Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Glee task force/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Importance Rankings

How do we want to rate the articles on the importance scale? If I model it after what I know best, WP:DOH it would be something like:

• Top: Glee, List of Glee episodes, Ryan Murphy, and then top, major characters, perhaps Finn, Rachel, Will, and Sue? Or should we do all main characters?
• High: Glee (season 1) and 2, other creators, other characters, other cast members Characters of Glee
• Mid: All episodes, List of songs in Glee (season 1)
• Low: Everything else, including albums, and concerts.

Feedback? CTJF83 chat 16:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the albums and discography pages should be considered higher than "Low"? Simply because Glee is a very music-oriented show, and—I'm fairly certain—the first television jukebox musical. And the albums would have more importance over the EPs. Yvesnimmo (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps rate the albums mid, the same as the episodes? For characters, I'm not 100% sure about this, but maybe Characters of Glee should be top-rated because it's sort of the character equivalent of List of Glee episodes? With the individual characters, I don't know whether this has any bearing, but Michele and Morrison are the only ones consistently put forward as leads for awards, I think Monteith and Lynch are usually considered to have supporting roles. Frickative 16:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I agree moving albums up to mid, and Characters page to top. With The Simpsons it is obviously easier, cause there are 5 family members, should we do only those 2 Frickative mentioned, or should we go with who Fox considers the main characters, but then they consider Terri Schuester a main character, which I definitely do not, or should we just broaden it to all the ones who currently have a page Template:Glee? CTJF83 chat 16:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd probably lean towards giving all the Fox mains the same importance, but I'd probably class them all as high rather than top, just because similar to your comment about Terri, I can't see, say, Terri, Tina, Artie etc. being more important than the season articles or Falchuk and Brennan. All the ones at Template:Glee are the same as the Fox mains, except there are no articles on Burt, Santana or Brittany yet. Frickative 17:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so all characters at High. CTJF83 chat 17:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Should "Pilot" be of high importance, maybe? Just wondering; maybe some episodes are considered more notable, like "The Power of Madonna" or "Wheels", which was nominated for several Emmys, if I'm not mistaken. Just throwing that out there. :) Yvesnimmo (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, no one has brought this up, but I think we should only include one song in our task force: "Don't Stop Believin'", as it's the only one on Wikipedia with its own Glee section, and is arguably the most well-known Glee. Yvesnimmo (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I dunno about that...might be subjective?....I'm cool with that song being included. CTJF83 chat 17:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"Pilot" as high would be good, I think, and... yeah, thinking about it I'm good with "Madonna" and "Wheels" being high - the notability of individual episodes is subjective, but from writing them I recall there being more coverage than for other episodes, and I'd say they're the three with the most potential to become FAs at some point.

I've tagged all the main cast members, and the recurring ones I'm about to do are: Harry Shum, Jr, Charice, Chord Overstreet, Josh Sussman, Kristin Chenoweth, Idina Menzel, Dijon Talton, Jonathan Groff, Dot Jones, Iqbal Theba, Cheyenne Jackson, Romy Rosemont, Stephen Tobolowsky, Patrick Gallagher and Brad Ellis. Are there any important ones I've missed? Frickative 17:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

ETA: Actually, decided against tagging Charice and Cheyenne Jackson until they've appeared more than once - we know how often RM's plans for the future change, lol. Frickative 17:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good to me on the characters and those 3 going to high importance. CTJF83 chat 17:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Characters of Glee

Disscussion From User talk:Frickative:

I feel that this article should be higher on the quality ranking then list, possibly a featured list. I was told that you were the person to go to for help with that. JDDJS (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, to be honest I've never really known what the difference is between character pages that are considered articles, and those that are considered lists. I know that when I first started offCharacters of Glee, I was modelling it after the Characters of Smallville article which is currently a Good Article. So to that end, I don't know what it would take to bring the page up to Featured List standard, but I could be of use in working towards GA. I think the major thing that needs to be discussed and worked on is exactly what should be contained in each character's overview, so there's greater consistency in terms of the amount of development/storylines/reception in each. That's probably a discussion best had either at the article talk page, or the newly-createdGlee task force. I'm certainly happy to collab on a drive to GA if you're interested :) Frickative 23:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Lets get started working on making Characters of Glee into a Good Article here. We have to solve the issues Frickative pointed out above and then we should be good. JDDJS (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking this over, and the big stumbling block I keep coming to is reception. I think for the most part, we should keep the sections geared towards overall development and season arcs, for instance with Rachel's:

Michele described the first thirteen episodes of the series as: "Rachel's journey of finding herself within the glee club", explaining that: "She's learning how to be a team player and work within this group."

...as opposed to a blow-by-blow of storylines and "In X episode Y character does Z". That alone shouldn't be too difficult, but with reception... most of what is in the full articles are comments based on individual episodes, rather than considering the characters overall. That's fine for those that only appear a couple of times, like Josh Groban or Grace Hitchens, but for the main characters I think it will be difficult to give a concise but balanced overview of general reception towards them.

