Talk:Pauline Fowler/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
FA attempt, part deux
So, are we ready to try again? I recommend that we go through another peer review first, before going after the FA nom. Does that sound okay with folks? I think we do have an excellent article here. :) --Elonka 15:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- A peer review maybe better adviced, this way the article can weed out impurities that would just muddle up the FAC. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- That sounds good, it might be a good idea to get a copy editor to go over it too. Does anyone know of anyone who might be good to ask? Gungadin♦ 20:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Check at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors? They're always backlogged, but you might be able to get someone's attention. --Elonka 00:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds good, it might be a good idea to get a copy editor to go over it too. Does anyone know of anyone who might be good to ask? Gungadin♦ 20:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
DEATH
it is innacurate to say that Pauline hit her head on the fruitbowl or table, I only had to watch it once to see that. She stumbles into the table, bumping into the suitcase which pushes the fruitbowl off. Then she falls to the floor and still doesn't hit her head as her hand was in between her head and the floor when she fell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.220.176 (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
To see check if she actually did bang her head on the fruitbowl, go on youtube and type in : EastEnders: Pauline's death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.220.176 (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- That info was taken from the review of the episode from The Times ([1]). I can't remember what actually happened myself, but I'll take your word for it and remove the stuff about her hitting her head on the fruit bowl. Gungadin♦ 00:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Family relationships
Per the comments at the recent peer review, and also per the guidelines at the WP:SOAPS, I've condensed the family relations section down to immediate family/descendants. Is this alright with everyone? If so, I think we may be ready for another run at FA. :) --Elonka 16:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm happy to go with what everyone thinks is best with the family section. I made a request for copyediting with the league of copyeditors, but it's been listed there for weeks now, so if you think it's ready then let's go for it :) Gungadin♦ 17:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- To me, the section is still irrelevant, because if they are essential to understanding the character then they should already be mentioned, and linked, in the character development section. It's like mentioning Jason Voorhees' characteristics as compared to Freddy Krueger and Michael Myers, and then right below that we have a section called "Related character" that lists these two again. That's essentially what that family list is, a "See also" section that lists things that are already mentioned somewhere else, or should be if they are relevant to the character. I mean, just below that list is a box that has them all again. I appreciate the attempt to trim it down and be more concise, but to me, it's still a redundant section. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I see it sort of like a royal genealogy. When I visit the page of a king, even though his children may be mentioned in the text, I still find it useful to see a quickref of who his immediate relatives are (parents/siblings/children). Especially in the case of soap operas, when someone is reading a Wikipedia bio about a character, my guess is that one of the questions in their mind is often, "Who is this? How are they related to the other characters that I care about?" So it's quite routine to have some sort of relationships section on every soap character article. That said, I could see maybe working it in, in some less obtrusive fashion? For example, with royalty, this info is often included right in the infobox (see Henry VIII, or Genghis Khan). Perhaps we could do something like that with soap characters too? --Elonka 20:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- The catch in that is, he's real, he actually has kids. This is a fictional person being treated as real. These are not supposed to be bios, if they were then they'd fall under WP:BIO and not WP:WAF. Again, if they are reading, those characters will obviously be explained as to how they are related. It isn't hard to go: "Pauline's son, John Doe". If people are coming her for a genogram, they're probably coming for the wrong reasons--not to mention, we have a page that already takes care of that anyway. Aren't they also mentioned in the infobox already? It seems we have an infobox with 12 family members, a section devoted to 15 family members and a box just below the section listing, I assume, all the family members. The section doesn't strike anyone else as just a bit...excessive? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- As we say in my office: "Get rid of it!" — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 21:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- The catch in that is, he's real, he actually has kids. This is a fictional person being treated as real. These are not supposed to be bios, if they were then they'd fall under WP:BIO and not WP:WAF. Again, if they are reading, those characters will obviously be explained as to how they are related. It isn't hard to go: "Pauline's son, John Doe". If people are coming her for a genogram, they're probably coming for the wrong reasons--not to mention, we have a page that already takes care of that anyway. Aren't they also mentioned in the infobox already? It seems we have an infobox with 12 family members, a section devoted to 15 family members and a box just below the section listing, I assume, all the family members. The section doesn't strike anyone else as just a bit...excessive? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I see it sort of like a royal genealogy. When I visit the page of a king, even though his children may be mentioned in the text, I still find it useful to see a quickref of who his immediate relatives are (parents/siblings/children). Especially in the case of soap operas, when someone is reading a Wikipedia bio about a character, my guess is that one of the questions in their mind is often, "Who is this? How are they related to the other characters that I care about?" So it's quite routine to have some sort of relationships section on every soap character article. That said, I could see maybe working it in, in some less obtrusive fashion? For example, with royalty, this info is often included right in the infobox (see Henry VIII, or Genghis Khan). Perhaps we could do something like that with soap characters too? --Elonka 20:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- To me, the section is still irrelevant, because if they are essential to understanding the character then they should already be mentioned, and linked, in the character development section. It's like mentioning Jason Voorhees' characteristics as compared to Freddy Krueger and Michael Myers, and then right below that we have a section called "Related character" that lists these two again. That's essentially what that family list is, a "See also" section that lists things that are already mentioned somewhere else, or should be if they are relevant to the character. I mean, just below that list is a box that has them all again. I appreciate the attempt to trim it down and be more concise, but to me, it's still a redundant section. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Well, we've discussed this issue pretty extensively at Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas. What the general consensus is there, is that "excessive" is when the relationship charts list every nephew, every cousin, every brother-in-law thrice removed. ;) So our guidelines are to limit the information to: "Immediate family, descendants, ancestors, and other relationships which were key to that character's storyline". But then again, we've never had a soap character article get to FA status, which is why I want to make sure we get it right here at the Pauline Fowler article. However we handle it here, is probably going to be used as an example for other soap character articles in the future. I do feel strongly that relationships should be mentioned (it's the clear consensus among those editors who work on soap articles). The question is, how best to do it so that things stay clean and high-quality. So to try and reach consensus here, instead of making it an either/or "should they be included, should they not be included", can we steer the discussion towards, "How can the information be included, in a way that everyone's happy with?" --Elonka 21:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Actually, I quite like Elonka's idea of putting family in the infobox if the relationships are explained. How about we include a Family sections that lists parents, siblings, offspring (and any other relevant family), but make it so it goes on autohide. Like they have done with the "awards" section on Steven Spielberg's ibox. That way the information would not clutter the page, but it's still there for anyone who wants it.Gungadin♦ 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- That would mean a change to the infobox template that would affect all EastEnders character articles. I like the idea though. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 22:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, WikiProject Soap is not a guideline, or a policy, it's a group of editors. Everyone is missing the point that the information IS already there, in 3 locations: Infobox, separate section, and a box at the bottom. They are also most likely mentioned in the "Character development" section--I haven't read the whole thing so I don't know who does and who doesn't--so that's like 4 areas where we are mentioning the same information over and over again. Do we really think readers are that dense they won't pick up on the fact that someone is someone else's father, and that there is a link to the page of that person? Lists are irrelevant if you can write in prose, with explaination of their importance to the character. Since fictional information should only be mentioned to provide context to the topic of the article, fictional characters mentioned in relation to the character should do that same thing--provide context to the character of the article. That to me says that they should be the character development section, which they most likely are. Upon inspecting, "Maggie", "Harry", "Ronnie", "Dora", and "Kenny" are only mentioned in the infobox and the "Family" section. That says to me that they were no important in the development of this character over time, as nothing can be said about their beyond some indiscriminate relationship with the character. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I dont think it's fair to say we are missing your point, some people just dont agree with you, that's all. It doesn't make you right and them wrong or vice versa, it just means we have to try and find a way to make everyone happy. My idea offers a compromise that enables the information to remain in the article for those that want it, but keep it unintrusive for those that dont. Uninterested readers wont ever have to see the information unless they choose to click on the "show" button.
-
-
-
-
-
- Once the information is included in the infobox (on autohide) then the family section at the bottom of the article can be jettisoned. Meaning, we will only have a family section that lists relationships on autohide within the ibox (at the top of the page), and a non specific template of connected characters (at the bottom). I dont think an ibox and a template is excessive. Information is often repeated in articles. In actor articles they have notable roles listed in the ibox, then discussed in the prose, written in a separate filmography section, and sometimes included in a template.
