User talk:Frickative/Archive 6

Change to Dancing With Myself Version Covered:
I'm trying to edit the Glee List of Songs episode for the Wheel's episode.

The version covered is done by Nouvelle Vague not Billy Idol. Apparently since I don't have a citation, it keeps reverting. Here's my question:

Why does both the Wikipedia entries for Nouvelle Vague and Dancing With Myself attribute the song version sung by Artie to Nouvelle Vague? Either the Wikipedia entries for Nouvelle Vague and Dancing with Myself are wrong or the entry for Glee List of Songs is wrong.

You can hear the Nouvelle Vague version on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5j-ipGFcko However, comparing songs by listening to song falls under original research. I can't find the citations on the Nouvelle Vague or Dancing With Myself Wikipedia entries either.

Corin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.65.66 (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Corin, if the Nouvelle Vague and Dancing With Myself articles are attributing the Glee cover to NV without a citation, then that should be removed per Wikipedia's verifiability policy, as the official website attributes the cover to Billy Idol. The only source I can find which says the cover is of the NV version is this one, but there are a lot more which attribute it to Billy Idol. Frickative  17:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If I can chime in on this...have you listened to the two songs side by side? i.e. play in Youtube section by section against iTunes for the Glee version?  If the official Web site attributes to Billy Joel, that's what I'd suggest to go with; however, I worked on the Kenny Rogers articles a long time ago and found some incorrect information on THEIR official site in the discography, so who knows what is correct?  CycloneGU (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As Corin noted, though, listening to the songs to come to a conclusion would be original research. The Fox website has certainly had some errors in the past, but as I say, I can only find a single source attributing Artie's Dancing With Myself to Nouvelle Vague, whereas there are several dozen news articles crediting Billy Idol. Frickative  22:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make sense. If Artie's version is identical to one and differs significantly from the other, that's not original research; that's the song itself becoming the source, isn't it?  CycloneGU (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, no, that would be the very definition of original research. To quote the page:


 * It would be editing based on original personal analysis, unsupported by the vast majority of published sources. Frickative  23:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

[Outdent] I guess that is the only problem with Wikipedia. All the Billy Joel sources could be wrong (keep in mind I haven't listened myself, just giving an example), but because the majority of sources quote him as the cover, it's assumed correct even if it's wrong. Look up the article for REO Speedwagon's Can't Fight This Feeling. It doesn't say, but I've seen this file on my girlfriend's iTunes referenced to Air Supply, and indeed there is at least one source naming them as the singer on the lyrics page (there's a second on the same Google results page I brought up, too). However, as you may know, Air Supply doesn't sing it. So the question thus becomes whether we have the correct fact. If the song covered is Billy Joel's, great; if it's NV's, great; however, some source will always be incorrect, and the Billy Joel sources could all be quoting from the original first source naming it as well. I say go with whatever Fox says on their actual site as we can presume that correct, and that they didn't know about the other cover when using the one they named.

One more example; I noted that "Taking Chances" was attributed to Platinum X (I think that's it) instead of Celine Dion, as they originally did the song in question despite Dion's being the obviously more popular one (the other group is now defunct). I downloaded the original some time ago now. CycloneGU (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup, well, it's Billy Idol according to Fox. I can't listen to either version atm because YouTube keeps giving me internal server errors, but either way, we know Adam Anders re-arranges songs for the Glee cast, so if it doesn't sound identical to the Idol version that could be why. Probably the only way we'd ever know definitively would be if NV, Idol, Anders or Bloom did an interview discussing it, which would be helpful albeit unlikely.
 * Do you remember which article Lea's "Taking Chances" is attributed to Platinum Weird in? It should be attributed to Celine because that's who Fox (and other sources) credit, vs. no accreditations to Platinum Weird. Frickative  23:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually erred slightly. It's Platinum Weird; I looked up Glee:_The_Music,_Volume_1 which credits both them AND Celine Dion (since Celine Dion covered Platinum Weird, it makes sense to credit both as one editor has here for that reason alone).  Maybe this can be an argument to credit both artists for Defying Gravity if Billy Idol covered NV's original, or something like that?  CycloneGU (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's interesting - probably done that way because the album articles have to credit the original writers, which would then necessitate mentioning both if a different version was covered. With DWM though, I see that Billy Idol and the original artists Generation X are credited, while the NV version is one of 14 different cover versions, which it would obviously be impractical to list. Frickative  00:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I just read the source for NV that you gave. It quotes:


 * "The hit high school musical TV show, 'Glee,' introduced the group to an American audience. The group's version of Blondie's 'Heart of Glass' has been featured in the series, as well as Billy Idol's 'Dancing With Myself.'"


 * It doesn't credit NV with "Dancing With Myself". It credits Billy Idol still unless I am completely misreading.  Even so, Fox says it's Billy Idol's.  At some point, I hope to compare them myself, but I am not a fan of that song so I may end up not bothering.  So...we still have no NV sources, and I thus argue that the Billy Idol cover is correct (thus agreeing with you). =)  CycloneGU (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL, well then this whole conversation could have been cut short had I actually read the source properly! Oops. I totally don't remember Heart of Glass being used in Glee, but still. Must pay better attention in future. Frickative  00:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I found a reference for the version performed being Nouvelle Vague's, and edited the page accordingly, but you changed it back, and deleted the reference without explanation. The site I referenced has been used as a source several other times on the page, so it's valid. Was there a reason for you removing it? 86.44.59.51 (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have mentioned it in my edit summary, but I spent so long editing the page last night for more minor details that I'd completely forgotten by the time I finished! I removed it because, per the above discussion, the official website and dozens of others credit Billy Idol rather than NV, so the Zap2it reference is in the minority. On further reflection, though: 1. The official site is riddled with errors, 2. the Zap2it ref is perfectly adequate and 3. I'm not really all that invested in the outcome, so if you want to re-instate the edit, I won't revert again :) Frickative  19:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Now That's Strange
I just looked in iTunes - fortunately, we have it right, the songs from Journey to Regionals were NOT released as singles. Interesting to see that nothing from this episode was released individually like with The Power of Madonna, isn't it? I think this can be considered the only Glee episode to not have any singles released for it; should we note this in the article? (Of course, you can still buy individual songs on iTunes; they just don't list them as singles like with every other song.) CycloneGU (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is rather odd! I wondered if Fox were hoping to make more money by only selling the EP rather than singles, but as you say, the individual tracks are still available so that line of thinking doesn't really work. It's probably worth a mention in the article - a general ref to the Glee Cast iTunes store page should do for verification. Frickative  18:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't put the reference in; my iTunes is faulty ATM and, besides, it's the Canadian store, not the American. You may want to do the reference if you feel it necessary.  I've edited the article and slightly expanded the prose regarding the baby adoption.  CycloneGU (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool, the iTunes ref is in most of the articles already so I've copy/pasted it in now - I was actually in the middle of a fairly substantial edit to tighten up the plot and reception a bit :) Frickative  22:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Matthewedwards : Chat  21:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
The request for mediation concerning Will Schuester, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK  11:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Bianca Jackson
Hi Frickative, just to let you know that Bianca Jackson has not passed as a GA. I realise that you had reached a limit of what you could do on the article, and unfortunately not much else was happening. I just wanted to thank you for your hard work on it though, it's definitely in better shape thanks to you! Hopefully someone will be interested enough to address the last few issues and renominate at some point. Regards, -- Beloved Freak  09:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Don't Stop Believing
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
I had a look through but couldn't help really, now it's closed. I'd of been more inclined but I just thought that the GA review was more a borderline FA review... the reviewer wanted to expand everything that little more, the page had already bled all the refs dry... I'm surprised no one in WP:eastenders didn't get it sorted though, I myself asked a further 3 editors to help, but no. You worked damn hard on it though. RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 12:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you weren't happy with the review Raintheone. Perhaps if you'd raised any concerns you had during the review, we could have dealt with them together. Obviously, to have the article fail, and the nominator unhappy with the review is not a great outcome! If you feel strongly about it, you could ask for a community reassessment. Anyway, as I said I do feel that the article's nearly there and I wish whoever decides to give it that final push the best of luck.-- Beloved Freak  14:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's fine. I am not fussed, I just nominated it randomly because I noticed lots of work went into it, I never worked on the article though. The review was great and you really got into the review and made plenty of suggestions, it was just there was so much to do and only Frickative was willing to help. Ohh welll :) RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 16:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (Replying to both sections on the topic in one place, here :)) Firstly, thank you very much for such a thorough, helpful review, BelovedFreak - a real shame not to make it to GA in the end, but thank you for being so patient and lending a hand with the fixes. And no problem, Raintheone, I guess the real problem is just that there aren't that many active editors familiar with storylines from over a decade ago, and the sources from back then are limited in their usefulness. Still, the article is in much better shape now, which is always a good thing! :) Frickative  18:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Glee
Please watch your 3RR, I don't want to see you blocked. I have 3RR warned the other user, and am watching the page. C T J F 8 3 chat 19:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Cheers, I didn't intend to revert again after my last edit, but I know I should have taken it to the talk page anyway. Won't happen again. Frickative  19:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna fill out a sock report, because once I warned DC, Night started to revert...plus they edit the same pages and DC is only a 2 day old account...if you want to weigh in on the report (when I'm finished) C T J F 8 3  chat 19:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, I didn't even notice that a different account had chipped in. At least they've moved to the talk page now - I'll go and reply there and see if we can't hash it out. Frickative  19:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya, I'll try that approach before any Sock report. C T J F 8 3  chat 19:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

sorry I undid the wrong edit
hi! sorry I undid the wrong edit, did not mean to appear as bringing back the bad edit that someone else did (the Sailor one)sorry it appears as vandalism, I pinged the wrong edit. (eclipse-Saga) Pumkinhead001 (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, that explains it! It seemed a very odd edit to undo, haha. No worries, we've all hit the wrong button at some point! :) Frickative  19:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Glee
Sure. I'll withdraw it, I managed to get the main article up to Good Article Standards. And I realized that all of the episodes were Good Articles. So I figured why not? But yeah I can do that for you. HGraphite (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I saw the main article got to GA yesterday, good call nominating it :D I think getting the first season as a Good Topic should be straightforward enough, but a complete nom for the whole series would probably have to include at least Characters of Glee, List of Glee episodes and Glee Cast discography as well, to give broad coverage. Still, out of 48 total Glee articles, 23 are now GAs, which is pretty fab :) Frickative  21:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Elimination Game: WikiMedia
Hi Fricative!! I have recently introduced to the Department of Fun and was so enthralled by the whole idea of having a buch of "behind the scenes" games on Wikipedia that I made my own game in honour of the Wikimedia corporation. I was wondering if you like to contribute ?? (or come to think of it, maybe even alter the format to make it more user-friendly!!! ;D) P.S. The Horrible Histories pages have gone horribly wrong - they've become pretty much fan-sites again... I'm gonna have to change them again.--Coin945 (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey! Thank you very much for the invite, but honestly, I already spend so much time editing Wikipedia and playing Facebook games that I fear if Wiki and games were to overlap, I'd never leave the computer! It looks fun though, good luck with it :) I've noticed the page for the most recent Horrible Histories series slowly creeping full of cruft again, and I'm planning on sorting it out sometime soon. I have quite a few pages bookmarked for references from before that I haven't got round to using yet, so I'll dig them out and make some improvements. Frickative  17:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i totally understand you not having enough time, as you've got a hell of a lot of stuff to get on with already!! I probably could make my own articles if I really put my mind to it but honestly I can't really be bothered.. .. ;). I'm really in awe of your work because you manage to accomplish so much even when its not your primary job (I'm guessing..!!). Don't worry about those HH series. I'll prob sort it out myself. I used to love them so much and just really wanted the pages on them to be perfect... but now that I'm older I've realised that they're not as famous and as notible as i thought they were, and also quite childish, but since I managed to find all those sources, it still would be nice to finish 'em off i suppose. I'm not that good at rummaging through sources and extracting relevant info without copyvio... that's all!--Coin945 (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm speaking of Facebook games, which ones did you have in mind? I personally love the Playfish games, like Geo Challenge (which I rule at) and Who Has The Biggest Brain. My love of geography also contributes to Traveler's IQ Challenge and I also love Family Feud. I do try to stray away from those games that require a commitment, like Sims-esque games. Even those simple Connect 4 or Scrabble games require a daily/weekly logon to continue.--Coin945 (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha, I wish Wikipedia was my primary job! With the HH pages, doing much with the older TV series will probably be a struggle, but the 2009 series has some potential - I was surprised by some of the star names that have guested (quite a big fan of Meera Syal :D) And as for Facebook, I got suckered into the big social games. I've given up Farmville, but I'm a bit addicted Frontierville at the moment, eep. I used to love Playfish's Word Challenge, but it was hurting my ego a bit losing to my friends! Frickative  23:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been on holiday in Melbourne without internet for 14 days and I was DYING!!! But now I'm back to finally answer your reply:

Wow!! considering the amount of effort and passion you exhibit on the website, I am genuinly surprised you don't get paid for what you manage to acheive!!! :O With the HH series, I am quite schoked thaht such high-flying actor/actresses have (apparently) guest stared in the 2009 show. It's very good news for the possiblility of growth!! With Facebook, hahahaha I was caught amongst all those types of games for a while - I was a Sims addict for a bit, but at least that wasn't actually "time limited" persay (not actually sure how to spell that... ;D). I love Word Challenge - I've got pretty much the exact same game with a different name on my Ipod and I play it from time to time. I really love it but it takes soo much brain power - something which I have at selected periods throughout my day!!!! :D HAHA I definately know the feeling of being beaten out by your Facebook friends. Just remember that 95% of your FB friends probably aren't your friends in real life you the people who are beating you are probably people tyou have never met in your life!--Coin945 (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ooh, I hope you enjoyed your holiday! :D The HH guest-stars are surprising - I've just glanced at the article though and it's even more of a mess than the last time I saw it, gah. It's tough because the episode summaries should ideally be at least 100 words, but not having seen them, it's hard to put that much together without just paraphrasing the BBC summaries and edging onto copyright violation territory. Still, I'll give the cruftiest bits a trim later on. Luckily, the Facebook game that was eating up most of my time is broken at the moment, so I think my addiction is finally waning, haha. Good timing, too! The rate new information is coming out about Glee (season 2) we'll be needing to think about starting a new list of songs for the second season, soon :D Frickative  15:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ETA: Wow! I just went to tidy up the references at the HH page, and got reading the British Comedy Guide website on the series. They have a page which rounds up reviews, and I've just used it to expand the reception section. There are impressive reviews from serious broadsheet publications like The Independent and The Daily Telegraph. The rest of the article still needs a lot of work, but I'm really pleased with that section now! Frickative  16:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll try and make this my final message because I'm leaving you an awful lot to read through, but I was looking through the Horrible Histories category, and noticed there are nearly two dozen articles. I've created a navigation box to link them together, and will add it to the articles now :) Frickative  16:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Awesome, cheers!! I am thrilled that season 2 of glee is fast approaching, but I was thoroughly disappointed to see some Britney songs listed at being part of the new season! (I know that is heavy POV but it just has to be said!). I really can't wait for Coldplay to make its mark on Glee.--Coin945 (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The HH page is really shaping up, although unfortunately the category as a whole still needs a lot of work (that most part not being your speciality). I signaled out for help ages ago but noone seems to have responded back... ... ahh well. I'll try again soon.--Coin945 (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Casualty image
Why are you removign this fromt eh seaosn articles it is alreayd been used on teh main article fora logn time so how has it become unfit?????-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, I was going to drop a message on your talk page when I finished, so thanks for messaging me :) Basically, the image is fine for use in the main Casualty article because it has a suitable fair use rationale for that article - but only for that article. Per the non-free content criteria, the image would need a separate, specific rationale for each series article in order to be used in those, in which case it would still most likely fail NFCC#8, whereby "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Better infobox images for the first three series would probably be the DVD covers (with appropriate rationales, of course :)). For the other series', perhaps a screenshot of the main cast from that year? Frickative  15:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For 2004 onward yeah cast image will problally be possibel before that there nothing as BBC never archiving any information until 2004 they do plan in the future to back date it to the first day bbc broadcat but that logn time away so there really isnt a iamge suitabel for them unless they reair and someone can grab screen grab of the on screen logo for that season which does change mostly ever few years-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The holby.tv fansite has group cast images for most of the early series which I think were originally released by the BBC as publicity shots, so those could probably be used. I'll try and put together a decent fair use rationale for one in a bit, and then if you want to copy it across other articles with different images you're welcome to :) Frickative  15:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ETA: There we go, I've added one to series four. The file description page is at File:Casualty series 4.jpg. I think the fair use rationale should stand up to scrutiny, so it should be okay to copy across for other images from other years, obviously just changing the description to match whatever cast and characters are in it :) Frickative  16:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool thansk for that ill get to wokr on it on monday need to get some sleep before my long shift tomorrow was my day off thought i catch up on some article si need to wokr on :)-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Grey's Anatomy episodes
I've left a note at AdamDeanHall's talk page about the silly edits he's been making atList of Grey's Anatomy episodes. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

And apparently so have you. Hopefully he'll get the message. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message - from the timestamps, it seems we both dropped him a line at the same time! Strange no edit conflict, but hopefully that'll be that sorted. Frickative  15:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Glee
Well the glee season 2 page states that the Brittany episode is the second, which menas it would air on September 28, a week after the first episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.89.154 (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's very likely the episode will air on September 28, but as with all future events, it requires verification from a reliable source. The only episode I've seen officially scheduled is the one on September 21 - have you seen a schedule that goes further than that? Frickative  15:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Casualty and holby list
Just want to see fi you have any obhjection to including the raitng back the oldre series jsut sot standardish the lsit and colum which i wil be doing onc ei finish casualty coversion.

Secondly as for ohlby ill fix the transclusion errors ive done this on loads and load of list and fix them all maybe take time so i wont do further than season 2 until i can verify it owrkign fine, just other MOS rules sstate it will have to be done so as i say i will work on seires 1 and 2 and when there work fine ill go onto season 3 to b honest it looks liek that sort command cauisng problems and it isnt need since there is sortable tables

If you have any objection let me know and ill revert-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, sorry, I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what you're asking with your first sentence :) All the sort commands I think are necessary, because otherwise the tables automatically sort by first name rather than surname. The transcluded series 1 and 2 tables now don't seem to be sortable at all? Coding really isn't my forte though, so if you think you can fix it so everything transcludes properly without the page overloading, then by all means go ahead! :) Frickative  15:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh that issue i can sort that, i just notice the sortable is gone i get that readded just now with a lot less code.


 * On the casualty series 1 to about 10 you remove teh ratings coloum because ratins are not avaiable for then but it makes the table look out of sequenc ont h main list as when you come to series 11ish you have raitngs so youg et extra coloum i can fix it to look fine just easier having the coloum for raitngs with N/A but i dnt want to be in positon tha ti have otehr objection either so i rather find happy medium-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sortabel code added but there is a known bug when shortsummary is in that it sorts teh sumamry then the lsit but ont he lsit itself it wont be fine jsut the series article-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh I see! I thought that might be what you meant re: the ratings but I wasn't entirely sure. If you think it will look better then sure, go ahead, I've no objection to that :)
 * I've encountered the shortsummary bug before, and it's a pain but I know it can't be helped. Removing the sort parameters in the names means that the tables aren't sorting properly, though. If you look at series 1, it's sorting by first name rather than surname, so for instance Andrew Rattenbury is sorted above Tony McHale and James Hawes above Nigel Douglas. Removing the 'format=dmy' from the dates also means they're displaying in the American MDY style, rather than the UK DMY format. Frickative  15:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, I know transcluding is preferable per the MOS, but there is precedent for duplicating the tables manually. List of The Simpsons episodes doesn't use transclusions, because it's another one that's hundreds of episodes long and presumably would overload, but that's still managed to become a Featured List, so I think it's something allowances can be made for if necessary. Frickative  15:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * True as i say i work on the issue you have said and i will covert back to the uk format i think ther emight be a switch on startdate that allow it, ill look into the name issue maybe in that case it will reuqre to kepe the sort but the title name certianly doesnt require it. I see if i can get workable version otday im planning on trying to finish casualty so all the table are converte dand transcluded and that isnt having any problme i think the problsm cme if you dnt use then it transcluded to much-- Andrewcrawford  ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For the titles, the first series doesn't need it, but a lot of the later ones do, because apparently episodes beginning with 'The' or 'A' should be sorted according to the first letter of the following word (so "The Deep End" should be sorted as 'D' while "A Christmas Carol" should be sorted as 'C'.) The tags were in place when the problem occurred - they're not now because I took them out when I removed the transclusions, which is why the example I left on your talk page looks a bit ridiculous in retrospect :) Good luck with it though, I spent forever trying to fix it and keep the transclusions in and got nowhere, so I'll be glad to see it fixed if possible!  Frickative  16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, it just occurred to me after writing that that only the episode titles beginning with "The" or "A" should need the sort template. I can't believe I never realised that before - feeling slightly sheepish now! Hopefully removing those will go some way towards easing the template overload. Frickative  16:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that was dull, but I've been through series 3-12 and deleted all the unnecessary sorts from the title parameters. I hope that goes some way towards helping to fix the problem. Frickative  17:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, sorry to keep adding to the messages, I know I'm leaving a lot for you to read when you get the chance, but the dates for series one are now sorting based on the first digit, rather than chronologically, so it goes from 12 Jan to 16 Feb then back to 19 Jan, etc. Frickative  20:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Hi. Please compare this edit of yours with one here masquerading as yours but actually added by

Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for letting me know. I think AnemoneProjectors' interpretation is probably right, though it's still a little odd. Cheers! Frickative  14:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Melissa Walton
I noticed you helped me with the early life thing, was going to do that straight away but went on a mission to find out her real D.O.B and got it after way too long of searching. RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 01:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I trod on your toes diving in there - I saw it pop up on your watchlist and had nothing better to do at this time of the morning :) Impressed by how you've turned it from a single line stub into a multi-paragraph article with over a dozen refs so quickly! Frickative  01:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No I meant it as a thankyou. =) I was trying to get Loretta Jones FA, but the images were C3, so I emailed for a free image of her, then thought it would look better if there were two articles for it to be used in, so made her a actor page. So it was a quick thing, it went from a stub to that because I stole the casting info from her character casting section i wrote and tweaked it in there. :D  RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 01:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I just went to read the FA page, you're braver than I am! I've never dared to try for an FA - I think seeing Pauline Fowler go through it put me off for life! Best of luck with it though, I hope it goes well :D Frickative  03:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

holby.tv
Thanks for your message :) Farzeymedic (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Template and titles
Ok the template first

I am purposing makigna template for the table header so it is standardish and if changes are reuqired it changes on all the tables as changing each table will take ages, i also plan on making other templates but i will discuss once it is clear in my mind

The titles

I am not sure why you are reveritng chaing to part x of y i am only standardish how the title is displayed on the list i am aware it is displayed differently on the episode maybe a template for the main list so it display differnetl yonteh big list to the series article making the acutally template similar to the epsiodelsit template.

Oh holby

i plan to start work on it maybe this weekend or this week

reply here or my talk page ill catch it either way-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 22:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey - not sure why a template would be needed for the table header, as all the columns have the same headers anyway and haven't really changed since their creation? As for the titles, none of them are called Part X of Y, just Part X or Part Y, so they shouldn't be displayed differently - the column is for the title, after all, and Part X of Y isn't the title. Both the series articles and the main list should use the actual titles, given to the episodes by the BBC, not different ones used only by Wikipedia editors. Frickative  22:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, i know the header use the same format but i mean for coloum width i am now ready to make the them same so it all looks the same but with 25 series if someoen deicded to change the width on one you nee to do it for all 25 but with template oyu jsut change the templqate and all are changed-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Time Warp?
That's a song? Never heard it, and by the reading, I thought it was an episode title. My bad, then! CycloneGU (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Note however that I added dates. The source quotes Ryan saying third week in October for Rocky Horror, so dates can be added through there now. CycloneGU (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup, see Time Warp (song) - linked higher up in the article. I wouldn't personally have added dates for other episodes based on that comment, but I won't revert either. I'm tired of reverting totally and utterly unsourced speculation from IP editors on songs etc already, and the season's still a month off yet, agh! :) Frickative  01:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, we also know "Faith" is third. If something interrupts the Glee run as a special episode or something, we can fix it, but I think it's pretty much fact now (the dates).  CycloneGU (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

[Outdent] I actually came to the Season 2 page for the first real look last week. You've been busy! =D Have you ever tried to get Season 1 a good list or featured list candidacy? CycloneGU (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been on my to-do list since season one ended, but I just haven't quite gotten round to it yet - I think it just needs the episode summaries tweaking and it should be ready :) I'm just not sure whether it should be nominated at GA or FL! Frickative  01:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nominated Glee (season 1) for Featured Article
I don't think it would be fair for you to vote on it, clearly...just wanted to give you a heads-up. I think it qualifies. CycloneGU (talk) 04:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know! I suppose I'd better get my butt into gear with all the fine tuning I've been putting off. (Oh, & just ftr, I'm actually a she :)). Frickative  04:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like I should have done FL tho...I did FA. And besides, a few probs. have already been found, one of which I've fixed.  Please go comment there yourself?  I'll leave it to your choice whether to continue.  CycloneGU (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Commented there :) Thanks very much for filing the FAC in the first place, though, the vote of confidence in the standard of the article is much appreciated, even if it does need a bit of a polish to finish it off. Frickative  04:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, I think we both jumped on the bare URLs immediately. I started working on the duplicate and formatting of it, but you saved more changes ahead of me.  I must be a slowpoke. =)  CycloneGU (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hee, sorry! The biggest thing that needs sorting is the episode summaries - per WP:MOSTV they should be at least 100 words long, so I think the ones from "The Power of Madonna" through to "Journey" need expanding, if you maybe want to work on that? If not, I'll try and take care of it tomorrow. In the meantime, the entire "Ratings" summary section seems to have disappeared at some point, and I'm currently combing the edit history to try and work out when and why. Frickative  04:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to bed shortly, but I'll see what I can do quickly. Also, quick memo:  the DVD section could use a touch-up.  My idea here; list the special features that are new in the "Road to Regionals" version, then in the special features for the complete season, note that all of the special features from both sets are included in the full season.  I wonder if the complete season will have the music video of "On My Own", tho...*LOL*  I'll fix up my DVD section idea, then you have a look and see what you think.  I think my way is cleaner, so I'll try it. =)  CycloneGU (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Found the missing ratings section! Your DVD idea does sound better, the special features are a bit all over the place at the moment. It could probably use some extra referencing, too, because while the prose does a good job of referencing the release dates, it's not entirely clear which refs support which extras. I can sort that out once you're done if you like, though. Frickative  04:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My quick fix is done. Let me see what I can do for episode summaries if I remember the shows well enough.  CycloneGU (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That looks a lot better, good job! Frickative  05:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've expanded some text on part 2 of the season based on my memory and what I consider to belong in a "short" summary. Feel free to do more, I'll do a copy edit on the entire section after you're done and we'll go with it. =)  CycloneGU (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ace! I'll have a quick flick through the lead sections of the episode articles just to double check nothing's been missed out, but it looks good :) Frickative  05:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Section Break
Where's the ref. for the T-shirt in Australia DVD sets? CycloneGU (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Crap, I moved it somewhere when I was formatting the bare references. Two secs and I'll move it back down. Frickative  05:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent, I see it readded now. =) Bedtime for me, I'll refresh in the morning.  CycloneGU (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Goodnight, it's been good working with you this evening! :) Frickative  05:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * At which episode did they finally become a group of 12? This is not noted in the first few episodes, and I know it happened before the Mash-Up episode.  My guess is it was the football dancing one (Preggers?) where the other footballers, Puck included, joined up.  We should note who joins the club in each of the first few episodes.  I'll note the original few, please help me out from there. =)  CycloneGU (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup, it was Preggers, and it seems you've already sorted them all :D Frickative  15:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Now What?
I can't think of what to do now to further improve the article - you have anything still in mind? CycloneGU (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead is a bit on the short side, so could probably stand to be expanded a bit to better summarise the whole article. The reception section also doesn't have any critical commentary beyond the mid-season finale, so it might be an idea to add in a few more quotes from later on in the season. I'll see what I can find for that in a minute - just starting off a short article on the second season premiere :) Frickative  17:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I put a section under "Reception" putting the information regarding the music in there, and making some prose edits. I'll take a look at the lead and rewrite that in Notepad so we don't edit conflict; I'll update here when I go to add it, so keep refreshing. =)  CycloneGU (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good call on the Music section, I was just thinking yesterday that might be a good idea :D I've got specifically the Reception section open to edit, so any time you want to update the lead, we shouldn't get a conflict. Frickative  18:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wrote this to add to the lead. Looking for opinion before adding.
 * "The show has received critical acclaim for the musical scores used throughout the season. In 2009, the Glee remake of Don't Stop Believin' peaked at #2 in the U.K. and #4 in the U.S. Other covers have had similar worldwide acclaim; such as Gives You Hell, covered on the episode Hell-O, which reached #1 in Ireland.  The albums themselves, meanwhile, have all charted in #1 in Ireland (except for Glee: The Music, The Power of Madonna at #5), and have broken the top 10 in Australia, Canada, the U.K., and the U.S."
 * Whatcha think? I'll add it if it looks good, it's regarding the music.  (UPDATE: I've added country Wikilinks on my end and fixed a grammatical typo.)  CycloneGU (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good! The only thing I'd say is that the article doesn't really cover critical response to the music, so I'd change the opening sentence to something like "The musical scores used throughout the season were (have been?) a commercial success", which is more the gist of what the music section details :) Frickative  18:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This brings about a question. Are we going to expand the music section to show some of the highlights, or leave it as just a gist?  I say expand it and link to the main article (the discography).  CycloneGU (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Expanding it sounds like a good idea - I hadn't even realised until now that there are no actual chart positions in there - pretty important stuff, really! Frickative  18:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I put in some slightly more updated lead prose. Take a looksie and put references in if needed (I think guidelines want them in the lead as well, but I'll check other FAs to see).  I've moved one reference up there for now and referred to it only by a made-up name later on (GleefulNerds =D).  CycloneGU (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ace - I've only used refs in the lead for direct quotes before, but looking at WP:LEAD, adding them for sales figures as well seems a good idea as its potentially challengeable. Are you planning on doing the music section expansion? As long as we source chart positions in that section, we shouldn't need those in the lead. Frickative  18:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to let you do the expansion as you have more knowledge of everything, but I might be able to help gather material and do any fixups if I think some other setup looks better afterwards. =) CycloneGU (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, I'll get started on that in a sec, then :) Frickative  19:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, but hm, there's such a lot of intricate information being conveyed that it's ended up quite complex. 99.9% of the time I argue in favour of prose over tables, but what do you think of maybe replacing the last two paragraphs with a simplified version of the tables in the discography? Something like... Frickative  21:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost inclined to say no to that for one reason: this isn't an article about the music, it's an article about the show. When the article is about the music, tables have a place in the article. But then, I'm sure there are exceptions to every rule all over the place somewhere...