On a simpler note, the whole Recurring/Other/Guest stars/Future characters structure needs a bit of a tidy-up, but it should be easy to make that a bit neater. The mixture of prose/list format is awkward and I don't know why I ever introduced it, so I'll work on a bit of a re-write there soon. Frickative 16:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

We need to get back to work on this article. We've been slacking. We should try to get it up to GA by the end of October at the latest. JDDJS (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, speak for yourself please - I've re-written several sections of the article over the past week or so. The next 12 days is a very tight deadline. The "Main characters" section is in worse shape than I thought, and whole swathes of it need to be re-written so it's not just episode-by-episode plot detail. Frickative 22:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's just that I thought this would be quicker. It is in a lot better shape then a lot of character list. usually they're mostly OR, so i got excited when I saw this article. So instead of the end of October how about an end of the year deadline? JDDJS (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi JDDJS, my apologies, I thought I'd replied to this back in October! Just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten about this. I'm a bit burned out on episode articles atm, so I'm going to go through the character list and do some heavy-duty clean up. Do you (or anyone else reading, of course :)) have any thoughts re: whether we should include notable single-episode guest stars, or limit the list to recurring characters? And if the former, which ones are notable enough to warrant a mention? Frickative 21:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

What constitutes a 'significant other'?

Editors are forever adding and removing different names from the characters' infoboxes, and I'm never sure when I should be reverting or what's fine to stay, because to my mind 'significant other' is a fairly vague term. The Glee kids change partners just about every episode, yet there are a lot of one episode relationships listed in the infoboxes. Can anyone spread a little light for me? Frickative 03:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I agree that we need consistency, and I, too, am a bit iffy about this. The Glee kids are really promiscuous, and pretty soon they're gonna run out of options for combinations of people that slept with each other. I think we should limit it to having to anything above "boyfriend / girlfriend" status, so sex and dates are excluded. The Template:Infobox character notes the "significant other" field as:

“ Name(s) of character's significant other(s)/life partner(s), if different from spouse. ”

so they're comparing it to a life partner. Obviously with the characters, most of them do not and will not have life partners, but will have boy- and/or girlfriends. So Santana–Finn, Kurt–Brittany, Artie–Brittany, and Sue–Bryan would all be "no". Yves (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I'd read through the significant other article but not thought to check the template itself, which does clarify things. I think limiting it to boy/girlfriends is a sensible suggestion - would that include or exclude the ones that were only boy/girlfriend for one episode, like Puck/Rachel and Puck/Mercedes? Frickative 11:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should do 1 episode relationships. Like you said, they have a different one all the time. I don't think one episode constitutes dating, that is more of a fling. CTJF83 chat 20:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely inclined to agree (though predict a lot of resistance from IP Puck/Rachel fans!). If we only class those who have been involved for more than one episode as significant others, that would be... Finn/Rachel, Artie/Tina, Tina/Mike, Finn/Quinn, Puck/Quinn, Santana/Puck(?) and Brittany/Santana(?). Not entirely sure about the last two, but certainly a more manageable list to keep on top of. Frickative 20:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good...you're right about a lot of problems with IPs...also was Puck/Rachel only one episode? CTJF83 chat 20:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

IIRC it was - I think they got together and broke up again in "Mash-Up". I remember him coming on to her again in a later episode, but she turned him down before anything happened. Frickative 20:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Album chronology

I just want to bring this up to see what people think. Currently, in the chronology portions of the infoboxes for the five Glee releases (three studio albums and two EPs), all five are included. Normally, though, per Template:Infobox album/doc, the two should not be in the same chronology. The exact quote is:

“ This group of fields establishes a chain connecting articles about an artist's albums. In a studio album article, the chain (for most artists) should include only other studio albums, excluding live albums and compilations; these other types can also have their own separate chains. For some artists it may be more appropriate to include all album types in one chain, but care must be taken to maintain the integrity of chains, so that when album "A" points to "B" as the next album, "B" points back to "A" as the last (previous) album. ”

Lemme know if you disagree, but I think albums by the cast of Glee are one of these "for most artists" exceptions. This is because the Glee releases are simply to accompany the episodes, and there is no real difference in promotion of these albums that I know of. Looking at charting, none of the EPs charted in New Zealand, while all three Volumes did, and one could say there is a difference in promotion (I'm not sure)? And also, none of the EPs have received certifications, which may be an argument against, but that may be due to the fact they are single-episode releases, while the studio albums are for multiple (people think it's not worth spending $7.99 for songs from one episode, and would rather spend $14.99 for songs from seven?). One might also want to see the chronology as Volume 1, 2, 3 instead of 1, 2, Madonna, 3, Journey, Rocky Horror, which makes sense, the way it already is in the navbox. Regardless, both EPs topped the Billboard 200, while only one of the three studio albums did, which shows there's no difference charting-wise. This has been very long; I'm not sure if anyone can follow what I just wrote there, and if you can't, feel free to ask me to clarify! Yves (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I think this is an instance in which my ignorance of all things music makes it difficult to take a side, but I'm inclined agree that the Glee releases are an exception. I don't know - I can see how live albums and compilations are a totally different beast to studio albums, but EPs to my mind seem much more closely related anyway - essentially just... shorter studio albums? Lol I clearly know nothing. As you say, all the releases accompany the episodes - essentially they are all TV soundtracks, which I'd say makes them more alike than different and fitting in the same chronology. Frickative 03:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Too much Glee?

