Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Following the discussion to amend the usage of "past" to "former", I wanted to open up a discussion on the lists of past characters – specifically Hollyoaks, Emmerdale, EastEnders, Corrie, Neighbours and Home and Away. Since we agreed to use "former" in the character infobox, should the title of the article that it redirects to reflect that change? So, I'm proposing that the six listed articles be moved to "List of former [soap] characters". There would need to be a lot of link changes if the articles were renamed, but these edits could be performed in moments with autowikibrowser, so don't let the idea of a "large edit task" make you oppose the move, since it wouldn't be a large task. Let me know what you think! – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 13:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

There'll be a redirect in place so the links won't need changing straight away, surely? They can be changed if/when editors come across them. - JuneGloom07 Talk 00:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, so it's not an urgent task by any means. The only thing that won't work is the landing to a specific section. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 01:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Soaper1234, Raintheone, DaniloDaysOfOurLives, 5 albert square, and AnemoneProjectors: Just pinging some soap editors here to see if we can get a consensus to amend the page titles to former. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 15:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

We already have the consensus. Just someone needs to make the edits. Unfortunately I can't use AWB on my Chromebook and I don't have enough spare time to do such a big job at the moment.-- 5 albert square (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the ping. I guess it makes sense for these to match up. The consensus was to use "former" in infoboxes, then we refer to them as "former characters". How many pages would need to be moved? — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 15:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@AnemoneProjectors: That's okay! The "past" pages are Hollyoaks, Emmerdale, EastEnders, Corrie, Neighbours and Home and Away. As June pointed out, the redirects that would be created will mean that it will redirect to the correct article, but the piping will break that leads a user to "Last appeared in 2017", for example. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 16:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I was under the impression that section anchors still work with redirects. For example, check out this link: Albert Square#Turpin Road. Albert Square is a redirect to Walford#Albert Square but that link still takes you to the Turpin Road section. So the links won't be broken. So we would just need to do 6 page moves and the rest should be fine. Unless it breaks in certain browsers? But it's fine in mine. I could do some work in AWB though. I just reinstalled it yesterday! — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 16:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@AnemoneProjectors: Oh! I believed it broke anchored redirects. Glad to be wrong since it means less work! I guess, like 5 albert square said, we have the consensus that "former" is preferred to "past", so I can perform the moves now? – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 17:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: I don't see why not. The only pages you should need to edit are navigation templates, the rest can be left as redirects, at least for now. However, see the reply I'm about to put to you on my talk page. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 17:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

