User talk:Frickative/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Just Saw Your New Userpage Image

No offense, but it looks weird having all that whitespace next to the userboxes then starting the userpage itself below. Any way to shrink the size of the image slightly so it fits?

Also, I'm watching EuroVision's first semifinal online and was watching the Tweet Feed as I call it. Lithuania's entry got a tweet: "Lithuania - Rachel from Glee's pushy and slightly envious auntie." Thought you'd get a chuckle outta that. =) CycloneGU (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Must be on your end. I see the image to the left of her name section, and how long she has been on Wikipedia. Are you too zoomed in? Try ctrl and - CTJF83 20:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I'm guessing it's that or a screen resolution thing. I have mine at the highest setting, so it all fits nicely for me. I'm fed up of the infobox though, so I might change it around later. Haha, nice Tweet, though I'm stridently avoiding all things EuroVision this year! Frickative 21:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Heather Chasen

Hi,just been talking to GSorby about this, do yuo have any pictures of Heather Chasen playing 1) Chasen playing Valerie in Crossroads 2) Picture of Chasen as herself 3) Chasen in Navy Lark? Even if you got one of them i would be over the moon! Thanks a lot and if you find one for Molly Conlin we can actually use that would be great! MayhemMario (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mario, very nice work creating the article :) No, I'm afraid I don't have any pictures of Heather Chasen at all. Are you planning on creating articles for her Crossroads and Navy Lark characters? It's very unlikely that in-character photographs would be available under a free license, and fair-use pictures of living people can't be used in their biography articles. This seems to be the only Flickr image of her - it's a better shot of Amanda Barrie than it is of Chasen, but if you wanted to use it, you could contact the uploader and see if they'd be willing to change it to a free license. Frickative 18:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Hummel page

We've almost collided twice tonight on the Kurt Hummel page. Please let me know when you're done with your updates; I have a significant edit/rewrite to the Season 2 section of the Storyline section (posted Season 1 earlier), but I don't want to collide with you, or overwrite any of your changes. Thanks!

I am a bit puzzled, though, why you changed the Azimio link to specify the "Characters of Glee" page while changing the Jesse St. James link to remove that page from Jesse's link, even though both resolve to that page, and most of them (e.g., Dave Karofsky) are without specific mention of the Characters of Glee page. I had imagined that not specifying the Characters page was a good thing, so that if the character gets a main page in future, the link would then resolve to the new page without needing to be edited. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm all done, go ahead with your edits! You're quite right, linking to the redirect rather than "Characters of Glee" is best practice, but Azimio isn't actually about the Glee character, which is why I piped the link. Do you think an Azimio (Glee) redirect would be useful? I'm not sure how many articles he's mentioned in, but it wouldn't take long to link it across all Glee articles using AWB. Frickative 01:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed that there was another Azimio out there with the main article; definitely my bad. Since the Characters section is so recent, there should be very few links of any kind, and those that are out there probably need fixing like the one I mislinked; you'd have a better handle on whether the redirect is worthwhile than I, since I'm still comparatively new at this. I'll head back to Kurt's Season 2 in a few. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't found any links to it from a brief search, but it seems there are over a dozen mentions of Azimio in infoboxes and text, so a redirect can't hurt. I'll set one up tomorrow. Happy editing! Frickative 03:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Kurt's done for now. I suspect the prom got too much play, and wonder at failing to mention "the talk", but there won't be more for today. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A reminder regarding "family members who never appeared"

You said "I feel like at some point we agreed not to include family members who never appeared", but we decided that direct relatives are important whether they appeared or not, so parents, siblings and children are still listed. :-) –anemoneprojectors– 01:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks AP! I was searching the ibox talkpage, the EE MOS, multiple archives... and that explains why I couldn't find agreement against it. Facepalm. Frickative 01:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Whew!

You're the busy Glee bee tonight! Its cool seeing all 44 episodes light up my watchlist ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 03:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha, sorry for exploding all over your watchlist! I wanted to get it done during UK/US night hours for minimum disruption, but geeze that's a long list! Frickative 03:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Vanessa's Image

C'mon Frick, you must know by now that we always use TV screenshots. We've never used promo photo's, well we did once but got in trouble for it. GSorby - Talk! 22:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And plus it says that groups of people photos are preferred, such as EastEnders: E20, single ones are not. GSorby - Talk! 22:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason not to use promos as long as the fair use rationale is valid. What you're quoting is irrelevent - it's not talking about the value of promos vs. screenshots, but group v. individual images. In this case, the promotional image better facilitates critical commentary within the article. The screenshot is limited to a headshot, and the only difference between it and the free image of Lucker is the hairstyle. The promotional image also includes her costume and the grimy urban setting, both of which are discussed wrt the character in the article. Additionally, promos are specifically chosen by the BBC to represent the character, whereas selecting screenshots inherently involves a degree of OR in deciding the most representaive frame. Frickative 22:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well what about the rest of the characters, are you planning to do them as well? GSorby - Talk! 23:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm just explaining to you why "Not a television screenshot" is an invalid reason to immediately revert a good faith change without discussion. I selected the new image of Vanessa specifically to write a stronger fair use rationale, as explained in my edit summary and at length in the 'Replaceability' parameter. What "fixes" were applied in your recent edit?

You might be interested in this ongoing discussion on non-free content. I'm in agreement with User:Masem that "we should strongly suggest users seek official media and use that over screenshots or personal scans, particularly when the official media is officially distributed: it improves the sourcing requirements for NFC, one less person in the chain of copyrights, and a few others. It is still NFC at the end of the day, and no more a legal issue than a user-taken screenshot, but it is probably better from an encyclopedic standpoint." Frickative 23:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The fixes I applied were:

• I compressed the image to reduce file size
• I auto-fixed colors
• I slightly sharpened it

I like images to be at their perfection! :-) GSorby - Talk! 23:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Good to know, thank you :). Out of interest, what software do you use? For some reason, when I save .jpgs in Photoshop, the file size is always irritatingly large. Frickative 23:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I use Picnik.com. It's extremely good for small jobs! I highly recommend it :-) GSorby - Talk! 23:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll give it a go! Frickative 23:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm interesting development re this. We were told way back that screenshots could only be used because promo images copyright (with them being phtos) were more strict than personally capped shots of televised action, as the BBC owns copyright as does the photographer (or something like that). If we can use promos then I think we should because even the very old characters have had publicity stills and they are much better quality. Is this something we should be considering doing for them all?GunGagdin^Moan 11:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it definitely bears thinking about. The first discussion thread of the section I quoted above goes back and forth on it a bit, but I agree with the rationale that as promos and screenshots are both non-free, it's preferable to at least opt for the officially sanctioned image. I know there are other series that have been using promotional photos for years - off the top of my head, House, Lost and Grey's Anatomy all do, and using promo shots in the Holby articles I've written has never been raised as an issue, although half a dozen or so are GAs. The only exception I can think of would be where the promos "glam up" the characters, all ball gowns and back drops so they look nothing like they do on screen. Obviously that's not the case with the EastEnders images though, which have the benefit of often being full-body as opposed to the mostly head-shot screenshots, so show costumes as well, and the recognisable Albert Square backdrop to immediately increase relevancy to readers. There are probably drawbacks as well - I suppose it could be argued a screenshot better depicts the character "in-action", but I'd say it's at least worth a discussion at WP:EE. Frickative 15:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Glee episode Chart history sections

Can I ask you to take a look at the Chart history sections I've been posting recently? As you can probably tell, I'm using a basic template based on other such sections, with the occasional modification if I have extra data to work with. "Prom Queen", "Funeral", "Rumours", "Duets", and "Never Been Kissed" are all up over the past couple of days; I was thinking I ought to tackle "Furt" and "A Very Glee Christmas" next, but if changes are needed—less information rather than what's there now—it's better to make them now than before I continue propogating the current format further. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the delay in getting back to you—I've had limited internet time this weekend, but wanted to make sure I'd read all the sections through properly before responding. They look good, very nice work! As a disclaimer, the music area of Glee articles has never been my forte, so you might want to seek a second opinion from User:Yvesnimmo, who's far more familiar with the chart aspect than I am. As it is, from this previous discussion, I believe that Digital chart information is dissuaded when singles have also placed on the main chart. (Although I think it might be fair to make an exception for noteworthy facts such as "Teenage Dream" being the first Glee Cast number to top the Digital chart?) Beyond that, perhaps include a small half-sentence to make clear that the Canadian results represent the international peak positions, just to dissuade other editors later coming along and adding all results from all territories. Finally, I'm not certain whether the album chart/sales information is warranted in each article – as usually only a couple of tracks from each episode are included, the impact of individual episodes on the wider-spanning soundtrack albums is difficult to correlate. That's just my take on it though, so I'd definitely encourage a second opinion. (In fact, if any regular Glee-editors happen to be (talk page stalker)ing this discussion, please chime in!)

Beyond that, it's great that we're heading towards more consistency between the episode articles. The best presentation of music information has been a constant uncertainty for me this season. I think my preferred layout is akin to "The Rocky Horror Glee Show", though unfortunately it would make for very empty "Development" sections in articles like "Comeback", where there's a defecit of such information. Frickative 14:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'll omit the Digital chart info going forward (except, as you say, a particularly noteworthy milestone like "Teenage Dream"). You're probably right about the album information; which singles are on which album is probably important, but that album's information (including the chart) is just a link away. At some point, I'll try to get back to the ones I just did. And, of course, I'll look for any other editors responding in this thread... BlueMoonset (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Lauren

Hey, Frickative! Did you notice that Blaine passed as a GA? It really didn't even need much of a review, and now Glee has five good articles for its characters. I have also begun work on expanding Lauren Zizes's article. By the way, I think you're right about Becky dying. Sources are confirming that the character is indeed female, and connected to the Glee club. I don't think the glee club members have ever met Jean Sylvester before. HorrorFan121 (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh I totally missed that on my watchlist, that's great! Hurray. :D And geeze, I sort of hope they're just messing with fandom with all the death stuff. It seems way too heavy for Glee =/ Frickative 10:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm I think for Lauren's article a "Characterization" and "Relationship" section is needed. I can't really do a "Musical performances" one because she's only had one solo. Also, someone uploaded a new picture of Kurt. Not sure what to say about that as it's pretty much the same as as the old one... HorrorFan121 (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Both sections would be good, but probably hard to put together "Relationships" until she does more interviews - IIRC, in the ones I've read she's always very coy about the Puck storyline, and saying she's not allowed to give away information. I'd be very interested in what you could dig up, though :) And huh. The FUR on the new image is pretty weak - "For identification purposes". Well, the free images do that all on their own. I'd feel free to sub your screen shot back in, but as time passes I'm leaning more and more towards non-free images being unnecessary. Frickative 15:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the original image back. It has a far better rationale, and represents (in my opinion) what the entire passage in the "Characterization" section is referring to. As for Lauren, I think I can dig some stuff up on their relationship. I always Google either her or Puck for news about them. They are by far my favorite new couple this season. They're different, haha. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this means much, but Deadline.com referred to both Darren Criss, Ashley Fink and Chord Overstreet as series regulars. "The film features performances by series regulars Lea Michele, Cory Monteith, Amber Riley, Chris Colfer, Kevin McHale, Jenna Ushkowitz, Mark Salling, Dianna Agron, Naya Rivera, Heather Morris, Harry Shum Jr, Chord Overstreet, Darren Criss and Ashley Fink." [1] It might just be a mistake on their part though. HorrorFan121 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting! I wouldn't put too much stock in it without other sources, but here's hoping - I love Lauren/Puck too :D. I'd assume that if/when contract upgrades are finalised, there'll be announcements across TVLine, Entertainment Weekly etc., but nice spot either way. Frickative 00:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah! I think Lauren and Blaine have really taken off with a good portion of the audience and they should be back next season. I would be so bummed if it turned out otherwise. I just thought that part was interesting. I'm sure we'll hear something soon if it does indeed turn out to be true. Also, do you know of any good sources that could be great for her "Characterization" section? I'm having a problem with that. Every source I pull up just refers to her always having a bad mood, violent, etc. but there's more to Lauren than that. HorrorFan121 (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, notification for this got hidden because of the discussion going on below :) Hmmm, I can't think of any sources off the top of my head, but wow, reading what's there now, Seth Abramovitch really has a hate-on for her, huh? =/ That's some harsh stuff! I'm half-way through another project right now, but I'll dig around for some sources tomorrow. The most likely places to find serious discussion will probably be in James Poniewozik's Time reviews, Todd VanDerWerff's A.V. Club ones, and maybe Canning's for IGN and Reiter's for the Los Angeles Times. It might be worth just plugging "Lauren, Glee" into those sites and skimming through what comes up. From quickly checking the AV Club, you might get some mileage out of this ("This could be creepy, but it's somehow sweet, perhaps because Mark Salling and Ashley Fink have a nice, understated chemistry the show could do something with in the future.") and this ("Fink ends up being a good match for him, chemistry-wise, as she projects a confidence and certainty that makes it immediately obvious just what Puck sees in Lauren."), and unrelated, but this could be useful for Emma. Frickative 16:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it was pretty harsh. I don't get a lot of what people say about her. They hate her just because she has an attitude, but they love Santana/Quinn? I think Santana is far worse in terms of having an attitude but that might just be me. I think Lauren has a lot more character layers than that and I remember reading some positive reviews about her in the past. I'll see if I can dig those up. Those sources should definitely help build up a "Relationship" section. And haha at that last source about Emma. Three of the characters listed were my favorites in their shows, for example Rita Bennett. I loved her, but the writer commented : "It doesn’t say much when a character is less interesting than her own pre-adolescent children. Existing solely as a plot complication for Dexter, Rita has just one mark in her favor: She’s slightly less annoying than his other love interest, the insufferable Lila." I just found that funny. It seems like every character people hate, I love. I could incorporate that into her "Reception" section. HorrorFan121 (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean - after "Born This Way", I read so much backlash from people who'd bend over backwards to defend Quinn's bullying of Rachel, but seemed to think Lauren should be arrested for what she'd done. Perspective! I do love Santana, but there's no denying some of her scripting is incredibly offensive. Aw, that's too bad they slated your favourites. The only one on the list I know and like is Emma. I usually find that too - loving the characters other people hate - but of the other two shows listed that I watched (Buffy and Lost) they picked out the characters I couldn't stand :) Sources-wise, again these are probably not too useful for characterization, but would be good somewhere:

• Puck's attraction to Lauren, for instance, was a surprise coming from him—as Puck acknowledged himself. But it was the kind of twist Glee can sell, partly because of the way the characters are established (in retrospect, you can see how a really strong woman who rejects him is a turn-on for Puck) and because of how well it's cast (Ashley Fink has been killing it as Lauren, and sells her confidence and abrasiveness in a way that makes her a person, not an engineered positive-body-image model). [2]

• It is kind of hard not to love Lauren (and the actress who plays her, Ashley Fink) as she delivers lines like, "I spell woman Z-I-Z-E-S and I need to be wooed" and “That's the first time anyone ever sang me a love song -- and it made me feel like crap." [...] She [...] gets some of the best lines. [3]

• Glee hit the trifecta this year with its three major cast additions. First there were Darren Criss—who's exploded with popularity— and Chord Overstreet. Now there's Ashley Fink's Lauren. And while the tough-only-on-the-outside Lauren can deliciously out-sass Santana, it's her straight-talking that really has me sold. "Like America, I need more than just a song to get my juices flowing," she tells Puck after he offends her with a serenade of "Fat Bottom Girls." It's something that's just as true when it comes to Glee, and it's why this episode deserves at least a dozen roses. [4]

• This episode also seemed more quotable than most, in no small thanks to new Glee kid Lauren. Her deadpan delivery of "Best. Green room. Ever." and "I'm not nervous. You know why? Because show choir's stupid" both elicited some real laughs, and I hope she's on the team for keeps. [5] Frickative 05:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I love Satana, but she's far worse than Lauren. That's why I don't get it when some people want her to commit her just for doing something Santana (or even Quinn) would do on a daily basis. Haha. Perspective is right! I still think she's taken off with a lot of people in terms of reading comments about her. Those sources should definitely work nicely into the article. The first one could definitely be used in a future "Relationship" section whenever that is put in. Thanks for digging those up! ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Does this make any sense to you? Obviously, there's the funeral episode where a character will die, but it appears another one will be killed off in the season finale as well. "'Glee' creator Ryan Murphy has revealed a shocking secret about that the upcoming Season 2 finale: One of the characters will die." [6] Not sure what to make of this. =/ HorrorFan121 (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh geeze =/. All I can think is that either "Funeral" and "New York" are, or were originally intended to be, a two-part finale, or whatever Murphy said was meant to be about "Funeral" and was taken out of context by the reporter. The fact there's no quote from him suggests something's not quite right. I don't know, two deaths in two episodes would seem less Glee, more And Then There Were None. So until a scan of the original interview or something similar turns up, I think it's probably best taken with a huge grain of salt. Hopefully, anyway! Frickative 17:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I can barely handle one let alone two character deaths. After reading some new stuff on it, I believe "Funeral (Glee)" is about the death of a relationship or something like that. Then they have a shocking character death after Nationals. I'm not sure. =/ Also, I put some work into Lauren's article. I'm not sure where to put any info on her music/musical reception because of the fact that she's only performed one solo. Let me know what you think. HorrorFan121 (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Eep, I guess we'll have to see what happens on Tuesday! Hmm, scanning through the article, I think if you do a little bit of re-arranging, a small music section could possibly be justified. The second paragraph of "Relationships" is mostly "Reception"-based info, and there are bits and pieces in the preceding sub-sections that are more "Relationship"-based (eg. the quote beginning "I think that they are very sweet together...", and possibly some of Poniewozik's commentary?) Then you could take the last paragraph of "Reception", and the last sentence of the lead (I couldn't work out where to put it!), and turn those into a small "Music" section. If the 2011 leg of the tour is going to be in-character, like the last one was, you could add a sentence about her being in the line-up for that. I'm not entirely sure what this is about, but I assume Malkin's spoken to her for his E! column, so hopefully there could be commentary from Fink soon on her performance concerns. Ack, let me know if that makes sense, I'm happy to fiddle about with it if not. You've done a really great job expanding it, awesome work! (I hadn't read her comments about Lauren/Puck in the Starry Mag interview before - how cute :)) Frickative 01:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I kind of understand, but if you're willing to fiddle around with it by all means please do! I always appreciate the work you put into these articles. I like the way the article flows right now, but I think I want to expand on the lead. HorrorFan121 (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're happy with the flow, I'm actually loath to go and move things around! My initial thought was that the paragraph beginning "Television critics and fans have responded positively to the pairing." should all be under "Reception" rather than "Development". On consideration though, it's not really any different to having reception in the "Music" sections, which we routinely do. I double-checked MOS:TV, which says "Reception for a specific character [...] may have a better home in another section.", so if you're happy with the relationship reception in the relationship section, I shan't move it. (One small thing: that paragraph doesn't seem to actually discuss fan reaction). I can't find a decent reference saying the 2011 tour will be in-character, so I can't add that, which leaves any potential "Musical performances" subsection woefully small compared to the others. So, hm, I'm not entirely sure now! I'll dwell on it for a couple of hours and maybe do some minimally invasive editing and see what occurs. (Also, E! have a video interview with Ashley up, but it won't play for me, boo.) Frickative 16:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I completely forgot to check here. I just took a look at that E video and it was basically her talking about "Funeral", and how a character died. I think Lauren's article looks really good right now, and can definitely be expanded when some new information comes to light. I image if any of the cast will be promoted to contract roles we should hear about it soon. That could add to her "Casting" section. Also, do you mind if I finish off Mercedes's article? The work is nearly done, and I'm looking for something to do. HorrorFan121 (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's in great shape, particularly for a secondary character - I'm impressed by how much you were able to put together! Sure, go for it with Mercedes. There's probably quite a lot of work still needed though - I kept meaning to go back to it, but every time I did a cursory development search, the top results were all 'Mercedes will get a boyfriend in season 2!' 'Mercedes and Quinn's friendship will be a throughline of season 2!' Ha, this show and its propensity for forgetting storylines... Frickative 20:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! As for Mercedes, I'm going to try working on her article soon. Haha. I feel like that happens quite a lot with Glee. I don't even think Quinn/Mercedes have had a single seen alone together all season. I feel bad for Amber Riley and Jenna Ushkowitz. They're so underused on this show, when I feel like they could easily play into a lot of the stories. There were also rumblings that Rachel/Puck would get together this season, which doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon. Isn't Mercedes love interest the winner from a reality show? HorrorFan121 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Supposedly that's the plan! I think originally he was meant to be one of the three new characters they were going to introduce this season, along with the Christian girl who would be against homosexuality =/. I agree, those two are criminally underused, and it's a shame that their most centric episode in a while was widely panned. Pity about Rachel/Puck, too, I hadn't heard that, but they have some great scenes together. I keep thinking of starting Glee (season 3), but based on the amount of dropped storylines/characters/plans for this season, none of the information they're releasing at the moment will ever even happen. Frickative 01:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahh. I just found this [7]. Ashley Fink confirmed she's going to return for the third season of Glee, and that she's hoping that the Puck/Lauren romance will continue. I'm so glad to hear that. I'm still hoping out for a contract for her and Darren Criss. Was it in June that Mike O'Malley was confirmed a series regular? HorrorFan121 (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Frickative. ;) Did you happen to miss this post? I'm not sure whether to add it to Glee (season 3) or not. What do you think? Also, I requested a peer review for Blaine Anderson in hopes of eventually taking it to FAC. I'm also probably going to try requesting Kurt's soon though. Do you think it might have a chance? HorrorFan121 (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Ack, I'm so sorry, I read your message while I was busy working and it totally slipped my mind by the time I finished up. That's great about Lauren! I think it was either June-July we heard about Mike O'Malley, though I'm a bit concerned that the Fox PDF for next season lists the same 15 regulars. I don't know when that was compiled or if it'll change, but either way, I'd definitely add to season three that Ashley is returning :)

Ooh, I see you've just nominated Kurt, good luck! I'll watchlist it and see if anything crops up that I can help out with. I just don't have enough experience with the FA process to know what its chances are, so I guess it'll be a learning experience! Have you heard of the Fictional characters WikiProject? It's pretty new, but seems quite active, so it might be worth leaving a message there about the nomination. One thing, there seem to be a few bits outstanding from the PR - a couple of the phrases flagged up as reading awkwardly remain in the text.

