User talk:Frickative/Archive 5

DYK for Vanessa Lytton

On December 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vanessa Lytton, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

⇌ Jake Wartenberg 03:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hairography

Hello! Your submission of Hairography at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hairography

On December 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hairography, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Lemony Snicket task force

Hello, Frickative/Archive 5, and thank you for your contribution with articles related to the works of Lemony Snicket. I'd like to invite you to become a member of the Lemony Snicket task force, a task force aiming to improve coverage of Lemony Snicket and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the task force page for more information. Thanks! — The Man in Question (in question) 07:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Mattress (Glee)

On December 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mattress (Glee), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Edits on Patricia Potter

Regarding your reversion of my edit to Patricia Potter: Actually, I agree with your comment. I had deleted that particular edit once, and the user put it back in. That's why I added the {{citation needed}} tag. I would guess that the contributor will probably add it again. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I'd seen your previous reversion and agreed with it - I know there's a policy or guideline offshoot of WP:BIO which says we shouldn't name peoples' children unless they're independently notable, which Potter's aren't. Unfortunately I can't remember what that policy's called or I would have mentioned it in the edit summary. Frickative 02:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

HEYYY! :D

Becky McDonald, on the quality scale what would you assess it as being? AND... Where are you on here, did I annoy you or something? You were my mentor lol. Never chat anymore. :) x Raintheone (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiya! First of all, no, you absolutely didn't annoy me! I just got crazy into the new American show Glee and now I seem to spend all my Wiki time working on articles related to that. I miss the Corrie project though, and I'll go over and read the article on Becky now and let you know what I think. Just glancing at it quickly though, it looks fab! Frickative 08:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I read all your points you made and I agree I will start on it soon, but you're offer on condensing the storyline section.. YES PLEASE! :P If you could do that then I can change the tense of what is left. Then I'll start on the other pointers. Also though, you know the refernce that is messed up, I've tried so many times to edit it but everytime I do it shows up the same, I suspect it is the URL linking to Metro, the URL has so many "?/:.:,.'['[.;'s" in it that it messes the reference. And Glee I'm still waiting for it to come to E4, I really like american shows and musicals even more! Usually buy the boxsets though :D Raintheone (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Woo, I managed to fix the ref! There was a random line break in the title which I think was screwing it up for some reason. The URL was redirecting to a different address, too, which could also have been the problem. And sure, I'll go through the plot in the next couple of days and cut it down as best I can :D E4 premiered the Glee pilot a couple of days ago, but I'm sure they'll be repeating it about 50 times over Christmas, haha. Frickative 19:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Preggers

I tried asking this on the talk page but got no responce. I would like to know why my edit was undone on the Preggers page. Glee105 (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I missed your talk page message (and for not explaining in my edit summary, my bad!). Basically "The Star Spangled Banner" was just incidental background music. We don't list the entire score for the episodes, just the songs actually featured and performed, as Fox do [1]. The featured songs can be discussed in an encyclopaedic manner using critical commentary from reviewers etc, but there's nothing inherently notable about the background music to warrant giving it equal treatment and thus undue weight. Frickative 22:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Glee: Reception

I noticed on your recent edit of the reception section at Glee (TV series) that you took out much of the negative comments. I have not studied it closely, but they seemed to be well sourced. In my opinion, the section should contain the negative as well as the positive. Is there a reason you took it out? Just curious, maybe I am missing something? --Logical Fuzz (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, on further inspection, it appears that you removed reception on specific characters/actors, leaving what pertained to the show. I guess that's what I missed. It was a very logical edit. Sorry! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's exactly why! Sorry my edit summary wasn't more descriptive, my laptop was in the process of dying a death & I wanted to save before it turned off altogether. But yep, I'd put that info in there a week or so ago, but on reflection thought it was quite arbitrary to only talk about two of the characters, when it's probably better to stick to reaction to the show as a whole. Frickative 20:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A small something

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all the fantastic work you've done with the episodes, characters and everything else pertaining to Glee! Keep it up. :) —97198 (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It's very much appreciated - and by the by, excellent work creating Brad Falchuk :) Frickative 16:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Good articles

I decided that once the series has ended, I would nominate EastEnders: E20 for GA, but considering the time it takes, do you think I should nominate it now? Also, didn't you nominate Peggy Mitchell? I can't see any record of it. Was I dreaming? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha, no, we did say it should be nominated, but then I never got round to actually finishing the development stuff. Did you see the Archie Revealed episode/was there stuff in it worth writing up for the Archie section in the Peggy article? I'll download it if so. And I'd definitely go ahead and nominate the E20 article now, I think the Tony one's been waiting to be reviewed for nearly three months, and I've got two other nominations sitting in the queue waiting... the backlog is crazy right now! Frickative 22:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I saw that you'd nominated Peggy, and I remember worrying that it wouldn't pass because it hadn't been finished yet. I dunno! I did see the Revealed episode and I remember thinking it could be used for Archie's article but I didn't think about Peggy's. I think you should download it – if it doesn't help Peggy's page at least you can work on Archie's! I've decided that 4 EastEnders GAs isn't enough, and I'm surprised Dot Branning and Nick Cotton aren't nominated. E20 started tonight but ends this month so I'll definitely nominate it, I know it'll be up to standard by then. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I was looking at Tony King since it's near the top of the GA list and I wondered if you wanted to check over the storylines section as all of December's action was added and I got in the habit of adding lots of detail so it could be reduced later. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, giving the storylines a look over is on my to-do list :) You're right about there not being enough EastEnders GAs, the reception for Nick needs a bit of expanding, but Gungadin did an excellent job on Dot, it'd probably be an easy pass. Do you still plan on taking the awards and nomnations list to FL, by the way? Frickative 00:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I would love to take it to FL, but I think a) it's maybe too long b) the lead isn't very good and c) I've commented out loads of awards that I couldn't find sources for. Why, did you have some advice? Omg I just found a behind-the-scenes video on E20 that's given me LOADS of new information :D AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Not advice, but I was looking at it earlier because I've been working on a similar one for Glee :) I don't think length is a problem because it has been running for 25 years, and the awards are all notable. As for references, the list for The Simpsons was promoted even though the main editor left out awards he couldn't find sources for, and mentioned in the article that some award bodies don't publish awards/noms from before X date... It might have been promoted a while ago though, so I don't know if standards have changed since then, but a Peer Review couldn't hurt! I just think it's a great list :) And awesome re: the video :D I haven't seen E20 yet, but I might have a watch of it later. Frickative 03:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of merging the "soap" awards (apart from the British Soap Awards) into one table for "other soap awards" as they're kind of not as important as the others, they're basically all from newspapers, magazines and Digital Spy, plus, the DS awards didn't really happen again (only 2 awards given in 2009), and neither did the Daily Star ones. I guess for a show that's been going for 25 years, it's an appropriate length. Every award I could find is included (other than best dressed and sexiest). Are they all notable? Even the Smash Hits one? I guess the list is long because there are so many people doing awards for the specific soap opera genre. Do you think it's worth doing a Peer Review first or just go for FL? I would recommend watching E20! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, sorry, it shows that I didn't actually have the list open while commenting! Fair enough re: notability... as a general litmus test, I think it's accepted that if a particular award has its own Wikipedia article, it's sufficiently notable for inclusion, which would be Digital Spy, Inside Soap and TV Now Awards in, All About Soap Bubble Awards, Daily Star Soap Awards and TV Choice and TV Quick Awards out. I dunno, that seems a bit arbitrary to me because I'm not sure I'd say the Inside Soap Awards are inherently more notable than the TV Quick ones, but I guess it's up to your own disgression. An 'other soap awards' section could be good, but equally if they all stay in, it could end up five screen-lengths long and very hard to navigate! I actually don't know about Peer Review, my one experience with it only garnered one review, but if the backlog isn't too big at the moment it's probably all right. This probably isn't the best time to suggest adding more awards in, haha, but I usually follow the Screen Nation Awards, and I think EastEnders has picked up a few of those too - I know Tiana Benjamin and Belinda Owusu were nominated last year. Frickative 17:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd say the TV Choice and TV Quick Awards are definintely more notable than most of the others listed. But they're not strictly soap awards, so I wasn't considering those. I'm not sure the Daily Star, Digital Spy, All About Soap and TV Now awards are at all notable. I have Benjamin listed as a winner of a Screen Nation award, but not Owusu - though I'm sure I remember adding her at some point. The British Soap Awards section is eight screen-lengths long, and I think that's a problem too. By the way, you're good a lead sections, aren't you? I'm not really so I wondered if you could look at the lead of EastEnders: E20 for me if you have time. Thank you! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I really wasn't firing on all cylinders yesterday, lol, sorry, I totally missed that Screen Nation was already in there. I agree re: Daily Star, Digitial Spy Awards etc., and I'd say if you're in doubt about any, just take them out. It's easy enough to add them back in from the article history if you change your mind later. I'll go take a look at the E20 lead now :) Frickative 16:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits on the lead section, it's perfect! I'll have a think about the awards. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

