User talk:TAnthony/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive

  Archive 1
  Archive 2
  Archive 3
  Archive 4
  Archive 5
  Archive 6

Contents

[edit] Sandworms m:OTRS ticket

Hiya. Do you have an account for OTRS? I wasn't able to log in to view the information via the link from David.Monniaux. Was just wondering if you have been able to find out where the complaint came from, etc.

Btw, finally had your fill yet at the Smörgåsbord at the End of the Universe? ;) --SandChigger 22:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have OTRS access but I've put in a request for another OTRS person to take a look at it. I'm sure it's on the level but I can't imagine that the authors or publisher would have an issue with it. I don't think they'll necessarily tell us the exact nature of the complaint and who made it, but I'd certainly like a 2nd opinion.
Um, Smörgåsbord ? TAnthony 17:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandworms of Dune copyright violation

  • 04:47, July 1, 2007 David.Monniaux (Talk | contribs) (1,638 bytes) (copyvio)
  • 04:59, July 1, 2007 TAnthony (Talk | contribs) (3,225 bytes) (Revert/The text is quoted and referenced, it is fine until the book is released and a summary can be written)

I saw your restored a section that had been marked {{copyvio}} and quickly deleted . I have never read any other books, it just happens to sit on my watchlist as naughty page ;-) I would agree that its not direct copyright violation, but maybe change a sentence might help you retain it. Mike33 13:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I get your point, but this is really the only official descriptive information available on the book, and the format and citation make it clear it's a quote. The was written to provide basic info about the forthcoming book and so "is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." I feel like rewriting it kind of waters it down, especially since it is basically a temporary additon. TAnthony 13:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
k I see your point if something is listed as a whole quote (please restrict quote to 500 words or less though) it's useful. thanks for getting back. Mike33 13:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The quote is 197 words. TAnthony 14:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 09:27, July 1, 2007 David.Monniaux (Talk | contribs) (1,638 bytes) (rv copyvio following m:OTRS complaint)

User talk:David.Monniaux:
you deleted via m:OTRS and I can't find the mention. Mike33 19:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not super-attached to the text, but it seems like a pretty convenient turn of events to get your way. TAnthony 19:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
"To get my way?" For the record, I don't give a damn about these silly sci-fi sequels. :-) Ticket is here. David.Monniaux 20:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I wasn't aware of the OTRS before now. I couldn't log in to see the ticket using the link you provided. Could you copy the relevant information to the Sandworms talk page or here? --SandChigger 22:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
No, emails received by the Foundation are confidential. You are not allowed to see them, but you can ask any m:OTRS member to confirm what I said. David.Monniaux 05:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, I am going to get a "second opinion" for the heck of it but I wanted to say (despite my somewhat snarky note above, sorry) that I am sure your edit was in good faith. I assume that your original edit (the one I reverted) was a result of m:OTRS but not noted as such? TAnthony 17:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. The thing is, I sometimes avoid marking OTRS-justified edits as such because that tends to draw attention. David.Monniaux 17:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] m:OTRS edit

User talk:David Gerard:
Hi, I'd like someone to look into a recent edit with m:OTRS as the reason just to get confirmation that the edit was appropriate. The ticket is here. The edit was to Sandworms of Dune; the quoted text was properly cited, is only 197 words and "is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media," so it doesn't seem like a copyright violation to me. Of course, I obviously have no idea what is contained in the m:OTRS file. Thanks in advance. TAnthony 17:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good call to me. The text appears to be a copyright violation but substantially more serious is the concerns expressed in the e-mail we have received that the information presented could negatively effect the ability of the copyright holders to profit from their work. As such, it's not going to fall under our non free media policy and it's removal is quite proper. Nick 22:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response and taking the time to look into this, but ... I think there's some confusion here. It seems to me that the pre-release plot summary rightfully deleted on 30 June would definitely interfere with copyright holders' right to profit from the book, however the book jacket text removed per m:OTRS on 1 July is from the authors' own free website (which was referenced) and is more promotional than anything else. Is it possible that the email received was referring to the summary and that the jacket text was removed in error? TAnthony 00:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It's possible the complaint is regarding the complete spoilers which were removed on 30th June. I'm not entirely happy with the book jacket text also being used. It's still a copyright violation regardless of whether or not there's been a complaint about it and I'm pretty unconvinced the text could fall under our non free media policy. We've clearly touched a raw nerve so it's probably best for all concerned just to leave off adding back any further text taken from other websites. Nick 10:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP Novels question

Is adding "pp" after the number of pages in book/novel infoboxes an established practice in the Project? I've seen you implement this before, but it seems redundant (and kind of ugly) considering that the infobox already puts the word "Pages" right next to the number. TAnthony 14:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Response, There was a very short discussion ages ago about this. "pp" it the standard literary and book trade abbreviation for "pages" i.e. page count where multiple. Editors were putting various things (just the number, nn pages, nn p., nn p, nn pp., or nn pp) it was thought that the better approach was nn pp - if this is to be reconsidered - then so be it. However just having the number doesn't seem to disuade editors from than adding various suffixes, hence the standard suffix. Thanks for the question. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You

Dude, I am suddenly wondering what you look like, do you have a pic anywhere on the web? We cross paths so often I feel like I should have a clear image in my head; so far I think I've been imagining Mr Tumnus, LOL. — TAnthony 05:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

ROTFL!! That made me laugh a LOT :) my web album - there's some pictures of me in there somewhere... Enjoy :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Haha, there is a little Tumnus there, I guess that means your username is a good one. ;) TAnthony 14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I did indeed change my mind on Slut Night. TAnthony 14:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeh, it's a pretty apt username :) And Benjiboi did a great job! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Anirul Corrino