And also, this is a section about the music. So that is also a question that is begged here. My only concern is repeating the same information over three or four articles, so I like to only use tables in a music article, and episode lists in an episode article, and so on. If we go to peer review, and they say tables would be needed, we'll deal with it then; right now, it means we'd have to update two tables if anything ever changed. (Not that it will in most cases, but you get what I mean.) So let's keep it simple (the K.I.S.S. philosophy), and only highlight a few tidbits, and keep the "Main article" link for those who want more information. CycloneGU (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I get where you're coming from (and have used the same argument multiple times before!), my qualm is just that the section as it is seems a bit overloaded with info now, so if you want to take a stab at making the prose a bit easier to follow clearly, then please do :) Frickative  21:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to list a LOT of information there. A little about singles, a little about albums, maybe some general info, and squash...I'll take a stab. *gets knife*  CycloneGU (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Done for now. *puts away knife*


 * I question how much of this should be in music on a season page...let's let Peer Review determine that. Moving on!  CycloneGU (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Phew, that's looking a lot better. It's a bit of a tough one because most season articles of course don't have music sections at all, so there's not a lot to look to as a guide, but I think it's a pretty good overview now :) Frickative  23:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Re this edit, remember that the table is also transcluded to List of Glee episodes, so it's now out of sync with the season two table. Having the double numbers might seem redundant for the first season, but using episode list FLs as a guide (a handful of examples), they're still included across the board. Frickative  23:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see that now. Didn't know you had that in both places.  Why don't we just use one or the other then?  We don't need both of them there, but the question is which one is the better one.  I tend to think just the episode number per season because each season page will have to start at 1, but by season 4 how many will be interested in the fact that "'Cheesy' is episode 95 in the series..."


 * (I will get a chuckle if that becomes a title someday...) CycloneGU (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ha, I can imagine the calibre of songs that would be included in that episode! I think it's best to keep both, seeing as it's standard in FLs, and given that the template also includes parameters for both, it seems consensus is that both are useful. It will probably be quite notable if/when Glee reaches 100 episodes, for instance (I actually edit for a series that just passed its 500th!) Frickative  23:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Point taken (regarding actual FLs at present using the format). I will revert my edit.  CycloneGU (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Not really sure where to put this so I'll put it here (hope it's okay!). I was just looking over the Glee (season 1) page, and first of all I want to commend both of you on the great work! It's looking to be a fantastic piece of work. I was wondering whether there should be mention of the Glee Live! In Concert! tour with the Music section? Just wondering. Yvesnimmo (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ooh, thanks a lot for that, I'd totally forgotten about the tour! I'll go and add a mention in now (and also add Live! In Concert! to the seemingly endless list of articles I've never quite gotten round to finishing) :D Frickative  03:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We certainly need a specific article, or section in an article about, that particular tour. Not sure the best treatment for it, and not sure that the Season 1 article is actually the best place.  But on the other hand, it did spawn from Glee's success in the first season, so...whatcha think, Frickative?  CycloneGU (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We already have a specific article on it at Glee Live! In Concert! :p. Given that it was a tour promoting the musical releases of the first season, I see no reason why not to mention it. I added a couple of sentences, just stating that it happened, sold out and grossed however many million, to keep the focus geared towards 'reception'. Frickative  05:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops, didn't see the article, though I saw a Wikilink on what you added (which I saw after typing that reply LMAO). It was late and I was too lazy to come back and edit that I'd seen it. =)  CycloneGU (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Separate Outdent
See here. Should I put something on the Glee (season 1) talk page here about you being actively involved and being able to help with sourcing, refs., etc.? CycloneGU (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure! I've not seen that template before, but it seems like a good idea and certainly couldn't hurt :) Frickative  18:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okie, maybe this does deserve a section. Any Glee (or other) page you want to put yourself on the talk page as very active and able to answer any questions, add the following text:




 * This will put the following newly created page onto the talk page: User:Frickative/maintenance and thus people with questions can contact you directly instead of just posting on the talk page. =) Learning a lot here today; I also put an Editnotice on my own talk page today!  CycloneGU (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's very helpful! I shall try and remember to start adding that to new articles at the same time as adding the WikiProject TV template :D Frickative  19:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Quick note: I added the template to the Auditions talk page. CycloneGU (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Journey
You missed one piece of spam here! When you undid this edit, the same IP user was in the process of putting "Oral" in place of "Aural" in another part of the article, thus getting it missed and giving said user the knowledge that he had successfully gotten one past you. No worries, I as the faithful servant have eradicated this ridicule, which no doubt comes from the Glee pages not receiving Pending Changes protection during the trial of said feature. Clearly, my edit comment expresses shock that it was still there. =D CycloneGU (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

On a separate note, a bot has rescued us from a little sloppiness on my part. I orphaned two refs. and it found them from the old revision to restore them. I think that is just plain awesome. CycloneGU (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Crap, my bad! Because the episode articles don't attract many edits once they've aired, I don't always remember to check the revision history before reverting. Must be more vigilant. Thanks for catching it :) And the Anomie bot is great! I've accidentally broken refs like that so many times, it's a great little thing. Frickative  23:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I Think It's Almost Ready
Anything left to do? If there are any little nit-picky things, peer review would catch it if something is against or not in line with some policy. I'm sure the Music header section will get a few comments, but anything else we should do first before doing a review? If you think it's ready, do you want to submit it, or will I get a green light? CycloneGU (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Scrolling through the article, it seems to be broadly in line with where I eventually hoped to have it (but would have taken much longer to get to without your help :)). So yes, I think we're good to go. I'm just off out, but I can submit it tomorrow - if you want to get things rolling before then, I think that would be fine. Frickative  16:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Discussion page - please feel free to add any of your concerns within the article that you'd like reviewed.  I've asked for a reference checkup alongside my concerns of the Music section, plus anything bad we've overlooked.  CycloneGU (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm currently doing some work based on the peer review. Much is done on the first review, a few points remain.  I'm working still, I'll update here when done so you can follow behind me and fix up more things that I think you'd be better at fixing.  (Done, see below.) =)  CycloneGU (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review Results
This is based on one review so far. I won't transclude from that page to here, but I will cover the things that may still need some work. Numbers match the points on the review. Please reply to any specific point separately to prevent confusion. Anything I don't cover in a section here is done! CycloneGU (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You have been busy! Thanks for breaking it up point-by-point - I just completely screwed up trying to edit both season articles at once, so the less confusion the better, heh.  Frickative  12:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've placed the final checkmark on the list for now pending a DVD dicussion. If that doesn't take place, we'll leave it for GL or FL consumption and debate.  CycloneGU (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Great. Bignole's comments were all very insightful, so I'm quite hopeful for FL now :) (Ftr, there isn't actually a 'Good' equivalent to the Featured List process.) Frickative  15:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There isn't? I thought we still gave "Start", "C", "B", etc. as necessary...but if there is no GL, then we go for FL!  I think the peer review has to be closed first...not sure the timeframe after PR that we have to wait...  CycloneGU (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ach, only just realised I'd missed this message, sorry. I don't think there's a set time to wait before submitting a FL nom after a PR, and I think you can chose to close the peer review at any time. I'd probably let it run for at least a week to 10 days, but I was just reading through the article again, and I'm really happy with how much progress we made this week :) Frickative  01:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

3: Lead
Based on the comment, I removed some text completely from the lead. I didn't know whether we had a big use for it or exactly where to put it in the article (kinda covered already) and was busy going through the list so didn't dissect it further. He quoted the original text at the time of the review, so that helps if you care to look at it.
 * Condensed lead looks good. You're right, the nitty gritty of the timeslot details is already covered under production. I'll expand the production section just slightly to mention the pilot airing as an advanced preview, because that was a pretty non-standard facet of the season's scheduling. Frickative  12:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ this now. Frickative  13:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

4: Season-long Storyline Summary (for lead)
We need to discuss this. What storylines are the most important that summarize the season well? We don't want to do too many, but at a minimum we should include that the season follows New Directions as they compete to win the show choir championship.
 * I agree we need something about New Directions entering the show choir competition circuit, perhaps with a sentence about Will to represent the balance between kid/adult storylines. The major season-long storylines are probably the Rachel/Finn and Will/Emma/Terri relationships, Quinn's pregnancy and Kurt's dealing with his sexuality, but we don't want to go into too much detail. Frickative  12:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The main thing here is this: we want to summarize it to a maximum of two sentences. Something like, "The season storyline consisted of McKinley High's show choir New Directions competing for the first time in the show choir circuit while exploring the lives of various members of the group.  Among these were relationship issues, sexuality issues, and pregnancy."  Not a good writeup by far, but definitely covers what you've listed so far.  CycloneGU (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not bad at all, actually.
 * The season storyline consisted of high school show choir New Directions competing for the first time on the show choir circuit, while its members dealt with relationship, sexuality and social issues.? Frickative  15:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The show features the fictional high school show choir New Directions competing for the first time on the show choir circuit, while its members deal with relationship, sexuality and social issues. - Makes more sense in case. I will put this in, feel free to play with it further if necessary.  CycloneGU (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

8: Reception
I did not work on that point. Please look at this one since you wrote it and arranged the quotes, as you may better understand what he means with his comments there. (He likes your sources, tho!) Also, I did try working on #9; I'm not sure if it's finished, so please look at that with this work. (No separate section, they go together.)
 * I'm terrible at paraphrasing reviews, but I'll give this a shot now and see how it goes :) Frickative  12:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

11: DVD
After an ensuing discussion below the list, we determined that we would not change it at this time. Work may still be needed as the debate is where Special Features go in an article (some think they don't go in at all, just specs.). We'll look at that more in the future.
 * Good stuff. You're entirely right, I did model the DVD section after the Lost one. No great loss really if we have to cut the SFs in the end, but it'll be interesting to see how the wider discussion on that goes. Frickative  12:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Tuesday's Child (Holby City)
Just to let you know..Congrats, GA pass. RAIN the ONE  (Talk) 20:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the message (and the review!). I've just read through it, and thank you for being so thorough. I revised the Hugh Quarshie quotes in the production section quite a few times while writing it, trying to ensure that the episode itself was always the main focus, so I'm glad you think the balance was right there. And I agree that the article is somewhat on the short side, but after several (tedious!) hours spent trawling for sources, I was pleased to come up with as many as I did. I think it's safe to say that out of over 500 episodes of the series, this is one of probably no more than half a dozen actually notable enough to warrant an article. I certainly wasn't expecting it to be picked up so quickly - thank you again for the review! Frickative  01:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Next Step?
Should we go for GL now? Or FL? I haven't seen any other reviews from anyone else (is it usually just one reviewer or something?) or any new edits (been watching the page), so it looks like work is considered complete...

Also, I saw the other link there; congrats on a GA. =) CycloneGU (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I just ran a Checklinks on Glee (season 1). There are a few links that need fixing. CycloneGU (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey! I've only been through the peer review process once before so I don't know how many are standard, but last time I had one reviewer as well. I'm happy to go for FL :D I'll have a fiddle with the links, but out of interest, for the E! Online ones that are changing sub-domain, what's the problem message you're getting? I'm seeing:


 * http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/watch_with_kristin/b124391_time_get_happy_with_cast_of_glee.html
 * redirects to
 * http://uk.eonline.com/uberblog/watch_with_kristin/b124391_time_get_happy_with_cast_of_glee.html


 * I'm guessing it's trying to localise the links, in which case those ones should actually be okay as they are. And thanks for the congrats! Frickative  00:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Point taken. It changed me to http://ca.eonline.com myself.  Guess those can't really be corrected as the site will always convert them.


