Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Glee task force/Archive 2

Articles for deletion/Born This Way (Glee)
Feel free to comment on this AfD. C T J F 8 3 16:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't think of coming here to update, but before I even saw the AfD, there were already 8 Keep votes. Without participating myself, I closed the AfD to the Snowball clause.  First time I've closed an AfD. =D  CycloneGU (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles for 'Loser Like Me' and 'Get it Right'?
Hi everyone!

I know it's going to be a first, but I think we should start articles for 'Loser Like Me' and 'Get it Right'. No articles exist yet for any of the Glee songs, but that's obviously because they are cover versions. The above two are Glee's first original songs, and I would have let them be had not they gained such popularity. 'Loser Like Me' has debuted at no. 6 on the Billboard Hot 100! That's the secong highest for a Glee single! It's no. 9 on the Canadian Hot 100, which is the highest for a Glee single there. 'Get it Right' is no. 16 on the Hot 100. I'm open for arguments on 'Get it Right', but I really think we should start 'Loser Like Me'. Kanavb (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi! I think both songs pass the general notability guidelines, and the fact that they've both charted on the Hot 100 satisfies WP:NSONG too - I just wonder whether there's "". There are likely a decent number of reviews of both songs, but I don't know how much development information there is beyond what's already in Glee: The Music, Volume 5. That article is still quite short, so the size rule suggests that content shouldn't really be split out until it's about twice it's current length. I don't tend to follow the music news too closely though, so it's entirely possible there is a lot more information out there than I'm aware of, and I'm sure someone will correct me if that's the case! Frickative  13:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point, I would oppose creating separate articles for both songs. I agree with Frickative here that I'm not sure there is enough information to have the songs warrant their own article. Much of the critical reception is done alongside the episode, and would be repeated in either the articles for "Original Song" or Glee: The Music, Volume 5. You are correct in that a top ten début for the cast is certainly impressive, but that information only takes up a few sentences at the most. Yves (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be in support of separate articles for the three main singles that are original songs, though obviously with a bigger preference given to the two that made it onto the Volume 5 album. Frankly, the Billboard charts came out today for the current week and, according to a Yves update (I'm also looking at the charts as I type), place "Loser Like Me" at #6 (#9 in Canada) and "Get It Right" at #16 (#23 in Canada).  A top ten Billboard Hot 100 song without an article?  "Loser Like Me" is at this point automatically entitled to an article, and I would argue the same for "Get It Right" being in the top 40.  I say let's get a start on the articles for both ASAP.  I might even argue the same for "Hell To The No", which I personally think is an awesome cut and is also hitting Billboard a bit further down at #53 (down at #65 in Canada), but that one would be harder to find content for and I would defer it for the time being.  "Trouty Mouth" and "Big Ass Heart" obviously are exempt from the "own article" clause, they don't even deserve to chart. XD
 * As for why non-original songs don't have their own articles, per the first remarks starting this conversation: they are covers. They get discussed on the page belonging to the original.  End of story.  (Of course you stated that, too.)  CycloneGU (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is no doubt that the songs certainly are notable enough to have articles created about them, but I don't know if I can say there is enough information that the episode and album page can't cover, either separately or together. Going through typical information found in song articles: production information and background/context would likely already be included in the episode page, and would probably be easier on that one page; composition (I can't really find much right now) would probably be two or three sentences max and could easily go on the album page; critical reception is already covered for every episode on their respective pages; chart performance is already included on the album page, episode page, and the discography; and promotion would be non-existent (no live performances, no music video, no track listings, etc.). Indeed, nearly all top ten singles do have their own articles, but there are some exceptions ("Party Rock Anthem" is a recent one that comes to mind). And since the songs on Glee are from the television and very much tied into the episodes, I don't see the songs having enough substance to stand as their own articles. Yves (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I did a bit of searching, and I agree there does not seem to be enough material about it to warrant a separate article. Yet. What about a separate section on the Album page? We could re-direct links to it, there are sure to be some!(I don't know how to check) Kanavb (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In the absence of enough information for a single article, I do agree a separate section would be ideal. CycloneGU (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone interested in working on it? Or should I try? Anyone with any objections? Kanavb (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Episode and character images
Evening all. I've been meaning to get round to this for a while - I think I mentioned somewhere above that most of our episode images fail the NFCC on the grounds on contextual significance ( So, anyone fancy taking a glance at the images below, and chiming in on which ones are redundant to free content/just plain unnecessary?