Regarding the article, it has been established in other articles that specific page references don't necessarily need to be made for quotes, etc. if the book itself is listed/source novel made clear. Citing every sentence would be cumbersome and problematic, especially when you factor in multiple editions. TAnthony 18:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, although for direct quotations this is pretty much standard citation practice around the world, so I'd recommend they were at least given that sort of information. ColdmachineTalk 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi TAnthony, the edits to this article are great and certainly improve it. I wanted to say thanks for that. But, I also did want to quietly raise the perception that might come across as WP:OWN from the number of essentially aesthetic edits you are making to the article. This isn't a criticism, or a warning, just a point that it might be coming across that way. I'm assuming good faith here at the moment. ColdmachineTalk 07:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, I'm not offended but I'm also not sure what you mean by my edits. Yes, I'm a perfectionist, and half of what I end up doing on WP is technical cleanup. But most of my recent edits besides adding the 2 notes were to fix links (only the first ref of a word/name should be linked unless subsequent refs are far off) and change the article to present tense (which is correct for fiction). Oh, and "also" was used in 2 phrases in a row in the DE section. I wouldn't necessarily call that aesthetic; to me, aesthetic edits are based on editor preference/opinion, which links and tense are not. I hope you didn't feel like I was trying to steamroll your edits or whatever, but the article coming up on my watchlist gave me the chance to assess it, and my intention was only to improve it (albeit minutely). TAnthony 14:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi TAnthony, oh, no I didn't think you were steamrollering my edits :) I just meant that the tweaks such as moving paragraph ordering around might just come across to other people as that. But, as I say, the article is much improved as a result IMHO. Sometimes that's the great thing about a watchlist: an article can be picked up by someone months later, with an edit or two, and it reminds folk to look over it again down the line and make further improvement. It's looking good to me! ColdmachineTalk 14:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Ratings

You make a good point, but obviously your proposal basically encompasses an entirely new system of assessment; I actually envision a multi-functional template with pre-programmed suggestions and room for customized notes. Many editors do make these kind of notations on talk pages in a less standardized way, and the current WP banner options ("needs photo" etc.) are a bit technical in nature. It would perhaps slow things down, but as a separate, related process it could be very helpful for many articles.
However, I think you're missing the (albeit rudimentary) point of the current system. I think it basically serves to classify articles in a basic way for potential editors; if you're looking for something to work on within a Project, knowing an article's status as a stub or a B-class at least lets you choose something that needs the level of work you're able to attempt at that time. Suggested edits and improvement would of course be helpful, but I don't know that editors are really looking at Talk pages for that kind of advice anyway. TAnthony 03:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProjectBannerShell

There's been a recent uptick in the number of article talk pages that need WPBS. If you have the time/inclination, take a look at SatyrBot's listing? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I did a couple today but will def try to hit the list hard over the weekend. By the way, have you ever thought about coming up with a bot that calculates how many talk pages are using {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} vs. {{WikiProjectBanners}}? I don't know if the Banners guys are as mobilized as we are, and I'm just curious which is the more "dominant" shell at this point. TAnthony 22:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
As of this particular moment, the numbers are:
WikiProjectBannerShell = 13054
WikiProjectBanners = 6143
 :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Heh heh. TAnthony 05:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jessicadune.jpg

Image:Jessicadune.jpg is a great piece of art, and I've given it a fair use rationale to avoid deletion; however, what is the source? Did it come from Stribling's website, or what? If it has not been published in some form, I'm not sure it falls under fair use, and also it may not be appropriate to illustrate the character because it's not a licensed use of the character. Let me know. TAnthony 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The image of Lady Jessica that I have uploaded is from the Stribling website. I am unsure as to whether or not he has given permission for it to be used but I have seen the image on several T-shirts. These may be fan made shirts but if they are not then it must be free-use image. The image was published in a comic book, I believe, but this is only based on the fact that Stribling is a comic book artist. I will look into it and see what I can find. Blurgle Fragle 13:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I did find the image on his site and on DuneInfo.com the other day, so I put the link in the image summary. I also created a stub article for Stribling to help with the image's notability. I'm not sure exactly how the fair use rules apply to something unpublished, but I like the image so we'll see if anyone takes issue with it. TAnthony 14:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knots Landing and Falcon Crest

(Left at User talk:Italianlover07)

I am making a formal request that you please stop adding unimportant and unsourced trivia to these (or any other) articles. This is inappropriate per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections, and the articles already have large trivia sections that need to be edited down or deleted. I am a fan of both shows as well and many of your plot and trvia details interest me, but they are inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. Finally, keep in mind that anything significant enough to be added to the article needs a source if it is not related to general knowledge about the series. Thanks in advance. TAnthony 17:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banner ad request

Hi, I just put your banner ad for WikiProject LGBT studies on my talk page (love it!), and was wondering if, when you have some time, you'd consider doing one for ikiProject Soap Operas? We're trying to pull the Project out of inactivity, and any advertising would help. TAnthony 05:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, just noticed on the {{Wikipedia ads}} page that you're not taking request right now; sorry to bother you, I'll try to do one myself. Thanks. TAnthony 05:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I actually am. What do you have in mind? Miranda 05:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soaps ad and Telenovelas