And a totally random aside, how great is this? Cropped and added to Commons, apart from the minor detail of being made out of wax, it's a free-use, in-character image. Ace. Frickative 21:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

EEk. =/ I'm a little nervous. This is my first FAC as well. A user left a note at Talk:Kurt Hummel about a copy-edit, and I just left a request at WP:GOCE. Yeah, it's a learning experience. And even if it doesn't pass at least we have gotten some feedback on it. I'll drop a note at that WikiProject: Fictional Characters, and I'm going over some of the peer review comments as well.

That's a great image snag! I couldn't even tell it was wax at first. Perfect find for Sue Sylvester! HorrorFan121 (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Frickative. Can you possibly take a look at Kurt Hummel's lead? I don't have great copy-editing skills, and I would really appreciate it. It was suggested I get some help on copy-editing. Also, have you been following the FAC review? HorrorFan121 (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey hey! I have been following the FAC review, and I tried to pitch in and help out with the referencing issues. The lead though... ack, I will take a look at it tomorrow, but I despair a bit that it's a big issue. Given that one editor has already come along and kindly copy-edited and basically re-written it to make it more FAC friendly, and now a different editor thinks it needs re-writing again... hm, it's not enthusing me any more towards the FA process, put it that way. As I say, I'll take a look at it, but I don't rate my own copy-editing skills very highly at this level. I'm inclined to say that asking at the GOCE would be a better bet (though how many times has it been through there, now? Two? Three?). Sorry, sorry, I'm probably just feeling disgruntled because it's 4am here ;) Frickative 03:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I know. It's been a little stressful. =/ Maybe I can just pop a message to the editor who originally copy-edited it and see if they can look it the lead over again? The main problem seems to be that. It's been rewritten a lot. Oh well, hopefully it will pay off in the end and Glee will have its first FA. Oh, you're referencing helped out a lot. That was a really big problem earlier. It's 4AM there? You must be a late nighter? HorrorFan121 (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I just took a crack at the intro. I hope that making it four paragraphs doesn't violate some sort of rule, but I thought it made more sense split that way. Feel free to modify as necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Blue Moonset. Four paragraphs should be perfectly fine. It's weird though. Someone apparently closed the FAC for no reason. Not sure what that's about. HorrorFan121 (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A disappointing result, but I hope you're not too disheartened. You had a bloody good go at it, and at least the article is in even better shape now—I'd take the improvements as a net positive of the process, if nothing else. (FWIW, my first crack at FL ended in an unpromoted closure after one set of comments, which didn't exactly make my day!). This experience has pretty much convinced me that our time would be better spent on content building, but if you want to give it another go in future, I'll be right behind you again :)

Blue Moonset, thanks very much for working on the lead. I was going to suggest to HF that he ask you to take a look at it, because I always appreciate the copy-edits you give my sometimes clunky prose, but I didn't want to volunteer you for work on your behalf! So thank you for that :) Frickative 15:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. ;) I'm a little bummed out, but it's fine. I think my main focus now will be getting each character article up to good article status, and then shooting for the main Good Topic status. We make a pretty good team when it comes to building up character articles (such as Kurt Hummel, Emma Pillsbury, etc.) and I find that more enjoyable. I think I want to give Brittany Pierce a go around soon, as I love Brittany. After the featured article candidacy, shooting for GA status seems almost easy. Haha. HorrorFan121 (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Frickative, you can always ask. If I'm around and have the time, I'll likely take a crack at it. If I'm around and don't have the time, I'll try to at least post my regrets. If I'm not around, though, the silence will have to suffice until my return. ;-) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

HF—just seen that you've put Terri up for GA review, good stuff! Not sure if you've seen it (& I don't have the link right now), but in the latest Ausiello TVLine spoiler scoop column, he announced that she won't be back as a series regular next season, but may make recurring appearances (no quote/confirmation from any of the showrunners or Fox though). I've been meaning to work on Santana Lopez for ages, so it would be good to give that a go while you're working on Brittany, because there's bound to be a lot of overlap. It would be great to finally achieve a GT!

Blue Moonset—thanks very much, that's great to know! :D Frickative 12:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I constructed a small casting section where I mentioned that should would be taken off as a series regular for season three. Didn't they report she would have a big storyline in season three two months ago? Haha. Now that we're hearing about contracts maybe we can finally get a confirmation on whether Ashley Fink and Darren Criss have been promoted to contract players. HorrorFan121 (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ack, I'm sorry, I must have missed it in there (I do see it now!). Yeah, a couple of months back TV Guide reported that she could be in up to 22 episodes of s3 [8]. Perhaps for now we should present both sides, seeing as that comes from an interview with Jessalyn, and she's in the Fox profile of the season, while Ausiello's report is unconfirmed by anyone official? If you wanted any more development stuff, skimming the interviews on the Jessalyn tags here and here is probably the quickest way to find sources. I wish I could remember what publications mentioned the Terri/Finn storyline that ended up canned before it began, that would have been crazy. Frickative 19:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Another example of how this show changes. Haha. I can go add some of that stuff there now. Also, do you have any good casting sources pertaining to Matthew Morrison? I think I want to try out Will's article. HorrorFan121 (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll check my bookmarks and keep an eye out. There should be plenty circa 2009, because I think he did a lot of the early press, right? Btw, how come you're re-introducing non-free images? Frickative 17:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. That would be great. As for the non-free images, it's conflicting. According to Kurt's FAC free images in the infobox aren't considered proper and the articles really lack without an image. It was also suggested that the original image be added back after I had removed it before the process. An editor also said: "I've had a look at a few other articles about TV characters and non-free images seem to be ok to use on a fair use basis. Homer Simpson, Bart Simpson and Bernard Quatermass are all FA class articles and have non-free images. I would put it." So that's why I'm adding them back as long as they have a good rationale. If you feel differently you can remove them of course. Hmmm according to The Clicker...it also looks like some characters will be indeed leaving after season three. They have their time line off though. From what I understand, Rachel and Kurt were sophomores in season one and Quinn/Puck/Finn were a year older. Wouldn't that mean those two would still have another year on the show? It's weird thinking of Glee without Lea Michele or Chris Colfer. HorrorFan121 (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've always said that I dislike putting actor images in character iboxes because it seems like misleading presentation, but I think The Simpsons characters are really bad examples, because obviously Nancy Cartwright looks nothing like Bart Simpson, whereas Matthew Morrison is identical to Will Schuester, and there are plenty of serviceable free images available. As for graduating, lol, didn't Brad tell Entertainment Weekly last month that they have no idea of their own timeline and will sort it out as they go along? This show is so shambolic. I'm excited about Marti Noxon joining the staff though, next season should be interesting just for the big production changes :) Frickative 18:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

They really need to get a grip on that. Haha. Most of the stuff Ryan spoils never comes to par in the next season. Did you read that Ryan/Ian/Brad were basically making the storylines up as they went along? I'll see if I can dig that up. Oh by the way, I love Marti Noxon! I was super excited when I first read that. Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Angel are two of my favorite television series of all time, and she participated in some of the show's best episodes. They hired six new writers, which I really feel is a step in the right direction. HorrorFan121 (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I'm not sure if I've read that or not, but I can definitely believe it! I love Buffy too :). I agree on the new writers, it definitely seems like a positive step (though I wonder if we'll see a return from the cringe-worthy Dalton Rumba now Michael Hitchcock is on staff...) Frickative 15:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose anything's possible. I just hope they actually plan out long term story-arcs. Glee seems to be shifting into a drama/soap opera more and more as every new episode airs, which I like. Oh well, here's hoping to a good season ahead. Also, is there anyway we can cut down Quinn Fabray's storyline section? It's WAY too long. HorrorFan121 (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ouch, that is super long. I'll have a go at it now and aim to cut it down by about two-thirds, though a half is probably more realistic. Btw, it looks like Ryan has done a bunch of new interviews, and I thought you might be interested in this answer :)

Murphy says no decision has been made regarding the status for Darren Criss (Blaine), Chord Overstreet (Sam), or Ashley Fink (Lauren). “We’ve just started to write [the new season], so I don’t know who we’re bringing back or who we’re letting go. We’ll be deciding that in the next week or so,” says Murphy. “I don’t think of it as coming down to the wire, I just look at it as, ‘Okay, what are the stories?’ That’s what it’s about for me next season.” Frickative 15:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for cutting that down. I wasn't sure what to cut/leave in the "Storyline" section. That second part is interesting. I think Blaine/Sam/Lauren have been pretty popular. They could all fit into storylines that could possibly play out next season. I'm going to be super bummed if neither Darren nor Ashley comes back next season. They have added a lot to the show, Ashley especially. She's brought out a new side of Puck that we haven't seen before. =/ I also hope they use Jayma Mays, Dianna Agron, and Amber Riley next season. HorrorFan121 (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

I'll put put page numbers in brackets in my next Two edits to Ken. Will you then put the Daran little book ref in the Bibliography and cite them the way you did with Roache's books. I haven't done it before.Rain the 1 ^BAM 15:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure! I wasn't sure whether it was you or Gungadin that had the book, which is why I suggested it via edit summary rather than directly. I hadn't used the code before last night either - it's definitely a bit fiddly! Frickative 15:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've indicated which pages say what. The only reason I used the same ref so many times in one part was because Valerie and Ken were mentioned on 6 separate pages. lol There is one in the family section too about Albert. I don't fancy learning the bibliog thing yet. :PRain the 1 ^BAM 16:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorted! Do you have the page that "I was a sort of young semi-heartthrob in those days and thought getting married was going to finish all that." appears on? That should be the last one. Haha, I don't think I've "learned" it so much as I flailed around until I got it right once, and now just keep copy/pasting myself so it doesn't mess up :D Frickative 16:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, Roache's quote is on page 40. (Which is already used for HV Kershaws comments on them)Rain the 1 ^BAM 17:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! Thought it might be in that range, but didn't want to assume and get it wrong. All done :) Frickative 17:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There is definetly scope for an article. :) Three of the books I have go up to 1995... but 'The Coronation Street Treasures' has a little bit of background on Deirdre and Jon, and one line to state a nationwide campaign was launched. That is about it really, but one of the Treasures is a mini 'Free the weatherfield one' poster. lolRain the 1 ^BAM 12:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I just Googled to see what the poster looks like, and there are even Free Deidre T-shirts still on sale at ITV. How bizarre/wonderful. Bill Roache does a nice summary of the storyline in 50 Years, so I'll probably use that for the basic plot for convenience. Thank you for checking :). It should be a fun one to put together, at least! Frickative 15:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you working on it in a sandbox or something? I just like being a tad nosey. :)Rain the 1 ^BAM 21:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm just collecting bookmarks at the moment, hopefully I'll start putting it together once I'm done with Bill Roache's second autobiography (the first one was surprisingly enjoyable, but two is pushing it a bit!) Frickative 21:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There was something in inside soap the last week about free the weatherfield one. I've put it to one side. Anyway, what I wanted to say is I kept on watching the odd episode of Holby.. the latest one I watched just, omg. Dan and Malick getting it on, gay storylines are the formula to keep me hooked. Noticed Dan isn't in the character list though - I think I'll try and build up info on them ready for an article soon.Rain the 1 ^BAM 02:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's awesome about Free the Weatherfield One coverage, thanks! Haha, so many of my friends that had given up on Holby are suddenly interested again after the last episode :D I haven't been keen on Dan since he arrived, which is probably why I've forgotten to add him to the list, oops. I have a teeny draft stub of a Malick article in my userspace though. Great timing, actually, because I was going to ask if you had the Inside Soap interview with Jimmy Akingbola from the 24 May issue. I have the text of it, but annoyingly, not the title or page number to cite it with ¬_¬. Frickative 03:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have that one at home, just house sitting until the weekend though. I enjoyed Sarah Jane Potts tonight, she was fabulous in sugar rush - Eddi will be the one to watch! Hopefully Jake Moon won't be staying long.. lolRain the 1 ^BAM 20:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Whenever you can get to it would be great, thanks! I'll just use a placeholder title in the meantime. I loved SJP as Saint in Sugar Rush, it was a bit weird having two new characters both turn up from Waterloo Road though. And no Dan or Malick, boo. Don't know if you go in for spoilers, but this probably answers on the dullest Moon ;) Frickative 21:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I did read, I love spoilers. Well I'm here with the goods. Inside Soap 28 May - 3 June, Issue 21, Page 36 and the title is "Malick's story will push boundaries..."Rain the 1 ^BAM 18:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you find out if Dan first appeared on 15 Feb or 22 Feb. Looks like 22 from episode guides I read - but I need reassuring. :pRain the 1 ^BAM 19:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(←) Thanks so much for the magazine details! I was amazed by how much I got out of the Digital Spy interview with Jimmy, so it'll be good to add the sexuality stuff as well now :D Dan's first episode was 15 Feb - his arrival was more low-key than Sahira/Laila Rouass's, so it got overshadowed a bit. Here's a cast list ref. IIRC, he didn't do much. They established that he was an old friend of Greg's, and I think it was his first day as a consultant (I can probably double-check that if it's important). I know he got off on the wrong foot with Chrissie by suggesting that nurses are lesser beings than doctors, which is why I didn't really take to him haha. Do you fancy maybe trying for a double DYK hook between us with Dan & Malick? Frickative 19:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a cool idea. Now I'm back home I'm going to plough away with this one. Adam's interview with DS is really in depth too, plus Afterelton are reporting on the kiss, so there is some reception info. If you could check if it was his first day as one because I'll include that. Dan works on Keller right? I get mixed up between Keller and Darwin. It took me ages to learn and I was only ever sure that Mark, Maddy and Linden worked on AAU because the set was so different and always dark - Sacha, Frieda and co work down there now? (I may keep calling on you through out the night, in six months it has become a different show but I'm catching up.)Rain the 1 ^BAM 20:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm here already. In your Malick article, you open creation with a nice part about the producer's expectations. Dan wouldn't of been mentioned in the article - (Not sure if Sariha, Malick and Hansen were) Did she say she wanted those three to be iconic or mentioned a new raft of characters in general. If you are not sure - Would you encourage me using some of that? Or I could just use the source and say "Dan was one of several characters introduced during Holby City's thirteenth series, at a time when the programme was undergoing the loss of many established characters."Rain the 1 ^BAM 20:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, I must have missed DS interviewing Adam, I just skimmed through and it looks really useful :D And the AfterElton piece is great! I've just flicked through his first episode, and here's a bit of backstory for you: He's a keen rugby player and has been captaining a team since he was 10. He repeated his F2 rotation three times, considered a career in cardio, and hadn't seen Greg in 5-6 years. He'd been engaged only for the relationships to fall through a couple of times ("Nice girls, just not quite right." - followed immediately by asking Greg, "What about you, come out of the closet yet?" lol!) And he'd been a consultant for four days. Phew. There was actually a lot more set-up there than I remembered! I think Dan floats between AAU and Kellar as required. I don't have episode 29 to double check, but I think it established there's a theatre-sharing thing going on, like with plastics/cardio at the moment. And yup, Sacha, Frieda etc. are AAU, Ric, Malick etc are Kellar, and Jac, Sahira, Greg etc are Darwin. Any more questions, just keep them coming!

ETA: Just got an edit conflict with your second Q, give me a couple of minutes and I'll dig the interview out to double check :D Frickative 20:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Here we go, the exact quote is:

Many much-loved characters are set to leave Holby City in the coming months, so how will you fill the gaps left?

Hopefully with new and equally iconic characters. You've already seen Henrik Hanssen, played by Guy Henry, who's amazing. We have some other characters coming in as well. Laila Rouass will play a registrar, Sahira Shah, and we've got another lead who was a guest artist in Holby. They were so fantastic, we brought them back in a new capacity - but I can't say who it is yet!

So although she doesn't mention Dan specifically, the "new and equally iconic" is more of a general statement about s13 introductions, so I think you'd be fine using it. The only bit of the interview I can see that refers to Dan specifically isn't too useful, it just says: "A new love interest for Chrissie will confuse things with Sacha. The big question is: can he let go of a potential relationship with Chrissie?" Frickative 21:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh a super thankyou. I've got a good idea where I'm going to take it now. Instead of using that backstory info for Storyline, I could work it into creation. I'm glad you cleared that up about the wards. :) More reception on the kiss: "It's got OMG stamped all over it" -[9]Rain the 1 ^BAM 22:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ooh thank you, that'll be a really good source for Hanssen/Sahira too :D You've probably already seen this one, and it's only tiny, but Jim Shelley wrote this week: "Dan snogging The Malick (Planet Holby) Not exactly Oliver Reed & Alan Bates". I hope that's an obvious enough reference to Women in Love that explaining the comparison under "Reception" won't edge into OR territory. And I don't know whether these are any use, but they're the only two What's on TV reviews I have saved that mention Dan: [10] and [11]. Incorporating backstory into "Creation" sounds like a good way to go, as I think there's less general info about that on Dan than there is Malick. :) Frickative 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Another source: The Guardian are reporting that there were complaints about the kiss on Points of View last week. Annoyingly, it's not on iPlayer anymore and I can't find anywhere to download it from, but the Guardian commentary itself is pretty good. Frickative 02:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Women in Love, you may need to explain what joke he was making. The second WOT ref is good, I'll use that shortly. The 'Points of View' is a real shame as sometimes the beeb come out to defend things like that, which may have been useful. I'll use the Guardian ref. I'm nearly onto writing about Chrissie, I think I'll shove their relationship in a sexuality section because I have a feeling she will just be the padlock on his closet, right? Looks like he already started when he suddenly confessed his love for her. lol I'm wondering why the actors spoke out about it yet, they were so tight lipped beforehand, I wonder why they are carrying on with it.Rain the 1 ^BAM 02:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There's an infamous homoerotic nude wrestling scene, so I guess Shelley was just saying it wasn't up to the same standard, haha. I'm really annoyed about missing PoV—as you say, there would almost certainly have been a BBC statement on it. Frustrating. It definitely looks like Chrissie is a closeted mistake, though I was just re-reading the Inside Soap interview where Astill says Dan was "instantly attracted to her", so maybe they will go down the bi route? And lol, because Holby gets so little coverage compared to the big soaps, I never know whether the actors are being deliberately tight-lipped about things, or whether the magazines just don't care enough to run stories! Frickative 03:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that, I'm going to give it the bisexual slant for now then. Same here though, I'm not sure if Astill was trying to throw the viewers of the scent, so to speak. In the DS interview he claims Dan would never cheat on Chrissie - I'll be making the article contradict his sexuality issues lol. Usually the actors know in advance about sexuality storylines. I can just forsee it now though, when the article is in the mainspace fans are going to be adding the "Fictional gay males" category like mad. Anyway I'll do more work on it tomorrow and you have already filled quite a few refs out for me in your Malick article. :DRain the 1 ^BAM 03:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, it definitely looks like he was being deliberately misleading then, doesn't it? I'd forgotten the failed engagements until I went back through his first episode earlier, but even that aside, the fact that they chose to make Chrissie Malick's only close friend surely suggests the storyline was always heading in a triangle direction. Until this started up I really thought Dan was a bit of a nonentity though, so I'm amazed by how much you've already been able to put together! :D Frickative 04:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with the development section, I know the sexuality section is just going to grow from here onward, so I'm not worried it is a little short. I do think I've hit the brick wall now though, I've used what I could from the refs. Plus the reception section was basically done by you, I just changed some words and stuff. The lead needs a bit of a boost then it's ready?? Malick is obviously the one who is more notable atm. Love all the characterisation info you got. So now I'm wondering, where do you find the promo pics? The ones I have seen on websites are just using the face portion. Then the double hook should be fun.Rain the 1 ^BAM 21:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's looking great, excellent work! It is a shame there's no reception on Dan solo, but then Malick's had a couple of extra months to pick up reviews and commentary. Ooh, maybe you could stick in "Creation" that Astill was contracted until November 2011? For promos, if Digital Spy don't have any, holby.tv almost always get them from BBC Publicity and I just crop off the watermarks they add on lol. For Dan, there's this and this. Frickative 21:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

(←) I meant to add the contract information too. I have chosen image number two and cropped it ;) Let me know when you are done with Malick and they can enter the world of Wikipedia together - side-by-side. 0_0Rain the 1 ^BAM 23:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff! I'm just giving Malick one last read-through, and then if you're still around, we're good to go :D Frickative 00:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm still around. Then we can decide on a hook.Rain the 1 ^BAM 00:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Great. I'm going to have to stick a {{db-move}} tag on Antoine Malick so the redirect can be deleted, but I'll do that right now if you want to go ahead and move Dan? Do you have any thoughts on possible hooks? Frickative 01:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll move it now and put the speedy tag on the redirect. I was thinking it could be about viewers and critics (only one I know) saying the storyline is following a gay trend.Rain the 1 ^BAM 01:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha we're totally on the same wavelength, I was going to suggest something like that. I tried to come up with something positive, maybe about Astill saying Dan wouldn't cheat on Chrissie and then within weeks kissing Malick (...in retrospect, that's not really "positive"!), but reading the interview back, his answers were quite wishy-washy and vague. How about something liiike...

(←) ... that a kiss between Dan Hamilton and Antoine Malick in the UK medical drama Holby City was criticised for "following the trend" of depicting gay relationships?

Hm, I'm struggling to tie the AfterElton review and PoV complaints together within 200 characters. I suppose a more positive alternative might be picking out one of the complimentary quotes from AE?