An issue has arose on List of General Hospital cast members. Some actors did not appear in 2020 due to covid and have reappeared this year, so I change the duration to say "xxxx–2019, 2021" as to say that they have appeared since xxxx is a lie, as they have not appeared in 2020. To a reader this assumes that the character has appeared in 2020, when they have not. MOS specifically says to include the years that the character/actor appeared onscreen, not if they were on contract etc. The cast and character lists for years have been about whether the actor/cast member has appeared in that year, and since they didn't appear in 2020, they should not be counted – and I am not doing this to be mean of course, it is simply because if this was a rule, this would mean that A LOT of characters/cast members would have their durations shortened. And durations are speficially there so say whether the person in question appeared on screen that year, and I don't think it should be changed just due to covid DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Why does Beth Jordache from the UK soap opera Brookside not have a wikipedia profile? Played by Anna Friel from 1993-95 is the most iconic character from that show, having had the first lesbian kiss in soap history and the infamous killing of the father who sexually abused her and burying him under the patio? What perplexes me is that relatively minor Brookside characters have been written extensive profiles but Beth has nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ATGreen85 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@ATGreen85: Write her an article then – see WP:YFA for help. – DarkGlow • 00:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi folks. Just a quick heads-up: many articles belonging to this project, especially about British soap operas such as EastEnders, Neighbours, and Emmerdale, rely on references from the deprecated tabloid Daily Star. Per WP:DAILYSTAR these references should be removed or replaced as soon as possible. You can use this search to find articles using the Daily Star. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: Hi – I'm relatively sure some soap editors were looking into a carve out for the source on soap articles – Northern & Shell own Daily Star, who also owned Channel 5 (a network of a few soaps) therefore editors feel it is a reliable source for soap reporting. I'm not sure where said carve out is, so I'll ping Raintheone who I'm sure was handling it. – DarkGlow • 12:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I can follow that reasoning. But the Daily Star being deprecated means it "is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited." (WP:DEPREC). Robby.is.on (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: I know about deprecated sources so I know it's likely a matter of time before someone starts to remove the sources; that's why I thought it best to inform you of the potential carve. Therefore, it's perhaps best to wait on removing them until there's a result on that? I'm relatively sure David Gerard is aware of this too. – DarkGlow • 12:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to let you all know, I have started a discussion on a potential carve out for the soap coverage of WP:METRO on the RSN. Feel free to contribute. – DarkGlow • 13:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a project consensus over images of former actors for long-standing soap characters. I notice that these have now been removed at Janine Butcher after a long period (they were, in fairness, just two images of young girls from over 20 years ago), yet remain at Ben Mitchell (EastEnders), for instance. I was considering whether images of one or both of the previous Lucy Robinsons would be fair use, as that article discusses the image change that went along with her recast to the current actor. U-Mos (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@U-Mos: I'd say it was fair use. The photo has to provide something significant to the reader, and if there is detailed information on her image, it could be included as fair use. – DarkGlow • 13:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: Thanks, I gave it a go at Lucy Robinson (Neighbours)#Reception. U-Mos (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@U-Mos: As there is already an image of Melissa Bell as Lucy in the article, I think it would've made more sense to upload images of Flinker and Close, with a caption mentioning the changes between all three actors. There's also a couple of comments about the image change from the first Lucy too, as well as more casting and characterisation info for Flinker's version of the character. - JuneGloom07 Talk 23:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@JuneGloom07: That was my initial intention, but on going to the article I felt that there wasn't any substantial commentary to warrant an image of Flinker, with the discussion primarily regarding the transition to Bell's most established version of the role from the child actors who preceded her. And Bell's Lucy in the early 90s looks markedly different from the infobox image of her twenty years on - the latter cannot signify the teenage 'bimbo' description of her early years. U-Mos (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mrs Tembe#Requested move 3 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. I hope that you will comment there. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia talk:SOAP and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 1#Wikipedia talk:SOAP until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DB1729 (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I've just added a quick note to the main soap opera article about Neighbours being axed. Someone should go through that page and check if anything else needs to be updated as a result of that show ending. Digifiend (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute regarding a paragraph of prose on the Coronation Street article where other editor input would be helpful, currently being discussed at Talk:Coronation Street#April Fools Prank. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Douglas Potts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Potts until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

