Talk:Celia (Spanish TV series)

Celia (TV series)

 * Moved from User talk:AnmaFinotera so easier to keep with the article

Hello again, could you help me with a few things? Where should I place the translation of the title of each individual episode and how should I place it? In parenthesis right before the summary or where if not? Also, how is the new length for the episode summaries? It's around 400 words per episode (ignore the first one since I haven't altered it yet); it's hard because the episodes don't really have a central conflict and solution, it's just "everyday life" with a series of important significant events. T.W. (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It needs to be formated into an actual episode list using the episode list template. Then the translated title would go in the AltTitle field. Also, all if the individual episode images need to go. They violate WP:NONFREE. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll do the formatting. Are you sure using one image per episode is a vilation of the policies?  I ask because I've run into many articles that have an image for each character, let alone each episode (considering there's only six), and it seems to be considered acceptable. T.W. (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am sure, as I work almost entirely in articles regarding fictional series. :) It is not acceptable, they are just articles which have not been tagged yet by another editor or a bot yet. "Only six" is a lot of non-free images and they are considered to only be decorative. Individual images for each character is also a violation of the non-free policy. They aren't allowed in the main, nor in lists of characters. A single group image of several major characters is considered acceptable, for the character section. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, what a shame. :( Too bad the series isn't under public domain as far as I'm concerned.  Oh well. T.W. (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)  And yet, when I submitted the article on The Rescuers to be reviewed for "Good Article" we were told the use of images qualified as "great" as long as proper rationales were given for each.  Do you mind if I get a second opinion?  Because I'm afraid the article would look too bland without any images.  Even if it is three or even two for six episodes. :(  Oh, and thanks for helping me out with the template, too. T.W. (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that article also failed GA. Also, the GA was in 2007, before the policy was changed. You're welcome to ask at WP:NONFREE, but you'll hear the same thing. This isn't just Wikipedia policy, but also the decree of the Wiki Foundation that owns the site. I've done some other MoS fixes to the article to put them in the right section. BTW, you may want to review Only make links that are relevant to the context concerning wikilinks. :)AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha, you should have seen my first articles on here, they were blue with slight spaces where there was some black text. ;) I don't know, people are not going to be happy about seeing the images for "The Rescuers" that have been there for months, even years, disappear now.  Is the plot summary really that long compared to the rest of the article?  After all, the article is a pretty big one.  The article did fail GA, but the reasons why were given at the Talk Page, and there was no concern about the images.  It being a pretty popular and edited article, you'd think someone would have mentioned something before. :( T.W. (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * They may not be happy, but the Wiki Foundations happiness trumps all others ;P Again, the GA for that article happened before the Foundation handed down the edict that the non-free images be reigned in and WP:NONFREE was strengthened, so it wouldn't have been mentioned. You'd be amazed how often issues go unmentioned on articles, especially images, because people either just like lots of pictures and don't care about policy, or they just aren't aware the rules have changed. A lot of articles on older films and series tend to be barely edited except for by one or two occasional drive by edits from those who are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. A lot of times issues don't get pointed out until an editor familiar with them stumbles on the article and notes them. Many I've tagged I didn't come across until a request for an assessment is made in the project. Gotta remember, there are a lot of articles, and only a portion of Wikipedia editors who are likely to notice and point out problems. Hope that helps clear things up some?AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, what a shame. What made the English Wikipedia stand above most of the others was the "Fair-Use" policies, but if they're tightening them up, it's going to be pretty much the same wiki-world-wide.  Has Wiki ever been sued for copyright infrigment?  Seems like these studios would benefit from publicity, no?  On a different matter, may I get some details on what may be wrong with the tone and intro to the article? T.W. (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In several places, the tone is too informal and casual. See WP:TONE for a general overview on the writing style articles should use. For the intro, it does not meet the lead specifications of WP:LEAD nor those of the television MoS. It should be a summary of the major points of the article, and include certain basic information per the MoS.AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What's this now about fictional character-articles? Don't tell me the thousands of Harry Potter-character articles are now un-wikipedic as well. T.W. (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of them probably are. I've never looked myself. However, articles on fictional characters in general usually fail the notability requirements. In order for a fictional character to actually be "eligible" for an article, the character must have received significant coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources. Most characters do not meet this requirement, as side mentions in reviews of the main work generally are not enough on their own. There are many many many character articles that fail WP:FICT that are slowly being cleaned up and merged back to their series/film articles or to character lists, as is appropriate, or outright deleted if there is it not considered to have mergeable content. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm, Celia is a pretty important character. As big as Anne of Green Gables or any of the March sisters, I'd say.  She did appear all the way back in the late '20s in newspapers ("Celia says...") and was the protagonist of over ten novels, which were published throughout a span of about 50 years, (though this was mainly due to the last book being kept from publishing for so long), the books follow her childhood, adolescence and young adult-hood (so there's lots to say about the growth of the character alone), a high-budget series, (see Celia (TV series)) was produced in 1992, the character, the book series, the television series and its theme song are considered classics, so I think the character should be eligible for a Wikipedia article.  