		The Real-world perspective Barnstar
		For your work on the article Wellard, which I never thought could go beyond what was already written, you deserve a RWP barnstar! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! And thanks so much for all the clean up, apparently 4am isn't the best time to objectively copyedit your own work... I'm cringing at how much there was to fix. Cheers! Frickative 16:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's ok! I figured it was because of the time of night. But thanks for expanding it. You must have been working on it for a couple of days, judging by the access dates. Did you remove the popular culture secton because there were no sources for it? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just couldn't find any sources. If there are some I've missed and it's added back though, the stuff about him being a "celebrity" dog and making PAs at Crufts etc could be moved there to fill it out a bit. It's quite frivilous, but it was fun to write! Frickative 17:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame. I was never sure about the website thing but I saw the Aardman Animations short. It was very good. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, do you think we could just use 'cite episode' and reference Comic Relief 07? Then it's verifiable by anyone who wants to watch it. Frickative 18:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah we could do that. It was on 16 March 2007 (Red Nose Day 2007). AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And it's back in. Cheers :D Frickative 20:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Going back to the list of awards and nominations received by EastEnders, I saw on Lacey Turner that she won two TV Times Awards. Apparently, they date back to the 1960s or something like that but the only things I can find are the results of the 2009 awards that says Lacey Turner won two years in a row, plus a forum that mentions other 2009 nominees for EastEnders. I did find the pages where you can actually vote but they're going to be replaced with the 2010 awards nominations later in the year. Any ideas? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty weird that there doesn't seem to be a single site with the 2008 award results on it... Hm. I think if you use WebCite [2] on the page that says she won twice in a row, it'll preserve the page even after the content changes, so that should be okay for sourcing it. Frickative 22:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that particular page is going to be a problem but this page shows that Maisie Smith was nominated, for example. I'll try WebCite and see what it can do for me. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So should I use it as an archiveurl? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Delayed response, sorry, but yep, I think so. Frickative 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I did anyway! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony King

Is this any good to you? I don't know if Highbeam can be used though as it requires you to log in to see the actual quote. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Highbeam's fine, it's still verifiable by account holders and anyone with patience enough to search through line by line. I'll add it back in now, cheers :D Frickative 19:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh good. I actually found it the other day, then lost it when my laptop overheated! I hoped you would find it. I searched again just now and couldn't find it when I Googled part of the quote but it was there when I Googled a different part. That confused me. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Preggers (Glee)

Hey, I've conducted a GAN review for Preggers (Glee). It's on hold for now, and I'm sure it won't take long to address my outstanding concerns. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 15:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ian Brennan (writer)

On January 29, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ian Brennan (writer), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 06:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Other Hand

On February 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Other Hand, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Name change

Hey ho, Frickative. Just to let you know I've had a username change from Familiae Watts to Junipers Liege. Also, would appreciate your comments re Chrissie Watts when you have a moment to spare. :) (If I can ever return the favour, let me know). ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 15:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the heads up! I'll take an in-depth look at the article as soon as I'm free, but from scanning it quickly just now, it looks in really good shape. Great work :) There seems to be a slight inconsistency with the formatting of episode references, eg.

• "Chrissie digs deeper". EastEnders. BBC. BBC1. 2004-07-29.
• EastEnders episode airdate 2005-01-24, "Johnny shows who's boss".
• Episode synopsis:"Zoe ends her pregnancy". EastEnders. BBC. BBC One, London. 2005-2-13.

...but that's all that jumped out immediately. I'll have a proper look at it all soon, though :) Frickative 16:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Just read your comments on the Chrissie Watts talk page.... once again, I just want to thank you for your assistance - it has been immensely helpful and I appreciate it very much; (I'll get to work implementing your changes asap). I am going to have to track down one of those barnstars for you! :) ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 05:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

EastEnders Live

I know we said that the 25th anniversary stuff would go in History of EastEnders but I was wondering if you were still planning on doing an article for the live episode, since there are things that can be said that don't fit anywhere else, like the fact that a dress rehearsal has been filmed in case anything goes wrong (blackout, etc). What do you reckon? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, I hadn't thought about it in a while actually, but yeah, I still think it would be a good topic for an article. There's plenty of production stuff like that, and there are bound to be ample reviews afterwards - enough to justify a spin off article rather than giving excessive weight to one part of the history page, I think. Any ideas as to a title? Frickative 20:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

EastEnders' 25th anniversary live episode? Also, do you wanna help me with User:AnemoneProjectors/Who Killed Archie? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure! I'm assuming that for the most part it'll be easier to work on that one once the killer is revealed, but I'll maybe have a go at the Reception section in a bit. Also, do you think just EastEnders' live episode would be okay? It could always be moved to be more specific if they ever make another one. Frickative 22:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was considering that there might be another one at some point, but I reckon the shorter title would be ok until then, maybe in another 25 years. I expect I'll still be editing by then. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Or, judging by the BBC website, the episode's name is "Live", so Live (EastEnders episode)? The article could also include "Live: The Aftermath". AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ace, I hadn't seen they were referring to it as that, thanks :D I think per naming conventions at WP:MOSTV it should probably just be Live (EastEnders), but either way I'll try and make a start on it tomorrow. I only got as far as the infobox yesterday... short attention span atm! Frickative 01:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool, just after I said it I realised that the episode part probably isn't needed. Good luck :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you'll see this, but I was wondering if you wanted to go for a double DYK hook with "Live" and 'Who Killed Archie'? Sorry I haven't pitched in with the latter yet, but the draft of "Live" has come together pretty well :) Frickative 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to try, but it would be something like "Did you know that the actor portraying the character who killed Archie Mitchell in EastEnders didn't find out they committed the crime until the night of the live episode." Which is really long! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL, that is a bit of a mouthful. Maybe, erm... "Did you know that the British soap opera EastEnders celebrated its 25th anniversary with a live episode, revealing who killed Archie Mitchell? Frickative 20:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

ETA, I'm not actually sure that makes grammatical sense, oops. Frickative 20:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's more compact but less interesting lol. But the grammar is fine. We so need to do this. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What a shame that an article on the 25th anniversary wouldn't be allowed for DYK now, as we could have done a triple-DYK! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That is a pity! Hm, any chance it could still be done? Might take a fair bit of effort to get all three ready at the same time, but as long as the 25th anniversary article wasn't built on an outright copypaste of the History of EastEnders section, then it wouldn't technically "consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article". Frickative 23:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it could still be done, but it would overlap a lot with both the other articles. In fact looking at your draft, there's already a lot of overlap. The only reason I can really see for doing a separate article for the anniversary is to get a triple-DYK! You could do it if you wanted, though. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

omg I just saw your draft, it's amazing! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Frickative 23:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My draft is rubbish in comparison, but I'm just too lazy to open those sources and add them. Plus your writing style is loads better than mine :( AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that at all! I've had three separate people nitpicking me recently because apparently 'opined' is the only connective I ever use, haha. I'd used it about 16 times in one article, oops... You're right about the overlap though, it probably would be pointless. Frickative 00:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

lol, I've only just started using the word 'stated' cos I was only using 'said' and 'commented', which is really boring. Oh, sometimes people explain things, too. But I don't think I've used opined :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, this is as far as I got with a 25th anniversary article, i.e. not very! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm a bit torn now seeing it all laid out! There are a tonne of retrospective articles in the broadsheets looking at how EastEnders has progressed over the last 25 years that could be included. I slotted a few into "Live", but there were more that I couldn't manage to make seem applicable, however tenuously. I guess I'll try and pitch in on 'Who Killed Archie' tomorrow and then maybe re-assess. Frickative 05:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I thought you might be interested to know that tomorrow's EastEnders references the fact that Bradley's fingers were twitching in the live episode.[3] anemoneprojectors talk 21:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, I didn't realise it was the two-hander tomorrow. I wonder if there'll be many decent reviews for it. The Jake Wood interview linked at the bottom is interesting, maybe there's article potential in it. Frickative 21:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, she was talking about Archie's fingers. Never mind! I thought about a separate article but decided there wasn't enough production so added it all the the two-handers page. I don't think we should give the two-handers their own articles as the that article is for all the two-handers. anemoneprojectors talk 20:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, what page name would we use for untitled episodes? anemoneprojectors talk 20:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've got a few episode GAs that only have a paragraph or two of production information, but then they do all have strong reception sections. I was just thinking that there are so few 'special' episodes, two-handers could be the best candidates for separate articles, given that they're more notable than standard episodes. Most of the older ones there definitely wouldn't be enough info for (though someone wrote an entire chapter of a book on the Kat/Zoe one!), but it could be something to bear in mind in the future. I guess we could call them "EastEnders (Episode 123456)" if we ever made one. Frickative 20:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe then. Maybe I should have saved the page in my userspace instead of changing my mind and closing it. I hope we get some information about the special effect at the end because that can be included and was amazing! I expect lots of reception tonight and tomorrow! As for titles, we could call it "Episode XXXX (EastEnders)", "EastEnders episode XXXX", give it a descriptive title like "Max and Stacey's two-hander EastEnders episode" or, go by the BBC Programmes site and call it "EastEnders 26/3/2010" as that's where we got "EastEnders Live" from (just add the word EastEnders to the front). Scripts just use the episode number, going by these but they reset the episode numbers somewhere along the line so that's not really any good. I wonder if other episodes are given proper titles that we never know about. anemoneprojectors talk 20:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dominic Treadwell-Collins

On February 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dominic Treadwell-Collins, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Madhouse on Castle Street GAN review

Hi, thanks for your helpful review. I think I have addressed all of your points and have responded on the review page. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review of Wellard

No probs regarding the GA Review.... since you have been so helpful regarding the Chrissie Watts article, I thought I'd just return the favour. I have to say, I really would not have thought it could be done, but you did it. Wow! ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 15:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you do me a flavour?

