Talk:Jon & Kate Plus 8/Archive 2

Jon and Kate's middle names.
Jon's middle name is Keith. Kate (actually Katie)'s middle name is Irene. This came from their marriage license via the Berks Co PA register of wills.

Citation http://www.co.berks.pa.us/rwills/s/volpage.aspx?volume=379&page=309 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.87.150 (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Added Jon's middle name, inconsistant as it stands before. He was the only one without. Red Summer Rain (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The book
The book's out already. I have it look on Chapters.ca 74.127.240.216 (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Live with Regis and Kelly
Jon & Kate Plus 8 appeared as guests on the show Live with Regis and Kelly on 3 October 2008. I would add it myself but the page seems to be protected. Bovineboy2008 (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"Story" section needs to be more encyclopedic
The "Story" section really needs to be completely re-written. As it is, it is entirely unsuited in an encyclopedia article. It reads, quite literally, like a story. It should be the bare-bones, most important facts, without fluff and unnecessary details. It should include a sentence or two, max, about how they met with a little blurb about the twins; a paragraph on how they got pregnant with the sextuplets; and maybe a paragraph about the pregnancy and afterward. That's it. Anything else is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. Besides that issue, it almost feels like it was completely lifted from the family website (which, ironically (or not?), is also titled as their story), with only minor changes to avoid violating copyrights. For these reasons, the section needs to be entirely re-written. --132 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned it up. It is far more encyclopedic now, where it was completely inappropriate before. It could still use a little trimming, but, overall, it is much better. Also, I renamed the section to avoid the "story" feel of the section and I'm debating about whether to keep their current location in the "family history" section. I feel it's sufficient in the intro, but I can't decide if the flushed out explanation should also be included and if it should be included in that specific section. --132 22:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have also cleaned up the story section, some words are unecessary, such as "very" and "strongly" which are descriptive words that add to a "story feel".Red Summer Rain (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories
Shouldn't this belong to and/or  ? It is a form of video diary by a third party... or biographical TV series... 76.66.196.229 (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Another show?
Isn't there another show sort of like this on TV currently? Except none of the kids are multiple births, and the family SUPER religious. Also, the parents got into some legal trouble recently. It doesn't sound like Jon & Kate, so what show was that? --98.232.180.37 (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You might mean 17 Kids and Counting, the show about the Duggars of Arkansas. They have a couple of multiples (two sets of twins if memory serves), are SUPER religious, but I don't know about the legal thing.  I haven't heard anything about them being in trouble.  Now the Suleman family, yes, they have some legal issues, but they don't have a show (yet). Nonpoint74 (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiQuote
there's a wikiquote page now... so you can enter your favorite quotes from the Gosselins. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Focus of article all wrong
In its current form, this article contains way too much personal information about the Gosselin family. This is supposed to be an article about a television show, rather than a biography of a living person (or persons), so the personal stuff (such as birthdates) should really be removed per Wikipedia guidelines. It would be better to have this sort of information in a separate BLP article, where it can be properly policed. At the moment, this article is a magnet for trivia and rumors that aren't directly associated with the show. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree there should be a separate article for the family. -Sesu Prime (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As they are "TV stars", does it pass muster for a separate article? 76.66.201.179 (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am leaning toward the creation of Kate Gosselin, since she has attracted reporting from reliable sources and is a published author - more than sufficient notability for an independent article. I am not sure if there is sufficient independent notability for Jon Gosselin (and certainly not for the children), but it would not be unreasonable to create a daughter article along the lines of Family of Kate Gosselin. The advantage of this approach is that it brings all the personal information of these individuals under the protective umbrella of Wikipedia's rules for biographies of living persons. This particular article should revolve solely around the television show, with details about production, shooting schedule, locations, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked out a similar article, TLC's 18 Kids and Counting. For that article