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

Project Directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:
 * User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
 * User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
 * User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Goals for the project!

 * 1) Stop creating new character pages, and improve the existing ones!
 * 2) Improve the main article (Emmerdale), which is in a sorry state and is predominantly someone's point of view. It needs references, facts, and good information. Not "memorable exits". Use the article EastEnders as a guideline.
 * 3) Same goes for the other pages. I haven't looked at the "major storylines" one yet, but I bet it's as bad as the others! With one big push we can clean up the articles, then start to improve them. Basic errors are there, such as spelling and grammar, that need to be fixed as soon as possible!
 * 4) "Plane crash" isn't capitalised.
 * 5) All character articles should have an infobox.

-Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Article rankings?
Any thoughts about ranking the Emmerdale-based articles (ie: the system used for other projects ranking articles such as Stub/Start/B/GA/A/FA)? If we could get a detailed and consolidated list of all articles, including those in desperate need of assistance, it might make it easier for people to contribute. At the moment, there is very much a lack of information that is in one place and most people seem to edit or fix articles as and when they find them. Bungle44 17:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Heath & Cath Hope
I don't know how notable these two are, but they seem to be covered by this Wikiproject. Are they notable? What should be done with the article? J Milburn 12:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need to have a combined article for them, when there is and also individual articles for them as well. Bungle44 13:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Changes
There seem to be a large number of Emmerdale articles on wikipedia which do not meet the notability criteria set out at WP:Fict. I have begun putting merger notices on some articles but would suggest the following:


 * List of Emmerdale characters - Remains as it is now, a list of current and past characters
 * List of minor Emmerdale characters - A list of minor characters who are currently in the show with a picture and some basic information in the style of List of recurring characters from The Simpsons. This would only be for characters on the show at the present time. Any new characters would go onto here and could then be spun off into their own articles at a later date once they have been established. I would tend to define minor as not having had stories in their own right and not having had individual press coverage (from which sources could then be quoted). I would also consider having a general guide on the length of time a character is in the show unless they are particularly notable before they can have their own page, although I'm not sure what this time would be. For example Debbie Dingle would warrant her own page because she is an established character, in the show for a long time and has had a number of stories in her own right whereas Vikesh Dasari would not as he has been in the show for a relatively short time and has only been associated with the story involving Tom Kings death rather than a story of his own.
 * I have created an article under the same name as the one above, with enough information which could be used as a starting point. Given the lack of activity with regards to communication on the Emmerdale wikiproject, I felt it best to actually make the article so people can see what it could develop into. Hopefully people will agree this is a good move and it could be a starting point for the next phase. Bungle44 17:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I reordered this page and included families but I don't believe Eddie, Grace & Vikesh belong here as they are more than minor characters. Eddie will be around for three months and Grace and Vikesh are a major part of the biggest storyline in Emmerdale's history. I agree that Gabby Thomas, TJ Woods, Kayleigh Gibbs, Sarah Dingle, Samson Dingle, Jenny Albright should be part of the minor characters section. The others marked to be part of the minor characters are far more than minor characters. Jameshdl 14:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your classification and disagreement of the given Minor Characters, and have proposed a potential new article List of recurring Emmerdale characters on your talk page accordingly. Although ther has been little response, it seems noone has posted in opposition to this change, so maybe we should move the rest of the proposed minor characters over to the new article? Bungle44 14:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * While I was editing the minor characters article I thought that we should just get rid of this article and put them in the Recurring article, the Hope twins should be included as well. However I've come to dislike the idea of removing the likes of Eddie Hope, Vaughan, Barraclough, Dasari, McNally and Burgess from the main page since they are full cast members. Just because they don't appear in every single episode doesn't mean they aren't full cast members. Sometimes we could go a couple of weeks without seeing some cast members, for example, Jamie Hope hasn't been on screen since Tom's funeral and Jasmine Thomas hasn't been seen since before that (I'm not suggesting putting these two in to the Recurring) so I am for the Minor Characters article to be replaced by the Recurring Characters article. Jameshdl 10:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The other alternative is to simply rename the current minor characters article into the proposed List of recurring Emmerdale characters and amend the included characters accordingly. A few of the initial characters included upon article creation are in essence just recurring characters, and maybe that classification would be better suited as opposed to "minor"? Bungle44 11:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with renaming the article from Minor to Recurring. Jameshdl 11:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * List of past Emmerdale characters - Similar to the category above but for characters no longer in the show. This page in itself could become unmanageable and once we have some content could consider splitting this down and making the above a disambiguation page for List of past Emmerdale characters 1972 - 1979, List of past Emmerdale characters 1980 - 1989, etc in the same way as for example Guiding Light (2000-2009) but having this just for characters and then separate pages covering major plot developments. This would not prevent pages for long established and notable characters who are no longer in the show.