-
-
-
-
-
- Pro-family people seem to be willing to accept that compromise, but it seems as if you are not willing to meet them half way. Will you only accept complete elimination?Gungadin♦ 00:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with Bignole that it's excessive to have the names listed three times. But with Gungadin's option, we can have a sorted list in the infobox where it's out of the way, we can get rid of the current Family relationships section, and then we'll still have the "all show" template at the bottom of the page. So we'd go down from three to two, and only be having a very limited list in the infobox. Right now the box is just a pile-up of names that are unsorted, and isn't particularly useful. --Elonka 00:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Pro-family people seem to be willing to accept that compromise, but it seems as if you are not willing to meet them half way. Will you only accept complete elimination?Gungadin♦ 00:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- You know what, I missed the part that said "Spielberg's infobox". I see what you mean be autohide the box now. I support that option. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I took a stab at creating what I think we're talking about. :) I've made a temporary infobox at User:Elonka/Infobox EastEnders character, which is what the Pauline Fowler article is currently using. That way we can play with it, without simultaneously breaking every other EastEnders page. ;)
- I've also added entries for the various relationships: Father, mother, siblings, etc. I can easily add more, change colors, move text back and forth, etc. Also, if anyone here has experience with infoboxes, you're welcome to edit the syntax at my page, if you'd like to tweak things.
- Let me know if you like it? :) --Elonka 03:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- That seems to work better, though I would break each name into its own line instead of separating by commas. I mean, if we're going to have an autohide feature then it isn't necessary that we cram the names together. Also, is anyone going to comment on the "Marital status: Deceased" bit? I don't think I've ever heard of a deceased marital status before. We should also add the creators of the character to the infobox, as that's typically a section found in said infoboxes, per WP:WAF. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I like it. I suggest if we decide to use it, that it is moved to Template:Infobox EastEnders character 2 or similar. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 10:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
I really like it. Thanks for doing it Elonka.
I suppose there's no reason why the list cant be complete seeing as it's on autohide, but i'm not keen on the your example Trampikey, I think it's confusing. If that's going to happen then we should just have titles like "parents, siblings, children, "nieces and nephews", "uncles and aunts", cousins etc. If we do this then we should maybe remove their last names, so it isnt too cramped. Regardless, I think we should list Arthur in the spouse section as well as Joe.
I agree with Bignole about marital status=deceased. Date of death lets the reader know that the character is dead anyway. It should just be left as married or removed for dead characters.Gungadin♦ 13:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- If we list everyone, why are we linking to a page that .... lists everyone? I believe the most immediate family should be listed (i.e. Father/Mother, Husband, children, Brother/Sister). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- As Trampikey says, it's hidden so I dont see what difference it makes. But I dont want to get into anymore discussion about the family section, because in my opinion it is such a trivial aspect of the article. I'm amazed that people feel so passionately about it either way :) Gungadin♦ 13:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- It begins to fall under indiscriminate information, because a lot of the family members are not directly related to this character, or have any bearing on understanding the character--because this isn't a family tree article, listing every member of the family isn't essential to understanding her. I think what is there currently is just fine. Extended family can be found on that family tree page. Otherwise. if we implement the change where we include every single family member, might as well get rid of that family tree page as it would be become irrelevant. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- With the link the the family article, there's no need to list everyone on Pauline's page. I agree with Bignole on this one. Having every relative in the hidden list looked messy. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 17:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Oh and what if "marital status" was changed to just "status"? Or is "deceased" needed at all when a date of death is given? I haven't managed to read all of the above so apologies if it's been mentioned. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 17:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- It's that you are either "married", "divorced" or "widowed", ..not really "deceased". If you're dead, then you have no marital status. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps we should get rid of it for dead characters then. I've just made a change to the new infobox family bit, see what you think. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 18:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- How about "created by"? Shall I change those two things for the main infobox or just the one in Elonka's userspace for now? — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 13:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Both. It's something that should be on all the character articles. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I think everyone agrees on your change, I think the only thing that hasn't been agreed upon is how many members of the family, or which family members should be included since there is a family tree article that links right in the list. But, that is irrelevant to the main issue which is that we all agree on the coding (at least from what I've read above) and any discussion about which family members should be mentioned is secondary and the coding doesn't have to change dramatically to any consensus. I would go ahead and be bold and implement the change to the main box. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I already added "Created by" before you did, so now it's there twice. I added it to both templates. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 19:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- You did?? Ah, I see. I was searching on "created", and you'd added "creator". No problem, both work, and this way whatever someone types, it'll get included. :) I used the term "Created by", since that's what I'd seen in other character infobox templates (like at Mickey Mouse). But either one works. :) --Elonka 22:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I already added "Created by" before you did, so now it's there twice. I added it to both templates. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 19:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well it only needs to be there the one time really. Never mind though. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 23:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