Hey stranger; I was planning to commission one of those {{Wikipedia ads}} from User:Miranda, thinking that any advertising is a good thing! In case you're not familiar with them, people can put them on their user pages and have single or ever-changing ads for WikiProjects and such. Anyway, I was curious if you had an idea for content. I really don't know where to begin, but was thinking something along the lines of, "Know more about soap opera characters than your own family? Join WikiProject Soap Operas" or something like that. Check out some of the other ones. TAnthony 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, to be honest, I don't much care for them. I think it's plenty to have a WikiProject banner on the article talkpage, and leave it at that. You've been doing a great job of tagging, btw! Building up quite a library.  :) --Elonka 21:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Good point, I won't bother. Speaking of tagging, I just remembered that I had left telenovelas out; I'm thinking it's appropriate to formally include them in the Project, what do you think? We're still having recruitment issues, obviously, and I think it can only help. TAnthony 02:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I definitely think we should include telenovelas in our scope, but not for recruitment reasons. More it's a case of, "If not us, who?"  ;) --Elonka 02:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP Banner sample template compliance

(From Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell)
Thinking forward, is it appropriate for us to add the nesting capability to the WikiProject banner code sample at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Technical notes (and anywhere else it might be for instructional purposes)? It occurred to me that while some editors creating a new WikiProject banner may copy an existing one, others may go directly to the source. TAnthony 03:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The one on /Guide/WikiProject I would, since it has multiple examples, and they support |small (it is a valid analogy.) The other one is just a simple table, though, designed to be as simple as possible. I'd like to add it, but I don't think it would be A Good Thing. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 03:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I decided to be bold and make the changes to /Guide/Technical notes. I also added Category:WikiProject banners into both of them, so new banners based on these examples will be more likely to be categorized. Anomie 14:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CfD closure

Hi, the Cat:Gay Wikipedians CfD discussion you recently closed is not noted on Category talk:Gay Wikipedians, and when if use the "cfdend" template it does not link to the archive properly. Is there another template that will work, or is the discussion somehow archived in the wrong place? Thanks TAnthony 15:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The {{cfdend}} template does not work because it is not suited to UCfD archives (it points automatically to the CfD daily logs). I think the easiest way to record the discussion on the talk page is to simply add a messagebox (based on "cfdend") and manually specify the location, as I've done here. UCfD nominations that result in a keep are often not recorded because it's relatively easy to uncover any previous nominations by looking through the revision history and seeing in what month a category was nominated for deletion. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the fix; I'm obviously not familiar enough with the cfd-related templates to know the proper workaround. And the only reason I care is because this and related categories have been nominated a lot lately (and again today) and I want to preserve previous discussions. TAnthony 16:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Nominated again? I hadn't checked the UCFD page yet, but after looking at it, it seems this nomination is heading toward a "keep" result as well. As for preserving discussions, I can understand your point. It's much easier to simply have a link to previous discussions than to dig through archives to find why a category was kept in the past. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional character history

Hey, I'm not going to revert you or anything, but I wanted to note that I don't think the word "fictional" is necessary in the character history headings, it just makes the phrase awkward. All characters are fictional, otherwise we just call them people ;) Anyway, thanks for all your particpation in WP:SOAPS. TAnthony 13:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw it in some articles of characters in Days of our Lives, but not in any Passions articles. It didn't occur to me that I shouldn't put it in. Thanks for letting me know and sorry about this! :) --Miss Burkle 15:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response; hope you don't think I was trying to reprimand you, it's just my opinion that it's unnecessary. TAnthony 16:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DEFAULTSORT

Hey there, your removal of {{DEFAULTSORT}} (in some of the bio articles you are adding categories to, like Lisa de Cazotte) is inappropriate; perhaps you are unaware that it does the name thing as listing "|De Cazotte, Lisa" after every single category, and that its use is preferred. TAnthony 04:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Class designation of Colleen Brady

I'm not going to change it, but this is not a B-class article by any definition, it is not comprehensive in any way. Just because it has covered all the plot the character was involved in does not make it a complete and meaningful article. It would be deleted on sight in a real quality review.

This stub would be better incorporated into the Brady family (Days of our Lives) article, as Santo DiMera could be folded into the DiMera family article. These family article can then be expanded to become overviews of the family's involvement in the show over its run and become a home/redirect destination for stubs like Renée DuMonde and Megan Hathaway. The DiMera family is more notable as a whole because of their longrunning involvement in and contributions to the show, and the article could be bolstered with quotes and coverage from Thaao Penghlis and Joseph Mascolo, who have been hired and fired so many times there is surely a lot of great material out there in the press.