 * I'll wait until you're ready. Just give me what you want to say with the nomination, or if you want to submit it yourself go for it, and I'll add on.  Is this a co-nomination?  Your call.  CycloneGU (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just looked through the current nominations to see what sort of things people say in their opening statements, and I suppose all I'd really say is that I believe it meets the featured list criteria, has undergone a recent peer review, and was written based on other featured lists such as Lost (season 1) and 30 Rock (season 1). I think you need to close the peer review first, though :) Co-nomination sounds good! Frickative  01:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the deal. I'm going to nominate it.  I want to make sure you're available for a small while after I post it.  I will be, myself.  Do you have MSN?  Or Google e-mail (and thus able to chat in the mail site)?  We can chit-chat about any suggestions and needed changes there (and then keep in touch about future Glee pages while working on them too *LOL*) and thus not end up edit conflicting each other, which would probably look bad. LMAO  CycloneGU (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure! I'll be around for the next hour or so, and my MSN is the same as my Wiki username, but spelt without the 'k', @hotmail.com. I'll log in now :) Frickative  03:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

MOSTV
I've started the discussion on DVD releases and order of sections at WT:MOSTV.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Glee book project
Hey, I'm thinking of compiling Glee (season 1) and it's related articles into a book. What do you think? Bejinhan  talks   12:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, sounds like a good idea to me! I'm not really familiar with how Wikipedia books work - do they update automatically when the articles are updated, or does it need to be done manually? If the latter, the season 1 article is currently undergoing frequent revisions in an attempt to bring it up to FL standard, so it might be worth holding off for a week or so, but the individual episode articles should be good to go. Frickative  12:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikibooks will give some info on how it works. Also, take a look at the Wikibooks main page to see more about how they work.  I found a sample in the Computing category.  Since PDFs are involved, I think it makes a permanent copy that cannot be vandalized, but may also prevent updates if new information comes out (unlikely for episode cases).  Maybe this can be clarified for me.  CycloneGU (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was actually thinking of Special:Book. Believe me, this is the first time I'm doing it so I'm learning along. :) It works almost the same and can be printed by PediaPress. The only thing is that it can't be altered since it's printable. I have compiled the episodes list here here. Will there be a separate discography and awards/nominations page for season 2? If so, then I can add in those pages into the book beside the main season 1 page. Do you have other suggestions? I'll also need a book cover. The current infobox picture for the season 1 page is fair use so that can't be used. :p I wanted to include the Glee cast characters page but since it might differ according to season 2, it's impossible. Bejinhan   talks   06:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Until the series itself concludes, I wouldn't include all pages, but just the ones that make up Season 1. If it can't be altered, including the characters page makes perfect sense.  Also, the music page at this point covers only Season 1 - but the episodes should cover the music used already.  I'll let Frickative answer further.  CycloneGU (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's the point. Okay, the music page makes sense. But what about the awards page? If it includes the subsequent seasons, then I won't put it in the book. Since there might be a market for it among Gleeks, I want it to cover as much of the Season 1 aspect as possible. Bejinhan   talks   12:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I suspect that the Awards section inside the Season 1 article is enough. I don't know if we want to make a chart of all of the awards there as the Awards page covers them, but yeah...there is a page and a Season 1 section, the latter very brief.  CycloneGU (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Cyclone is right - based on other award/discography pages, there won't be separate ones for season 2. There will at some stage almost certainly be a separate song list, though - at the moment only a handful have been announced so it hasn't been worth splitting them off, but once there are a couple of episodes worth, we'll need to get that sorted. As for a cover, the title card is free use though not very exciting, but if you're Photoshop savvy there are a lot of free pictures of the cast that could be used for some sort of composite. There were actually a lot of better quality ones taken at this year's Comic-Con that I gotten round to adding to my sandbox yet, so I'll try and get that sorted. Frickative  14:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Mmkay. So that means the Glee (season 1) book will contain the main season 1 page, the episodes, and the song list. Thanks for the free pics link. If you have better quality ones it'll be good. I kinda have a rough idea of what I would like the cover to be.... Maybe I could get them cropped so that it's only the main cast's faces and then have someone put it into collage style with the title. I'm not Photoshop savvy so I'll have to look around for someone to do that. Bejinhan   talks   06:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good! I've no real Photoshop skills to speak of either, or I'd offer to give it a shot, but good luck with that. I added in the Comic-Con photos - they're mixed in with the others, but they're the ones from this set, much better lighting and focus than the older images. Frickative  01:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! They look much better. I'll be drawing a rough plan of the cover before I ask around for help. Hopefully it'll be ready by the time the season 1 article gets to GA. Bejinhan   talks   06:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So I finally remembered about this project. :p I tried to crop the pictures but was unsuccessful. There were some pictured with the mic very close to the face, so it was difficult to get the right distance without the mic in it. I've decided to go for the svg file. I moved the page and it can be found here. Bejinhan   talks   13:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I really like the cover with just the svg logo! It looks very neat and clean. It's also occurred to me that if you wanted to have more on the music in there, Glee: The Music, Volume 1, Glee: The Music, Volume 2, Glee: The Music, Volume 3 Showstoppers, Glee: The Music, The Power of Madonna and Glee: The Music, Journey to Regionals would be a good fit because they all specifically accompany season one. Frickative  14:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think it looks nice. I like it too. User:Headbomb did a spitshine on it and added those plus the Glee Live! In Concert! article. Time to ad spam the Gleeks forums about it. :) Bejinhan   talks   03:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day... Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 04:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha, congratz! :) Bejinhan   talks   04:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, how lovely! I'm supremely flattered, thank you very much! Frickative  01:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * But by the time you knew about it, it was all over! :P Anemone  Projectors  01:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL, well I'll be sure to enjoy the day in retrospect :D Frickative  01:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome :) Oh and by my clock (the one I go by for this little project) you still have 2 1/2 hours left in your "day" :)  More to enjoy. :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 01:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tuesday's Child (Holby City)
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Holy Soap "jumping"
Could be another combined episode, I found a number skip but I knew it was a combined one (somehow). Is there a way to check that it was an hour long? Anemone Projectors  18:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought that might be it, but I Googled around a bit and couldn't find anything that said it was an hour. It was the one where Jane and Masood kissed, I think, but I don't remember seeing that one so no idea if it was extended. Frickative  18:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * BBC Programmes says it was 30 minutes, so, no idea. I've completed the 2010 list and started on 1985. I wonder if I should try to complete my list of dates that I made in 2007 (to see if our episode count was right) and see if I get the right number for EastEnders Live. I think we will find other anomolies too, such as the episode that was delayed because Gordon Brown quit his job was still listed by BBC Programmes with the date it was meant to be shown on, but I had it noted down so I corrected it myself. Anemone  Projectors  19:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I've gone as far as 4 December 2009 and got 3899 episodes. This doesn't quite tally with your 3905 but a) some could be doubles (you already have one that I haven't considered) and b) I noticed IMDb was missing some episodes so I switched to BBC Programmes, so there might be others missing from my list. I have a feeling once we can no longer use BBC Programmes we'll end up with missing episodes. Even BBC Programmes has gaps when you look at some years. Anemone  Projectors  20:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm, that is a pain. It looks like Holy Soap only goes back to mid-2009, so I bet they're going to end up not matching up right. Also I'm finding quite a few without writers listed on BBC Programmes, so if IMDb is missing some, finding the right credits might get tricky. I thought the BFI might be of some use for the late 80s & early 90s but a lot of the credits there seem woefully incomplete. Frickative  22:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah I don't think they started adding the writers to BBC Programmes until last year. If we have some blanks we'll have to have some blanks. It's just the numbers I'm concerned about! Anemone  Projectors  22:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Samsung Group
Hey Frickactive!

I was wondering if you wouldn't mind giving a quick look over the article for Samsung Group? Just there's been really strange edits to it and I can't make major edits to it as they're my employer! Can you please look over the article and just make sure everythings ok with it? Would be REALLY appreciative! --5 albert square (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, sure, no problem! Is it just the last few days you're concerned about? There does seem to have been quite a lot of info removed for no obvious reason, I'll check through it now :) Frickative  22:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey thanks, yes it is mostly the last few days because like you say a lot of info removed with no obvious reason for doing so! Thanks, it's useful to get an outside opinion in case it's me being biased or completely blind lol --5 albert square (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha, took a while to work out exactly what had gone on, but I think a well-meaning IP editor had tried to add things in without quite understanding how to include references properly. Should be okay now, hopefully :D Frickative  23:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --5 albert square (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

