User talk:Frickative/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Bye!

		The Special Barnstar
		I knew you quite well, but not as much as I have wanted to. I hope you'll forgive me for that. ^___^ MayhemMario 13:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Aw, I'm sorry to see you go again, Mario! Best wishes, and don't be a stranger! Frickative 12:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Charlotte King.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Charlotte King.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignore this. An IP played around with the image name and infobox on the 26th and no one noticed. I reverted the edits and removed the orphan tag from the image's page. - JuneGloom Talk 20:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking care of it, June! Frickative 12:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem, welcome back! :) - JuneGloom Talk 20:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Article Class and Importance levels

Well, I got off on a bit of a tangent today. When I noticed that we had only eight B-class articles on our various lists, but there were ten of them on the master task-force table with everything including Stubs, Lists, and Templates, I got to wondering what they were. Turns out they were Volume 2 and Volume 3 of the soundtrack albums, even though we list them as C-class, and there's no sign that they passed the B-class tests for the Album project. Hmm.

So I took a look at the two soundtracks, and while Volume 2 might possibly be justified as a B, Volume 3 is in worse shape than Volume 6, which I just pushed up to C. (And I'd put the Christmas album, even before my edits today got rid of the bare links, at better than the second volume.) So I changed the Volume 3 talk page to say "C", and started talking a look around at other class levels. Which led to importance levels, and some inconsistencies there.

I've just posted on the task force talk page about importance levels, hoping to get everything consistent. (I think we're pretty close already, and I made a few changes where it was clear what the rule must be.) But as for soundtracks, while they all seem to contain much the same tables and lists, some have weak write-ups, and some are significantly stronger (albeit not GA level), which seems to me to be the difference between C and B. But I could be wrong, and more of these are B than I think they are. At some point, when you have the chance, can you take a look? No rush; it's not like they'll be heading into GAN any time soon without a true enthusiast to do the final research.

And now, back to "New York", which I dropped from High to Mid importance today, since it was the only episode that claimed such a lofty eminence. As the article's creator—though not its assignment of importance—I felt fully justified in doing so. I really ought to get moving on some critical response... :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Opinion on Callie Torres

Hi Frickative. I was looking for an opinion. On the Callie Torres page, a user continues to make George's name small and Arizona's name say (wife) after it on the spouse section in the infobox. I have reverted twice but don't want to violate WP:3RR. Do you think it should say wife after Arizona's name? Also, the user is erasing Slaon and Karev from her significant others. She says it must be an intimate relationship but I do not think so. But, if Alex and Mark had sexual relations with Callie, not to mention Mark is the father of her child, why wouldn't they be listed. George is listed under Meredith's significant others'. They were only casual sex partners. So what do you think? Let me know... TRLIJC19 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Hm, this might be a tough one to reach a consensus on, as even at the talk page for the template itself there's been disagreement over the significant other parameter. My personal take is that it shouldn't be used for casual sex partners (like Alex for Callie or George for Meredith), but only notable relationships... and Mark definitely falls into a grey area there for Callie, so it's a tough call. For the spouse parameter, I think the (wife) beside Arizona is redundant, but I do see the IP editor's point about wanting to distinguish it from 'partner', so I'm sort of in the middle there. It looks like George is small because of an error with the coding (the second <small> beside (wife) is missing a closing slash), but I've been told in the past that small tags shouldn't be used in infoboxes for WP:ACCESS reasons, so that issue at least could be easily solved by just removing them. The best thing would probably be to start a discussion at Talk:Callie Torres and see if there's an acceptable middle-ground to be reached. Frickative 14:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Darren Criss

Hi Frickative. I was wondering why you removed this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blaine-Glee.jpg from the Darren Criss article. When I click on the picture its has a rationale that states:

Non-free media use rationale for Blaine Anderson Article

Purpose of use: Primary means of identifying a representation of a fictional character.

Replaceable?: Copyrighted character and film. Naturally, no free version exists.

It was posted in the article to show who he portrayed on the TV show. Could you please explain your edit? Thanks in advance.--Mimi C. (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, certainly! I removed it because the fair use rationale is for the article on Blaine (although the image there has since been replaced by a free one from the Glee tour). Non-free content criteria #10c means it would need a separate rationale to be used in Darren's article, but unfortunately even then, NFCC #1 would be a problem because there are free alternatives available. If you do want to keep an image of Darren as Blaine in the article, there are four different free ones on the Wikimedia Commons at the moment (File:Blaine Glee Tour Loser.jpg, File:Blaine Glee Tour Silly.jpg, File:Blaine Glee Tour Raise.jpg and File:Dalton Academy Warblers.png), and any of these images from Flickr could also be used. Hope that helps! Frickative 15:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response! I'll look for alternative pictures.--Mimi C. (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming Glee projects

I just updated the Glee task force's "to do" list, since we have the two new GAN submissions (you for "Duets", and now me for "Special Education") that I felt could be removed. I added the "improve to B class" category, and one of the names I added was Santana's. However, when I took a look at your own newly revised "to do" list, I see that Santana's up top and listed as a "collaboration" to get to GAN. There's a commented out section on the task force list for collaborations; should I be adding Santana there (is it you and HF, or some other grouping?) and also moving her from improve to B to improve to GA? I know GA (or FL) is our ultimate goal for all of those articles listed on the task force discussion page, really, but it seems like this is a more immediate goal where Santana is concerned. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've further updated it to add "New York" to my list of projects. I'd completely forgotten that it's the only article I've actually started from scratch, though both "Prom Queen" and "Funeral" were almost new, only having a redirect to the Season 2 page before I initiated the actual content. But, having started it, I feel like I ought to take it all the way to a GAN if I can. Is that okay with you? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Santana is indeed meant to be a collaboration between myself and HF, I've just been letting the side down by delaying it for weeks - so it's not necessarily an immediate goal (my own to-do list isn't in any particular order), but once started, GA will be the aim. I've just moved it on the to-do list myself to save you the job :)

And that's perfectly fine with me, it'll be great to see "New York" completed! I think "Production" in particular should be much easier to expand than usual for that one, as it was accompanied by such an in-depth Hollywood Reporter piece. Hmm, with there being 8 episode articles left to complete, 4 weeks until the s3 premiere, and it taking... about a week to finish each one? I wonder if between us we could actually clear the decks of s2 episode articles before s3 starts. (Knowing my propensity for getting distracted, very probably not, but it would be good!) Frickative 12:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Good to know. And not to worry about Santana; her beard is at the top of HF's list, so you both have other articles on your plates. (Not to mention the still-active Kurt Hummel FA, which is also claiming a lot of my attention.) I made a slight modification to your Santana entry, splitting it into two: who's collaborating in one place, and the fact that it's going for GA in the regular GA list. BTW, would I be correct in assuming your next two would be the previously discussed "Sexy" and "Blame It On the Alcohol"? (Should I add them to your list?) If so, that would give me two out of "A Very Glee Christmas", "Rumours", and "Funeral". I'd be inclined to the last for the sole reason that I wrote the initial page (not including Yves' redirect), like I did for "Prom Queen", but if you had strong reasons for wanting it—you mentioned looking up something for it above—I could step aside. (I liked enough about it that the word should be rewarding, and good practice to work on a generally panned episode. I don't have the same feelings about "A Very Glee Christmas", alas.)

Interesting math there, the eight articles, two writers, one week per, and four weeks until opening day. :D And then you go and post that you're going to be away for the next week... so it doesn't look all that possible on the surface. I think we've taken the easier ones already, too. I'm not giving up yet, mind—but I don't want to raise false hopes. That source from the Hollywood Reporter will certainly make my life easier, since Production is one of my bêtes noir. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just finished "Prom Queen". I know you probably won't be around for another day or two, and will probably have things to attack as soon as you get back, but I'd greatly appreciate it if you could give the article a good editing. Please? The Critical reception section is definitely way too long, and while I may be able to cut it down somewhat myself, there are a couple of things I thought I remembered seeing that I'd like to add, if true. I like what Poniewozik and VanDerWerff are saying in their longer quotes, but I have this sneaking suspicion that they should be shorter or perhaps omitted altogether. Also, the article intro seems lackluster. Once you've worked your magic, it should be ready for a GAN. In the meantime, it's time to visit New York. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look at "Prom Queen" asap! When I wrote the above re: 1 per week, I was expecting to have time to blast through NBK at the end of the month, but alas it wasn't to be. Still, I'm sure if I actually just get on with it I could have that one finished in a day or two tops. I'll probably go for "Sexy" and "Blame It" after that - when I mentioned reading sources for "Funeral" last week, I was vaguely considering working on it just because I hated it so much that the process could be interesting, but I hated AVGC even more, so I'd be more than happy to tackle that one. (Listening to the soundtrack again is a different matter!). Frickative 12:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the preliminary work on "Prom Queen". Once you've hit the Reception section and worked your magic, it'll be ready for GAN. I saw that you've already gathered most of the sources for AVGC, and have some bad news about its soundtrack: they're recording another Christmas album for this year. (Lea Michele tweeted about recording a few songs for it a week or two ago.) Since last year's went Platinum, I guess they want to see if it's a repeatable phenomenon. On a slightly different topic, how close are Mike and Puck to being C-level? I figure once I finish the music section of "New York", I can bump it up to B, since it'll only need a critical reception expansion and an intro redo, but I'm less clear on the gradations for a character article, and I'd love to get the last of those "Start" circles filled with a "C". Speaking of character articles, I noticed you did some work on Sue's storyline, which makes it much smoother. I'll be hitting it to correct a few typos and whatever else catches my eye, :-) but I noticed there wasn't a "casting and creation" section. This isn't quite what I was looking for, when I did a quick search for sources, but I expect it will be useful when you work on her further. Should I add Sue to your "Currently being worked on" list on the task force page? Anything else? Or are you just going between a number of articles as the spirit moves you? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Later: just finished the music section for "New York". It's even longer than the one for "Prom Queen", by a paragraph, which is scary; on the other hand, it has nine songs vs. PQ's six. So, when you've finished your go at "Prom Queen", and have looked at everything else I've asked you to and come to a break in your own work, please give it a look. It's probably too long. For now, though, I have gone ahead and changed the article grade to a "B" for Glee, though I didn't change it for the Madonna project, because there's almost nothing about her in what I wrote. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, that's dismaying news about the second Christmas soundtrack. I really hope we don't get another Very Special Episode to go along with it =/. I'll try and get through the PQ reception tonight - I've read through it four times now, and each time just stopped short of editing. I think there might be a way to pull paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of crit resp together/in a little, but it reads well as it is and I don't want to blunder in and cut too much. For Mike and Puck, I think Mike could comfortably be bumped up to C-class now, because it seems to touch all the important bases considering his minor role thus far. Puck is a tougher call - I keep looking from it, to the Start/C-class criteria and back again, and I'm struggling to say where it falls. From the Start description, probably The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas applies (though I'd say 'underdeveloped' rather than 'weak'), prose quality and MoS compliance are not a problem, nor is the "satisfies fundamental content policies" clause or speedy-deletion risk. In fact (and forgive me for the train-of-thought thinking aloud here) but having taken them apart sentence-by-sentence, I do think it hits more of the C-criteria than Start overall.

Cheers for going over Sue! Ack, I really should have done a proof-read before hitting save, the UK spellings and over-abundance of commas was a bit shameful. The length of the Storyline section caught my eye last month and I've been meaning to pull it in a bit since, but I'm prioritising episodes over characters at the moment so I probably won't return to it for a few weeks. I'll certainly read through the NY music section when I can, although nine songs is a staggering amount so I think it running a little longer isn't inherently problematic. (I just glanced at the season 2 song list and saw "Audition" had a similar amount, so checked to see how I'd handled that, then remembered that of course 2 of those songs were only a few lines long, and one was a dance, so not comparable at all...). Still, "Original Song", which had about a hundred performances, runs over 750 words too. Right, off to read "Prom Queen" for the fifth time :) Frickative 21:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the news on Mike and Puck; I found the train-of-thought exposition on the latter fascinating, actually. I collected a few more sources on Puck as I made my way through season one reviews, and I've stuck them on his talk page so I can find them again. In the meantime, I'll update the task force and talk pages appropriately. As for Sue, that review review ;-) led me to a very useful post on the creation of Sue Sylvester, so there's now a "Casting and creation" section for her article that includes the information there and the provocative (and not quite accurate) statement about Sue originally being intended to be a recurring rather than a main character. (They wanted Sue to be main, but Lynch looked not to be available enough for that.) There isn't yet anything on whether she auditioned, or Murphy asked her to do it, or what; it would be nice to find something to nail down that detail. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That's excellent information on Sue's creation - I was very interested to read it, having only heard the previous, partially inaccurate snippet before. I don't know what time period Jane Lynch's upcoming autobiography is intended to span (and can't say I'll be rushing out to the bookshop for it), but perhaps that will further detail her casting process.

I've finally made some cuts to "Prom Queen", and while I don't know that I made much of a dent in it overall, "Critical response" and "Music and performances" are both sitting at about 650 words now. I tried to target those critics like Hankinson, who only had a sentence or so of their reviews included (so while there's a good sense of what VanDerWerff, Canning, Benigno etc thought of the episode overall, I thought one-scene/element reviews would be a good starting point for pruning), bits exceeding the scope of the episode (Benigno's commentary on Quinn was perhaps more general than episode-specific), and finally (something I don't feel I was too successful with in "Duets"), non-descriptive commentary like "Doe" gave "This Song" "A+++" without further explanation. I found that to be hardest for "Not Gonna Teach..." where the reviews were very limited, but thought Benigno's comments on Criss-less-the-Warblers made an interesting counterpoint to Gonzalez, so elaborated on that a bit. But please, if you disagree with anything that was cut, just add it straight back in. While I generally enjoy condensing plot descriptions, which are often amassed over many months by multiple editors with all the natural inconsistencies that arise from that, cutting down a well-researched, well-written section like this is a much more difficult task.

I think I'm going to try and pull the AVGC plot section in by a hundred words now, then I'll take a look at the "New York" music section and if possible, try to apply similar principles there. Frickative 13:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I really liked your edits on "Prom Queen", and made only a few minor adjustments to the prose. If you think the intro's fine, then I think the article's ready to have a GAN slapped onto it. Robert says he's ready when we are. :-) I'm also looking forward to your edits on the "New York" music section. Since Moore's music section was grades without comments, I suspect he'll be up for a fair amount of chopping...

You did a good job on shortening the AVGC plot section; when I read it, I had the brainstorm of consolidating the Brittany plot into the second paragraph, which leaves the final one shorter, but allows for the caroling for the faculty to be mentioned only once, so I did it. I hope it works for you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

(Adding): I see that Moore was indeed on the chopping block, which works for me. So far, it looks like an excellent job, and I haven't found anything significant on my first pass. Just wanted to let you know that I did find your edits... BlueMoonset (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

(And again): I added a couple of criticisms of the Morrison number's inclusion, as you requested; if you don't think it qualifies as "highly critical", feel free to remove the adverb. Aside from that, and moving around a few footnotes (I've been putting them only at the end of sentences rather than sprinkled throughout), the only other thing I changed was to avoid "said" being used twice in the final sentence. Does the section work for you still? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Phew, I'm pleased you approve! (I don't mind cutting my own work to pieces, but it's always harder to get going when it's someone else's). I've added a short sentence to the PQ intro just so there's a mention of every subsection up there, and it should be good to go to GAN! The AVGC change is excellent, thank you. If you'll credit it it, I did think that the transition from caroling to Brittany and back to caroling again was awkward, considered moving the second caroling part up, then decided against it so the plot didn't end in the wrong place. At no point did logic extend to moving the Brittany part instead Facepalm . That's much better now! I'm glad you don't mind losing so much of Moore, and the quotes on Morrison are great (I didn't doubt that they existed, nor am I at all surprised, it just makes it easier to verify the statement without having to read through all of the sources). And the footnotes/nixed said are great - I had noticed that you favored that reference style and did try to stick with it, so apologies for lapsing. Frickative 16:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I subscribe to the notion that "stet is your friend". It always helps to have a parallax view of an article and what should be and doesn't necessarily have to be included, but if any changes don't work for whatever reason, it's easy enough to fine tune them or restore the original wording. We're all about getting the best wording here. Thanks for adding the extra sentence to the "Prom Queen" intro. Oddly, when you redivided it into two paragraphs from three, much to its benefit logically, for some reason it looks shorter to my eye. Is it long enough, or should we think about expanding a bit more? I have submitted it as a GAN, but as Robert's unlikely to be online for at least eight hours, we have plenty of time if it needs a little extra.

The Kurt Hummel FAC continues to drag; HF has just asked my advice about something on his page, and I'm about tapped out. If you have any thoughts or suggestions, I'd love it if you could answer him. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the character count is just shy of 19,000, so two paragraphs is fine by the lead length guideline - perhaps the Twitter leak row was notable enough to be worth a sentence up there, but I'm not entirely sure where it would best fit. And sure thing, I'll go check out HF's talk now. Frickative 22:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

ETA - multi-tasking so forgot to say, but those casting notices for Sue and Sandy were a fantastic find, major kudos! Frickative 23:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, two paragraphs works for me, then. (I gather that characters and bytes are different in this case. At a guess, none of the references count toward character length, for example.) Frankly, I'm happy with keeping the Twitter leak row out of it, as I was with leaving out the actual identity of the prom queen. If anything, the latter's more important than the former, and if you mention the leak, then it pretty much means also including the name of the prom queen.

The link to the casting notice was on page 15 or so of the Google search I was pursuing, and came after almost a dozen false leads, so I was really pleased when it panned out. Sandy was just a bonus. It looks to me that what Sue needs most before a GAN is a Critical response section with a lot more meat to it: over double the current length, surely.