For the record, I have started or contributed to plenty of articles even less complete and notable than this one. I hate the idea of soap articles being slashed and deleted but the truth is, notability and article guidelines are very strict and very clear, and most of the soap stuff fails. I personally believe much of this material is relevant and would like to see the restrictions changed. In the meantime, we're just lucky the notability police haven't caught on and nominated everything for deletion. Calling this a B-class article is just asking for it. TAnthony 04:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd personally rate this article somewhere between "stub" and "start". For further expansion, I'd like to see more real-world context about the character, such as what's been said about her in newspapers or magazines. So far we just have three links to the nbc.com site. Granted, these are helpful, but can we find anything else, such as a profile in Soap Opera Digest or any kind of mainstream mention? To see an example of a high quality soap character article, see something like Pauline Fowler. --Elonka 04:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Rather than rate it a stub or a start or a B class, why not combine the Santo DiMera and Colleen Brady articles and just have one article for both. Both have been a pain to maintain. People have vandalized them and tried deleting them. Since the story has ended and there's really nothing more to add, let's combine the two into a couples page rather than two stubs/starts/not great articles. Tell me how and I'll be more than happy to take care of it.IrishLass0128 12:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
That is a great idea, especially since they are so intertwined and a lot of the info is redundant. But better yet, how about a Brady-DiMera feud page that covers the conflict from the early days up to and including the Colleen-Santos storyline. This might be a home for some extraneous info from the Stefano DiMera article, and that and other Brady/DiMera articles can refer to this new page rather than cover the feud themselves. TAnthony 13:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Gods, no! Please, no! As one in the fire at a message board where people use Wikipedia to further their own agendas, please, do not add Brady-DiMera feud as even a suggestion. I beg of you!! Yes, that is how bad it is. You will have fights over the retcon of Stefano, you will have fights over the retcon of how the feud started, you will just have a whole bunch of fights. Believe me, I had to walk away from message boards because of all the fighting. Just thinking about it gives me such a headache and having dealt with and currently dealing with editors who's sole purpose in life is to change articles to their way of thinking rather than consensus, a Brady-DiMera feud page would just cause further problems. In all honesty this "feud" is the brainless-child of Hogan Sheffer just so Ali and James could be onscreen together. Making a couples page would address the pair without delving into the not so finer points of the feud. Additionally, I have a feeling, nothing confirmed, that this whole "ending" and possibly entire feud may be revealed to be the makings of Stefano and the Colleen/Santo story may or may not be real. I believe the story is supposed to be real since Shawn has witnessed it all, but I don't believe the feud has anything to do with it. But, as I said, it's just a feeling.IrishLass0128 14:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd be reluctant to have a "couple" page unless we were sure that we had real-world references. Anything that's got a double-name in the title is probably going to be targeted for deletion unless it's well-sourced (we've already had battles at several other "couples" articles). My own recommendation here, would be to add a sentence or two about each character (including a pic) at List of Days of our Lives characters, and then set up this name as a deep redirect to that list: List of Days of our Lives characters#Colleen Brady. Then if more notable information becomes available later, we can easily split things out to a separate article. --Elonka 17:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Without a long diatribe about why I disagree with that, I'll keep it short. I don't agree with or like that idea at all. I find that negates all the previous hard work that went into the articles in the first place. IrishLass0128 18:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued discussion, including Elonka's "Mission Statement"

From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas

I realize I may come off sounding like a jerk here, but I really am just trying to educate. There are so many soap articles, and most are of similar format and quality, which naturally sets a standard and gives an impression of what is acceptable. But on the whole, the bulk of these articles are really in a generally unacceptable state by WP standards.
There are a lot of editors who actively work on soap articles, but unfortunately many people think of WP as an extension of Soap Opera Digest that needs to be updated on every plot point and casting rumor. So much time and energy is spent adding and reverting and reformatting tiny details instead of actually improving articles.
The confusion over what "Start class" means is a perfect example. I spend a lot of time living and breathing these soap articles and it's easy to get caught up in their limited scope. But if we step back and look at it from the greater context of WP as a whole, hopefully my point is clear; compare Marlena Evans to Sarah, Duchess of York (which is Start class, by the way).
Quantity may not necessarily mean anything, but Elonka and I have a lot of experience here (about 58,000 edits between us !!) and have both seen and participated in countless article status nominations, deletions discussions, notability debates and peer reviews for many types of articles. Elonka has a more diplomatic approach than I do, but I'm just trying to remind and educate participants in this Project about the realities, and I think she is too. These articles continue to multiply but not improve, and I fear we will hit a wall sooner or later. I think we've all noticed the recent huge crackdown on fair uses images regarding the enforcement of rationales, etc. All it will take is one AfD-happy editor to target a big chunk of our articles, and we really have no grounds to save them. TAnthony 07:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened yet. We've had a few individual articles targeted, but I think it's just a matter of time before someone goes through and starts nominating articles for deletion en masse. So before that happens, I think it would be a good idea if we, as a WikiProject, figured out a way to get a handle on the problem. I'd rather see the articles improved, than deleted! --Elonka 07:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to retype what I said there ~ I am against adding the contents to a Brady page but I am all for, and I will do it if someone tells me how, to get the two individual articles to redirect to a Colleen Brady and Santo DiMera page. That makes much more sense to me and the individual pages could redirect to the new page. I strongly disagree incorporating the characters into their family pages. It's a "just don't ask thing" that comes from being on message boards but a combined article could be a full B class article. Your comments regarding Thaao and Joe, neither have commented on the storyline, only James Scott and Alison Sweeney have (or maybe I'm reading that wrong). And Joe quit the last time, he was not fired. And I agree about the rumours and spoilers, I find them every day and remove them (you would think I didn't have a real job for all the time I spend removing rumours). I'm all for a combination article because there is little left to be added to either Colleen Brady or Santo DiMera. IrishLass0128 12:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't disagree with a thing you've said, and I'll certainly leave the Days decisions to editors more dedicated to the show. But where you (and others) are still going amiss is that you're still thinking "storylines"; when I mentioned Joe and Thaao in the press, I was talking about their possible comments about the show itself, the impact of the DiMeras on the show and ratings over the years, comments about Jim Reilly's (and Hogan's) handling of them and their characters, etc. I believe both spoke in interviews during the Marlena serial killer storyline (and that when Thaao came back in 2002 he had talked about how he had personally added some business with Tony smoking before the character was killed in 1995 to make it possible that Andre was being killed). That's what most soap articles need right now, real-world context. Again, Pauline Fowler is the ultimate example, Bianca Montgomery is also great, even Alexis Colby is decent. Somewhere in WP guidelines it actually says plot summary info should be kept at a bare minimum; we ignore this because we see some notability and importance there, but we have to remember that the scope of an encyclopedia article is supposed to be real-world first and fiction later. This is not always possible and usually undesirable to us, but it is what it is. TAnthony 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The relevant guidelines here are WP:FICTION, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF (Writing about Fiction). These topics aren't unique to soap articles... Wikipedia has had extensive, long, drawn out, bloody battles about fictional subjects. For example, Wikipedia is often criticized for having more info on individual Pokemon characters, than about bonafide historical subjects. There are many folks who have tried to use Wikipedia an an info repository for fictional subjects: Plot lines of books, "biographies" of every character in a sci-fi series, extensive "battle" articles about space opera warfare in computer games, even collections of recipes for fictional meals. But the result of all these debates among the members of the Wikipedia community, is that the consensus of Wikipedia editors is that we're here to provide an encyclopedia for a general audience, not a collection of plot summaries that are of interest primarily to fans. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and search on "plot summaries". See also Wikipedia:Fancruft.
Now, because of the millions of people around the world that are fans of soap operas, we do have a lot of people flooding in to Wikipedia and creating articles about soap characters, where the "articles" are little more than plot summaries. My own feeling on this (and I think that I'm speaking for most of the members of this WikiProject), is that we accept that these articles are being created in good faith, often because there's confusion about just what Wikipedia is for. So we're fairly tolerant of these articles, as long as it's made clear that they're just stubs in place for later expansion into "real" articles, a la Pauline Fowler. But this is a very generous and tolerant view on our part, and we're well aware that to other editors on Wikipedia who are working on more "serious" subjects, they'd probably be absolutely horrified at the amount of crap low-quality information that's accumulating in the soap topics. And the only reason that most of the soap articles haven't been nominated for deletion, frankly, is because other editors don't want to waste the time to do it. Now, having said that, I think we, here at this WikiProject, can definitely do our best to organize the existing soap articles, categorize them and rate them, and do what we can to try and find a middle-ground between what soap fans want, and what the standards of an encyclopedia are. But in terms of ratings, we should stick with the standards of Wikipedia, not the standards of fandom. And the standards of Wikipedia are that a short article, with little information except a plot summary, is really little more than a stub (see WP:ASSESS). To call it "Start" class is being generous. To call it "B" class is not acceptable, and if it causes enough controversy, is probably just going to increase the chance that the article is going to get nominated for deletion. --Elonka 18:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I do believe that diatribe completely misses the point of the discussion. We are talking in general about how to rate things, diatribes telling people to go other places don't help. As we are attempting to discuss ratings, I have removed the rating leaving the page in the unrated class for now.IrishLass0128 18:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping an open mind!  :) --Elonka 19:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
My minds open, there's just not enough room for that much stuff at one time. :) Remember, I pull this editing stuff off at work. No home computer with internet connection.IrishLass0128 19:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I for one appreciate Elonka's well-crafted comment above and think it's spot-on for this discussion; I am actually going to archive it myself for reference. WP has established rules and conventions, and such "go to" references to back up arguments are an important and essential part of any debate on this or any issue. We can decide whatever we want on this page, but without taking actual WP standards into consideration it means nothing beyond this page. TAnthony 19:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks TAnthony. If you think it's that useful, maybe we should save part of it, and work it into a "Mission statement" on the main WikiProject page? --Elonka 23:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
That is a great idea; as always, you're always one step ahead. — TAnthonyTalk 16:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Composite article?