As you're so amazing at finding sources, could you see if you can find any reviews of EastEnders: E20? I want to expand the reception section of the article before it's assessed for GA, and so far all I've found is this and I'm not sure if that's useable. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've had a good search, but all I've managed to turn up is pretty tenuous! There's Grace Dent of The Guardian calling it "rather brilliant" [4], Yorke saying the team are pleased with its reception and might make more spin-offs in future [5], Patrick Smith of the Daily Telegraph calling it "vibrant" [6], The Independent commenting before it began airing that it "looks set to be just as dramatic" as EastEnders [7] and Tony Stewart of The Mirror calling Zsa Zsa an impressive character [8]. Sorry it's not much to go on. Frickative 04:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added all of those apart from the The Independent because I couldn't access that one. I did add the Watch With Mothers review, simply because it's negative and makes it more balanced. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you think about including some of this stuff in the article? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm, to be honest it seems like a really intricate level of detail, and given that it relies on an interpretation of the primary source, personally I'd be inclined to leave it out. Frickative 16:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's interesting though. I'm sure Doctor Who articles do that kind of thing unreferenced, but I'll just keep it in my userspace for reference. I'm hoping that if they make more spin-offs, they won't be more series of E20, because the whole thing will have to be rewritten. I'm dreading the day the announce series 2! :( AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a fair few of the older DW articles do, but over the past year or so they've gotten a lot more stringent about third party sourcing. I mostly just read the talkpage drama. And I still haven't seen any of E20! Need to get on that. Frickative 17:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's plenty of time. I reckon it'll be there forever. (If they do make a series 2, I'll be able to create maybe 3 new articles, though yay) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

EastEnders episode numbers

This discussion affects your EE Live article, thought I'd bring it to your attention :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Shall I do the DYK nom then? I've worked out how to do it for two articles and two authors. Do we want

... that EastEnders celebrated its 25th anniversary with a live episode revealing who killed Archie Mitchell?

as the hook? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, I was trying to work out how to do it with two authors, but lengthy instructions make my eyes glaze over... Hook sounds good to me! Maybe 'British soap opera' before EastEnders for context, depending on whether you think it's necessary. Frickative 20:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I thought of adding that after. I'll do it after EastEnders (during Corrie!) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Done it, would you like me to delete the redirects from your user and user talk space to the main and main talk space? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, yes please. Thank you :D Frickative 08:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha, we were talking about triple-DYKs being rare, but there's a quadruple on the Main Page right now! Link in case you miss it. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Slaters

Just read your great Slater summary for the Families page - very interesting. Although I now agree with AP that there is probably no longer a need for families to have main pages (that don't already have them) in light of this list, reading your Slater summary has just confirmed that I think the Slaters are an exception.... I think the history of their creation is very fascinating (probably the most fascinating since the original families) and could do with an article. So I think we should keep what you have put together as a summary until/if we do a main article for the Slaters. But great work. (Isn't it interesting to think what may have happened to EE had Lacey Turner being cast as a Miller! Never knew that before! We could have had Kaira Tointon as Stacey! OMG!) ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 13:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! And I agree, just from putting the summary together I could see there was a wealth of information that would more than justify a main Slater family article. Lots to work with, though I think one of the best sources would be the Slaters Revealed documentary that doesn't seem to be available anywhere online for download, which is a pain. And LOL, it is indeed bizarre to think of how things might have turned out... Frickative 13:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the doco would be good. I was also hoping to re-view the Chrissie Watts EastEnders revealled but also couldn't find it anywhere to dl (plenty of the Secret Mitchell of course). Still hoping that I will get hold of it eventually. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 13:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Zoe Carpenter

Hello there. I noticed you said that you will add a little while longer if someone else agrees to edit. I'll do that. How long will I have? :) RAIN the ONE (Talk) 16:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Take as long as you need! Within reason, obviously, but I'm quite happy to leave it open for a few weeks as long as it's being actively worked on. Thanks for offering to pitch in :) Frickative 16:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou. Hopefully Whoisuniverse will reappear aswell. Don't know where he got to. We put a lot of work into the article so I can't sit back and watch it fail. :)RAIN the ONE (Talk) 17:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. I've done it I think. I followed through what was left to do. I'm not sure if you'll be happy with the storylines but I've cut them down as far as I could with it still making sense, took quite a bit out. There was one problem though, the reception request can't be met as I could not find a source for the controversy surrounding it, I know there aren;t any because I found the refs for this particular article after hours looking through the news archive for anything involving the character, I think Hirst was probally referring to the negative reaction from fans who thought it was a bit 'out there' for Zoe, I certianly remember everyone moaning about it (So I'm not sure how to include the 'contro' part.) I did the quotes, took out piled refs, done the lead, done the fair use on images, and so on. Look foward to hearing your thoughtsRAIN the ONE (Talk) 05:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for doing the review on the article. First time an article I've contributed a load to has become a good article. Woop. RAIN the ONE (Talk) 16:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and well done on the article :) If no one's picked it out of the queue by next week, I might review the Loretta Jones nomination when I have a little more time. I've never seen Hollyoaks, but I like reviewing the British articles. Good luck with it either way! Frickative 16:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Penny Valentine (Holby City)

On March 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Penny Valentine (Holby City), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 06:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for EastEnders Live

On March 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article EastEnders Live, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 06:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Who Killed Archie?

On March 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Who Killed Archie?, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 06:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop your edit warring on Monk (TV series). If you don't stop reverting the article and placing unneeded templates I will report you for violating the 3RR rules. Thank you. Surf Dog (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of issuing threats, you ought to examine your own unconstructive edits and explain why you think it is acceptable to remove problem templates without addressing the problems with the article. Thank you. Frickative 20:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ETA: A template is not "unneeded" when it highlights a valid problem with the article. Perhaps you removed the bare references template with the intention of later fixing all the bare references. Perhaps you removed the original research template with the intention of later fixing the original research. I don't know that, however, and neither does any one else editing the article, which is why you should only remove such templates after the issue has been resolved. Throwing around accusations of "messing with the article" and being "unconstructive" not only fails to assume good faith, it's also distinctly uncivil. At the very least, writing clear edit summaries which fully explain your rationale in the future may be beneficial. Frickative 21:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You inspired me

...to make Pretty Baby..... What do you think? :) anemoneprojectors talk 18:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, great job! Production especially makes for really interesting reading. I definitely think you should take this to GA at some point. :) Are you going to go for another DYK? I think it being the only episode ever to feature just one character would be an interesting hook. I love how between this, the whodunnit articles and the family page, the project is gaining some really excellent articles recently :D Frickative 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think I should DYK this one? I wasn't sure since a lot of the reception is spun-off from Dot Branning. I was really pleased that I managed to find so much about the production. That interview with Clive Arnold was a godsend. I did this too: User:AnemoneProjectors/Clive Arnold - but hoped to find a bit more information first for maybe another DYK! anemoneprojectors talk 22:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise the reception had come from Dot, never mind! The Clive Arnold article is looking good too - it's a shame there aren't more sources for British TV directors, because there always seems to be loads for American ones in comparison... I was surprised when I wrote "EastEnders Live" that he didn't already have an article, though, so it's great that you're starting one :D Frickative 23:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It might be a 5x expansion though... how can we check? anemoneprojectors talk 23:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to find out if it was a British soap first or a worldwide soap first. I put British in the lead but in Producton I put "any soap opera". Hmm anemoneprojectors talk 23:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, it would be interesting if it was a worldwide first, possibly hard to verify though. And I'm not sure about checking, did you copy/paste bits verbatim, or did you reword it? Actually never mind, I'm looking at it now, lol. The copied bits seem to amount to... 424 words, discounting the block quote, because they're not counted at DYK. The article as a whole is 1,666ish, so sadly it falls about 450 words short, which is a real pity. I'll have a scout around for any other sources that could be included to lengthen it a bit, but it seems very comprehensive as it stands so I don't know how successful I'll be. Frickative 15:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, we know it's a UK first. It might bring more views if it's a worldwide first, then we wouldn't have to say it's from a British soap! I doubt you'll find more information. I semi-rearranged what you wrote from the reception but found it hard to rewrite so didn't bother! If I nominated it as new, would people even notice? :) anemoneprojectors talk 16:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean - Nancy Banks-Smith says its the first "in a soap opera" which is probably good enough [9]. It probably wouldn't be noticed, but I'm just having a little fiddle, so given half an hour or so it might be a legitimate 5x expansion :) Frickative 16:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh good. And we can say "the first soap opera episode" or whatever, without mentioning worldwide or UK or whatever, I guess. But how does NB-S know? :) anemoneprojectors talk 16:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess she doesn't really, haha, but at least it's a good source! And phew, that was much more difficult than anticipated, but the article now weighs in at 2,132 words - five times and 12 words longer than the original content in Dot Branning :) Frickative 18:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent stuff! Thank you. I'm gonna go for "did you know ... that "Pretty Baby...." is the only soap opera episode to.." something. lol not sure how to word the last part. anemoneprojectors talk 18:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) "did you know ... that "Pretty Baby...." is the only soap opera episode featuring just a single character?" "to feature just a single character?" or "cast member" instead of "character"? I'm sure you'll come up with something good :p Frickative 19:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, one of those. That's what I couldn't decide on :) I think 'll go for "to feature just a single character?" anemoneprojectors talk 19:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) umm should I say "first" rather than "only"? Maybe there's been one since (though not in the UK for sure). Though I can't see a US or South American soap doing it, can you?! anemoneprojectors talk 00:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good point. Hm, I guess to play it safe you could say either "first soap opera episode to feature just a single character" orrrr "only British soap opera episode to..." depending on which you think is more interesting. Frickative 00:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I went for "first soap opera". We don't have a source to say there hasn't been one since, even in EastEnders! anemoneprojectors talk 00:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Review of Vitamin D