it was decided that a list of family members, with birthdates, would be appropriate. I think this article should be about the show. I'm not in favor of separate article for "the family" or just "kate". I think the best article here would be one solely about the TV show, but since there is such a high amount of vandalism, I don't know how to keep such an article clean. Red Summer Rain (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My main concern is that there is personal information about the family appearing on this article that is avoiding the stricter guidelines imposed by the BLP rules. I'd like to bring this information under the auspices of those rules, ostensibly for their protection. As I said above, the fact that Kate Gosselin is a published author with plenty of reliably-sourced biographical information it makes it easy to create an article on her. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with any of this. However, if there was a "kate" article and "family" article, with the family article incorporating the show, what would happen to the show article. Would there be a redirect from the show's title, and would there be no issue with people creating an article for the show. I'm in favor of your proposal. I'm just not clear how it would pan out. Red Summer Rain (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The show article should remain, but with most of the personal stuff about the family moved to the proposed BLP articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see. So the main article would be about kate--focusing on her publishing etc. with a section on the family included as part of her article. (I don't think Jon or the kids are notable enough to merit their own articles.) It would have all of the biographical information about the people. The article on the show would then be cleaner without the "personal" info. Is this correct? If so, that makes sense. I agree.Red Summer Rain (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is essentially correct. The article on Kate Gosselin would basically be her complete biography, subject to the availability of reliable sources. A section within that article would cover her family, and another section would cover the TV show (acting as a summary for this article). Another section would cover her published works, etc. I will begin putting the bare bones of an article together in my user space. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just started it here (now in mainspace). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that be a subpage of this page or Kate Gosselin? Like Talk:Jon & Kate Plus 8/Kate workpage or Talk:Kate Gosselin/workpage ? 76.66.193.69 (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. It is fine where it is. There is no hard and fast rule about this sort of thing, and I would rather keep a firm grip on it until it is ready from primetime. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with Kate having her own page, but I think the family as a whole should have their own page, too. Maybe it could be called "Gosselin family" or something similar (I don't like the proposed title "Family of Kate Gosselin" though. It's too centered on Kate). There's probably more information about all 10 Gosselins than there is about just Kate. -Sesu Prime (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Any daughter articles would have to make sense with respect to the main article. We have to be mindful about matters such as inherited notability, but also we need to avoid a situation where there is unnecessary duplication. If we had "Gosselin Family" instead of "Family of Kate Gosselin", we would end up with Kate-related stuff appearing in both "Gosselin Family" and "Kate Gosselin". More thought needs to go into this, which is why I am not doing anything in the main article space just yet. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think the proposed family article should be called "Gosselin family". Under Kate's section in that article could be nothing more than a link to her main "Kate Gosselin" page. That would avoid the redundancy. -Sesu Prime (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it depends a little bit on inherited notability questions. Whatever happens, we must put a stop to all this original research and trivia that keeps on getting shoved in, and try to get a little more discipline. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a family article takes precedence over one about just Kate. So if only one additional article gets made, I think it should be the family one. -Sesu Prime (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are wrong about this. The key to this whole discussion is the need to protect the family by bringing them under the auspices of WP:BLP, and since Kate Gosselin is a notable TV personality and author (as well as being the center of the Gosselin universe, pretty much) it makes sense to make an article about her, and then have other articles (including this one) being associated with that. A family-specific article is certainly necessary, but not through conferred notability. It makes more sense, from a Wikipedia standpoint, for the family article to be tied to the Kate Gosselin article. We do not want to create an article that just becomes a dumping ground for every piece of retarded trivia and other original research. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