We have:
 * Season one
 * 1) "Pilot": File:Pilot Glee.PNG. New Directions perform "Don't Stop Believin'".
 * 2) "Showmance": File:Showmance-glee-8099681-1280-720.jpg. New Directions perform "Push It".
 * 3) "Acafellas": File:Acafellas.jpg. Ken, Puck, Finn and Will in tuxes.
 * 4) "Preggers": File:Glee Preggers.jpg. The football team dance to Beyonce.
 * 5) "Rhodes": File:The Rhodes Not Taken.jpg. New Directions perform "Somebody to Love".
 * 6) "Vitamin D": File:Glee Vitamin D.jpg. The boys sing their mash-up.
 * 7) "Throwdown": File:Glee Throwdown.jpg. New Directions sing Avril.
 * 8) "Mash-Up": File:Glee Mash-Up.jpg. Puck with a guitar.
 * 9) "Wheels": File:Wheels (Glee).jpg. New Directions in wheelchairs.
 * 10) "Ballad": File:Glee Ballad.jpg. Will and Rachel singing across a piano.
 * 11) "Hairography": File:Hairography.png. ND and the deaf choir.
 * 12) "Mattress": File:Glee Mattress.jpg. ND in PJs on mattresses.
 * 13) "Sectionals": File:Glee Sectionals.jpg. ND singing at Sectionals.
 * 14) "Hell-O": File:Glee Hell-O.jpg. ND singing the Beatles.
 * 15) "Power of Madonna": File:Vogue.png. Sue doing "Vogue".
 * 16) "Home": File:Glee Home.jpg. Will and April singing "Fire".
 * 17) "Bad Reputation": File:Glee Bad Reputation.jpg. Half of ND being losers in the library.
 * 18) "Laryngitis": File:Glee Laryngitis.jpg. ND singing "One".
 * 19) "Dream On": File:Glee Dream On.jpg. Will and Bryan Ryan singing.
 * 20) "Theatricality": File:Glee gaga kiss.JPG. ND in Kiss/Gaga costumes.
 * 21) "Funk": File:Glee Funk.jpg. Quinn and the pregnant girls.
 * 22) "Journey": File:Journey Glee.jpg. ND singing the medley.


 * Season two
 * 1) "Audition": File:Glee Audition.jpg. Charice singing.
 * 2) "Britney/Brittany": File:BritneyBrittany.jpg. Brittany as Britney.
 * 3) "Duets": File:Glee Duets.jpg. Sam. Quinn. A guitar.
 * 4) "Rocky Horror Glee Show": File:Glee Rocky Horror Show.jpg. Carl, Finn & Rachel in costume.
 * 5) "Never Been Kissed": File:Glee Never Been Kissed.jpg. The boys singing.
 * 6) "Furt": File:Glee Furt.jpg. Kurt and Finn dancing.
 * 7) "The Substitute": File:Glee The Substitute.jpg. Will. Holly. An umbrella.
 * 8) "The Sue Sylvester Bowl Shuffle": File:Glee-the-sue-sylvester-bowl-shuffle-review-480x304.jpg. Zombie dancing.
 * 9) "Comeback": File:Gleecomeback.jpg. Justin Bieber Experience.
 * 10) "Blame It on the Alcohol": File:GleeAlcohol.jpg. ND doing Tik Tok.
 * 11) "Sexy": File:Sexy Glee.png. Will and Holly dancing.
 * 12) "Original Song": File:GleeOriginalSong.jpg. ND performing at Regionals.