Hello :) As the nominator, you'll need to add this code to the top of the article's talk page before we can start the review: {{subst:GAN|subtopic=Theatre, film, and drama}} --Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I can't believe I forgot that! I've added it now, thank you :) Frickative 06:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

heh... we've all been there ;) Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

TV Barnstar

		The TV Star
		For your regular quality edits to television-related articles, especially your work on Glee episode articles. Television episode articles are so often extended plot summaries or sloppy collections of uncited trivia lists, so it's great to see the well-sourced, well-written works with strong "Production" sections like the ones you are turning out. I know some people think TV episode articles are of marginal importance, but as an obsessive South Park and Parks and Recreation episode article editor myself, I truly feel having quality articles of these types are the difference between a good online encyclopedia and a great, comprehensive one. Keep up the good work! — Hunter Kahn 06:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It's taken me a long time to really get the hang of writing episode articles, and I couldn't have done it without having the quality ones written by editors like yourself as examples to follow. It's lovely to have some affirmation that I'm working along the right lines - thank you! :) Frickative 11:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

My Editing

Hi as you probably noticed i havn't been doing much editing for Coronation Street Articles lately and that I should just let you know that i will taking some time off due upcoming exams,il try and do a bit during the easter holidays but between now and the summer i am rather busy. I had some plans to give the character articles and good clean up but it doesn't look like il be doing it at the moment. I just thought i'd let you know just incase you thought i might forgotton about,il be back very soon so bare with me:) Brianwazere 23:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Frickative might prefer to bear with you than to bare with you :) anemoneprojectors talk 23:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh my, unfortunate typo! No worries at all Brian, very best of luck with your exams, and I hope to see you around editing soon! :) Frickative 02:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Power of Madonna

On April 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Power of Madonna, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hello (Glee)

On April 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hello (Glee), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Betty Williams GAN

I thought I'd tell you about this, Talk:Betty Williams (Coronation Street)/GA1. I nominated it a while back, it's on hold finally. Do you want help it get GA status, as there are minor things that can be done. I mean all credit to you, as you are the one that made it so good. :) RAIN the ONE (Talk) 12:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for letting me know! I'll take a look at the review and see what I can do :D User:Gungadin did a lot of work on the article too, if you wanted to drop her a quick message as well. I'll get started on the fixes now :) Frickative 14:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Crap, I was adding more info to Betty, thinking it may be a good thing, but now realise this probably wasnt the best thing to do during a GAR. Revert if you think it will cause problems. sorry.GunGagdin^Moan 20:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it! I'm sure expanding the article with relevant, well-sourced information can only be a good thing. The main issues raised were with the storylines section and images, so adding a bit more content elsewhere shouldn't be a problem. That "mantelpiece ornaments" quote is pretty harsh! Frickative 20:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm, any idea what's happened to the infobox image? Frickative 20:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, backhanded remark from Brian Park if ever I heard one! Image appears to be restored now. PS this place is quite good for old references if you ever should be researching a character in the future [10]. GunGagdin^Moan

Wow, thanks a lot for that. I've only done a quick search so far, but I've already seen some articles I've never been able to read in full before because I don't have a Highbeam subscription. Fab! Frickative 21:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting the GA so fast! You never fail to deliver. :p RAIN the ONE (Talk) 23:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating it! It's great to finally have a Coronation Street GA at last :D Frickative 23:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Images on Chrissie Watts page problem in GA review

Hi Frickative. I wonder if you could take a look at the GA review for the Chrissie Watts page, specifically the concerns raised over the issue of images on the page - I feel you are much better at this sort of thing than I am. Please feel free to make any changes or rewrites you feel necessary. Thanks! ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure! To be honest my understanding of the NFCC isn't as expansive as I'd like, but I'll certainly go and take a look at the review. Frickative 16:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Judas Tree (Jonathan Creek)

On April 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Judas Tree (Jonathan Creek), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Horrible Histories (plus spin-offs) help

As you are much more intergrated into the Wikipedia "circuit" than me, I was wondering if you would be able to help me out. There are a whole collection of articles found at Category:Horrible Histories. Created by me initially but unable to be upkept due to inexperience in advanced editing and unavailability to edit due to other commitments, this whole category has become a bit of a mess. Some of the larger articles (such as Horrible Histories, Horrible Science and Murderous Maths) are probably reliable enough to become more than just very long lists of books. Horrible Histories (TV series) has recently become like a fansite, and some book series which have become obsolete (such as Dead Famous which is being made obselete by the Horribly Famous series, and The Knowledge (book series) which is now being re-released as Totally (book series) remain. A lot of the articles are heavily out of date - expecially the Titles in progress sections. I have found many notible sources for a video games based on the series, found at Horrible_Histories_(other_media) and Horrible Histories: Ruthless Romans but I am not quite sure the best way to extract the information out of them to create encyclopaedic material. Pretty much the whole category is in dire need of help. I know you are pretty busy but please could you find someone experienced in this type of project to help? Thanks. The pages in question (for the moment) are: Horrible Histories, America's Funny But True History, Boring Bible, Dead Famous (series), Foul Football, Horrible Geography, Horrible Histories (TV series), Horrible Histories (other media), Horrible Histories: Ruthless Romans, Horrible Science, Horribly Famous, Killer Puzzles, The Knowledge (book series), Murderous Maths, The Spark Files, Terry Deary's Tales, Time Detectives, Top Ten (book series), Truly Terrible Tales, Twisted Tales (book series), and Wild Lives--Coin945 (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Upon recent experimentation with some articles and a translation program, I am very confused to what other language article have written about the series. For example the Portuguese version classifies the whole "collection" as The Horrible and appears to have books written especially for the Portuguese language, unreleased in English.--Coin945 (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S I have compiled a variety of different sources on different aspects of the Horrible histories franchise. Hopefully i will be able to sift through them to locate the most reliable ones. Ihave done this so any editors interested in aiding the growth of these articles will ahve a variety of useful sites at their instant disposable. They are located at: Talk:Horrible_Histories#2009_interview

Just to check I'm following you properly, is the main problem that the articles are out of date, and some of the more notable topics require expansion? My first suggestion would have been adding the {{outofdate}} template, but clicking through I see you're one step ahead of me there :) Another one that might be helpful is {{Expert-subject}}, which allows you to include a link to the most relevant WikiProject (in this case, presumably WikiProject Children's literature), to attract the attention of an editor familiar with the subject, to deal with the articles' issues. It would probably be easier, however, just to leave a message on the Children's literature Project talk page, similar to the one you've left me, to alert the editors there to the problems directly. It seems to be quite active, so hopefully there'll be a few editors there who can help with bringing the articles up to date and up to standard.

I don't have much experience editing book-related articles myself, otherwise I'd try and provide more direct help. That said, I mostly edit TV-related articles, so Horrible Histories (TV series) is one I feel confident enough to have a go at. I can see it's in a bit of a state, so I'll go through it and see what I can do to improve that one. Hopefully the Children's lit WikiProject will be able to help with the book articles :) Frickative 20:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Question: Are the animated TV series and the live action TV series at all related, apart from both being adaptations of the Horrible Histories books? If they're entirely separate entities, there should probably be two different articles, one at Horrible Histories (animated TV series) and another at Horrible Histories (live action TV series). Frickative 20:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks soo much!! In answer to your question, no the two series are not related. They were merely placed in the same article because neither were reliable enouguh on its own. I had seen similar things done before (three diffreent movies with the same title on one page) so I assumed it was alright and left it. I have also got a bunch of sources I just collected for different aspects of the horrible histories series. There are quite a few to do with the TV series. As aformentioned, they're at Talk:Horrible_Histories#2009_interview. P.S. Where would I go to on the project page to request such help?

You're welcome! The sources look very helpful, thank you :D After double-checking WP:MOSTV re: naming conventions, I'm going to split the TV article into Horrible Histories (2001 TV series) and Horrible Histories (2009 TV series), then start working on tidying them up. I think it's probably better to use the original years of broadcast to disambiguate, that way if further TV adaptations are made in future, the pages won't have to be moved again. On the project page, the best thing to do is to start a new section on the talk page :) Frickative 21:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Another question - was the animated series definitely Australian? IMDb says it was American, and the principal cast and crew all seem to be Americans, and Google isn't really clearing things up for me. Just want to make sure I add it to the right categories! Frickative 21:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

After inspecting a clip on Youtube, I'd assume the TV show is American, even though I always thought it was from Australia... hmmm I'm not sure now..--Coin945 (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Livesy

Hi, I've just seen you've been through the Storylines section of the article and given it a much needed trim. I don't know if you saw the discussion on the talk page, but that was good timing! I've just added some ways to improve the article after seeing it brought up at WP:SOAPS. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 19:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey - I actually missed the talk page discussion, but reading it now you've added some very good suggestions! I came to the article through the message at WikiProject Soaps too, though I first noticed it last week when someone vandalised Paddy Kirk to talk about Aaron's sexuality "disorder", ugh. As was apparently obvious (judging from the edit summary following mine!) I don't actually watch Emmerdale, but hopefully the storylines still make sense without being a blow-by-blow of the last few episodes. It's certainly got a lot of potential as an article :) Frickative 20:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Images on She

Hi Frickative; sorry to be a bother, but I was wondering if you could have a look at the images I have used on She. They were all published in the 1880s, and so are in the public domain, but I tend to be terribly bad at wording these sorts of things. Please, if you have a moment, could you take a look - make any changes or strengthening of justifiability as you see fit. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 09:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey - I've had a look at the images and they seem fine to me. As long as they're all public domain, then I don't think you have to worry about justifiable use, just as long as they make sense within the context of the article, which I'm sure they do. Sorry this wasn't the most helpful reply ever - again, my knowledge of image use policy isn't really as vast as I'd like it to be :) Frickative 16:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen this?