New article at Kate Gosselin after some work by user:Scjessey and myself. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

DVDs
Apparently I'm the one who receives news on the DVDs and puts them up, which now I can't thanks to a certain somebody.

Season 4 Volume 2 "The Big Move" will be released July 21, 2009. http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Jon-and-Kate-Plus-8-Season-4-Volume-2/11615

Now that I've given the information, will you guys put it up under the section I created called "Multimedia". 76.68.223.103 (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

summaries
Can someone restore the episode summary table, so that something besides an empty section exists? 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would, but another editor removed it with this edit summary: "I noticed this table is listed twice and it doesn't need to be. Also the next page, with two tables, both link to individual seasons." I am hesitant to replace it because of this. I would appreciate it if the editor could comment about it here before I do anything further. --132 21:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the table for list of episodes, is listed twice, when you follow the link to the episodes. Why would you call it "an empty section"? Click on the link listed and it'll take you to the episodes. It it were put back, then you'd have it listed three times and I don't know why. Duplicate tables for episodes? If you want to find information on the episodes, there's a section dedicated to just that. Any and all information for everyone to see. R7604 (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The section is empty because it contains nothing except for a main. And if you read WP:SUMMARY, you'll see that people frequently copy material from the intro paragraphs from another article to serve as the summary to go with the . 70.29.213.241 (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but I do have to agree with the Anon user. You, personally, may feel the section isn't empty, but it technically is. All it has is an internal link to the separate article. You need to have something within the section that briefly describes the section, with the internal link going to a full article. It doesn't necessarily need to be the table, but it needs to have something. --132 01:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Like? R7604 (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the box would be all right. However, something preferable might be more along the lines of the following: There have been X-number seasons filmed. The series premiered on X-date. Filming is currently taking place for season X-number and will begin airing on X-date. Or somesuch with maybe some slight expanding. --132 07:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone attach the Summarize template to the empty sections that are currently on this article? 70.29.213.241 (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

--132

That's a good idea and I'll do just that. A short summary, since no one likes the "empty" section. R7604 (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Except for "the series premiered on..." because that's already there. R7604 (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I know this comment is a bit late, but I've been watching the summaries section through its changes; I personally liked how the table looked. It was a quick overview of the seasons (on the series page), and if further information was desired, a viewer could go to the episodes main page. Is this not a good idea? The way the section looks now, seems uninteresting to me, and a sentence is slower (and more boring) to view/read than a table with numbers. Make sense? Red Summer Rain (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Um no? The epsidoes are already listed on another page. I put a very short sentence, so it wouldn't be boring and a person could quickly skim over it without much effort. R7604 (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, what I am saying is that an episode summary table is much more visually appealing. And a summary table is in no way a complete repeat of the whole episode list. Tt is, rather, a visually appealling overview. It was fine the way it was before. Red Summer Rain (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well as I've said before, there are two other tables and I wasn't going to put anythhing but the Anon user didn't like it that and Thirteen Squared suggested a summary which I've put.

I'm trying to avoid having the main page from looking busy or repetative. Besides, most people who watch this show are adults, they'll take the time to read the summary. R7604 (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Several editors considered the episode table a good summary, as evidenced from the edit history of the article. But as long as some sort of summary appears in the section, it satisfies WP:SUMMARY... so whatever is chosen, is ok. In any case, several articles use duplicate text with the "main" article as summaries (usually the intro paragraphs) so duplication isn't an issue, as long as they remain synchronized. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I did put a summary, just as 13 Squared suggested, and to keep everyone satisfied. R7604 (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine. Have it your way. I don't want to argue. And if it meets the guidelines for WP:SUMMARY... Red Summer Rain (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue either and if I had my way, there wouldn't be a summary. :o) R7604 (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Seven embryos but six babies
Sorry if the answer is obvious, but in the article, it states that Kate had six sacs with seven embryos in them, but gave birth to six babies. So does that means one of the embryos didn't make it cos it's not that clear to me from that paragraph. londonsista Prod  11:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

US Weekly
Where should we put this story? OddibeKerfeld (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Until a proper reliable source can be found, I cannot think of anywhere. This article is about the show, not the subjects. Jon Gosselin is, by himself, not notable enough for his own biography. That means that there is nowhere for this sort of "gossip" stuff to go. Leave it for the gossip magazines and blogs. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)