... that a kiss between Dan Hamilton and Antoine Malick in the UK medical drama Holby City was described as being "full of passion and heat and rage"? Frickative 01:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I love the first one. If I didn't know them I could imagine myself seeing the DYK, being baffled at the accusation and clicking it. Might equal more views. :D Then I think those who read on would be glad there was possitive feedback for it.Rain the 1 ^BAM 02:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Great! I'm happy to go with that one then if you are :D It seems there are no admins around to move Malick into the mainspace for me, so the nomination might have to wait until tomorrow. I've really enjoyed working on these in tandem, and it's great to have a couple of solid new Holby articles - the last one to hit the mainspace was Henrik Hanssen, over seven months ago! Frickative 02:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Perfect. Oh he's been moved. :) Well if you still have your mojo, we could team up on someone else. Or we could do one a piece again. EDIT: Could you also rate Dan's article against the quality scales on his talk, I'd just be biased. lolRain the 1 ^BAM 02:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, I picked a bad moment to wander off. I've rated Dan a B for everything :) The sexuality/reception sections might be a little short for now, but given that there are no other sources to add, it's absolutely as complete as it possibly could be. It would be great to work on something else! Are there any characters you'd be particularly interested in doing? I've been meaning to do something about Chrissie Williams and Ric Griffin for ages - crap articles for characters that have been around for 10 years, but I've never been a big fan of either, so I just never get around to it. I'd be good with anyone, really. I'll just get the image for Malick uploaded, then I'll try and find something to review at DYK so we can submit the hook. Frickative 03:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If we do another single one Frieda, Sahira, or Ollie - I noticed you already did work for Frieda in the list. We'd deffo have to collab for Chrissie, imagine her relationship section. I swear she is the Holby exercise bike. I'm not too keen on Ric either, I loved it when Connie used to put him in his place. Another bad article is Maria and I loved her, just not to sure how much coverage she'd get for her early stuff. I'll check back after some sleep to see who you go for. :)Rain the 1 ^BAM 03:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL re: Chrissie. Trying to list all her romances doesn't bear thinking about, there must have been at least a dozen major ones. Any out of Frieda, Sahira or Ollie would be good to tackle :D. DS did a big interview with Olga after I wrote the section on Frieda, so we'd probably get a decent amount out of that, and Jane Simon writes about how much she loves her in pretty much every review. There's probably a good amount on Sahira too, just because Laila Rouass did a trillion interviews when she joined. Ollie might be a bit harder to scrape sources together for, but with the couple of Inside Soap interviews and whatever can be cribbed from Penny's article, it could be do-able. Given that all the departures this year mean he's bizzarely already become one of the longest-serving remaining characters, maybe he'd be the best one to try? (I liked Maria up until she freaked out about her boyfriend being bisexual, then went off her forever ¬_¬). & the DYK hook has been submitted :) Frickative 05:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Get it Right GA

I received your message and it is ready to pass GA but It needs to go through the proper nomination process again, so if you renominate it, I will post a short summary and note if anything else needs to be done (which I don't think it does) and will pass GA. --FeuDeJoie (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that there are two pages for the "Get It Right" song: the Get It Right (Glee Cast song) page, which I assume this is talking about, and the Get It Right (Glee song) page, which redirects to Glee: The Music, Volume 5. I'm not sure whether it's better to change redirects, delete that page entirely, or do something else, so I'll leave it to you, Frickative. (BTW: happy birthday!) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I also took a look at Loser Like Me, since it has the article on that song; I also noticed a Loser Like Me (song) page, which is only a simple redirect to the episode it came from, Original Song. I suspect that in this case the (song) page with the redirect should be deleted, but again, I'd rather leave these to someone who's working in this particular area. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Spiceitup, thanks for your message, I'll renominate it ASAP. I wouldn't normally be comfortable nominating another editor's work, but this is a slightly unusual situation, and it would be a shame for Candyo32's good editing to end in an unsuccessful nom as a result of taking some time away from Wikipedia.

Blue Moonset, thank you for the birthday wishes! The Get It Right (Glee song) redirect is my doing—within minutes of creating it, I realised it should have been 'Glee Cast song' and moved it, but I didn't realise it was still pointing at Volume 5. I'll re-target it to the correct article. Loser Like Me (song) is probably the result of an editor not understanding how to edit over a redirect, as Loser Like Me was at the time it was created. I'll re-target that to the song article too. (I think that WP:R#KEEP #2 could apply to both, but as long as they're pointing at the right pages, they shouldn't do any harm.) Frickative 15:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad you had a great day. The redirects look fine now. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!!!

Wikipedia wishes you a Happy Birthday!!

GunGagdin^Moan 22:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Only just noticed - I Hope you had a fabulous Birthday, congratz. :)Rain the 1 ^BAM 00:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Happy Birthday to you Frickative :-) GSorby - Talk! 01:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hope your b'day was awesome! :-D Rcej (Robert) – talk 01:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! Hope it was an awesome one! HorrorFan121 (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! :) - JuneGloom Talk 12:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all your messages! I had a lovely day, with lots of this, and tomorrow I bring home one of these, so it's all rather marvellous. Thank you all! ^_^ Frickative 15:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Aww happy belated birthday! Sorry I missed it! –anemoneprojectors– 17:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Np, thank you AP! :D Frickative 12:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

B-day

Thanks Mario, will do! Frickative 12:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the little mistake I made on my talk, I copied if from your userpage, sorry! I'll be more carefull ;0 MayhemMario 17:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem :) This page shows how to customise the settings, if you want to. Frickative 17:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Antoine Malick

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Oliver Valentine

Hello! Your submission of Oliver Valentine 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! Calistemon (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Number 10 done?

Frickative, I was taking a look at your "to do" list, and worked on your number 10: I just did a copy edit of the "Comeback" article, especially the "Episodic response" and "Musical and performance commentary" sections. If you like what you see, and that was all that was keeping the page from a GA attempt, then it may be time for you to pull the trigger. On the other hand, I didn't edit for length, just smoothness and a few accuracy checks, so it may require a bit more in-depth attention than I gave it. My first try was lost by the Wikipedia gods, but I still think I pulled all periods outside of quotes that should be; those left should be original full sentences (or significant chunks of ends of sentences) where the period was part of the original sentence being quoted. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that! Overviewing your edits now, they all look great, and it's very much appreciated. If possible, I'd like to pull the music section in by a few hundred words, but my only substantial reluctance with shooting for GA now is that that article was written collaboratively with User:Candyo32, who appears to have been inactive for a couple of weeks. I know that I always prefer to be consulted before something I've worked heavily on is nominated, so out of courtesy, I'd like to hold off for a little while to see if this is a temporary break, and if so, gain her approval to nominate. Frickative 03:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely you should hold off. I had no idea of the original authorship here. I made one tiny little change to one of your edits just now, but everything else looks like an improvement. Pulling in the music section probably makes sense; it looks like most everyone is cited on every song, which probably isn't necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking another look at it :). When I get the chance, I'll go through and re-read the original reviews to get a better sense of which critics are making largely similar points. I'm generally happy with the shape it's in now, though. Btw, nice work on the Karofksy draft! Frickative 08:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Happy to do so. :) Thanks for taking a look at the Karofsky draft. It's the first character storyline I've attempted, so it's good to know it looks like a good start. I expect it needs some cutting—writing long is my curse—but at least I've hit all the important high points, and I think they're accurate. :) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

On a somewhat unrelated matter, I was taking a look at the Rachel Berry storyline section today, and even while doing a copyedit, I was wondering if it, like Kurt's, should be divided into seasons. Like many character articles, it's light on season two, but it also seems to be light on Rachel's less admirable moments in general, such as omitting her telling Finn about Quinn and Puck, sending Sunshine to the crack house, and so on, which seem far more important than her brief crush on Will. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Skim-reading it now, you're right, it definitely needs some work. A season split may help, but the main thing is probably cutting down the season 1 plot to a more reasonable length (and making sure the most salient points are covered), then fully fleshing out season 2. I guess a lot of the articles have similar issues because much of the plot was written while the first 13 episodes were airing (so while Rachel scheming in "Showmance" might have seemed important at the time, there's been so much development since that there's no way it needs multiple lines of coverage now.) Are you planning on doing further work on it? I'd be happy to give it a fairly brutal cut-down, but it'll probably be a few days before I have time. Frickative 17:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

My editing time's about to become more limited. I might be able to do a bit more tomorrow or the next day, but feel free to step in if you don't see anything from me. I'll do my best to help out in updating character articles that are still first-thirteen-episode centric. I doubt I'd be brutal enough in the cut-down regardless... It did seem to me that Rachel should probably have as much storyline real estate as Kurt; her character is more central to the show than his, but maybe that's ultimately not relevant to length. It's interesting that Kurt isn't mentioned at all in her storyline, though the reverse isn't true. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, it looks like User:Candyo32 has just posted her first edit in almost four weeks. I'll be interested to hear whether she wants to go for GA on "Comeback"... BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, thank you for letting me know! I'll leave her a message later and see if she's happy to go ahead. Frickative 12:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed that there wasn't a "Chart history" section, so I slipped one in while the slipping was good. It turns out that several early 2011 episodes were missing them; I also added one to "Blame It on the Alcohol", but that leaves "Silly Love Songs" (already a GA) and "Sexy" to be added, though not until tomorrow. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that! If you notice an article without one, check the end of the "Production" section – sometimes if there's not a lot of material, chart information is added there to pad it out – a carry-over from the first season structure. "Production" in "Comeback" is one of the most woefully short this season, but I can't think of any pertinent information that's missing, so it can't be helped. (I'd never read that before about Glee's "Sing" outperforming the original, interesting find!) Frickative 12:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd noticed a couple of episode articles had chart information in the Production or Music sections, so I didn't bother worrying about those. As for "Sing", I wish I could say I found it myself, but it's mentioned in Glee: The Music, Volume 5, and since I've recently been updating gold/platinum certifications, I knew to go looking for it. I also looked at the actual charts a couple of months in both directions to see whether the original ever got higher than in that one week; turns out that week was the original's peak on "Hot 100", though it stayed on for many weeks (and almost five months on the "Rock Songs" list), slowly falling down the list. I'm sure it sold far greater numbers in the original, but the Glee cover did better on their mutual best week. It didn't seem worth mentioning that "Take Me or Leave Me" charted higher in this one week than the song did when originally released years before, when it never made the Hot 100 but did make the "bubbling under" list, though that is also pointed out in the Volume 5 article. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That's great that you're updating the certifications! The US chart system is rather baffling to me, so I tend to neglect that area of the Project. Good call on "Take Me or Leave Me" – of the two, the "Sing" comparison definitely seems more relevent, being both contemporary and of a genre that doesn't typically underperform in the charts anyway. Frickative 13:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Glee (cont. from "Lauren")

I did some minor copyediting to the "Storyline" section: I think it's important that Quinn joined New Directions on her own volition (doubtless talking Santana and Brittany into joining her) and without Sue's permission because she was worried about Finn; Sue takes advantage of it, but it wasn't Sue's idea initially. Also, I thought it was important to say that she moved in with Puck's family, rather than with Puck, and took out "briefly", because she must have done so in "Sectionals", and was still there in "Funk". It's minor, but it adds very little. Also, I thought we should at least explain that "Lucy" is her first name, and "Quinn" her middle name.

I'd also like to address the boilerplate paragraph about Ryan Murphy and the 2012 graduation, since you brought it back. I removed it deliberately from Quinn's bio (and planned to ask about it in general) because, frankly, I didn't think it belonged in every single student character's page. It isn't really part of casting and creation of that particular character; it's about the show and its plans. I think it belongs on the general Glee page, probably on the Season 3 page (since that's when it's first going to happen)...but having it on Quinn's, and Finn's, and Rachel's, and Kurt's, and, and, and... That seems excessive and not very useful. Should this be a discussion for the task force page?

On the returning characters, I've been wondering whether Sam would be back ever since "Rumours", since families frequently move back "home" if they're having employment problems in a new city. For Blaine and Lauren, I can't imagine any viewer who wouldn't feel cheated if we didn't see the relationship ending in an organic fashion. For either to simply disappear would be damaging for the show. It's easier for them to get away with it if it's Sam's character, since we just have a hug and a handholding scene with Mercedes. But it'll still be hard, because people are invested in him: unlike Matt, Sam's had a fair number of major storylines; Matt had screen time, but only a few lines total. BTW, no mention of Karofsky yet. I do hope they continue his journey... BlueMoonset (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Your copyedits are all fine improvements, thank you :). Usually after cutting something down drastically, I leave it for a few hours to a day before returning to refine it, in order to get a bit of perspective on the changes—so never worry about following on to smooth things out, because I'll readily admit to needing a few follow-on edits to get it just right.

Re: the 2012 graduation, not guilty! I agree about it being best-placed in Glee (season 3) rather than all the character articles, particularly as Falchuk recently refused to be drawn on exactly who'll be departing. An exception to this would be Murphy having repeatedly stated that Brittany will probably be held back a year, because he wants to keep Morris in the show - but that's a lot more specific than the general boilerplate paragraph.

I've never been a big fan of Blaine, but I hope they all return in s3. (I even read yesterday that Dijon Talton thinks Matt might transfer back, which is... interesting =/!) I can't recall reading anything specific about Max Adler, but here he does seem hopeful that Karofsky's arc will continue. Frickative 18:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I'm guilty on that. Haha. Personally, I feel like it should be there for the specific characters mentioned. For example, "Rachel, Finn, Quinn and Puck fans: Brace yourselves. It will soon be time to say farewell to the original McKinley High kids as 'Glee' boss Ryan Murphy confirmed that the characters who were juniors last season will graduate in May 2012." [12] I think it's important to have that in there because it recognizes that some of them could potentially be leaving the show next year and would add to the section. HorrorFan121 (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, would either of you be interested in working as a team on Santana Lopez? The articles turn out much better when more than one editor works on them at a time. For example, Blaine Anderson and Kurt Hummel both of which Frickative and I worked on as a team. She particularly did most of the work on Blaine and look at how awesome it looks. HorrorFan121 (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Goodness me, RM has been busy with interviews this week. A couple of timely new quotes on graduation (apologies if any of these are the same as the AOL link just posted, my laptop is being a PITA and won't let me open any new tabs):

Everyone wants to know who is graduating. In your mind, who are the seniors at McKinley?

Ryan Murphy: I think they're all seniors, except I don't think Chord Overstreet is a senior, and I think the Darren Criss of it all is very ambiguous. But we're not really thinking about that right now. The other thing I'll say is that there are a lot of kids in that glee club who are intellectually challenged, who I'm sure are pulling straight Fs.[13]

So the ENTIRE class will graduate by the end?

To that I would say there are some people who are not seniors and there are some people that are REALLY intellectually challenged. Like, you know that Britney is pulling straight Fs.

Who’s NOT a senior? Chord?

Chord is not a senior. I believe Darren is not a senior. There’s a group of them. But this year we will be adding new people. [14]

I'd love to collaborate on Santana. It's been on my radar forever, and she's probably my favourite character right now. (Thank you for the kind comment about Blaine! I like to think we did an equal amount on that :)) I have too much on IRL to be able to commit to anything until the start of next month, but if you don't mind waiting until 1 July, I'd really like to take part.

Going back to Adler for a sec, I've only skim-read this so far, and while I don't think he outright confirms he'll be back next season, they do talk a lot about where Karofsky could go next. I think he's done so much press now, that a separate article on that character could be a viable possibility. Frickative 18:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Hmm...interesting. That means almost every character will be gone by the end of the season with the exception of Brittany, Sam, and possibly Blaine. I have no problem waiting until July to work on Santana, which would actually work out well for me. The end of June is always relatively hectic. I would love to work with you on it, and until then I can start collecting a list of potential sources for her article pertaining to her casting and whatnot so we can have that done ahead of time.

I love creating character articles. If you think we can build one for Karofsky then I can go ahead and do that. It should be relatively easy, as the bullying story has gotten major loads of press. HorrorFan121 (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I really do think that more than those few will end up staying (though in one interview, Murphy talks about a possible Rachel/Kurt spin-off in New York, so who knows!) That's great re: Santana—I don't know how much I'll have time for before we start, but I'll create a new bookmark folder for possible reception stuff etc. I think there's definitely enough development/characterisation for Karofsky, the only aspect I'm not sure of is reception. Off the cuff, I can't recall if there have been many reviews of the character individually, or if most of it focusses on Kurt's part of the storyline. Then again, I'm sure there's more than there is for poor Mike Chang, haha. Frickative 21:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The notion that Blaine is younger than Kurt doesn't make sense, given all that has occurred. So many things militate against it, not least that Blaine has been singing professionally at theme parks for a while, that Kurt seemed to think that Blaine would be willing to go with him and Rachel to New York for college (he'd know if Blaine was only a Sophomore), and when the hell was that Sadie Hawkins dance where Blaine got beat up: middle school? Ryan Murphy's realized the box he's in, and doesn't want to lose too many performers...but Blaine's in that box along with Kurt and Rachel. The other bright students include Mike, Tina, Artie (Decathletes all), Quinn, Mercedes, and probably Santana. Puck, Finn, and Sam are all having problems (though I'd hope by now that Kurt's tutoring Finn, like Artie's been tutoring Puck), and Brittany's hopeless. She's the one who could be a six-year student. Easily.

Going up a couple of levels: I don't think I'm that interested in working on Santana, but I appreciate the offer. I think I'm more interested in storylines, and not so much about many of the other components of the articles about the various characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely forgot to address the issue of the Murphy boilerplate. I'm still not sure it belongs...and it isn't really accurate as worded, because the whole cast isn't being replaced, just those who graduate. Also, "Casting and Creation" just doesn't seem like the correct place for it. Idle thought, since I've only just added them to the character list: I wonder whether the band will also be replaced, or have a one-year extra life, because they're students, too. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Anything's possible. A lot of people have mentioned that they would be interested in seeing a Kurt/Rachel spinoff in New York and with the franchise rapidly growing I could see it happening. As for Karofsky, I think I could possibly squeeze together a small reception section for him. Maybe some stuff from the Prom episode about him struggling on what to do? And haha at Mike. I don't dislike him, but I would so much rather see Lauren/Blaine upped to series regulars instead of Harry Shum Jr. I can start putting a list of sources that I can come up with on Santana's talk page. We should have a relatively large "Characterization" section for her. As for the characters leaving, I don't think it's going to be as big as he's saying. I think some will leave, but I don't think they want the entire show re-vamped, which will happen if the majority of them go. He's so messed up on the timeline though, so who knows?

Hey, BlueMoonset. You say you like writing out storylines? Would you be interested in doing a "Storyline" section for Karofsky if I can pull together enough information for a separate article? HorrorFan121 (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

HorrorFan121, I could try a Karofsky "Storyline", though I'd probably start it sooner rather than later. Where should I put it for you to look at? Is that the sort of thing that should go on my (as yet nonexistent) BlueMoonset page, with any discussion on my talk page? I imagine it will eventually come in handy. As for Mike, I think he deserves to be a series regular just based on time in grade. It seems silly not to recognize that the guy's been in every episode since his debut. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I just created a page here User:HorrorFan121/Dave Karofsky for you to put any work you do towards his storylines. Usually users don't put it on their pages. It has the basic setup right now. It would be a big help if you could do that. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Brittany Pierce's storyline section also needs to be cut down. Could you possibly do that when you get a chance, Frick? I'm not sure what to leave/what not to leave. HorrorFan121 (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave that to Frickative; I think Karofsky exhausted my editor brain for the moment. I took a look at Brittany's storyline, and my brain froze like I'd been hit by a slushie. Though not before I again noticed the apparent contradiction of her saying that Kurt was the only guy she hadn't made out with, given that Artie was (excuse the pun) virgin territory in the following season. Of course, she could have still been in that "he's a robot" phase...though she makes eye contact with Artie plenty of times in the first season, despite what both of them say in "Duets". In fact, I'm not sure I agree with the explanation of the end of that episode: I thought Brittany came to like being with Artie, so to have him break up with her was not only upsetting, but also the realization of why: when she sees him being wheeled by Finn, she finds she's regretting them no longer being together. Of course, now the shoe's on the other foot... On the other hand, I hadn't picked up on the "no longer sexually available" signal at all, so I could easily have missed other details. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitely, I'll go over it as soon as I get the chance. It might not be for a couple of days, but there does seem to be a bit of OR in play in the "Duets" write-up, and possibly more throughout, so it'll be a good one to curb. Frickative 08:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you hear the news about Chord Overstreet being dropped? Also, apparently Ashley Fink will have her airtime cut back but that's only coming from one source. =/ Also, did you have any luck finding casting sources for Santana? I've begun expanding her article. HorrorFan121 (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The news about Chord being dropped (along with Harry and Darren being promoted) was kind of sad; if I were one of the incoming characters, I'd want to avoid getting the "fourth football player in glee club" role, since it's only good for a single season. He was the easiest to get rid of: ever since "Rumours" and the revelation that his parents were unemployed, I've been afraid they'd have his family decide to move back to Tennessee. (If they do that, then we wouldn't have him even as an occasional guest star; that part of Ausiello's "scoop" seemed implausible to me.) I hope we do see a fair amount of Ashley, though if she and Puck aren't still an item, it's bound to reduce her presence, since she isn't a strong singer. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Disappointing news about Chord, I was particularly looking forward to seeing Mercedes and Sam together next season. I'm glad Ashley's definitely at least sticking around, I just hope she doesn't get scaled back drastically to Jacob-esque levels. I guess we should just continue to take it all with a pinch of salt until the cast/producers/Fox confirm. Wrt Santana, I just checked my bookmarks and I have a total of 2 articles saved – I'll get to work on it tomorrow :D Frickative 23:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering about the move of Mike Chang's entry to the Characters of Glee article's "Main Characters" section at this time, before an official announcement from Fox (and if he moves, Blaine should also do so); I wasn't around last year when Santana, Brittany, and Burt were elevated, so I don't know what the criteria were. I asked on Talk:Glee (TV series); should I have done so on the project page instead? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The main article talk page is just fine, I'll go and reply there now :) Frickative 12:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, having reread that deadline.com article that mentions Ashley/Lauren, it sounds like all they know is that she hasn't been promoted to series regular; like Harry/Mike after season one, she's continuing on as a recurring character, and any reduction in screen time or number of appearances looks like sheer speculation from the writers. I really hadn't expected her to become a main character, though I hope she sticks around through graduation. There are lots of recurring characters who will be remaining so (Figgins has been one since the beginning), and I hope also to see Karofsky, Becky, and a bunch of others continuing to appear. I imagine most of the new students will be recurring to start with, but it's always possible one or more of them will also join the main cast. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree re: Lauren – not that I distrust Deadline, because they were dead-on in breaking the news of the first new writer to be hired, but I imagine if there had been any concrete change to her contractual status/episode guarantee, Ausiello would have reported it alongside the news about Chord, Harry & Darren. (Also, I hate to break up discussions to different locations like this, but I'm just about to run out the door, so I just wanted to say quickly that letting Mike and Blaine lie under 'Main characters' at the 'Characters of...' page, but altering the wording to "reported" seems a good compromise.) Frickative 18:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey there. Just checking in to see if you found any potential Santana sources. I'm still coming up with nothing as she was a very background character when the show first premiered in 2009, and most of the prominent characters at that time had audition videos, interviews, articles, etc. There's a lot of good characterization sources that I've come across though. HorrorFan121 (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the alternating topics, but Ausiello's reporting today that Ashley's "rep" says she's returning on a "recurring basis" in season three. And I'm glad you think what I did on "Characters" works as a compromise. If the reports on Harry or Darren change, then we change what's there... And, thinking about it, I doubt she had an episode guarantee in season two; she's long been quoted as saying she had no idea she was going to join New Directions, so it was an unexpected bump to continually recurring when she got the script for Special Education. I expect that New Directions will have fourteen to sixteen members in season three, given what we've been told so far. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry HF, I haven't really found anything worthwhile pertaining to casting yet. The rest of "Development" is looking great, though. If it's alright with you, I think I'll concentrate my efforts over the next few days on the "Reception" section? There probably won't be much back-nine stuff there either, but a few good reviews like Van Der Werff's on how her character has evolved would be excellent. (I seem to recall Jamies Poniewozik writing something similar for Time, I'll have to search it out.)