'Enders reveals Greek tragedy influence. Thought you might want to try to work some of it into Danielle Jones (EastEnders). Not sure about Tanya though. anemoneprojectors talk 00:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, very interesting, thanks! I might download the full radio show. Can't believe they ever actually considered having Tanya kill the kids - crazy. Frickative 00:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed that part! I stopped at "cheating on her". Well, thank god they changed their minds on that idea! anemoneprojectors talk 01:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Geez, it must be painful being one of the prime editors of two whole series - every possible spoiler about the show you find pout weeks (sometimes even months) beforehand!! That damn "List of songs in Glee" has already wrecked me for most of the rest of season 1!! How do you deal with it??--Coin945 (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Haha, it can be a pain sometimes! Despite reading the spoilers, with Glee I make a point of not listening to the songs until the episodes air, so there's still something new to look forward to. I'm failing dismally for the next episode, though. The Madonna ones that have leaked so far are fantastic! Frickative 03:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anton Meyer

The article Anton Meyer you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Anton Meyer for things which need to be addressed. S Masters (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Glee Characters

Should we list boy/girl friends in the infoboxes, or should it be left to family alone? I've removed 'ex' from Puck and Finn's pages as there is no real timeline as it is a fictional show. CTJF83 chat 20:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I hate that the 'significant other' parameter attracts so much cruft, but I don't think we can stop people adding it. I usually just leave the names in there, and remove all the '(one-night stand)', '(ex-crush)' nonsense on sight. Frickative 20:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, ya, there will always be cruft CTJF83 chat 05:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the attack vandalism on my talk page! CTJF83 chat 19:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem! I reported it at AIV and I think they were blocked - quite rightly so :) Frickative 22:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anton Meyer

The article Anton Meyer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Anton Meyer for eventual comments about the article. Well done! S Masters (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review! (And for the copyedit, too - I didn't realise I'd messed up the dashes!) Frickative 12:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

List of casualty episodes and sub lists

Hello,

I noticed oyu have finally done what need and split each season to it own article however you have not update dth table to reflct this would you mind if i create a template for it as it used ina lot of articles, and also then trancluded the data back the main article also the article shoudl really be Casualty (Series 23) etc--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 07:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey - I don't mind at all, I'm really glad someone wants to work on them :) I only actually split series 23 and 24 up, so all the rest still need doing. You're quite right, they should ideally be at 'Casualty (series 23)' 'Casualty (series 24)' etc. The only reason I didn't move the split ones there was that I didn't have time that day to separate them all, and I didn't want to create an inconsistency with the titles of the remaining lists.

With the template, do you mean something like the summary table here? The thing with that is, I created a similar one for the Holby City series, (here), but I found that when the articles were all laid out properly, with the {{Infobox tvseason}} template at the top, it was actually no longer useful. The infobox links to the preceding and succeeding series, and the navbox at the bottom already links to all the rest. I'm actually planning on taking the Holby one out of the articles it's still in, and probably requesting deletion of the template. By no means do I want to discourage you from working on the Casualty articles, however - they definitely need work! :) Frickative 11:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I tohught there was a reaosn for them in each season that had bene decided previously personal i rther set them out like time team article i am currnetly doing and work to get tem like house articles i have worked on if it only goign ot be on one page a template wont be required :) ill try get it sorted for each season looking int he correct format this weekend wheni plan to work ont eh rest of time team--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Holby City (series 1)

The article Holby City (series 1) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Holby City (series 1) for eventual comments about the article. Well done! –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Slater

Hi. I've just requested for Charlie and Amira Masood's articles be semi protected. I believe those users that are undoing all the reverts are sockpuppets of Trueman31. Usually AnemoneProjectors takes care of them, but he's gone out for a walk! - JuneGloom07 Talk? 16:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I take that back, Anemone has just blocked all 6 accounts. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 16:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Six sockpuppets blocked :) AnemoneProjectors 16:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Phew! I just gave up on reverting them after a while, I never really know what to do about it. I wouldn't know how to explain Trueman31's obsession at AIV or similar. Frickative 16:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling Trueman31 is following me on Twitter so he can wait until I've gone out. AnemoneProjectors 17:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No Offense, But...

...how many sources have to say it before you'll allow it?

• FOX's Gleewiki
• Gleehab (which I will myself say isn't good by itself)
• Glee Wikia (which I used)

They all say the same thing. And especially since FOX shows it on their own site, I'm going to restore my edit and change the source to that, even if the site destination itself does include the words Glee Wiki in the URL; it's on the FOX site. What's hilarious is that the single sole item that we are disagreeing on is who wrote and sang the original version of ONE song; the rest haven't been sourced, have they? Please leave the FOX source in once I restore it, there can be no better source other than an article in the New York Times the day before outlining the songs (which will not happen). CycloneGU (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Fox Glee Wiki is still an open wiki, however, meaning anyone can edit it. Fox don't control the editorial content as it's all fan-generated, and still not reliable for the reasons I outlined to you on Jason's talk page. I could go over there now and post that in the finale Sue sets Will's hair on fire, but it wouldn't be true and we couldn't report it on Wikipedia just because an external wiki says so. As an example of its unreliability, for months the Fox Glee Wiki reported that episode 18(?) would be "Original Song". We now know, however, that that episode won't be happening until at least the second season, if at all. If you restore it, I believe other editors will continue to revert you, even if it isn't myself or Jason. WP:V is one of Wikipedia's core policies, and purposefully violating it isn't acceptable, even if done in good faith as I do believe your edits are. Frickative 14:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I never learned of "Original Song" until recently myself, as I only saw that article recently (isn't it going to be a Season 2 episode now?).

As for the page...I just noticed the edit option on it a moment ago, myself. However, one thing we can say here stands certain; those same sources all state the same artists for the other songs, including songs in upcoming episodes. While I do get the policy of "Wikipedia is not going anywhere" (I forget which link that is *LOL*), I do argue that if we cannot source U2 for "One", we also cannot source "The Lady Is A Tramp" from Babe In Arms as yet because Yahoo! Music also shows that Anita O'Day and Kevin Spacey both also recorded a song by that name, neither of which is noted in the article that WE have for the song. So in removing the U2 reference, one must also remove the Babes In Arms reference, no? It hasn't been properly sourced and we cannot assume, no? Not trying to be difficult, but we haven't seen one source say that U2 didn't sing the original version of "One" used in the episode, so I'd say it's a general fact by this time. CycloneGU (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I didn't know that about "The Lady Is A Tramp" - I know the same version has been covered by multiple artists, but I didn't know different artists had recorded different songs with the same name. In which case, you're quite right, Babes in Arms should be removed. I think the majority of sources reporting on the tracklists are just listing the songs and mentioning the artists where it's completely obvious eg. with Gaga, or generally where there are no other songs of the same name. I know it's been confirmed that Mark Salling is doing a Rat Pack song this season, and everyone is assuming that will be TLIAT, but that's a tenuous link at best. This article from BuddyTV says of "One" that it's "presumably the one from U2, although there's a lot of possibilities..." so there is another, alongside the Irish Herald link I posted earlier that note "One" could be a different version. As for "Original Song", I think Brad Falchuk has now said maybe they'll do it in season two, so I'm not holding my breath on that one! Frickative 14:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's to hoping they do it in Season Two then! I'm sure that unlike all of the cover songs, these singles would be able to garner radio airplay because they would be originals; who knows if they'd later appear on, say, Lea Michele's debut solo album someday (or Diane Argon, etc.). CycloneGU (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

[Outdent]

Well, here's something of interest. Fat Joe's version is 3:55. The one by Glee is 3:56. Hmm... CycloneGU (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I also tried the AskFox route through the Web site. I already got a reply back, but it didn't give a certain confirmation, just that most sites are referring to U2 as the original singer and original recorded version of a song by that name. I've inquired further as to whether the Fat Joe version is the one covered so we can update this thing! CycloneGU (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, fab, I didn't know such a thing existed! That ought to come in handy at some point, seeing as the official website is often plagued by errors... Hopefully you get a definitive answer :) I wouldn't read too much into the track lengths given how much some of them get reduced by, but a Glee Cast version of the Fat Joe song would definitely be... interesting, to say the least! Frickative 18:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Okie, this is an interesting reply.

"The U2-written song was covered."