I would say that the above is more in accordance with the Wikipedia fiction policy which says that characters should begin in the main article and then be spun off into a list of characters page and then further given their own pages if they warrant this. I think structuring of this nature would lead to higher quality articles and we would then only have individual character articles which someone was willing to develop. It would make it much easier to try and get all of the articles on this project up to the GA standard (as GA will never be given to characters in fiction where notability can not be properly established which to be fair is the majority of the current emmerdale characters).

I would also suggest working on some new templates for character articles to try and standardise the ones which are spun off. Personally I would like to get rid of the Family section all together. If the information isn't notable enough to include in the main body of the article then I don't think it needs to be maintained as a list. When I am going through I plan to remove all of the Great Grandfather (adopted) style categories but would like to debate the whole purpose of a family section. Might leave this for another day though as my first target it to tag all of the talk pages with Wikiproject Emmerdale tags and sort out the category tags on the articles before moving on to merging the pages if we can get some form of agreement. --Amxitsa 14:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more! There are too many people recently making character articles for characters who are only in the programme short-term or as you said, lack any strong notability to warrant a page of their own. I think making a separate page consolidating all smaller, less notable characters would be a good start and eliminating any pages which are then in excess. Maybe past character pages could be consolidated into categories rather than creating more listcruft? Bungle44 14:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Episode coverage
The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles. There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements. Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Television episodes. We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page. After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles. See: Television article review process. We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage. Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

duplicate character template?
I notice there are two Emmerdale character templates. There is “Template:Emmerdale Character” (upper-case "C") and “Template:Emmerdale character” (lower-case "c"). The first template shows an example of itself in action, but lacks a noinclude sample section. The second has a noinclude sample section, but doesn't show an example of itself in action. --EarthFurst 00:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I've redirected the inactive template to the active one. Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Granny Hopwood
Out of all the characters I have seen mentioned, you haven't even listed her as a minor character. Just a notice. I searched for her cause the actress who played her (Pattie something) is my neighbor  Straight   Edge   PXK   17:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dr Clare Scott up for deletion
Tagged for deletion on grounds of non-notability...I have no idea how big or small a character she was so I'll leave it to you guys to contest if appropriate. Paulbrock (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjectEmmerdale: Articles of unclear notability
Hello,

there are currently 20 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 2008-03-12 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 364 articles are assigned to this project, of which 73, or 20.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:



If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Templates
Hi. I just want to inform you that I converted all Emmerdale Character to Infobox Emmerdale character 2. I'll propose to rename the latter to the first one. I am also thinking, as step 2, to change the parameters in order to be compatible with Infobox soap character. If you have any thoughts about these, please write them here.-- Magioladitis (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am planning to orphan Infobox Emmerdale character 2 by converting it to Infobox soap character and then prosposing a deletion of the article. This is a standard process I followed and in other infoboxes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems in the conversion:
 * Duration ("years") won't appear until we add it in the generic infobox. I am planning to add it. Please be aware that even after the addition to the infobox soap character won't appear immediately in the articles. Remember that "years" should be present only if they are gaps in the character's appearances.
 * 2nd cousin, 2nd cousin twice, etc. have to be added under the "relatives" option.
 * "Family" has to be removed.
 * "Image" has to be replaced by the new "image1" option. Take care in the conversion.