(Oinkers42) (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

A discussion about changes to the above template was opened a week ago, but it doesn't appear to have been mentioned here or at other relevant WikiProjects. Please feel free to join in with the discussion about the changes, or add any suggestions of your own on how to improve the template here. - JuneGloom07 Talk 23:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Whitney Dean is a 2008 GA with a 6k+ word storylines section. I'm posting here in case anyone would like to trim it down by 80%, otherwise I'm going to create a GAR. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Same thing applies to Abi Branning, Dot Cotton, Cora Cross, Fatboy (EastEnders), and Chrissie Watts. These are all pre-2012 GAs that have just ballooned over the years and need to be cut back quite a bit. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Following the above discussion, I thought it may be worth adjusting the limit for storylines section on articles falling within this WikiProject scope. Currently, guidance states "Storyline summary; 500-1000 words maximum". However, this does not seem practical for characters with more screen time, even when condensed down. For example, Paul Robinson (Neighbours) has a 6081 words word count, which seems appropriate for character with plenty of screen time over the course of ~25 years. However, on the other side, I would expect characters with shorter amounts of screen time (e.g. Lydia Simmonds who appeared prominently for 3 months) to have a smaller word count. The main point here is that we need to look at changing the limits for storyline sections in character articles. I am pinging some editors for their opinions on the matter: @JuneGloom07, Raintheone, AnemoneProjectors, 5 albert square, Meena, DaniloDaysOfOurLives, and Therealscorp1an:. Feel free to ping others that I've missed so we can reach a consensus. Soaper1234 - talk 21:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey, apologies for the lateness. I actually was thinking above starting this discussion as I was thinking the exact same thing! I think for many characters that have appeared for a long time 1000 words is way too short. So I agree 100% with extending the word count. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Paul Robinson (Neighbours) is absolutely not an appropriate example. When it was promoted to GA in 2010, the storyline section was almost exactly 2k words--and as you note that has now tripled. That article should also be cut down significantly in order to maintain GA status. Nearly a decade of his storyline is summarized in four paragraphs, but then 2004-present takes twenty-three. It's clear where the unbalance is, and how fans expand storyline sections over time beyond what is needed for a general summary. Wikipedia is not a soap opera wiki, which is where that level of detail belongs. Alyo (chat·edits) 06:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Alyo: Ok, but if when promoted to GA, it was at 2k words, this was surely deemed an appropriate length. This works out approximately at 154 words per year on-screen (~13 years) for Paul and would mean an appropriate length of 3850 words now, which does not factor in how the number of episodes per year increased over that period, meaning more screen time and more storylines. I will just stress that the objective to this discussion is to increase the word limit, but not dramatically so. Just to a reasonable amount that can be appropriate for characters with more screen time. Soaper1234 - talk 15:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Err, no, that just means the GA passed. The WP:SOAP guidance at that time was still 500 words with greater allowance for the most notable characters. Just because a single reviewer at that time thought the storyline section was acceptable does not become a baseline from which to extrapolate and add 150 words per year. There are clear policy-based reasons described here why storyline sections should be kept manageable. Saying "500 words doesn't seem practical" (especially when there's already a caveat for more notable characters) isn't a sufficient answer to those policies imo, I'm sorry. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Sally St. Claire is a close example of what we currently "allow" at 976 words, albeit much longer storyline sections have become normalised. My laptop is at default font size and that section takes up my screen - which I think is enough. I don't usually deem storyline sections as worthy content, as I prefer to read and create sourced development sections. They definitely serve a purpose for older or niche storylines where the only source is the series itself, but other than that, if it can be sourced further down an article in development, why have it in storylines? – Meena • 11:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it is difficult to write a short plot section for characters who appear over decades. I would not be against the limit being changed for long-term characters providing it is within reason and everything really needs to be there to help the general reader understand. That seems non-controversial to me. Whether that is a blanket change or consideration on a case-by-case basis? In this case - I think Paul Robinson's storyline section is too long and needs condensing. I have done well to have been unbiased since I do not like storyline sections. Some of you here may have noticed I have not included them in my contributions for years now.Rain the 1 18:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to ask you guys which you think should be used when a character has been portrayed by several actors so that there can be some consistency: whether it should be "character (actor 1/ actor 2)" or "character (actor 1, actor 2)". E.g:

1.) "The character was later married to Ridge Forrester (Ronn Moss/ Thorsten Kaye)"

2.) "The character was later married to Ridge Forrester (Ronn Moss, Thorsten Kaye)"