EastEnders episodes
Just wondered, if someone were to start an article for an EastEnders episode that wasn't one of the ones with a name, what would you recommend that article be named? Anemone Projectors  10:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a tough one! I guess something like 'EastEnders (5 September 2010)' off the top of my head, but I've just scanned through all 11 archive pages of WT:TV-NC and can't see it covered. Best thing to do might be to drop a message there and ask. Another alternative would be 'EastEnders' (episode 1234)' but given the problems with consistent numbering, the airdate is probably the better option unless we can be 100% sure about the episode no. Why, are you planning on writing one? :D Frickative  15:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was considering working on one for Peggy's exit episode, and seeing how it shapes up. Anemone  Projectors  16:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought that might be it - looking forward to reading it :) Frickative  16:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Though I'm wondering if the whole week could be worth a storyline article instead, as there is an interview on Digital Spy from the director talking about the whole week focussing on the fire episode. Anemone  Projectors  16:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's interesting! Makes it a bit easier to title the article as well, and gives a wider scope for finding critical commentary. I think you should go for it :D (And, as ever, if there's anything I can help out with just let me know). Frickative  16:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's about the storyline, I can ignore anything non-Mitchell, non-fire related. But what would the storyline be named? DS called it "Queen Vic fire week" or something like that. There's a fair amount on the production of that week's episodes, so maybe do it about the week of episodes rather than the "storyline". Anemone  Projectors  16:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm, I was thinking at first you could name the article 'Queen Victoria fire' or something, but it's probably actually best to use the same title DS do, so there's a reliable source behind it. Plus that neatly confines the scope to the week itself, like you say, rather than a longer storyline. Frickative  16:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I shall make a start soon and see what I come up with :-) Anemone  Projectors  18:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, I think I have a brilliant fact for DYK already! :-) Anemone  Projectors  19:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ooh, do share! Frickative  19:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, they were due to film the final big explosion for the fire when there was a power cut at Elstree Studios. It was the same one that affected a Big Brother eviction show. Anemone  Projectors  19:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL, oh dear! Great fact though! Frickative  19:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a pretty good one isn't it? You never know, something else might come up. It doesn't have to be especially cinteresting, could just be about the theme music. Do you think the chart performance of the "Peggy's Theme" single should be included in reception (if it charts)? Anemone  Projectors  20:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ooh yeah, I'd definitely put that in there. I assume you're planning on mentioning the special theme in the production section (I didn't know it was being released as a single until right now!) so yeah, follow-up if it charts would be good. Frickative  20:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ETA: I've just seen your userspace draft (looking good!) and if it charts I'd probably actually cover that in the "Theme music" subsection. Thinking about it, I usually mention chart results for Glee episodes in the "Production" section to keep it together with where the singles are listed, too. Frickative  20:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's probably a good idea because it'll help fill out the theme music section. I'm trying to think of other things to include, like the fact that the fire storyline was done the bring the Vic up to HD standards (where would that go?!) and the last scene Windsor filmed (though we don't know actually which scene it was). What about that it is faciliting the return of Kat and Alfie (apparently it is though they won't appear on screen that week)? Anemone  Projectors  20:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about Kat and Alfie - perhaps you could cover that and the Vic/HD thing in a "Context" or "Background" subsection? That could give you some room to play around with pertinent info that has a wider scope than the week itself. Frickative  21:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was just starting a "Background" section so I'm glad you said that. I can include Barbara Windsor's decision to leave, Bryan Kirkwood's comments on her exit, the transition to HD and Kalfie's return, as it's all stuff that came before the actual production. Anemone  Projectors  22:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope you saw tonight's episode! It was epic! Anyway, how would you incorporate this into an article? Anemone Projectors  20:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it was great, so tense! The evacuation of the pub went so fast I think I missed a lot of what was going on, but definitely a great ep. If it's for the fire week article, I'd probably put it under reception, something along the lines of: "The London Fire Brigade used the "dramatic and distressing" events of EastEnders to publicly highlight blah blah blah, urging viewers to blah". Just had a look at the article and it's shaping up fab :D Frickative  20:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I need to do more research. I swear I saw an article on Digital Spy before I'd started the draft about the decision to extend the episode by 10 minutes to go against Coronation Street but I can't find it now. There was a brief mention of the fact it's been extended on a more recent source so I've put it in my section with no name, where I've talked about the documentary afterwards. I think reception is a good place to put the fire brigade thing. I can't wait to find out the ratings. I also found it hard to see what was going on. I missed the fact that Zainab apparently rescued Syed. I'm watching it again at 10, and will be missing the 8 out of 10 Cats I had planned to watch! Anemone  Projectors  20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you advise me on what to do with the stuff about the trailers, the website, the extending of the episode and the EastEnders Revealed episode? I've put them all together for now but don't know what to call the section if I leave them that way. Or I could move them elsewhere, maybe splitting them up. Also, the fire brigade stuff doesn't really belong under critical response but leaving it on its own seems pointless. Anemone Projectors  18:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, sorry for getting back to you a bit late, been out all day! I'm thinking perhaps you could move the 40 minute thing to filming (not the best fit in the world, but sort of goes because it involved filming more material than usual, possibly?) If you did that, you could leave the rest of the misc. paragraph as it is and rename it 'Related media' or something similar. I suppose you could title the fire brigade bit 'Impact', though it's probably pointless for once sentence. Frickative  22:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Good idea, I will also add the ratings for the documentary, but probably not a good idea to say how many times Peggy has been hearted (though the official blog may make some mention of that)! Hmm impact sounds ok too. Maybe something else will come up. Anemone  Projectors  23:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Glee Cast discography
Hey! I'm thinking of rewriting the lead of Glee Cast discography after looking at other featured discography pages. Would that be okay with you? Also, I am thinking of including the five karaoke tracks released as singles on the iTunes Store and Amazon.com, among others, although it seems silly because they gained no publicity (that I could find, at least, I don't think). But they are still officially released singles, and someone could see from the table (including the note at the bottom about "Defying Gravity") that there actually are ninety-five singles. What do you think? Yvesnimmo (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, that sounds good to me! When I originally wrote the lead I tried to model it on existing Featured discographies, but I've seen from some recent FL noms that what's expected has changed quite a bit, so feel totally free! Re: the karaoke tracks, perhaps we could do that through notes, and tag each of the songs that also had a karaoke version released? If you wanted to mention them in the lead in some way, there was a piece in the Vancouver Sun last November about how they were going to make instrumental versions of some tracks for fans to use in YouTube tributes - I hope that's in some way helpful! 17:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! Yeah, that's what I've been looking at, too, namely the Lady Gaga, Ke$ha, and Kelly Rowland ones. And yes, I suppose that would be a better idea (the notes thing), better than including them in the table and have five tracks in a row not chart anywhere and not be from any album (even though there's nothing wrong with that). Yvesnimmo (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unrelated side note: I know you have been working on articles on Brittany (Glee) and Santana Lopez, and possibly Burt Hummel? Now that they are becoming series regulars, did you want to officially debut/create those articles (and subsequently, include them in the Glee navbox)? Alternatively, I understand if you want to wait until September 21, because that's when the season actually premieres. Yvesnimmo (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I started working on a Brittany article quite a while ago in a sandbox here, but I never actually got round to finishing it. It is probably a good idea to get all three up asap though, or no doubt they'll be created full of plot details and little more. Is that something you're interested in working on as well? User:CycloneGU and I talked a while ago about maybe setting up a Glee taskforce to co-ordinate efforts, seeing as there are a few of us regularly working on the articles. Btw, sorry, I know you got the song list semi-protected a few days ago, but when I split the articles the protection moved to the season 1 list instead of season 2 where it's really needed. I asked for it to be fixed at WP:RPP but it's been declined, so we're probably going to have a tonne of reverting to do again =/. Oh, and the discography lead looks great, btw! :D Frickative  21:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Why, thank you! I tried to find different ways of conveying information by being broad, but without repeating myself (a.k.a. "top ten in many countries"). I think I've done alright. A Glee taskforce does sound good; I would gladly participate! And the character pages would be something I'm interested working on, but mostly, I think I would prefer the album, song list, and discographies; they're more my thing. :P And about the revisions for the season 2 list: if it continues at the rate it did, we can relist it. For the meantime, I guess we will have to do some reverting, which I don't mind; it's just tedious having to do stuff again and again. But it's all for the greater good. :) Yvesnimmo (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's great that you prefer the music articles, actually - I've probably said before, but I'm much more comfortable with the episode articles, so it's good that we've got all areas covered :D The character articles are a bit of a pain just because there's so much information to sift through. With new cast interviews every other day, it's hard knowing where to start! I'll try and do some work on Britt/Santana/Burt this week - if you happen across any sources that look useful, could you drop them off at the Characters of Glee talkpage? Cheers! Frickative  23:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey! I'm not sure if you use iTunes or not, and if so, if you've heard of/use the new iTunes Ping? In any case, it looks like the Glee Cast got a profile, and they announced that, Glee: The Music: The Complete Season One goes on sale on iTunes Tuesday, 9/14!
 * And they have a picture of the album cover to accompany it. I'm assuming this is supposed to be a compilation album, and just all the tracks from Volume 1, Volume 2, The Power of Madonna, Volume 3 Showstoppers, and Journey to Regionals all in one, but I could be wrong. While this is all super exciting news, I don't know how reliable it is, because there have been reports of fake accounts on Ping, and the Artist Page on Ping refers to their website, www.gleethemusic.com. This website refers to itself as "The Official Music for Glee Site", but I've been there before and dismissed it as a fan site, because it contains quite a few spelling errors, and the New Music from Glee section on their website isn't very updated at all. A look at the bottom of the home page reveals it is copyrighted by Sony Music Entertainment, though, so it does seem credible, even if it is a bit overly community-based. And I find it curious that an album about to be released in two days has only one hit on Google, which happens to be someone's Twitter page, and no hits on Yahoo! nor Bing, and absolutely no news releases. I guess we'll just wait two days to see if anything credible comes up, eh? Just wanted to let you know what was going on! Yvesnimmo (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks a lot for that! I saw a post about the album on LJ yesterday but 1. I had no idea what iTunes Ping was and 2. I couldn't find anything about it on Google, so I gave up looking very quickly. It definitely seems rather dubious at this point, so yeah, not a lot we can do but wait and see if it materialises. (I must say, I do like the album art, even if it doesn't match any of the others and is possibly entirely fake!) Frickative  18:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So I guess it is real! I've started the article for it in one of my sandboxes, because I wanted your opinion on whether it should actually be an article or not. It is basically every single bonus track and single (excluding karaoke ones), with the exception of "Last Christmas". So basically all studio recordings released from every cover Glee has done in the first season. So I don't know if it's worthwhile mentioning, especially since there was no media coverage beforehand, and there are still very few results on Google, Yahoo!, etc., none of which include reliable news sources. My opinion is that we don't need to create an article for now, as it's just a repeat of the others; also, it was only released digitally on the iTunes Store (can't find it on Amazon, and if it was released on CD, there would have been news and promotion about it, no?). However, if it charts anywhere, or enough information comes up on reliable news sources, I think we should consider creating the article. What do you think? (P.S. Template:Tracklist doesn't even accommodate more than ninety-nine tracks, and this album has one hundred! Will probably have to discuss on template talk page if page gets created, but don't know if they will do that for just one article.) Yvesnimmo (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I also wanted to say another reason: the tracklist is huge. Longer than the pages for the EPs. I don't think it's particularly useful if a scenario like this happens, i.e. tracklist longer than all available reliably sourced information, but I could be wrong. Also, I wanted to let you edit the season one song page to add the compilation album as the album to all singles with no albums (e.g. "On My Own", "It's My Life / Confessions, Pt. II", "Run Joey Run", etc.). I would, but I'm really tired right now haha. Or I can do it later if you don't want to. Yvesnimmo (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, 100 tracks! I can see why this thing isn't getting a physical release, haha! I think you're right and it doesn't need its own article for now, because with no news coverage and not having charted yet it wouldn't meet WP:N at present. But yes, if it does chart or if more information becomes available, it should be fine for an article, and I guess we'll tackle the tracklist problem when we come to it. For now, do you think we should mention it in the other album articles, as in "The tracks from X Album were also released as part of Glee: The Music: The Complete Season One"? Ack, it should probably be mentioned in all the episode articles as well, where the songs and releases are discussed. I can see that this is going to take a while! Wrt the season one song list, do you think it's okay to just add it for the ones that aren't on any other album, and note somewhere that all of the other album releases are also part of the complete release? Just that adding the complete album to all those tracks would mess with the column sizes like crazy, eek. Frickative 13:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm maybe we should just include one line in the other album articles, and same with the episode ones. Like the episode ones normally are "The episode features cover versions of "WWW", "XXX", "YYY", and "ZZZ". All songs were released as singles, with the exception of "YYY". "XXX" and "ZZZ" are also included on Glee: The Music, Volume QQQ." Maybe you could just attach on the end, ""WWW" was later included on the compilation album Glee: The Music, The Complete Season One.", or something like that? I don't know if that will make readers think that only "WWW" is included on that, and "XXX" and "ZZZ" are not, when they would be. But the article pages would have that all tracks are included on The Complete Season One. Wow, this is confusing haha. As for the song list, that's what I was thinking: just to be placed in the album column of the ones not on any album. Should I do the same with the discography page?
 * Update: so as of now, there is one news source, but I wouldn't say it's a good source, as it mentions a song called "My Funny Valentine" on it, which I've never even heard of. Yvesnimmo (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup, I think that's the best way to go with the album and episode articles, it's just going to be a pain going through all ~30 to add it in! I'll do that with the song list now, and yes, sounds like a good idea to do the same with the discography (just seen that you've added in the Rocky Horror EP, very exciting :D). I'm starting to wonder if there'll be that much usable material even when more news sources pick up on the complete release, especially in terms of reviews given that the most likely outlets have already reviewed the previous releases. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Frickative  22:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw your work on the season one song list page: great work to you too! And you can do it for all the other ones, too: don't give up! :D I've been wondering that myself, too; a lot of publications stopped reviewing albums after the first and second volumes (you can tell by the diminishing number of reviews in each article haha). Like I said, if it charts anywhere, and gets news sources about it, only then should we start considering its creation. :) Yvesnimmo (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: looks like the iTunes Store has removed all singles (presumably because they are all included, and available for individual purchase from, Glee: The Music, The Complete Season One) by the Glee cast with the exception of "Don't Stop Believin'" (I'm assuming because people a lot of people will be looking for it), "Last Christmas" (not on the compilation), and "Jump" for some reason. Oh, and the karaoke versions are still there, as well. Interesting development, and it makes me wonder if perhaps they will do the same for the second season? Or maybe this is to make room for the singles from the second season, and to not make people scroll through hundreds of singles. Oh well, we'll see. In other news, have you heard their version of "Empire State of Mind" that aired today on Sirius XM Hits 1? The rapping isn't that great, which is a disappointment. Oh well, at least it's new stuff! =) P.S. also, still no news articles. Yvesnimmo (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh that's a pain, it means all our iTunes Store refs are going to be useless now ¬_¬. I keep meaning to start adding archiveurls to every ref I add, so I guess now would be a good time to start doing that. And yeah, I heard the song earlier :D Also not a fan of the rapping, but I like the girls' bits! Google is finding one more news article now, but it's still no real use. Frickative  13:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, Amazon.com still seems to have the individual singles, and that's probably because it doesn't sell the compilation album. Maybe you could use that instead (just a suggestion)? Yeah, the girls' part was great: Mercedes killin' it! Ya, the news article is not helpful. Yvesnimmo (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha, I'd totally forgotten about Amazon, that's great thanks! Frickative  14:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem! :) Yvesnimmo (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats on the barnstar! Agreed; long overdue. Update: so there is one reliable source—Playbill! <33 Also, I think you already know this, but the singles from "Audition" were released. I must say, I don't really like the slushie background, but what can you do. Can't wait to hear them; they'll probably be released Mondays before episodes like last season. :) Yvesnimmo (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! And hurray, finally a good source :D I'd seen the singles but not the cover art... definitely preferred the loser gesture ones, but hopefully the slushies will grow on me. I usually try not to listen to them before the episodes air, but I've already failed with Empire, so looking forward to the rest! Frickative  04:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Me too. So some new clips were released: (turn up your speakers), but it doesn't look great: "I've never had any balls in my mouth, you?" like, wtf?? And I don't know if you read spoilers before the episodes or not, but gleeforum.com (not a reliable source, I know, but I still browse it to see interesting developments) has the episode summary and spoilers up already. (There was a pre-screening the other day) Update on the news sources: still none, though. Yvesnimmo (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh dear at that clip, I guess the line is roundabout and really bad Kurt/Sam foreshadowing, but still. I read the spoilers earlier and I get the feeling it'll be a bit disappointing in a "Hell-O" sort of way, but hopefully pick up with the Britney ep. There are some critical reviews doing the rounds already, but I'll probably wait until after it's aired to start working on a reception section. By the end of last season there were so many reviews from good sources that it was getting a bit difficult to decide which ones to use, so I've been toying with the idea of splitting the section into reviews that focus on the episode as a whole, and those that focus mainly on the songs and choreography. Do you think that sounds viable, or am I over-thinking it? Frickative  00:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Omg songs are up!!!!! I think it's not a bad idea to split up the reception section, especially since Glee is a musical television show, and there'll be a lot of reception on the songs alone. I think if you can find enough reliable reviews (and there are), then the music reception section could be the same, or even longer in length, than the episode reception section. And you could have the sentences about what songs are covered, what songs were released as singles, what songs were included on albums, and what songs charted. Yvesnimmo (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Awesome! I was going to listen to them all but changed my mind at the last minute - I want something in the episode to be a surprise xD I've listened to the 20 second samplers of them all though - "Empire State of Mine" and "Billionaire" sound a bit cringey, I think "Telephone" is probably over-processed, but "Listen" and "What I Did for Love" sound like they could be really really fantastic. Thanks for the feedback! I've just seen "Grilled Cheesus", you've done a seriously great job there :D Frickative  15:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha, yeah, the A Chorus Line song is amazing. One of my favourite musicals! :D And thank you so much! I've never created an episode article before, and I thought I'd give it a try, given the official press release and numerous sources giving bits and pieces about it. I tried to model it after the other articles. Please feel free to correct or tell me any suggestions/anything that you think needs fixing/rewording, etc.! Also, whilst doing research for it, I don't think it was really confirmed that "Faith" was a working title for it; just speculation, because I couldn't find any direct sources for it. I think I may remove it later on. It's kind of a ridiculous episode title, eh? Haha, I don't suppose any better than "Preggers". :P Yvesnimmo (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm, this is very very odd, because I'm sure the "Faith" title came directly from Murphy at the TCA summer press tour, but I've looked for sources high and low and can't find anything quoting him on that. How strange. The article really does look great though, I can't believe it's your first episode one! I also can't believe how close the s2 premiere is now! It seems a bit odd there's so much info out there about eps 1-3 and the Rocky Horror one, but not a whisper about episode four - the dates are based on The Futon Critic, so I'm wondering how reliable that is as a source and hoping it isn't wrong. Frickative  01:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I know, right! I could swear "Faith" was explicitly stated. Very curious indeed. And yes: the première is tomorrow! So excited. :D Yeah it was my first episode one; don't know how many more I'll do though, if any. Uni is keeping me pretty busy haha, as I'm sure you know. And yes, there's all this news about these guest stars and the EP and what not for the Rocky Horror episode. I guess we'll have to wait and see? The official press release for the next episode shouldn't be too far away now. And speaking of that, FOX released another press release for "Britney/Brittany" confirming "Me Against the Music" (FINALLY!), so I have added that, along with another reference explicitly stating that Brittany will be performing it. On another note, all the Glee Cast singles are still available for purchase in the Canadian iTunes Store; it's just the US one that doesn't sell them (except for "Don't Stop Believin'" and "Jump"). And the Canadian store sells the compilation as well. Yvesnimmo (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So the singles are up for "Britney/Brittany" and I'm surprised there are only four! And it doesn't include "Oops!... I Did It Again" or "...Baby One More Time"! Maybe they'll be released on a future album? Oh well. And I wanted to tell you I found this article from Rolling Stone, which is great because it reviews all the songs released as singles from "Audition" (I didn't know they did that!). Maybe you could use that if you're thinking of writing a separate music reception section? :) Yvesnimmo (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm surprised there are so few singles for ep 2! I'd have thought it was a prime opportunity for another EP release at least. Thanks for the Rolling Stone link! At the moment I just have music as a separate paragraph, but I'm going to see how it grows when I add in all the overnight reviews. (Of which there seem to be about a million. Daunting!) Frickative  16:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I know, eh? You'd think there'd be an EP; I guess they're saving that for the Rocky Horror episode? Speaking of which, I've started an article as one of my subpages, which I will move to article once there are more sources and press coverage (which I'm pretty sure there will be!). So excited for this episode, especially Jayma singing "Touch-a, Touch-a, Touch-a, Touch Me" haha. I wonder if the two original show members will be singing? Yvesnimmo (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I'm a bit worried about the episode because I've never actually seen Rocky Horror! I hope it won't fly straight over my head. Big Meatloaf fan though, so that's cool. The subpage looks good :D Do you think we should have a background section with a brief overview of relevant episode production? I'm not entirely sure what would go in it, but all of the EP pages could have a little bit of background info for context, eg. the stuff about Ryan Murphy knowing Madonna and persuading her to release her entire catalogue for "The Power of Madonna" one. I think the EP pages are the shortest ones we have, so it could help fill them out a little. Frickative  19:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure! Go ahead and add what you want to the subpage; I won't mind at all! :) And you still have time to watch it; about a month left! Yvesnimmo (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey! I was wondering if you think now would be a good time to move the Rocky Horror EP to its own separate article? Per WP:NALBUMS, it has a confirmed title, track listing, release date, and cover. The official press release came out, it's available for pre-order form the iTunes Store, and there are articles on Billboard, About.com, and All Headline News, which is significant coverage. What do you think? (Note that charting isn't a requirement.) On a related note, there haven't been any more coverage of Glee: The Music, The Complete Season One, and it failed to chart on the Billboard 200. Plus, with the fact that there is nothing really one could say about it (no new tracks; no promotion; no sales figures), I highly doubt it will ever become an article haha. Oh, P.S. I found this whilst browsing the Amazon.com Glee Cast CD Store: looks like Volume 4 or whatever it will be called is due for release on November 9. Other than that, no other info is known. Yvesnimmo (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. Just read the product description, and it's describes Volume 1 lol. I wonder why the title is TBD, and the release date is in November. Maybe they put the wrong description? Yvesnimmo (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ooh, sure, I'd go ahead and split it off - I didn't expect it to amass coverage that quickly! (Only semi-related, but is About.com considered a reliable source now? I was under the impression it was written by glorified bloggers, but I've never actually had cause to check into it, haha). I hope we get a tracklist for Volume 4 soon :D Huh, that's weird. Hopefully Amazon fix that up soon... At some point in the next few months I'm planning on starting a merchandise article, with an overview of all the CDs, DVDs etc., so we can give The Complete Season One a mention there and use the single good source that came out. And unrelated, but I was looking at the song list for episode three earlier, and I'm thinking that "Bridge Over Troubled Water" and Amber's Aretha Franklin song are probably one and the same. Don't want to violate WP:SYNTH though, so I hope that's confirmed soon. Frickative  21:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm well I've seen About.com used in many articles, and it's published by The New York Times Company, so I'd say it's semi-legit. Not really sure if it's considered one, though, hmmmmm. Oooh a merchandise article is good! Like the Macy's clothing, spin-off books, and whatnot. And actually, I think you're right! I knew "Bridge over Troubled Water" was covered by many artists like The Jackson 5 and Elvis, but I didn't know Aretha sang, it too. And considering her version is gospel, that would make a lot of sense! Yeah, it would be best to leave as is for now. Thanks for pointing that out, though! :) Yvesnimmo (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, it seems someone has started the Brittany Pierce page with no references. Maybe this is an opportune time for you to transfer some of the work you've done on your sandbox to the article? Yvesnimmo (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, I just opened it up and the first line I read was "Brittany is very stupid". What a great article. I'll shift some sandbox stuff over now, and try and cobble together something on Burt before the same thing happens after next week's episode. Frickative  07:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahaha thanks for fixing it! I'm interested to watch the next episode; seems really interesting! And I'm wondering in what context Rachel will sing "Papa, Can You Hear Me?", as the song addresses both God (the Heavenly Father) and the singer's deceased father (also in Heaven). Also, I wanted to tell you that http://www.gleethemusic.com/ got a redesign and actually seems like a really credible site now. And it has a bigger copyright (Sony Music Entertainment) thing at the bottom, so I'd say it's pretty official enough and I'm happy with it. :) Also, it seems like the have a VEVO channel? They are just uploads of all their singles, but only very few of them are viewable outside of the US of A (like everything else haha). The official site also has pages with songs from each episode (which are playable) but unfortunately, it doesn't replace the previous performers list on the FOX site. Yvesnimmo (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've heard the songs from the next ep (and previews from ep 4 - I'm getting worse at resisting!) but the premise is so bizarre I really need to reserve judgement until I've seen it, haha. Wow, the music website really does look a lot better now. Do you think we should add external links to the relevant pages to the album articles? Maybe even the episode articles, though Fox cover recaps and the music on one page so that might be redundant. I've checked the Global website for Glee, and they're still listing the performers, but unless I'm missing a link somewhere, they seem to have taken all of season one down ¬_¬. Frickative  09:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know where the old season songs went (damn should've archived the page). Oh well, WP:DEADREF and WP:V tell us that the information doesn't have to be supported by a working link, as long as it's not just a bare URL (which it isn't). I'm not sure about adding the Glee music website to every album article; do you think we should? I'm looking at album FAs of presently active musicians, and the format seems to be varied: Radiohead's Kid A doesn't, but then their In Rainbows does (to the record label). And it's pretty much varied throughout. :S Oh, by the way, I came across this MTV News article on the Parents Television Council's extremely negative review of "Britney/Brittany" as Worst TV Show of the Week. I'm thinking this should be added to the article, eh? Yves (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I was initially thinking we should just because it seemed like the equivalent of adding the Fox recap pages to the episode articles, but reading WP:EL it does encourage adding links to the subject's official site. Thanks for the PTC link! They really hated "Showmance" too, but with "Britney/Brittany" I can actually see where their complaints are coming from, lol. Definitely worth adding to the article :D Frickative  15:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