Is that the same one they recorded? This is straight from the second e-mail reply. CycloneGU (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That is interesting. I would assume written/recorded amount to much the same for our purposes, so that's good. I'm not sure how to go about citing personal correspondence - a search of the RS talkpage threw up this discussion, but it seems quite long and heated, and I'm not sure it actually concludes one way or the other. Frickative 19:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

[Outdent] Looks like the issue's resolved now. It seems Jason has also contacted FOX now, and agrees that it's official word, so let's just wait for the episode and enjoy the remake now. =) (Not that I know the song that well to begin with...I'm not a U2 disciple. LMAO) CycloneGU (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, me either, but I'm sure it'll be good! For future reference, personal correspondence probably won't pass WP:RS & WP:V in most circumstances, but I think as long as the main editors of an article agree it's acceptable in the short-term until something third party comes along, then it's okay - hence why I've left the matter alone for the past few days :) In fact, now the song previews are out there's no doubt about it at all. Glad it's resolved! Frickative 16:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Puck

What do you think of renaming Puck's page to Puck Puckerman instead of Noah Puckerman per WP:COMMONNAME? CTJF83 chat 18:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've thought about it a few times because Noah definitely isn't his common name, but equally he's never actually been called Puck Puckerman - I don't know if Puck (Glee) or Noah "Puck" Puckerman would work instead? Frickative 18:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I like Puck (Glee) better, and then then lead can be Noah "Puck" Puckerman is a fictional character..... CTJF83 chat 18:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Frickative 18:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(stalking) Sounds like one of those Minty Peterson vs Fatboy (EastEnders) type things. I'd go with Puck (Glee) :) AnemoneProjectors 22:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, AP! I'd go ahead and move it, but I don't have the patience to fix all the wikilinks right now, ack.

(On an unrelated note, I just found out my library has a copy of this in. I don't know if I'm more amused or bemused, but I think I'm going to borrow it tomorrow and see if there's anything worth using on Wiki.) Frickative 01:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done CTJF83 chat 03:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting sounding book, shame it's by Garry Bushell. Would be good if it was somehow usable, though. Should we put it on our list of EastEnders books? AnemoneProjectors 01:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know we had one! I really need to get round to watchlisting all of the project pages. It was quite an interesting book in places - heaps of dull plot recaps, and Bushell is clearly a prize idiot, but there's probably quite a bit that can be included in various reception sections. Most of it vitriolic, but he does at least save most of his profanity for Heather. Frickative 03:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What year is this book from? You didn't know there was a list of EastEnders books? Basically, it used to be the 'Further reading' section in the main EastEnders article, but as it got so large it was split off. By the way I have lots of comments on WT:EE that haven't been replied to, especially my question on splitting off the E20 characters. AnemoneProjectors 11:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's from 2009. Thanks for the link! And sorry, I must have been missing the Project talk updates on my watchlist, I'll have a read and get back to you :)

Tracy Barlow

Hey Frick, i'm not around much currently due to work, so would you mind keeping an eye on this page for me please? I reduced a ridiculous amount of plot info and it keeps being restored. Perhaps I went too OTT with the reduction, but the amount that keeps being reincluded is far too long imo.GunGagdin^Moan 17:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, sure, no problem, I've watchlisted the page :) I've only skim-read it, but it looks to me like you did a fine job cutting it down. Whoever's reverting probably needs introducing to the MOS on fiction. I've dropped them a basic welcome template message, but I'll try and point them in the direction of relevant guidelines if they revert again. Frickative 19:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have watchlisted it also, just in case. AnemoneProjectors 19:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ooh I have a question. I'm working on my E20 character pages and I wondered if I should include some sort of 'other appearances' section for the little video extras on the website, the ones where they're in character. What do you reckon? AnemoneProjectors 00:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me! I don't know what sort of layout you've got in mind, but if the Storyline sections became:

Appearances

E20

EastEnders

Other appearances

That might be the clearest way of setting it out. Then again I just looked at the Zsa Zsa one and forgot she was in EastEnders first, so actually that probably wouldn't work. Sorry, my brain isn't quite engaged yet today. Frickative 11:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it would work for Mercy but not the others because they were all in EastEnders first, then E20, then EastEnders again. I added two video appearances to my Fatboy draft because I felt they were important, though I'm not sure about the others as in most cases it's just of them messing around on webcams and stuff, but they are still other appearances of the character... We really need to sort out other appearances for all our characters with all the spin-off episodes, DVDs and novels, plus minor E20 appearances maybe. AnemoneProjectors 12:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Theatricality

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Glee guests

Why are characters like Brittney, Santana, and Figgins, among others (Funk (Glee)) still listed as guests? I think they are recurring enough to be main casts. CTJF83 chat 21:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The show still credits them as guest stars. They're not contracted as main characters (yet), and it usually leads to a lot of arbitrary POV and OR issues when editors try to decide which ones they consider to have an elevated status. The episode releases (eg. for "Dream On") list the main cast separately and call everyone else "Guest Cast". Frickative 21:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. You make a good point with the OR issue, as I personally think Terri has fallen out of the main cast (if she ever really was in the main cast). CTJF83 chat 21:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think she was originally supposed to be in 5 episodes of the back 9, but a lot of her scenes have been cut (Jennifer Aspen as Kendra has been written out of the rest of this season completely). When the season finishes airing, I'm going to try and fix up the character articles, seeing as most of the real-world content hasn't been updated since before the mid-season break. Frickative 21:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let me know what help you need from me! CTJF83 chat 03:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Found Something for Emma's New Relationship

http://gleehab.com/2010/05/14/emmas-new-man/

I know, it's likely not a valid source...but that's the first I've read in any form, and it refers to the Entertainment Weekly article, so I think it might be good enough if used as a source together with the Entertainment Weekly reference! CycloneGU (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, seeing as it's a fansite it won't meet WP:SPS, but I don't think the Entertainment Weekly reference is a problem anyway. If you think about it, it's not very different to sourcing something to a book - it's still verifiable, it just takes a little longer to look up. WP:V allows for magazine sources anyway, and I'm sure somewhere like E! Online will have picked up on it by the time the episode airs, so it's likely there will be an acceptable web source for convenience. Frickative 00:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Transclusion overload at List of Holby City episodes

I just made the following experience: I noticed that Holby City is one of very few topics left that are still using the obsolete template Template:Ref harv (there are currently 39 pages left in article space that use this template) and decided to migrate to cite.php. After doing this with series 1–3, 5, 8 and 12, I realised that they are all transcluded by the list article and went there. I was quite surprised to see that it was beyond the transclusion limit, and naturally thought it was my fault. Since I didn't see any other method for fixing the problem, I rolled back all my changes, thinking that perhaps cite.php uses more resources. However, this didn't solve the problem at all. The page is still broken.

I would like to reinstate my edits, but so long as the transclusion problem exists that's probably not feasible because naturally people will assume that it comes from my change. Do you have any ideas for a solution, other than splitting the list? Hans Adler 21:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have no idea how to fix the problem, and nothing that I've tried in terms of reducing the number of templates being transcluded has helped. I'm undecided over whether splitting the list would be redundant, as it's probably just as easy to direct readers to the individual series articles as to transclude the information to 2 or 3 different lists. I could possibly duplicate the basic tables sans episode summaries directly into the list and do away with the transclusions all together, which is not ideal, but about the only solution I can come up with. Frickative 22:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and replicated the tables manually and restored your edits. It's probably not the preferable format for an episode list, but it does at least work properly, and has greatly reduced the page loading time, which is a plus. Frickative 00:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My Page

I replied there. Also, my edit summary wasn't meant to be inflammatory; I simply meant that the only reason I know to collapse any listing is, for instance, bonus tracks or alternate editions. The main tracklist in my practice for any album should never be condensed.

The rest is on my page regarding splitting it up. =) CycloneGU (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I want a quick reply on this one, so giving you an alert to check my talk page again. =) CycloneGU (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Glee Pages Project

I've started. What do you think so far?

Before we take "Albums" out completely, we need to fix all of the Wikilinks that direct to that page so that none are broken. What links here will do that, but I'm about to move into job searching mode for the moment and will be taking a break from the project. You seem to be active on the Glee pages and probably know where everything is that needs to be changed, too. =) CycloneGU (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Great work! I've set up a subcategory, and I'm just fiddling with the layout of Glee: The Music, Volume 1 based on the layout of featured album articles. The 'What links here' page is impossible to follow at the moment, because it includes every page that has the {{Glee}} template on it, so I'll remove it from the template, wait for Wikipedia to catch up, and see what's left then :) Frickative 15:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I see a header saying "Charts and Certifications" and a subheader "Charts" - I don't like seeing headers duplicate themselves, so how about we simplify the headers? There are four subheaders under "Charts", one of which is "Singles". I think it's just some cleanup work because this was the only one I copied right over (I had one reference to fix). Also, chart progression for the #1 album is best done, I think, without a separate header; it still falls under Charts. If featured articles do this as a general practice, however, then let's copy that exactly (even though I see it as unnecessary, but what do I know?). =) CycloneGU (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually copied that particular layout from a newer album that wasn't featured, just because none of the FAs I was looking at had the same level of detail, so feel free to reduce the number of subheadings! I'm not a fan of multiple headings either, so no opposition. I'm going round and unlinking Music of Glee from all over the place now, hopefully shouldn't take too long. Frickative 16:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

All right, did some header dropping and pulled Singles out of the Charts category. If you feel rearranging Singles elsewhere is better, go for it, but I think that part looks fine as is. I'll find an AllMusic reference. Currently also working on installing a printer. =) CycloneGU (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Bingo! Glee Volume 1, Glee Volume 2, Glee Volume 3 (standard, link to deluxe is there). Each has a full credits list. The EPs should be there, too. I can put the credits in later. CycloneGU (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's excellent! I'd read the Allmusic review of the album before, but never realized it had the credits list too. It's good to have reliable confirmation that Heather/Naya/Dijon/Harry don't actually sing on the early albums. And dropping Singles out of Charts looks good – the whole article is looking great, actually. Much better than squishing five of them on one page. Frickative 16:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm about 85% sure that I've fixed all the links that need fixing - I think everything still showing in 'What links here' is either talk page discussion, or pages from the Glee template. I'm just making sure all the relevant "Production" information is covered here, and then I'll redirect the page. Frickative 17:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking good! Let's get some FAs now! I'll work on production credits this evening sometime. CycloneGU (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed something peculiar. We have two "music" sections in the main Glee page now. I'll be by myself in a little over an hour so I'll look at them, but just noticing it. CycloneGU (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