A funny thing: I took a look at Glee: The Music, Volume 5 in order to determine what it had that Volume 6 didn't, so I could get the latter to C class. The difference: five had a Reception section, and six didn't. So I put one together for six (and it's better than the one for five, in my not-so-humble opinion), added it, and went to the talk page to switch six from "Start" to "C". Turned out, we had it at Start, but the WikiProject Albums had it at C already. Facepalm Oh, BTW, I added AVGC to your "being worked on" list while I was removing six from the "upgrade to C" list and hiding it altogether, since it had just been emptied. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

(Adding): I just added a second double image to the "Prom Queen" article; one set of photos seemed a bit meager. Can you please take a look? It's a combined Jesse and Rachel, in the music section, to echo the "Rolling in the Deep" material. It duplicates the Kubicek quote, too. If it's on the wrong side, or needs a more concise caption, please feel free to work your magic. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I assume they base the recommendation on bytes because it's more likely to be representative of the amount of readable prose (that's how the folks over at WP:DYK do things, anyway). I think it's a good call keeping the identity out of the lead. I know I was against including it with the paragraph in "Production" before the episode aired (which was perhaps not quite in keeping with the spirit of WP:SPOILER, but eh.) Sue definitely needs more critical response. I did a lot of work on it months back, had a list of the publications I wanted to search for sources, then ended up working on something else after looking through a grand total of one. The reception section in Volume 6 is great! Never mind the class, it's a big improvement having the information there so it's definitely a net gain :) And the images/caption are fine - that's a really nice pic of Groff, good of the photographer to release it under a free licence :D Frickative 10:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I believe it, but "Prom Queen" is already a GA! Robert found two "ing" words that he changed (one in the intro, one in chart history), and that was it. I'm very glad I got the new image and captions right. :-) As for Volume 6, I could only find the one, AllMusic review, so I used that, the summary paragraph we'd had on "Prom Queen" before it was removed, and a representative review or two from our various episode pages. I like it when the refs, at least, just need to be copied from another article. As for the Groff image, I found it the other day when we were greatly expanding the images page: after making sure we had copies of the various images on the Characters of Glee page, I went to a bunch of the actor pages to see what they had in the way of free images, and this was the one they were using on Groff's page. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

(Adding): And the Jonathan Groff image just disappeared; it was apparently a copyright violation. So much for that double image; I just deleted it entirely rather than coming up with a replacement. Good thing it happened today, and not last night in the middle of the GAN! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel like you're going to want to brain me for this, but I've just finished the intro and critical response sections for "New York", and even done a little bit of editing on the Plot section. At this point, I think all it needs is a good wash-and-brush and it'll be ready to go to GAN. Any chance you can give it an edit? I'm happy to tackle "Never Been Kissed" when you get it ready in exchange... ;-) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

(Adding): Since you've already worked your magic on the music section, that's a major chunk done. Incidentally, I think it might make sense to leave the album information in the chart section, in part because it was released the day before the episode aired. What do you think? (I can see why you removed it from "Prom Queen" and, as I'll do when it's revised, "Funeral".) I suppose I ought to add "Rumours" to my list once "New York" is submitted for a GAN. I think I stand a reasonable chance of getting my four submitted under the wire, though I'm starting to lose steam... One thing: the usual UK ratings section has "freeview" instead of "cable" mentioned; I have no idea what's up with that, bt thought I should mention it. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

(Yet another addition): I forgot exactly what got me started on it, but I started working on the Plot section of Burt Hummel's article, and before I knew it I'd done that, added a couple of paragraphs to the Reception section and split it into sections, split the Development section as well, and then gave everything the once over, including references. I've changed it to a B-class article from C-class and added it to my list and the GA list, but my question is: how close is it to a GAN? Unlike most of the others, there's no music involved in this one, just thirteen episodes worth of material. What else does it need? A bit more in characterization section? A separate relationship section, perhaps discussing Kurt and Carole in more depth, the fact that he's been a widower for eight years when he's first introduced? Add some additional facts we know (to characterization?), like he went to junior college and was a football player? I think all the material (and links) is probably out there in various episode articles; it just needs to be collated and distilled a bit. Thoughts? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

(And again...): Okay, I've added a "Relationships" section to the "Development" area—Puck has the same tripartite arrangement—and added a little bit to Characterization. I think Burt's ready... or at least fairly close. I'd definitely like to have some other eyeballs look at it, and while I've asked HF, since he's still responsible for a majority of the writing and should be consulted before any GAN is invoked, I'd also like to have your take and also any editing you think advisable. PS: I hope all is well in Frickative land, and you can return soon! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Sorry to have vanished on you - have been a touch unwell, but feeling much better now :) Whew, there's a lot to respond to, so apologies in advance if I miss anything out. Taking the message below (and WP:GLEE discussion) first, I will get back to you on that, but it might take a few days. I've had a nagging feeling all along that the actors shouldn't be (and aren't usually) included in the scope of the task force (similar to the consensus not to include cast members on TV show navigation boxes), so if we're going to examine the importance levels, now's probably the best time to cover that too. But I want to look at as many other TV projects possible first, to absolutely confirm that excluding actors is the norm.

Congrats on the PQ GA! Of course I'll take a look at both "New York" and Burt :D (I feel like I'm letting the side down by having none of my four episodes ready yet, but I'm hoping for a big burst of productivity any day now...). This source might be of use for "Production", and while it's probably pointless to start a subsection for the single Emmy nom, it could be mentioned alongside the comments from Eyrich within. I've just read through the album part and have no problem with it being retained. The UK ratings wording is curious - I just double-checked BARB expecting to see it had been beaten by something on a pay-channel, but nope, it was top of all cable shows as usual. I'll go through both articles tonight/tomorrow, and come back to you in more detail once I've read them properly. Even at first glance, though, Burt's looking in great shape - excellent work! Frickative 00:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back! So sorry you weren't feeling well, but glad you're feeling much better. (Hope it's much, much better by morning. :-) ) I'm also sorry I left you so much to respond to, but I've been on a roll, and didn't want to forget things as they came up. I'm still new enough at this that I feel the need of an experienced hand, and you and HF are the only folks who seem at all active. (Incidentally, the Kurt Hummel FAC was closed today, due to an overwhelming lack of interest and/or bad timing. I'm not sure which is worse.) HF has said to nominate Burt Hummel for GAN when its ready; I imagine it'll be quicker to review than "New York"...

If I recall correctly, the "New York" UK ratings wording was changed by an editor who claimed it wasn't cable but freeview, but only changed that one article. I was new enough back then that I didn't feel qualified to get involved; I figured if it was wrong, someone else would challenge it. Please, feel free to give it the usual wording if that's what it should be, because that's how it started out. I appreciate the "New York" link about Eyrich; among other things, it explains a datum on the list at the end of the big Hollywood Reporter article: 24 hours (or 1 day) to get 26 costumes, or something like that, which wasn't elaborated on in the article itself, so I didn't want to use it. I'll definitely get a mention of the Emmy nomination somewhere. I'll stick Kristin's into "Rumours", and I'm pretty sure you inserted Dot's into "Never Been Kissed", which leaves Gwyneth's victory to be added into "The Substitute"...

There was one edit I looked at today that I sort of shrugged at: someone took the phrase "de facto male lead" out of Will Schuester's page, and put it on Finn Hudson's page. On further reflection, I'm sort of inclined to drop the phrase altogether, because you could make a case for both characters, so "de facto" isn't truly accurate. (Rachel's the de facto female lead, which I think is quite clear...and it says so on her page.) I do have some good news: Season 3 is now protected until the first of October. It was getting tiresome reversing all the early (and mangled) unsourced titles of the next couple of episodes.

Interesting about pulling out all the actors from the project. I've just fixed up a couple—LaMarcus Tinker and Vanessa Lengies—who are in semi-adequate shape now, but better than they were. And I was thinking of having a quick go at Kevin and Amber to get them out of Stub and into Start. But if we're not responsible for them, I may refrain. (They aren't in our templates, admittedly, though the production types are.) I think that's everything...? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Frickative, watching you work your magic on Burt Hummel has been an education (and also a humbling experience). You're absolutely amazing. I have to go out for a while, so I may not be online when you're finished, but what a treat! Thank you so much. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thank you sincerely for such a wonderful compliment. I wasn't sure about going beyond just polishing things up, and the article may well have gone through GA without a hitch if I'd left it at that, but it's one I've always wanted to put some work in to, and I'm thoroughly enjoying researching additional sources (while I'd always found the titbit from Kurt's article about the coming out scene being based on Murphy's own life interesting, I was fascinated to read today about Burt being something of an idealized version of his own father). I've tried to leave long edit summaries so you can follow exactly why I'm making particular changes (and of course quibble them if you disagree! Certainly uniting Creation and Characterization was a subjective call, for example, so please do split them again if you prefer.) I've just taken a break myself, but I'm looking forward to diving back in now.

No need at all to apologize for the number of messages - your productivity is awe-inspiring (and frankly puts me to shame). That's such a pity about the Kurt FAC - immensely frustrating that the stumbling point was a lack of interest, after you'd improved it so much. I've dug through the "New York" history and am a bit puzzled by the edit summary "E4 isn't a pay-TV channel." ...It's certainly available freely, but is also on all the pay-TV packages, and the reference itself makes it clear that it lead in the cable ratings. I'll change it back once I come to that article. Re: "de facto lead", the phrasing came up in the first Kurt peer review, with the reviewer unsure whether it referred to the show itself, or his role in New Directions, and questioning its necessity - I wouldn't mind seeing it gone from all the articles, including Rachel, if there's a chance it's introducing ambiguity and confusion from the first sentence. That is excellent news about the s3 article! I hope when the s3 song list becomes viable, it can be protected similarly, because those pages more than anything are always a veritable hotbed for unsourced nonsense. Frickative 17:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I just messed up and lost a couple of paragraphs. Oops. Lets see if I can recreate: I'm very glad you did decide to do the extra work on Burt's article, because it's so much better now. The Hummels are now more of a matched set. As for the uniting of Creation and Characterization, I separated out the Development section the way I did because that was the general template I saw, and I was doing my best to emulate it. I think it works better together this way, and will probably do a similar combination for Puck if I ever get back to him (though in that case, I was trying to set up a structure of a new task force writer who only did a bit of work on that article before I set up the structure). I've just eliminated the "de facto" from Finn's article, and the next time I need to edit Rachel, I'll probably decide to pull it from there, too. No rush: I've been in overdrive and need to settle down a bit—at the current rate, I'll hit 400 edits for September by the end of the day.

One thing I haven't been doing in any of my articles is coming up with block quotes—either as you've done here, in the text, or in boxes off to the right such as in "Duets"—and I like what you've done with it. VanDerWerff's usually good for something like that, as witness this article. I'm looking forward to how you finish up here: definitely keep some form of the Tucker; it adds extra heft and resonance, as does the new info from Murphy about Burt being the father he wished he had. (I wonder if more of that came out in Blaine's speech to Burt in "Sexy". While Falchuk is credited as the writer, it's clear from interviews that they were all writing parts of every episode regardless of who was credited—almost everything Sue says is written by Brennan—and since Murphy directed that episode, I wouldn't be surprised if he worked a bit on the dialogue for that particular scene.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on the final Burt edits: A very few of the most recent additions seem insufficiently important/notable to me, such as O'Malley submitting himself for Emmy consideration (he's one of twenty-one submitters from Glee alone), the TVLine Emmy poll, and O'Malley wanting to do a song on the show. I hope you don't mind, but I've deleted these three; I think it helps the article. If you disagree, please let me know; by no stretch of the imagination do I have "ownership" of the article.

I was very pleased to see that you found a cite for O'Malley's five episodes in the first season, and restored the number to the sentence: it's so wonderful when we can be accurate about a number instead of having to fudge with "several" because there isn't non-original research (aka a source that can verify what we already know to be true). I'm looking forward to your next round of changes in the morning!

BTW, the Kurt FAC postmortem is currently underway at the bottom of my talk page. If you have any thoughts, please feel free to chime in. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Not happy about having to add to the article the fact that O'Malley's listed as a guest star for the second episode of the season. This may have something to do with him only having a guarantee of six episodes as opposed to eight, but I'm pretty sure Gilsig did fewer in the second season while still being listed as a star. (I also thought it was odd that the press release listed him second-to-last, and Idinia Menzel last. Seemed odd to me...) Then again, there may have been a worry about him being on the main cast of two Fox shows. With any luck, now that he won't be on Family Album, he'll be reinstated to the main cast on Glee. Yeesh. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's dismaying! I want to believe it's an error because these are the same releases still giving Becky's surname as Johnson, but it seems very unlikely =/. Sigh. Point definitely taken about the TV Line poll (it was pretty late when I finished up and my objectivity was probably shot - in retrospect it seems a ridiculous thing to list next to a real Emmy nom haha.) I'm sort of 50-50 on the song part, though. It was admittedly an awkward fit tacked on to the end of that paragraph, and would doubtless be better stripped back to basics rather than including the extraneous genre/dream sequence/"clamoring for it" malarkey, but my thought process is that, as one of few non-singing characters on a show about singing, as a reader I'd probably want to know whether that's because he can't sing, or the opportunity hasn't arisen. Hm. It looks pretty weak written out, it feels more compelling in my head I guess. Anywho, I'll go over it all again now, try and paraphrase some of the quotes out. The only part I keep coming back to is the Burt/Carole segment of "Relationships", which I'd really like to bolster with some none in-universe info... it's just finding some that's proving tricky! Frickative 22:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, who knows how many errors there are in those press releases. I've seen some claims that Bubba aka Marcus had another name change, and is going to be called Shane in the show; you think they'd know that before it's time to do the press release, wouldn't you? I'm glad to hear that, if true: Bubba sounded stupid, and Marcus sounded lazy on their part. Still, until there's a reliable source, we'll need to turn it back from the episode article... which may mean until the episode airs in a little more than a week. (Looks to me like LaMarcus is editing his own article, assuming it's actually him—it sounds like someone who's either him or pretending to be him. Whoever it is seems like an okay guy, but he's putting in information that contradicts secondary sourcing, such as the name of his high school, and some of the wording he wants just isn't going to fly on Wikipedia. Also, the notion that you can keep your birth year off your page: unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Getting back to Burt: I think they're going to use him as much as they think is appropriate for Kurt, and the fact that we're seeing him early is a good sign. I imagine he'll be around later in the season... and I sure hope we get to see Carole more than twice this season! After all, Finn's going to be graduating, too, and both of them ought to be in on it. Besides, I want to see a full family scene at least once now that they are a family, not to mention at least one Kurt/Carole scene. But, as Will said to Finn, you can't always get what you want...

As for the final changes to Burt, what are the chances of finishing on Tuesday? I'd love to get it submitted, though not until you feel it's ready. (I notice that Robert just became a Tutnum. By way of comparison, I have but a fortnight until I can claim to be Grognardesque. ;-) ) If more information turns up on Burt/Carole from other sources, we can always add it in later. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to leave you in the lurch again, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to pass the baton back to you on Burt. I thought I'd shaken this bug, but feel so lousy I might not be around for a few days. It's in good shape though, and if you give it a pass through to work your magic on my clunky prose, I'm sure you'll do fine at GA. For the issue below, I think more than anything WP:N is the key policy, but potential for expansion should always be taken into account (recent example, "Born This Way" was taken to AfD very early on, but survived with a resounding keep because even if they weren't in the article at the time, there were plenty of sources out there with which it could be expanded.) It's a judgement call, and if there are secondary sources that can be used to shore it up, then the more the better in the early stages - just be very careful with primary Twitter sources. If any serious issues/disagreements crop up in my absence, User:Ctjf83 (also a member of WP:GLEE) really knows his stuff, particularly wrt to WP:CRYSTAL. Hope to be back again v. soon. Frickative 19:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope you feel better again soon! So sorry you're suffering a recrudescence of that bug. I'll go through Burt later today and start the GAN. As I recall, your prose looked pretty clean, but I'll give it a fresh check to be sure the entire article's in good shape. Thanks for the advice about WP:N, and the suggestion to ask Ctjf83 if things get hairy. I think it boils down to the tension in terms of time. As soon as the title leaks to the fan pages, they want to post a page or at least that title, but we need an authoritative source. (Interesting that the one we've been going with—the press release—is a primary source, and doesn't help notability at all.) The thing is, we know that less than 24 hours after airing, the episode will have over a dozen reviews, reaching notability by anyone's standards. But information about individual episodes is kept tight; the best we can do is to have some casting details about new characters. Episode three has four new characters (parents of Emma and Mike), and the fourth episode has the first Glee Project winner, so those are details from secondary sources right there (and usually multiple sources on each). Twitter is a gray area, especially as these are primary sources. Still, I've pulled the name of the director of episodes one, two and four and of the writer for episode four from them, and almost entirely from verified accounts, too. I can also set up other information ahead of time in an episode template, such as Iqbal Theba mentioning he's been in the first four episodes, and Bill A. Jones saying he'd been shooting a scene for episode four... BlueMoonset (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(Adding): It's submitted. Changed very little, and some was my own stuff. It's in Robert's hands now. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It passed. To my surprise, it wasn't in Robert's hands at all, but in Aranea Mortem's, a different experience. BTW, according to Aranea, IGN and BuddyTV and TVLine should not be in italics either in articles or references, so I had to romanize them. Also, no overlinking in references, so all but the first serieslink for Glee and duplicate authorlinks had to go there, too. Hope you're feeling better today! BlueMoonset (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! (And thank you very much for the well-wishes. I really did think I'd be out for at least a few days, but have woken up feeling surprisingly human, touch wood.) Looks like an interesting experience with Burt, and it's always good to get a new perspective on things, even if I can't say I agree with the reviewer on italicization and overlinking. (That is to say, I've no problem at all with you making the changes for the sake of a pass, but I doubt I'll be shifting my own interpretation going forward - particularly as there's no consensus that WP:OVERLINK even applies to references.) Still, that's taken us over the half-way tipping point towards having all the character articles at GA, which is quite something!

Going back a bit, I've looked at the LaMarcus Tinker edit history and left the IP editor a welcome message which explains conflict of interest issues in case it is the man himself. And I definitely have my fingers crossed for a family scene with the full Hudson-Hummel clan :) Hard to believe we're only six days from the premiere now! Frickative 12:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I see you've been editing up a storm today. :-) The wording you've been using on the Emmys for "Never Been Kissed" isn't quite correct: the episode submissions aren't made until after the nomination, so Glee and Dot-Marie were nominated on the strength of the past season, and episode selection comes later. So I took the liberty of revising those bits, and a few others. If I didn't further your intent, please feel free to fix as appropriate. (Also, if you'd rather I waited on these until you're done, I can do that to. I like to act when I see something, because sometimes it takes me a while to find it again later.)

Thanks for the pointer to the archive where there's no consensus on reference "overlinking"; if I'd known, I would have mentioned it in the review. I imagine I'll be following your lead in that regard going forward, and changing when required by a reviewer. About the premiere: do you have a way of seeing the episodes right away? Or do you have to wait until the 22nd? (I'd been watching them the next day online; it looks like I'm going to have to subscribe to Hulu plus to avoid waiting an extra week this season. I don't think that would be at all feasible under the circumstances... BlueMoonset (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, that was quite the error, thanks for the link and fixing the wording! And thank you for all the other tweaks too, of course - much appreciated as ever :) Don't worry at all about getting stuck in, I think (and I'm saying this tentatively, after a ridiculous eleven months of working on it) I might actually be done. I keep coming back to the third image caption and wondering if the tour name should be styled as Glee Live! In Concert!, but it's such a tiny niggle I should probably just bite the bullet and submit. Re: the premiere, for the past couple of seasons I've been watching a live Fox stream at TVPC. I'll most likely do the same this year... although the two day wait until official broadcast is definitely a big improvement on four months! Frickative 22:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Give me an hour or so to make sure I've had a chance to finish my look through "Never Been Kissed". I'll give you a heads-up here when I've finished; then by all means give it the GAN. ;-) I'm pretty sure I saw something in the Music section I thought should be tweaked, but since you hadn't made any changes there at the time, I wanted to hold off. As for Glee Live! In Concert!, the Wikipedia page doesn't use italics, and the movie page also eschews italics for the concert title. I'm admittedly not quite sure how I think about it—on a different matter, I wondered if the whole concert title ought to be in italics!—but my inclination is not to use italics, because it's the name of something. That is, I'm not entirely sure of the rule for concert titles, but I don't think you should be using "Glee" separately. None of the CDs or the movie do, or you'd have "Glee" reversed (roman to set it off from italics): Glee: The Music, Volume 6, for example.