I guess it's gone too far, but why is it there is so much article on Glee? For example, every episode has its own article. I understand that Glee is a high rated and successful show, but there isn't an article for every CSI, or Pokemon episodes. Wikipedia isn't the Glee Wikia at all. Just a thought thanks.--JL 09 ^_q?c 18:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There are enough reliable sources and significant coverage for every episode to warrant its own article. In fact, all episodes that have aired, with the exception of two, are now GAs. There's an article for every Lost episode, every The Simpsons episode, and every Seinfeld episode, among many many other television series. P.S. The Glee Wikia is highly unsourced and unreliable. Yves (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, to quote Wikipedia's notability guidelines, "A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." To use one of your examples, most episodes of CSI get a couple of write ups in TV blogs and that's about it. Every episode of Glee is extensively reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and multiple other reliable publications. Frickative 18:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources help

I'm starting to realise that trying to represent so many reviews of each episode is driving me a little crazy, and is probably why it's taking so long to finish the episode articles off lately. It's also making for really, really long "Music" and "Critical response" sections. I know we need to present balanced coverage of each episode, but I think it should be more than possible to do that with ten or a dozen reviews, rather than 20. I've compiled a list of the publications I consult most regularly, and I'm hoping for some suggestions as to which ones can be dropped from regular rotation. Being from the UK and not totally au fait with US publications, I don't want to accidentally cut one held in higher esteem in favour of a tabloid and so on :)

• Time
• New York Post
• New York Times
• Daily News
• Vanity Fair
• Rolling Stone
• CNN
• CBS News
• IGN
• Houston Chronicle

• Los Angeles Times
• MTV
• Wall Street Journal
• Entertainment Weekly
• E! Online
• The A.V. Club
• The Washington Post
• Salon.com
• USA Today

All suggestions gratefully received, thanks! Frickative 22:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yikes! The only one I could see cutting is A.V. Club....all the rest are major, major newspapers/news sources. I really can't see picking one over the others...would a better solution be me, and anyone else, helping you more with the reviews, like I began to do on Rocky? CTJF83 chat 20:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As a cutting solution...you could cut ones that aren't nationwide, like the LA Times, Washington Post, Houston Chronicle, and NY Times/Post and daily news. (not 100% sure if NY ones are nation wide or not) CTJF83 chat 20:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm I agree with Houston Chronicle being removed, but newspapers like The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times are widely known and used/distributed here in Canada (they are the third and fourth most circulated newspapers in the States, too). I don't know about Salon.com: I've never heard of it nor seen it being mentioned in news websites I regularly frequent... :\ I don't know if we can really consider cutting some of them always, though; like if a review has an interesting perspective or strong opinion on something in one episode, or comments on something the others don't, I could justify its use. Yves (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

My main point is not to cut any, and have more users adding to the reception to lessen the burden on one user spending a lot of time on the reception sections. I must've overlooked salon.com, on my cut list. CTJF83 chat 22:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses :) Houston Chronicle was pretty much top of my list to go - the majority of what Bobby Hankinson writes is recap, with a couple of lines of review at the top. I agree that the A.V. Club is not really in the same league at the others, but I think Todd VanDerWerff is pretty highly regarded for his TV reviews - I often see them commented on in the Los Angeles Times and Time etc. Tbh I'm probably just overreacting - last season I could easily finish an episode article a week, whereas it just took a month to finish off "Grilled Cheesus". But the start you made on the Rocky reception, Ctjf, has made that one a lot lot easier to get done. Hmmm. I think if any of the above had turned out to be crappy tabloids I'd have no problem cutting them, but as long as they're all decent sources I'll forget that idea for now (with the exception of Salon - I realise now that I've only actually used it once, so I'm not sure how it made the list, haha). Frickative 22:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) On an added note, if we go in sheer terms of circulation, Time, Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, and Entertainment Weekly all have more circulation than the NY or LA Times. And we can't fairly compare circulation of print materials to TV stations or website views....we could go with the top magazine/newspaper, and the highest rated TV station/website, in terms of viewership, but again, my top choice is to provide more help to Frickative CTJF83 chat 23:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Dijon Talton

Since his only notable role has been Matt I have nominated him for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dijon Talton. Nobody else has commented on it and it had to be relisted. Feel free to comment on it. I have also nominated Max Adler (actor) for the same reason at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Adler (actor) --JDDJS (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Places article

A potential future article: places in Glee. Similar to lists of location in articles like List of Battlestar Galactica (reimagining) locations, Places in Harry Potter, List of locations in The Simpsons, and others. It could include William McKinley High School, Carmel High, Breadstix, Sheets-n-Things, etc. Maybe there isn't enough now to warrant an article, but I think it's something to consider in the future when we get more seasons. :) Yves (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could start saving useful refs, so we have them handy when there's enough material to warrant it? I'm quite enamored by the description of Dalton Academy as "a kind of Tolerance Narnia". Frickative 09:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• VanDerWerff, Todd (November 9, 2010). ""Never Been Kissed"". The A.V. Club. Onion, Inc. Retrieved November 10, 2010.

Also interesting, apparently the auditorium in season one was a Long Beach school theatre, replaced by a specially constructed set in season two. Frickative 13:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keck, William (November 9, 2010). "Glee Exclusive: On the Set of TV's Hottest Show". TV Guide. Retrieved November 18, 2010.

