Television: Hollyoaks Project‑class High‑importance

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This page is supported by the Hollyoaks task force.

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Frickative 11:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Hollyoaks articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion Here about the use of screens shots in character articles, we need more views, to see what the consensus is.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 15:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both have their own pages now with only a few sources and are using non free promotional images. Should they be redirected back to the lists? Hope someone sees this anyway D4nnyw14 (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. They didn't even bother to add any new info... so I've reverted them. She is a new editor and needs monitoring as she is uploading promo shots as with the case with Mitzeee's image. RaintheOne ^BAM 12:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. I thought she might be new but wasn't sure and didn't want to revert back to list enteries without making sure they were unnecessary edits.D4nnyw14 (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing redirect of Gina, Kate and Sol Patrick. Only one is images and the rest aren't and none are sourced. They haven't been edited since November 2010. What does everyone else think. Alot of earlier HO articles are unsourced aswell. D4nnyw14 (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest there could be more added. I can find more info for Gina and Sol for sure.RaintheOne ^BAM 12:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thought i'd bring it up anyway. What should we do about other similar articles? With only one or two sources each that could easily go in a list? D4nnyw14 (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should gather some sources together and see what we can find. We could add some over the next few days and see where we are at. What do ya say?RaintheOne ^BAM 12:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ok. Where would we start though? There are so many past characters for HO with only a few sources. We could start a sandbox full of sources for now and start gathering them in the next few days before we do anything with them.D4nnyw14 (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly could - If you look on my userpage, I have a "archivelink" sand box you could place some into.. Search the Free Library aswell as the older characters are likely to have archived news stories. I've started on Gina, I've found more info on her to add later. The official companion book covers most old characters too and his interview with a large chunk of the cast.RaintheOne ^BAM 15:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So before i start looking apart from the Patricks who else should we be looking for? Should we make a list or just find anything and then add it to the appropriate articles? D4nnyw14 (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One that never had anything though there is lots of info is Sasha Valentine. Toby & Ellie Mills, Les, Dan and Sally Hunter need sources - I'm sure there could be some. Les, Ellie and Sally were asked by Paul Marquess to rejoin the show, I'll try and find the source for that. Carol Groves was quite a notable character. Andy Holt, Mel, Sophie, Liz, Ali, Darlene and Richard. Basically everyone but concentrate on some of those for now.RaintheOne ^BAM 17:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically everyone, that could take a while then :P D4nnyw14 (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking that Finn can be merged back to the list. We all agreed on but it was never moved. D4nnyw14 (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brought this here although i'm not sure anyone will see it but alot of the durations of characters seem to mismatch. E.g. Ruth Osborne says she's been there since episode one but in this interview Dwyer says since almost the start and Lewis Richardson says since 1997 but in this interview Ben Hull says he has been there since it was one episode and the reported mentions that he's been there since episode 3. Is anyone still here who has been watchin since the start of the show who might have a clearer idea on duration? Hope someone see's this anyway thanks D4nnyw14 (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Hollyoaks to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Hollyoaks/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 23:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened this discussion to talk about what needs to be done within the project. I think some pages need redirecting to lists while others need splitting from lists. Lewis was in Hollyoaks for 5-6 years and doesn't have his own page while a few other long term characters who are notable don't. I think a few more recent additions could probably be split aswell such as Jamil and Ethan although there both gone now. D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had replied. I think that Jamil might be a little hard to split off - I think the fact he didn't do much means there is little to go off. I think Ethan is a good choice, I've been lining him up since he left because I found a lot of stuff for him. You proved Lewis was a perfect example. I think there are still a few other regulars that have articles when they are not that notable. We need to decide who they are. I'd like to see AcidBright pop his head in here too lol.Rain the 1 20:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was a little hasty with reverting, sorry. What about Norman Sankofa? I was going to merge him except there isn't a 2002 list, i tried to create one here which i could move out but then the list mightn't be that notable. I will notify AcidBrights again. D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list is a good idea - at the end of the day I'm not sure who could challenge that decision because it is a case of the lesser two evils - Either have multiple non notable characters with their own articles - or a list containing them. So I think that list would be the right place to direct Norman.Rain the 1 21:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Who else do you think isn't notable? I think Emma Chambers (Hollyoaks), Jason Cunliffe, Sally Hunter and Les Hunter should possibly be. One more thing, do you think i should bother carrying on with this list of awards or not? I'm really not sure, it was started ages ago and i've thought about finishing it but have never bothered. D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jason can be merged, might find a little more for the list just because of who played him. I'm not sure if Emma has anything because I've never looked - if not then she could go to the list. I'm more inclined to keep Sally and Les, Sally more so - to keep searching for sources for them. Sally played a big role in other characters storylines and featured heavily. The list of awards is a great idea, maybe one day you'll feel you want to add something - or we can always help - so it would be a shame for what you've done so far to go to waste.Rain the 1 21:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will merge Jason shortly, we can keep the others for now and look for sources. I think the project needs to get any stub classes up to at least start class and if that can't be done the redirect. If its a good idea then i'll keep it for now, i may get round to it eventually. Is there anyone you think should be redirected? Anyone who should be split? The only other character i've thought about splitting is Dale Jackson. D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even notice she was in a list. I've just done this for the 2011 list. - [1] - He's come off quite well for real world information.Rain the 1 22:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Had no idea george was so notable! That is really good, I think with a few more sources george could be the next candidate for splitting of the teens. Is there anyone else who needs a section? I'll have to look through the lists. Another thing that needs doing is so that everyoone from the past cast list is linked somewhere which I'll do soon. D4nnyw14 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep looking for info for him too. Well - Neil and Scott need sections of their own. :)Rain the 1 22:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look later, neil is really boring though so won't be very notable! D4nnyw14 (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry for not joining in earlier. Just been reading the discussion and theres some very good points made. Also, I was thinking about maybe making George's article Rain, if that would be okay with you, I mean I don't want to step on your toes or anything. :) Oh and I also have a few points to make too. I was thinking that Amber and Finn (maybe Gabby aswell) should be moved back to the 2010 list, don't know what you guys think? Btw, do you both like Ruby's article I created? :)--AcidBrights (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just saw Ruby's article, it's great as is Maddie's. I agree about Finn and probably Amber, maybe Gabby too, they haven't got much room for improvement and Finn hardly ever appears now. D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I really appreciate that! :) What are you planning to work on next Danny?