Thanks for the information about the live stream. Unfortunately, I'm in the middle of a rehearsal when Glee airs in the eastern time zone, so I won't be able to use it. If there were a west coast feed, I might be able to use that, though none is listed, so I suspect not. Otherwise, I think it's going to be the following morning for me... And, of course, the advantage is that I can rewatch scenes if I miss something. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And, having posted the above, I remember one phrase that bothered me in the intro: "negatively objectify". Is objectification of someone ever really positive? An approach might be "are imagining her to squelch their amorous mood", although I think it needs work... BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Later: I've finished my edits. A few of the reviewers were introduced with last names in the Critical responses section, so I did some moving of full names and publication to first mention, and some reversal from "George Smith of PubX" to "PubX's George Smith" in order to improve flow. Most of the changes had to do with such modifications, and punctuation templates and the like. The one thing I have not changed is "negatively objectify", because I thought you should choose what you'd like it to say. I figured it shouldn't be exactly the same as what's in the Plot, though you might prefer it closer than my suggestion above. Aside from that, I'd say it's ready to rumble! Congrats! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Geeze, I can't believe after reading it through dozens and dozens of times, I still missed the reviewer name switch. Good thing one of us is on the ball :) What you've said about Glee Live! makes a great deal of sense and has set my mind at rest (in the early stages of the tour article, I had italicized the whole name, but Yves told me concerts shouldn't be italicized. I don't know where the guideline on that is, but I do trust Yves' knowledge of the music-related policies implicitly). That's a pity about the live stream, but if it's any consolation, the quality is usually fairly dreadful anyway. And re: "negatively objectify"... yes, I definitely take your point and wasn't all too keen on that myself. Originally I'd just written "objectify", but to the unaware reader it would probably sound like they were lusting over her, when we want to convey the opposite. I've taken your suggestion almost verbatim and changed it to and football coach Shannon Beiste (Dot-Marie Jones) is hurt when she learns that several of the students are imagining her to quell their amorous moods., but please do refine it further if anything occurs to you. Finally, *groan*, the first set of s3 singles have gone up on Amazon, so I guess today will mark the beginning of another eight months of headaches keeping the song list in check. (Although I love that they're doing "You Can't Stop the Beat"!) Frickative 13:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Great to see "Never Been Kissed" in the GAN queue. I'll continue pondering that sentence; it's close, but there's something about "imagining" that isn't working for me. Maybe "visualizing"? Good to know that concert/tour titles aren't italicized. It seems odd that they aren't set off in some way, though I suppose the capitalization could be said to do that sufficiently. (I wish Yves would come back. Do we have anyone left in the project who specializes in the songs end of things?)

Thanks for the Amazon pointer. Seven singles, one of them a mash-up? Yeesh. I'm surprised no one's added them to episode one already. (I don't remember: is this considered valid information for the purposes of the infobox, in advance of the episode? Once the episode has been broadcast, of course, we're golden.) And yes, it is a bit of a consolation that the quality was dreadful; on Hulu or the Fox page, it can be fairly decent on a computer monitor. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Visualizing works well for me! I really miss Yves' contributions too :(. Scanning the member list, Ending Start jumps out as being very involved in music articles, but I can't recall off the top of my head which Glee articles they've worked on. The problem with the Amazon list is that, as bare names with no further detail, for us to attribute them to episodes (and even extrapolate original artists, however incredibly likely those details may be), veers into OR territory. As I type, a user has just added 5 songs to the first episode and two to the second without sources, so I'll take care of that in a sec... Broadway World are attributing four to ep 1, naming original artists for three of them, but I don't know if we've ever settled on how reliable a source that is. Frickative 22:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm, having done that, I now realise that those last two songs do have different covers and release dates, so are 99.99% likely to be in episode two (and thank goodness, because otherwise that would be a crazy busy premiere), but still... I'm sort of in the middle here. It's never sat right with me to add info like this to articles without a definitive source, but at the same time, it feels so futile to keep reverting edits that are, in all likelihood, totally correct. Frickative 22:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad that you like visualizing. Let's hope the GAN reviewer, whoever it is, also likes it. :-) On those songs for the initial episodes, JasonBres has gone ahead and added all seven of them (five to Purple, two to Unicorn), citing Amazon as a reliable source, but emphasizing that no links to Wikipedia song pages should be made until versions are definitively known. I'm not going to argue this one, though, like you, I'm sort of in the middle. Just looking at BroadwayWorld.com does not inspire much confidence in terms of them being a good source.

However, I'm wondering about the latest update to List of Glee episodes, where an IP user has cited the Purple press release as grounds for saying O'Malley isn't a main cast member, and including him with Gilsig as being dropped from the main cast. There's every chance he's correct, but we can't be pretty sure until we see that first cast list on the screen. (And we can't be absolutely sure until the cast lists run in Unicorn, and we get to see just where he is listed.) I'll let you call this one, though until we have definitive news, I think it's better to definitively say he's been dropped. We've also been non-committal about this in the Season 3 article, but as IPs can't edit there, we have a bit more leeway. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Later: do you think you might be able to have a chance to look at "New York" this weekend? I imagine that you want to work on some of your own projects, but in case you need a break... ;-) BTW, I dropped a note to Robert, and he's picked up "Never Been Kissed". I imagine he'll be doing a few edits over the next day or two. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for dropping a line to Robert :D I'll definitely go over "New York" this weekend - my initial enthusiasm to get stuck in to my outstanding projects is waning every time I read a positive review of "A Very Glee Christmas". The Burt wording in the episode list was definitely dubious (imo, it made it sound as though he wouldn't be returning at all). I've hopefully resolved things by removing the prose summary, now the table is beginning to take shape, and altering the wording in the season three article. I took my lead from your approach to Burt's article, so rather than saying he is a guest actor, noted that he's listed among the guest cast. I'm still clinging to the hope that's an error on Fox's part, but he doesn't seem to have been mentioned at all at the press screening. I'm about to wade through the myriad reports on that to hopefully shore up sources in the re-created s3 song list, but the few I've read so far have been irritatingly vague. Frickative 15:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Happy to have gotten the word out on NBK. :D Thanks for adding "New York" to your weekend schedule. It'll be nice to have it into the GAN process and off my list. I know what you mean about AVGC. I'm somewhat appalled by the number of reviewers who thought "Funeral" was great—at least four of the regulars—instead of seeing the enormous structural problems and the completely ludicrous notion of having a competition the week before Nationals, not to mention the caricature that was once Jesse St. James. I had planned to write "Funeral" first, but I think "Rumours" is going to leapfrog it to give me some momentum. Maybe you should shift to "Blame It on the Alcohol" or "Sexy" to get the bad AVGC taste out of your mouth. I think we're both clinging to the hope re O'Malley, and I like what you did for Season 3 (and it was time to clear out the prose summary in the List; it didn't make sense any longer to have the same material in both places), but even if he doesn't get main cast credit (which he deserves), there's still the six episode guarantee, and there's a chance they'll give him more. Heck, Pearce was left off the first episode guest cast so she'd be a surprise, but you know she's going to be listed when the episode airs... (and we'll get a character name at that point, too). BlueMoonset (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Later: I've been shadowing you tonight, incorporating all your excellent work into The Purple Piano Project. The pre-made refs helped a lot. :D With the Production section now listing all the information from the EW and AOL previews, I thought we could safely remove all the Amazon footnotes from the infobox, since the info is in the main part of the article. I suppose I should have done that with the Stoltz refs, but I just moved the full refs into the intro, leaving the pointers in the infobox. Inconsistency is today's watchword. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A touch past the weekend (sincere apologies, I'm with relatives and hadn't counted on connectivity being awful to non-existent) and I think "New York" is ready to hit the queue. Excellent work, and a really interesting read (the episode had faded in my memory a bit, and I'd forgotten quite how implausibly the whole thing hung together until reading the critical response!). I'm pretty sure you'll want to tweak the lead a touch - I thought the budget and Emmy nom were important enough to warrant a mention up there, but nowhere I tried to add them felt very natural. I tried to pull the plot in from ~550 words to ~450, but only got about halfway, so if you can spot anything ripe for excision then great, but if not, I doubt 50 words in a busy finale are worth worrying about. And I'm glad the song refs were of use!

On the subject of "The Purple Piano Project", have you thought how you'd like to handle expansion of the episode articles going into season 3? Would you rather we worked on separate sections, or alternated articles, or something else entirely? I'm not sure whether I'll be able to livestream tomorrow's episode on this connection, but if I can, then in the past I've tried to throw a plot summary together as quickly as possible to stop sections like this developing - but if you want to take TPPP from creation through to GA yourself and would prefer to pen the summary, I'm more than happy to hold off. (Of course this is really just to get a general idea in place, and I don't discount the welcome possibility of other editors making major contributions to articles, like DAP & Candy last season). Frickative 02:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement on when to start new Glee episode articles

Today, I started the Glee third season second episode article on "I Am Unicorn", based on the Fox press release. Once again, I've had an article changed to a redirect by JDDJS, but this time it already contained all the usual press release information that we've been including on brand new episodes since I joined the task force. Certainly "Prom Queen", "Funeral", and "New York" started with just this much information, yet "I Am Unicorn" was shut down.

So I went to the talk page and asked, and got a response. What I want to know: in your view, are we truly running afoul of WP:CRYSTAL, or is this an interpretation that could (and perhaps should) be challenged? My intention is to go out to find some other information that is not on (nor is appropriate for) the season 3 page, and put the whole thing back up with it, but I'm wondering whether we should try to establish ground rules now for the future, before this happens again. There's a reference on said talk page to "viewpoint one" of WP:DEADLINE, but I think it's a bit high-handed to be imposing when we've clearly been operating from "viewpoint two" for some time. (Interestingly, JDDJS is a member of the Glee task force.) You're the experienced hand here: what are your thoughts? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(Adding): I put in some new production information, and restored the page. Whether that's sufficient, I don't know. I did ask for a discussion on the task force talk page to set up guidelines going forward. We will see what we will see. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

And now we have the other side of the coin: Another Believer, who's been around long enough to know better, just created barebones pages for Asian F and Pot o' Gold, the supposed titles for the third and fourth episodes of the new season. (The latter was put up with the former's title in its header.) I've suggested on Another Believer's talk page that they be deleted; if they aren't, I'm thinking that perhaps the best thing to do is to make them redirects to either the Glee season 3 page, or perhaps the Glee list of episodes page. I definitely want to pull both episodes from the episodes template. And I'm thinking I don't want to wait until tomorrow to do this... Suggestions? (Assuming JDDJS doesn't pop in and take care of it first.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I couldn't get back to you yesterday, but I'm very glad the matter has been amicably resolved. I don't recall exactly where these titles are coming from (GleeZone? GleeFans? something like that), but the first two at least have proved correct, so if something similar occurs in future, I think the best bet is to redirect to Glee (season 3), then restore when the Fox schedule/title confirmation and any further information is available. PRODing would probably be a valid alternative, but when the timeframe until official confirmation is a matter of days, redirecting seems the quicker and easier option. Frickative 02:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Poking

You have been Facebooked.

Also, did you know Artie is a junior? It's revealed in the first 36 seconds of the season premiere, which I found was viewable online when @GLEEonFOX tweeted it to the world. CycloneGU (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Facebooking noted and returned :) I saw that clip, interesting to know! Though the thought of an Artie/Tina-centric season 4 doesn't do much for me, so I hope they have plans in place to keep some of the seniors around. Frickative 02:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we can count on Brittany flunking, but that's still only three. So, let's see who's been established as a senior.

• Episode 1: Mike, Rachel, Kurt, Finn. (Can we count Santana and Brittany and Quinn from their scene? I can't remember whether Santana explicitly says it's their last year/chance to win Nationals. Make that two Nationals.)
• Prom Queen (by virtue of being junior prom royalty candidates): Finn, Quinn, Puck, Lauren, Dave, Santana

That's eight of the twelve right there, nine if you count Brittany, who's going to flunk anyway. Anyone else attending prom could have been there by virtue of being the entertainment, such as Artie, or dating a junior, like Tina.

Who does that leave? Mercedes. She's a harder sell, because if she wasn't a junior last year, why would she be so upset in "Prom Queen" early on in the choir room scene if she were a sophomore? And Blaine. If he's only a junior in season three, they've completely undercut his characterization, not to mention his reason for transferring to McKinley. Transfer for a year and then see himself stuck at a crappy school without his love? Yeah, right.

Still, that leaves three of twelve, four with Mercedes. Maybe one other could be short some credits. But I wouldn't bet on it being Puck: Salling is looking his age these days, and that's a decade too old here.

One possibility, of course, is that Damian and/or Samuel are going to stick around. I gather Rory, at least, will be a sophomore this year. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ashley Fink Airtime Reduction

Hey, Frickative. Did you happen to read the disappointing news about Lauren Zizes/Ashley Fink? I'm extremely bummed out about it, but do you think we should mention it in Lauren's article or wait until we get more commentary from the actress herself? HorrorFan121 (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I know how you feel, I'm really disappointed by the news :( I read it over at TV Line, and it's an awkward one - I'm always wary of using anything attributed only to unnamed "insiders", but here Ausiello goes further and specifically notes that Fink and Glee reps declined to comment. I guess as long as we phrase it very carefully and don't use any of the "insider" quotes it's kosher to mention, though it may be worth holding fire, as the premiere is only just over a week away? I don't know if they've sent out screeners, but if they have then presumably the first reviews should start to come in soon, which could add further verification. Frickative 20:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've already pulled the info out of Lauren's storyline once, since nothing goes into storyline until the episode has aired. (Right?) I don't see any burning need to add it elsewhere, though I imagine it's true, unfortunately. If they do put her into the background, as I imagine they're also doing for Karofsky for a while (though LaMarcus Tinker mentions meeting Adler, so I'm guessing they have at least one football team scene together), at least she'll likely have consistent characterization going forward, rather than being the "we need someone to say or do this weird thing, so why don't we use Zizes for it" that she did before joining New Directions.

In one of the many pre-movie interviews, they were joking around, and Ashley sang a couple of notes... and I thought she sounded really good. Not in that basement register she used in "I Know What Boys Like", but regular G or A above middle C. Too bad we never got to hear her use it. I wonder whether her microphone was ever on during the concert tour? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It just doesn't seem right. Lauren was definitely the best part of the second season for me, so I really don't understand them shafting her. I can see them wanting to focus on underused core characters like Tina and Mercedes, but they're bringing in four other people. They couldn't have used Ashley instead? I mean, come on. =( I can add a mention of the airtime reduction in Lauren's article soon. HorrorFan121 (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It occurred to me that one reason they decided to remove Lauren, at least for the present, was to get the glee club back below the magic 12 members so they had to take on someone new. That someone is surely Sugar Motta with the tin ear, who would otherwise probably not be accepted because you can't win if one of your members can't match pitch. Plain and simple. Of course, that means that, depressingly, they're once again going to be so far down the popularity pyramid that no one's going to join, which makes no sense if they want a fourth season. But I suspect people are going to trickle in, like Rory (Damian McGinty) and whoever Samuel will be playing when he shows up. (He and Lindsay have already done some studio recording, so I wonder whether it's going to be sooner than predicted. Or if they're just getting time on the new Christmas album.) Anyway, we see Rory in episode 4, so they may have done some repair work on Sugar's tin ear by that point. Some people can actually learn to match pitch even if they've previously had major problems doing so. Others, however, just can't.

I am going to miss Ashley as Lauren, and I hope that she does get some screen time as the season progresses. She was a fun character, and a good presence. I hear that Karofsky's barely going to be seen in the first five episodes at least, and who knows if we see much of him beyond that. Letting him drop is also a mistake, in my opinion, but I'm hoping the writers will have more room for them in the second semester. It may be that they don't want his journey and Santana's to overlap. But they need to have a decent bench for the fourth season, and they're going to have to do sow some seeds soon, because Lauren, Karofsky, and a whole bunch of the supporting cast (Becky?) is going to be graduating, too. (Who could feasibly be juniors? We know Tina is, Artie could be, it's vaguely possible that Mercedes could be (although why all the drama if she wasn't a junior and had no reasonable expectations of going to prom?), and who does that leave? Known seniors are Finn, Puck, Quinn, Santana (all junior prom candidates), Rachel, Kurt, Brittany (though she's surely going to flunk), apparently Mike, and if Blaine isn't it'll be the most egregious cheat in plotting since I don't know when. And that's everyone. I can't imagine them also flunking Puck; Salling is really looking his age.

As for the four people, who were presumably independent of the prizewinners, I just don't see us getting them, at least not to start with. We know Sugar's showing up right away, but as for Sheila (the young Joan Jett), there's no sign. We know that Rory comes on in episode four, Samuel later in the first sememster, and Marcus/Shane (rumor has it there's another name change for the character formerly known as Bubba) effectively replaces Sam for Mercedes. That only counts as four if you include the project winners, and there's no guarantee they'll be sticking around past their seven episodes. As for the two-episode "arcs", I imagine these are going to be very defined guest spots such that they're unlikely to linger. (Rumor had it that Lindsay would be on this year's sectionals rival team, which would indeed limit her tenure.) So maybe there will be more new characters showing up in the last half of the year. The show needs more, I think, if there's going to be a functioning club for a (still hypothetical) fourth season, unless they've decided that a New Directions win at Nationals will finally break the barrier and make glee club popular enough to recruit six to eight newbies for season four. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think everything you've said here makes a great deal of sense, I just worry that RIB either haven't thought through little details like Mercedes/prom, or don't care. Wasn't there a fairly recently RM interview (before the three of them went radio silent to the press) where he vaguely mentioned keeping Blaine around as a student in s4? - Actually, yes, I just dived into my archives and we already talked about how ridiculous that would be. Ah well. I've read the notion floated that they use the tour as a means to gauge interest in the minor characters - Mike was unexpectedly well-received on the first leg, so became somewhat more prominent in s2... and I guess that as Ashley had very little presence during the second leg, things didn't work out in Lauren's favour. It's bothering me at the moment that the UK indents they're airing on Sky feature Jacob Ben-Israel almost as much as Mercedes/Kurt/Emma etc. I know Josh Sussman has said that Jacob's own presence was slashed after the poor response to his scenes in "Britney/Brittany", and I always assumed that was the launching point for bringing Lauren front and centre, so I'm really hoping their screen-time isn't going to be reversed again. As for the number of ND members, new characters and s4 potential... my biggest fear is that they'll leave McKinley behind for some awful Saved by the Bell: The College Years-esque continuation. And the popularity issue makes this mooted second McKinley glee club run by Shelby seem even more bizarre and implausible. I know there's not much point in worrying before it's even started, but I can't help it, haha. Frickative 14:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Jacob made a bit of a comeback at the end of the second season; I think they figured the character was less radioactive by then. I find it reassuring that while he's in the season premiere, he isn't in the second episode—I think he'll continue to be appearing in the background being an annoying newsie, but not going any further. Since he is in the first episode doing his usual start-of-the-school-year dirt-digging, I'm not surprised he's getting more play than he otherwise might. He skulked around a lot in "Prom Queen" after the opening sequence, but he wasn't even seen at the prom, so they may be thinking of him as a sophomore in second season and a junior third season. Certainly the ludicrous scene in "A Night of Neglect" with him tell Holly he's fifteen and asking her to wait three years was trying to make him seem younger; having him then drive off with Azimio and Becky in his own car with the "Jewfro" license plate nicely undercut that, because fifteen is not driving age in the US. (It's sixteen in Ohio, and seventeen if you want to drive a non-relative without an adult in the car, but Glee ignored the latter rule with Kurt in season one, so there's precedent for ignoring it. However, no way is a fifteen-year-old going to own his own car and have a driver's license in Ohio. Just isn't realistic. And it's a silly lie; Jacob would want Holly sooner rather than later, so he'd make himself sound older, not younger. But I digress. I doubt this is a reversal. Besides, they've got other new characters to deal with, including Sugar, Marcus/Shane, and at least one slushying jock with lines in the first episode (though that may be the only time we ever see him). Jacob's never going to join the glee club, so he'll stay a background character, if a handy source of strife or annoyance when the writers need one. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Super quick reply because I'm about to call it a night, but saw this from tonight's press screening and (while everything RM says should of course be taken with a canister of salt) it does sound fairly positive!