All the people in the crowd...
Hey! Just wanted your opinion on this. So the slideshow in The New York Times was great; loved the pictures and LOVE that they are doing Bob Fosse. People always are adding "Me Against the Music" to the song list, though, and this is where it gets a bit iffy. There hasn't been a source that actually confirms the song will be performed on the show. The Times slideshow shows her dancing to it, but that doesn't mean they'll be singing it. After all, we know there will be recreations of many of her music videos, and this could just be one of the many. Slide 10 actually confirms the recreation of the music video, and Slide 16 just says they are doing an homage; it is never explicitly stated that they will be singing it. And since it was never confirmed the song will be sung on the show, I don't think we should extrapolate that to the song list and episode page. What do you think? (It's okay if you disagree!) Yvesnimmo (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, ack, sorry, totally missed this message yesterday! I definitely agree with you, though. Certainly none of the sources I've seen have confirmed it will be sung, everything just seems to be based around those stills of Heather and Britney. And I'm fairly sure I've read that Britney's cameo isn't even a speaking one, so it seems as though if she was doing an Olivia Newton-John and actually participating in recreating one of her songs, that would be fairly big news. Could turn out to be totally wrong in the end, of course, but at the moment, I agree that we shouldn't be listing it as a song. Frickative  09:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good! And thank you so much for helping revert the page again and again! haha :D Yvesnimmo (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Long over due

 * Oh wow, thank you so much! I absolutely love the star design ( metaphors are important ), and I'm sincerely flattered. Thank you! Frickative  04:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! You deserve it. BOVINEBOY 2008 14:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Imagine
What is notable about the revised lyrics is a concerted effort to revise the meaning of John Lennon's song to omit the more overt verse that imagines a world without religion. Glee is not the only cover to practice this "censorship" but it is a notable example of it and therefore should be noted. Glee is introducing new, younger listeners to Lennon's work but they should know that this sanitized, censored version is not the original, and does not reflects Lennon's original intent. You participate in the revisionist thinking by deleting the information from the page. If that is not the correct placement for the information then tell me where it should be inserted. Keplerfan (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Frickative, if you could respond to that at Talk:Glee_(TV_series) so it can all be kept together, thanks, C T J F 8 3  chat 04:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers, will respond over there now :) Frickative  04:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:GLEE
Time to start a Wikiproject? C T J F 8 3 chat 17:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's a great idea! I've discussed it very briefly with CycloneGU and Yvesnimmo before, the only thing I'm not sure of is whether it should be a WikiProject, or a task force of WikiProject Television, in which case I'm not really sure what exactly needs to be done to set it up. Frickative  18:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should just create our own, you've shown that Glee topics can be GA status (speaking of, did you ever try a WP:GT?) WikiProject Council/Guide might be helpful to start a project. C T J F 8 3  chat 19:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to go to GT once we got the season one article to FL, but someone suggested that the soundtrack articles should be included for completeness, so there's another half a dozen articles to go on top of the 22 existing GAs. I'll have a read read of the guide now, thanks :D Frickative  20:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It should start as a task force, per strong WikiProject Television recommendations, and I agree. Using existing WikiProject guidelines will save us from having to create a whole new project. :) Yvesnimmo (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense! It's not really clear from the guidelines (or maybe it is and I'm just missing it!) but do you know if we can just go ahead and set one up, or if we need permission from WP:TV? Frickative  22:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I've found this discussion at the WP TV talk page and there's this section on the WP Council Guide, which has a link to these instructions on the WP Military history page for guidance. As to how to start, maybe by starting a new section on the WP TV talk page, and that way users that are interested could also know about it? Or you could be bold and start it yourself, and then still mention it on the WP TV talk page. Yvesnimmo (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going with the mind set that WP:TV isn't in charge of TV show Projects, and we should just be bold and start one. C T J F 8 3  chat 22:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome, that sounds good to me. Thanks Yvesnimmo, I'd missed the link through to the mil hist guide, but that page makes everything a lot clearer. The only bit that looks totally baffling is adding the task force to the general project banner, but the rest seems doable. I'll be bold, take a stab at it, and see how far I get before "Audition" comes on :) Frickative  23:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely make Auditions your top priority!! If you need any help with the project creation, please ask. C T J F 8 3  chat 23:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been playing around in my sandbox, and this is how it's looking. I'm going to call it a night, but please feel totally free to change/add/do anything at all to it. (And I hope everyone enjoyed the new episode! I stupidly missed the first 20 mins and will have to catch up tmw, boo). Frickative  04:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! Do we want a project banner? I've been kinda working on one User talk:Ctjf83/Glee C T J F 8 3  chat 16:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks great, ctjf! Now if you italicize "Glee", it should be perfect! Yvesnimmo (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Dunno how, it messes it up...feel free to take a stab at it. C T J F 8 3  chat 16:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. Wait now. We're making a task force, no? Because then it should be integrated into Template:WikiProject Television, like all the other ones you see there. Yvesnimmo (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ohhhhh, I still think we should have our own project, but I'll figure out how to do that after lunch. C T J F 8 3  chat 16:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, the banner does look great :D Pity it has to be integrated into the TV template. Should I go ahead and shift the task force pages out of my sandbox into Wiki space? Frickative  16:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it doesn't have to be....but yes, please move it to the wiki space, great work! (As usual :)) C T J F 8 3  chat 17:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to keep bugging you...but what do you think of this ubx? I'll move it to the proper location once we get it how we want it. I chose the colors to model them after Glee's title card...are they ok, or do you want different colors? C T J F 8 3  chat 18:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The userbox looks great! I really like it with the black and white colours, it looks really neat :D Frickative  19:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoop, everything's moved into Wikipedia space, and the task force is live :D Frickative  19:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Great work! C T J F 8 3  chat 19:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

did you wanna help me, but tagging all the actors pages with ...oh, I didn't discuss that on the other page, you think mid importance for actors? I'll tag all the character pages. C T J F 8 3 chat 17:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll do that now! Mid sounds right, I think - are we just going to include the main cast members? Frickative  17:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say any cast member with a page?....err, is that a lot, and minor ones with not much appearance, like would you include Eve or not?...Probably not...I guess C T J F 8 3  chat 17:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was thinking because of all the stunt casting, there'd be a lot including all of them, like Eve, Josh Groban - people that hardly had any scenes. I'll do all the mains and the major recurring ones like Jon Groff, and then I guess we can discuss any others individually. Frickative  17:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, do you think the recurring ones should be tagged as low importance, to separate from the mains? Frickative  17:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd go with mid, if they are in 2 or more episodes, I agree with adding Groff and such. C T J F 8 3  chat 17:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strike that, I forgot actors were already mid, so ya, I'd go with low for minor actors like Groff. C T J F 8 3  chat 17:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Off topic, so didn't wanna start a new heading...but I'm confused and apparently missing something as to why Finn and Rachel's song in Duets was "offensive"? C T J F 8 3 chat 21:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I could be totally wrong about this, in which case hopefully someone else will jump in, but I think it's because the song itself it just a love song, but they interpreted "born again" in a religious sense, so with the costumes and everything it seemed that they were mocking/trivializing religion? It was a bit of a bizarre one in general! Frickative  01:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, cause Finn had a priest outfit on, and Rachel's was nunish? and being a Jew and...whatever Finn is now...maybe they were making fun of christians. C T J F 8 3  chat 02:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I cant remember what source i read this off (it was some review i found by typing into google "glee duets review", it explained that Finn was wearing a Priest outfit and Rachel was wearing a catholic schoolgirl outfit, kind of insinuating that priests rape little girls.--Coin945 (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, that is insanely offensive! Though I think the fact no one seems to be 100% sure what they were going for suggests the scene itself fell a little flat, haha. Frickative  10:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Glee
I saw you have the ratings for all the Glee episodes. I was wondering how to find those sources because I'm doing the first season of a show? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, all the Glee ratings come from TV by the Numbers, which I think is the most comprehensive source readily available. Zap2it also publish basic viewership and Nielsen rating data. Hope that helps! Frickative  01:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"Billionaire" line break
Oh, so that's why you did it haha. I guess it's different on my laptop (and probably my browser, too) because it's two lines regardless. I guess it'll be different for everybody? :P Yvesnimmo (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah crap, I didn't even think of different screen sizes :( I have mine set to 1280x800. Does the season one list look messy at a smaller resolution? Frickative  22:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm kind of. Like you can clearly see there are forced breaks in the "Loser" and "Total Eclipse of the Heart" performers... :\ Yvesnimmo (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Don't know if you know, but someone created the article for Santana Lopez. Yvesnimmo (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ach, I can't believe I spent so much time trying to keep as much as possible on one line, but never considered different screen resolutions. Boo. I don't even know what to do about it. I noticed Fox aren't listing the performers for each song any more, which takes up the most space, but that seems like really relevant information. Idk. I noticed the Santana article earlier, I'll give it a polish up in a bit :D Frickative  17:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you help me out?
Hey there, I was wondering if you could keep an eye on this user for me: User: Xeworlebi. Recently, this user has been changing article title of television shows to italics. I've revented them using an IP address; and he pointed out this - WP:ITALICTITLE. I have never in all my time on Wikipedia, seen someone use this and italic article titles of television shows. Nobody seemed to have a problem with it until he started a few days ago. It was never an issue to not have titles of television, or anything, for that matter, in italics. He has attacked me, and reverted articles back, such as Boardwalk Empire, Hawaii Five-0, House, and, I believe, Glee (which you seem to have a afinity for). Reply back to me, that would be most appreciated. - Cartoon Boy (talk) - 10:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, I've never seen this before either, but it looks as though WP:ITALICTITLE is a new development based off a fairly long discussion here. I haven't had chance to read the whole thing, but it looks as though consensus might be contested, so if you feel strongly against it, it's probably best to have your say there rather than reverting changes and risking getting into an edit war :) Frickative  07:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Characters of Glee
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 off Characters 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-created Glee task force. I'm certainly happy to collab on a drive to GA if you're interested :) Frickative  23:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I'll join the Glee task force and then lets start getting it up to Good Article criteria. JDDJS (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Britney/Brittany GAN
Just to let you know I passed Britney/Brittany for GA without any fuss. You certainly prepared the article before nominating it. Congratulations on another listing. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay, congrats! Another GA! :D Yves (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah that's great, thank you very much for your review! Frickative  15:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Queen Vic Fire Week
I kind of forgot I was working on it! Do you think it's ready to go into the main space yet? Other than the lead and the images, they still need sorting out... do you wanna see if it needs any other improvements? (Here is a convenient link). Anemone Projectors  23:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, I was wondering about that article recently! It looks great to me :D The only suggestion I'd make would be with the ratings - I think overnights are typically used as a sort of 'placeholder' until the final BARB ratings are available, so I'd perhaps merge the two sets of data, keeping the BARB viewing figures and the audience share from first broadcast.
 * (And unrelated, but skimming the references has reminded me what a total PITA I find it having to look up the right accent for Hachette Filipacchi Médias all the time, so I've gone ahead and made Hachette Filipacchi UK redirect to it, should that be of any use to you in the future.) Frickative  00:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea with the ratings, I might have a go at that tomorrow. Good call on the redirect as well. I considered creating it many times, don't know why I didn't. But I always type in the search box "hachette f" and then it comes up as the first suggestion so I then select, highlight, copy and paste it twice, then delete "Médias" and type "UK"! Well, you've made it even easier now but the other problem is I don't know how Filipacchi is spelt, so I'll still have top copy and paste it! Anemone  Projectors  00:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dunno what happened to "tomorrow" but I was checking it over today and I totally sucked at trying to rewrite the ratings section so gave up :-( would you mind having a go? Say no if you want though :-) Anemone  Projectors  20:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem! I'll have a go now :D And lol, two weeks have passed but for the first time ever, I spelt 'Filipacchi' right first time today. Shining moment, haha. Frickative  20:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's brilliant, thanks :-) I still haven't learnt how to spell it. I still have to copy and paste it! I've used it about a million times in The X Factor (UK series 7) (an article I'm planning to nominate for GA when it's over)!
 * Happy to help, and good luck with that GA nom! I keep missing this series because it's scheduled against Casualty, but Wikipedia is keeping me up to date :) Frickative  22:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've gone and put Queen Vic Fire Week in the mainspace! Now what? DYK? GA? :-) Anemone  Projectors  14:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Fab - both, I think! Are you still planning on using the power cut for DYK? It occurred to me that something like "...that in preparation for moving to HD broadcasting, the British soap opera EastEnders lit its set on fire?" might make quite a quirky hook! Frickative  14:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That one sounds really good! Other suggestions were about the number of crew and the fact that Barbara Windsor left (a straightforward one about what the article is about) but I really like yours! then "lit its set on fire" would be the link? Anemone  Projectors  15:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Dunno how I signed that twice! But I've done it with your suggestion! Anemone  Projectors  15:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ace! I think you should definitely have an easy GA on your hands there, it's a great article :) Maybe expand the lead a little bit before nominating it - just a couple more sentences overviewing the plot, ratings and response - but otherwise I think it's totally ready as-is :D Frickative  11:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Merchandise
Heyyy! Great start on the merchandise article! :D Yves (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Most of it is filched from what was in the main article, but when I realised it was already 25k with 60 references, I figured it could probably hold its own in the mainspace, haha! Frickative  22:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha yeah! Hehe "filched". :P Do you know of any GAs or FAs that are similar to this article that we could work off of? I'm browsing Category:Merchandise and I don't know if there are any. Yves (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeaah, unfortunately that category is all I've found for comparable articles, and it looks as though some of them are just very intricate lists of every single keyring or fridge magnet that's ever come out. I guess we'll just have to make it up as we go along and see how it goes. Frickative  22:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"Never Been Kissed"
Might wanna keep "Never Been Kissed" (Glee) on your watchlist. It was recently created with no sources and copying-and-pasting. Honestly, I don't think we can create an article right now at all; the FOX summary is so ambiguous that it can't really be written without looking too much like the original. FYI. Yves (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, I have it watchlisted thanks, but I've only just come online today so missed it being created earlier :) It's possible that it could be created as a valid stub if someone could dig out all the Blaine casting stuff - same with "The Substitute" and Gwyneth - but not particularly likely. If I ever actually finish the flipping "Grilled Cheesus" article I'll take a shot at it. Frickative  15:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true, but was it actually confirmed he would be in the episode? I don't remember. The episode's more than two weeks away, anyway; I don't think there would be much else reported in the next five days, at least. Yves (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't know, hence why it would take a bit of digging around for sources. There was an article somewhere about the general introduction of Dalton Academy, and I'm sure Murphy has commented on the decision to pit the boys against the girls again, but my bookmarks are all over the place right now. There are bound to be more plot and song details abounding once the trailers start airing in four days, though. Frickative  17:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ETA: I should probably just have Googled before replying, lol. Yup, it's been confirmed. Frickative  17:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Without any confirmed songs, though, I don't think it'll be much of an article. Just a bit of lead and a bit of production. You can go ahead and create it if you like, but I think I'll wait until after "Rocky". Yves (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely even if there were confirmed songs, that would only add another line or so of content? I'm really not desperate to create it, I'm just saying it might work as a stub if someone actually did it properly, instead of just throwing a bunch of unsourced rumours together. Frickative  17:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is true. Soooo many rumors, though! I even heard one where they said Lea and Dianna were going to kiss, based on a random person's tweet! And I guess someone actually asked Ausiello, and he denied it. Yves (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL I heard about that, someone on Twitter pretending to be one of the backing Cheerios right? As if a show like Glee wouldn't have confidentiality agreements for its day players... If you need a laugh, take a look at the edit history of the episode's Wikia article. Apparently Kurt will get Quinn pregnant, and so will Will, who is also dating Tina. I can't find it now, but my favourite was Shelby watching a Twilight marathon and imprinting on Beth. Frickative  18:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * LMFAO!!! What a fun, great laugh! C T J F 8 3  chat 18:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Holby City
The article Holby City you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Holby City for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