--AcidBrights (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've not decided yet, was hoping this discussion might inspire me into working on something. Need to finish Mercedesso probably that next. What about you? D4nnyw14 (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully if I can maybe George because I really like the character and his storyline. :) I also want to try and sort out Lynsey's article you see when I first started editing in early 2010, I wasn't exactly the best editor and basically some of my stuff was crap, but I am hopefully much better now.--AcidBrights (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, you've really proved yourself by sticking around and your work on Silas has been great! D4nnyw14 (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've just created a section for George and he isn't quite ready for an article. I did want to bring something up. Ruby's Storyline section has been placed first - so her storylines happen before she was even created. I think sourcing plot section ruins an article too. It is just a big sea of DS refs or episode summaries. You are actually acting against consensus by adding episode citations other than at the request of a GA or FA reviewer. - So lets decide this too - do we need plot sections taking up the first section of the actual article - or do we place it in the middle. Do we need to source plot sections. I see it as a right waste of time.Rain the 1 00:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I didn't mean create an article for George now, just start creating in sandbox and build it up continually. And yeah we do need to discuss the storylines thing because I've really just started putting the section before all the others because EE did it with theirs. Now, sourcing the plot is a tricky one, because again I just started doing it because I noticed EE and Holby City articles starting to have refs in storyline section so I just thought I should do it, but i'm fine not doing it aswell. :)--AcidBrights (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holby City long had episode citations in their articles - they are easy to pin point, the information is ready available on here as there is a list of episodes - Holby is weekly but Hollyoaks is daily. EE have started doing it just lately - I won't say why, but if you have been following that whole saga from the beggining - you'll sure know why. Editors of US topics, in the face of AFD, cough up episode citations. Adding plot refs is a one way ticket to fansite central. It think they are bad examples to follow - I think if they are used - then episode citations should be used over episode summaries, becuase then it accounts for everything said - where as a summary posted on DS and so on will only have a limited supply of what happens in the episode - therefor not proving all of what is said in the plot sections on here. We are WP:HO though, we should not want to be like WP:EE - we should aim to do it better than they do.Rain the 1 01:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, storylines should come after eveything bar reception. WP:EE has just started sourcing plot because they want to and to make some characters appear more notable. The only time i would source a plot is because of a GA/FA reviewer etc. The only other thing i wanted to bring up in this chat is the actual Hollyoaks page, its in quiet bad shape is anyone willing to work on it? I've thought about it but have never worked on a tv show page before and would have no idea where to start. Only other thing is the ratings on pages, do we need to go over them an rerate pages? We have only one B class article which i don't think is a true assessment. D4nnyw14 (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i've removed refs from ruby's storylines section and moved the section below development. :) I agree with you because to be honest, I never understood why storyline section had to go first.--AcidBrights (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I've also moved Maddie's storyline section aswell, but i've left the refs for the time being because there sometimes used in the development part, so i'll sort them out later.--AcidBrights (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better now. Did you two know Dodger already has a page? D4nnyw14 (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and oo I didn't know about that article.--AcidBrights (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why there are a load of spanish Hollyoaks articles, they are all terrible. In Mercede's storylines it says she was invited to Malachy's funeral after Myra interferred, was this true? I thought she wasn't invited at all. Is it even notable? D4nnyw14 (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Malachy's mother Erin told her she was not invited to the funeral and she didn't go. However, she did visit his grave in Belfast in February 2011.--AcidBrights (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was right, you mainly wrote the storyline section so it must have been changed since then. D4nnyw14 (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The spanish articles are funny, not our problem, but sometimes people will manually translate the article on request - like Loretta on Fr wiki - [2]. I have never thought about helping the main Hollyoaks article out, seems like a scary task. What could we do there?Rain the 1 16:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping you would know :P Maybe we should go off Neighbours and EastEnders both were GA's, EastEnders was recently demoted though. I don't really think we could get Hollyoaks up to GA but we could try to improve it, fix dead refs, make sure everything is referenced, remove unsourced rubbish etc. D4nnyw14 (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on Winners & Losers - but that series is only one year old. I'd go with Neighbours because it is GA right now - and EE was demoted - Coronation Street used to be a FA. I think Glee (TV series) is a good article to look to aswell for tips. What needs doing on there first though?Rain the 1 17:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erm i'm not really sure. What do you want to do with Hollyoaks, just improve it or attempt to get it up to GA? First thing that sticks out at me is the merchandise section and storyline section, both are messy. D4nnyw14 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the whole thing needs to go and start a fresh. We could create one big sandbox (I wonder if we can create that here?) and work on a section each and place it into the sandbox when we are done.Rain the 1 17:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be up for that, a sandbox where? Maybe to stop the awards section becoming messy i should finish the list of awards. D4nnyw14 (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could just go with User:D4nnyw14/Hollyoaks draft - doesn't matter really. AB should really be here, so we can start on adding some of the basics, infobox, deciding what external links to use? Also which section would you like to take on?Rain the 1 17:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont mind where we start the sandbox, mine, yours or AB's it doesn't matter. I don't mind which sections, there are none which i would or wouldn't want to take on. First i'm going to finish the Nominations list but will work on both at the same time, that way we won't need a jumbled mess for the awards section. One thing i should bring up is non free use images, which are necessary? I don't think the one of Max is. D4nnyw14 (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to say non. I do not think Max dying or Loretta are needed. Loretta's storyline was way to much weight in the article anyway and a picture of Melissa Walton could be used. The advert indent is not that bad - but we could say we a favouriting that version of the indents - because why does that need illustrating anymore than the other idents that do not have an image. So I'd rid of it too. I'd like to take the spin-off section first. The sandbox is in yours because i just edited it lolRain the 1 18:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i think first we should add all the headers and the ibox so we know which sections to include, we can request a history merge later on. D4nnyw14 (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Located at User:D4nnyw14/Hollyoaks draft