Very pleased to have the confirmation about Ashley! Particularly as an "insider" was trying to spread gossip that she was going the same way as Chord. I'm guessing we won't get much more concrete information until they start filming. I'm reluctant to add a lot of what Murphy's said to the season 3 article because his plans change so often. Last week I read 4 different interviews with him, between which he told 4 different stories about what he's doing re: tribute episodes next year, so whether anything pans out the way it sounds now remains to be seen. Frickative 13:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm..I just took a look at Emma Pillsbury (we had a similar problem there). Maybe we could dig up an interview where she describes what she liked about Santana then put it in a blockquote? I'll see if I can find anything like that. HorrorFan121 (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Oliver Valentine (cont. from "Bibliography)

We'll go with Oliver then - I've just done a trawl for sources, some may be useful and others may not. Most are reception, there is a useful interview with Tina Hobley for their fling. The inside soap interviews are probably the god send. I hope you don't mind me starting it in my user space - User:Raintheone/Oliver ValentineRain the 1 ^BAM 14:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, it looks like a good batch of sources to read though! There's also a Guy Henry interview in today's What's on TV that someone has scanned, that's mostly discussing Oliver confessing to Hanssen [15]. I have to pop out for a couple of hours, so I'll have a flick through the other soap mags on my way back to see if there's anything else, because I think next week's is pretty much Oliver-centric. Frickative 15:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Right so I've covered Chrissie, starting reception and Characterisation. Would you take care of storylines and creation? :D Then I guess we can concentrate on the downward spiral. Great work on finding more sources - I don't know how you do it! On another note I'm guessing Eddi is going to have drinking problems. That would be interesting. I've asked Daniel from DS, who is doing the holby interview with Craig-Brown tomorrow to question about the Points of View complaints - he's usually is very helpful, plus he said it was a great question, so hopefully.Rain the 1 ^BAM 01:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's off to a great start! Sorry I haven't been able to chip in much today, I'll definitely get Storylines and Creation covered tomorrow. I'm really glad that you did all the Chrissie stuff, because I was barely watching at that point. It looks that way with Eddi—I'm not quite sure what to make of her yet, but I loved tonight's episode, partic. Dan/Malick in the beginning and all the ridiculous Jac/Sahira subtext. And oh, that's exciting! I didn't know there was a DS interview coming up - last year's with Diana Kyle was a bit naff because she seemed on the defensive about what a slump the show was in, but Craig-Brown's Inside Soap interview was really good, so hopefully this one will be too, esp if it touches on Points of View :D. Frickative 03:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I got inside soap and dull Elizabeth has hogged this weeks interview! Oliver got a little boxed mention lol I remember reading that interview from last year and thinking it was boring. It was a nice touch when Kris Green criticised her for having Chrissie miscarry, conceive and givebirth in so little time - she certainly was defensive then. Great stuff for Chrissie's article in the future though.Rain the 1 ^BAM 01:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And the BBC has defended the kiss! [16] :D Should that be used for development?Rain the 1 ^BAM 11:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant! You know, I'm willing to bet that DS pursued that story as a direct result of you asking about it, so great job :D From the statement, I'd probably use the two paragraphs beginning "Regular viewers will have seen..." in relationship/sexuality development, and the two from "Holby City aims to reflect..." in reception after the complaint bit. On the subject of these articles, what do you make of the "overlinking" edits made last night? I'm a bit confused, given that I'm sure we've discussed with the same editor before that there's no consensus the guideline applies to references, and sites like DS should be italicised. (Plus, there's no location parameter in {{cite episode}}!) Hm. Frickative 15:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh see, now I've talked this issue with the user before and he said that, in articles I've worked on, any future edits for overlinking would be kept directly to the text, not sourcing. I do remember you weighing in on the situation and explaining that there is no consensus on overlink in refs... I'll revert, just hope it does not cause a arguement. I'll add the info now then. :) I'd like to think DS did - can't wait for the interview to be put up, I think he asked my Penny question too. I wanted to know why she was killed off-screen. I've also left the Gaurdian reception link for Ollie behind, because it is so good, I'd be tempted to paste the whole thing over. From the post interview, should I start a new part of the development section, focusing on his partnering with Greg?Rain the 1 ^BAM 16:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, good question about Penny. Emma Catherwood's entire exit seemed so rushed, what with Penny taking leave before she died and then only coming back for a couple of scenes, too =/. I love The Guardian source for Ollie - since the new writer took over from Grace Dent, he's had great/hilarious stuff to say about Oliver, Hanssen and Jac. I'll try and incorporate it in a bit (though maybe we could just use the whole thing and stick it in a quote box?). For the Greg stuff, maybe we could have a development section on "Career", and then it could also contain the downward spiral info? Frickative 16:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Quote box seems better, it would be a shame to chop it up. I used to read Grace Dent's column ages ago, didn't realise it had changed hands. I'll do some more Oliver later - The soaps are about to start. :D Btw though, I forgot about this, good old Ken Barlow had his copy edit completed.. so is it time for the peer review? I still think we could do it if all of us pitch in again, I just dislike FAC - they are too stern and pick on the little things to justify an oppose.Rain the 1 ^BAM 17:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The Holby interview is up. [17] - All four of my questions got asked! Which character settled in best, How will Dan and Malick differ to other shows, Why did Penny die off-screen and will Chrissie ever find happiness. I had hoped she would have explained Chrissie's feelings for Dan more.. Danny K is the legend right now becuase of the Oliver stuff he just generated. :DRain the 1 ^BAM 12:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, go you getting all your Qs answered! I wish I'd asked a few, but they'd probably have all been crap like 'Are Annalese and her pretty pretty hair ever coming back?'. Interesting read. Not sure what to make of Dan's not being a "coming out" story, and I could really do without Sahira/Greg, but MCB sounds very on top of things. Good stuff on Oliver, too! I suspected as much wrt why Penny died off-screen, but it's nice to have citeable confirmation.

Speaking of Ollie, I'm so sorry I've hardly done anything yet—the last few days have been much busier than I anticipated, but at the very least I'll try and get all the storylines finished today. I'll snag all the creation stuff from Penny's article, but as there's not a whole lot to say, it might be good to combine it with characterisation, like in Donna Jackson.

As for Ken, ack, I've been put off FA more than ever by a very recent experience with the Kurt Hummel article, but a Peer Review now definitely wouldn't hurt :) Frickative 12:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you request one? Don't worry about it, I've just been more active than usual lol With the storyline section, I think they are the boring part of any article. I've kind of palmed it off on you. :p In the career section I've put the Penny info, a lot of it is about his family relationship with her, so I was worried, but the rest of the info does tie in with his career, so I hope it isdn't too off topic under that header. Wow though, Kurt's review was harsh. Unless it is a intellectual peice, no one ever seems interested in reviewing, sometimes I feel there is opposition to popular culture topics being promoted.Rain the 1 ^BAM 22:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing – I've realised I still have the last third of Egan's book to go through, but I'll try and finish that tomorrow and request a PR afterwards. What got me with Kurt's was that an unrelated editor—who's written 20 FAs—re-wrote the lead, and then one of the opposes... asked for the lead to be re-written. Sort of a 'what hope is there for the rest of us?' scenario, heh. I quite like writing storylines, though I'd nearly forgotten that awful Jac/Ollie snog before this" I think the Penny stuff is fine in career, because their rivalry should lead neatly in to the downfall stuff :) Frickative 22:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

So it is best to describe storyline peices in development sections in past tense? I was convinced to start switching between the two by someone on here, I'd previously written all development in past tense for the past two years. Kylie Turner was the first article I wrote like this - so that's everything from March I need to rectify. :DRain the 1 ^BAM 02:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hm, that's how I understand it (though I often find myself slipping into present tense anyway, then having to go back and change it. I did it loads writing Malick!). WP:TENSE says "write about fiction using the present tense", but "discussion of history is usually written in the past tense and thus 'fictional history' may be presented in that way as well." I take "fictional history" to cover storyline development etc, so plotwise if you sit down and watch it, 'Chrissie flirts with Oliver', but from a historical POV, 'Chrissie flirted with Oliver and Hobley said...' Geeze I hope that's right, or every article I've written is wrong! Frickative 12:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that is how I understood it before. I know Junegloom did the same as me too. Just trying to remember who told me otherwise. lolRain the 1 ^BAM

It's complicated further by the fact that apparently at FA, reviews should be presented as "John Smith says/writes/thinks" etc. I just picked a random GA to browse (Jack Harkness) and there it's applied to development comments too (Barrowman comments/says/describes). Ack, I'm having one of those days where everything is just too confusing, lol. Frickative 17:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a small Tina Hobley interview in the new What's on TV mag—only about a quarter of a page, but she talks about Chrissie's relationship with Dan and how she'll react when she finds out what he's been up to :) Frickative 16:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel too lazy to fetch it atm lol When did it come out, when will it be available to buy until?Rain the 1 ^BAM 16:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I meant that as a 'go buy this now' lol! Just 'you might want to glance at this at some point'. It's today's issue so it'll be around all week. Frickative 16:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha I know. I feel I have to buy it soon so I don't miss out on the info. I'm one magazine hoarder! Inside Soap, All About Soap, Soap Life, Buzz and Look mag - all for the soap features. Rain the 1 ^BAM 17:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this useful to either of you - [18]? - JuneGloom Talk 22:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ooh that's brilliant, thank you! Lots of useable commentary there (although ha, "[Dan]'s really not a very good doctor, and I can't believe that the hospital isn't taking notice and asking questions about his unethical behavior." - the reviewer is clearly new to the show!) Frickative 22:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou J. I think he just watches the gay storylines when they happen in certain shows. Some nice stuff for Dan the man. Can we take Oliver to GA, or won't there be enough covered when were done? I often do have the tendancy to want to nominate every article I add a lot too, so slap some sense into me accordingly. :)Rain the 1 ^BAM 00:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I don't see why not—I was hoping we'd be able to :D There's actually a lot more coverage than I expected, and I think the only major aspect there's very little on is the romance with Daisha. (And even in the show, that really fizzled out into nothing anyway.) I guess "Reception" will stay quite short, but Joseph Byrne ended up a GA with just a 5-line reception section, and most of that is from the holby.tv awards. (Hm, what do you think of using the data from those, btw? I stopped adding results because it's run by a fansite, but the BBC almost always link to it from the official site. Oliver was named favourite newcomer of series 11 in 2009, and in 2010 was 4th favourite all-time male doctor, and 5th favourite pairing of s12 with Frieda). Frickative 00:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I've been quite vocal with others using fansites, so I'm not sure. Any idea how many voters they manage? If it is a reasonable amount I guess you could twist it some how. How affliated is the O-website with it? Mind, Corrie link there character articles to the WP ones. LOL I'll add more to Ollie tomorrow btw. Were getting there now, but I'm certain you are baffled at some of the sources I put in. I think towards the end I was just pasting them over because they said Oliver. :)Rain the 1 ^BAM 01:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean re: fansites, and it's quite hypocritical of me to consider it, because I really dislike it when other people do it! I think voters are in the thousands rather than dozens. The site owner used to administrate the Beeb Cas/Holby forums when they still existed, and retains links with the Press Office... but at the end of the day, I don't have the patience to spend hours searching the WayBack Machine to find a version of the official site telling users to go vote, so I guess it's best left out really. LOL don't worry about the sources, I think you found the vast majority of everything decent, while pretty much everything I added except the Guardian one was pointless 1-sentence plot write-ups. Frickative 02:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I brought the What's on TV mag and added the info, happy that it was only 49p. I've added the rest of the career info from Guy's interview and Inside Soap - so I think that is done with now. I'll expand the lead next, but you made need to make it more concise. :p What should we do with the remaining refs? The highbeam one mentioned as "Smug and really quite sweet" - but I've never used a paywall in a ref, is AGF allowed with those? I included the WOT ref because it said called him a reckless juinor doc - what what you draw out of it? Maybe then we can dump the final two storyline refs, I included them for pick of the days incase there wasn't much info. I'm not sure they're needed now though. I'll fill some of the cite episodes out for you too.Rain the 1 ^BAM 22:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, brill! I can't remember now, did Hobley say anything at all about the Chrissie/Malick friendship? The Highbeam and "reckless" refs can probably be used in characterisation (WP:PAYWALL stuff is fine, particularly as the bit that's useful to us is in the free preview). For the other two, ermmm, maybe we could stick a sentence in the Greg bit along the lines of "The two clashed over patient care[19]" before "Their friendship soon created.."? For the last one, I don't think that's actually what happened - if anything, Penny ended up even more furious, so we should probably leave it out. Thanks for offering to fill out the ep cites – once I've finished bringing it up to present, I'm going to go back and cut it down a bit, which is why I've been leaving them bare, because they might not end up in the final version. I'm trying to get it finished now though :). Frickative 22:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Not at point blank no - but it does mention she lets him down. I'll type it up just incase.

<<< Lifes a Juggling act for Chrissie as she tries to blance her career dreams with being a mum and her relationship with boyfriend Dan. She's deperate to pass her assessment and become a nurse practitioner, so she snaps up Malick's offer of a slot in theatre this week - but Dan's not happy. "Chrissie's trying to forge ahaead with her career but she has to juggle all these plates." says Tina Hobley, who plays her. "There's the job, her baby Daniel and now Dan, who's moving things a bit to fast." Dan doesn't react well to Malick's involvement. Torn between her man and her career, Chrissie forgoes Malick's offer to appease Dan. She soon realises, however, that she's not only let down Malick, but herself, too. [...] "Dan doesn't respect what she's trying to do, but Sacha and Malick encourage her, so Dan's reaction makes her see red," says Tina, hinting that Dan is about to disappoint her even further. "It starts to come between them so when she finds out what Dan has been upto under her nose all hell is going to break loose!" >>>

I'll add the other those refs now then. We need a good DYK hook, maybe something about Hanssen letting him keep a job in medicine although he cheated. Any ideas? :DRain the 1 ^BAM 23:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks very much! I still need to add the Myar Craig-Brown and new AfterElton stuff to Malick, so I'll use what I can when I update :D. Ooh, that's a good hook idea. I was thinking perhaps a quote from The Guardian just because it's so amusing, eg. "DYK that Holby City character Oliver Valentine has been described as "a doctor with the blue eyes of Fonda and the medical competence of fondue"?" ...though reading it back, it looks more outright silly than amusing. Going on the Hanssen thing, um... "DYK that Oliver Valentine from the UK medical drama Holby City was allowed to continue his career in medicine despite not being a qualified doctor?"

Ack, that sounds clunky and I don't like that it's in-universe. "DYK that a storyline in the UK medical drama Holby City featured unqualified doctor Oliver Valentine being permitted to practice medicine illegally?" ...Still not loving the wording =/. "DYK that series thirteen of the UK medical drama Holby City featured a special flashback episode, in which doctor Oliver Valentine was permitted to continue with his career, despite having cheated to obtain his qualifications?" Okay, that last one is too long, but it's probably closest to being something I'm happy with. I'll stop now before I reach 600 suggestions, each worse than the last :p. (I just checked Henrik Hanssen to see if it would be possible to expand five-fold for another double hook, but I think pushing it up to 5,000 words would be pretty much impossible without having an insanely long plot section.) Frickative 01:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You have really got into it. :p I think Guy has only done a few interview since, so it would be a little hard to do. I like the third hook btw, as you say it isn't as long as the fourth. In the past when one of your Fictional characters DYK's have hit the main page, did they always list them last in the selection? Every one of mine have been, I've looked at the the first - (Usually a castle, boat or hamlet) and they have been topics with minimal sources and not so good. So I'm wondering if Ollie with all this info can make it first or second. lol I'm still writing the cites out, but I'm putting them in my other sandbox because you said you might condense the plot. I figured it would make it more tiring if you had to work around a blanket of full cites.Rain the 1 ^BAM 01:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup, last week's What's on TV interview was the first with Guy in ages. There's Sahira stuff to add, but Laila hasn't talked much about their history, so it probably won't go far. The third suggestion, I'm not sure how interesting I'd find it as an unaware reader, whereas mentioning the special episode possibly lends it some importance? I'll keep thinking about it. ("DYK... that in a special flashback episode of the UK medical drama Holby City, unqualified doctor Oliver Valentine was permitted to continue practicing medicine illegally?") Re: hook placement, IIRC, last is actually a good slot – I think they prefer to lead with more serious subjects (and one with a free image first), then end on a light/upbeat/funny/quirky note. It's when my hooks end up sandwiched in the middle and on the main page at 3am that it's a bit disappointing, haha. And thanks again for filling out the cites! Frickative 02:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Just saving these here so I don't lose them amid my myriad of bookmarks. Flashback ep recommended by The Mirror Not sure whether this is a recap or a review, but it can no doubt be used somewhere. Frickative 08:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It has to be used. :D I love how they describe the difference, like how he is a shadow of his former self. Is the storyline section done now btw, I noticed you did more cutting and I'll add the cites if so. I'm a little keen lol. Yay to our DYK yesterday.Rain the 1 ^BAM 12:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The storyline section should be about done—I want to give it one more go through just to make the wording a bit less clunky in places, but lengthwise it should be stable, so go ahead and add the cites :D Did you see the pageview stats post DYK? Over a 2,500% increase! Oh btw, I managed to get hold of Points of View through a torrent site, but there's nothing in it worth using. The Holby part was just one moaning woman in the weekly roundup, no response from the Beeb. Frickative 14:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added them. Are you around atm? we could have it moved into the mainspace soon?? Which image are we using? :-) I did see, I'd of liked more views though. :D The Guardian making it sound worse than it was then with POV complaints. lolRain the 1 ^BAM 00:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't around last night (always have too much work on at the end of the month, thank goodness it's nearly over!) Wow, looking at it with all the cites filled out, it looks so substanial - I think we're good to move it into the mainspace whenever :D For an image... the only ones htv/Google seem have in decent sizes are the old ones with the blank background. I like his s13 picture in the hospital setting [20], but the widest crop I can find is this, and he looks a bit miserable, haha. (Oh, btw, TV Choice have a Tina Hobley/Adam Astill interview up :D [21]) Frickative 06:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's fine. :) So we can move it now? I like the wider crop, I've made one out of it. Thanks for the Interview btw, I love editing Dan's article! Aswell with the info in his article and the info in Oliver. Chrissie therefor has two relationships sections ready for her own article.Rain the 1 ^BAM 13:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