One is production, one is just reception - they don't both need hatnotes, especially as there's no reception information in the list of songs. The proper templates for linking those, btw, are {{Main}} and {{Further}}. Frickative 21:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Section Break

All right. Let's take a gander at this. We have production credits in, at least the way I like them, in three columns. Formatting might need some changes aside from the columns, but what do you think? This is for Glee: The Music, Volume 1. CycloneGU (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking good! I've changed the section heading to "Personnel" based on the name it's given in FAs, bolded rather than italicized the titles for the same reason (though I'm not sure it makes any practical difference), and added in a few wikilinks where articles for the subject exist. You might want to drop in the Allmusic page as a source or an external link, otherwise I think it's fine! Do you want to do the same for all the other articles? I'm happy to lend a hand, though probably wouldn't get to it until tomorrow. Either way, it's good stuff :) Frickative 01:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course! I was planning to cover the other two main albums tonite, and the EPs - if I do them - will likely come about 2morrow. I did have a disagreement with someone once as to whether names should be listed with credits following (I believe I was going through Kenny Rogers discography at the time); I think it's cleaner and easier to read with the job before the name. What do you think? I'm sure if it's a huge FA-entitlement issue, it can be changed, but I like this better. =) CycloneGU (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I have no idea whether it would be an FA issue, but I think it looks much better the way you've set it out - especially with there being so many production crew, repeating the same credits ad nauseam would look very cluttered, I think. It's nice and streamlined, this way. Frickative 01:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

We share that opinion, then.

Here's a new one. I have 25 composers listed for Glee V2. Most are just for the original songs. Should we go ahead and list all of them? For instance, Paul Anka is listed, though he certainly just composed an original. CycloneGU (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think as most of them are already named as being responsible for the originals in the tracklist, it's probably unnecessary to duplicate that information under personnel. I'd probably just list people that worked on this album specifically, rather than the original tracks. Frickative 02:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That basically wiped out the entire list, so point taken. Now for an outdent...

Outdent

Unrelated, here's a scan of the program that people attending the finale taping at the Saban Theater (something I'm going to find I found a Wikilink for if I can, for the episode article) received during (before?) the taping. Change the number in that link for other pages, including song lyrics, but the one I linked names all three groups in the finale (including the character names, not the actual cast, making me think this is seen in the episode in some way; Aural Intensity might be actual names, however). Thus, even though the site is gleefan.com, the person scanning this ATTENDED the taping. It's a fact by this point that Aural Intensity is the third group, sourced or not. CycloneGU (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, you know that, and I know that, but no matter how many times we have this conversation, material posted to fansites will never adequately meet WP:V and WP:RS. I could start a fansite right now and post a Photoshopped flier that says Mr Blobby is a Regionals judge, but no matter how authentic it looks, it shouldn't be used on Wikipedia unless, say, USA Today or similar picks up on it. The episode is on in a few weeks, there will be plenty of perfectly fine sources, and as Wikipedia isn't running to a deadline we don't have to resort to unacceptable ones in the interim. As the verifiability policy states, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Frickative 03:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I hate that sometimes. What would be funny is if that person comes on and adds the information now with an edit summary "I was there!" LMAO Even so, since it's a fact by now, I'd be in support of a temporary reference and, as soon as a better one comes (probably within a week), update it and get rid of the first. Also, why don't we "Ask Fox"? Sure, it's personal research, but if they say it...

Another (obviously invalid) link: GleeForum. They also post actual episodes there, so it's best not to link that in the encyclopedia. *LOL* I'm actually heading there now to look for the scene at Vocal's home base where Jesse kisses Rachel and (we now know) her mother is looking on so I can put that in the episode plot. I think it happened in Hell-O. CycloneGU (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC) (EDIT: Looks like they killed it. I'll search On Demand here.) (EDIT 2: On Demand killed it too, but I scoured The Power of Madonna which expires...well, today by GMT time. The scene isn't there, and the scene happened at the other school, so it happened in Hell-O. I'll edit that article.) CycloneGU (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not totally comfortable with leaving the ref in there, but I'll turn a blind eye for the time being :) I've lost track of where we're at with the official press releases, but I'm sure the one for the finale will be out soon anyway. The Jesse/Rachel + Shelby scene was definitely "Hell-O" (just seen you've already edited it, very very minor detail, but episode titles should go between apostrophes, so it should be "Dream On".) Which reminds me, that whole plot "twist" should probably be mentioned in the Production section of the DO article - if by any chance you happen to come across an interview with Idina/the producers where it's mentioned, would you mind throwing a link my way? Cheers! Frickative 04:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"If" I see something. =)

I've prettied up Volume 2's personnel. I've also finished Volume 3's, and am revisiting Volume 1 to further pretty it up, too. (EDIT: done - ve 'ave unleashed a monster in me!) After that, we'll see whether I care to tackle the Madonna episode this evening. Journey to Regionals won't have personnel available until it's released, unfortunately. CycloneGU (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Another Outdent

Here is a video interview with Idina Menzel on tv.com where she talks about Glee. That might be useful? BTW, check the three Glee full albums again, I'd like your thoughts on the look. Also, plot twist is in both episode articles now, and Madonna album not fixed up yet. CycloneGU (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! My laptop doesn't want to play the video right now, but I'll check it out after a reboot. The album pages are looking great. Again, I'd probably drop the Allmusic pages in as sources or external links, but beyond that I think they're all good. I like how you've split vocals into cast and additional - very interesting to see just how many additional vocalists there are. Frickative 22:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It actually helped that Volume 3 already had them split - I just used that as a guideline, so there could still be the odd error in the other two. I hope not. =) CycloneGU (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Glee

Haha, okay, thanks for the notice! I'll be on the lookout for that page (I love her, btw)! :P Thank you for the compliment: you work really hard too! Every page I go, I see your name all over the history haha. I just love the show and want to make everything accurate.

Question, though: shouldn't Glee: The Music, Volume 3 Showstoppers be moved to Glee: The Music, Volume 3 – Showstoppers, since that's the proper title? Also, I don't think it's necessary to include all the singles (and their charting history) on each of the individual pages for the albums and EPs, since all the information is already on the Glee Cast discography, and that information would be duplicated. Maybe we could put just a "See Glee Cast discography" or something? Because album pages on Wikipedia typically don't have charting information for singles, as it is already on the respective discography page. What do you think? --Yvesnimmo (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment See Amazon which begs otherwise.

Further, view any album page for a popular artist and see that the singles are included there, too, as well as the artist discography. It's the same treatment. CycloneGU (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Singles and their chart performance are normally mentioned in album articles, but only in prose, not tables. The tables belong in the discography pages and on the articles for the singles themselves. AnemoneProjectors 22:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I did wonder about the title as well, actually. I Googled it yesterday and there seems to be disagreement between different sources as to whether there's a hyphen, a dash, or no punctuation at all in there. iTunes use a dash, but also shorten 'Volume' to 'Vol.' I'd be interested to see what format Fox use, but their search function doesn't seem to be working at the moment.

As to the singles - actually, none of the FAs I was looking at did include them, and it was only when I pulled up a couple of more recent pages to work out where the succession boxes should go that I found them being included. I don't know whether that indicates that standards are shifting towards including them, or whether the ones that do are just of a lesser quality. Either way, my own preference would probably be not to duplicate the content from the discography. It's much easier to manage and keep updated centralized in one place.

Thanks for that, AP - I was just about to add that the singles might be better mentioned in the prose, so it's good to have confirmation that's how it usually goes :D Frickative 22:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just been thinking here - I wonder if we should make an exception for Glee. I mean, on all three CDs and (surely) both EPs, EVERY SINGLE SONG is out as a single (with exception to bonus versions of Volume 1, and "Burning Up", the iTunes bonus for Power of Madonna). Why don't we just chart on the album page since prose would be a helluva mouthful to use on that page? CycloneGU (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not a fan of making exceptions to the guidelines, because it usually just spirals into making more and more. Case in point, we made an exception by allowing personal research as verification for the U2 track the other week, and now we're making another to use gleefan.com as a source even though it clearly doesn't meet WP:SPS ;) I know you dislike excessive prose, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to bend the rules. There's so little of it in any of the articles as it is, I think having more of it would actually be an improvement. Frickative 23:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Plus, I don't think we have to mention every chart position of every single in every country - just mention the fact they were all released as singles, and add peak chart information where notable, such as the fact "Don't Stop Believin'" has been certified gold and sold over 700,000 copies. We don't have to go into intricate detail, because ultimately it's not really notable that, for instance, "You Keep Me Hangin' On" peaked at #166 in the UK. Frickative 00:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As soon as a better source comes along, I'll change it for the Aural Intensity part. It is a fact by now (hell, someone even scanned the program including lyrics of the songs before we even knew what songs were being performed), but major news media (like FOX) don't release it until a couple of weeks early at best, or as part of a month's lineup. I'll be Googling "Aural Intensity" on a regular basis, but let's keep an eye out for FOX to put June out, because that is the source I would replace it with if Aural Intensity is mentioned in it. If not, surely another will say it, but I don't want to have to wait for the episode airing to prove it when it's already a fact. Besides, the U2 source WAS Fox itself (though I think we agreed a somewhat rude rep.), so we knew it was the right info. This is a scan of a program, which is actually something we can link to unlike personal research. I will look for better. =) As a side note, when exactly did FOX put out the May list? i.e. what date in April?