MSN
Ya might need to redownload and update it. I got my greeting to you earlier but nothing else is going through, even after I restart it. Now that I think about it, I have no clue where the right update is... CycloneGU (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ack, sorry, I thought I'd told you before but lately my internet slows to a crawl from about 7-10pm GMT. Should pick up again in an hour or so :( Frickative  19:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you told me. I know mine hasn't sent to certain people sometimes, tho...a longtime friend I've had that issue with lately, as well.  So it could be my end in some cases.


 * Also, it's not letting me even update my Messenger. It wants me to install updates that give some Windows 7 stuff to me first.  Ugh.  Not to mention SP2 is missing; gotta update that evidently.  CycloneGU (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Glee Christmas Album
We have it. iTunes has made it official, tracklist and all. Find me on MSN and feel free to start updating the page with other info. CycloneGU (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just saw your Wikibreak. Snowed under?  We haven't had any here yet, but it's coming, I'm sure. *shiver*  CycloneGU (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol that was a stupid choice of words on my part - I wish we had actual snow! Naw, I've just left all my work until the end of the month again, sigh. I'm trying to avoid MSN until I've made some headway with it, but I'll probably be around later in the evening :) The Christmas album article is shaping up nicely! Frickative  16:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Another case of how the English language can be confusing. Being snowed under is yet another term with multiple meanings. =D  CycloneGU (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Off topic, but have you read at all why Puck hasn't been in episodes lately? C T J F 8 3 chat 18:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's been an official statement on it - just a lot of media speculation that Mark Salling's album release conflicted with his contractual obligations somehow. I added a bit to the "Duets" article from Zap2it that said Puck was written out for creative reasons so that Sam could be more easily integrated into the club, but I don't know how true that actually is, haha. Frickative  18:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Was just about to post this gives the reason of the album. I'm working on the reception section for Rocky Horror, feel free to clean it up/add/delete when I get done with it in a bit. C T J F 8 3  chat 19:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've skimmed the section and it looks like great work :D I'll read it through properly on Monday when I have time to look at the source articles as well, but it looks good to me! Someone has added a screenshot of the opening titles as an infobox image - what do you think of using one of the kids in costume instead? I have a couple of sources that discuss the costuming in some depth, so once that's covered in "Production" I think it might have a stronger fair-use rationale? Frickative  17:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I have removed the opening title screenshot because it was in high resolution. But it clearly does not provide any information that would help readers gain a better understanding of the plot, so that would not be fair use. I think we should use a screenshot with costumes: maybe one of the performance of "Time Warp" or "Sweet Transvestite"? Yves (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, either would be good! I checked the promotional stills at FoxFlash, but I couldn't see a big ensemble shot with the costumes - the closest only had a handful of members, and I don't think they were ones Lou Eyrich talked about dressing, so not too helpful. I'll keep an eye out for something better as I go through the rest of the reviews (which is taking forever. I'm starting to think the reason I'm struggling to finish the articles from episode 3 on are because there are just too many decent sources critiquing them, but I suppose that's better than there being none, lol.) Frickative  19:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"Yuletide"
I know you didn't create it, but may I ask your opinion? I honestly think the article for "Yuletide" (Glee) is extremely premature. First of all, the episode title isn't even confirmed. The source given is from "RTT News", a website which looks quite unprofessional and the writing isn't great. I went searching for more sources, but the only other one I found is from AceShowBiz, an entertainment gossip website on Wikipedia's spam filter. I think it might have been incorrectly misinterpreted that "Glees yuletide episode" (a Christmas episode of Glee) turned into "Glees "Yuletide" episode" (an episode of Glee that is called "Yuletide", presumably about Christmas, but this is semantically ambiguous). Second, the article is likely to be a permastub for weeks; not even the official FOX press release for "Never Been Kissed" is up. Third, reading WP:GNG and WP:FICT, the article hasn't had "significant coverage" (a track listing of an album whose songs we don't even know will be in it does not justify an episode article), and "Sources to demonstrate notability should derive from published works such as books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism" don't exist yet; as far as I know, there have been no plot details revealed about the episode. Further, at WP:TV under "Upcoming TV", it says, "Everything needs to be verifiable through official sources (for instance press releases), and rumours should be immediately removed from articles.", which this episode is clearly not (no press release or official source for the episode). Thoughts? Yves (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may stalk....I don't think a page should be crated until confirmed by Fox or US Copyright Database, and then at the very least a plot is needed, and only 2-3 weeks maximum before the airdate...this is what, 6 weeks out, with no plot. C T J F 8 3  chat 22:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Right! I thought so. I really want to just delete (i.e. redirect) the page right now, but I'm waiting for Melissa's reply. Yves (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see...my opinion isn't good enough ;) C T J F 8 3  chat 22:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, catfight! I agree with you both, for all the reasons you've given :) I saw the article earlier but only skimmed it - now that I've read it properly, I agree that the title sourcing is potentially dubious, so it seems that the only information that's definitely reliably sourced is that pertaining to the EP, leading to a duplication of content issue, as well as problems with assuming that kd lang & Darren Criss will guest-star based on their presence on the EP ( though I do hope so - I'm holding out for a Brittana/Melissa Etheridge moment, but kd would do! ). For now, the whole thing can be adequately summed up in Glee (season 2) in a sentence or two, so starting a new article is unnecessary content forking. This is obviously no slight against the editor that started the page (I think Another Believer is a member of the Glee task force? My internet is running so slowly I can't check!), so I agree with redirecting for the time being, but perhaps pointing them in the direction of this conversation to explain? Frickative  22:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, s/he is not a member of WP:GLEE. Ya, I'd definitely point them here. C T J F 8 3  chat 22:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, then I either remember them from editing other Glee articles, or from elsewhere, or I'm just confusing them with someone else entirely - all distinct possibilities! Lol, back to work now before I confuse myself further :) Frickative  22:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what is going on. Certainly no offense taken. I simply saw that each episode had its own article, and I saw (what I interpreted to be) the title of the holiday episode so I created a stub. Hopefully the title is correct and the article can be resurrected once the title is confirmed by a more official source. Sorry for any confusion! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's no problem at all! We can certainly recreate it in a month or so, when it is better sourced and closer to the air date. C T J F 8 3  chat

Glee: The Music, Volume 4
So I have replaced the contentious facts reported by Tommy2 by a more reliable source in List of songs in Glee (season 2), though I am still iffy about it since it is reporting from a spoiler website, so I still don't know if we can consider them reliable sources. What do you think? Hopefully we get confirmation from a more reliable source; the thing I really hate is the dubious, questionable sourcing... Also, I am extremely curious for the choice of Bruno Mars' "Marry You" as a cover. Usually when Glee decides to do covers of very popular songs, they have charted highly, but this song has never charted on the Billboard Hot 100. BTW I started and wrote pretty much the entire Doo-Wops & Hooligans article. :D Yves (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The sourcing is definitely a tricky issue. Chasing it further down the rabbit hole, Spoiler TV give their source as the fan-site glee-web.com, which in some ways is possibly even more dubious than using Tommy2. I would assume both sites ultimately got their info from the Sony catalogue, but still... I know Barnes & Noble will probably have the tracklist up within a week, but I agree, I hate these interim periods where we're stuck with dodgy sources (not to mention the endless plot summaries etc. from promos, agh.) Interesting choice of song! Possibly one of those instances where they've picked something because it's title fits the theme of the week? &&& I'm not particularly familiar with Bruno Mars, but that article looks really great! Are you planning on taking it to GA? I definitely think you should :D Frickative  19:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it sucks. I'm keeping a close watch on Google News for anything that comes up. Hmmmm maybe, but its inclusion on the album is what intrigues me the most. Over a song like "River Deep, Mountain High" or "Listen". And thanks! I'm not sure about the GA yet: frankly, I've never done it before and would be really nervous to. :S Yves (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm, I didn't even think about that, but now you mention it I'm really surprised neither of those tracks are on the album. On a related note, do you think we should leave the other non-album tracks as TBA indefinitely, or change the ones not on Vol 4 and Rocky Horror to N/A? There might be another season compilation, but we probably won't know for months yet. As for GA, don't worry! It's a much much less intense process than FA, and most reviewers will be really happy to go into detail on any changes they feel need to be made etc. I've never taken a music-related article to GA, but perhaps we could try a Volume 1 nom first so you have some experience with it? Frickative  22:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure! I'd like to review it and add a bit more, though, but I have a midterm tomorrow and I'm stressing out haha. I'll definitely work on it this weekend, though. Sound good? Yves (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, of course! I definitely want to at least check it over thoroughly first, haha. Best of luck with your midterms! Frickative  22:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! :) Yves (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Never Been Kissed
I need a help! I'm a Glee fan, but I really wanted to start that article... And I was angry and upset, because I worked on it, and, in just a few minutes all my work was gone...

I don't know how to put references, but I will try again, and I expect that nobody disturbes me at all...

Bye from Brazil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessie.Castro (talk • contribs) 23:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't be upset - Wikipedia has more rules than most Wikias, but they're very easy to pick up and get the hang of :) You can find the work you'd already done through the article history here. Don't worry too much about references. There are a lot of templates here where you just need to fill in the blanks with URL, title etc, but if you have any trouble with it, just drop the links on the article talk page and I'll complete the references for you. One thing to bear in mind is that plot summaries can't be copied directly from Fox for copyright reasons, and the best sources tend to be news and entertainment websites, eg. Entertainment Weekly - info from fansites generally can't be used. Any questions, I'm always happy to help, and there's also a Glee task force where other editors who work on Glee-related articles will be happy to lend a hand :) Frickative  23:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I was scared when all my work was gone, but you're right... I made another article, but I was more careful; I just put the songs, because I saw the preview on Youtube... And I just introduced the episode... By the way, thank you...

P.S.: Talk to a person that I neither don't know who is, nor from where is... Is VEEEEERY weird! :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessie.Castro (talk • contribs) 01:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem! It's usually a good idea to wait until there's quite a lot of information available about the episodes to start an article, but in this instance I already have some pages bookmarked to use in it, so I'll expand it as much as I can so it doesn't get redirected again.
 * It's definitely pretty weird at first, but FYI, I'm Melissa, I'm from the UK, and I hope you decide to stick around on Wikipedia! :) Frickative  03:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay... I saw the new article and I loved it! Thank you for helping me... And, FYI, I'm Jéssica, and I'm a 21-year-old brazilian girl!


 * ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessie.Castro (talk • contribs) 18:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviews
Can we "sit down" and discuss how I can better add reviews to the pages? Like I've been saying, I really wanna less the burden on you doing all the work, but I also want to make sure my review additions are up to the quality standards of what your review additions would be. I'm not sure cutting any reviews, just for the sake of shortening up the section is a good idea, because the more reviews, the more indepth coverage we can provide. If you don't mind finding the reviews, and posting them on the episode talk page, I can start the adding process. Otherwise I can be less lazy, and a list of good review sites can be provided on WP:GLEE and I can do my own searching and adding. C T J F 8 3 chat 23:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure! And thank you so much, as I said over at WP:GLEE, it's been so much easier working on the Rocky Horror article with a good start already made! My technique, as far as I have one, is just to try and provide two or three sentences from each reviewer, summarising their opinion and why they thought it, and then paraphrase as much as possible. I generally try to avoid one-liners or long sections of quoting, because for example, this addition doesn't tell the reader anything about why he thought that, and this... well, the first quote is pretty meaningless and the second could be entirely summed up as "Reiter was uncertain about Will's motivations", no need for the other 60 words.
 * Sometimes if there are common themes across all reviews, I group responses that way - eg. with "Britney/Brittany", there's a paragraph on general response, then on Britney's cameo, then on Heather Morris' performance. Most weeks though, I just stick to a paragraph each for positive and negative reviews, and maybe one in the middle for really mixed ones. When all of that is done, I go through again to see if any reviewers are essentially saying the same thing, and try to shorten things out a bit that way. Case in point, the first three reviewers under "Critical response" in the Rocky article currently are all making the same point, but I've used five lines to get that across, so I'll try and whittle that down soon.
 * I'm really sorry if all of this is already blindingly obvious, it's just taken me this long to develop a method at all. I used to just go through reviewer by reviewer dropping blockquotes in everywhere and call it a day, ending up with just plain awful sections like this one. I'll get a section added to the taskforce under "Resources" linking to the review sites and reviewers I use every week to make it easier to find them. Frickative  00:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ETA: Okay, I've added a list of 18 regular reviewers to the taskforce page. And uh, I want to apologise for how long the above reply ended up. I really suck at explaining things concisely, so I just end up rambling about the obvious - like, I'm 100% sure I didn't need to mention separating positive and negative reviews LOL, I just... am not at all suited to brevity. :) Frickative  01:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, please don't apologize, your response was excellent! I will definitely reread it over the next few weeks before I write reviews for new episodes. Usually when I write a review on a The Simpsons episode, I ask one of the other regular users to help me clean it up. I have been wanting to get more GAs/DYKs, but don't really like doing articles alone anymore due to the immense work and time that goes into writing a GA, but with us teaming it up, it will be great for both of us, and the Wiki/Glee Project. C T J F 8 3  chat 02:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Grilled Cheesus"
I just read over some of the music section on "Grilled Cheesus" and I noticed that there was no reception of "One of Us". Was there not any because it was kinda short? Just wondering. Oh, and the reason I asked is because I am starting an article for Volume 4, and I'm deciding on how to structure it, and since there are many critics reviewing musical performances in each episode, I will just compile those for a critical reception section of the album page. This is also because there are so few reviews of the entire album itself and Metacritic actually stopped after Volume 1. What do you think? I have to make sure I'm only including criticism on the vocals and not the physical performances and choreography haha. I think this is the best and smartest way to go about doing this, and I'm thinking we should apply it to the other articles? Yves (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, I agree, that definitely sounds like the best way to go about it when reviews of the albums themselves are generally so thin on the ground. I was thinking along similar lines the other day when expanding the Rocky episode article, except I suppose with the EPs, the best way to do it would be to have an in-depth reception section at the EP article, and keep the "Music" section in the relevant episode articles summary style to limit overlap. Wrt "One of Us", I've skimmed back through the reviews in that section, and the entirety of coverage is:


 * "a powerful, full-on chorus arrangement that converts even Sue Sylvester." - Rolling Stone''


 * "a perfect song to end a nearly-perfect episode." - MTV


 * "It ties the episode up nicely" - CBS News


 * "The only thing to end the episode on. It sounds almost exactly like the studio version. Which is to say, guiltily fantastic. Amen. A." - Daily News


 * I probably missed it out because coverage is pretty slender and I don't like using "soundbite" type quotes, but tbh, reading the section back is highlighting to me that I need to take a more methodical approach and try and organise responses song-by-song rather than reviewer-by-reviewer. I'm actually glad there won't be many tonight, that should make things a bit easier! Frickative  12:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha yeah you're right; the critics were probably too sick of reviewing songs they got lazy at the seventh one. :P And yeah; there's only four tonight so it'll be a lot less. I've only listened to the thirty-second previews; hoping it'll be as good as last year's! ("Livin' on a Prayer" is one of my favourite songs). I'm working on the Volume 4 article right now; the press release was released today and the article should be up really soon! :) Yves (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'm using synecdoche when writing the critical reception section because it would just be too wordy to have the names of all the critics as well as their respective newspapers/magazines/websites. You don't mind, do you? Yves (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The article looks great! I see what you mean wrt the reception, though something to consider is that the opinions of reviewers don't necessarily reflect the views of the publication as a whole? I don't know if that actually presents an issue or... actually, the fact I had to dictionary.com the word 'synecdoche' likely indicates I don't really know what I'm talking about :) Frickative  02:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh haha; you may know it as metonymy? I just browsed some FA albums and articles like 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) Kala, and Love. Angel. Music. Baby. seem to use a combination of both, so I guess it's accepted. Also, there's normally only one reviewer that writes for each publication, right? :P Yves (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, that word is definitely more familiar :D Hm, when I wrote this last night I was thinking specifically about the disclaimer besides Raymund Flandez's reviews, that the opinions of the Speakeasy bloggers didn't necessarily reflect the position of the Wall Street Journal... Only now I'm more awake and alert, there doesn't appear to be any such disclaimer, and I have no idea whether it ever actually existed, haha. What a strange thing to imagine. But yes, if it's used in other FAs then it musn't be a problem. Frickative  15:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"Never Been Kissed"
How weirdddddd was this episode?! It was just one big WTF; the plot summary's going to be so interesting. Yves (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ha, it really was all over the place! I can usually guess how the critics will react, but I have no idea with this one. I think I'm going to call it a night and just try and get a handle on it all tomorrow. Hopefully the producers will break their radio silence now so the whole production section doesn't end up about the new guy and his five minutes of screentime! Frickative  02:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha yeah. I've added a sources section in the talk page for you; they seemed to have stopped popping up for the night. New ones will probably appear in the morning, like MTV News, Rolling Stone, The A.V. Club, et al. :) Yves (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The array of sources you've dropped off on the talk page are brilliant - finding good production sources right after the episodes air is such a pain, because of the vast array of minor publications ripping off the same stories as the big ones until Google News is full of the same story 800 times. Thank you so much! Frickative  15:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know what you mean. I figured it would take maybe more than an hour to write good reviews, so I looked for articles before they popped up. You're welcome! :D Yves (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Rolling Stone article
Take a look at this! Great, eh? I kind of want to add some of it, like the parts about taking over from MTV and the positive criticism, to the main Glee page (maybe other articles could use it, too?) but don't know where to squeeze it in. :S Yves (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's one of the most glowing reviews I've seen in a while! (It seems like all of the positive ones lately are of the 'someone took their shirt off, ergo it was a good episode' variety, lol). I think it would work under either Critical reception or Music under Reception in the main article, but perhaps moreso Music? Reading that section, there's chart impact and then a handful of negative critical reviews, so a positive review would help balance that out. Frickative  22:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahaha added! Feel free to expand if you wish. I've also dropped it off at the season two talk page for a future reception section. :) Yves (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Volume 1
Hey thanks so much for those ref retrievals! I'm working so slowly on the article, sorry; just got around to it today. Hopefully I'll work on it over the next couple of days. Yves (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries, I haven't had chance to look at it much either! I'm rearranging the personnel section at the moment just because it doesn't require much thinking, but I'll try some more in-depth stuff over the next few days. Frickative  04:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Max Adler
Just something I would like to pass on to your oh-so-capable writing abilities:. BOVINEBOY 2008 21:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ooh, thank you for that! His involvement with the Trevor Project seems to be generating a fair bit of coverage, so together with the Glee stuff there might yet be grounds for retaining the article from deletion. I'll see what I can cobble together. Cheers! Frickative  21:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Pic
Is this, that we can't alter, better than no picture, or is no picture better? C T J F 8 3 chat 21:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, I'm not 100% sure but I think no-derivative images might be disallowed? I just checked Commons and they aren't accepted there, but I'm going in circles trying to find the relevant equivalent guideline on Wikipedia proper. If they are allowed, I'd say it is better than no image at all - it's a good clear image of Iqbal, and IIRC, the image at Jane Lynch for a long time was her with someone else as well. Frickative  22:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it wouldn't be allowed but you could ask the owner if they'd be willing to change the licence to share-alike. Anemone  Projectors  23:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Anemone, I should looked at WP:FLICKR before even mentioning it...I'll ask the user to release, I've been striking out with that lately, but doesn't hurt to ask. C T J F 8 3  chat 23:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

BS

 * Thank you so much! I'm so glad to hear your break is over, it's great to have you back full time :D Frickative  11:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You have yourself mostly to thank for my 4 day break, so I thank you! C T J F 8 3  chat 23:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Something else I thought should have an article
This is gonna be notable, right? Anemone Projectors  20:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Awesome! Definitely notable I should think. I don't know how likely it is, but if you ping it into the mainspace soon you might be able to request a DYK slot for Friday to coincide with CiN? Frickative  20:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Won't know the plot until it's aired though. Does that matter? Cos in that case I could do it tonight. Anemone  Projectors  20:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I also don't have a reference for Jamie Borthwick/Jay Brown other than a cast picture, is that ok? Anemone  Projectors  20:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, I've had DYKs in the past for Glee eps pre-broadcast with just production details. & is the cast picture online? If so I'd just link to the article it's in/page it's on as a reference. Frickative  20:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I could move it to the mainspace as it is now. What should I use for DYK? Borthwick is pictured here. Anemone  Projectors  21:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also I've added it to the spin-offs in Fatboy (EastEnders) infobox and put it in "other appearances" - we can do this for them all. It's especially good for those who have appeared in E20 cos it bulks it up a bit :-) Anemone  Projectors  21:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd just use the citation for that article then :) Maybe umm, 'DYK that... British soap operas Coronation Street and EastEnders will cross over for the first time in the Children in Need special East Street?' Actually, depending on when it goes live future tense might not work, but that is the key fact of note so I'd just suggest some variant on that. And great thinking on the ibox/other appearances :) Frickative  21:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking something like that for DYK :) It should be in "quotes" though, right? As it's just a mini-episode? Just making sure. If I go to DYK straight away I'll do a past tense option and a future tense option :) Anemone  Projectors  21:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll use that picture for a reference though every other person I've use a mention of their actual name. I'll give him a proper one if it comes up. Anemone  Projectors  21:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Argh I'm sorry, I didn't notice that you'd asked a question here, but you're quite right, quotation marks all the way. That aside, I just saw the DYK hit the front page - good stuff! :D Frickative  12:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And they added the word "today" yay Anemone  Projectors  12:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know my next project is the baby swap storyline, but that's apparently going to last two years! So I don't know when the article will be ready! I've already started on it. But I gotta get the Fire Week article sorted out first! I'm also trying to expand the E20 series 2 characters so they can each have their own page. Anemone Projectors  13:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just reading about the baby swap actually made me want to cry (possibly lame, lol, but never mind), but it should make for a good storyline article! I don't know how much you've got to work with atm, but if it's going to run for that long I imagine there'll eventually be feedback from all sorts of advocacy and support groups etc, so it's definitely got great potential. I'm rubbish and never got round to watching E20 s2 :(. After tooling about with the Secret Mitchell stuff last night, I remembered I still have those Lucas documentaries to do something with, so when I get chance that'll probably be my next big project. Frickative  14:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I started it here and there's this to add (think we can assume that's the storyline he's talking about). You can stil watch E20 online. I think some of the characters are going to be difficult to write detailed stuff about but my Asher page is pretty much done and I'm really happy with it. The good thing about it being only ten episodes is that every part of a character's personality can be shows in specific scenes. Fortunately Heshima Thompson talked in depth about that, but the other actors didn't. There are probably other documentaries that can be worked into articles - even the top 50 weddings countdown had some comments character development. Anemone  Projectors  14:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind commenting on this discussion: Talk:List of EastEnders characters (2010)? Thanks. Anemone Projectors  22:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Request
I have a perhaps strange favour to ask. Could you please take a look at this review of Pink Friday and tell me if Empire is giving a positive or mixed review? Calling it a "triumph of prevarication", in my opinion, isn't really saying anything, because it could be saying it's good or bad, right? She's just saying it's an ambiguous mixture of pop and rap, but I'm not sure what to classify it. Reading the last sentence, I'm inclined to say "mixed", but I could be reading and interpreting the review completely incorrectly. You have an MA, while I'm only taking a BSc, so your English skills are way better haha; help would be much appreciated. Yves (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it's definitely an awkwardly-worded review, and I've re-read it several times to be sure I'm getting the gist of it, but I'd be inclined to say it's mixed. I think she's essentially praising the rapping, but suggesting that the pop-quotient lets the album down by being average (and perhaps over-represented) when it's rapping that the artist really excels at. I'm not actually familiar with Nicki Minaj, though, so I hope that makes sense in context! Frickative  08:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that does make sense. I don't know how much exposure she's had in the UK, and looking at her chart history there, it seems not very much, except perhaps on Jay Sean's "2012 (It Ain't the End)"? I guess if you want to describe her in a nutshell, she's the confidence and skill of Kanye, the eccentricity and uniqueness of Gaga and Katy, and the fierceness of Beyoncé all in one. And she's generating interest because she's the first good female rapper to come in around five years since Missy Elliot or Lil' Kim. She is known as a rapper, but has said her album differs from mixtapes in that it shows her skills as a singer, as well, so what you are saying makes sense. Thank you so much! :) Yves (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Holby City/Casualty
Hey, basically I saw that you created the holby wikiproject and so I thought we could talk. Basically, I watched Casualty from about 2002-2007 and then dipped in and out, but from 2010 I have got right into it again, and I've always dipped in and out of Holby, but from 2010 i've been watching it every episode. So, I was basically wondering if any articles needed editing or creating maybes characters who are pretty recent for example, Kirsty Clements (Casualty) or Oliver Valentine (Holby) or any others you can think of, I would be open to anyting. :) --AcidBrights (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey! There are only a very small group of editors consistently working on Holby/Casualty articles, so it's good to hear from you! I watch both shows, but I do most of my heavy-duty editing on Holby articles and just try and patrol the Casualty ones for vandalism - so as you've probably noticed, there are far fewer Casualty character articles (and those that there are need a lot of work, like this one!). So that's one area sorely in need of attention! I think with characters as new as Kirsty, there's probably not enough material available yet to justify an article. Media coverage is unfortunately quite a lot scarcer than for the soap opera characters. That said, there's probably enough out there to create articles on most of the characters that have been there since 2008 or earlier, if there are any that take your fancy.


 * I remember when I created the Penny Valentine article, I couldn't find enough to start one on Oliver as well, because for some reason Emma Catherwood had done a lot of interviews while James Anderson had hardly done any, but if there's more available now then by all means! Basically, if you think you can find enough material for any of them than go ahead, and just let me know if there's anything I can do to help! Frickative  14:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, i'll start having a look for articles I can get stuck into. :)--AcidBrights (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)