I've started a new section to make it easier to follow. I'm not sure we should even use the old header - they're jumbled up - We need to completely forget the old article to make this work. Like it we are creating a new article. I've long known that the infobox is actually a box of lies - but never done anything about it. So I think that needs to be the starting point. Can you spot any of the false information?Rain the 1 18:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change the headers, or completely remove them if you want, the awards, spin offs and cast/characters should stay out of them though. I think false info could be Camera setup, run time, directed by and maybe editors. I'm not entirely sure. D4nnyw14 (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is no mention of Mersey TV in the infobox, it is recentism because Lime Pictures is the same company, but it is owned by All3media - where as before they were their own boss. (If you get me) So the end result has the general reader assuming that All3Media and Lime have always produced and distributed it. The editors doesn't sit well because David Hutchman edited the show the other night, and someone else before.. the same with the directors - there is no set one and these things change - because it is behind the scenes and we will only know when the episode airs - there is no fact because it is forever changing. With a producer or even executive producer - we know about it and have sources to prove it. The run time - now I know when it is nearly 25 past 7 on E4, I think the titles are going to roll in a second. It does not last half an hour because of adverts. I think whoever added that though because of adverts it must last 25 minutes. It never goes of exactly after half an hour with adverts, so it has to be much less. An episode of Hollyoaks never lasts more than 24 minutes - if you look at youtube - [3] all episode last over 23 minutes but not 24. So would 23 minutes be a fair time to replace 25 minutes?