The Warblers' show choir proceedings could be referenced to the episode, but it's also in words in the following, where it's described as a "High Council of Glee Club Overlords" haha. Yves (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Benigno, Anthony (December 1, 2010). "'Glee' recap: 'Special Education' has Rachel and Finn breaking up, Emma getting married". Daily News. Mortimer Zuckerman. Retrieved December 1, 2010.

Dalton scenes filmed in Pasadena: Frickative 19:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keith, Christie (December 7, 2010). "Exclusive: "Glee"'s Chris Colfer is Living the Teenage Dream". AfterElton.com. Logo. Retrieved December 7, 2010.

Character Page Storylines

I don't know if it is someone of the project, or who, but please, we don't need mini plot retellings of every episode in character bios. Note how very short Homer and Bart Simpson (both FAs and both only 2 or 3 paragraphs) sections are. The Simpsons project manged to squeezed 470+ episodes down to 2 paragraphs which is 15.5 times the number of Glee episodes (currently 30), and we have several paragraphs of unnecessary trivia for each character. If they can do it, we can do it. So please only major developments, and keep it short! :) CTJF83 chat 19:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If it doesn't affect any other episode, like Tina not being able to dress in goth for one episode, or the guys using Coach Beiste to prevent ejaculation, it probably doesn't need to be mentioned! CTJF83 chat 20:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Haha, yeah I totally agree. If something led to Tina not being able to wear goth for several episodes or something, then that would be more relevant, but single-episode happenings should not be on their pages per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Yves (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above but I feel that Sue's storyline in Funk is notable because it describes a secret part of her character. Also the fact that she recorded a song with Newton-John is notable because it is what leads to being a judge at regionals. JDDJS (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone feel we should leave a hidden note hoping people will follow it and not list trivial stuff...or is that useless? CTJF83 chat 12:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I used to leave hidden notes at the start of storyline sections, but no one really paid attention to them. Perhaps if they were at the end of the section, where people would begin editing from, they'd be more obvious and more of a deterrent? A lot of people still ignore the clear messages in infoboxes not to add the five second relationships, but I think it's probably worth a shot. Frickative 16:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Super Bowl episode

I was about to start an article for the post-Super Bowl episode, but did not want to bother if it was going to be deleted immediately (even though I feel there is enough coverage already). Feel free to chime in here if you have an opinion on the matter. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and started an article, which can be moved once the title is known. I am comfortable arguing notability should the article be taken to AFD given this is the show which will follow the Super Bowl. Looking forward to watching the article expand! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on a previous discussion, all episodes are marked as mid-importance on the Glee task force scale, but would this one potentially be classed as high-importance? Just throwing that out there because it's been discussed in the past, but no real conclusion or consensus was formed I think. Yves (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Brittany Pierce & Santana Lopez a couple?

It has been frequently discussed in the talk pages of both articles whether or not they are a couple. To make it easier to keep track of the conversation, I suggest we talk about it here. Personally, while I originally argued for them to be considered a couple, I stopped caring. JDDJS (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Brittany flat out said that she and Santna have slept together in Sectionals, something we later saw in Duets. Other than that Brittany and Santana were seen in many cutesy romantic moments in the first season: hugging longingly in Throwdown, Head-leaning in Home and Journey, their "date" with Finn in Hell-o in which they ignore him to have a date with each other. In the second season, you have Me Against the Music, a very sexually charged performance, and Touch-a Me in which they sing out wanting to be with each other whilst frollicking down the school halls. Brittany and Santana are far from a one episode. Even a Friends With Benefits Relationship is still a persistent significant coupling between two main characters, and therefore should be included in the infobox of both characters. I mean come on, it is kind of a defining characterization for them. 146.151.43.198 (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I suppose the question here is, does the term "significant other" include friends with benefits? I would lean towards no, especially as Santana made clear in "Duets" she doesn't consider herself to be in a relationship with Brittany. Merriam Webster likens a significant other to a spousal relationship, which is a long way from occasional sex. Frickative 02:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Think about it in terms of the standards established by other "significant others" on here. Puck and Quinn had a 1-time sexual encounter and a lot of flirtation, but were never officially a monogamous couple. Yet, they get a significant other mention. Why not Brittany and Santana then? 144.92.195.114 (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with Frickative, I hardly consider "friends with benefits" a significant other. CTJF83 chat 02:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Puck and Quinn have a long lasting effect, ie, Quinn and Finn breaking up, there isn't the case with Santana and Britney whose relationship has no long lasting effects CTJF83 chat 02:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Think in long lasting effects of relationships. CTJF83 chat 02:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Quinn and Puck were somewhat together after Finn dumped her. And according to Lea Michele Brittana isn't a real couple [1] JDDJS (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I see your Lea Michele, and raise you a Naya Rivera (@5:27) , and being one of the actress actually involved in said Relationship, I think she carries more authority: [2] 146.151.43.198 (talk) 05:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Michele's condescending comments are from this week, though, while the Rivera interview is at least eight months old. It's an interesting quote that could be incorporated into the Santana article, but she's not saying that Brittana are together, she's saying that she thinks they should end up that way.