When I was out I noticed Malick, Dan and Chrissie as the main front cover on Total TVGuide, but the interview within wasn't that big. So I took pictures of it and wrote down all the info. I'm a right scrooge.RaintheOne ^BAM 21:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup, go ahead and move it! Ooh, good point about Chrissie. If her article ever gets sorted, the relationships section alone will be about 100kb haha. And LOL I always want to do that with bits in mags, but the security guard is forever looming. Nice one though, are all three interviewed? And I'm pleased Carmella's finally a GA! Frickative 01:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Just Adam and Tina, I'll put it on Dan's talk tomorrow. I think there are only two points I wanted to use, he mentions what it is like to work with Jimmy which I liked. I know what you mean about Carmella, never thought it would happen. I know there is so much OOU info that could be added if the sources were still available.. but she is my favourite Neighbours character so just had to GA her. Which could not have been done without you my I add - As I was pretty much done with it after the first "copy edit" it had. Back to Ollie, are we going with "DYK... that in a special flashback episode of the UK medical drama Holby City, unqualified doctor Oliver Valentine was permitted to continue practicing medicine illegally?" ??? I'll do the you DYK nom and you could nominate it for GA. :)RaintheOne ^BAM 02:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated it, but messed the nom part up. I can't get it to read that we both created so I just put you as the creator. Can you correct it, you managed to get it to say both of us last time expanded 30th June it is under..RaintheOne ^BAM 23:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Done! Sorry for the super slow responses for the past few days - I have my life back now, thank goodness. I'm going to catch up on my watchlist, then I'll give Ollie a careful check-through and do the GA nom :D (And maybe finally finish with those flipping Ken Barlow books that I'm racking up fines on now =/!) Frickative 08:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why I messed it up, I nominated my first 4 DYK's myself. Oh dear, library fees. :pRaintheOne ^BAM 10:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Good work on the clean up, I can't spell practising? :D Quite a few requests on the DYK as you've noticed. There is obviously nothing we can do about the videos not being able for viewing. Not sure what he is expecting there? So there are refs in the lead, even though they are for claims.. isn't there a guideline about refs in the lead? Something like, as the lead is a summary of the body of verifiable info below, they are not needed. I'm not sure though.RaintheOne ^BAM 16:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I don't want to trawl through the history to check, but I think there's a very good chance I introduced the practicing typo into the article itself, so no worries :p I'm fiddling with the video refs now, hopefully I should be able to clear things up satisfactorily. I think the refs in the lead are okay, I only used them for the sentences that contained quotations, because I've been asked to do that in past GA reviews. WP:LEADCITE says to decide on a case-by-case basis. I did take out the refs from the body of the article that were repeated consecutively though. Right, I'm just going to stick dinner in, then I'll edit the Tina Hobley video part and everything should be done. :) Frickative 16:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And done, I hope :). I had to watch the Tina Hobley interview about a hundred times to transcribe it for the '|quote=' parameter, she's not the most eloquent soul! Frickative 19:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff. I really like Oliver's article, one of my favourites. Much prefer doing collabs too. I hope we do another soon. :) RaintheOne ^BAM 20:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitely! It's funny, it was only about 6 months ago that I told another user I didn't think there were enough sources for an article on Oliver. And here we are with just shy of 50. Brill. It's got me all enthused for Holby articles again – I'm trying to throw together a quick episode article now. If we collab again soonish, do you fancy giving Sahira a go? There might even be potential for another double DYK hook with Greg, except I can't remember Ed MacLiam doing any other interviews beside the one in Ollie's article. Frickative 21:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah we can do Sahira, actually I'm happy to start on that when you are. I've still got the drive. With Greg, is there enough info to justify an article? I reckon there will be reception. The interview from Ollie's article too. I know he did a TV.com interview too with Connie and Penny, which was quite useful and had casting info. I remember the south africa episode, didn't realise it was so long ago already. I can still remember shouting at Faye and Linden at the end of the episode. lol I wonder if there is room for a storyline article on the Tan twins, I remember that dragged on for ages.RaintheOne ^BAM 01:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Great! I just remembered I started a sandbox for Sahira weeks ago, but as you can see I got nowhere. Ooh, I'd forgotten about the TV.com interview, that'd certainly help. Laila's mentioned him in a few interviews too, and then Myar Craig-Brown last week. I'll skim The Free Library tomorrow. Haha I must say I didn't really like the South Africa ep, I'm hoping I can write it without having to rewatch it! & ugh, if it hadn't been for the Abra storyline at the time, I would have given up over the never-ending Tan twins drama. There probably is a decent whack of sources though. Frickative 01:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It maybe tomorrow that I start adding something to Sahira. :) Looks like alt hook 2 is favoured so we will go with that. Do we have to update the original hook? RaintheOne ^BAM 12:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I once read that you're supposed to bold the preferred ALT, but I can't find anything that says that now, and it doesn't seem to be the case for the other nominations, so... I don't really know haha, hopefully whoever moves it to the queue will take the second one based on the accept comment? I'll dump the contents of my bookmark folder onto Sahira's talk page later on, and try and sort them out into relevant sections :) Frickative 18:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Oliver's DYK goes through tomorrow. :) Could you put those links into your Sahira sandbox? I've just updated Dan's page, the info is a little ahead of Tuesdays epi though. I put the interview on his talk. I'll try and get the inside soap interview to you aswell, just to see if there is anything you need for Malick. I thought that Corrie cup idea was great btw. Then I also put Ken foward for peer review.RaintheOne ^BAM 00:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey! I'm pleased we got the last DYK slot and a nice busy time to hit the main page :D. I added all my bookmarks to the talk page, but it looks like the most recent articles are from February, so when The Free Library isn't being a pain, I'll trawl through for more recent stuff. Thanks for typing up the Adam Astill interview! I flicked through the Inside Soap one and was very tempted to try your trick of photographing it, but I couldn't have stood the embarassment if the security guard had noticed. And ack, sorry, I know I said I'd submit Ken for PR ages ago :( I still have to finish with the books, the library are going to revoke my card at this rate, haha. Frickative 00:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice and was waiting for them like a tool. lol I never think of using the talk page whilst in a sanbox. It will probably end up as having been cheaper for you to buy the books :p How much do you reckon the fee is? I'll take a pic of it as my scanner isn't connected to my laptop and the PC is offically conked. I felt so sorry for Dan when Malick laughed at him then punched him. Did you read Anthony D Langford's latest run down btw? He really must not have been a viewer before hand - "I just wish the show would tone down on the blood and gore. I realize that’s the way medical shows are these days." He also hopes Chrissie will find hapiness with a man!!! You can start a new Sahira section if you like, I'm streching your talk again. ;)RaintheOne ^BAM 01:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

EE Newsleter June 2011

Hi just asking if you want this newsletter. If not tell me, if yes tell me! MayhemMario 15:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Mario, sorry I haven't been around this week to reply, but feel free to keep sending me the newsletter. I don't know what sort of content you're considering for future issues, but perhaps you could use some space to highlight articles in need of work, such as the Project's stubs, or any tagged with {{In-universe}} or {{Plot}}? Just some suggestions to consider :) Frickative 00:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Great ideas! MayhemMario 16:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:EE June 2011 Newsletter

The WikiProject EastEnders Newsletter Volume 1 - June 2011
Project news Welcome to the new EE newsletter! This is a new thing that I am trying out, so make sure once it's out, give me feedback! If you want to recieve the newsletter, just tell me on my userpage. We are looking for new editors for the newsletter for future issues. If you are interested in helping shape the newsletter to focus on new areas or submit individual stories, we can use your help! The newsletter can be edited by all members of the project, and we are always seeking new volunteers. Instructions will be provided on how to develop the newsletter each month. Any interest and/or questions can be submitted to MayhemMario. One EE article is available for review at WP:GAN. This is Yusef Khan. As members of this project are more familiar with WP:EE guidelines for EE articles, input at these reviews can be helpful for determining if they meet all good criteria. Other articles can also be found at WP:PR looking for helpful comments. Based on views, the top five most popular character articles from our project this month were: Mandy Salter, Syed Masood, Tanya Branning, Ronnie Mitchell, and Janine Butcher. For a list of our project's top 500 most popular articles, see here. Consider helping to improve one of these articles that is seen by thousands to millions of people each month. Remember to always add the {{WikiProject EastEnders|class=}} template to a EE article's talk page so the project can get a better idea of what work still needs to be done. If you believe that an article should be assessed at a certain class assess the article yourself (it's not too difficult to determine the basic classes such as stubs, categories, or lists). Spotlight Update: One EE article has reached GA status in June 2011. Dotty Cotton - Nominated by MayhemMario Member news The recipient of the WikiProject EE Award: was GunGagdinMoan for adding sources to past EastEnders characters. Remember that any editor can give the WikiProject EE Award to another WP:EE member. If you do present this award, please make mention of it here or tell one of the newsletter editors who will then include it in the next issue. Please add your name to the member list if you have not already.	EastEnders Cast Changes June's Departing Cast : Ryan Malloy Julie Perkins Greg Jessop June's Returning Cast: Mandy Salter June's Future Cast: Lola Pearce Andrew From the editors If you've just joined, add your name to the Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered to your userpage. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy! Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 7 – July 2011). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing! Newest Articles Dotty Cotton Manda Best Michael Moon (EastEnders) Rainie Cross Kim Fox Jodie Gold Contributors to this issue MayhemMario (Lead Editor, Distributor)
We couldn't do it without you!
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please tell MayhemMario.

DYK for Oliver Valentine

Thanks for this contribution to free knowledge Victuallers (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ronnie Mitchell

Hello, I did the edit to Ronnie Mitchell because on EastEnders Revealed; Greatest' Exits, she said that she has been offered a return for Christmas, and she says she may be returning, but can't confirm it, that is why it says, 'unconfirmed'. I would appreciate if you would stop removing my edits from every article - thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.217.112 (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall reverting you anywhere else, but thank you for taking the time to explain. When adding information like that in future, you need to add a reference so that other editors can verify it. If you fill out {{cite episode}} with the details of "Greatest Exits" (such as the time it's said, and even better, quoting what the actress said), then it's fine to include. If you prefer, I'm happy to fill the reference out for you if you can tell me roughly when it happens, so I can check on iPlayer. Happy editing :) Frickative 16:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Apology

Well, Frickative, it’s been some time! This is Dodgechris, and I would like to apologize for the disruption and harassment I caused back in 2008. I have been diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome since then and this most likely contributed to the fact that I obsessively edited Wikipedia at that time, and also made it harder for me to accept the actions taken against me. I have grown up since then and I accept that my actions were immature and unnecessary. I hope you understand. Peace. Wuzzupbob (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, what a blast from the past. Thank you for the apology and explanation. I'm glad to hear things are better for you now, and I hope that if you're planning on returning to Wikipedia, you have a much more pleasant experience this time around :). Frickative 13:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for being so understanding. Gungadin feels almost exactly the same way as you :). I am currently only editing discussion-wise since I shouldn't be editing with any account if my main account is indef blocked. Tiptoety and others are currently sorting out my situation and hopefully it will get sorted. Thanks again. Wuzzupbob (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's any interest to you, there is currently a discussion started here about my situation. Wuzzupbob (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sahira Shah (cont. from Oliver Valentine)

Haha, no worries, I would have mentioned that I'd done it but my net's been down all week - sounds like neither of us are having much luck with technology ¬_¬. I have my fingers crossed that the fee will be per week not per day, so hopefully not more than a fiver, ugh. I'm not Malick's biggest fan, but Langford is spot on that Dan needs to stop endangering patients every single week trying to avoid him - those parts of his review are too funny, though! (Also hilarious, one of my friends has started watching for the gay storyline and didn't realise Chrissie and Sacha's son is called Daniel - came away with the impression that Sacha/Dan are having a fling!) TFL's search function is still playing up, so I'll just go and add whatever I can find on Google/DS for Sahira. Frickative 01:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Just looked if Laila had any TV interviews on YT and noticed you are the uploader. Plenty of Holby eps too. :D I hope you can see these clearly, should have waited for day light really - [22] Too funny though, Dan and Sacha would a bokers plotline!RaintheOne ^BAM 02:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Haha, it's a bit embarassing how many Holby eps/interviews I have on YouTube. Thanks for the pics, I can read them fine! Love the mad bit about Dan "pretending to be homophobic". Because obviously the best way to win a woman's heart is to tell her you're a proud bigot. Genius. Frickative 02:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey hey. Just saw you filled the '|publisher=' parameter in on my DS refs, which is no problem - I'm just fed up of having our refs massacred every time we run something through DYK ;). {{cite news}} does now say "This is commonly omitted for major publications [...] This parameter should normally be left blank." so I figured I'd try leaving it out unless requested otherwise. It's best we're consistent when collaborating though, so if you want to carry on using it then I'll add it in to all the talk page refs. Frickative 12:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh right. Can we carry on using them this once? Do you know how long that has been in place? IMO it looks more tidy having all the refs looking consistent.. but I'll learn the new way soon. Glad you did the SL's. ;)RaintheOne ^BAM 14:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. It's not inconsistent if it's omitted from every reference, which is partly why I was doing it (because I think it looks daft when someone swoops in and removes two-thirds but leaves a third behind...) but I'm just generally fed up of people forcing their own preferred style on articles they have no other input in. Btw, do you still have the Inside Soap Rosie Marcel interview? It was the 19-25 March issue, page 37, and I want to use a bit where she talks about Jac v. Sahira, but the scan you very kindly sent me doesn't have the title on. Frickative 14:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and no, I don't know how long the template instructions have said that, but there was a discussion in May about removing the parameter altogether that seems to have stalled. Frickative 14:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I know how you feel, a certain editor seems to stalk any article I make signif contribs too and use the overlink card in the refs.. I do. :) It's "Jac won't let Sahira beat her!" - The other page was full page pic of Jac and Sahira so didn't send you that. If Katy Moon wasn't such a big Holby fan, there would probably be nothing in Inside Soap.RaintheOne ^BAM 15:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Do want to use publisher location fields too then? Just noticed some have it and some don't.RaintheOne ^BAM 15:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that :) Location should only be in the print publications that don't have it in their name (eg. Daily Mirror but not Liverpool Daily Post). Though, if we're adding publisher back in for all, it should probably be added to the web-based refs as well. Argh, I'm starting to hate everything to do with citations. Frickative 15:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It is confusing and the reason why I just do the same old layout for each is because every GA or FA reviewer has a different view for some reason. I remember when Steph was at FA I was told to unlink every location to be consistent... when I told someone else that this discussion came up here - even FA reviewers can't agree.RaintheOne ^BAM 16:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh goodness. I'm getting more Wikistressed the more I think about it. I'd so much rather spend time content building than quibbling the little details of every parameter like that. Total urge to just give up and use horrible bare URLs everywhere :p. Seriously though, what do you want to do? Just leave off the location param? Frickative 16:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's leave it out then. I'm quit anal about refs layout, but not to their extent. So with you requesting the title of Jac vs Sahira, does that mean you are doing their fued? If so, I could do the parts about her and Hanssen.RaintheOne ^BAM 16:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Great! Yup, I'm planning on covering Jac/Sahira, though there's probably not an awful lot to say, so ace if you want to take the Hanssen stuff. (Until adding that TV Choice interview yesterday, I'd totally forgotten Guy Henry saying Hanssen could be gay. They should give in and make it a totally LGBT workplace tbh.) Frickative 17:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I never read that before, imagine if he was doing personal favours over cost cutting for Malick. lol Although he wasn't sure about the mentoring young female with a hint of unrequinted love, I'll use that for Sahira. I think thats why it's there?RaintheOne ^BAM 23:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Lol! Red-button Holby, eh? Yup, that's why I added it - although it doesn't mention Sahira by name, in the This Morning interview he repeats it when talking about Hanssen's relationship with her. So I guess it works to show how the storyline developed, eg. "In (whatever month) 2010, Henry said "whatever the quote is about unrequited love" - by (whenever This Morning was) he elaborated "whatever he said then." And this is the totally ridiculous way I draft articles in my head =/. Frickative 23:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed what you meant, Ollie's page. I reverted it. I don't think editors should swoop in and do that without discussing it. I'll add more on Sahira tomorrow as a bumper edition of Home and Away is calling. :)RaintheOne ^BAM 01:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Rain, sorry to have vanished again - hopefully my net should be properly fixed now =/. The article's really looking good now it's taken shape :) I'll try and blast through a bunch of the smaller sources today, so the talk page list looks less overwhelming. A couple of new ones, too: Guy Henry on Daybreak [23] (though we probably don't need it, he just repeats the "unrequited love" angle), and there's a small What's on TV interview with Rosie Marcel about the Jac/Sahira storyline this week, so I'll try and pick up a copy later, as today's the last day it'll be available. (And thank you for taking care of Ollie ;). Frickative 13:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed this. I have left some sources unstruck on the talk, but that is because I thought you may think there is something still useful that I missed. Did you buy the mag? Glad your net is back too. :DRaintheOne ^BAM 21:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I got the mag and added the few bits that were useful :) I failed at going through the smaller sources when I said I would, but I will try and tackle them today. Have you seen the new Langford on Soaps? Good stuff, as ever :D Frickative 15:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you possibly help me?

Hey, Frickative, I was wondering if you could possibly help argue my case at Template talk:Steven Spielberg? The concensus has been that Duel belongs in his main filmography because it is a television film that was released theatrically in other countries and had extra material shot for this purpose. However, over the past year, I have been providing hard evidence and links that I believe support that The Sugarland Express is his feature film debut. I've tried linking to interviews from the producer of Sugarland, Richard D. Zanuck, provided numerous sources that state that Sugarland is Spielberg's debut feature film. Although, I have provided countless evidence, because I'm the only one who thinks this, it apparently means nothing. Just a few days ago, I found a video on YouTube where Spielberg states flat-out that Sugarland is his first feature film. Could you please comment on the talk page under "Duel, again", and possibly help me out here? Thanks - Cartoon Boy (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey! I've read through the section, and it certainly looks as though you've come up with some good sources. As someone generally unfamiliar with Spielberg's filmography, I'm probably not best-placed to take a stance one way or the other (in fact, it's probably better that I don't, as while I'm certain it's not what you intended, to an opposing editor your message could be construed as canvassing) I think your best step would be some form of dispute resolution. I'd recommend posting a neutral message to WT:FILM asking for more participants in the discussion to help form a consensus. If you wanted a more formal option, then you could file a request for comment, which would bring the dispute to the attention of more uninvolved editors. Apologies if you're already aware of all this, but I hope it is at least somewhat helpful :) Frickative 15:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Callie Torres

I would like to know why you think that you're in charge of every Grey's Anatomy page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRLIJC18 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't. However, you're currently in the middle of a long-running edit war at Callie Torres, and have violated the three revert rule multiple times, all the while threatening to have the other editor blocked instead of discussing the issue. When the other editor took the positive step of initiating discussion, you deleted their comments, which goes against the talk page guidelines. I strongly suggest that you discuss the issue on the talk page, or seek some sort of dispute resolution with the IP editor, instead of continuing to revert and threaten. As there are only two of you involved at present, seeking a third opinion is a good option if the disagreement can't be solved through regular discussion. Frickative 15:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Alf Roberts

Hello again, Frickative. I have been unblocked now, hopefully for good! I have improved the Alf Roberts article and would like some feedback from you, since you are a key member of WikiProject Coronation Street. Here are my changes to the article. Can you suggest any further improvements? [24] Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 22:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, glad things are going well! Great improvements to Alf, and I'm not sure I have much to add beyond the feedback you've already had from Rain and Gungadin :) One quite minor thing is that in the "Storylines" section, it's okay just to call him Alf, rather than repeating "the character" over a dozen times, which can potentially make for repetetive sentences. If you wanted to scour for more sources, The Free Library is an invaluable resource - it compiles results from multiple national and local newspapers - and this search string came up with quite a few decent looking sources. Happy editing! Frickative 15:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and advice. Sorry I took a long time to reply my Internet has been down this week! Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 15:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help! Feel free to drop by any time you have a query :) Frickative 16:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Revert

Frick I'm so sorry, I clicked on Rollback by mistake and reverted you on your own userpage! Apologies. GSorby - Talk! 01:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL, no worries, I've hit rollback by accident more than once myself. Onwards and upwards :) Btw, nice work on Stella Crawford last week. It's been on my radar for ages, but I've never found the time to work much on it, so it's good to see it get some TLC! Frickative 01:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I'm just gathering references at the moment so I will work on that later :-) GSorby - Talk! 01:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Glee season 2

Speaking of finishing up S2 articles yet, are we going to try to make the S2 list of episodes a FL alongside the first one? CycloneGU (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely! I did a fair whack of prep work at the end of May, but haven't spent much time on it since. A few sections need a lot of work, but it's not in bad shape overall. Frickative 18:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are all of the lines a lime green now? That colour doesn't look as good as the others, and the blue originally there was much better. Is there a new colour thing we have to follow? CycloneGU (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, now they're orange. But seriously, is there not a guideline to follow for this? CycloneGU (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Standard practice is for the colour to match the DVD boxset. The s2 boxset is... rather garish. Frickative 19:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That is actually a close match. CycloneGU (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Finn Hudson

Hey there, Frickative. Looks like our old thread got previously archived, so I started a new one. ;) With the announcements that the main three actors (Colfer, Michele, and Monteith) will be departing the show, I'm going to work on improving some of their character articles. Finn Hudson's is probably the worst out of all of them, which is weird because he's a pretty big character. I think I'm going to start that soon. I'll do some source digging tonight, do you think you could do a quick check and see if you might have some useful ones stored from circa 2009? That would help a lot, as the "Casting" section is generally the hardest. Also, I requested a second peer review for Kurt Hummel. I still feel a little burned from the last FAC, but I think I might want to take that back there eventually down the line. HorrorFan121 (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm glad you're taking on Finn, I think that article and Puck (Glee) are probably the weakest of the whole lot :D I've looked through my bookmarks and don't think I have anything useful, but I remember a tonne of early interviews where Cory Monteith repeated and repeated his casting story about sending in a tape of him drumming, being asked for a singing tape and doing REO Speedwagon. (See, I've read so many that the details are burned into my brain :p). So hopefully "Casting" shouldn't be as difficult as for some of the other characters. Good luck with Kurt - I don't blame you at all for feeling burned out, it's been far from a pleasant experience, but your perseverance is commendable :) Also, I'm really sorry I haven't collaborated on Santana yet. My internet connection has been really dodgy this month, and I'm about to have a busy fortnight, but I really, really do want to work on it when I'm able to. Frickative 13:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Mike Chang's pretty weak too, although in his case the Storylines section is far too long for any character, much less one who's had less screen time than Finn or Puck. (None of these three articles are C level yet, nor do they have much beyond their Storylines.) Finn and Puck could clearly use the love, though, given their importance. Frickative, I'm glad you're back on line again. HorrorFan121, I'm going to be kind of busy through the end of the month, but if you'd like me to take a look at anything, I'm happy to, and I can probably squeeze in some time here and there. Some changes are easy, but editing takes more time and effort. (And I do better printing it out if I really want to make cuts and move text around.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, I really shouldn't write things like that about Glee pages. The next thing I know, I'm looking at the Mike Chang page and editing on the screen; the storyline's halfway done (season one section), and while it could probably use more cuts, it is trimmed down by about 75 words. I'll try to finish it off soon, and fix the intro; someone else will have to get to the meat of the page before it can be upgraded to C status. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. That sounds pretty easy enough to come by as he was a major character on the show when it first premiered. Puck (Glee) is another one I would like to eventually work on down the line, but I'm going to work on Finn first. I also started working on a small expansion to Rachel Berry to add to her "Casting" and "Characterization" sections. A lot of rumors have been coming out about a possibly spin-off for Kurt and Rachel in New York, which I think could possibly end up happening as they're both pretty popular and the Glee franchise is constantly expanding. [25] I think (glancing from it) this could be a pretty good source for Finn, so I'll start working on that soon.