So some quick changes could be

• Removing the editor field
• Changing the run time
• Production company - Mersey Television (1995-2006) Lime Pictures/All3Media (2006-)
• Removing the Distributor field
• Removing directors

Those are just some quick fixes that jump out at me.Rain the 1 18:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on all of them changes, maybe distributors should be changed so that all distributors, past and present are included but it will be included in the body of text so i don't think its massively important. D4nnyw14 (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should remove distributors until we find a source - it could be either All3Media or Lime Pictures only who have distribution rights. The picture format is HD - but it wasn't always HD so we shall need to find out what it was before it made the switch. Original channel should just be Channel 4, because no other shows account for preview airings and reapeats. I know this seems like nitpicking, but once we perfect it - it is out of the way.Rain the 1 19:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok completely remove distributors unless we find a source. We can find out what came before HD and i agree about the original channel. Where can we look for the format? I have no idea where we can look for this information and most of it we mightn't be able to find. D4nnyw14 (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, Template:Infobox television provides some useful descriptions on what to include in the infobox. - JuneGloom Talk 19:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JG. Danny can you make any sense of what the format was before from this article? [4] It is too technical.Rain the 1 20:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the template link, i'll read over it later. Rain you are right, it is too techniical! I have no idea what it is saying, does it say which camera it was previously recorded on as i don't think it does? D4nnyw14 (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says the camera used but not the actual output - only SDTV but it needs to be more specific.Rain the 1 20:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it could be found from the camera? D4nnyw14 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whats next now? D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look around at the external links - which are needed, what links can be added - what needs removing. Then that is the minor details out the way. Then we should work on a chosen section for a bit.Rain the 1 23:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed 3, 2 were fan sitey and imdb isn't that reliable or useful. I think Lime and E4 should definitely stay, i think DS should stay too, not sure about What's on TV.

On second thoughts, the lime site is pretty rubbish so could also be removed. D4nnyw14 (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a popular character who has been on Hollyoaks for two years (2011-2013), I believe it would be a good idea for Annalise Appleton to recieve her own article. However, I am new to Wikipedia and would like a more experienced editor`s opinion on whether this would be a good idea. Jackedano (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annalise only appeared for about a year and a half but could still have her own article, but the article would need to be properly sourced with out of universe information. I don't know if any editor is willing to take this on at the moment, i planned on working on an article for Annalise but never got round to finishing it. D4nnyw14 (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe User:GSorby also planned on working on an article for her. His draft has attracted a bit of attention from a couple of IPs recently. - JuneGloom Talk 00:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started a sandbox too, George needs to add a template to stop the article appearing on google, that's why the IPs keep editing it. D4nnyw14 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice for an article to be created. But what did she really do other than clean, plan the odd event and romance Rob and Scott? But having said that I have not really searched for information on the character since adding her list entry in the 2011 list.Rain the 1 01:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that some older editors here have gone inactive and rather than letting their drafts languish, I've been moving them to draftspace under Category:Draft-Class Hollyoaks articles. Note that the ones with an AFC banner are subject to WP:G13 if they aren't edited for six months (but they can be WP:REFUNDED). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings WikiProject Television/Hollyoaks task force Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Hollyoaks task force/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Television.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Television, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I invite editors to join the discussion at WP:WikiProject Television to convert many inactive WikiProjects into taskforces, including this one. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I invite editors to join the discussion at WP:WikiProject Television to close inactive task forces, including this one. Gonnym (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]