The Colleen Brady "article" is just a long paragraph with a list of relatives, it would fit totally into a composite article like One Life to Live minor characters or Dynasty minor characters. These are more than lists and the perfect home for stubs and short articles like this one or Santo DiMera. Be sure to incorporate links to notable relatives in the text and you eliminate the need for the infobox or long family lists. TAnthony 18:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's more than one long paragraph, I should know, I fuss at that paragraph time and time again. It's amazing how such a small article is such a point of contention for those who hate the storyline. Your composite article mentioned would be a solution to many, many character pages I've had contention with over the last couple days. Both Willow Stark and Jed Stark along with Conner Lockhart to name just a couple off the top of my head. Is there a page like that for Days yet?IrishLass0128 18:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Easy enough to make! Here: List of Days of our Lives minor characters. If we do a good enough job on it, we could probably even get it nominated for a Featured List. Here's an example of what such a list could maybe look like? List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni. But the One Life to Live format looks good too!  :) --Elonka 19:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The Georgia Institute list is quite nice. But how would it be divided? Families would be too difficult -- a lot of the 'minor' characters never really fit into families. (ie. Marlo, Eugenia, etc) Perhaps organisation by year of first or last appearance if known? D'Amico 07:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The best way is alphabetical by (last) name, and remember, this wouldn't be a list to direct readers elsewhere, it would be a destination for redirects. But if you do go for the table approach, you should use the <span id="Name"/> commands so that the redirects can point directly to the person on the list. See Dynasty minor characters and Minor characters of Rome for how this is used, or I can help. TAnthony 16:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
For example, the link Caress Morell takes you directly to her listing even though she's far down the list. TAnthony 16:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ciara Brady and other children