-- Magioladitis (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Please participate in the discussion in Template talk:Infobox soap character in order reach a consensus. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:06, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone work on this?
Hello I just posted this on a talk page for minor character:


 * "Totally not. The problem is though that Emmerdale on wikipedia has not got any loyal editors that constantly edit for some reason. Only recently has Hollyoaks recieved two dedicated editors to make sure articles are notable. Lizzie is already notable in terms of her casting because she was the fisrt blind actress to play a permanent character, she has also had issue led storylines..... Ryan Lamb could have a page because of his casting, promotion on ITV..... Adam Barton will defintely be notable when he and Aaron Livesy start their relationship up. (Aaron needs a page too, he is notable anyway as there are sources on the internet and in newspapers calling him names like a chav, his gay storyline is also gaining coverage.... If you can find sources, these articles will be easily kept as part of their own space... as notable articles, with characters with issue lead storylines are good reads given the correct fictional structure is spoken of.... so you would need to make sure you explain the casting, background of the creation, the development, include personality and identity of the character describred by officialc websites, media sites etc... and reception, how the public have recieved the characters... Emmerdale articles are lacking any sources to be honest.... "

So does anyone work on them anymore, I did not realise Emmerdale had a wikiprject. A lot of the character articles like I said are notable. I've edited quite a few fictional character pages, check on my talk page for ones I worked most on.... so if you need real help I can offer it. I'm probally going to do Aaron Livesy's page anyway. Lizzie;s is another that really needs one, so many sources out there is unreal. Raintheone (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
 * 1) supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
 * 2) opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
 * List of cleanup articles for your project

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

Ikip 02:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Present Characters
Hello, I am sorry to say this but the page looks really untidy, and doesn't seem to be professional, like EastEnders and Hollyoaks are, and I have tried to tidy it before, but it's just been changed back immedietly, I would like to help but if people keep chaning it back, then I can't.

AcidBrights (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't stated which article this refers to. However, looking at your contributions, I suspect that your changes were reverted because you had made changes without explaining why; this is usually done by means of the edit summary. If you wish to make large changes, it may be best to discuss the matter on the relevant article's talk page first. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Importance
I've added a blank Importance grid at WikiProject Emmerdale/Assessment. It really needs filling in; perhaps the similar ones for Coronation Street, EastEnders and Holby could be used as a basis for the Emmerdale criteria. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The basic Wikipedia requirements for importance assessment are stated at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria; I have used these, with a certain amount of flexibility, for assessing existing Emmerdale articles. It should be noted that WikiProject Hollyoaks uses the basic requirements as they stand, although I think that the vagueness of these criteria should be clarified. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Broken Userbox
Your userbox has a broken link.--vgmddg (look &#124; talk &#124; do) 21:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not anymore. Anemone  Projectors  22:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we rename lists of minor characters to general lists of characters by year?
Instead of listing "minor" characters by year why we don't list all characters by their year of first appearance? EastEnders characters are listed this way. For example, List of EastEnders characters (1985) shows both major and minor characters introduced in the year 1985. Minor characters, like Reg Cox, are provided with short entries and major characters who have their own articles, like Den Watts, are linked to.

So, for example, List of minor Emmerdale characters (2009) would be renamed List of Emmerdale characters (2009), and so on. We list all characters, minor and major, who were introduced in that particular year.

This is a tidier and more sensible way of listing characters. Can we do this? Am86 (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am one of the people who changed the EastEnders layouts. It helped solve the problem of deciding which characters are minor and which aren't. I think it would be good for other soaps to use this format. The plan for EastEnders is to include a paragraph for characters with their own articles, such as in List of EastEnders characters (2010) (but this was easy to do as all new characters were added to the list and split off later). Anemone  Projectors  11:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. I'm not sure if this is the right place to propose a new character layout, but if there are no objections I would like to get started renaming and updating the character lists. Am86 (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jack Ferguson (British actor)
Members of this project may be interested in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Jack Ferguson (British actor). J04n(talk page) 23:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