"Then we get the scoop on Lauren Zises (Ashley Fink) from Puck, who cracks that she's "the one that got away ... really, really slowly." When asked about the decision to let Fink go, Murphy made some excuse about New Directions only being allowed to have 12 members (which even he admits is a dumb excuse they made early on), then promises we haven't seen the last of her. "Lauren's coming back for really major storyline," he teased, before dishing that she'd have big scenes with Kurt (her real-life pal Chris Colfer)." Frickative 03:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, only 12? There were 13 in the group for the final four-and-a-half episodes (counting "Born This Way" as a half), and there's a minimum of 12 to compete. Someone's being disingenuous. Interesting that they're picking up on an on-screen friendship that was shown only in about two seconds: Lauren's squeal of joy (and, I think, squeeze of his shoulder?) when Kurt announces that he's going to the prom with Blaine. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. I'm definitely looking forward to them working together in "big scenes"; I know they'll both act the hell out of them. Sweet dreams! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh good! Nice work on finding that source. This makes me a little more hopeful now about Lauren/Ashley's role on the show. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ashley's on the list of guest stars for episode 3, "Asian F". I think it's a good sign that we're seeing her again so soon. Sheer speculation: as Kurt's running for senior class president, what are the chances that Lauren's either an opponent or running mate? I hope I'm completely off base here if the former: we've already done the campaigning thing with her. On the other hand, I think it'd be fun to have Lauren and Kurt as allies. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

Say a characters final scenes air one night. The characters body appears dead a few days later covered so you could only her hair and a hand, the actress and character are not credited. The actress says it wasn't her posing in the back of the boot. Would you use the credited or uncredited for a last app date?RaintheOne ^BAM 21:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rain, hmm, that's a tough call. I think I might be inclined to use the uncredited appearance, then somewhere in the body back it up with a cite episode ref, and the actress' Tweet. I'm very very wary of Twitter sources in general, and particularly unverified accounts, but at a push the Daily Mail do seem to verify the account's legitimacy. Although, just typing that sentence in favour of the Mail's journalistic integrity set my teeth on edge slightly, so if Gungadin and AP disagree, by all means go with them! Frickative 23:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

LMAO, you knew exactly who I was on about then. Well you've come up with a good idea then. The reason I was agaisnt it was because I was going to talk about the last scenes she filmed (Which werent the death scenes) and Rae's actual final scenes - but if I can explain it was not Barlow it would work out ok still. Do you watch the show btw? I remember you saying you enjoyed an episode once. :)RaintheOne ^BAM 23:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Haha, happy to help! I did see some of the latest Hollyoaks Later, and I catch some episodes here and there, but I'm finding it difficult to pick up the thread of storylines (and I really can't take that bloke's moustache seriously!) Still, I like it well enough when I see it, even if I'm never entirely sure what's going on :) Frickative 14:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The moustache is a legend! When ever I get to work on Brendan's article, It could have a section of it's own from all the commentry it gets in sources. lolRaintheOne ^BAM 14:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Woo! Ollie the GA... Btw, ItweetedU.RaintheOne ^BAM 23:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Woo, thanks so much for stepping in on Ollie, very pleased that's a GA! :D Got your Tweet - my brain's a bit fuzzy now, but I'll ping you back in the morning when I've thought through how to reply. Frickative 00:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey - did you see what happened to Holby characters article titles? What the actual feck... 0_oRaintheOne ^BAM 13:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've literally just this minute logged on and seen it o.0. I agreed here that moving Joseph and creating a disambig page for all the other JBs was a good idea, but I definitely didn't anticipate this... Frickative 13:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

We're number 9!

I don't usually read The Signpost, but happened to see the new edition on somebody's talk page and clicked through, only to find this article on the most popular pages in the English Wikipedia. To my shock, Glee (TV series) is the ninth most popular page, averaging over 1100 page views per hour, just behind the United States, and just ahead of Justin Bieber, Wikipedia itself, and Lady Gaga. Kind of scary, isn't it? Glad it's a Good Article, and my first reaction after an initial grin was that I hope it isn't too badly out of date. :D BlueMoonset (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, ninth! That's rather... well, I don't know whether it's more brilliant or terrifying to contemplate! (Nice one for giving the merchandise section a timely update). I don't know whether you've ever seen this (I have a feeling it's not linked from WP:GLEE), but it's quite interesting to scroll through. I'm surprised that Quinn is the character getting the most views at the moment, and poor Burt languishing at the bottom with 156 per day :( Frickative 22:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, since it's semi-related (and still the 24th here in the states), I wanted to point out that one year ago today, the various Glee-related pages were added into the task force. There were 23 GAs and one FL among 82 pages at the time; the group's come a long way since then, with 55 GAs in 145 pages today. Congratulations! (And very happy to have been here for almost half of it!) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's serious progress in a year! I saw a Project recently that had a little percentage bar on the main page, to show how close they were to having all their articles at GA. I'd quite like to copy that, though only once I've actually put some effort in and researched the issue of whether or not to include actors. Frickative 13:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The Purple Piano Project

Orlady (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Sexy" production source (continuing "Upcoming Glee projects")

I was desperately looking for production information on "Rumours" this evening, and found this one with an extra detail or two on the Stevie Nicks visit to the Glee set. There's also the Behind the Glee: Sexy video. I found a page that had more of the actual video of Nicks on set; it was originally from Perez Hilton, apparently, though Google led me to this copy of it, and it didn't have anything I needed anyway, fun as it was to watch, so I didn't bother tracking down its original incarnation.

Anyway, if you know of any extra "Rumours" sources, please let me know. At this point, I need to do a rewrite of the Critical reception section, and then an expansion of the intro, and I think it'll be ready for you to take a look at. I am planning on removing the Respers France quote box; I think one quote box is plenty for an episode, and the Murphy is more important (and helps make Production look more robust). Let me know if you think it's too long; I tried it shorter, but I wanted each of the three segments in there. (Hope you don't mind my starting a new talk page section; it seemed about time after three weeks and three outdents, before a fourth outdent was needed.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I take back what I said I need to do next: after getting a short Production section onto "Funeral", I noticed that its Musical commentary section needs work desperately—short, no citations, problematic prose—so I'm going to tackle that next. That just might get it up to B level—I think "Rumours" achieved that level earlier, and changed it from C to B—which would be a nice accomplishment indeed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've just finished the "Funeral" Musical commentary, so I'm calling it a "B". Both it and "Rumours" now need to double their Critical reception sections, expanded intros, and "Funeral" especially needs more in Production, since all we have is boilerplate there. (Decent boilerplate, but nothing particular to the episode.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you for the sources! The Stevie Nicks video sparked a memory, and reminded me that I came across but didn't watch a DVD extra with her on set, earlier in the week [1]. I've just watched it now, and there are some great quotes from Nicks and Paltrow that will be very handy in "Sexy". I don't think the Murphy quote in "Rumours" is too long at all (and 12 hours! Whether he's exaggerating or not, it's a nice quote). Great work pushing both articles up to B-class. I've been disconnected about 100 times while writing these replies, so I'm going to hit save now, but I'll try and get back to you in a few minutes after scaring up some Production sources. Off the top of my head, I recall an interview about the speech in "Funeral" stemming from the bond between Murphy and Falchuk, and being inspired by a recent loss one of them had experienced, so I'll particularly try and lay my hands on that. (And I don't mind the new section at all, it took me a while to work my way down to where we'd left off above!) Frickative 02:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I'm sure that shortly after "Funeral" aired, a small publication ran a piece with Robin Trocki on how she felt about it, but now I can't find it anywhere. Very frustrating. (Though I did run across the fact that Trocki and Lauren Potter were given an award by the Arc of the United States, so that's a nice find for the award list at least...) Jane Lynch spoke briefly with Entertainment Weekly about the episode, and less useful, but Jenna also commented on it. I don't know if you want to go down this route, but if you do want to touch on the speculation about who would die, I can pull back up some links where O'Malley, Mays and Jones all refute the suggestion it's their character. And this isn't the interview I originally read (I'm pretty sure that was with Ian Brennan, who talks a little about Sue at the end of the episode here), but here Murphy talks about "Funeral" as it relates to his father's death. None of the search strings I'm trying are helping find the part about Brad, which I'm sure I didn't imagine (because what a strange thing that would be to make up), but I'll keep looking. &&& will be back again in a few minutes with some "Rumours" stuff, hopefully. Frickative 03:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a quick reply that was written before you posted the second paragraph. I think I'll try to post this now, before a third, "Rumours" paragraph appears. :-)

Glad it's useful. And I'm looking forward to that "Funeral" pointer when you get the time. As for "New York" (yes, I'm moving that down here), I had one general question, which stems from your deleting Rhapsody in Blue from the list of music. The entire opening sequence is the Gershwin piece, faithfully reproduced; I don't see how we can fail to include it. (In "Rumours", for example, "The Chain" is included in the list, and several of the Madonna backing tracks are listed for "The Power of Madonna".) Sure, the Gershwin is instrumental, but I don't see how we can argue it isn't "featured music". And, if that's so, what about "Someone to Watch Over Me" and "Moon River"? I'm not sure when they occurred (as backing music, doubtless; was the latter from the bridge scene?), but maybe they should be included? I'll defer to you on these last two, whatever you think best, but without a very cogent reason otherwise, I'm planning to restore Rhapsody in Blue. I also think I'll try to put back at least one critic into the initial criticism about ND arriving without their songs, since it was the most widely condemned plot point. To cite multiples on lesser failures, but only Brown on the first, even with the best quote, gives the wrong impression. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

To my mind, "The Chain" and the Madonna songs are a somewhat different matter to regular backing music, as they appear in episodes noteworthy for the fact the featured artists have granted the rights to a large portion of their catalogue (although the use of "The Chain" needs to be sourced in the body of "Rumours"). To the best of my knowledge, they're the only infoboxes that list instrumental tracks, excluding numbers which are part of dance performances. It's a notability issue: the infobox documentation advises "Television episodes often include numerous songs; only include the most notable" - in the case of Glee, the songs which are performed are indisputably notable, and are covered by dozens of secondary sources. The backing music, by comparison, is almost never touched on at all, which is why I'm opposed to listing backing tracks alongside performances (there's also the argument of giving them undue weight, and verification being difficult without falling back on the episodes as primary sources). I'm lagging now, so will have to get back to you on "Rumours" tomorrow, but as a quick point of interest, apparently they shamelessly stole the Fondue for Two concept from a fan. Frickative 04:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. If I'd seen Rhapsody in Blue mentioned in a couple of reviews, I might have gone for it, but they ignored the Gershwin entirely, so you're absolutely right about notability in this context. I've gone through and done a final edit on the article including your very helpful contributions and to fix a couple of problems in my prose that finally consented to mug me. I think it's ready to go, though I'm going to hold off to submit the GAN until later this evening, when Robert's more likely to be on line, and I've had one more chance to proofread it. He just presented me with a Gleek Banner, so the least I can do is give him a heads up that the next article is ready if he wants a crack at it when he's likely to be around. :-)

Thanks for the production pointers; I love the one about the origins of "Fondue for Two", and am looking forward to more of them. I do suspect I'm going to be working on "Rumours" before "Funeral", at least the Critical response sections. So it'll probably be my next submission for the queue, after I ask you to look over the results when it's completed. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just finished the first complete draft of "Rumours". The intro looks a little short—I probably should have said more about Critical reception section, but couldn't come up with anything useful. If you have any ideas, please feel free to add what makes sense. Also, did you have any other production pointers? I included the one about "Fondue for Two", so we have four paragraphs, but if you came up with something interesting, we should certainly add it. Also, we have two quote boxes now in the article, and it looks visually unbalanced. I definitely want to keep the one from Production; the Respers France in Critical reception was placed there by an earlier editor, and I'm wondering if it should go. I don't find it particularly compelling, but if you do, by all means let me know. (If it does, we need to hang on to the ref and move it to one of her inline comments.) So... thoughts? And are you getting Gleed out, or do you think you could do a run through "Rumours" in the next couple of days to make sure it's GAN-ready? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Haha, not Glee'd out at all, but I have just entered my usual 'pushed for time' phase of the month—I'd be very happy to run through "Rumours", my editing of it might just be a bit sporadic. For the intro (bearing in mind I haven't read crit resp yet), are there a couple of decent examples of 'favorable reviews ... tempered with caveats' that could be given? Further Production sources are eluding me, but I know there should be more about Cheno's return out there: her return was meant to be much earlier in the season, but was pushed back (I can't recall whether that was due to her other commitments, or just something that allowed her to make other commitments, but I definitely remember reading at least one interview about it). It's frustrating me, not being able to turn it up, but I'll keep looking. Fully agreed on the Respers France quote box. Visually also, the Quinn/Finn image needs to move down so the text isn't sandwiched between it and the infobox, but the size of the images means that doing so will cause them to run into "Production" - can you perhaps think of a different image to use? Frickative 13:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, the dreaded "busy" notice on the talk page. At least it's not the even more dreaded "unavailable until" notice. (I hope you're at least around to see the DYK on Monday.) I may be a bit busy in the coming week myself, though I've already exceeded my edits for last month. I'll probably start slowing down, but most of my backlog has been cleaned up, so it shouldn't affect work on new episodes. As for "Rumours", I've beefed up the intro some more—I didn't see how I could avoid actual quotes while giving an example of "favorable with caveats", so we now have two refs. I think it's ready whenever you can beg, borrow, or steal some time for it. :-) I'll go looking for the Chenoweth, but I think it's a decent Production section even without it. The Respers France quote box is gone, and I bumped the Quinn/Finn combo down so it starts in the third paragraph; ideally I'd like to start it on the fourth, but for folks who use wide browser windows, that could cause it to run into Production. As it is, on many screens it's going to reach down into (or to just above) where the duet is referred to in the text; I thought that would be good enough. Yes? No? While the pair did duet on the opening to "Don't Stop Believin'" in the first season before Quinn had an abrupt case of morning sickness and had to flee the choir room, this was their first full-length duet pairing, so I modified the caption accordingly because I thought it sounded more interesting. (I couldn't think of a different image to use there; for example, Heather Morris would need to be in the first paragraph, which wouldn't work there any better than Quinn/Finn.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

New developments: Just thought I'd let you know that there's a new page for Holly Holliday by an equally new editor, which looks fairly complete but needs some editing. I've given it a C and added it to the project, but once it's been cleaned up it might be a B, and perhaps not that far from GA consideration. Both Sugar and Harmony have new sections under Characters of Glee; they also need a bit of tidying and to be moved so they're in alpha order in their sections. I'll try to get to them tomorrow or Wednesday, but I have other things I really need to do today... BlueMoonset (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Turns out I didn't have the concentration for what I should be doing this afternoon, so I gave Sugar and Harmony some attention, and alphabetized them, too. Holly, on the other hand, is almost certainly going to have to wait. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The new image placement looks good! I keep starting to read then being called away by work, but I'll try and block out a solid hour or two tonight to get through the whole thing. I'm a little disappointed that I was beaten to the punch on Holly, but that's my own fault for working at a snail's pace, and I'm glad there's an article now. No time to read the whole thing yet either, but on first consideration I think you're right - maybe not too far from a GA once polished up :) Frickative 11:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I updated the intro to the Holly article and started reading the rest. I think what's happened is that the author has paraphrased material from other Wikipedia articles, rather than just taking the appropriate sections verbatim. It may make sense (and take less time) to reinsert many of these places from the original rather than reedit the paraphrase. One thing that is missing from the article is how well the songs charted. "Forget You" was number 11 on the Billboard Hot 100, which (I'm pretty sure) is in the top five for Glee. Holly can wait, though; there are other things in line, including tonight's "I Am Unicorn". On Thursday, we get the Billboard charts for TPPP, which is the last major bit of info we need, aside from the BARB and BBM final figures for viewership. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Archive Bot

Forgive me on that! I was just nosing on my watchlist and saw an edit from the archive bot on your page and I wanted it. So I nicked it and forgot to change the parameters, apologies ;-) GSorby – Ping! 15:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem! I just thought I'd better tweak it when I saw it, before MiszaBot swooped in and moved your messages to my talk! Frickative 14:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Hi Frickative!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I saw this posted at User:Gungadin's talk page last week and filled the survey out then - happy to help! Frickative 18:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Season 3 individual episode article expansion

It's funny you should mention "The Purple Piano Project", because I was just wondering earlier today how quickly a complete article could be written. :-) The lagging section would surely be Chart history, since the data doesn't come out until the following week—is it the following Monday, or the Monday after that, when Billboard publishes—and there's no way to get around that. We'll now have the show airing in Australia less than a day after the US, and in the UK less than two days, so the viewership data shouldn't be very far behind. Reviews, of course, are generally up in under 24 hours.

You're going to be able to view the show the night it airs. I, however, will have to wait until the following day, assuming this Hulu Plus thing works out. (It also means that I'm not going near the articles overnight, nor look at reviews, so as not to spoil things for me. So if you think it best to throw together a quick plot summary, I'm not averse. I sometimes show undue deference to existing material, which tends to be the phrases that get corrected in GA reviews. (Not always, of course: some of the clunkers Aranea Mortem cited in reviewing Burt were mine, all mine.)