I was looking at the Ciara Brady page and realized her entire history is all about Hope. There is no relevant information on the page that could not be incorporated into the Hope Brady page. There are other children of major characters with the same kind of pages. Is there a consensus of what should be done or a way to tag these pages other than with a stub tag?IrishLass0128 20:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of no consensus here, and as a matter of fact most of the soaps have the countless stubs you describe. Obviously I'll leave it to dedicated Days editors to decide based on the content, but Jane Winthrop of Passions redirects to her mother (like Ciara, there's not much to say about the child individually) which works. Of course, One Life to Live children is another example of a composite article for longer-but-still-minor entries (individual names like Jack Manning redirect to the appropriate sections). I think that might be a great approach for Days. Be bold! TAnthony 20:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Be bold! Oh, if only I could. I do think Ciara should redirect to Hope Brady and not have her own page. I also think the Zack Brady page falls into the same category of "redirect to the mother" but that list idea is looking better and better the more I delve into this project. If others agree with the idea, other than you and I TAnthony, I will continue forward.IrishLass0128 12:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well--it's a great idea! There can be little subarticles in the main article on the child(ren). Will the same be done for the other children, Tyler Kiriakis, Claire Kiriakis, etc? I'd be very willing to help out with these aritlces, IrishLass and TAnthony! --Miss Burkle 01:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Zack Brady is probably the only child character on DAYS I can see potentially meeting the criteria for having his own page simply because of the storylines that revolved around his character. Unless a child character can have significant storylines that cannot all be found in one place (the PSSN character of Little Ethan could arguably merit his own page), they don't appear to meet the Wikipedia criteria of validity. Other soap kids that could arguably merit their own page could include Michael Corinthos III (in part because the actor is actually on contract -- a rarity for soap children). On the other hand, children like D.J. Craig Jr. (Marlena and Don's son on DAYS who died of SIDS) may not be notable. The only truly notable thing about D.J. (which may not even be) is that he's the only soap child I can think of whose death was attributed to SIDS. D'Amico 07:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
D'Amico, it's funny you mention Zack because even his page is all about Chelsea and others and not him. In reality, he did have very little to do other than that two month arch. D.J. I do believe is the only child to have died from SIDS but part of that is because we figured out kids shouldn't sleep on their stomaches thus reducing dramatically that COD. The Tyler and Claire pages should not exist, IMO. What about each show having a "Children of XXXX Soap" page and doing it in the format suggested by TAnthony? IrishLass0128 12:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I noted this at Talk:Colleen Brady but wanted to add it here: If you do go for the "table-style" approach, you should use the <span id="Name"/> commands so that the redirects can point directly to the person on the list. See Dynasty minor characters and Minor characters of Rome for how this is used, or I can help. TAnthony 16:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
For example, the link Caress Morell takes you directly to her listing even though she's far down the list. TAnthony 16:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It's unfortunate the page for Zack isn't really about him. If handled properly, it could be a great page and worthy for it's own purposes. A Children of XXX page could be an excellent idea, because it won't need to be renamed when a child eventually gets it's own page. And it can be added to / removed at any time. The one major problem? Users who will constantly create pages for these children. On the bright side, it also gives a place to put the 'children of importance who were never really there' -- like Sarah Winthrop, a stillborn child who has her own page. D'Amico 21:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I also want to suggest that you not name it a "List" as fair use images are usually not permitted for use in lists per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable images. — TAnthonyTalk 21:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox soap character

[edit] From User talk:TAnthony

Hey, TAnthony, would you be willing to change the soap opera character infobox you created from the color purple? I haven't read the Wikiproject Soap Operas talk page about your new soap opera character infobox yet, but I'm about to. The reason that I know about your discussing it there is because I have that talk page (that article, rather) on my watchlist, and have seen it be very active lately, but due to being busy with other issues, I didn't pop in over there to read all of the recent activity. I instead observed the title sections that I could see and what was written in the edit summaries at times.

I'll go there to give my thoughts on this matter. The only problem I have with the new character infobox that I see at this moment is the color, as I just saw an All My Children character article that you added the infobox to. I prefer us leaving the color as grey. And while including the series isn't about this new character infobox you created, I feel that having the series at the top of a character infobox is redundant and isn't needed. Anyway, I'm off to the talk page I mentioned above. I have a lot of recent topics over there to read. Flyer22 18:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that there is something else I'd like done to the soap opera character infobox, TAnthony. And that's size. While applying this new infobox to the Babe Carey article, I noticed that there wasn't a way to adjust its size. I know that you already formatted the size of what an image will be within this infobox, but I'd still like the option to adjust size a little when it comes to this. The images in the Babe Carey character infobox look a little big (well, the first one, the one of Amanda Baker, is actually really big in reality when unsized from its original form, but anyway), and I'd like to make them a little smaller.
By the way, do you mind the way that I formatted the relationships in both the Bianca Montgomery and Babe Carey articles? I didn't use the line breaks that you prefer, but rather bullet points. Another thing is... I want to say that I really love this character infobox. Not only is it unique, but you've really taken care of the lists problem that would ugly-up the bottom of the soap opera character articles. Thank you! Flyer22 16:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From User talk:Gungadin and User talk:TAnthony

Thanks for your comments on the new box; I was certainly expecting compromises, but I knew the most frustrating part of this would be getting across the point of general notability to a lot of the soap editors. They really don't see sorry state the soap articles in general are in, because they refuse to look at WP as a whole and see how in-universe we are! — TAnthonyTalk 20:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey TAnthony, no worries, I fully agree with what you are trying to do, and I think you're doing a great job of getting the soap project into order. From seeing a few of the messages on the project talkpage, it seems that some editors dont appreciate that you are actually on their side, and that you are just trying to implement a compromise that will help to appease policy-pushers. More ruthless editors would just go ahead and delete all the information without a second thought, and having the relationships in a collapsible infobox is better than not having them in the article at all :) Gungadin♦ 22:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Gungadin, I hope that you know that I appreciate what TAnthony is doing on this matter. I only object to the original color he implemented for the character infobox, and the notion of having the series a character is from in the character infobox, especially at the top. Flyer22 22:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Flyer, I wasnt meaning to be discourteous to anyone with the above message, and certainly not you. Ive seen all the brilliant work you've done on the US soap articles, and I know you are working especially hard to transform the project. All i meant is that some users may not realise that TAnthony is trying to implement changes purely for the good of the project, and not necessarily for his own personal taste. Of course I understand why people are opposed to changing all the hard work they've done, and It can also take someone a long time to get to know fiction policy here. Me included. It took me about a year of editing before I started including out of universe information in my articles. My edit history is littered with tons of articles that contain pure plot summary and no sources. To be honest I would prefer it if we were allowed to just include plot summary. It is so much easier to write, and it's all I'm really interested in , lol Gungadin♦ 22:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Gungadin, I had/have the better sense to know what you meant by the above comment concerning some editors who may not appreciate what TAnthony is doing on this matter. But just in case, I stated what I did. Not sure if I would prefer an article on a fictional character be all plot summary. After having gotten so used to the fact that we should have out-of-universe information included within fictional character articles on Wikipedia, I see it as so much better now, especially with the detail it gives on characters...besides plot. Anyway, you two know that I really appreciate the work you both do on Wikipedia. I'll talk with you guys later. Flyer22 23:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, you two, for the thoughtful comments and discussion; obviously Flyer, I know you also "get it" when I'm "pushing" changes. I of course expected changes/compromises/suggestion to the infobox, like your color/series ones. — TAnthonyTalk 00:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, if the original comment was to me, you took my statements the wrong way. I was offering opinion and asking questions, not criticizing. What you need to understand is how many info boxes I've added using the old form and my gut reaction was having to do it all over again. But I also have the perspective of being fairly new to editing (but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate TAnthony's work). What it means is I see things from the perspective of a newer user and know what confused me when I first came here. That's why I asked what I asked, to be helpful, not ungrateful. I certainly appreciate all the effort, but that appreciation doesn't stop me from asking questions or offering concerns. While I don't mind intelligently going along with something, I do mind being a lemming and blindly following along.
Sorry if you took my words as criticism, TAnthony, it was not meant to be that way. IrishLass0128 16:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From User talk:Flyer22