I think the only one of the whole lot that's extensively discussed in the relevant article is "Theatricality" (and even there, Kiss costumes dominate the picture, but it's the Gaga ones the article discusses.) As a starting point, I'd wager that almost every single one that's just ND stood around or singing could be nixed at no detriment to the articles. Frickative 20:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, every episode should be allowed to have one screen shot. It is done all the time with TV episodes. It helps the user get an idea of what is happening in the episode. JDDJS (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But the vast majority of these images are just New Directions singing. We can see what they look like from free images. Would it be detrimental to anyone's understanding of, eg "Throwdown" not to see File:Glee Throwdown.jpg? How does that image significantly increase anyone's understanding of the episode, beyond visual acknowledgement that characters in a show about singing and dancing are, once again, singing and dancing? Frickative  22:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry JDDJS, that isn't how the strict policy works. Take a look at the good and featured articles of WP:DOH most don't have pics. It's very rare that a picture is required to understand the plot details...and then, how does one picture represent the whole episode? When I review GACs, I don't usually pass unless they have a damn good reason for non-free images. Like Frickative said, they are all just the club singing, we all know what singing looks like. This is probably a justifiable image on one of my GAs, because the commentary goes into excessive detail on describing it. C T J F 8 3  18:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ...And while we're on the topic, we still need to clean up the non-free character ones that aren't necessary, since the character looks exactly like their real life actor. If we can justify non-free images, then all of them need better ones, no offense to who uploaded them, but most of them are horrible, if we are going to use a non-free, we need the best one we can get. C T J F 8 3  18:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's the current non-free character images, with free images of the actors beside them for comparison:
 * File:250px-Artie Abrams.png vs File:Kevin McHale by Gage Skidmore.jpg
 * File:Blaine-Glee.jpg vs File:Darren Criss by Kelly Chavez.jpg
 * File:Rachelberry.JPG vs File:Lea Michele by David Shankbone.jpg
 * File:Mike-Changster.jpg vs File:Harry Shum, Jr. at Serramonte Center 2010-08-14 2.JPG
 * File:Tinacohenchang.jpg vs File:Jenna Ushkowitz by Gage Skidmore.jpg
 * File:Quinnfabray.jpg vs File:Glee's Dianna Agron.jpg
 * File:Finnhudson.jpg vs File:Cory Monteith at GLAAD Awards.jpg
 * File:Burthummel2.jpg vs File:Mike O'Malley and Bronson Arroyo.jpg
 * File:KurtHummelseasonone.jpg vs File:Chris Colfer.jpg
 * File:Mercedes-Glee.jpg vs File:Amber Riley by Gage Skidmore.jpg
 * File:Santana Lopez Glee.png vs File:Naya Rivera by Gage Skidmore.jpg
 * File:Brittanypierce.JPG vs File:Heather Morris by Gage Skidmore.jpg
 * File:Emmapillsbury2.jpg vs File:Jayma Mays 2009.jpg
 * File:Noahpuckermanglee.jpg vs File:Mark Salling Glee Premiere.jpg
 * File:Terri-Cow.jpg vs File:Jessalyngilsig.JPG
 * File:Will-MrSchue.jpg vs File:Matthew Morrison 2009.jpg
 * File:Sue-Queen-Glee.jpg vs File:Jane Lynch.jpg
 * File:Laurenzizes.jpg - currently no free alternative.

