are all that's used, no other terms of form of dates. livelikemusic my talk page! 23:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- If not that, we could just rename the row as "spouse" and only include the current spouse. Or split the rows up for current spouses and former spouses. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 22:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed. And they will read that one character married another, then later got divorced, without needing to know in what years it happened, because it's not important :-) –anemoneprojectors– 21:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Category objection for "Twin Peaks"
I do not agree that "Twin Peaks" warrants categorization as a "soap opera". TP was a weekly show, not a daily show, and it had a closed-ended plot line--the murder of Laura Palmer was solved. I also question whether it was a "melodrama"--it was a single camera, post-modern, surrealist/supernatural series drama with significant comedic elements. It was arguably one of the earliest post-modern TV shows, with substantial influence; I suppose that it is understandable that some post-MTV generation editors might mistake its gestalt as "camp" and "soapy", but it was substantially more than that--in fact it wasn't that at all. "The Mentalist" is a contemporary show with a simple linking plot device--the identity of Red John--but perhaps because it was edited to comply with the demands of post-ADHD attention spans, it is categorized as a "police procedural". Clearly, there are substantial quality implications between a police procedural and a soap opera, and I think that TP is being grossly underestimated. Alanrobts (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- The term "soap opera", while primarily attracted to daytime daily dramas, has come to include weekly prime time shows like Dallas or Dynasty, and similar kinds of programming that feature long running storylines with multiple characters usually in a more domestic setting (rather than being workplace-centric). TP is the David Lynch version of Peyton Place, but you're right to suggest that the show falls within several categories. Calling non-daytime ongoing dramas "soap operas" has fallen out of fashion in the same way that "miniseries" are now called "limited series" etc., because of the connotations of melodrama and camp created in the 80s, and I think you're falling prey to that. By definition TP is a soap opera. But the lead calls it a "serial drama" (also correct) likely because of these connotations, and plus that term seems to cover a broader scope that "soap opera", which is very specific in many people's eyes.— TAnthonyTalk 16:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Red link#Proposal regarding redlinks in navigation templates; subsection is at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)