I'm going to implement the new infobox on as many soap articles as I can using AWB (just a simple switch). But out of courtesy to you, I'm going to leave the "series" parameter out of the AMC ones. — TAnthonyTalk 03:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha. I noticed that.
We need to hurry up and get all of their relationships in this infobox then. I really don't want any newbie or random (or, heck, not-so-newbie) Wikipedian editors thinking that this new soap opera character infobox doesn't matter, and that the lists of relationships at the bottom of these soap opera character articles will remain even with this new soap opera character infobox. Flyer22 03:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This seems rather sneaky and underhanded the way you say it. Not all the editors on the project have weighed in on the new box. Rushing to implement seems rather underhanded and self serving. Sorry, but it has the "I'm right, I'm doing it my way" mentality and having dealt with that carp all weekend in regards to another editor, this move has a very underhanded feel. I really wish you would wait.CelticGreen 03:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
From experience, I know that we probably won't get much more input. Anyway, I'm not going to start getting rid of the lists or anything, so really the switch will not change a thing and basically not be noticable; the basic functions of the two infoboxes are identical. — TAnthonyTalk 03:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if you knew about this new soap opera character infobox, CelticGreen, since I saw IrishLass giving thoughts on the Wikiproject Soap Operas talk page, but not you. I will be getting rid of these lists and will rather place them in the character infobox. I'll leave the Days of our Lives characters for you and IrishLass to decide. The only thing that this soap opera character infobox doesn't allow that the lists at the bottom of these soap opera character articles do is lists about Friends or Enemies, or some other unnecessary list. Flyer22 04:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