I'd guess that we stand a chance of getting episode one into GAN within a fortnight of it airing. Do you want to try? We don't have to do it with all the episodes, but doing it once could be fun. ;-) So what do you think? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it'd be good to give that a go! I think for the first three episodes of season 2, the turn-around between broadcast and reaching GA was roughly 3 weeks (...which might be why I burnt out quickly and took nearly a year to finish eps 4 and 5, but never mind). With two hands on deck it'll undoubtedly be much less taxing, and it'd be great to start the season off feeling on top of things :) I'm not sure of the timespan for Billboard, but as you say, reviews are up so quickly that we can work out the major sections while waiting on charts and ratings (I know the US and Australia get their final ratings out quickly, in the UK we're stuck with overnights for a week or so). Frickative 04:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

So how should we handle coordination? It was in the front of my mind as I started editing synopsis for "The Purple Piano Project", and wondering whether we'd be doing so at the same time. It also occurred to me when I saw you'd edited the talk page to include a bunch of sources. I didn't want to look for others if you were still working on them.

The problem I see is that Critical reception and Music and performances are really linked sections: you have to read an entire review to see which parts go in which of the two sections. We could do it here, on my page, or on the episode's talk page. And, of course, other folks will be editing even as we do. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

ETA: looks like you've finished the sources—the usual suspects plus many extras—and posted them while I was writing the above. So we shouldn't risk collision on that. Should I bring those cites up to latest style (spacing of single and double quotes, italics, publishers, etc.)? I'm happy to do so, when you're actually done. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do edit the citations (I really need to get up to speed on spacing, and frankly I don't know why I missed the publishers off...). There are a handful I haven't checked (NY Post & Times, Vanity Fair, Daily News, Faster Times, IGN, USA Today... I think that's the lot). Dismayed that Poniewozik is dropping Glee from his regular rotation, and that VanDerWerff seriously considered it... that'd have been the two most in-depth reviewers gone in one fell swoop, yikes. I see your point about Crit resp and Music being linked, though I do think it would be easier to take one each than try and work on them simultaneously (unless we each took different plot strands/songs to write up?). The best place to hash it out is probably the article talk page. I'll go and start a subtopic there (though I won't be online much longer tonight, so if you have a strong flash of inspiration/productivity, then by all means take it and run with it :)). Frickative 00:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll edit them, and also pull in a few more (VF, FT, IGN at a minimum). Whether I get started tonight is anyone's guess. I'm still digesting the episode. Lots of good, interesting stuff, but a few things that made me shake my head. Not the performances, but a few of the plot choices were puzzling to me, and some of the bits were stupid, like Will's replacement in CrossRhodes winning a Tony. Since the timing doesn't work, the joke should've been dropped. Will respond further on the TPPP talk page. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The pressure is suddenly much less. (Back to this topic because I'm talking about post-TPPP episodes.) After the first three episodes on September 20, 27, and October 4, there will be three weeks of reruns and/or preemptions on October 11, 18, and 25 before episode four is finally broadcast on November 1. Plenty of time for us to get caught up. It does mean we'll be hanging for another three weeks and a day or two before Fox gives us a press release for that episode, so it's unlikely we'll be able to confirm the title before then. On the other hand, since TV Guide gave us the November 1 date, I've added the fourth episode, sans title, to the season 3 page: we have date, writer, and director. :-) I have memories of blank titles from the past, but if this was something frowned upon, please do let me know. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh that's brilliant, I'd totally forgotten about the hiatus. Not looking forward to it from a viewing POV, but it does indeed take the pressure off in editing. No problem at all having a blank title when the other information is known (I think the only time it tends to be contested is when the only information known is the airdate, which is obviously not the case here). Fox might help us out with the title by updating the episodic photos on the publicity site a bit early, but if anything I think they've been slower off the mark this season, so I won't hold my breath. Frickative 11:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I gather the first week of the hiatus is due to the baseball playoffs on October 11. I'm not entirely sure why October 18 and 25 are also free of (new) episodes—do you know?—but I can understand why they'd want to hit all five Tuesdays in November, as that's a "sweeps" month, which is important for advertising revenue here in the states. It doesn't seem like the best idea to lose momentum so early in the season, but then I'm not a television executive.

Incidentally, you'll probably have noticed that BlueMoonset has finally turned blue after six months as a redlink. Not that there's anything significant on the page, but I figured the six-month anniversary was a time to embrace the blueness that Wikipedia has readily on offer. :D Besides: six GAs and one DYK are worth noting, even if one of the GAs, Finn Hudson, is more HorrorFan121's than mine. (Two sections counts as "significant contribution".) I suppose I'll soon have to start enumerating them before I forget just which pages I've done... BlueMoonset (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that I've started putting together the list of reviews/reviewer references, so you don't inadvertantly duplicate my work. I'm starting with a combination of my list for "Rumours" and your list for "The Purple Piano Project" (which have a big intersection). If you wanted to look for any more reviewers that would be fine: I can't find Poniewozik, Fallon, or Mullins so far, and have almost a dozen usable ones, and that's before going through more than a couple from your list that aren't on mine. I still have to check New York, the Star Ledger, Salon, and a few more there. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I've read anything about the reason for the hiatus, but wanting to hit sweeps would make sense (although compounding falling viewership with going off air for three weeks is probably looking a little more dicey now than when scheduling was decided...) Nice to see you've gone blue! I haven't read any reviews of "I Am Unicorn" except VanDerWerff's yet, but if I come across anything good from outside the standard stable, I'll pass it on. And finally, I'll finish up on "Rumours" today. I really did plan on getting it done in the few hours I blocked off on Tuesday, but after hitting "Ratings" and getting caught up cross referencing air dates and previous episodes (and airdates for previous episodes), searching through TVbtN, the SMH and BARB, I just plain ran out of time. I'm looking forward to moving on to the critics. Frickative 14:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad you're back now that it's a new month. :-) I appreciate your help on "Rumours". It'll be good to have it fully edited; I'll give it a quick review, and then toss it into the GAN queue. For "I Am Unicorn", will you (can you?) take charge of the Production section? For TPPP, let me know on its talk page when you're ready for me to review the Reception subsections. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I think "Rumours" is ready to go whenever you're happy with it - another stellar job! :) I can certainly do the IAU development - I can't find much to add to it, alas, but I guess there's room to pad out Menzel's return. & I meant to round off tonight by copy-editing the TPPP reception, but I'm having trouble concentrating on it, so I'll likely return to it tomorrow and ask you to go through it afterwards. With charts and final ratings in, it should almost be a done job! I hate the way the citation for the final UK ratings looks, so if you can think of a way to neaten it up, please do so - it just seemed redundant to create three separate refs when they would all link to the same page. Frickative 00:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Great! Thank you so much for going through it. I see Robert's already on line tonight, so I think I'll drop him a note and send it on its way as soon as I take a quick look through it. As for TPPP, I'll see what I can think up, but I'm not promising any brainstorm: my creativity isn't exactly high at the moment. I understand what you mean about having trouble concentrating; I really need to give myself a kick in the pants on "I Am Unicorn" and get those sections written, though with the US/Can charts not available until Thursday, there isn't as much of a push. And speaking of sections, we haven't really discussed "Asian F", which airs in under 24 hours (but which I won't be able to see until the following morning). How should we divide it? I suppose we could try one of us taking Critical and the other Music, and the two are likely to be equal with six songs and major developments, not to mention four critics already saying it's the greatest thing since sliced bread (add Stack and Gonzalez to dos Santos and Ausiello)... BlueMoonset (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And... it's on its way. Robert picked it up a mere eight minutes after I did a Save Page on the nomination, and he's already copyedited the Plot section. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Since this is a season three topic, I feel obligated to mention something more about season three: they filmed some Warblers scenes today with Sebastian and the rest of the crew. And that might include Blaine, though Criss could have been teasing about something else, like the expected scene between Blaine and Kurt. (Amazing what you can learn from tweets, which are proving quite useful fodder for Production sections, not to mention supplying the name of the occasional director and/or writer.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Grey's Anatomy

Hi Frickative and Ace! Since we all are really the only active members of WP Grey's Anatomy, I think we have a lot to do. We had an achievement with Izzie Stevens becoming a good article, but so far we only have two (2) articles as good articles which isn't too great for a project with so many associated articles. I was thinking of us all combining and doing major edits to the pages; if you have the time. I thought we should break up into groups and assign each of us a number of pages within the scope to work on. The goal would be to get them all to GA's and eventually maybe even FA's. I was thinking that we should start with the base pages and character pages. By this I mean, the List of Grey's Anatomy characters, the Grey's Anatomy main page, and all the individual character pages. Erica Hahn and Izzie Stevens I believe can be dropped from the task list of our first mission which is to get them all to good article status. Eventually, FA status would be nice but one step at a time is good. So I thought that this would be the breakdown of pages we all have to work on if you two are good with it:

Goal 1: Promote base page and character pages to GA

- Frickative:

• Meredith Grey
• George O'Malley
• Miranda Bailey
• Callie Torres
• Derek Shepherd
• Arizona Robbins

- TRLIJC19:

• Preston Burke
• Lexie Grey
• Teddy Altman
• Owen Hunt
• April Kepner
• Cristina Yang

- Ace:

• Alex Karev
  
• Addison Montgomery
  
• Jackson Avery
  
• Richard Webber
  
• Mark Sloan
  

- Frickative, TRLIJC19, and Ace:

• Grey's Anatomy
  

So for all the character pages, it would basically be find/label references, shorten synopses, expand development/reception, complete bare URL's and essentially model pages after Izzie Stevens and Erica Hahn. But for Grey's Anatomy, it would be expand 'Critical Reception', I recently created this, find more references, and add more images/quotes.

If you guys are in with this then I'll copy it to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Grey's Anatomy so we can get help from other volunteers. And to make it easier for us to know what's done, we could stick to striking through the task on the Wikiproject page or putting the "done" template after it.

I know this is a lot of info. but I really think as the only members that we have some major work to do. Hope you guys are in, TRLIJC19 (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey TRLIJC19, I'm glad you're taking the initiative to start a quality drive for these articles! Before I glanced through them tonight, I hadn't looked at a lot of them in a long time, and hadn't realised how overrun a lot of them had become with excessive plot summaries. I've definitely let my work on WP:Grey's fall by the wayside, which is a shame, and I'd be more than happy to pitch in and push some character articles up to GA. That said, the ones proposed above don't exactly fill me with enthusiasm - I've nothing against the newer characters for the most part, but I just don't know how much I'd enjoy devoting hours to a character like Teddy, who I'm generally lukewarm towards at best. I did do a lot of the groundwork on both Callie and Arizona and would happily take them the rest of the way, though.

I think the character list is something that would be easier to work on once the individual articles are in better shape, because then it would be more a case of distilling existing content, at least where the main characters are concerned. My top priority right now is still "Song Beneath the Song", but if we're going to get the Project in order, it might be a good idea to go through the lists of other episodes and redirect a lot of them to the relevant season pages, because I have a feeling the vast majority are just plot recaps. Frickative 00:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the quick response! I changed the list around, giving you all older ones plus Callie and Arizona and reassigning newer ones to me as I enjoy working with the newer ones. Yes, good idea i'll remove the list from this goal as we can make that the next goal. Also, yes we should redirect them to season pages as you are right, they are mainly just plot recaps. Hope to get started soon! :-) TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Glee

Hey! How's it been going? So what happens at the end of this or next season? They retire half the cast cause they "graduate"? Not sure if you have read anything on it. I don't think it would be the same show without the main characters, they make the show. CTJF83 02:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, long time no speak! I think the current line TPTB are spinning is that some will go, but others like Kurt and Rachel will stick around for whatever nebulous reason they devise. They haven't completely ruled out the spin-off though, so I guess it's just a case of waiting and seeing. I definitely agree though, I don't know how it would work with a whole new crop of main characters =/. Frickative 00:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ya, I guess only time will tell. :) CTJF83 00:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

They established that Mercedes was a senior in "Asian F", so they only have three juniors: Artie, Tina, and Blaine. They get a new sophomore next week in Rory, but he's an exchange student. And Brittany's sure to flunk. That's not much. They've written themselves into a box, and it'll be interesting to see how they manage it. (I really can't see the show without Rachel at the center; they'll have to shake things up.) The writers' room ought to be very interesting come December... :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ya, hopefully they extend the school year out for a few seasons....Blaine is only a junior?!...seems like he should be older then Kurt. CTJF83 21:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it seemed Blaine should be older to just about everybody. When Blaine said he was a junior in "I Am Unicorn", it caused major earthquakes, and enough commentary from show reviewers that I had to include a couple of sentences in the article's "Critical reception" section when writing it up. (The fact that I agreed that it was stupid made it an easy call.) But at this point, I don't see how they can extend the school year past the current season unless they do a major changeup right away. They've already announced that this season is going to be two one-semester "mini-series", so they're well and truly stuck. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding to the general malaise re: next season, a few weeks back I read an interview where Damian McGinty mentioned that Murphy had mooted Rory as a future New Directions leader. Seems an incredibly risky strategy given that he's yet to make his debut =/ Frickative 22:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually wasn't too worried about that interview. Murphy thought McGinty had potential there, but you never know where it might go. I frankly thought that Blaine was going to end up with that role as soon as I heard he'd be a junior this year, because they'll never give it to Artie or Tina. Artie may have the voice for it, but the character isn't take-charge enough. That could still leave McGinty for season five...assuming he works out. They've slotted him in for episodes four through ten: if he works, then his exchange extends. If not, then he's on his way back home to Ireland either at the end of the first semester or the beginning of the second, whenever the tenth episode airs. Remember, Sam wasn't bumped to the main cast, and I think it was because he wasn't dynamic enough to take over in the fourth season, vocally or as an actor/character. (McGinty has a nice baritone voice; I'm looking forward to hearing a few pieces that aren't pitched in the stratosphere. I'd actually like to see a couple of new characters arrive during the year and stay for the fourth season...assuming there is one: until they're renewed, it doesn't make so much sense concentrating on future seasons, but the fewer new characters needing to be introduced next season the better. (Criss is the only new one from season two who stuck around, and he should properly have been going at the end of season three.) The obvious problem: screen time needs to be devoted to the graduating seniors, and there's an awful lot of them: up to nine, in fact, in the club alone. Plus Becky, Karofsky, Lauren, probably Azimio and Shane, although I'm afraid we'll be stuck with Jacob for another year. (That leaves no football players in the glee club, and only one cheerleader, assuming Brittany flunks.) New Directions needs sophomores, and maybe a frosh or two. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

HO

They used your crop File:Anthony Quinlan.png for posters of Gilly in tonights Hollyoaks. :oRaintheOne ^BAM 18:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

LMAO, what the heck?! I should get on to Channel 4 for royalties... Frickative 22:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to tweet the pic now, so go look.RaintheOne ^BAM 23:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sam Evans

Hey, thought I'd give you this link, he is returning. Not sure the best way to word it on the page. The site is part of The Advocate so reliable :). CTJF83 21:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Rough draft CTJF83 21:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I just revised it before I noticed your post here, mostly using my wording (and the original Ausiello article as a link) from Glee (season 3), and moving the material from Storyline to Development, since nothing should be placed in Storyline until the episode airs with the events in question. And I just realized I forgot to remove the sentence that says he had made his final appearance on the show... Okay, fixed. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ctjf! What a storm in a teacup his departure turned out to be. Still, I'm glad he's coming back, I did like his character quite a lot. I hope we get the Sam/Mercedes storyline now, though given Glee's propensity for the bizarre, it'll probably end up Sam/Sugar or something equally left field... Frickative 11:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the Sam/Mercedes storyline's ship has sailed: she's moved on. But there could be backsplash if he's been missing her... Y'know, it occurs to me that they've got way more guys who aren't seniors, now that Sam's returning—Artie, Blaine, Sam, Rory, maybe the character Samuel Larsen will be playing—and Tina as the only female junior. Sure, Brittany's almost sure to flunk, but that's still a potentially nasty lack of balance in the choir room... and a lot of women to hire for season four, along with a couple of guys. (Not to mention a dearth of potential female romantic partners for an unattached guy: it's Quinn, with the possibility of a Lauren return or Sugar, but I don't see it happening for that reason unless she and Puck get back together, and he's about to fall in love again in "Mash Off".) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't Panic

You may have noticed that the Glee Task Force seem to have gone from 150 articles to 183 articles overnight, but only one of them is a bonafide article. There's also a project, a template (for the Glee userbox), and thirty categories. Another Believer seems to have added the television and glee task force to the talk pages of all these unclaimed items, so they're showing up now. We'll be at 200 before you know it! ;-) It did give me a scare when I first saw the intro on the task force page claiming we had 183 articles, but I can't be too upset at someone who gave me a Gleek Barnstar this evening... BlueMoonset (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Haha, quite the jump in figures but that's good actually, it seems a sensible idea to keep track of the templates and categories along with the articles. If I get a spare half hour, I might go through and tag the redirects likewise (some of them appear to already be tagged with the WP:Fictional characters banner, so we might as well look after our own). So if you log in later and we're over 200, that'll be why! 12:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Pages being moved

I noticed that you asked Rmdl2006 whether new pages were going up that required the Glee disambiguation. I've taken a look at this user's record, and the answer would appear to be "no". By the record, this is someone who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, especially in article naming: a change this morning renames "Berkley Repertory Theatre" to "Berkley Repertory Theater" and changes the name in the header even though, if you look at the organization's web site (easily accessible through refs at the bottom), they spell it "Theater". (A few other theatres have met the same fate.) If there's any way to call for the user to be prevented from moving pages, I recommend that you set it in motion or otherwise request it. The user is demonstrably not using that ability in a responsible manner.

I do recommend that you reverse all Glee-related moves as soon as practicable. I've never done any moving, but if those are still standing in a couple of hours, I'll reverse them myself, and may add a vandalism tag to get the user's attention. I'm also quite annoyed because this user is not responsive to my note that we preferred to use the Michael "Mike" Chang, Jr. phrasing, which we use on the other Glee character articles such as Puck's, Will's, Sue's, etc., and keeps changing it to something different. This is my first experience with someone like this. What's the proper next step? BlueMoonset (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: The user's definitely ignoring you: your second attempt to engage was deleted from the talk page almost as quickly as the first was, which I hadn't realized when I wrote the above; I was looking at your edit. I may reverse sooner, if you haven't. I'm also going to investigate whether it's possible to have a user blocked from moving. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

A frustrating situation. I'm glad AB moved "Asian F" back, and I'm not sure what the technical problem is with moving Mike, but I've lodged a request at WP:RM. I wasn't really sure whether it counted as a contentious request, but filed it as one to err on the safe side. I think the next step, should Rmdl2006 continue to make inappropriate moves of this nature, is to begin adding the {{Uw-move1}} template chain to his/her talk page – that ends in a blocking period after four notices. As a fairly new user, I assumed simple unfamiliarity with Wikipedia procedure, but it's dismaying that they don't appear willing to communicate. Frickative 17:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I decided not to wait for a move message, though I didn't use the "tl" part of it, which may mess up the chain part. I should have checked back here before doing it. But enough damage is being done that I felt something more was needed right away. I only fixed the one theater/theatre; I wasn't in the mood to go cleaning up all over Wikipedia.