BlueMoonset, if you could possibly look at Finn's "Storyline" section that could be great. I don't know if anybody has done any good copy-editing on it, but his article received the most unsourced additions in the past year from looking at it from time to time. Honestly, as for Mike Chang, I don't think there's much we can do. I just did a quick check on Google and didn't see much relating to the necessary sub-sections, such as "Casting" and "Characterization". Poor Mike. =/ HorrorFan121 (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Just posted edits for the first two paragraphs of Finn's Storyline. I'm afraid it expanded a bit; there were a few too many things left out for my taste. The third's a bit more complex: I figure that the football championship—heck, the entire second season mess of being kicked off and back on the team, the championship game itself, and then Finn going after Quinn afterward when she was in a relationship with Sam—it may not show Finn's best side, but it needs to be acknowledged. (I did change one ref; the Kurt/Finn/Burt scene was in "Theatricality", not "Laryngitis".)

We'll probably get more to work with re Mike once the third season's under way. But Karofsky...have you made any progress on the other sections? I just did a tiny touchup on the Storyline, and realized that not much has happened elsewhere. Is there a chance that the article could go live sometime in August? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Finn's storyline is finished, and I strongly suspect I went overboard. Admittedly, he's an important character, but I may have expanded a bit too much. I did borrow some of the prose for the football championship from the Karofsky storyline. It looks like the first paragraph is overlong, but that may be deceiving; it could be that later ones should be shorter. I thought about starting the second (Kurt/Burt/Carole) paragraph with Finn arranging Kurt's football tryout, but it seemed like a droppable detail. Anyone want to try editing the whole section down a bit, or should that wait for now? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Good work on trimming Mike Chang down :) I wouldn't worry too much about Finn being on the long side - 1,000 words is probably around the high-end of acceptable, and he is one of the most central characters. Once the third season starts, it may need pulling in a bit to accommodate new additions, but as the article's other sections are expanded, some elements may naturally alter anyway. I found a source which goes quite indepth on the ins and outs of Monteith's casting process, right down to who submitted his tape and how many hours he drove to audition, so hopefully that can be of some use! Frickative 15:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Crap! I forgot all about Karofsky's page. I'll get to work on that when I finish Finn Hudson. By the way, that's an excellent source Frick. Nice find. The "Storyline" section should look shorter once the whole article is completed, so I wouldn't worry about that. HorrorFan121 (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you two. Glad Finn's Storyline's in reasonable shape, and I'll be looking forward to see Karofsky bloom after Finn does. I think I'll try to hit Puck's Storyline in the next few days. HorrorFan121, can you take a look at the actual/citable conversation on the Glee task force page? So far it's been me and Frickative; it'd be nice to have at least one other voice from the task force heard from on the matter before the thing gets archived. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, HorrorFan121, I think the Season 1/Season 2 division won't work for Finn without a major rewrite; the Kurt paragraph covers both seasons, and even the first paragraph ends with a mention of the second season. I'm about to make a minor fix to a sentence in Storylines, so I'll take the headers out then. If you think it's important, we can always divide the Kurt material in two, but I rather like how it's all together. I wonder if we should try to handle multi-season character storylines this way as a general rule. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I do like keeping storylines together where possible/sensible, rather than sticking to a strictly chronological structure - Glee is all over the place at the best of times, so it probably helps keep things cohesive for readers less familiar with the subject. Frickative 03:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can go undo the brackets right now. I hope I didn't end up reaching an edit conflict somewhere in there as I wasn't checking my watchlist to see your message here. Finn's "Casting" section looks pretty decent now and I'm currently looking up some stuff on the Rachel/Finn relationship and potential stuff to use for a "Characterization" section. By the way, I'll take a look at the discussion WP:GLEE and see if I can add my opinion to it. HorrorFan121 (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I managed to fit in my storyline edits in between; I did have to be careful not to undo your edits (Show changes is a wonderful thing), and got in two minutes after your last edit, which removed those sections so I didn't have to. It looks to me like Finn's at least a C and well on his way to a B; the major piece not yet addressed is his singing: how much, which singles/albums, etc. Looking forward to seeing our thoughts on WP:GLEE. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry to diverge from Finn for a moment - I cba to start a new section for something so minor - but HF, do you have any thoughts on using this source in Santana Lopez? I was looking for info on her costuming, and here Lou Eyrich says of "Vitamin D": "Santana's [dress] was BCBG Max Azria. This is the first time you’ve seen Santana not wearing her cheerleader uniform." Which is interesting, but, as someone points out in the comments, incorrect given that she was out of uniform in "The Rhodes Not Taken". Do you think it's better just ignored? Frickative 04:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it could be something interesting to include because Santana's been primarily featured in her cheerleading outfit. I guess we can just insert the comment on it in the "Characterization" section, and I'm glad you're finally getting a chance to work on Santana! I had sort of put her article on the back burner for a bit. The article is pretty much complete, aside from the "Reception" section. Re: BlueMoonset- I would say it's a C right now, but once I expand on the "Characterization" and "Reception" sections it should be a B and on it's way to becoming a GA. HorrorFan121 (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The entire quote doesn't have to be included, just the relevant portion; another possibility is adding context around it. Sure, Santana was out of her cheerleading outfit, but she just exchanged it for the standard group cowboy and blue costumes in the "Rhodes" performances. The "Vitamin D" performance was the first time she was shown in an individual outfit, even though it was, admittedly, part of a costuming "theme". I think it's important, if we know something's not strictly accurate in a quote, to make sure the facts are correctly stated in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you read about this, Frickative? More of Ryan Murphy's ever changing mind. Haha. Michele, Colfer, and Monteith NOT Leaving HorrorFan121 (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I shouldn't laugh, but we seem to get played every time. It looks like the pages for Rachel and Finn need updating, and someone's already put in "New York" as Sam's last episode. Being the lazy type, if I edit those pages, I'll use the same TV Line links on the Season 3 page. I'm thinking that Sam and Mercedes should not be listed as significant others on each other's pages—something significant could have developed, but we have no evidence that it did—though I'm wondering how you deal with a one-season character in the second year of a three-or-more-season show. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I did my best by Sam in his page and on Characters of Glee, and fixed my refs errors on Season 3; Sam and Mercedes are no longer significant others. (Mercedes is less significant for Sam than Santana is, in terms of relationship time, so I don't see how we can justify Mercedes if Santana is considered ineligible.) As for Finn and Rachel and Kurt, I'm going to let you two figure out how much you want to unwind, modify, or otherwise change the "it's their last season" paragraphs. Whether it's worth keeping the Gonzalez quote for Finn and Rachel, for example... BlueMoonset (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Harking back to the above, I've just done a complete revision of Puck, including divisions into first and second seasons, bringing it up to date, and probably making the first season too long...but I thought it was important to go into a bit more depth on his bullying and promiscuity. I'm pretty sure this article is even longer than Finn's; no doubt cuts will be made at some point...by someone other than me. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the super slow reply (I'm averaging about one edit a day at the moment!) but ha, I did laugh at all the contradictory information that came out of Comic-Con. Definitely going to have to stock up on decent synonyms for "Murphy claimed/suggested/made up on the spot" going forward :p. I haven't been keeping track of my watch-listed articles very well, and haven't had chance to read the new "Storyline" section for Puck yet, but all the s3 updates I've seen by you, BlueMoonset, have looked good - kudos for keeping on top of it all! I definitely agree with not listing Sam/Mercedes as significant others (is a single-scene relationship a new record for Glee? Haha.) And thank you both for the comments on the Santana/clothing source - I'll hopefully get going on that article properly at the start of next week. Frickative 16:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize; you're busy through the end of the month, and we know it. As for Sam/Mercedes, it's sort of two scenes: Sam magically teleports across the stage at Nationals to give Mercedes a hug before teleporting back in time to take the group bow, so we know there's something there. :-) I've been managing to keep up with my own watchlist pretty well, though it's almost up to 100 Glee-related pages. Probably small change compared to the rest of you, but we seem to be getting a lot of unhelpful edits the past few days... Getting back to Finn, though: HorrorFan121, I was wondering whether the Casting and Creation section was stable, or if you were planning additional edits to it. I can see some smoothing I'd like to do, but it doesn't make sense to start work if you still have more changes to make. (Frickative, I'm not sure of the etiquette; are these three-way multi-topic conversations on Glee page edit plans okay, or is there another, preferred way of handling this?) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot about the teleporting hug, that was cute :) I think mass multi-strand discussions are fine - if we were all seriously focussing on one particular article, it would be better over at that article's talk page, but user talk allows for less formality. I sometimes wonder if we should discuss general plans over at WP:GLEE, in the hopes of attracting more participation, but seeing as the last thread there attracted nothing but tumbleweed, I guess it wouldn't make much difference. Frickative 15:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this will pan out (it most likely ever does), but Hollywood.com announced four new characters joining the canvas next season. There's Sugar (a rich snob), Shelia (a punk with a soft side), Nancy Bleithman (a geometry teacher objective of the arts), and a football player named Bubba (Mercedes' new love interest). New Glee Characters Revealed HorrorFan121 (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, his name is really Bubba? I hoped that was a joke at Comic-Con, haha! Still, it'll be interesting to see how many of them actually make the show, and how many go the way of Rachel's Christian rival and the male!Mercedes R&B singer. The new teacher also seems completely pointless given what they did with Brenda Castle in s1 (ie. absolutely nothing). Thanks for the link, though, interesting read. Frickative 12:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Bubba. I read the same on TV Line. Hope it's a nickname, like Puck. But if he's that big, I imagine he can call himself whatever he wants to. The big question: will he join the glee club? With the loss of Sam, the club's down to five males (four of whom sing), and with the addition of these two new girls, that makes nine females. Bubba could make six...but if not, it's an argument for them planning on transferring Blaine in, unless they have one or more unrevealed male students being added in. I wouldn't be surprised if there's another guy being contemplated. Or maybe the winner of the Glee Project will be a guy, and not Sue's archenemy after all (Falchuk seemed to be downplaying the nemesis bit at Comic-Con). Actually, what has me up in arms right now is the announcement that if you don't have a satellite or cable provider here in the states (so far the Dish network is the only one signed up), the fox.com episodes are going to be delayed by a full week starting August 15. I only watch on line (and on DVD), so having that kind of delay is really going to mess up my participation here, as I try to avoid spoilers. Overnight is reasonably easy; an entire week's going to be impossible. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think three out of the four new character's joining have weird names. Sugar, Bubba, and Nancy Bleithman all sound odd. I wonder if one of these three (not including Nancy) is the winner of the Glee Project. I could see either Sugar or Sheila going head-to-head with Sue in the upcoming season. And yeah, I don't see what they will do with another teacher on staff. She can object to McKinley focusing on the arts, but what happens after that? With Terri gone, they've only got Will, Sue, and Emma in that age bracket now. Maybe she'll provide conflict for Will/Emma? Also, I haven't had a chance to see the comic-con videos yet, but I feel like I should. I guess a lot of news came out in them. Haha. HorrorFan121 (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

So, I guess Naya/Santana is out as well. Naya Rivera will graduate at the end of Season 3 HorrorFan121 (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

They committed themselves to graduating Santana this season by having her run for prom queen in season two. If you look at that episode alone, anyone running for prom king or queen had to be a junior, because they otherwise wouldn't have been eligible to run. Unless they get held back at the end of the year, this means Finn, Quinn, Puck, Lauren, Santana, and Karofsky will all be graduating at the end of the third season, not to mention Rachel (who was a sophomore in season one) and Kurt (who got written in for prom queen). Seven of thirteen gone, and Sam transferring out makes eight. Since New Directions was the entertainment at the prom, there's no guarantee that one of every couple needed to be a junior to get in, though it would be likely. We know Tina is going to be a junior this year, so Mike could have been one last year; Artie could be either junior or senior in the coming year, Mercedes ditto, though I'd expect her to be a senior, and Brittany's going to be a senior, but she'll be held back. And Sam, another possible junior (though why did Santana consider him as a running mate?), won't be back.

My guess is that for maximum continuity, they'll want Tina, Artie, Brittany, and possibly Mercedes, to hang around. Maybe Mike as well. There have been rumors that they want Blaine to be a junior, but that would undermine his mentorship of Kurt last season so badly that I hope they don't succumb to making him younger. Still, they'll be graduating at least seven characters at the end of the year, unless another of them is held back. They could conceivably hold back Puck, but Salling is looking like someone well into his twenties, so I rather doubt they'd have him flunk this year. If they do hang on to Tina, Brittany, and Artie, but graduate Mike, there's the possibility of a triangle in season four. But that's a very long way away, and a lot of water still to flow under the bridge... BlueMoonset (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure even the producers know who they want to keep yet. Haha. I think you're guesses are spot on though. However, with Ryan Murphy's latest comments the cast could be sticking around, but just not be in high school. That would sort of leave Rachel and Kurt isolated off from the rest of the canvas though, so I don't know what they're going to do there. I think the best way to please fans would just be to have a spin-off featuring Lea Michele, Chris Colfer, and Cory Monteith in New York. They can still go ahead with their original plans for Glee, but still keep the main three tied to the franchise. On another note, Finn Hudson is completed so I think I'm going to nominated that soon. The lead should probably be rewritten, but I can do that later. PS: Thanks for catching some of my mistakes on that such as the Paley Fest mixup! HorrorFan121 (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

On Finn Hudson, would you mind holding off while I search out and add some music information related to the character? I think it's important: among other things, "Jessie's Girl" is certified gold in Australia, which is one of only four Glee Cast songs certified gold ("Don't Stop Believin'" in the US and Australia, "Teenage Dream" in the US, and "Halo / Walking on Sunshine" in Australia are the other three). But more important is the fact that he gets a whopping share of the male leads, and that means a lot of songs. I also wanted to see if there were any accolades we should be adding—nominations or wins or that sort of thing—and was trying to think of a more recent mention or two in the Reception section than the first half of the first season (we could trim older ones if there's a length issue). Some of the new material ("Jessie's Girl", for example) would end up in the lead, and the text there now has a couple of bad typos that really ought to be corrected before any nomination is made.

As for season four, well, we've seen what structural problems can result from splitting the focus too much: moving Kurt to Dalton meant more scenes isolated from the rest of the cast, so fewer things could be accomplished in the same amount of time. Following Rachel, Kurt, and Finn, even if some of the scenes were grouped, would be problematic. Besides, why would they not be in college? As in: away at college. Rachel especially: her dads would make sure she attended whatever school she qualified for. If they do a spin-off, they could also take Blaine with it; a four-character nucleus makes for a pretty strong cast, even if it would be stretching credulity to have all four at the same college... BlueMoonset (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I almost forgot: a couple of the "Other" links on the "Furt" talk page (finally finished today; yay!) are to interviews with Max Adler. Those might come in handy when you start up on the Dave Karofsky page. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Murphy would be a fool not to go ahead with the spin-off idea. The franchise is very large, so they've got the support of the network and most likely the fans. Rachel, Kurt, Blaine, and Finn are pretty much their most popular characters, so I'm pretty sure everybody who watches Glee would jump onto the spin-off as well. Hopefully, they get things sorted out by then. Oh, and thanks for the heads up on those Max Adler links. I promise I'll get that done soon. Haha. I just need to sit down and work on it. HorrorFan121 (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey!

Where the hell are ya? Been a while since I've seen ya.

You still following Glee? Apparently Idina Menzel is coming back for a storyline somewhere this season - and "The Glee Project" is currently airing on Oxygen (in Canada on Slice) and they're going to have someone on for a 7 episode run. If you can't see that show over there, I can tell you about it. Or you can try to get the episodes online; I had to do that for Episode 6 because I missed it!

Hope to talk to ya soon. =) CycloneGU (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, long time no speak! I've been having a horribly busy summer, but thankfully my schedule's cleared up a little as of this week :). I am indeed still following Glee (and in fact got the orange message notification while editing Glee: The 3D Concert Movie just now :D). "The Glee Project" started here a few weeks ago, but after catching the intro and first episode, I've missed episodes two and three, oops! If you're still around in a couple of hours, I'll pop on MSN after dinner for a catch-up :). Frickative 16:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I may be able to direct you to those episodes online. =) I'm invisible on MSN lately (will explain later), but I'll make sure you can see me. =) CycloneGU (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! I shall be on in just over an hour :) Frickative 18:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Misc. Glee topics (cont. from Finn Hudson)

Hmm..I think I'm done with Finn's "Casting and creation" section for now. I think we should leave the information about his departure there, but maybe throw in some stuff about news erupting about the three of them possibly staying? This show changes it's mind at the drop of the hat. Haha. HorrorFan121 (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, HorrorFan121. I'll try to take a look at "Casting and creation" this afternoon or tomorrow. I think there's a way to handle the news so that the Gonzalez material can stay, but to confirm the graduation and initial news of departure, while casting doubt on whether a permanent departure is actually in the cards. I have the impression that Falchuk tends to be a more accurate prognosticator regarding future events.

You don't know what you've unleashed, Frickative; here comes yet another strand. ;-) I've just done some clean-up at the Adam Anders page, and noticed that the person who created the page may not understand the notion of archiving in references. Virtually all the references have an "archive" component, but they appear to be the same URL as the original. Can either of you take a quick look and confirm? I can do the remaining work; I already updated a couple of them, but decided I should wait for confirmation that archiving is something else (like is done with the weekly music charts for some of the discography refs, since the full charts frequently aren't available after the original week). And another question: I noticed an edit being reverted the other day because Amazon was being used as a source for a DVD release date. Is Amazon not considered adequate, or only not adequate for certain circumstances? I know I've seen it being used for release dates and for track lists elsewhere (indeed, for DVD in question, though on another page); should this be enforced more broadly? Finally, I alphabetized the main Glee template and added back Don't Stop Believing, that British show that attempted to cash in on the show's success by setting up a "reality-TV" show-choir competition; it had gotten converted into a link to the iconic the Journey song's article. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could move the majority of the '"Everyone's fired!" "Now they're not!"' drama to a dedicated section of Glee (season 3), where we could go into full detail about it all? (The latest developments are even more hilarious.) And obviously keep a condensed summary in the Kurt/Finn/Rachel articles. I'm tentatively thinking that if this carries on building, there may be enough content to justify a separate article on the aborted spin-off and media reaction at some point.

You're spot-on about archiving - it tends to be done most often for pages that don't have static content, though it is generally good practice to help prevent linkrot, and is indeed a separate URL. The site I use to archive pages is webcitation.org, though there may be others. I think the best thing to do here is just remove all the parameters with duplicate URLs. Hm, that's the first I've heard about Amazon not being an acceptable source - I'm sure I used it several times to cite DVD release dates in Glee (season 1), which wasn't flagged up as problematic at its FL review. Probably best to check with the editor who reverted, in case there's been a recent guideline change. And good stuff with the template :) "Don't Stop Believing" was truly dire - I had hoped to work it up to GA at some point, but even the show's website has been pulled now, so most of the sources are defunct (a good case in favour of archiving!). Frickative 16:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the more I consider it, the more I think there is enough material to base a spin-off article on. There are almost 500 GNews hits for Glee characters graduate and over 200 for Glee spin-off. I don't know what it would be titled, but I'm concerned that documenting it all in the season 3 article may weigh that page down with pre-production drama. Another couple of days and I'll be free to play about with it and see if it's worth pursuing. (I've also been toying with the idea of a character article for Holly Holliday, not to mention collabing on Santana and finally finishing off a lot of the s2 episode articles. Geeze, I think I've spent more time talking about Glee articles this summer than I have actually writing them!) Frickative 00:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to seeing the "finally finishing off a lot of the s2 episode articles" part, myself. Only 10 of 22 are GAs, with half a dozen each of B and C for the remaining. (I think one of them contained mostly Candyo32 material that you were holding off on nominating without Candyo32's approval, but maybe you should go ahead since it's been many weeks.) I know for creating new material, what's most interesting will get done more quickly—look at me and storyline creations and updates—but I think there's going to be a lot more noise about the pre-production stuff over the next couple of weeks until the cast reports on August 10, and the movie is released on August 12. After August 10, we'll start getting stories about new cast members, and more details on returning recurring ones, which I imagine will keep us hopping. In the meantime, I've updated the Anders article to eliminate the not-really-archive URLs, and also got rid of some duplicate full references; ref names are wonderful things... BlueMoonset (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

And speaking of the season two episode articles, I think I've found my next project: doing a new pass on the storylines for all 22 episodes. I was looking at a fix someone made to the "A Very Glee Christmas" storyline, and realized that the entire section was in rough shape. I think they can all use a review, even some of the GA articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Just figured out that the article waiting on Candyo32 for GA was for the "Comeback" episode. Maybe it'll be the one that gets us halfway to 22 episodes... BlueMoonset (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think we could do a future article pending on whether or not she will make future appearances. Whenever Paltrow has appeared, she's been in very significant arcs. I still need to sit down and finish off Finn and Dave Karofsky. Haha. Also BlueMoonset, nice work on the additions to Kurt, Rachel, and Finn's articles. I think it gives a better insight, especially since Ryan Murphy and the Glee crew have no idea what direction they're going to go in.