TAnthony, you really are applying this soap opera character infobox quite fast. What my watchlist is mostly displaying at this moment is...(Apply new ((Infobox soap character)) using AWB). I'm not complaining though. Flyer22 05:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that you changed the placement of the mention of the series that a character is from; it's no longer at the top. I like that a lot better than it being at the top where the character's name is. Other character infoboxes have it at the top and like I just noted on, I don't like that too much. Now I don't mind the series aspect to this character infobox. Flyer22 06:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
And it doesn't state One Life to Live character, All My Children character, etc. It rather just states whichever show it means, without the character part added on, which is a plus. Flyer22 06:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't change it, that's always been the way I designed it ... let me know if you want me to use AWB to insert the AMC ones for ya. — TAnthonyTalk 06:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, that must have been a part of the previous character infobox format used within yours in a few that I saw one editor apply soap opera character infoboxes to, or it wasn't your soap opera character infobox at all. And, yes, apply them to the AMC ones. Go for it. I'm about to get rid of all the relationship lists at the bottom of those articles, and then come back to them to add them in the infobox, of course. Maybe in the meantime, seeing no Family and relationships section at the bottom of these articles will prompt some random soap opera Wikipedian editors to add them in the infobox instead, since this infobox has a drop-down list marked as Relationships, which will no doubt draw on their curiosity to click on it to see how or if any relationships are formatted within it. Flyer22 06:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don't know if you should remove the lists before adding the info to the infobox, you may freak people out and have them think you're vandalizing the pages. What I've done is say "Merging relationship data into new infobox" or something in the edit summary to spell out what's happening. I'm also assuming that my noting the template name in my switchover edit summaries will encourage interested people to check out the template directly and see what the deal is. — TAnthonyTalk 14:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Though the thought of being mistaken for a vandal briefly crossed my mind on this front earlier, nah. I don't feel that I'll freak people out, not unless the freaking has to do with the want for those annoying lists. Editors who edit Wikipedia often and are familiar with checking an article's edit history should know what's the deal, considering that my edit summaries explain what I'm doing on that front. I may even mention per talk page of Wikiproject Soap Operas to better clarify. I'm certain that I won't be mistaken for a vandal by the more experienced Wikipedian editors. And newbie or random Wikipedian editors should understand if they check an article's edit history, where they will see my edit summary. What I've actually seen is an IP-address editor be identified as a vandal for having added a friends list and an enemies list to the Family and relationships section of a soap opera character article. So it seems to be more so the other way around as far as vandalism is concerned, though that person didn't use an edit summary, and IP addresses aren't as trusted by Wikipedia over a registered account on Wikipedia (obviously due to most vandalism on Wikipedia occuring from IP address accounts). I feel that these lists should be removed with the addition of the new soap opera character infobox to a soap opera character's article. Otherwise, it will still appear as though these lists are truly accepted and that they should be kept, even though the information should be in the character infobox instead. Flyer22 15:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure, that sounds fine since you monitor the AMC articles and will be able to note any disruption. By the way, I noticed you implementing the color red (looks good!) but I purposely didn't auto-add that to all the AMC characters because I thought it might help you easily differentiate which articles you've worked on and which you haven't. — TAnthonyTalk 16:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, regarding your preference for bullet points within the infobox: I don't have a stylistic issue with it but it seems to mess up the infobox display (see this version of David Hayward. I've removed them where I've noticed them for only this reason. I don't think this should happen, so I'll look at the template to see if I can figure out what's going on. — TAnthonyTalk 18:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
So far I've only noticed the issue in "Occupation" (obviously located before the Relationships section), the bullets seem to be fine within the Relationships section (see Bianca Montgomery). It's probably a conflict with the collapsing feature itself. — TAnthonyTalk 19:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed with the Krystal Carey article how the bullet points mess up this new character infobox, so I took the bullet points away from her character infobox for now (or maybe for good). If it's easier for me to just add line breaks instead of you trying to once again re-adjust this character infobox for another matter, then I will. Or I just won't use bullet points for the Occupation part. As for your not implementing the color I've chosen for the character infobox for All My Children, you mean to help me differentiate which All My Children character articles I've cut the Family and relationships sections from, right? For a brief second, I thought you meant that you were going to apply the color red because I mentioned on the Wikiproject Soap Operas talk page that if I had to choose a color for AMC, I'd choose red. And that you didn't apply the colors for me because you felt that it (the All My Children character articles remaining grey) would help me differentiate which soap opera character articles I had worked on in general, but then I shook that off as plain silly that my mind even briefly though that. I mean, as for fictional character articles, you know that I work on more than the All My Children ones, though those are the primary fictional character articles that I work on. Flyer22 21:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Flyer22, yes, I was looking around over the weekend and saw the new info box. Sorry my comments were harsh, I had a bad wiki weekend dealing with rude people and what not. I can't say I like the idea or don't like the idea. Haven't given it much thought. Again, just wanted to say sorry if I came off harsh. CelticGreen 22:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You seemed to be responding to TAnthony, which, yes, I felt was harsh. But if you were responding to me, I accept your apology. If it was toward TAnthony, then I cannot answer for him on that matter. If it was for the both of us, well, I've already stated my half. Sorry about your terrible weekend. Flyer22 23:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The apology was to both. I have nothing against what's happening, I was just really having a bad weekend. TAnthony, sorry to you too. CelticGreen 23:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As I noted earlier on your talk page, CelticGreen, I was not offended/insulted by your comment; you made a good point and I hope I was able to reassure you. — TAnthonyTalk 23:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From User talk:CelticGreen

I just wanted you to know that I appreciate your concern about my mass-implementing the new infobox. I am honestly just trying to "Be Bold" and not sneakily trying to get my way. Sadly, more discussion usually occurs over individual articles than Project-wide issues.
I want to reassure you that when "applying" the new infobox I am simply switching {{Infobox character}} to {{Infobox soap character}} and adding the series name where I can. There is really minimal visual and functional difference between the two templates on a basic level. I will not be removing relationship lists or anything like that on a mass basis, and particularly not in Days articles, which I believe is your area of expertise and not one of the shows I regularly edit.
Also, keep in mind that having our "own" template in the Project gives us more control; so if we decide we want a "step-great-grandchildren" parameter or something, we only have to debate amongst ourselves and not a larger group; the regular character template has to apply to film, television, book and play characters (among others) and so many potential changes are attacked form all sides. — TAnthonyTalk 17:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of LGBT characters in modern written fiction

Great quote you added to the article! --BelovedFreak 19:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AWB Question

So tonight I encountered someone making hundreds of changes using AWB and I see you used it to do the soap infobox. In simple terms what is it because the edits the other editor was making drove me buggy and he made over 100 in seemingly minutes. I want to understand it and maybe combat it in certain incidents. It seems to be a tool that's being abused. Obviously not by you, but by some. Thanks for the help. CelticGreen 00:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically how it works is that you program it to do a task; let's say, replace all incidences of Hope Brady with Hope Williams Brady. Then you choose a group of articles, usually by a category or something, like Category:Days of our Lives characters. then you run it; it opens each page and implements the change, but for each one you have approve or skip the edit. It can also suggest other basic technical fixes, and you can manually make other changes to each page as necessary before proceeding. So it doesn't run unmonitored, but the user can hit "OK" pretty fast. This is different than a Bot, which runs automatically but is more complicated to program and must be officially approved before running. What kind of "bad" edits was this user doing? — TAnthonyTalk 00:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I get the explanation. For your use, it makes sense. It was just severely odd for the other editor's use. I do thank you and give you kudos/much appreciation points for your comments about "top of page". Unsolicited support is always a welcome surprise. CelticGreen 01:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The main "Soap Opera" article and fan boards

It was my understanding fan board, message boards, non-official sites weren't supposed to be listed under "external links" but there are a bunch in that article. I removed a couple that were blatant this morning. What is the official rule?IrishLass0128 12:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy itself is discussed at Wikipedia:External links, which of course is both specific and vague; note #2 (unverifiable research), #11 (forums) and #12 (blogs/personal sites) in the section Links normally to be avoided. I think it's pretty much a common sense thing: a site where anyone can write anything without a source can't be relied upon, and I think your instincts are good. I would argue that there are instances where fan sites or whatever may be notable or useful or of interest, but for the most part the bulk of these sites have limited (if any) encyclopedic value and are increasingly redundant of each other. Good catch! — TAnthonyTalk 15:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)