My interpretation of what prevented the move back for Mike Chang is the bot action on the redirects—it meant that there were two items in the history rather than one, and the description seems to indicate that there can only be a single entry in the history for a move onto a redirect to work. I frankly don't think it's contentious—we have a loose cannon here who doesn't know how Wikipedia works—but you're far more experienced in this sort of thing than I am. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

ETA: I've taken a look, and Rmdl2006 has done 117 edits to the Keong Sim article (the actor who played Mike Chang Sr.) over a six day stretch, most of them minor but none labeled as such. Articles touched by the Sim one seem to have been affected: Mike Chang, Tina Cohen-Chang, the various venues Sim has played (including Berkeley Repertory Theatre), and so on. I was wondering why such an odd collection of moves had been undertaken, and now it makes a little more sense, even though they shouldn't have been done at all. BTW, I had to undo someone who tried to paste the entirety of the Mike Chang text over the current Mike Chang redirect. While I was in sympathy with them, it wasn't the right thing to do. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrt the "tl" and template chain, sorry, I wasn't very clear there! Adding "tl" before a template name is just used when you want to link to it, rather than transclude the template's content, so what you did was entirely right. All I meant was that, should he continue after one warning, the next step would be to use {{Uw-move2}}, {{Uw-move3}} then {{Uw-move4}}, and if violations still persisted, a report at WP:AIV, which would likely result in a blocking period. I think you're right that it wasn't a controversial request, so that's probably going to hold up the time it will take to have it moved back. I probably just assumed too much good faith at the instruction "if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial." Bit of a strange series of events, all told. I wasn't sure the Tina move was correct, but it seems fox.com/glee don't have her surname on there any more, and the latest Fox Flash releases agree with the new title, so at least that one's okay. Frickative 14:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I ran into the bot problem again on moving "Pot of Gold" to "Pot O' Gold", but Another Believer came to my rescue before my requested Technical Request move went through. Just finished cleaning up. (I hope; there's probably some place I missed.) Actually, the cleaning up was a bit of a mistake: I thought he'd renamed to "Pot O' Gold (Glee)", while he went for the simple name. A potential problem: there's already a "Pot o' Gold" page for the radio/film of the same name, so we now have two articles with names differing only by the capitalization. Please chime in on the talk page if you think this is likely to cause problems. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on that talk page. Being one of those who's willing to leave it if we don't have to change it, I'll go with your suggestion. (I should probably say so there.) BlueMoonset (talk) 09:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen this one?

I'm currently driving myself completely bonkers trying to find a video of Ryan Murphy talking about deciding to do more with Karofsky after "Theatricality" (which he wrote and directed). I think it was in the context of "Born This Way", and I think it was in one of the PaleyFest videos that is/was available on Hulu, but I'm damned if I can find it now. I can only find five of them—I'm sure there were more—and the one that deals with "Born This Way" is not there now. I went through an entire string of 14 YouTube videos, an official video (nearly nine minutes) from PaleyFest itself (which skips over the section), and two others, which also don't cover the section on "Born This Way"; even a fairly detailed liveblog of the event doesn't even mention Karofsky's name.

Of course, I could be mistaken about which interview it is, and I suppose I could be imagining things (though I really don't think I am). Can you remember seeing/reading this, and possibly where? I'd like to have Murphy's take of it, rather than simply filtered through Adler. (Last minute thought: might it have been at Comic-Con 2010? It doesn't make as much sense, because this was long before "Never Been Kissed", but Murphy wasn't at Comic-Con 2011, so it couldn't have been there.

Thanks for any pointers you can give me. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that it doesn't ring even the faintest bell for me. Absolutely all it's called to mind is Falchuk saying Azimio had been cut at Comic-Con 2011, which obviously isn't event vaguely relevant (to the point that I'm not even sure why I made the link)... but I'll do my best GoogleFu and see if I can turn up anything helpful. Frickative 18:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm drawing a complete blank on this one! It wasn't a totally fruitless search - I did find confirmation that Chenoweth's return was meant to be at the top end of the season [2] and her cut song [3], and while neither are really useful content-wise (or in the least bit related to Karofsky), it's nice to know I wasn't imagining the former, and the latter is pretty fun. Frickative 19:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That's okay. Thanks for looking; I appreciate you taking the time. I expect I'll find it someday when I least expect it. I'm virtually positive it was a video interview, which makes finding it more difficult than it needs to be.

No offense to Ian Brennan, but I'm glad they didn't use the song. While Chenoweth does a nice job of it, there just isn't much "there" there. As for the plans for an early April season two return, there are so many things that I think they plan one day and change their minds the next, only they leak the initial plans, and never bother to tell anyone that it's not gonna happen after all. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm feeling exceptionally stupid right now. It apparently wasn't a video; the quote I was looking for is right there in Max Adler's article, though it's one of the few that isn't actually available online, but cited from a printed magazine. I'll take it, though. :-) Now that I've got proof that it wasn't all in my imagination, I can retire for the night with a feeling of accomplishment. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Later: I've just finished my revision of HorrorFan121's Development section for the still-in-development Dave Karofsky article. Would you mind giving it a quick look, checking out the Karofsky section on his talk page for my qualms about my revision, and letting us know how it looks to you? Perhaps even fix a thing or two if it leaps out at you? I think it's about ready to be posted; it would need another paragraph after that in the intro (drawn from the Development and Reception sections) before it might be ready for a GAN. We may see Karofsky in tonight's episode—I noticed Azimio, of all characters I didn't expect, sitting next to Shane in the glee club room during Brittany's song (previewed by dos Santos on E!), almost certainly because the football team is playing the Jets in West Side Story. If he's still on the team, you'd kind of expect to see him at some point, yes? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Update: Well, no sign of Karofsky in "Asian F", which I find a bit odd unless he's quit the football team. (That could be somewhat shocking, unless he's rejoined the puckheaded hockey team.) Shane (whose first and last names were both given during the episode, and we also got confirmation that Mercedes is indeed a senior) and Azimio were indeed present. HorrorFan121 was pleased with the updated Karofsky article, and I'd like to move it out into the main article space (the task force's 150th page!) by this weekend. If you don't think you'll have time to take a look in the next day or two, I can move it out and let you get to it at a later time. I feel like I keep loading you with so many edit requests you don't have a chance to do your own writing! I'm happy to look at TPPP whenever you're ready... :-) I hope your recent (comparative) inactivity is due to being busy doing something good, and not a less pleasant reason. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey! I'm sorry, I hate disappearing unannounced. It's sort of hit me in the past few days that Christmas is getting worryingly close, the upshot being that it would be a good idea to increase my workload IRL for a while, which unfortunately necessitates less Wikipedia time. I intend to stick around for housekeeping edits - vandalism reverts, verifiability issues etc - but I think major content building will have to go on the back-burner for now. If you could go ahead and tackle TPPP reception whenever the mood takes you, that would be marvellous :) I've only skim-read Karofsky thus-far, but what I've taken in is great, and I trust your judgement completely - I think you're fine to move it into the mainspace at B-class. Wrt to the quotes, which I see you brought up at HF's talk, it might be a good idea to target the middle "Development" paragraphs with an eye to paraphrasing some down before a future GA nom, but it all looks fundamentally sound. And I'm pleased you found the Murphy quote! Very interesting (and fairly reflective of the show's slap-dash nature). I hope I'm not leaving you in the lurch too badly - I just really need to ensure I won't be giving out coal come December 25th! Frickative 22:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Good to know that your absence was by choice. I'll take a look at TPPP when I can. When I'm done, should I just toss it to the GAN wolves, or give you a heads-up and let you nominate it next time you stop in? I realize you have to abjure major content building for the next while, but does that include edits of articles that are on the verge of a GA? I have about two more paragraphs to go on the "I Am Unicorn" Critical reception section and then an expansion of the intro, before it's one edit away from GA submission; you always find a fair amount to fix in my B-levels that I know it would be a good thing for you to review them, at least for the obvious stuff. I have to say, it feels a bit odd to think that I'll likely be the most active contributor of content for the task force just now. Needless to say, things are going to slow down in what we're accomplishing; I'll try to get to "Asian F" in the next week or so, but no guarantees. (I'm still putting off "Funeral".) In the unlikely event that I do get caught up, should I go for one of the three on your list for last season? Any one in particular you'd prefer me to leave for you?

Because I don't have your depth of experience, I'm not as good at some of the fine points of the housekeeping edits. For example, the current addition of the two songs to the "Pot o' Gold (Glee)" page. As the guy who added them pointed out, they're on the broadcast preview. I've found this promo version of it, but while PopCrush seems to be cited in about 100 articles, especially using their reviews of recordings, I have my doubts as to whether it's good enough here. (It gets very tiring undoing good faith but unsourced edits. We're already starting to get the purported title of episode six, "Mash-Off", which seems perilously close to "Mash-Up", in my opinion. But I digress.) Thanks for whatever you think you'll likely be able to do. If I can just know what to expect, I imagine I can deal with it. I do have this nasty feeling of being lost when I think you're not available for consultation. =:-O BlueMoonset (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Later: Just pulled about 100 words from the Karofsky article in Development (combined the third and fourth paragraphs while doing so) and added a second, intro paragraph up top. I think once the article gets a quick going over by a third party (yourself, perhaps?), it'll be ready for GAN. Any chance you could give it more than a skim, at least, and let me know if anything needs fixing?

I also gave TPPP a once-over myself, and while I did a little moving and some rephrasing, I didn't cut anything of note. It reads fine to me; if you approve, I think it's ready for GAN as well. (If you think it needs further cuts, I'm afraid you'll have to do them yourselves; nothing's jumping out at me to be deleted.) Hope you stop by today and can at least give a quick thumbs up or down on this. BTW, I've submitted a DYK for "Pot O' Gold" that's been approved, so I think we'll see it around the weekend... BlueMoonset (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Still later: I've just finished the final section of "I Am Unicorn", and its as done as I can make it now. I'm distinctly unhappy with the Kurt paragraph of Critical reception, and not that thrilled with the paragraph after it. I'd obviously like another pair of eyes for it, but that makes three things waiting for your attention, before GAN submission: Karofsky, TPPP, and now Unicorn. Can you let me know what you think you can and cannot do? I'm not expecting an in-depth edit, but any smoothing, or even identification, of the obvious problems would be helpful, so we can get them into GAN. My next task is "Asian F", which I'd at least like to get a start on the Critical and Music sections—summary paragraphs at least—so I can get it beyond Start to C, at least. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Beyond the crop of articles currently ready, I don't think I'll have time to go over them (so if, eg, you manage to blitz through "Asian F", you'll most likely have to take the plunge without me) but I'll do my best with Karofsky and "I Am Unicorn" tonight/tomorrow. TPPP I think is pretty much ready—it could perhaps use a sentence in the lead mentioning the number of covers and charting info, but beyond that minor addition, it should be good to hit the queue. Thank you for reading through the Critical response/Music sections. I'm still not sure I like that third paragraph contrasting the Kurt/Rachel & Will/Emma/Sue response, but equally I'm not sure I'd like the section without any consideration of specific storylines, so eh. If you do get finished with "Asian F", I think out of "Blame It", "Sexy" and AVGC, "Sexy" is the only one I'd particularly like to finish off myself (although I think the non-free pic of Will/Holly might have to go to FfD at some point, because it keeps being added back when I remove it =/).

I've taken a look at "Pot o' Gold" and agreed, I'm not fully comfortable with PopCrush as a source (or, in fact, the promo itself, given that it says "This November" rather than specifically IDing the scenes as all being from the next episode. I don't know about filming dates etc, which might well preclude any from being beyond that point, but still, it's not unusual in the UK at least for the 'Coming up...' promos to splice together several eps). Ack, I feel like I'm badly over-thinking this, so I'll maybe come back to it later and just get on with Karofsky and IaU for now :). Frickative 00:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at Karofsky and "Unicorn". If you find anything that looks like a good DYK hook in the former, let me know? There are still a few days of eligibility left, and we've never had a "character" article as a DYK. Unfortunately, nothing has hooked me; I think I'm too close to it at this point. I'll see about adding a sentence to the TPPP intro about the covers. (Did I remember for Unicorn? Better check.) As far as "Asian F" goes, I can't imagine I'll "blitz" through anything at the moment. I spent a couple of hours pulling together the refs for the "Asian F" reviews and skimming them, and the reviews are quite good, though not unanimous and with at least a few who were unimpressed. I think it was a sign to take it easy when I noticed that the "under construction" tag was removed tonight, since no edits had been made for four days. I think I'll go for summary paragraphs and then take it slow. Probably music first, as it'll be easier. (Speaking of Karofsky, a few reviewers made a point of commenting on his absence.)

In terms of the preview that ran after "Asian F", I'm pretty sure it's just episode 4. Among other things, Lea Michele tweeted on October 6, two days after the preview aired, that while they were starting episode 6 that day, they still weren't done shooting episode 5, and would be doing the two in parallel for a bit. So episode 4 would have been the only completed, unaired episode when "Asian F" premiered. Furthermore, I'm also pretty sure I viewed it on YouTube on October 5, before the UK versions would have been available. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

ETA: I just added the sentence about the covers and charting to the TPPP intro. I looked at the Rachel/Kurt vs. Will/Emma paragraph, and frankly like the juxtaposition of the student characters vs. the adult characters, since so many reviewers this season are making that same point: the student storylines are the good ones, and the adult ones are generally problematic. Since you did the bulk of the work, do you want to queue it up? You should submit at least one of the ones from this season, especially since I have two almost ready to go myself, and will likely be the one submitting the third... BlueMoonset (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

ETA2: Actually, if you've stopped for the night, I may just send TPPP into GAN, since you did say it was good to hit the queue. I suppose it doesn't matter who throws the switch once the work is done. If you haven't posted anything by around 0400 UTC, I'll probably get it into the pipeline then, with Karofsky and Unicorn to follow tomorrow. (If you are still working, let me know if any of this is a problem.) Thanks again! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

ETA3: TPPP's submitted, and Robert's taken it. He's also suggested a Karofsky DYK hook on his talk page which I would *never* in a million years have thought of myself, especially the juxtaposition of terms. :-) I'll be noodling at it through Wednesday evening, and then will probably submit it (and, who knows, maybe a GAN for Karofsky by then, too!). If you have any thoughts, leave 'em here or there or on my talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

ETA4: GA for TPPP. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks for pulling the trigger on the GAN—given that it was entirely a joint effort, I don't think it matters who makes the final submission. Excellent to have our first season 3 GA :) I've left a reply about the proposed DYK hook at Robert's talk page - I really liked the suggestion, it's such a shame that the "real-world" requirement nixes some of the most interesting in-universe hooks. Frickative 15:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad you're happy about my having pulled the trigger, and the acquisition of our first season 3 GA. :-) I saw the post about the hook, and tried combining real-world and in-universe facets there: " ... that on Glee, Max Adler's one-episode two-line scene as jock bully Dave Karofsky led to the character becoming the nuanced role of a closeted gay ex-bully and bearded prom king?" I would be completely unsurprised to hear that the fictional stuff is still not allowed, but thought it was worth trying, even though it's a bit clumsy as is and needs refinement.

Incidentally, we had our first external edits to the Dave Karofsky page today (excluding the addition of categories the first day), which included changing 'Dave Karofsky' to 'David "Dave" Karofsky', and adding his "Karofsky" nickname as well; I followed the wording on the Will Schuester page for the second nickname when the supplied wording didn't thrill me. The editor also uploaded a "fair use" photo of Karofsky; I suppose it might fly since there's nothing else available, though I have my doubts. If you have time, take a quick look; if not, we can submit the page for GAN and let that process, or fate, decide. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

ETA: latest version of DYK hook (184 characters, which is a bit long): " ... that Max Adler had no idea his one-episode two-line character for Glee, jock bully Dave Karofsky, would become the nuanced role of a closeted gay ex-bully and bearded prom king?" Although maybe I should have moved "bearded" to between "closeted" and "gay". BlueMoonset (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, great new hook! I really like the combination of the real-world and in-universe aspects, and I think bearded works better where it is - 'closeted-bearded-gay-ex-bully-prom king' doesn't quite scan as well. I've swept through both IaU and Karofsky - excellent work on both! I actually really like the Kurt paragraph in the former, in particular the extreme response to Blaine's de-ageing. The rhyming review might be sub-par poetically, but it makes for a fun read. The single sentence I wasn't too certain about but left untouched was under "Development" in Karofsky's article: Though the anti-bullying club formed by Karofsky and Santana in "Born This Way" was created for somewhat selfish reasons, the kind cub scout was seen in "Prom Queen", when Karofsky makes his tearful apology to Kurt and then makes sure Kurt will wait for his escort after the next class. - I think the "somewhat selfish reasons" and "the kind cub scout was seen" inject a particular POV into the description, which should ideally be neutral and devoid of interpretation. I was torn between re-wording it or removing it and letting the plot summary stand on its own though - I'll leave that in your most capable hands. That aside, I think that whenever you want to enter them into the GA queue, you're golden :) Frickative 22:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Dammit, you're right. I was far too fond of "kind cub scout" as a nice tie back to what his father said to realize what it implied in the later context. I've rephrased the sentence; I now say "ulterior motives" (which Karofsky comes right out and describes to Kurt: Santana wants to run for prom queen, therefore Bully Whips to make it safe so you could come back), and removed both "cub scout" and, with some struggle, "kind" as well, though it's clear there's some better nature and conscience there if you read between the lines. I guess that means Karofsky is ready to go, and "Unicorn" as well. I think Karofsky gets to go first, then "Unicorn", tonight, and the DYK, too. Thanks for your comments on the hook: funny how I could refine what Robert and you came up with, but formulating something on my own just wasn't happening. :-) I'll run it by Robert, and if he thinks it works, I'll nominate it. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

ETA: As I'm sure you've noticed, the DYK and two GANs were submitted and all taken by Robert. The Karofsky DYK, sporting a slightly shorter hook, has passed for now (and will probably appear a week from now between Thursday and Saturday, with the pending "Pot O' Gold" DYK a likely candidate for this Monday), and Robert's started work on the Karofsky GAN, with "Unicorn" next on his plate. It's just as well they're out of my hands, since today was a busy IRL day. :-) I think "Asian F" will have to wait until the weekend; I took what little time I had and finally wrote a Critical reception paragraph for season two. Among other things, it let me remove that Metacritic usage from the lede, since it's not representative of a program's season, and is something I've been wanting to get done for a while. Just took a quiet half hour... BlueMoonset (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

ETA2: I was wrong: "Pot O' Gold" just got stuck in a prep area, and should be released to the front page on Sunday, October 16 at 1200 UTC. :-) I suppose that means Karofsky could appear as early as Wednesday, but I doubt it... BlueMoonset (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

And so that's now... 2 GAs, 1 DYK and 1 pending? I was going to say 'good job!' but that sounds far too weak to cover the scale of the stupendous achievements you're racking up at lightning speed :) And really nice work with the season 2 crit resp, too - that's one more thing I can strike off my 'things-I've-started-but-probably-won't-finish-until-a-snowy-July' list! Frickative 23:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well... I suppose I shouldn't mention I finished the "Asian F" music section today, then. ;-) The Critical reception section's going to be harder to finish, because I have twice as much source material, but another paragraph there and I think we'll be at a B-class article even with more reception, some additional production, and a final lede expansion. It'll be number sixty on our GA list when it's ready, which I hope will happen in the coming week. Plus I have fragments for the next four episodes already written here on my computer, even though seven and eight only have a single factoid each. I need a little more from secondary sources before I think it will be ready to replace the redirect.