• 1. Glee creator says no one's going
• 2. Murphy talks spin-off

HorrorFan121 (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I will most likely go ahead and nominate "Comeback" next week - sadly it looks as though Candy's on an extended break. (As an aside, 10 is still a significant amount! I think pre-Glee, I'd written somewhere in the region of 12-14 GAs ever. The overall number WP:GLEE has amassed over the last 21 months is pretty staggering to me, haha.) That's great re: reviewing the plot sections. I think most start out okay-ish, but then with so many different editors adding in the odd sentence here and there, after a few months I guess the end-product is a disjointed affair like "AVGC".

Wrt Holly, there's definitely already enough material to meet the WP:GNG. I was kind of waiting on the Emmy noms to decide whether to give it a go, and Paltrow was indeed nominated, but maybe I'll wait for the outcome of the awards and prioritise other tasks. And wow, RM really needs to just stop giving interviews, ever. Frickative 13:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Did she get an Emmy-nom? I hadn't even realized when I looked at the nominees list some time ago. =/ Well, if you ever feel like going through with that, let me know. HAHA at that last part. Ryan Murphy really needs to stop giving interviews, as he's confusing everybody. Oh, and now there's this [26] HorrorFan121 (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not just Gwyneth. Kristin Chenoweth and Dot-Marie Jones also scored noms, making it three of five for Glee in that category. I'm glad Dot-Marie did, as she did an excellent job this past year.

BTW, I seem to have gotten into a reversion scrap in the Characters of Glee article about the photos, which JWHolland has removed in the case of five characters. My understanding was that all significant characters should have a picture of the actor on the Characters page; JW seems to be under the impression that a picture is only needed if the character doesn't have a page with a picture on it there. (Though that logic would militate against retaining the Morrison/Lynch photo, and it still remains.) I have no particular attachment to the photos, but there's been a great deal of editing around them over the months, so I'd hate to see them deleted if they truly belong. Thoughts? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hm, to the best of my knowledge there's no guideline or set style either way, it just happens that the article developed that way and has largely remained so. I wasn't keen on the images when they caused a lot of whitespace between sections, but that wasn't the case in the revision they were removed from, and "all these characters have their own pages with the same pictures" isn't the best rationale. The characters also have their own pages with largely the same info, that doesn't mean we should delete all their sections from the list... Per WP:BRD, the user ought to have begun a discussion once he'd been reverted, rather than reverting back. Probably the best thing to do is drop a message on the article talk page - or indeed, I'm happy to do that tomorrow if you prefer. I don't know that it'll elicit much feedback given that we seem to be in a mid-summer lull, but "Do we want these images here or not?" shouldn't be too hard to gather a quick consensus on.

On an unrelated note, I forgot to mention before re: plot sections, something to watch out for is the recommended word limit. MOS:TV says no more than 500 words per episode unless it's a convoluted storyline, and the general rule of thumb is about 100 words per 10 minutes of screen time, so most eps should hover around 450 :) Frickative 00:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing I forgot: have either of you read Glee: The Beginning or Glee: Foreign Exchange? As they're official tie-in media, at some point we should probably look at turning the "Storylines" sections in the character articles into "Appearances", with subsections for "Television" and a few sentences on "Literature". I have the first book, it's just so exceptionally mediocre that I've never finished it... Frickative 01:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you post on the pictures? It's good to know that my reversion should have triggered the discussion if the editor had wanted to persist; I was pretty sure I shouldn't re-revert after that. On the plot sections, thanks muchly for the warning. I seem to have taken "Duets" from 531 to 730 words (including the various actors' names) tonight, so I'd better eliminate 200 words before bedtime. They just may not be the same ones I added. :-) I'll also check "Grilled Cheesus", though I was far more discreet there...

As for the tie-in novels, I saw Glee: Summer Break and read the first couple of pages, but it was so wrong for end-of-season-two Rachel and disappointingly written that I put it right back down. I was really hoping for better quality work-for-hire; to dignify this with "Literature" seems so inapposite. However, I do wonder about including them on the character pages. Yes, these are authorized tie-ins, but that doesn't mean that they're considered "canon" as far as the show is concerned. As an example, even thought the hundreds of Star Trek novels across many shows and movies are authorized, none of the events in them are considered official by Paramount, nor the characterizations. Even portions of the movie novelizations that stray from the script, or include sections that were cut from the final movie. There's a chance that something might cross-pollinate, such as when Vonda McIntyre's coining of "Hikaru" for Sulu's first name made it into the official canon, but these are rare. My take would be that these are extensions—extra stories, as it were—but none of the details will affect in the slightest any characterization going forward, nor will they be added to the show's bible. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I almost forgot: welcome back to more regular editing. We've missed your steady hand on the tiller!

PS: Bovineboy2008 answered my questions about Amazon in this thread. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back! I've just started a discussion on image use here. Very nice work on "Duets" - it reads so much more smoothly now (and I'll be the first to admit my own prose can be clunky at times, haha.) Canonicity is a tricky area, I agree - although at least the first book purported to be written with input from Murphy, Falchuk and Brennan, there are clearly elements that don't mesh at all with the TV series. Perhaps we could do something like in the GA Jack Harkness, which seems to mainly document "The character appeared in This Novel, This One and That", without going into specific plots. Rather than "Literature", we could call it something more general like "Other appearances", and also add a few sentences on the tour being in-character, and the 3D concert movie.

Bovineboy raises good points on Amazon, and there are certainly ways we can work around it for US/Canadian releases - tvshowsondvd.com is a good resource for release dates and special features, and of course the album/EP releases are always accompanied by an official Fox press release. However, I can't think of a work-around for international releases, where no such announcements are made and relying on retailers is the only means of attaining a date. If it comes down to using Amazon-or-similar or omitting major international releases, I assume the former would be preferred. I specifically remember being asked to include, for instance, the New Zealand, Ireland and South Africa release dates for the season 1 DVDs in that article, and could only do so by using retailers based in those countries. I guess as long as we use such sites conservatively and prioritize other sources where available (perhaps some region-specific reviews might note release dates?), that'll have to suffice. Frickative 11:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is completely off-topic, but Kurt Hummel got a second peer review today. There are a few easy fixes I can do, but I was wondering if either yourself of BlueMoonset would be interested in helping out with it if you have time. HorrorFan121 (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If there's anything I can help with then I'm more than happy to - my concern is that if multiple copy-editors from the GOCE have been over it and the prose is still being flagged up as problematic, I could end up making it worse, rather than better =/. I'd never seen the WP:PR/V link before though, and I was about to suggest contacting someone from the copyediting list there, when I noticed User:Bejinhan is down for "Major copyediting". She's a member of WP:GLEE, and last autumn, she put together the season one book. I think it'd definitely be worthwhile asking if she'd be willing to go over it. :) Frickative 03:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay! Good idea. I'll go pop her a quick message and see if she's interested. You and I have put quite a significant amount of work into Kurt Hummel and I'm determined to see it reach the status of being the "best quality produced on Wikipedia". Haha. Also, completely off topic again but have you given more thought to creating an article for Holly? HorrorFan121 (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought Frickative's idea was a good one, too. I could probably handle a number of the changes requested on the review, though I'm uneven when it comes to spotting passive voice (or avoiding it myself), but was really puzzled by the request to go for past tense, when I thought character articles were supposed to be relentlessly in the present. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be great if you could look over some of the necessary changes! The reviewer was wrong on the second part though. The WP:MOS dictates that all fictional character plot lines are strictly to be written in the present tense. He might just be unfamiliar with writing about fictional characters. HorrorFan121 (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Holly, I've started a sandbox here in case the mood strikes me to work on it (and one here for the "spin-off"). I'm probably going to concentrate on the articles for "Duets" and the 3D movie today, but I might start putting together an easy section like "Musical performances" in-between. Annoyingly, after tons of searching, I've finally found a reliable source for the episodes the guest actresses submitted for Emmy consideration... and the site's down. Argh. Frickative 12:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Before the section split here, I started a new section on HorrorFan121's own talk page about the Kurt Hummel edits, since they had gotten a bit buried. The conversation is continuing there, Frickative; I wanted to be sure you knew the new location. (I actually rather like this: conversations on both of your talk pages and my talk page about various articles in the Glee project.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I had seen it - it's what prompted me to split things up, because the length of the Finn thread had gone beyond awkward to navigate with all the sub-topics :) I shall go and comment over there now. Frickative 11:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by there. I'm also just getting used to the Glee-related activity on my talk page—admittedly mostly self-generated—and am dithering about what to tackle next, since everything today's been minor adjustments so far. Having actually said that, the likelihood is that I'll find I've started working on something significant within the hour... BlueMoonset (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely a new miscellaneous Glee topic: today, I stopped by the List of awards and nominations received by Glee page, and noticed your call for citations on nominated Emmy episodes; I'd run across a page that did that while updating the Kurt Hummel page to add his 2011 Emmy nomination, so I copied that reference into the table and fixed the formatting. While I was rechecking the page to be sure all five of the acting awards were listed (they were), I noticed a link at the bottom of the page to the series award [episodes]. The series award page explains that each series needs to pick six episodes, which are made into three pairs and the pairs are sent randomly to the judges. It isn't quite clear who divides them into pairs and what the criteria is, but Glee's pairs are:

1. "Audition" and "Silly Love Songs"
2. "Original Song" and "The Substitute"
3. "Duets" and "Never Been Kissed"

There isn't room for all that in a single table entry, and I don't know whether it's worthwhile to include it. I think this is a judgment call, and you have more honed judgment on matters like this than I do. (If there were episode noms in 2010, I'd imagine that Gold Derby would have it if anyone still would.) If so, you could probably do something similar to what the SAG ensemble awards listing does lower down, with a "see below" in the table and a list immediately below it. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much - both for the link, and resolving one of the stranger editing disputes I've been involved in! I think the episodes submitted for the series award are definitely worth noting (with the current layout, it could give the misleading impression that the entire season is considered, which had been my assumption up until today) and a 'see below' layout is almost certainly the best way of presenting it. I've just noticed that some of the 2010 Emmy refs are now dead links, and I want to double-check all the references in that section anyway to make sure that all the episodes are accounted for, so I'll go and poke around the Gold Derby site, which appears to be an excellent resource. Cheers! Frickative 20:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done! After a great deal of searching and wading through forum posts and blogs, I ended up finding the 2010 series award episode submissions on the Entertainment Weekly site. I can't fathom quite why Google had buried it so deeply, but I think that'll be great information for the relevant episode articles. Frickative 21:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks great! On another topic entirely, I've noticed that the season three text information has been removed from the List of Glee episodes page in favor of a new table of episodes which contains only a listing for the first episode, with a director and date (and now unsourced title) included. It seems to me, well, premature to be doing this. Furthermore, if it's done anywhere, I would think it should be done on the Glee (season 3) page and mirrored onto the List of episodes page like was done for season 2, so there's only one official copy. (BTW, is there a reason why season 1 isn't done the same way as season 2? It would be better if there was only one copy of the data and links to edit rather than two.)

At this point, is the best thing to set up the season 3 table on the List page (though with sourced information only) and mirror it, reverse the creation entirely and restore the season three text to the List page (though it is a highly condensed version of what's on the season 3 page), or something else entirely? For example, we know that Stolz is back directing Glee from his tweet, and since that was on the second day the actors were back (from their tweets and those of Anders; they returned on the 8th, not the 10th as given in that link, though actual filming may indeed not have started until the 10th), it seems likely he's directing the first episode, but we don't know that; he could be there doing prep work for a later episode. A parallax tweet from one of the cast would be needed to really nail it down. At any rate, I bring this up because I have no idea how to code up that kind of mirroring that season 2 uses, so I couldn't do it for season 3 even if I wanted to. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Correction: Eric Stolz's tweet says "working on season opener of Glee", so it can indeed be confirmed that he's doing the first episode. My bad. (If the third season table is a go, the reference needs to be updated to link to the specific tweet, not just Stolz's twitter page.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit of a tricky one! Basically, season 1 used to be transcluded from Glee (season 1) to the List, the same way s2 is now. However, at the season 1 FL review, one reviewer noted that were the list itself ever to come up for review, he would strongly prefer the information to be duplicated rather than transcluded (reasons include ease of editing for editors unfamiliar with intricate coding, changes to one page being found in the history of a different article etc.). So we duplicated season 1, but as season 2 was ongoing, it was just easier to transclude it, so that updates didn't need to be made twice constantly. Now that it's over, I keep meaning to check through, make sure all the refs are good, and duplicate a complete and stable version into the List. I think again it will be easiest to have the master list in Glee (season 3) while the season airs, mirrored into the List. I could take care of that, but I share your concerns about it being a little premature. The Stoltz information is good, but his Twitter account is unverified and he doesn't seem to have an official website which could verify beyond doubt that it's him. If it gets picked up by a secondary source then fine, but discounting that, all there is is a date, which on its own doesn't seem worthy of a table. Frickative 16:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's doubtless original research on my part, but I thought the picture in Stoltz's second tweet, of him on the set with Colfer and Shum, was good enough for me, even if it might not be sufficient for Wikipedia. :-) However, I've just now found a parallax tweet from Jenna Uskowitz: Awesome first scene of season 3 w the talented @iharryshum and @druidDUDE ... And of course our brilliant director, @ericstoltz. BTW, since she posted that on August 9, would that and/or this post be considered sufficient to move the filming date to August 9 from August 10? Of course, some (many? most?) of the actors reported to the recording studio; Adam Anders was tweeting about seeing a few of them on August 8... and I just found Kevin McHale posting about a fitting on August 8, and Lea talking about recording three songs that day. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

We're getting people a new purported title for the season three opener, "The Purple Piano Project". I've reverted 174.114.107.166 twice now on the "New York" article for failing to supply a reliable referenced source (not that there's been any source or reference at all). Can you keep an eye on it, since I know you know how to call in the cavalry and protect the page? Thanks! I'm sorry I missed the action on Saturday, but by the time I got back to checking up on things, the action was over and the protection engaged. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I totally missed the picture Tweet, haha, that is a pretty good indicator! As Harry Shum's Twitter account is verified, I'm sure we can use his Tweet to shift filming to August 9, and although somewhat convoluted and not entirely ideal, given that he names Jenna's unverified Twitter account in his Tweet and she mentions Stoltz, I'd tentatively say that should be acceptable to list him as director until better sources come along. I'll definitely keep an eye out for additions of the title, and no worries about Saturday (although obviously mass vandalism isn't marvellous, it was much better-spirited than the time we were flooded by angry Brittany/Santana fans!). Oh, and if you ever need a page protecting quickly, they yay/nay it over at WP:RPP :). Frickative 00:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, damn. That's right: Jenna's account has only recent changed from IJennaUsh to JennaUshkowitz, and it looks like the verification (I'm almost positive she had been verified) hasn't traveled to the new name yet. Just about all the cast has done so (had to do so?), and Jenna's one of the most recent. Urgh. Thanks for the advice about yea/nay. That could be very useful. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention that since there were em dashes already established in "Duets", I changed your new en dashes (one to an em dash, one to a comma). I also think it's better visually to go with em dashes because of the spaced en dash within the song title "River Deep – Mountain High". Hope that's okay! And (edited to add): I liked the new tidbits very much! :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the fix, I can't believe that's the second time I've created dash inconsistencies this week! I shouldn't edit when it's so late, but I wanted to get the additions in lest I forget about them by morning. Glad you liked them, though! Frickative 15:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Hey, thanks for the welcome you say you have source for the development section could you add that to the discussion page or meesage me thanks. Once again thanks for the welcome--InExcelsis DeoTalk 21:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Unfortunately, the interview was in the 19 July issue of Inside Soap, and I didn't buy a copy. I believe that User:Raintheone (who I mentioned on your talk page) buys the magazine most weeks, so I'll ask if he'd be kind enough to scan it if he has a copy :). Frickative 14:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks that would be great. I hope you dont mind but I added an image to your draft article User:Frickative/Sahira Shah. By the way when are you planning to put that article on the real page. --InExcelsis DeoTalk 21:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading an image! Wikipedia's image-use guidelines are unfortunately quite complex, and we're not allowed to use fair-use images until an article moves into the mainspace. I've added a colon to the link for now, just to stop it displaying until the page is moved. I don't know how long that will be - the draft is pretty well developed now, but there are still a lot of sources to go through, and I'd like to get it as complete as possible before the move. Frickative 14:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've also started the Elizabeth Tait (Holby City) its lacking right know as im updating it. I would be grateful of any sources. Also I tried cretaing it with my user space but didn't know how could you provide help so I know for future articles. Thank you. --InExcelsis DeoTalk 21:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to start something in your user space, just add the title to the end of your own page, eg. User:InExcelsisDeo/Sacha Levy or User:InExcelsisDeo/Chantelle Lane. Then when you're done, you just hit the 'move' tab at the top and delete the 'User:InExcelsisDeo/' portion to get it into the main space. For Elizabeth, I know La Charne Jolly has also been interviewed by Inside Soap a couple of times, but I don't recall when or even if any particularly useful information came out of it. I think it'll be a struggle to find many useful sources, as her role only recently became prominent, but I'll dig around and drop off anything I find at the talk page for you. Also, as Elizabeth Tait is a three-year-old redirect referring to an actress who appears to have only ever had one role, as long as enough sources can be found for the Holby character to prove notability, it could take over the Elizabeth Tait link rather than needing the (Holby City) disambiguation. Frickative 15:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've now started the Sacha Levy page at User:InExcelsisDeo/Sacha Levy, I have the basic template down please feel free to add to it. ----InExcelsis DeoTalk 21:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain to me why the images (Patrenco and Shah and Nurse Tait (which has already been deleted)) I uploaded are being nominated for speedy deletion by other users. I uploaded them using all the same labeling which allows this image to stay up on the Oliver Valentine article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oliver_Valentine.jpg im a little confused. Thanks --InExcelsis DeoTalk 21:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here. All the images have now been nominated for deletion.. I think you should have waited before creating Frieda's page too. BUT WOW! I'm so happy another editor is interested in Holby. This could be so much more fun now. They are being nominated because there is either no article in the mainspace (Sahira) or not enough info to justify the image (Elizabeth and Frieda) ... I think you may have drew attention to the images with the extra long file name. For example - "Sahira Shah.jpg" will do fine. :) We could work on Sacha an co together if you like. We mays well complete the article before moving it into the main space and get a good 'Did you know' nomination. ( Do you watch any other shows? =D )RaintheOne ^BAM 18:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok the file naming is good to know for the future. Regarding shows I watch.... Shows I watch avidly;

• Holby City
• Grey's Anatomy
• House (TV series)
• Breaking Bad
• Entourage
• Desperate Housewives
• Weeds
• The Office (U.S. TV series)
• Bones (TV series)
• Sirens (UK TV series)
• The Inbetweeners
• Damages
• Downton Abbey (I actually wouldnt mind starting a Downton Abbey project, I'm actually quite surprised no one else has)
• Two and a half Men

Shows I used to watch before they were cancelled or came to an end;

• Prison Break
• Brothers & Sisters (2006 TV series)
• The West Wing
• Friends
• Band of Brothers

(if I think of anything else I shall add it) --InExcelsis DeoTalk 21:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, rightio. Was just wondering if you watch any soaps too. :p Only watch Holby, Inbetweeners and some of Sirens out of your list. lolRaintheOne ^BAM 01:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've run up against hostility so soon into joining. Basically, as I alluded to before, image-use policy on Wikipedia is a big deal from a copyright standpoint, and there's a pretty wide gulf between editors that think a single fair-use image to identify a character is acceptable, and those that think it could be replaced by a free image of the actor that plays them. I've never seen images speedy-deleted on that basis before - in my experience a discussion for consensus has always been necessary, so I'm not 100% sure what went on yesterday, but either way I'm sorry for the unpleasant experience.

I see you've moved Sacha into the mainspace; do you have any idea of what you want to work on next? Perhaps we could collaborate on something :) As Rain mentioned earlier, Wikipedia has a Did You Know? feature, whereby interesting facts from new articles get a six-hour slot on the main home page, so long as the article is of reasonable length and completion when it moves into the mainspace. We've worked together on getting Dan Hamilton, Antoine Malick and Oliver Valentine through DYK, and Sahira is the next target, which is why it's staying in user space until it's fully complete. There is a five-day grace period, though, so if you're able to expand any of the articles you've started to reasonable completion (the minimum is 1,500 characters, and blocks of quotes are exempt from that) in the next few days, then you could have a shot yourself.