To be honest, if a significant other is meant to be the equivalent of a life partner or spouse, I don't think any Glee relationships count, but I doubt that removing them all would be a very popular suggestion. Frickative 06:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If Puck is listed, I see no reason why Brittany shouldn't be listed either. It was only implied that Puck and Santana ever dated very early in S1 when Santana was shown breaking up with him because of his low credit score. Since then the relationship has only ever been referenced when needed to drive other plotline's. It was revealed that Santana wasn't dating Puck ("sex isn't dating"), but still occasionally slept with him in 'Sectionals', and in that same conversation Brittany revealed that she has been sleeping with Santana as well ("if it were, Santana and I would be dating"). During 'Hell-O' when Brittany and Santana date Finn, Santana says, "...this is the way we work, you buy us stuff and we make out in front of you. It's like the best deal ever." implying that going out on dates together and having a guy tag along to pay for everything is something that is routine for Brittany and Santana. As has already been said, Santana and Brittany have been shown being physically affectionate with each other throughout most of S1, and in 'Duets' it was made very clear that they've had a long standing sexual relationship ("this is a nice break from all that scissoring"). In 'Duets' Brittany appears to ask for a deeper emotional commitment from Santana, ("we should sing a duet together. We should sing Melissa Etheridge's 'Come To My Window'"), this is something which Puck has never asked of Santana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.191.206.244 (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I like Brittana too, but we can only go by what we're unequivocally shown on screen, not personal analysis. Sometimes a duet is just a duet. We're shown Santana telling Brittany that she doesn't love or want to be with her. In contrast, Santana's relationship with Puck has call-backs in a number of episodes - in "Hairography" where she attacks Quinn, "Laryngitis" where she gets territorial with Mercedes, "Never Been Kissed" where they double-date with Artie and Brittany, and "Furt" in which Santana outright states that she considers Puck her boyfriend. Frickative 17:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Has Santana ever said anything to Puck about love or vice versa? No. In those episodes where Puck and Santana's relationship is referenced does she actually interact with Puck in any meaningful way, other than mocking him on the loss of his mohawk? No. In "Furt" she tries to say that she is dating Puck so that she can sit in on the girls meeting, which Quinn promptly kicks her out of, because Puck isn't her boyfriend, nor are they dating. Later on that episode she even tries to convince Finn to break up with Rachel to be with her. Brittany and Santana on the other hand, have been a constant throughout most of S1 and in S2 up until "Rocky Horror". In "Duets" Santana also displays jealousy towards Brittany and Artie's relationship by telling Artie that Brittany was only using him for his voice, subsequently breaking them up. Santana's relationship with Brittany is at the very least on par with her relationship with Puck going by what we have been shown.

Again, that is your interpretation of the meaning behind their respective interactions. Irrespective of whether I agree or disagree, as Wikipedia editors it isn't our place to edit based on independent thought wrt what we think their actions mean. Frickative 20:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Really? And your interpretation that Santana considered Puck her boyfriend in "Furt" while ignoring Quinn's reaction and Santana's subsequent actions is a more valid interpretation how? Other than perhaps the "Let's sing a duet together" line, the rest of what I have presented doesn't leave much room for varied interpretations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.121.145 (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Saying that in "Furt" Santana claims Puck is her boyfriend isn't an interpretation, it's explicitly what happens in the source material. Saying that Santana acts out of jealously in "Duets" is a personal interpretation. It happens to be one I agree with, but it has no place on Wikipedia unless published by a reliable source, because our own opinions are immaterial to the encyclopaedia. Frickative

Santana never calls Puck her boyfriend in "Furt", she says, "I'm dating Puck". That she claims Puck is her boyfriend in "Furt" is your personal interpretation, so by your standard your claim that Puck is Santana's boyfriend is invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.121.145 (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

...Beyond semantics, does it really make a difference? I apologize for not remembering the exact quote word-for-word, but she still claims they're dating, while she is not dating and has never dated Brittany. Same end result. Please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~) Frickative 20:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, actually it does. You are attempting to take quotes or actions at face value and in a vacuum, while willfully ignoring reactions pertinent to said action or quote. You are willfully ignoring the many parallels that have been pointed out between the nature of Puck and Brittany's relationship with Santana while singling out one line in "Furt" and holding it in a vacuum, when it is clear that when that line is taken in context it in no way elevates the nature of Puck and Santana's relationship status to anywhere near that of boyfriend/girlfriend. 67.180.121.145 (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Situation of the line is super important. Santana is deliberately not included in the gathering, and this is something she expresses displeasure with. Claiming Puck as her boyfriend is the only way she could stay there. Stating something as fact, does not make it fact, I could tell people I've turned Lead into Gold, but that doesn't make it true. Now within the show's context it is either an outright lie on Santana's part, or a simple exaggeration of their relationship, but regardless she is called on it immediately by Quinn. The others and Santana herself acknowledge that Santana and Puck are not dating, and that their relationship is nothing more the Friends With Benefits, thus Santana cannot stay at the meeting. The is a verifiable summary of what occurs in that scene, not an interpretation. Santana's relationship with Puck is near identical to her relationship with Brittany with the exception of gender. If you continue to include Puck as a significant other of Santana, then Brittany must as well. 146.151.99.206 (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. I very much resent the implication that I'm deliberately misconstruing the source material to forward my own agenda, whatever that may be. I have no horse in this race, but to my mind the key points boil down to the fact that Santana and Puck have dated and Santana and Brittany have not. Frickative 21:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