There are plenty of sources beside the original books to back up an article, including some already used in the one we're currently working on. I had planned on doing the article myself, mainly as an overview article to tie together all of the different articles that will be coming (for all the books) :) T.W. (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * She may meet the requirements, but keep in mind that a character article must focus on the real-world aspects of the character, not just plot summaries. I'd suggest working on it in your user space until its fleshed out, then adding and linking once its well sourced and all. That way it can come out with notability established, and you can have someone else give it a look to make sure the notability is clear before hand. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, that's what I usually do. I tend to storm the articles in my head prior to writing them.  That's what I did with the one for the television series; I was actually going to wait until I had acquired a copy of Celia, lo que dice (1929), in order to be able to work on the "Book/script comparison section right away", but these books are expensive and hard to find online, so that part is going to have to wait, though I guess I could do the second part of the comparison, as I've already read Celia en el colegio (1932).  An article on the character of Celia could include many things besides plot summaries.  Celia being a very broad and multi-dimensional character, a lot could be written about her personality.  For instance, her way of taking every word the adults would say literally or always speaking her mind and saying the wrong thing.  Aside from that, there could be a section describing the compare and contrast between Elena Fortún's original Celia and that portrayed by Cristina Cruz Mínguez.  How the books went from being "girls'" books to being "children's" books.  And again, the article would help tie all of the "Celia" articles together, so in the end, the article would be as much about the "World of Celia" as it would be about the character.  But this is a very futuristic project for me, as I plan on reading the books first. :) Well, I'm off to bed, good night! T.W. (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You may want to look at some featured and GA character articles for ideas on appropriate sections. For Book/script comparison sections should be a short overall prose, not a lengthy list showing every change. It should also preferably be sourced from other sources, not just your own comparisons as that can be considered OR depending on how its done. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, plot summaries were cut short to fit within the "300-500 words" rule given for episode summaries. Additional references were added to support the claims most likely to be challenged.  Can you be a bit more especific with the problems regarding the "tone" or "style"?  It's the same style I've always used and never had a problem with it before, and I'm afraid I won't know how to fix it if you're not more especific. T.W. (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The plot summaries are still too long. The rule for episodes is 200-500, but that doesn't mean a plot should push the upper limits just because that is the upper limit. 500 is for the absolutely needed - i.e. complex plots with multiple story lines. All of the summaries can be cut down more by doing more summarizing, removing unnecessary words, removing minor plot points of little relevance, and mostly just tightening to prose so they are more concise. For tone, its hard to be much more specific other than to say its written too informally, per WP:TONE. It has some peacock and weasel words. You may want to also check Words to avoid. Best way to really get an idea, though, would be to have a copy editor go over it and see what they change and how. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The plot summaries have been squeezed down as much as I possibly could without leaving out important details. Like I said, the plots are complex in the sense that there's no central point of conflict or resolution.  Each episode is a series of events, all which are relevant in some way.  I'm already leaving many events that would be considered important, and I don't see how I can make them shorter. T.W. (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That is why I suggested having a copy editor go over them, or having another TV editor who isn't a fan of the series going over them. What you might see as being important, often isn't to others. The current versions are, of course, so short they are completely useless. Going so overboard is really not helpful. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just getting a bit frustrated. In order for a person to analyze what's a good description of the plot and what isn't a person must have seen the series to begin with, I don't think I can find anyone else around here that is going to be familiar with this series as it has never been broadcast in the United States.  The way to solve an "excessive" use of Fair-Use images was to practically use none, so I don't know, maybe that's the way to solve the episode crisis. T.W. (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, its not that. Trust me, I deal with the same issue for every episode list and chapter list I do. I have one up at FLC now that originally had 700-1000 word summaries each. I had to get them all down to 300 words a piece. Part of it is learning to use less words (I tend to be long winded and prosey), and part of it is learning to be a little more merciless about smaller details. I'll try to take a look at it over the weekend and do some tightening up in the spots where I noticed the prose can be shorter. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Question: What should I do with "random" information that really doesn't fit into any of the current sections?  For example, trivial mentions such as that Cuchifritín was played by two different child actors?  I know Trivia sections are discouraged, but there's certain information that really doesn't fit anywhere.  I'll try and replace some of the "casual" wording, such as "had to try very hard" for better words in order to improve the article.  Oh, and if you want, you can place this talk here to the series' talk page.  That way, if someone wants to contribute, they can see how we're progressing.  Anyways, thank you and have a good day! T.W. (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Usually, if it won't fit anywhere else, it probably doesn't belong at all. Cuchifritín being played by two actors could be production information, if there is sourced information behind the why? I think I will move this there, so it can stay with the article for easier referencing later. :) Sorry I didn't get a chance to work on the plots this weekend. Working on a mortgage app which is driving me up the wall. Blech. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Finding a reference for Cuchifritín being played by two actors might be hard, you simply just notice it's two different boys when you watch the show. The reason is probably because small children that age, babies really, can only be asked to "work" for a limited amount of time.  I believe those laws apply in film-making here, too.  Don't worry about the plot summaries, take your time going over them.  I still have to re-write the first episode's summary, too. =] T.W. (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)