I thought that #1 was the correct one but now I am unsure. What do you guys think? I think the first one is better personally. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I would use a slash (/) personally. – Meena • 11:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey! Per MOS:TVPLOT, it says to not include actors' names in the plot. I am very confused as I thought it was a requirement/strongly recommended to add actor names, which is what I have been doing for the articles I am making/have made. This is often missing in USA soaps, so I have been adding them as I have been drastically cleaning up some storyline sections (such as Thorne Forrester and Mackenzie Browning). So I wanted to ask what the consensus is – whether actor names should be continued to say in storyline sections. I think personally they should, and technically Storylines aren't 100% as plot, especially as plots are usually for movies/TV shows which already has a cast list beforehand. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Since there have been unfortunately no replies, I wanted to ask again. The reason I asked is because I saw on Talk:Neighbours 30th Anniversary that actor names were recommended to be removed to comply with the MOS. I think however storyline sections are separate to plot sections as character pages do not have a list of characters/cast members like films/TV shows/episodes often do. I think that actor names should be next to the character but I wanted to bring this up to nip this in the bud/add it to the soap guidelines? Also just to clarify, I am not criticising the comment on the GA nomination or anything AT ALL - I just wanted to clarify :) Pinging @Meena, Raintheone, TAnthony, Adamstom.97, Soaper1234, Therealscorp1an, and JuneGloom07: (I am so so sorry if I have missed anyone) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey, there is this discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Hollyoaks characters (I did not start it) which might interest people here. I have commented my views there but thought that others may be interested in contributing. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I would like to implore all soap editors to comment on this as the future of every soap former character list and even annual character lists are being questioned on the above linked discussion. JuneGloom07, Soaper1234, Raintheone, AnemoneProjectors, Livelikemusic, Conquistador2k6, TAnthony and anyone else that happens across this. – Meena • 14:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Meena: Thank you for the ping; will be taking an immediate look at this. livelikemusic (TALK!) 01:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The article Will Davies (Hollyoaks) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced since 2009, nothing found with WP:BEFORE.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The article Carrie Owen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

More citations needed since 2009, literally only sources IMDB, nothing found via WP:BEFORE.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Darlene Taylor (Hollyoaks) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darlene Taylor (Hollyoaks) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

(Oinkers42) (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

With the recent surge in AfDs, PRODs, merges and general scrutiny on soap articles, I believe it's time we took collaborative action on the state of articles. Whether we like it or not, many of the soaps' early articles are in a bad way and we have all ignored it for too long (myself included, no blame here). I'd like to propose a project where the community improve an article (or a small few) each week so that we can get the standards up. I could potentially make a table with info for when we would improve each article, beginning with Hollyoaks listicles and gradually moving on to Hollyoaks character articles, and then other soaps afterwards.

I would only wanna set this up if there are editors that will actually do it with me. I don't expect undying loyalty where you sign your name up and are expected to improve the entire face of the project, but I'd hope for some form of dedication to the project, as we all care about the soaps and want to improve the site. You don't have to edit every soap either, if you only watch certain ones, feel free to dip in and out. Pinging soap editors to see if anyone is interested in joining / suggesting anything. JuneGloom07, Soaper1234, Raintheone, AnemoneProjectors, Livelikemusic, Conquistador2k6, TAnthony, Adavid299, Connorguy99, Yoshi876, Andyplymouth, DaniloDaysOfOurLives. Aaaaand anyone else that sees this! – Meena • 17:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I know we have been discussing this privately so maybe it might be a bit redundant to reply but I 100% agree. The recent PRODs and deletions etc have been extremely saddening to myself and I assume to much of the soaps community. I have been trying these past few months to source more articles and add reception and more real life information to the lists and articles in order to improve them and I will continue doing so, especially with the early yearly/decades lists (my main focus was on The Bold and Beautiful lists as they needed more work but now I will also shift to Hollyoaks early lists too). I already have begun trying to improve List of Hollyoaks characters (1997). I also wanted to note that it would be extremely appreciate if editors who have physical sources (mostly "Inside Soap") could help as well, as they have a lot of information about earlier characters too, so please do help! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hollyoaks is the only soap that I do watch, I'm more than happy to help out where I can, I began watching in 2013, so things before then are a little alien to me. Table would be really good to have set up to see what needs to be done. I can't pledge to be the most active person, but I'm will to help out where I can. Yoshi876 (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hiya, agree with both of you that there’s been a spate of deletions of late; not sure if something has prompted it but it’s frustrating, especially when information is accurate but just has issues with sourcing. Sourcing is something I’m fairly obsessive about and whilst I don’t have physical sources am reasonably good at tracking stuff down if it’s out there somewhere.