When Santana said that she and Puck was dating, she was also saying that she should have been invited to the the glee meeting of girls with BOYFRIENDS on the football team. JDDJS (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh ya, good call. CTJF83 chat 21:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

But she wasn't, meaning she isn't? Never mind: she wasn't invited because Puck's on probation. She claims herself to be dating Puck. Yves (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

THEY SAY THEY DIDN'T INVITE HER BECAUSE SHE AND PUCK ARE NOT DATING. Quinn says so first and foremost, Puck's probation is just further reasoning they come up with once Santana is there. We're straying from topic... Regardless of whether or not Brittany and Santana or Santana and Puck were ever actually boyfriends/girlfriends or a monogamous couple is beside the point. The point is both had a persistent, verifiable, sexual relationship across multiple episodes. The rules of significant others clarified in other topics on this page, have decided to exclude sexual liaisons and couplings only if they occurred in one episode alone. Brittany and Santana have had multiple episodes in which their relationship is mentioned/seen. 146.151.99.206 (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Puck and Brittany's relationship with Santana both fall within the guideline that was established in the significant others topic. Either include both or exclude both. Trying to frame the entire debate on a line about a "date" while ignoring every aspect of the relationship that has been shown is ridiculous.32.175.109.226 (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sexual unions do not constitute significant othership. Santana herself has claimed to be dating Puck but has not with Brittany. Yves (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the established rules on this page they do if they are in multiple episodes. And Santana's actions should supersede her words: she says she is dating Puck, but she isn't and they all know it. 146.151.99.206 (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Her claim that she was dating Puck was also invalidated by Quinn and later on by her own actions with Finn.166.134.52.177 (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Brittany and Santana have been established explicitly in two different episodes which are about a year apart. In "Sectionals" Brittany establishes that she and Santana share a sexual relationship, and in "Duets" we're shown that that sexual relationship has continued for at least the better part of a year. This relationship is as long or longer than any other on the show, including Puck/Santana. This sexual relationship coupled with what is unarguably the closest, most intimate friendship on the entire show leads to the conclusion that the most important person to each girl is each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.49.245 (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Puck and Santana have been having a sexual relationship since Hairography. JDDJS (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Since Hairography Puck has also dated Rachel, Quinn and Mercedes. He then claimed to love Quinn in Journey.62.98.24.29 (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Puck and Santana clearly hasn't been a continuous relationship, while there is no evidence suggesting that between "Sectionals" and "Duets" Brittany/Santana had been anything but.

What difference does two episodes make when the style/method of the relationships is identical? Actually, they are not identical: Brittany and Santana are shown to be close best friends outside of their sex, but Puck and Santana have not. 146.151.99.206 (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Santana herself said that she prefers to be with Puck over Brittney. JDDJS (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Who cares who she prefers? They should both be included. 146.151.99.206 (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Santana's statement is immediately suspect, anyway. She claims to be with Brittany only because Puck is in juvie, but she's been sleeping with Brittany for a year. Puck was always around before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.49.245 (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

We are straying from topic again. The fact of the matter is thus: Brittany and Santana have sex regularly. Brittany and Santana are best friends. Whether is be through Friendship or Romance, Brittany and Santana share an undeniable bond. The majority of their screentime is spent together, and they were promoted to regular status concurrently. That is a relationship of significance.

146.151.99.206 (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Since it is Santana's most significant relationship it should be included without further debate. 62.98.24.29 (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Their relationship is still not that of significant other. Yves (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Puck should be removed then, since his relationship with Santana is noticeably less significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.24.29 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There should be a bit more listed about their relationships in their articles though. JDDJS (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If the standard for being listed as a "significant other" is boy/girlfriend status then Puck and Brittany should be removed, as neither meet those requirements. If the standard is a sexual relationship spanning multiple episodes then both should be included as that has been firmly established for both characters within the show.67.180.121.145 (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a forum

Per WP:FORUM, things that are very about the subject is not allowed, "(...) bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles." And this discussion goes very very long. Please remember that Wikipedia talk pages, especially a Wikiproject talk pages are created so as to discuss the improvement of the concerned articles, not just resolve what is something to fanatic whatsoever. Since this discussion goes very long and does not offer any valuable argument that will improve Glee articles, I nominating speedy deletion of this section because it really discusses nothing about articles improvement but how to resolve things that are left for fans. I don't think this discussion would resolve an issue sometime in the future.

On a side note, if you will be able to resolve that the two are really a couple, then we are now nothing more than the Glee Wikia except that Glee articles here are well-sourced and well-written. To whom do you think this thing will benefit into? If you should be able to "explore" or "get consensus" that the two has a relationship (especially the show doesn't say it directly, or at least a reliable source quoting the character developers, that they are couple), then it's nothing more than an original research. Now, if you'll include it on Wikipedia's Glee articles, then it will be a source of rumors. Remember that majority of the people researching on Glee prefer to look for these Wikipedia articles because it's well-sourced and well-written. So I suggest stop continuing this fan discussion, because this place is not for fan discussion but improvement of articles (or templates, etc.)--180.191.62.195 (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record...