I added a fair amount of material to my user page yesterday, which had only been userboxes; I felt that with ten GAs that I contributed to, even if I wasn't the primary author on a couple of them, it was about time to get it all down in one place before I forgot what I'd done. :-D And I got to add a second DYK to the page today. (Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go enjoy its last few minutes on the front page. ;-) ) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: What do you think of the new tables adorning Glee (season 3)? I think they're not particularly useful, but you may feel they're a nice addition. Can I ask you, as our senior task force person, to decide what happens there? That there aren't footnotes is unfortunate, but we could pull them from the individual episodes (assuming the sources and numbers matched). A new user account is responsible, and I always hate to discourage people... BlueMoonset (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Much later: "Asian F" only lacks a final paragraph in "Critical reception" (covering the Will/Emma storyline plus Most/Malph), a quick sentence on the wonderful Brittany performance, maybe that much on Kurt/Blaine, maybe that much of Rachel's panned run for president—BTW, I think we have to wait until episode seven to see the presidential debate between the three candidates—and then a sentence on Karofsky, or rather lack of Karofsky. Once that's done, I can add an already-written sentence on Will/Emma to the intro, and I'm done. I realize you're too busy to actually edit, but if you have time to read through and tell me where there are major problems (including length!), please let me know. I think I had in the back of my mind that this might still grow enough to make the 5x cutoff for a DYK; in the event, it's barely 3x, and could possibly be trimmer. Since I'd like to submit it, any comment, even an "I'm sorry, but no time for anything" would be helpful, as it helps me plan ahead. Many thanks! PS: You've seen the news that Chord Overstreet will probably be back as a recurring starting with episode eight? (It's the episode Morrison is directing, BTW.) And I tried putting up an episode six article, now that we have the early press release, only to have it redirected. Annoying, but I don't have the energy to fight. When I get a couple of additional good facts, I'll put it out again. I've already picked up two minor details... :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A bit later: Well, the Karofsky DYK has just been scheduled for 0100 BST on Friday, which was earlier than I expected. And "Mash Off" (episode six) was restored from redirect heck when someone else decided the article should be shown even as a stub. As for episode eight, Ausiello's reporting that Morrison's episode will probably be the Christmas episode, with songs from the new Xmas album, so unless they've changed which episode he's directing, it's also eight, and Sam's return. And with Sam back in time for Sectionals (Ausiello again), I guess episode nine (on December 12) will be the Sectionals episode. Unless they're going to have a tenth episode on the 19th, and I somehow don't think they're going to run that close to Christmas. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat later: I just pulled the trigger on "Asian F" for GAN. Now that it's done, it's time for a break; I'm feeling a little dicey anyway. I hope it's a straightforward review, but if you stop by and see the nomination stalled for a day or two, please see what you can do to get it going again. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm really sorry, but I wouldn't have had (didn't have?) time to read through "Asian F" pre-GA nom. It's a measure of how busy I am that I opened this page to reply yesterday (at the same time as moving a couple of erroneously moved articles back, and removing the season 3 table) and just plain ran out of time to compose a message. Great work putting it all together, though (that barnstar from Another Believer is very well deserved) and I hope the GA process is plain sailing. And thanks for keeping me in the loop re: Sam/Christmas/Sectionals etc. Episode eight sounds like it's shaping up to be as much of a mess as last year, but I'll try and reserve judgement at least until the soundtrack is out ;) Frickative 11:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, how awful about your computer! I hope it can be quickly fixed, and we'll see your shining phosphors around here before long.

In the meantime, "Asian F" has just this hour made it through GAN with a surprising number of fixes to the intro (what was I thinking?), and a surprising dearth elsewhere, so I'd call it "plain sailing". Even so, if you see any infelicities when you do get around to reading it, by all means make them right. To my great surprise, the long-stalled Critical reception section to "Funeral" came out of my fingers today, so there's just a bit of new material for Production (including Lynch's Emmy nom and episode selection) and the usual intro expansion to do before it's ready. Shouldn't take long. Looks like this month will tie March 2011 for the second most GAs (six) at this rate; I don't see any chance of going for the record eight (March 2010). Not and survive the month, that is. ;-) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Two days later: I submitted "Funeral" a little over an hour ago, and Robert's already picked it up. That takes care of my three from last season. I think I'll probably take up "A Very Glee Christmas" if I decide I need to work on something while waiting for "Pot O' Gold" to be broadcast. [I hope you don't mind that I keep updating you here while your computer is indisposed.] It's more of a tabula rasa than "Alcohol", which I think suits my mood more. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, thank you for keeping me in the loop and congratulations on the "Asian F" GA! I hope "Funeral" goes equally well. If it's at all helpful to you, the material I'd started to pull together for AVGC before abandoning it is here. And thanks for the commiserations on my computer - I appear to have been exceptionally fortunate, and after giving it a few days to dry out, it thankfully seems to be in working order! Frickative 17:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oddly, "Funeral" had the fewest copyedits ever (and none in Production, Critical reception, or Music and performances!), but Robert wanted a clarification in Production, wondered if there was any information as to why Jean was killed off (there isn't, really, but I found a nice Jane Lynch quote that established that Murphy checked with her before going ahead with the story), and wanted another picture if possible, so I added an image box in the Reception section. I imagine the GA decision will be made when he logs on tonight.

Thanks for the AVGC pointer. The list of sources on the Talk page was quite helpful, and I've starting working my way through them... and I've found a couple of additional ones as well. I'm so glad your computer is back with us, and that it dried out fully before you turned it back on. :-) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

ETA: "Funeral" is now a GA. :-) I've formally moved "A Very Glee Christmas" from your list to mine, and added its Canadian viewership, with the Australian viewership about to be included. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I seem to be on a roll: as best I can tell, all "A Very Glee Christmas" needs at this point is an expanded introduction. If you wanted to give a look, I certainly wouldn't say no: the "Production" section is a tad weak, but serviceable—I didn't want to include one report that the episode was going to be titled "Sue the Grinch", because I have no idea how reliable the report was. Depending on my mood, I may submit it tonight. I'm about to be busier, so I won't try to take on the remaining season two articles; I'll instead wait for "Pot O' Gold" to air and start work on that, while keeping my eye on the next three for new info, including bits that would get episode seven to the point that I can replace the redirect with something real... and perhaps have something worthy of a DYK. Who knows? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

ETA: "A Very Glee Christmas" is now a GA. "Pot O' Gold" is next, and I have five days before anything significant is available. Which means two things: first, I'll start a new topic here to discuss that when the time comes, and second, October's just become my second-busiest month when it comes to edits. ;-) BlueMoonset (talk) 09:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! You've done absolutely fantastic work this month (and although March 2010 had one more GA, if memory serves I'd actually written those articles in advance, then was prompted to nominate them by Ctjf83 - so to have mostly written and had passed seven GAs in one month... I'd say that's probably the biggest achievement WP:GLEE's seen to date. Wow.) If you want (or at least don't mind!) me pitching in on "Pot O' Gold", I should be available - it's always a relief to hit the start of a new month :) Frickative 11:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for the barnstar! To be perfectly accurate, "The Purple Piano Project" was mostly your work—you did the Critical reception and Music and performances sections, which were over half the battle right there. I just pulled the trigger because you were busy. So I'll take credit for six plus two. :-)

If you want to pitch in on "Pot O' Gold", we should probably start coordinating on that talk page. It doesn't (for example) make sense for both of us to be working up the set of references. Since there's already been a DYK on this one, there's no urgency timewise. The same might not be true for "The First Time" or "Mash Off" or even "I Kissed a Girl", which could have DYK potential. I take it that you're putting off "Blame It on the Alcohol" and "Sexy" for the time being? (I can definitely understand that: I find that it's easier to work on something new rather than updating and editing something old.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I had forgotten TPPP, but I don't think 6.5 GAs is any less of an achievement ;) I'll go and leave a message over at "Pot O' Gold" now. I might dip in to "Sexy" tomorrow, but I'm not feeling too much enthusiasm toward it right at this moment. Frickative 20:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Good news

We've just been given a six-month semi-protection block on List of songs in Glee (season 3), which I gather matches when the current season 2 page block expires. I'm so glad they agreed to grant it this time; I've had to not revert things due to the 3RR rule, and with the recent 300th performance celebration giving us all the songs through the episode-six 300th (the Adele mash-up), we kept getting IPs coming in and adding unsourced info from the wikis and tumblrs. That even included the supposed title of the song Criss and Colfer filmed not 24 hours ago for episode seven! Yeesh. At any rate, we won't have to deal with undoing the unsourced and unverifiable on that page. We'll be safe until the final few episodes, thank goodness, but it does mean we have to be alert to requests and such on the Talk page. A small price to pay. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent news! Whew, although I've not edited in the past few days, I did notice the occasional edit citing Glee Wikia as a source... Nice to know that for the most part, the list should be fairly stable from now on :) Frickative 11:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Bleep

I went to Madame Tussuads and took pictures of the Corrie lot. I can upload them to WikiM as normal, right?RaintheOne ^BAM 15:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic! As far as I know, yep. I can't see anything on the website restricting the use of photographs taken there, and there's an entire category of waxwork photos taken at MT London. Ah, I can't wait to see these :D. Frickative 15:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, right, well I've uploaded them [4] - Bet, Hilda, Ken and Deirdre. I've got one of Peggy Mitchell on the other camera I took but I'll upload that some other time. :)RaintheOne ^BAM 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Significant otherness

The subject has reared its head again on the Glee task force talk page, but also on the Santana Lopez talk page, where Puck's inclusion or exclusion is currently a matter of debate. If you have any thoughts on one side or the other, it would be nice to have someone with a longer view of the subject stopping by. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've left a brief message outlining my thoughts at WP:GLEE, but re: the Santana talk page, the multiple IP editors are Brittany/Santana fans from here. If you've read the WP:GLEE archives, you'll know this isn't the first time they've flocked in and posted lengthy diatribes on their personal interpretations, because they really don't want to see Puck in that box. I really have no desire to engage with that again, ha. Frickative 10:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant to thank you for the pointer to that external site. I've located the post that requests the readers of the site to visit the page to correct the "moron" who wants to include Puck (the funny thing being that a number of others there didn't agree with her that Puck shouldn't be a significant other), which is a clear violation of the canvassing rules here. The whole thing seems to have died down, so I imagine sleeping dogs are going to lie for a little while, and then wake up and start barking when least convenient. Sigh. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome - it's amusing to know that there was actually disagreement there this time. (After confirming that that was where the IPs were coming from, I didn't bother reading the messages that followed. I had more than my fill last time, when I was accused of manipulating Wikipedia because I'm a rabid Puck/Santana fan... news to me, given that most weeks, Brittany/Santana are the only pairing I have any investment in!). Heh, at least it's settled down again for now, and I think that leaving Puck and Brittany as the listed sig. others is a good final consensus, given that the opposing arguments do some pretty desperate gymnastics with the source material to fit their preferred POV. Frickative 23:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Popcrush as a source

Popcrush has posted a song list for "I Kissed a Girl", which has been incorporated into the List of songs in Glee (season 3) pretty much entirely. All the songs had been there before, but the original artists and who sings them on the show went right in.

The problem, obviously, is the weasel wording of this article. I immediately eliminated Santana and Shelby from the article because the word "rumored" was there. While Beiste was also "rumored", Jones has been tweeting about doing a Dolly Parton song in the episode, so I supplied a reference that way. But the Puck wording seems dodgy to me, and I'm wondering where the Finn/Rory/Artie trio comes from...and, for that matter, the other info. Are they a source to be trusted, semi-trusted, or just another fan site with fancy graphics where the direct interviews are probably usable, but little else can be.

What do you think? Or should I take this to the task force page for more general commentary? I think we've mentioned them before—October 12 in your archive 9, where you did say you weren't fully comfortable with them as a source—but before I do a wholesale delete of the original artists and Glee singers (they base "I Kissed a Girl" info on having seen the promo), I wanted some feedback. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hm, this is a tough call. On the one hand, the author's credentials seem okay - a journalism degree and history with reputable publications. On the other, the article itself is obviously shoddy - a typo in the first paragraph, and rife with speculation. I can't find an "About" page on the site to get an idea of the degree of editorial oversight, and the large button asking for tips from readers is hardly confidence-inspiring. From browsing other recent articles, the website appears to "rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions", but its apparent association with the Star Tribune does lend it some credence. My instinct is that we're best off treating this as a questionable source and steering clear, but the reliable sources noticeboard would be the best place to seek wider input from those au fait with making such judgement calls. Frickative 02:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw the Hensel bio, but I'm not getting the StarTribune connection: I think it's a different PopCrush altogether, the name of a column or blog for the paper. There's no evidence of affiliation with the one employing Hensel, owned by Triton Media Group (which owns TownSquare Media, formerly Regent Communications, which went bankrupt, and is primarily radio stations). And I've just taken a look at the preview they're citing for the "I Kissed a Girl" singers, and it's clear that they've missed both Rachel and Sugar from the performance. However, I've just checked WP:RSN, and their one PopCrush discussion got zero replies. I don't think it's worth it. But I'm strongly considering removing all information from that source, and possibly the other PopCrush cites on the page as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

ETA: I've just put a note about this on the List of Songs talk page. I'll wait a day or two; if there isn't any disagreement, I'll find alternate sources for the other PopCrush entries and remove information that depends on it from this article sometimes this weekend. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated ETA: We just got one month of protection on Glee (season 3). Finally, no more new accounts and IPs adding those two rumored titles for episodes 8 and 9. Mind, episode 8 could be official as early tomorrow, if the Fox gets their press release out before the weekend and The Futon Critic picks it up, but we'll be safe for a bit. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, sorry, the PC/ST confusion exemplifies why I really shouldn't try to edit post 3am. Still, at the very least, I think we can safely deem this article too mired in errors and speculation to be considered reliable. Other articles from the site could be considered on a case-by-case basis, but I'd still lean towards not using them at all, unless the LoS discussion draws a compelling counter-argument. That's excellent news about the season 3 article! For some time, I've been wondering whether an edit notice drawing users' attention to WP:RS and WP:V might help the song lists, but I've just discovered that an entire category exists for season articles with notes of this nature, which might be worth trialling once the protection expires. Frickative 13:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey

I was looking through the mags for everyone, I noticed you expanded Ben - Is this of any help?

• Ben is jailed! - TV Mag, 10 - 16 July 2010, page 7 [5]RaintheOne ^BAM 17:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thank you so much! That'll definitely come in handy. I had been considering asking if you had anything on Ben, but I've noticed you've had quite a few requests lately, so didn't want to overburden you. You're a star :). (PS - not sure if you're still watching Holby, but tonight's sounds like a good turn in the Dan storyline). Frickative 17:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I will look through them again and do some Ben scans for you, and you will be in luck - if an EE character so much as coughs - they get a double page spread in Inside Soap. :) As for Holby, I've fallen three weeks behind but downloaded them via the iPlayer. I know need to update Dan's article though, there isn't event a mention of Stephen in it yet.RaintheOne ^BAM 17:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry dont mean to invade, :/ But Rain, anything about Poppy? I know there is no info about her in

• 12-18 November
• 29 Ocotber- 4 November
• 1-7 Ocotber
• 27 August-3 September
• 30 July- 5 August
• 22-28 August
• 13-19 August

I was wondering if you could fill in the blanks? Especially this weeks issue, was there anyhting in the BK interview, or at the back of the mag commenting on her departure, :) THANKS! MayhemMario 17:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yo Frick - I have finished looking through all the magazines I have - I found sixteen interviews of use - Atleast four are from 2006 focusing on his early storylines. Just have to do the scanning now. :/RaintheOne ^BAM 20:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

---

• "Ben frames Christian for sex attack!". Soaplife (262). IPC Media: 11. 21 October – 11 November 2011. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: date format (link)
• White, Kate (5 - 11 Nov ember 2011). ""The trust has gone between Christian and Syed"". Inside Soap (44). Hearst Magazines UK: 38, 39. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Ellis, Sarah (24 - 30 September 2011). "Ben's violent revenge!". Inside Soap (38). Hearst Magazines UK: 14, 15. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
• White, Kate (1 - 7 October 2011). ""Phil's in denial about Ben being gay!"". Inside Soap (39). Hearst Magazines UK: 36, 37. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Maund, Allison (1 - 7 January 2011). "Glanda plays with fire!". Inside Soap (52). Hachette Filipacchi UK: 18, 19. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Jones, Allison (17 - 23 September 2011). "Ben's new boyfriend!". Inside Soap (37). Hearst Magazines UK: 22. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "Ben comes out as gay!". Inside Soap (30). Hearst Magazines UK: 13. 30 July – 5 August 2011. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: date format (link)
• "Ben's back!". Inside Soap (35). Hearst Magazines UK: 19. 3 - 9 September 2011. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Childs, Helen (7 - 13 May 2011). "Heather's anguish". Inside Soap (18). Hachette Filipacchi UK: 16, 17. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Crossley, Helen (4 - 10 March 2006). "Ian hides Ben from Phil". Inside Soap (9). Hachette Filipacchi UK: 10, 11. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "Kathy killed!". Inside Soap (50). Hachette Filipacchi UK: 27. 17 - 30 December 2005. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Ellis, Sarah (18 - 24 March 2006). "Phil's back - and he wants Ben!". Inside Soap (11). Hachette Filipacchi UK: 6, 7. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Ellis, Sarah (29 April – 5 May 2006). "Little Mo attacks Ben!". Inside Soap (17). Hachette Filipacchi UK: 6, 7. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: date format (link)
• Maund, Allison (10 - 16 July 2010). "Ben jailed!". Inside Soap (27). Hachette Filipacchi UK: 4, 5, 6. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Maund, Allison (4 - 17 December 2010). "Ben's back!". Inside Soap (48). Hachette Filipacchi UK: 22. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

Here is your link - [6] - I filled the refs out, so enjoy.RaintheOne ^BAM 22:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Rain, you are a solid gold, 100% complete and utter legend. Thank you so much! I had been worried that the Development section might let the article down in a future GA nom, but this fantastic lot should more than take care of that. If there's ever anything I can do in return - be it a copy edit, pulling something from the library, sourcing some storylines for an awkward review - just give me a shout, because I definitely owe you for this lot. Frickative 15:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It is okay and knowing me it shall be an awkward review. lol :)RaintheOne ^BAM 17:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Haha, fun fun fun :) Just to check, is TV Mag what's now The Sun's TV Biz? Frickative 22:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say a massive Harris-Beale-Wicks-Butcher-Evans on the back for the work you've done to Ben Mitchell! It's amazing. :-) –anemoneprojectors– 13:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hee, this comment did make me laugh! Thank you very much - I only opened Ben up originally to cut down his storylines, I think I got a bit carried away! :D Frickative 15:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice this, but yup, TV Mag is The Sun's old mag. :)RaintheOne ^BAM 15:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Poppy Meadow

Hi is it okay if i move the discussion here, anyway I was wonerirng if we included sources like these in characters articles, im not sure if it is relevant to the actor or character.