I currently watch EastEnders, Emmerdale and Hollyoaks, which is the latest soap I started watching in 2016. I’m a literally never miss an episode person. Andyplymouth (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives, Yoshi876, and Andyplymouth: Amazing that we already have the support of 4 editors incl. myself! I'll draw up a table later and take article length into consideration when allocating. Thinking 1-3 articles each week. The table will be located on a subpage but I'm gonna display it on this talk page and the main WP:SOAPS page too. – Meena • 09:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! I’ve not done ‘organised’ editing before, tend to just update stuff if and when I notice it so can I ask is this just be a case of focusing on what’s current on that table or do I need (or more accurately would it be helpful) to do anything else? Andyplymouth (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Although I wasn't pinged and probably would only be able to help with Neighbours articles, I'm in. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Therealscorp1an, hi, I've seen your comments in a fair few discussions but don't think we've ever really interacted as I don't watch the Aus soaps. But would love to have you on-board! – Meena • 10:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

All good! I'd love to be off assistance where possible. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Update I have made a table of articles to be improved on what weeks. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas/Improvement drive. – Meena • 11:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I will help but it does seem like a drive to improve Hollyoaks articles. I think there are other articles that need attention first. Characters put forward for improvement such as Darren, Cindy and Nancy hardly need saving from the brink of deletion. Sure, they need updating but so does nearly every character. Characters such as Jodie Nash and Scott Anderson could have been worked on rather than merged. The 1997 character list is up for deletion yet no one has done anything to improve it. Who is adding sources today? Lets go crazy and churn out edits..Rain the 1 10:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The articles I've put forward to begin with are all Hollyoaks as these are what are being targeted at present. I did it in chronological order (the same with characters such as Darren, Cindy and Nancy, I just went in order of Template:Hollyoaks characters). Do you think it would be better to focus on a variety of soap articles at the same time? I want others' input as this is a collaborative effort. – Meena • 14:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Sol Patrick was another good example. Offed the article to save a list. You could have included the information from that article in a short blurb and then expanded Sol's article. I think everyone has rolled over too easy is the face of deletionists. If there is an AFD we should put in the work to improve the article rather than wash our hands of it. I understand that Hollyoaks is very much the current focus of this collective effort to purge and delete. So expanding the scope is probably a discussion for another day.Rain the 1 17:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I will try to help where I can. I do think it is worth expanding this beyond just Hollyoaks articles as there are plenty of articles that could do with saving across the board, but perhaps just later once the Hollyoaks targeting has ceased. Also, it is worth noting that some of these lists do not need work at all. I spent a lot of time working on List of Hollyoaks characters (2019) a while ago, and would argue it doesn't need much - if any - work. And like Raintheone has mentioned, some others are hardly on the brink of deletion, where others could do with adding to rather than merging instantly. Soaper1234 - talk 19:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll help where I can but Hollyoaks, let's be honest it isn't my show (You're more likely to see me under the hood with Nabes, H&A, Corrie, ED and Enders articles, in addition to helping Rain housekeep Brookside). I'm willing to fill in gaps with sources and that from whatever I can find now and then--Conquistador2k6 (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey all, Helen Cunningham has recently been nominated for deletion. I wanted to ask if anyone has any physical sources (e.g. Inside Soap) to improve her article? Meena has help a lot already, I have tried finding some sources but all the ones I found online were already in the article, so if anyone could help, it would be greatly appreciated. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh not another one! I will get searching for those sources over the next few days.Rain the 1 21:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

NEIGHBOURS SPOILERS FOLLOW!

In the new series of Neighbours, there has been a two year time jump, meaning the current year in the "Neighboursverse" is 2024. In the first episode of the renewal, Terese Willis married Toadie Rebecchi (in an unexplainable twist I might add!). In the infobox in their articles, should under their husband/wife parameter read "[Name] (2023–present)" or "[Name] (2024–present)". The first option reflects the real world (production and release), but the second option reflects when these events occurred as per the serial in which the time jump plays a massive role in this reprisal. I'll just ping a few users and of course anyone else who wants to comment can. Thanks! JuneGloom07, Soaper1234, Raintheone, AnemoneProjectors, Conquistador2k6, TAnthony, DaniloDaysOfOurLives and Meena. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey! As far as I am aware soaps usually use real world dates (e.g. based on the date the episode was released in rather then when it was set). Days of Our Lives did a time jump in 2019 and we had the same issue and we stuck to the real world one (especially as technically dates don't necessarily allign with the real world 100%). A note can always be added next to the years explaining the time jump and that it is set in 2024. Hope this helps! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe that dates in the infobox should refer to the real world, otherwise it would be confusing to any casual reader of a wiki page, for example, to show a marriage ending in a year that hasn't arrived yet. Are references made to the year being 2024? If not, I would suggest it is still set in the present day but that time has just moved forward by two years. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 22:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yep. What's weird is that it seems Neighbours episodes are currently referring to the world as 2023 as per the title on Terese's meeting folder. Typical soap opera! - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zak Ramsey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zak Ramsey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