I have noticed that project members are doing a fantastic job at covering Glee. Well done, and keep up the great work! --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Image deletions

Just a notice should anyone have a vested interest - an editor has tagged all the character images for deletion on the grounds of being replaceable by freebies of the actors. Frickative 05:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the tag from the Artie pic because it shows his wheelchair and from Quinn, Brittany and Santana because it shows them in their uniforms, and Sue because it shows her in her track uniform. I would greatly prefer to continue to use the non-free photos on other pages but I can't think of a reason other than I like them better. Any ideas? JDDJS (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Tina's style is very distinct from the way Jenna Ushkowitz dresses, and we could probably find some decent sources discussing it. I know that Lou Eyrich, head of costuming, has talked a lot about Emma's style as well, though a more coordinated image - probably a cardigan/frilly shirt/brooch/heels combo in pastels - would be more representative of that. Frickative 05:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion has been closed as delete. I thought it might be worth noting that we have a page here with free-use images of the cast, crew and prominent guest-stars. I linked it in the 'See also' section when the task force was set-up, but forgot to actually make anyone aware of it :) Saves some time searching for suitable images when starting new Glee-related articles etc. Frickative 16:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Television/Glee task force to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Glee task force/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Lauren Potter article

Have editors looked at the viability (WP:N) of an article about Laurn Potter? It seems to me that she is notable as a high profile Downs Syndrome actress. Thoughts? Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Joe407 (talk) 06:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I know this is months old now, but I've noticed there's been a marked increase in coverage on Lauren of late - I'm probably going to try and put a draft together soon. Frickative 02:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Want any help? I'm looking for something to do on Wiki. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it'd be much appreciated! I'm having a bit of bother finding reliable sources for basic biographical information - her date and place of birth etc. all seems to trace back to fansites and IMDb. If we could put together a decent list of sources between us, that'd be a good start :D Frickative 04:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. ;) I'll start looking for some and see if I can find any. HorrorFan121 (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how reliable these are:

• http://www.ocregister.com/articles/mcelwee-287961-potter-says.html?pic=1
• http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2010/09/21/glee-premier/10310/

They both say she lives in Riverside, California. HorrorFan121 (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Rachel Berry GAN

An editor has just nominated Rachel Berry (Glee) for GA review :) The 'Development' section is quite sparse, 'Storylines' needs some cutting down, and the critical response in 'Reception' hasn't been updated since "Sectionals". However, the theatre, film and drama section at GAN has a three month backlog, so there's probably time to polish it up if anyone wants to collaborate, or just drop useful sources off at the talk page :) Frickative 21:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible issues with non-free image, due to a bunch of Glee character images being deleted recently. CTJF83 01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And the GAN's just been withdrawn. Not sure what that was about then... Oh well, plenty more work to do anyway! Frickative 01:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

New user (less than 2 months) messing around? CTJF83 01:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That was my fault. I'm still somewhat new to the GAN process and realized it wasn't ready. However, I do believe Emma Pillsbury has the potential to be a GA and nominated it. I don't think much needs to be updated (given how the character hasn't been seen a lot in season two). These articles are all in pretty good shape and I would like to help. I'm also prepared to add any information that needs to be updated to the article. HorrorFan121 (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey HorrorFan, glad to have you in the task force! The character articles are probably the area most in need of work overall, so it's great to have someone actively improving them :) I've just noticed that you've done some good work on Rachel Berry and nominated it again - I think with both the Rachel and Emma articles, the "Development" sections could still stand to be broader, and the "Reception" sections are in need of some work before they're ready for GA. Most of what's there was thrown together on an episode-by-episode basis back in season one, so rather than an overview of how the characters have been received, it's more of a repeated 'After X episode, Y critic said Z'. With Rachel as well, as Michele has been nominated for so many awards, there's probably room for a whole "Accolades" subsection. By way of example, although I'm still working on it and in some areas it's obviously incomplete, I'd personally class Sue Sylvester as the Glee character article closest to GA-readiness. Obviously YMMV, but from having written quite a lot of the content in the Rachel & Emma articles early last year, I feel that they're not quite ready yet. Frickative 12:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. Rachel & Emma's articles do still need work, but with the three month backlog at GAN I think I'll be able to work out the kinks before then. I added an "Accolades" section to Rachel's article (I based it off the way you wrote Sue's). I'm going to see if I can dig up some more information for the "Development" section tomorrow. HorrorFan121 (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff! It's usually best to get things straight before nominating, because sometimes articles can get picked up for review much sooner than the general wait period, but as long as you're confident you can tackle any issues raised :) I have a bunch of articles bookmarked as potential sources that I'll look through later, and drop any useful ones off at the relevant talk pages. Frickative 13:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the back and forth GAN. I denominated Emma because it's not ready, and I want to have some more time to work on it. My main focus right now is fixing some of the changes on Rachel's article as you suggested. Sources would greatly appreciated if you have them. Cheers ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The article passed! :) I do wish we could do something about the disambiguation page though. HorrorFan121 (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, great work on it! :D Maybe we could open another move discussion - it's been nearly a year since the last one, and it's a bit frustrating comparing the pageview stats. 496 views in 30 days for the legislator, compared to 70,745 for Glee's Rachel. It's surely the clear primary topic when it's pulling in 142 times as many views, lol. Frickative 06:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! It's ridiculous. The article is pulling in more hits then ever, and it has grown a lot more since the first move was requested. I think it's clearly the more primary topic, whether it be fictional or non fictional. (Not that the legislator isn't important) HorrorFan121 (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Burt Hummel