• Click through the pictures to see Poppy

Also here is my reply on WP:EE-

I feel the 'party' shanagan isnt relavnt so I deleted it, her favourite scene can go in casting right, Bright being nothing like Poppy can go in characterization??? Hmm... What do you think?,

Now- I have added the 'nothing like' thing to characterizatin- change it if you want. Umm.... Well thats it I think.... Poppy would have a great DYK, and a great picture. Umm.. If your going to reply, can you ptu a talkback on my talk? Thanks MayhemMario 19:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mario, I think that unless special performances like that are in-character, then they're better noted in the actors' articles (looking forward to this years performance though!). I agree about the party line, and the "nothing like" part is good in characterisation (I've just tweaked it slightly so the sentence isn't a paragraph on its own). I'm not too fussed about pictures, but it's a shame it wouldn't be eligible for DYK, because the Guardian quote really is fantastic. Just a small thing I noticed going through it today - in the 'work' parameter of citations, you don't need to put the italics in (for instance, I kept seeing things like 'work=″The Daily Mirror″. The parameter automatically italicises the publication name, so if you add the ″s, it actually renders Daily Mirror not Daily Mirror - does that make sense? Frickative 22:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks for that; aswell as the 'itallic' comment. I just want to tell you this;

Based on refs this is the list of most present characters articles which have refs;

• Dot Cotton (100)
• Bianca Butcher (81).
• Ben Mitchell (72). (ATM) :P
• Phil Mitchell (48). and this is where Poppy fits in. Poppy has the fourth top refs out of all Present characters. (with refs still being added).
• Ricky Butcher (44).
• Kat Moon (41).
• Fatoby (40).
• Syed Masood (35).
• Heather Trott (32).
• Rainie Cross (31).
• Whitney Dean (30).

- MayhemMario 18:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that must have taken you a while to compile! If you take into account the fact that Poppy and Ben have storyline references and the others don't, they'd both be on 33 each without them. Still up there in the top ten, but also consider the quality of the sources - I haven't actually looked through them to check, but long-running characters like Dot, Bianca and Phil will have garnered extensive coverage from the broadsheet media, whereas for the most part Poppy's coverage is limited to tabloids and Digital Spy. All that said, it occurred to me today that if character articles like Sol and Asher Levi can stand alone and even reach GA, then Poppy shouldn't fare too badly in the mainspace. Frickative 18:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that one of the main aspects of Poppy creation is that it would produce a great DYK, and I hope a lovely picture, maybe promo? Is it liable to have one?, I know that all characters can have tons more refs- but at the end of the day they dont and Poppy does. MayhemMario 18:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Also possible sources, IS are doing a interview with BK in the upcomign issue, and there bound to comment on Poppy and Jodie's dep, as there leaving in the week its published. Also I hope one critic will comment on their departure. :P MayhemMario 18:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for all the replies but here is another thing- it went from, 7,779 bytes to 27,238 bytes. MayhemMario 19:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Haha, do I take it from your edit summary that you want me to keep leaving you talkback templates when I reply? Apologies, I did intend to, but my greedy kitten demanded my attention IRL for a few minutes. Anyway, as I said at WP:EE, Poppy would sadly be ineligible for DYK because it's not totally new content (some is from the list), nor a x5 expansion. I'm sure if you write a strong enough fair use rationale it could have an image, but as Gungadin said at the Project page, adding non-free content to Wikipedia isn't the best reason to pick a topic to work on ;) Still, you've done an excellent job gathering all the available sources, and even without further commentary, it has a very good, strong Reception section for a supporting character. Also, I see you've directed GSorby to this discussion, so just in case you read this GS - while I'm absolutely sure you had the best of intentions, it's generally considered courteous to ask a user before moving the contents of their sandbox - and if Poppy is moved to the mainspace, it shouldn't be via a cut and paste move, because the edit history needs to be preserved. Frickative 19:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

ahahah, tried to do it as polietly as possible. :P So the only way she is going to get a DYK is to split her off, right? So against the promo pic? Yes I was a bit confused about GSorby's actions, but hey we all do ad things :P So what now??? MayhemMario 19:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Haha :) Sorry if I'm not explaining very well, but unfortunately Poppy wouldn't be eligible for DYK at all. Because some of the content began on the list, it wouldn't count as new even if it was split off, because selection criteria 1a stipulates: For DYK purposes, a "new" article is no more than five days old, and may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article. It's also not a x5 expansion, because the list content is 733 words and the sandbox draft 1,480, so it's only just over a 2x expansion. It's entirely up to you if you want to write a rationale for a promo pic. To be honest, I'm not sure where the idea comes from that there's a great divide between promo pics and screenshots anyway, because it's my understanding that they're both equally non-free... Now, you can either take the plunge and move it into the mainspace (you'll need to use the {{Db-move}} template, so an admin can delete the redirect at Poppy Meadow - or I can add that if you want), or wait for a few others to chime back in at WP:EE to see how they feel about it being split now. Frickative 19:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

So that means technically, that Anthony Moon shoudlnt have had a DYK? I dont see the information which has been taken from the list has all be re-done, so it's not the same. So technically we've redone the whole thing. MayhemMario 19:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the circumstances of that article so I can't comment, but hmm, give me a minute to compare the list and sandbox draft to see how much they differ :) Frickative 19:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Mario, I think it's just too close. Although a lot has been added and re-written, there are still enough sentences that are the same or very similar to the list version that I don't think it counts as a x5 expansion. You could sit and go through it word-by-word if you wanted (I don't have the patience!), but I just don't think it will qualify for DYK. Frickative 20:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.. Anthony's DYK was exacly the same- with no reprecssuions (to this date), so I dont think there is any reason why a DYK reviwer will look that 'in depth' into this article. If you say there are only minor things still the same, I dont see how I know this sounds bad, we cant get away with it. MayhemMario 20:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, count me out please. I much prefer to stick to the rules, not try to flout them in the hope that no one notices! Frickative 20:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hahhaha, I'll stick with you then :P Soooo.... What' your opinion now? Split or not??? Has your opinion changed? I think if I did nomiante for the DY, we would easiyl pass it, if I change/tweak a few words in reception. MayhemMario 20:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to split the article off, but making minor changes to pass old text off as new is generally not considered a good life skill, Mario :p Frickative 15:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay im going to split the article off now, if eveythings fine. I guess we can talk about the DYK at a later date, i still think we can get one for her. MayhemMario 19:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, just remember to use the {{Db-move}} template so you can move it over the redirect. I'm afraid I've said all I have to say re: DYK, and if you do go ahead with using deception to flout the rules, I don't want any involvement in it. Frickative 19:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the DYK we'll leave. Maybe submit this article for a GA? ;) hahah, umm.. bit confused on the whole db-move thingy, if you have time, can you do it? :D MayhemMario 19:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, the image GSorby uploaded I.M.O. isnt great, and dosent reflect her personaily, it would be nice to see one of Poppy smiling as it represnts her personality, with her facing the camera more, do you agree? File:Pops Meadow.jpg MayhemMario 20:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for so many replies, but GSorby added this image a long time ago, File:Poppy Meadow.jpg which I vagely remember being good... :P MayhemMario 20:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added the template - it could take a while for an admin to attend to it, but it should be done within a few hours. As for images, I'm not too fussed, but what's wrong with her promos? They are, after all, the images that the EastEnders execs have specifically selected to represent Poppy, and saves any original research in editors themselves deciding which screenshot best reflects her personality. Frickative 14:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all the help, I hope we can work together again in the future, you can put on you user page that you crated Poppy now, and wait before we wrap this up:

• Shouldnt all articles have a promo? MayhemMario 16:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If that ever happened, I'd stop editing EastEnders articles. GSorby – Ping! 16:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of Corrie articles that I could do so...GSorby – Ping! 16:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh? -.- ANYway...., see my question on your talk, if you could do that, be great! MayhemMario 16:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to say this but no :( I dislike promo's being used on Wikipedia and because of that, I'm not uploading any. Sorry GSorby – Ping! 16:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Who else uploads images?? ;D MayhemMario 16:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it later, I'm at work and the only website that's not blocked is Wikipedia. GSorby – Ping! 16:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

...Melodrama aside, to the best of my knowledge re: policy, as long as it meets the NFCC, there isn't a compelling legal reason to use screenshots rather than promotional images. You're welcome for the help, Mario - let me know if you decide to try for GA in future :) Frickative 16:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

:P I think Poppy would be a great GA! 51 refs!! Also the latest bit of reception, Frickaitve could you just go over it, just in case? Thanks again, Frickative, and GSorby thanks for the image MayhemMario 16:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Also the ref needs fixing, there were two authors, Jane Simon was the other, can you somehow insert that into the ref, Frickative? MayhemMario 16:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Which ref is that? When there's a second author, you can use first2=Jane|last2=Simon and add it that way :) If you give me until tomorrow, I'll go through the whole thing again closely to make sure everything is in order. Frickative 17:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been really, really picky on this one looking for any mistakes. :P Do you think Poppy is good for GA? At the end of the day she's better than Yusef,Dotty by miles. MayhemMario 17:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Poppy GA

Do you think Poppy is good and ready to be nommed for GA? MayhemMario 16:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Also just for confirmation- can say for example, Manda Best's promo pic only be used in her article? MayhemMario 15:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A non-free image needs a separate rationale for every use, so if you wanted to use it on another page, you'd need to write a specific rationale for that article, and it would be hard to write one strong enough to cover its use beyond the character's own article. As for Poppy - there are still a few sentences here and there that I keep coming back to and wanting to tweak, but broadly speaking I think it's ready to hit the GA queue :) Frickative 15:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel that we need a picture of Jodie somewhere- T.B.H. the articles about 'JoPop' practically, as throughout the article it mentions Jodie- I was thinking of uploading Jodie's promo- and putting it in the recpetion, hmm...?

About the GA- That'd be great! I think we can do a joint nomination as T.B.H. I now think you've done more work than me on the article!!!!!!!! :D Oh and sorry about the 'he', 'she', thing. :D MayhemMario 15:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Haha, no problem, at least you know now! And I'd be very happy to do a joint nomination, that's very kind of you :D (But I do think you did the bulk of the work, because it's always more difficult to construct something from scratch than nip and tuck it afterwards :)) Re: a Jodie image, I don't think it would pass WP:NFCC #8 - readers won't find the article more difficult to understand if they can't see Jodie, and all they have to do is click through to her article to see her. You could always try asking some of these Flickr users if they'd consider changing their photos of Kylie to a free license. Frickative 20:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you made the article- if you didnt do a damn good job of copyediting, it would look like Dotty, which Im no re-doing User:MayhemMario/sandbox:Dotty Cotton 2. Lets do a joint nom, I'll nominate it now- :D Also about Jodie- lest just leave it- someone may upload one soon. :P MayhemMario 10:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Its on the GA list now. Although I can see you are very busy, would you mind (if you can, obviuosly), having a quick scan through Dotty??, much appreciated if you could. Then once it's done, can you put the d-b move tag on, I dont really understand it.... Thanks. :D MayhemMario 11:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: the Poppy GA nom, excellent! With Dotty, given that there's already a full article in the mainspace, using the dbmove tag isn't the best way to go, as all the past edit history would be deleted. That's fine when all that was there before was a redirect, as was the case with Poppy, but for Dotty it would remove all the work history that went before. The best thing to do in order to keep the edit history together would just be to work on it in the main space. You can copy and paste your entire sandbox over it, or go through and replace it section-by-section, explaining your changes in edit summaries. Give me a nudge when that's done and I'll be happy to read through it! Frickative 21:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay I fuly understand. I dont mind about the edits so do you mind if you re-vamp it and put some Frickative magic potion into my sandbox now?- thanks!! :) MayhemMario 19:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you agree with her being listed as recurring?!?! I think she should be- I think Poppy/Shenice, etc... appeared in more episodes than her.. :) MayhemMario 20:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Puck

Do you remember where the consensus to move the article to Puck (Glee) was? I can't find it at WT:GLEE, Talk:Glee (TV Series), or Talk:Puck (Glee)....feel free to also weigh in User_talk:Ctjf83#Puck Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Glee_task_force#Puck_.28Glee.29 CTJF83 15:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Found it, User_talk:Frickative/Archive_5#Puck CTJF83 15:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Poppy Meadow Good Article Reassessment

Hi there, Poppy Meadow was recently listed as a good article. I'm not happy with the review, so I've initiated an individual good article reassessment at Talk:Poppy Meadow/GA2. In my opinion, the article is close to being GA standard, but just needs some attention to the prose. --BelovedFreak 13:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of the points have been fixed and done. I was hoping that you would do the 'Lead' section, aswell as two others in the 'Casting' section and a quick check through the storyline edit I made, to see if you can make it better. That edit, is here [7], Once again, thanks Frciaktive, and make sure you see my comment above about Dotty! MayhemMario 20:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping I'll be able to get to Poppy over this weekend. I've read all the reassessment points and am very grateful for such a thorough re-review - it's incredibly helpful! I haven't had chance to survey the changes that have been made yet, but I'm more than happy to take care of anything outstanding as soon as I can free up the time. Dotty, I'm afraid, will have to wait until the start of next month, when my work commitments ease up a bit :) Frickative 14:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Dont rush on Dotty, you can do it in 2012 if you want! Poppy she needs to be done- so can you do that next time your on thanks! MayhemMario 20:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Long time no see...!

Hey, Frickative! It's been awhile. Have you been watching Ryan Murphy's new drama American Horror Story? I'm absolutely in love with it! I was thinking of maybe creating a WikiProject for it, but I have no experience in building one up. Do you know how to do that? As of right now, it's just the main show page. HorrorFan121 (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey! By coincidence, I watched the first two episodes of AHS only a few hours before receiving this message :) I think it's easier to set up a task force (ala WP:GLEE) than to start a full-blown WikiProject, but you can propose one here. To start a task force, I think you'd just need to ask at WP:TV (and possibly WP:HORROR) to rouse some interest. I'm looking forward to catching more of the show when I have time :D Frickative 14:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Help request

Hey Frickative. Could you lend your services if you are free? I need some clever eyes and you are a pro at copy editing. Here is the review - Talk:Rae Wilson/GA1.RaintheOne ^BAM 14:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, sorry it's taken me so long to get to it, but  Done! I've given it four solid hours and my best shot, so I hope that helps. The section I was most unsure about was Storylines - not being familiar with them, I got rather confused by the ins and outs of the Rae/Ste/Brendan plot, so it'd be good if you could read back through it to make sure I haven't taken out anything integral or messed up the chronology. From the review, it seems the first Relationships section was flagged as being the most problematic, and I think it was the present/past tense changes that caused the confusion there. I know we discussed tense a while back, and I really hope I haven't trodden on your toes by changing to consistent past tense, but that ended up being the simplest way to clarify the points raised. Fingers crossed for a pass! Frickative 15:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

OMG, thankyou! I'm trilled. I bet this has been a pain, but I wouldn't trust anyone else, totes not a Copy editor in general as they always slash these type of articles to death. I always take something from your work, the bit about the character "appeared in the series from" sounds better ... so I might drop "debuted on-screen during the episode" all together now. A few other things like using "accolade" instead of "award". I'm okay about the tense if it has done the job. That is probably why I did not understand how to clarify the points being made. I cannot get out of the mind set - like past tense for what the actors say, because they once said it - then present for the actual storyline bit because it can happen over again. To this day I still cannot decide which is best. The storyline section is fine - I wasn't bold enough when I cut the storylines down the first time.RaintheOne ^BAM 17:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Frickative for helping to promote Grey's Anatomy to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Advice requested

Last month, I created a redirect when Ausiello revealed the name of Glee episode 10 to be "The Proposal". Today, it was revealed that the episode name has been changed, and is instead going to be called "Yes/No". With that, and with the other information that was newly available, added to what I'd already collected, I decided to Start the article.

My question: how long—if at all—should we leave "The Proposal" up as a redirect? Since I'm the only one who's done any work on it (two edits, each a redirect), I can easily request a speedy delete of the G7 variety. But I want to do what's best here, and am perfectly happy to let it stay around for a little while if you think it's useful. I did change the redirect from the Glee (season 3) page to the "Yes/No" page, however, once the article was up. Thanks for any suggestions you might have. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Sorry, I know I owe you replies above as well, but I'm just stealing five minutes to respond here as it seems to be the most pressing. The page view stats for "The Proposal" indicate that its usefulness has tailed off, so I think you can speedy it in good conscience (or hang on a couple of more days until views have dropped to nil). 13 hits yesterday compared to 5,900 for "Yes/No" suggest that 99.98% of readers are finding the right target :) Frickative 21:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for stealing those five minutes for me. I hope the penalty for that kind of theft isn't too severe. ;-)

Good idea about monitoring the page stats to see if they stay low, and if so, get rid of the redirect in a couple of days. I'm glad I was able to get "Yes/No" up so the burst of viewers the day after "Extraordinary Merry Christmas" could check up on the next episode, since I gather there wasn't the usual preview for it after that episode. (Given that they hadn't finished filming "Yes/No" at that point, such a lack isn't surprising...)

I'll look forward to a reply above whenever you can steal another chunk of time. :-) Hope all is as well with you as it is busy! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

... And, no sooner do I post, but I think to check for the new day (I'd checked earlier to see the 13), only to discover we're back up in the 30s (31 to be precise). 6100 vs. 31 does indicate that almost everyone is looking in the right place first, but now I find myself wondering whether retaining the redirect will prevent an attempted recreation under the wrong name... BlueMoonset (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It's gone. After the above post, viewership dropped into the single digits for several days and sank to a single view yesterday, so I pulled the plug overnight and a friendly admin deleted it within the hour.

I hope you and yours have a very Merry Christmas. Should we look to see you back after then, or does the usual month-end busy time start immediately thereafter, making the New Year a more likely time for you to reappear? We have missed your guiding hand. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Donna

Frick, can you look at Donna Jackson? I'm not sure what it up but her infobox is bodged and not showing her last appearance date - but the fields are filled out correctly, I think.RaintheOne ^BAM 19:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You might find this useful - Template talk:Infobox character#Removing "last". - JuneGloom Talk 19:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)