As for the singles thing, you raise a point; just note that they're all singles, and perhaps refer to the discography for intricate details, only mentioning the frontrunners in prose. I think I like that idea. Besides, I agree we don't need to know that "X Song" was #121 on the Hot 200 unless we're comparing every single song side by side for the best charting (i.e. against another that reached 147), which is what the discography is for. =) CycloneGU (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

And Billboard calls it Glee - The Music Volume 3: Showstoppers. This is so confusing. --Yvesnimmo (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha, this really is ridiculous. So basically, different sources are using either no punctuation, a hyphen, an emdash, a colon or a comma. Awesome. It just occurred to me though, that if someone can check the back cover of a physical copy, it might have the correct punctuation printed on there. Volume 2 does, anyway, so that could be a way of settling it. Frickative 19:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I saw this and asked one of my twitter followers who I know has the CD, he said it's Glee: The Music, Volume 3 Showstoppers. Hope that helps! AnemoneProjectors 22:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why they have to name it Showstoppers. "Don't Rain on My Parade" was a pretty big showstopper, I thought. --Yvesnimmo (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks a lot AP, that's really super helpful! :D & agreed, it's a pretty odd title all round. Frickative 08:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! For removing the singles from the Volume 1 page. --Yvesnimmo (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem! I noticed when you updated the certifications earlier, you linked the country names to the recording industry articles - Do you think these might constitute WP:EGG links? For instance, readers clicking on 'Canada' will probably expect to be taken to the article about the country, rather than about the Canadian Recording Industry Association, and so on. Frickative 17:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm well I was mostly going off of featured album pages like Love. Angel. Music. Baby. and other pages. I guess you could change it back if you like. Either way's fine: I just liked it better with two columns. --Yvesnimmo (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I really want to remove "The Impossible Dream" from the list of songs: there is no reference for it being cut, and I think the only reason for it appearing on the FOX Glee website is because it is mentioned by Mr. Schue as being his original choice of audition piece before "Dream On". What do you think? --Yvesnimmo (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I would go ahead and remove it. The Fox Glee site has quite a lot of errors, and there's nothing to confirm it was ever actually in the episode. I cant load the list at the moment, but I don't think we list the Fergie song for "Home", do we? If not, I'd say we shouldn't list "The Impossible Dream" either for the same reason. Frickative 02:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Great! I will go and do that. And no, I don't think "Fergalicious" would be listed there either, although it would have been awesome to see Kurt + Mercedes perform that haha. If you can't access it, Global—which airs Glee in Canada!—has a similar list, just in a different format.

I also found this interview with Lea, that states Lea and Amber sang a Barbra Streisand–Céline Dion song, which would be "Tell Him" (the only Streisand + Dion song). I would put it on the song list, but I have no idea which episode it was cut from. --Yvesnimmo (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Journey (Glee Finale) - Aural Intensity Reference Discussion

I found this. I think this is a legitimate source, more sure this time as it does not appear to be a blog, and even where it says watch shows here, it blocks outside the U.S. instead of using something like Rapidshare or Hotfile. I think this counts, and it mentions Aural Intensity. It also throws Rod Remington into the celebrity judges, first mention I've heard of him. Isn't he the fictional newscaster seen on the show? If the reference is good enough, I'll do the editing. =) CycloneGU (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Share TV can be edited by anyone - someone used it as a ref in a Glee article a while ago, so I registered to check :) Rod Remington is indeed the newscaster, the same one that was a judge at Sectionals. I don't want to keep quoting the verifiability policy ad nauseam, but the key point is that Wikipedia should be based on what is verifiable, rather than what is true. So while it might be a fact that New Directions will compete against Aural Intensity at Regionals, it ideally shouldn't be included until it can be reliably sourced. I just don't really understand the need to include the information now, rather than just waiting a week or so until there's a good source for it and maintaining the integrity of the article's references. Idk I feel like I've said basically the same thing a lot of times so I'll stop re-treading old ground, but yeah, that's my stance, which I think reflects policy. As for Fox, I'm actually not sure what date the last update was. I know it's updated weekly, and I think that might be on a Tuesday, but I'm not certain of that. Frickative 01:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I know the policy as you do, I just think it sucks sometimes when you know something and it can't be sourced. =) I wanted to check this source with you before using it. Besides, I thought there were only three judges, not four. I guess we'll see in a few weeks! (Or whenever FOX gets around to updating.) CycloneGU (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of that was really directed at the start of your message in the section above rather than about Share TV specifically, but it's clear we're not really going to come to an agreement on this particular issue, lol, so it's probably best to stick to the areas we do agree on :) Returning to an earlier topic, I checked the Columbia Records site to see whether they hyphenate the Vol. 3 title... they do here but not here, so I'm thinking there probably isn't an authoritative answer on this one. Frickative 03:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this will be something that will be debated among many people who come to see the album info here, or edit something else. I think it's safer doing it without, and directing those with it to the one without. I noticed I left an errant dash in the article, however; I'll fix that infobox now. =) CycloneGU (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you working on the singles tables in the articles? Also, I'm sure you saw this, but Glee does have Theatricality noted for next week on the schedule. CycloneGU (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have the patience to put together prose sections at the moment, so I'll leave the singles tables until later in the day :) Still haven't read anything about why the eps have been switched, but it should be interesting spotting continuity issues! Frickative 08:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Sue isn't appearing in "Funk". That would make sense if she vanishes to Florida or wherever at the end of "Theatricality", but if she doesn't do away until briefly in the finale, there'e be no continuity thing there. I'll be curious to see if the "last time on Glee" segment uses scenes from "Funk", however. CycloneGU (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Have You Listened to All the Songs Yet? =)

I find myself constantly wishing that "Jessie's Girl" made the CD cut. That is an awesome remake (I listen to it regularly), and it got overlooked for "The Lady Is A Tramp" among others. A shame. CycloneGU (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've listened to everything up to "Theatricality" plus "We Got the Funk" and I wish I hadn't (I try not to listen in advance of the episodes). I'm actually not a fan of "Jessie's Girl" :( I thought I'd enjoy it because I love the original, but it just didn't work for me, whereas "The Lady Is a Tramp" has had heavy play on my iPod. "Jessie's Girl" has very respectable sales figures though - I can't believe it's outsold "Like a Prayer" by nearly 20,000 copies! Frickative 15:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

And just to keep you updated, I've sorted the singles/prose stuff for Glee: The Music, Volume 1. I've still got the others to do, but I think there's more information available in general about the earlier songs, so that one was easiest to put together quickly. Frickative 18:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the iTunes listings again. Outside of the album, "Jessie's Girl" appears to be #1 still. It obviously had the right connection with the majority of viewers. And I still like it, but "Funny Girl" I actually didn't like. CycloneGU (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I just realized what "Theatricality" didn't have. Sue Sylvester! Maybe they have her in "Funk" and wanted to put her in that episode back to back with the finale? CycloneGU (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Could be! No idea how the continuity will work after that heavy Kurt/Finn stuff - perhaps they won't feature much. Can't wait for the return of Terri, though. I wasn't a huge fan of any of the songs tonight, but as usual none of the critics seem to share my feelings on the episode so far, ha. Frickative 03:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh btw, I don't know whether you saw, but Jane Lynch did an interview with Entertainment Weekly where she named Aural Intensity! I added it to the "Journey" article :) Frickative 04:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not see that, but I love the fact that it finally got announced. Now we can stop relying on that admittedly slightly questionable reference. Maybe we can use that program, though, as part of the Journey article? You know, to show what everyone attending received? Change the number in the link from 1-8 to see the whole program. I find it curious that they taped the finale in California for the Ohio Show Choir thing...but that's show business for ya. =) CycloneGU (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

ALERT! She mentioned there would be four judges. Can we go ahead and add Rod Remington now? Or is this still something not in the media, technically? Jane mentioned that Sue was one of the two local celebrities, then there's Olivia and Josh, but she didn't confirm Remington...but once again, we've both seen a source that mentions it but might not be fit for Wikipedia. Have you seen it elsewhere? Also, Brittany is a regular character next season and not a "guest". Just a heads up. Same source. =) (EDIT: I've added reference to the fourth judge and moved sources 4 and 5 next to each other. Aural Intensity can still be found there, I trust you'll keep everyone straight on that. =)) CycloneGU (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I would really just rather try and keep fansites out of it, tbh. After we had a conversation before about self-published sources and how they could possibly be used if other reliable sources used them for references, I dug about on the interwebs and found a Broadway World article citing gleefan.com here and... yes. It's a little funny that the single instance I could find reported news that was totally wrong. :) & I think the whole show is filmed in Cali (Paramount Studios, maybe?).

There is a source from Fox now in the article that says Remington is in the episode, but I think until one flat out states that Remington is judge #4, we should just present the information separately as it is; that there are four judges, and that Remington will appear. Avoids the OR issues of adding fact A to fact B to conclude fact C, even if there is only the smallest possibility that it's not the case.

Which source is it that says about Britt, btw? If it's the video one I didn't watch the whole thing, but that's cool, the last article I read on the subject just said Heather hadn't signed her upgraded contract yet. Good for her. Frickative 05:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The part about Jane's favourite character (other than Sue, which apparently isn't it) in the third video. She says she loves Brittany, and let it slip that she's full cast in Season 2. CycloneGU (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Abrashirt.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Abrashirt.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.