Hey I'm not sure if everyone here is aware, but the Burt article has been created, and I think it's in pretty good shape right now actually. JDDJS (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It's off to a great start! Thank you, CTJF83 20:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-free images

Do we think it is necessary to have all these unfree images, specifically User:HorrorFan121 has uploaded a lot. It goes against WP:NFCC #1 which is a strict policy. Let's face it, Chris Colfer looks like Kurt in and out of character, just like every other person. I believe we have free images of the actors to cover them all. CTJF83 13:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. A picture of Chris Colfer and a picture of Chris Colfer in character does not count as the same image type. Meaning that the picture of Colfer is not interchangeable with the print-screen and therefore there is no salvageable free equivalent. If we're able to get a free image of the actor in character, then that is one thing. HorrorFan121 (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you figure? Does this or this not look like Kurt? CTJF83 21:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not the point. Those pictures are not of him in character as Kurt. Non-free images are considered acceptable, unless there are specific special reasons for believing that it may be possible to get a free image of the actor in character. There are many other non-related Glee character articles that contain these. For example: Ana Lucia Cortez, Peggy Mitchell (both are GA's), etc. Also, both have free images representing the actors in the text. HorrorFan121 (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Any sort of policy link to confirm " Non-free images are considered acceptable"? Plus, with GAs, it only takes 1 reviewer, and while you maybe on a GAC would allow non-free images of a character, I may not. CTJF83 01:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement. If I was reviewing a GAN, I wouldn't allow that, especially with the two linked photos being so similar. There isn't must justification for fair use of Colfer on the set of Glee and off; he looks pretty much the same in both cases. Yves (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

My general position on this is that a single non-free image is justifiable for identification purposes - but for a great many of the character articles I edit, there are no, nor are there ever likely to be, free images of the actors available that would adequately represent the characters. Glee is somewhat different in that respect, as the cast make so many personal appearances etc., and we have a wealth of free, mostly good-to-acceptable quality images available. I will say that I don't think the last round of deletions of the Glee character images was a stellar example of consensus, but if we're using Kurt as a specific example, then looking at the non-free image's FUR:

The image serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject [...] It is virtually impossible to accurately describe the character for a sufficient picture in one's mind with mere words. [...] While a free image of the actor could be found, any such version is not true to the original character and would be inadequate for identification or commentary.

I don't think this would withstand a second deletion discussion. Apart from a rather stylish tie, there's nothing to significantly distinguish the non-free Kurt image from a free photo of Colfer. However, I don't think there are no circumstances under which a non-free image of Kurt could conceivably be used - the article already has a passage on how Colfer does not share Kurt's knowledge of fashion. If this could be expanded to significantly document Kurt's rather unique style, then a stronger rationale might present itself for a different non-free image, fully depicting Kurt's manner of dress, as long as the article emphasises how integral this is to his character.

TL;DR: I think non-free images can be justified, but they need very strong rationales significantly backed up by content in the article, which, at present, is probably not the case for most of them.

On a similar topic, I think at some point we should probably trawl through the episode articles and check over the ibox images, because lately there seem to be a tonne of unnecessary ones that are definitely replaceable with free content. Frickative 08:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for adding your input, guys. I'm going to try to find a screenshot tonight depicting Kurt's knowledge of fashion that could emphasize how important this is to his character. HorrorFan121 (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Should we go through and WP:FFD these? CTJF83 19:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Which images are you talking about? Frickative made it clear that if I find a strong rationale that can signify Kurt's importance of fashion then it can be justified. The current image can be deleted in Kurt's article, as I'm looking for a screenshot that depicts Kurt's sense of fashion. I'm also working on finding information to add to the "Characterization" section that can justify how important it is to his character. HorrorFan121 (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably all the other ones you uploaded. I really don't think any of them would survive the strict standards at WP:FFD, when we can use a free image of them in real life. CTJF83 19:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, a lot of them can go. However, some I think can be also justified. Emma's sense of fashion is brought up in her article. Rachel's bangs and sense of fashion is quite different than Lea's. Quinn, Brittany, and Santana could probably be justified if the image depicted them in their cheerio uniforms. Every other one can be replaced with a free image. HorrorFan121 (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not 100% convinced the fashion argument is a good one. Does how they dress define them? Kurt maybe, the rest, probably not...maybe Rachel too. CTJF83 19:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Kurt and Rachel in particular could be quite arguable. Their dress often defines their characterization. It's also been brought up several times on the show. HorrorFan121 (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone said in the last FfD that the cheerleaders' uniforms weren't enough to make the images worth keeping, because most people can imagine what a cheer outfit looks like pretty easily - or something similar to that, anyway. Emma's outfits are meant to reflect her OCD, ordered personality though - I'm not sure if this is already in her article, but it's a really good behind-the-scenes examination of why they dress her the way they do through the first season. Frickative 19:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

^{Superscript text}

Okay, how about Kurt's new image? HorrorFan121 (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would squeak by in justifiability. CTJF83 19:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)