List of residences in Emmerdale
This article is badly in need of a re-write. There are a number of serious issues. Please see Talk:List_of_residences_in_Emmerdale for more information. Also, be aware that all the images in this article have been tagged for deletion as replaceable fair use images, as the buildings in question all exist and any wikipedia editor may photograph them. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Its a shame that this page was lost, we did put some work into it at the time, but i have no desire now to rebuild it and manage it properly cause the page has gone with it's history and detials. Shame as I think that it could have been something to work on. I know we had a chat about saving it Hammersoft but I dont think that there is enogh people interested to manage it properly on Wikipedia. Unfortunately I am retiring from the Soaps section and will be sticking to my historic and geogrpahic articles from now on as this is really my much stronger area to provide information and research for. Best wishes JMRH6 (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello? Anyone? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * After this thread was raised, the page was moved twice: first to Residences and Businesses in Emmerdale (8 August 2011); then to Residences and businesses in Emmerdale (11 August 2011). It was in the latter form that it went to WP:AFD on 22 August 2011, and the discussion is here - the delete went through on 29 August 2011. You could try for WP:DRV, but given that one of the reasons for deletion was the total lack of sourcing, you're unlikely to get it restored. There is nothing to prevent a rewrite from scratch, but, in order to forestall WP:CSD, any new version must address the various issues mentioned at the AFD. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Serious problems across the board; let's start with character articles
This project was founded in September of 2006. At that very first creation, an open task was created to "improve all the character articles - it needs doing, they're awful at the moment." It's still an open task; it's never been done. This has gone on for five years now.

I first came across the Wikipedia work here on this soap opera by way of reports indicating overuse of non-free images. After considerable effort on my part to drum up activity to improve "List of residences in Emmerdale" and seeing nothing being done (see above section), I placed the article for deletion (see deletion discussion). There was not a single support for retention, not a single finger lifted to do anything to save that article.

Subsequent to the deletion, I went around to the various articles that linked to this now deleted article, and removed references to it (example). In so doing, I came to realize that a broad swath of character articles suffered the same problems that the list of residences article did. There's huge quantities of content here with a near total absence of secondary sources. To confirm this, I took a look at the first ten character articles at List_of_Emmerdale_characters. They are Alan Turner (Emmerdale), Eric Pollard, Victoria Sugden, Betty Eagleton, Zak Dingle, Sam Dingle, Andy Sugden, Lisa Dingle, Marlon Dingle, and Ashley Thomas. What I found across those ten articles was a grant total of 4 non-primary source references. That's it. They were 2 to digital spy, 1 to emmerdale.org fan site that's been unmaintained for years, and 1 to "30 Years of Emmerdale" book.

Frankly, this is pathetic. These are ALL "present, regular" cast members, and this is the best this project can produce?

There is an enormous amount of material across these ten character articles. In every article, there is an overflowing violation of WP:PLOT policy. Virtually all of it fails Verifiability policy. I seriously question if any of these characters pass our notability standards.

There's also a serious problem with the non-free images on these ten articles. There's 20 non-free images. In every case the rationale for the use of the image is "the image illustrates the subject of the article". This is an extremely weak rationale defense for use of the items. The non-free content has been liberally sprinkled throughout these articles without any real attention beyond lip service to our WP:NFCC policy.

Recently, the Tricia Dingle article was PRODed. It was deleted, without so much as a peep of protest from anyone. It's linked from 38 other articles on the project. As mentioned above, the 18,000 word residences article was deleted via AfD without a single vote of protest against deletion. As previously mentioned, the task of improving the character articles has been open for five years. I've looked through all 16 project members at WikiProject_Emmerdale, and found only 5 that are active. This is very troubling; a grand swath of articles on this soap opera stand to be deleted in the future for failure to act on these serious issues.

