|
|||
| Project navigation links | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Main project page | talk | ||
| Tasks | |||
| Participants | |||
| Templates | |||
| Assessment | |||
| → Unassessed articles | |||
| → Statistics | |||
| Useful links | |||
| Style guidelines | |||
| edit · changes | |||
| WikiProject Soap Operas | (Rated Project-class) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|---|
| Threads older than 3 months may be archived by MiszaBot II. |
Contents
- 1 Recreation of Joey Rainbow
- 2 Proposed deletion of Maggie Barnes (Dallas)
- 3 Departures for maternity leave
- 4 Re-directs
- 5 Irrelevant Characters
- 6 Dual/multiple roles being listed on cast lists?
- 7 Draft:Jade Harlow
- 8 Kyle Jenkins listed at Requested moves
- 9 Legal siblings and parents vs. half siblings and stepparents
Recreation of Joey Rainbow[edit]
I've spoken to Cirt, the deleter of said article three years earlier and I have been working on it in my userspace for a while and feel it is ready to go as I now have several sources with a large development section and he has no objection but did advise me to consult a few wikiprojects before proceeding. Is anyone opposed to this? Conquistador2k6Talk to me, Dammit!
Proposed deletion of Maggie Barnes (Dallas)[edit]
The article Maggie Barnes (Dallas) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- WP:N - no mention of notability; nonnotable secondary TV soap opera character
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 76.65.128.43 (talk)
Departures for maternity leave[edit]
I've noticed that when an actress goes on maternity leave, the character classification stays as "present regular". However, when an actress goes on maternity leave the character would need to leave, albeit temporarily. Wouldn't it be better (and more accurate) then to change the character classification to "former regular (returning)" and update the relevant soap pages to show the same?--5 albert square (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- When an actress goes on maternity leave, they are still employed. They aren't physically at work but, they are technically still present.Cebr1979 (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Are people actually updating the "status" of characters in this manner? Cebr1979 is correct that maternity leave is like a vacation in that it does not change contract status. An actor could also be on contract and be paid but not appear in a series for a period of time due to the writing. And as far as I'm concerned, a character/performer is either on contract, recurring or no longer employed on a series. Any status should only be updated if one of those situations changes. I think the need to keep articles stable outweighs the need for short-term updates that will ultimately be reversed when the leave of absence is over. That said, an extended absence may be notable and, if sourced, may be added in prose to the article.— TAnthonyTalk 14:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- See case by case. In some cases, the actress may take a small break and then return. In other cases, the actress may prefer to simply resign for the time being and raise her child, and return to television at some undefined point in the future (and so, her character should either be gone for good, or given to some new actress) Cambalachero (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
-
- I guess the character's duration could be changed to reflect the character was off-screen for a certain amount of time but, the actress' tenure shouldn't be altered.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment – An actress' departure, on a maternity leave, is usually a temporary instance. The show does not revoke their contractual status (if they are under contract), and the character is merely written out temporarily with the intent of returning. Legally, a series cannot fire a pregnant actress. Unless said-actress in question states she's leaving the show on a permanent basis of time, then the character's duration and actress' (if its applicable as its own data) should not be altered. livelikemusic my talk page! 01:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
-
- The character's duration has nothing to do with legalities, though. That's 100% whether the character was on-screen or not. In the case of Krista Allen on Days, she pre-taped all her scenes before going on mat leave so Billie's duration would stay consecutive. In the case of someone like Kristian Alfonso, Hope left Salem for a time when the actress was on leave, so Hope's duration should reflect that (even though Kristian's tenure wouldn't be changed).Cebr1979 (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. The character is still current, regular because they are still part of the show. They plan an exit, they plan a return. The actress remains contracted to the show and the character remains part of the show and the productions plans. Only change the duration should the character be absent for more than one calender year.Rain the 1 22:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- ^^Doesn't that completely negate everything done recently to Cassie Newman's duration then?Cebr1979 (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am not a viewer of that show. Explain the background and circumstances around this particular case of character and I can offer my opinion.Rain the 1 00:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's all there in the page's edit history. I've gone and fixed it as per your direction.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- You did the correct thing. If a character appears each calender year, it should not be changed and gaps added. I have this problem with Amy Barnes. The character was a regular on the show from 05-12 ... but has appeared each year since. So it is 2005-14. If she appears this year she will not have broken the calender year rule and it will be 2005-15 etc.Rain the 1 00:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's all there in the page's edit history. I've gone and fixed it as per your direction.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am not a viewer of that show. Explain the background and circumstances around this particular case of character and I can offer my opinion.Rain the 1 00:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- ^^Doesn't that completely negate everything done recently to Cassie Newman's duration then?Cebr1979 (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. The character is still current, regular because they are still part of the show. They plan an exit, they plan a return. The actress remains contracted to the show and the character remains part of the show and the productions plans. Only change the duration should the character be absent for more than one calender year.Rain the 1 22:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- The character's duration has nothing to do with legalities, though. That's 100% whether the character was on-screen or not. In the case of Krista Allen on Days, she pre-taped all her scenes before going on mat leave so Billie's duration would stay consecutive. In the case of someone like Kristian Alfonso, Hope left Salem for a time when the actress was on leave, so Hope's duration should reflect that (even though Kristian's tenure wouldn't be changed).Cebr1979 (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Re-directs[edit]
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)
Irrelevant Characters[edit]
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?[edit]
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)
Draft:Jade Harlow[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
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.