(Oinkers42) (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

If you haven't seen already, this article is up for deletion. At the moment, it seems like the consensus will end up being in favour of merging it, but I just want to alert editors here in case anyone wants to comment. By deleting this article, which is very developed as compared other recurring character lists I might add, what does it mean for other recurring character lists? Does this set a precedent to delete them all? If we merge List of recurring Neighbours characters into List of Neighbours characters, then that article will essentially just be overrun by a list of recurring characters. Isn't that article meant to be for currently appearing characters? I just wanted to point these out and alert editors, so all soap editors can understand the implications of deleting/merging this article. Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Following this discussion, concurrent with this discussion, both regarding literally the exact same topic, I think it is about time we move this to the Project so it can be open for all editors.

There has been a disagreement regarding the recent changes to the photos featured in the infoboxes of many Neighbours characters' articles, such as David Tanaka, Aaron Brennan, Paul Robinson, Terese Willis and Melanie Pearson, made by User:Livelikemusic. Some of these changes have been reverted by editors like myself and User:Raintheone, but some have since been re-reverted by User:Livelikemusic.

User:Livelikemusic argues that these changes, and I quote directly from this edit, "The change was to provide a higher quality image, yet still meeting non-free content criteria requirements". However, some editors, including myself, disagree that the new photos serve any real constructive "high quality".

The arguments spurted include that these new photos are quite rectangular rather than the typical square shape meaning that they expose unnecessary neck and body that detract from the article, some of the positions captured appear to be "humorous", the new photos barely display better quality in comparison to the old photos, and the updates of some images do not represent the character over their entire tenure, such as Aaron, who has only recently appeared with a beard over the past two weeks, and whose photo now displays him with a beard rather than beardless which he has been over the past eight years. Another argument is that the new photos show no change in appearance, like for David, and therefore have no need to be updated.

I have xt'd the arguments so it is easier for editors to pinpoint them in that paragraph.

The point of Wikipedia is to edit collaboratively and I really dislike arguing because it's not constructive, so other editors, please tell us your opinions on the matter so it can be resolved.

Kind regards, and with sorry for the length of this post, - Therealscorp1an (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Perdita Hyde-Sinclair is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perdita Hyde-Sinclair until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

(Oinkers42) (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of EastEnders characters (1985)#Requested move 5 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rita Sullivan#Requested move 2 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated Pauline Fowler for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

For the past few months, various IPs have continuously been adding unsourced episode numbers to infoboxes despite being asked not to, warned and even blocked. The problem with this is that the episode numbers are unsourced; with most TV programmes they have seasons and a less amount of episodes and thus it is easier to keep track off, but soap operas have thousands of episodes (with Emmerdale and Coronation Street having 10,000+, and some American soaps having even more). Many of the episode numbers in the past have been changed as they have proven to be wrong. Obviously some are easier to source than others (AKA Emmerdale's recent 10000th episode) but most are extremely difficult to source. I hence wanted to ask for a consensus on how to move forward with this. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue I have is the original research aspect of episode numbers. They are being added by various IPs, sock accounts and grouped edits that appear to have been arranged off Wikipedia. When asked where the information came from, one IP stated it was from Fandom which certainly is not a reliable source. Some episodes are grouped together, broadcast on the same day etc. I would not argue with them being added, if in the development section the information is sourced. The source would need to clearly state the episode number and the first appearance date. These random additions seem harmless but how many errors are we potentially allowing to be introduced? It is easier to just not include the information.Rain the 1 11:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)