Finally, nice taste in programmes! I love Grey's and House - I've done a fair bit of editing to the Grey's Anatomy articles, though I've only ever worked on a couple of House pages. I guess I just really like medical dramas :) Frickative 12:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The image was deleted. It pisses me off sometimes. Shall we just use a screenshot?RaintheOne ^BAM 19:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Guh. We can do, but I don't see how it would be any different from a non-free promotional image if the rationale for deleting was that a free image could be found. I'm not entirely sure whether they were clear that Oliver Valentine is a fictional character, not a living person =/. Frickative 15:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So we should just reupload the same pic? I think we should, it should not have been deleted imo.. Some people around hear love the power...RaintheOne ^BAM 20:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly, ugh. I've been reading through the relevant pages trying to find where the line is drawn between something being a matter for speedy deletion and something requiring a discussion, and I can't. It feels like all it takes is for someone to say 'In my opinion, this fails NFCCwhatever' and it's deleted, which is incredibly frustrating, because it automatically gives that person's opinion more weight and value than the uploader =/. Wrt to re-uploading it, I'm not sure - I definitely think there should be one, but I don't want to risk setting off an edit war. Maybe we could wait for the GA review, and ask the reviewer whether they think an image is justifiable? (And fingers crossed it's not a trainwreck like you had with Mavis). Frickative 20:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay we'll wait - It amazes me how people can understand image policy. **Brainfreeze* My contribs dropped after that review... but mehh. Nout like a bit of humiliation. I've been less active where Sahira is concerned. What else needs to be done?RaintheOne ^BAM 17:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ehh, if it's any consolation, I could hardly believe what I was reading with the review there! Must have been a thoroughly unpleasant experience, but at least it ended on as positive a note as possible. No worries about Sahira - after a burst of activity earlier in the month, I haven't touched it in about two weeks either. Mostly it's just all the rubbishy little review sources to either incorporate (probably in "Characterisation" or "Relationships", there's not much in terms of actual reception) or ignore. I guess I'll try and read through them tomorrow after Holby's been on so I can work up some enthusiasm for it, haha. Frickative 00:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If you could eliminate some of the sources that are fully used, that'd be cool. You are more assertive, where as I just dilly-dally around looking through the refs, 10 times over. I know what you mean though, that is why I prefer collabs. Sometimes I feel motivated by different work and others I feel bad at slacking and force myself to contrib. Either way the job gets done. I've still got an array of characters I want to work on, just cannot be bothered. What happened to our new editor though? Can I ask too, if it isn't personal, where do you go at the end of the month?RaintheOne ^BAM 01:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing! I feel bad when I get in the just-can't-be-bothered mood while collabing though, at least if I ignore stuff I'm working on solo, there's no pressure of letting someone down. I don't know where InExcelsisDeo's gone - from his contribs it looks as though he cleared everything he was working on and disappeared last week - I hope it's only temporary, poor WP:HOLBY needs all the help it can get (and probably shouldn't even be a WikiProject with the general level of inactivity, oops). And no worries, I'd love to say something exciting, but sadly it's just that I work from home but generally have zero self-motivation, so I let a lot slide until the end of the month then have to work like crazy to get it all done. Frickative 01:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In the News (So to Speak)

Lea Michele was paid big bucks to film a commercial for the HP Touchpad in North America. The commercial can be seen here where HP itself posted it (if they eventually remove it, I can still get it to you).

The commercial is great; I am fully convinced Lea could even take the McDonald's jingle and make it something that could be sold on iTunes. As for the Touchpad, however, it failed. Badly. Read here.

7 weeks. Possibly the biggest modern tech fail. Maybe not overall, but at least the worst in recent times. CycloneGU (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that is a great advert. I hadn't heard about any of this, so the PC World article made for a very interesting read, thanks for sharing! Frickative 14:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Finn Hudson endgame

Can you please take a look at the Finn Hudson page, in particular the new "Musical performances" section and the significantly expanded "Critical response" section under "Reception", which now goes beyond the first half of season one? Having another set of eyes asap would be wonderful, since I'd really like to get Robert started on it again after having asked HF to have him hold off...and it's been six days since I did so. I'd like to keep it from being a full week's delay if at all possible—I did at least tell Robert that we're in the endgame, and that I thought all but those final two sections were . Thank you so much! I hope you don't mind the new topic: I didn't want to prevent the old Finn Hudson one from being archived, especially since there haven't been new posts in over a week, and those had wandered far afield from Finn. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll go and read through it now! I haven't actually looked at it for any length of time since the above topic started, so I'm interested to check out the expanded version anyway. And no problem at all starting a new section, keeps things easier to navigate! Frickative 00:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Great job! You've really worked wonders with it, especially cutting down the first-half of first season Critical response material, and adding the comments on the overall problems with Finchel in season two. Not to mention all the new links in the Musical performances section, which I should have realized I needed to provide.

There's one place where I'm uneasy: in the initial Casting and creation section. Part of it is because we've never had any material on the "creation" of the character Finn: the popular jock who gets dragooned into the club and finds he likes it. There's plenty on Kurt because they created the role for Colfer and he got to help direct the characterization, so having nothing like that here for Finn feels odd, but then Kurt's going for FA, and Finn merely for GA. But more worrisome to me is the emphasis on the Gonzalez article, which isn't really about Finn or his creation, and furthermore is placed so the reader would think it was written to respond to the December 2010 Murphy announcement, when it was in fact a response to the specific July 2011 Murphy announcement that the top three student characters would be leaving at the end of the third season (to which Falchuk later said "we're keeping them around after they graduate"). I'd argue that Gonzalez doesn't belong here at all, but rather on a general Glee page that goes into show structure and planning and the like. Perhaps even a new section under "Characters of Glee"? I realize this is an area where we haven't agreed before... BlueMoonset (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And I forgot the final request: let me know when you think the article's done, or at least stable enough to ask Rcej to resume his GAN review. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be good to go now! Thank you, I was a little worried that I might have been too brutal with the reception, but you've reassured me :). Major kudos for putting the Musical performances section together - it can't have been an easy task for one of the most prolific singers, but the article is all the richer for having it. Hm, I've just spent about forty minutes searching for anything on Finn's creation, but after trawling through Google News archives and Google itself, I've drawn a blank. While it would be excellent information to have - and I'll definitely keep an eye out in future - I think the GA nom should be fine to proceed without it, as it doesn't appear to be readily available. Ack, apologies re: Gonzalez. I only moved it up because I thought it would read better in chronological position rather than tacked on the end, I didn't realize I'd got the chronology entirely wrong. I agree (and without going back into my talk archives, think I agreed before) that the quote isn't best placed in specific character articles - not just because it appears to be a moot point now, but because she was hardly the only journalist to pass comment on the news, so we run the risk of giving her opinion undue weight, particularly when the general response was far from uniformly positive. If/when I get around to writing about the graduation-spinoff drama, I envision including a dedicated section on media response, but in the meantime I'd still be happy for it to be excised from Finn. Frickative 14:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've told Robert he can resume the Frankenteen GAN whenever he's ready; we've done what we need to do. :-) I didn't think you were too brutal, though I did a more careful review, and made a couple of tiny word changes plus a sentence rephrasing (and it was one of mine you'd left untouched!). I did wonder whether the "Sectionals" sentences needed to go entirely, and concluded that they did; the material didn't contribute that much, being general plot stuff only—appropriate, perhaps, when there were only thirteen episodes to work with and this was the grand finale, but not needed now that there are forty-four. More useful might have been a quote that responded to how Finn ultimately sucked it up and made it possible for the team to win. (As I sit here, it occurs to me that if they were going to do "Somebody to Love" at Sectionals without Finn, they could have done "Keep Holding On" without him too, or "Lean On Me", which he didn't even sing. So they might have been able to eke out a win without him, since they'd found two of three songs already. But logic is a feeble reed indeed when contemplating Glee...) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Later: It looks like we're well on our way; Robert did copyedits of three sections last night. There isn't much left in that department. I hope the rest of it holds up; if so, he could finish as early as tonight, though it could take into the weekend or longer. If it passes, it's number 49; which one do you think will be 50? It looks like you're closing in on "Duets", though I didn't think there was that much left to finish on "Never Been Kissed".

Just give me a heads up if/when you want me to look at them before you submit them for GAN; I'll definitely do the same for you when I get "Special Education" to that point. I've posted a new "Critical response" section, but am waiting for inspiration to strike on the new Music and performances section. A spark will come along soon enough. And then... the intro. And, on a completely different topic, I think I'm going to have to set up archiving for my talk page. It's getting a bit long in the tooth over there. ;-) Any thoughts on archive size? I see you favor 250K, while other pages I've seen prefer 70K.

BTW, we have a new member of the project, who's working on Mike Chang... BlueMoonset (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Still later: "Special Education" is done for the moment, and posted. If you can, I'd appreciate you taking a look and doing for it what you did for Finn and "Furt". (That sounds a bit redundant, doesn't it?) This one doesn't feel quite as solid to me as "Furt" did; too many paragraphs start with "Special Education", for example (though I can't yet decide which ones ought to, and which ones can be switched around), the intro feels choppy, and the "Critical reception" and "Music and performances" section need a good copy edit and polish. Not to mention: the Production section seems a bit wimpy.

Some of this may be the "I've just finished it and it's awful" that sometimes afflicts writers; some of it may indeed be problematic. I'm relieved that I can let it rest for the moment. Thank you! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, have had a busy couple of days IRL :) I'm glad Frankenteen passed! I do very much like Robert's suggestion of pushing Sue for the 50th, but it would mean sitting tight on mostly finished articles in the meantime. I'm probably only a paragraph's construction and a few re-drafts away from finishing "Duets". Thanks very much for offering to read it though, I will most definitely be taking you up on that once it's done! I'll go and give "Special Education" a thorough read through now, but from having skimmed it, it certainly doesn't look awful :p It looks like another great job, in fact - I really don't think you need to worry! I did have time yesterday to do some searching around for anything that could boost the "Production" section a bit, and came up with:

• A couple of interviews where Murphy mentions being a big Florence fan, and being pleased that the "Glee Effect" pushed the original "Dog Days" into the top 5/10 for the first time: [27] [28] - plus Welch's response to the cover: [29].

• Episode stills originally included an appearance by Cheyenne Jackson [30], who later confirmed he was cut from the episode [31].

• Ehh, not sure how viable this is, but in the corresponding "Behind the Glee" (probably an official link somewhere, this is just the YouTube version I watched) [32] Rivera calls "Valerie" Santana's first solo (presumably meaning on-screen, discounting "Science Fiction Double Feature") and notes that it was her personal second favorite song, a couple of lines about production.

• And a couple of very small bits and pieces, apparently one of the Hipsters was Bunny Gibson of American Bandstand fame [33]

• And an interview with a Warbler about the production of "Hey Soul Sister" [34]. I was actually looking for a source to confirm that the theatre scenes were filmed at the Saban Theatre, the same as Regionals, but all I could find was blogs and Tumblr posts. I hope you find at least a few of those in some way useful, I was definitely scraping the barrel by the end! I'll go and give the new sections a full read-through now :) Frickative 13:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Real Life has to take precedence. :-) While I think having Sue for the 50th might be appropriate, the character irritates me enough that I think she deserves to miss out on this particular celebration. My view is that we should go with what's ready: "Duets" should go next and claim the magic 50, especially since it was such a good episode to begin with, then "Special Education", and then whatever's ready after that. Sue can wait until someone's ready to tackle her; she won't care, she's busy running for Congress or something.

I haven't checked any of them out yet, but the Murphy info, the Jackson cut, that "Behind the Glee" clip (which I hope is available on the Fox site still, but may not be; I'll try to search it out), and the Warbler interview (sounds great!). We do mention Bunny Gibson already, so that's covered. Thank you!

And thanks for your editing. I'm still bad about the use of "ing" and contractions, plus I sometimes forget to correct the formatted apostrophes. (Not always, but sometimes.) And I'm glad you handled the various image issues; I'm still weak on that. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Really, you had no cause to be worried at all, it was another most enjoyable read and very well constructed :) The only part I wondered about but didn't touch was Mike and Brittany dancing up a storm - possibly a shade too colloquial, but for the life of me I can't think how to re-word it. Ack, sorry the Bunny source is redundant - I'm sure I did a quick keyword search of the article, so I don't know how I missed it. Still, I'm glad you think the others sound handy :D I'm going to try and finish up with "Duets" tonight, but I've got a run of busy days coming up, so if I don't manage it and you get done with "Special Education" first, don't feel you have to hold back from GAN. "Duets" was one of my favourite episodes of the season, but if it's not ready in time then it's no great loss. (And haha, I did chuckle at Sue being to busy wrapped up in politics!). Frickative 22:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, if we can't have fun with this (and especially with Sue), what's the point? ;-) Yeah, good catch; Brittany and Mike were too colloquial. (Be sure to point it out next time; I'd forgotten about that one.) It cost me five words, but I think it's better now. However, when I checked the word count afterword, I discovered I was way over 600 (how did that happen?), so I did a major trim to get it below 550. (Alas, poor Pavarotti.) If we still need to go lower, we can pull out some of the "who sings what" to save words. It may take me a while to add some of your new information to the Production section. Incidentally, you can probably use the Warbler article (about Chris Mann) yourself for "Never Been Kissed"; Chris talks a fair amount about both "Teenage Dream" and "Hey, Soul Sister" (the filming thereof, that is) on his blog, which the article links to, so there may be some production nuggets for you there. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Later: I ended up using the Warbler and Jackson info, but not the Rivera or Florence. The fact that it's Rivera's first (production number) solo is already mentioned in one of the reviews, and while the information from that "Behind the Scenes" spot was good (including some from Heather Morris on the dancing), I couldn't fit it in well with the other music info, and I had trouble making it work on its own. (Also, after checking the Billboard charts, I was a bit dubious of Murphy's top 5/10 claim, since Florence's version of "Dog Days Are Over" topped out at 21 on the Billboard Hot 100; I imagine Glee helped her version's numbers, but perhaps not as much as he was saying.) So I left those bits out, though if I think of a way to include them later, I will. I'm still reluctant to put "Special Education" in the GAN pipeline before "Duets", but if you don't think you'll be able to get back to "Duets" for a while, maybe I should go ahead, so we don't have a backlog later. I think "Special Education" is ready to go, though not the preferred candidate (or source!) for our fiftieth exemplar. (Come to think of it, if Kurt goes FA, then we'll need one more to reach fifty GAs.) Is the material in your sandbox ready to be looked at, or did you want to do another round of revisions and/or move it into the actual "Duets" article before having someone else look at it? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh, how odd that Murphy would say that when it's not true (I'm not particularly surprised at him stretching the truth, more so doing it with something so easily disproved - good stuff for following up and fact-checking). You may well have found it while checking, but Billboard did run an article noting a respectable increase in Florence's album sales and quite a significant jump in single sales after the Glee cover. Wrt "Duets", I really want to cut about 300 words out of critical response, then I'll add it all into the mainspace - it's probably best to do that before you look it over, just so resultant edits are logged in the history of the right article. I'll try and get it done in the next four or five hours, but if you don't see a change, assume I got swamped with work and feel totally free to GA nom "Special Education" :) Frickative 16:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Murphy had the general gist (the increase), and the Glee cover made number eight in Digital songs, so he may have been thinking of that in terms of top ten (the Florence version was number eleven on Digital songs that same week, as alluded to in the Billboard article, which I hadn't seen, so thanks for pointing me that way; I've just added the fact that "Dog Days Are Over" in the Florence version pushed from 58 to 21 on the Hot 100, just head of the Glee cover at 22, to the charting section). It's hard to remember the exact details when you're juggling so many facts at the same time, so I'm not going to ding him on that one. I'll keep my eye open for the "Duets" move to mainspace, and hope you can get to it today. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that does make a lot of sense :) I've just moved the new "Duets" content over, and while I'm still not wild about the length of the "Critical response" section, I did manage to knock it down by 300 words. I sort of miss the days when Glee had a core of 5-6 regular reviewers, rather than 20+! Frickative 18:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You've done an excellent job; I only found a few minor wording or formatting changes in total, although it took me five edits to get the changes entered. The only real cut was in Music and performances, the Emily Yahr "AutoTune" crack: it read too much as if there had been a big boost to the so-called "AutoTune budget", and there wasn't any way to word around it to show that this was a hypothesis on Yahr's part. (And not a particularly clever one at that.) I'm just as happy that the Washington Post stopped reviewing Glee after "Sexy", if this is what they had to offer; Jarett Wieselman of the New York Post also seems to have stopped reviewing, and Benigno from the Daily News moved over to The Faster Times starting with "The Sue Sylvester Shuffle". So we're getting some attrition from the reviewer ranks, including Burns from The Atlantic (Fallon and Brown remain). And, of course, there's bound to be a shake-up in assignments that we'll only discover after the first new episode a month from now. :-) I'm looking forward to "Duets" going GAN soon! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I've found one of the articles about the shift in Glee covers to concentrate more on current hits, though it's talking about what's more successful: one of Paul Grein's Chartwatch columns, the week "Teenage Dream" came out. It might or might not be useful for "Never Been Kissed". BlueMoonset (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for going over it! Your copy editing is, as ever, very much appreciated :) In retrospect, I can definitely see the problem with Yahr's jibe - I didn't realise the WP had stopped reviewing, but it's no great loss as they always tended more towards recap than review anyway. Shame about Benigno though, after Futterman he was probably the most consistently decent critic on the music side. Thank you very much for the Yahoo link - I'll try and work it in to NBK, but it'll definitely be of use in Glee (season 2) as well. (One minor note - links to redirects like this aren't broken, so no need to worry about fixing them). I'll go and nominate "Duets" for GA now. Looking forward to finally reaching 5-0! Frickative 11:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like "Duets" just got picked up. I'll be submitting "Special Education" as soon as I go back through the reviews one more time: it, like "Duets", was an episode without Sue/Lynch, and that fact ought to be mentioned somewhere in the article. (Thanks for the note about the redirects; I've been spending so much time trying to make all the references be the same in the Kurt Hummel article, that I carried it over into the article. I'll try to remember not to bother. One question, though: should there be an attempt for consistency between text links and reference links in terms of their format?) Oh, and Benigno is still around and reviewing; he's just changed publications/sites. (He's also the music editor there.) The final twelve episodes of the second season are all reviewed, just not at the Daily News.

Incidentally, I just did a major reorganization and partial rewrite of the Mike Chang page. I kind of doubt it's at C level yet, even so, but it's looking more real. I pulled a chunk from your "Duets" material (since it's his only vocal lead), and from my "Special Education" material (the dance in "Valerie") to give it some heft. Take a look when you have time and let me know what you think; it does need some known season three info, like that he'll be a senior, and that we'll get to meet his parents. (Ausiello's just reported that they're casting his parents for a possibly recurring role.) BlueMoonset (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

And now "Duets" has passed and "Special Education" has been picked up, excellent! Very pleased. Wrt to text/reference link consistency, do you mean in terms of italicisation? If so, MOS:ITALICS only changed to allow italics for news websites a few months ago, so I keep forgetting through habit, but ideally yes. That's great about Benigno - I actually stumbled across the new site yesterday while having a quick glance at some "Funeral" reviews, and I'm glad he's still going. From scanning Mike's article, it's definitely looking much more solid - I'll try and make time to read it through thoroughly this evening, but it's taken a big step in the right direction. Also, apologies, I just realised I never replied to you on the subject of archiving. I think 70K is probably the most manageable size. My archives are a bit unwieldy at 250K, I only keep it that high because I started off with archives spanning an arbitrary six months and now it's a habit! Frickative 12:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's great to have "Duets" up there and "Special Education" in train. Congrats on netting the task force its 50th GA!

About consistency, what I meant was that we might run into situations where the link to the redirect—AfterEllen.com—is used in the article, but the link in the reference (in its "work" parameter) uses instead the full Wikipedia link with formatting, e.g., "AfterEllen.com or AfterElton.com|AfterEllen.com". In that case, I would think that the usage should be the same throughout, yes? Would you change the text link or the references link? Or would it be a case of preponderant usage: the most frequently used wins on that page? I would expect (and please correct me if I'm wrong!) that as characters get their own page, we update the links that specifically point to the "Characters of Glee" page location so they point to the new page. What do we do, though, with old "Brittany (Glee)" or "Heather Morris (actress)" pages (or even "Rachel Berry (Glee)" ones); should those be updated, or just left alone? I can never decide what to do when I see those.

Thanks for the archiving info. I saw what you meant by unwieldy, and checked out a few others who had 100K, which seemed a tad long, so I compromised at 75K, since I think it looks better than 70K. :-) Fingers crossed that I set it up correctly! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Later: When you scan Mike's article, if you have time, please also take a gander at Puck's. Both now have all their sections, though only the Storylines ones are fully populated at this point. Puck has a lot more to fill in around the edges, I think. Especially the Musical Performances and Reception sections, which are truly mere shells of what they ought to be. Puck does have a Relationships section that Mike doesn't have; then again, Mike only has the one, which is needed (in expanded form) to fill out the Characterization section. Oddly, I've had a lot of trouble finding material on Puck's casting and creation from the Murphy/Falchuk/Brennan side of things. At any rate, now that both articles have all their sections, I'm going to ask Ryannn whether he's still interested in fleshing them out. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Still later: "Special Education" was just pronounced a GA by Robert, so we're up to 51. :-) And, you'll be happy to know, they've already acted on your PROD of "The Purple Piano Project"; it, and its redirects, are gone. The Kurt Hummel FAC seems mired in molasses, though there has been a bit of progress on the overall edit. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm, that's a good question re: consistency and I'm not really sure of the answer. I would probably be inclined to go with redirects over piped links, but I can't say for sure. In the case of AfterElton and AfterEllen, each site used to have an individual article, so all the piped links would need ammending if they were ever split again. I guess it's really just a judgement call on this one. In the case of redirects like "Heather Morris (actress)" and "Rachel Berry (Glee)", I think they might be considered to have a potentially useful history, so as long as they're pointing to the right, main article, they can stick around.

Very glad to hear "Special Education" made GA! And typical that as I'm reading this, I see from my watchlist that mere days later, we finally have a reliable source for "The Purple Piano Project". Ah well, good that things can get in motion properly now :) Sorry I didn't get chance to read through Mike properly before disappearing. I'm going to catch up on my watchlist, ease myself back into editing, then I'll read through both Mike and Puck. As for the Kurt FAC being a bit slow, it might be a good idea for one of us to post a notification message at WP:Fictional characters and possibly WP:TV to drum up some attention - it would be such a shame for it to fail due to nothing more than a lack of reviewer interest. Frickative 12:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back! It's good to know there's an experienced hand on the tiller once again. :-)

Well, I look on "The Purple Piano Project" as being two weeks early, as it turns out (we had no way of knowing it was accurate), with one week taken up by the PROD. I have the feeling we'll be going through this all season. Can I ask you to post whatever you think is appropriate re attention for the Kurt FAC? The last post on the FAC page was a week ago. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)