I'm notifying the five active members of this project, and also notifying WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Soap Operas, WikiProject British TV shows and placing notifications on the talk pages of every present, regular character as well as the minor character lists from the last ten years of the show. I hope that someone will speak up and start working on this. If there is no motion on these issues, it is highly likely they will be deleted in the future. Please, someone step to the plate. Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Hammersoft for bringing this to light. I recently noticed the state of the character articles too, especially after I started to maintain the cast list, which suffered from a lot of unsourced content. I did take on the task of sourcing and improving List of minor Emmerdale characters (2011)‎, Aaron Livesy (that one suffered major plot problems) and Jackson Walsh a while ago. I'm unsure as to how much time I can dedicate to improving other Emmerdale pages, as I also maintain articles for two other soaps. Though I will ask my partner in crime if he wants to collaborate on a couple of characters. I should just mention, the Amy Wyatt article is probably one of the best Emmerdale articles around at the moment and a good example of how the others should look. - JuneGloom    Talk  17:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, I did see the Amy Wyatt article when I posted to Talk:Amy_Wyatt. I saw it had been a former good article nominee. I saw that User:Raintheone was the prime contributor to that article, and so I notified him of this discussion. That article still has an overabundance of plot details, but it's pretty good. It is a reasonable model, so long as less dependency on plot details is kept in mind. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will help. I've pretty much focused on other soap operas - I have worked on Amy Wyatt and that is about it. The problem with the wikiproject itself is that only one of the members is active in adding sources. I know that two others active in that list do not add sourced text and just add images and update storyline sections in too much detail. There are a lot of articles, so it may take time. I'm sure me and JuneGloom07 could improve some. Rain the One  BAM 17:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: Another editor has agreed to pitch in too. Rain the One  BAM 13:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And five months later, the problems are still there; the only article in the ten I noted above that has improved reference wise is Zak Dingle. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe me, Rain and June could take one or two each of the ten you think are so desperate and we could see if there is anyone else willing to help, if you think the articles are that desperate then why don't you add references to them yourself? D4nnyw14 (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already contributed a lot of work pointing out the serious issues here. I have no interest in Emmerdale otherwise. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problems with the articles were obvious. There is not that much interest from editors in general and they are notable so it is just a case of time. However we have actually put some effort in here - Charity Tate, Zak Dingle, Cain Dingle, Laurel Thomas, Moira Barton, Holly Barton, Debbie Dingle and Billy Hopwood have all had some work done to them. Rain  the 1  20:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think people were already aware of the issues just nobody is interested enough. I also have no interest in Emmerdale either but have still put a little bit of work into articles. D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just came across the Emmerdale articles, while I have little interest in the show itself I will attempt to lend a hand fixing what I can. They are definitely in very poor shape currently. Leefkrust22 (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Emmerdale at Wikimania 2014
Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014 For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Sarah and Jack Sugden
I just saw that the articles for Andy and Debbie's kids have them listed as Jr.s they aren't juniors though as they were named after grandparents. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 18:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Aaron Livesy listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Aaron Livesy to be moved to Aaron Dingle. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Matthew Wolfenden (actor) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Matthew Wolfenden (actor) to be moved to Matthew Wolfenden. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Turn this WikiProject into a Taskforce?
I invite editors to join the discussion at WP:WikiProject Television to convert many inactive WikiProjects into taskforces, including this one. – sgeureka t•c 12:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Cast and crew
I wanted to start a discussion into whether the cast and crew members that appear in Emmerdale should be included in the taskforce. For example, on Dominic Brunt's talk page, he is included in the task force, but on Emma Atkins' talk page, she is not. If they are included, should there be a set criteria? For example, only current cast/crew members are included? Only cast members whose characters have a standalone article are included? Just ideas. Pinging active taskforce members: – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 22:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good question. I recently removed Jenna Coleman from the taskforce as, although she portrayed a memorable character back in the day, her career has progressed so much that she is no longer known (or in many cases, remembered) for the role. On the contrary, actors like Dominic Brunt are so well known for their character that is hard to justify not having their own article as part of the taskforce. I guess the question is what the set criteria should be; i.e. notability and tenure of the character (which may translate to the actor/actress respectively), whether the actor/actress is most known for their character portrayal and whether they had a significant enough involvement in the soap that their own article offers a reasonable amount of prose to substantiate that. I would suggest many former cast members could reasonably justify their own article to be in the taskforce, while many current cast members (short tenures) should not. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well in my opinion I believe it should be the case. Character detail and real life detail would mix pretty well together. Some people need a hint of development WikiFlame50 (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Closing inactive task forces
I invite editors to join the discussion at WP:WikiProject Television to close inactive task forces, including this one. Gonnym (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not an inactive task force. It's not exactly buzzing with activity, but there is still interest in it. Bungle (talk • contribs) 12:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bungle could you point me to what I missed then? I stated that the last post here was 14 March 2021 and before that 20 March 2015. Gonnym (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're judging inactivity on the basis of talk page activity, then i'd urge you to recheck every project you have classified (well, maybe not the ones with really far ago dates). A task force can be active insofar as updating and improving articles (specifically by those who have acknowledged an interest in said project/tf) without the need to discuss this at designated intervals. This is a quiet, but functional task force. It was also recently picked back up again after a period of quietness, so the 2015 date is irrelevant. I did offer your proposal partial support on the parent talk page, conditionally on the basis that inactivity is judged fairly. Bungle (talk • contribs) 13:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)