I think the most egregious of the lot is Santana - there's a great quality free image of Rivera, while the fair-use one is low quality and doesn't even represent a typical look for the character. Frickative 19:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the free ones, esp the ones from Gage look nearly professional anyway, there is really no justifiable reason to use a non-free image when we have great free images of the actor....and even then, since a free image of the actor can be taken, there is no reason to have any non-free images. C T J F 8 3  19:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a few of them could be justifiable. We already settled that the non-free images for Rachel, Kurt, and Emma's can be justifiable because of their dress which is brought up quite significantly in their articles. My personal opinion is that an image of an actor is not the same thing as an image of the actor in character. I think if we can have justifiable rationales for the non-free images then they should be kept. HorrorFan121 (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you figure? Finn and Cory look the same, Rachel and Lea look the same in the face, hands down, there is no way to dispute that. And you saying "if we can have justifiable rationales", someone could use the reason "non-free images looks better", and that doesn't cut it in the reasoning department. I suggest broader input if we can't agree on this.  C T J F 8 3  20:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me make it clear that I'm not talking about every image here. Obviously, Cory's image looks exactly like the non-free image of Finn. That is one that I would get rid of personally. They look exactly the same. However, when it comes to Lea Michele vs. Rachel I do see a big difference. Rachel is portrayed in a very simple light when it comes to her appearance and attire, whereas Lea in real life is portrayed quite the opposite. I'm going to say the same thing for Kurt and Emma. Does Chris Colfer or Jayma Mays dress like their on screen characters in real life? No. HorrorFan121 (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How many times have you seen either of them in real life, or seen pics of them outside an event. C T J F 8 3  20:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Horror, do you understand WP:NFCC has legal concerns? Read #1, the picture of Lea instead of Rachel "serve(s) the encyclopedic purpose", period. The purpose is to see what Rachel looks like in the face, not how she dresses, how tall she is, etc, just to be able to identify her if you watched the show. C T J F 8 3  21:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that depends on how integral it is to the character and how it is covered in the passage of the article. I think the way Kurt dresses can at times define him, and the free image is not going to be a well representative of that. 8. Contextual significance. 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. His attire is also brought severely in the "Characterization" section of the article. HorrorFan121 (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "detrimental" is a strong word to use here: I'm still on the fence as to whether I believe File:KurtHummelseasonone.jpg qualifies as fair use. The current picture doesn't really show his fashion consciousness; a better one would be the one he wears when singing " Kurt's Rose's Turn". As for the episode images, I really believe we should get rid of a lot of them. Quickly glancing through them, ones like "Ballad", "Mash-Up", and "Furt" are quite unnecessary. Yves (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What did we decide? Remove all non-free character and episode images except one of how Kurt dresses? C T J F 8 3  17:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record there was already a discussion about this. It appeared that most editors agreed that any TV show character that is notable enough for their own page is also notable enough for one fair-use image. However, the discussion got out of hand before consensus could be established. I feel strongly that all of the characters should have one fair use image. The ones I feel most strongly about are: Blaine's because he's in his school uniform, Artie because he's in his wheelchair, Sue's because she's in her tracksuit and is in character unlike in the fee image, Tina because she's dressed in goth, and Ema's because her free image doesn't look like her character on the show. A free image of Mike O'Malley would be good for Burt, but the only one around is not good because you can hardly even see O'Malley in that image. However, I feel that currently the Puck image has no point because that is not how he looks on the show. JDDJS (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And how do you feel about episode images that mostly show them just singing? C T J F 8 3  19:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I prefer images to be on articles because they look empty without them. However, that is too much like WP:Like and I can't think of any specific arguments to keep them. JDDJS (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favour of removing the majority of them (I'd keep the "Theatricality" image too, but switch it out for one that gives the Gaga costumes more prominence.) Question, though - in character articles that have only free images, is it appropriate to use one in the infobox? My gut instinct says they're better in the body of the article - I think they're a perfectly adequate representation of the character, but putting them in the infobox may indicate that it is the character? That might just be my personal preference though, so I thought I'd see what others think. Frickative 20:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say if we have all free images, one in the infobox is appropriate. C T J F 8 3  20:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel that a "Theatricality" would be okay to keep if it shows the Gaga costumes. Do you think a "Hairography" image would be notable if it had the wigs in it? And about the free image in the infobox, I would say it should be a case by case situation. For example File:Glee's Dianna Agron.jpg would be fine in the infobox because it looks like she could be in character, but File:Cory Monteith at GLAAD Awards.jpg shouldn't be in the infobox because he is wearing a suit and is clearly at some special ceremony. JDDJS (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please make sure you put a colon in front of the word "file" when adding images so it just links instead of taking up the whole page. Why would an image of Cory wearing a suit not be in the infobox? C T J F 8 3  20:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. It's not just about the suit, it's also about the background. If there is an image of Cory not in a suit and not clearly at a special ceremony, then it would be fine in the infobox. JDDJS (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, you don't like the GLAAD stuff, huh? haha, but I agree, it is a very busy background. C T J F 8 3  21:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know what prompted the mass deletion earlier, and why Blaine, Rachel, Mercedes and Lauren survived the cull? Frickative 21:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No I have no idea, but was wondering the samething. JDDJS (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get it either. There wasn't even a discussion on it. HorrorFan121 (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Glee criticism and controversies
I feel like that Glee should have its own article relating to the controversies and criticism that it receives. I'm planning on making it soon, and I would love for someone to help me find some sources regarding the criticism and controversies. Thanks in advanced. DAP388 (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2011
 * Hi DAP, do you have any links to other articles of this nature, so I can get an idea of what's usually included? I plugged 'Criticism of' into the search box, but the results that came back all seemed to redirect to the parent articles. Frickative  15:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a sandbox of it, you can check it out just to get an idea of it. It's a start. DAP388 (talk) 20:34, 01 May 2011
 * Also found some results here.

Born This Way Homosexual Controversy

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Homosexual kissing controversy

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Glee raunchy photos

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Gary Glitter controversy

 * 
 * 
 * 

Sexy sending a bad message controversy

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Dave Grohl's glee attack

 * 

Glee & religion

 * 

B.I.O.T.A episode

 * 

Non-disabled kid being cased as disabled kid/Gay actor playing a straight character

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Other/Multiple

 * 
 * 

Charice & Botox

 * 

King of Leon's refusal

 * 
 * 

Nicole Crowther Leak controversy

 * 

Lohan controversy

 * 
 * 

There are a LOT of sources out there.--Coin945 (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Many of them are not notable. Quite a few of these you posted are gossip websites. Yves (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ... lol yeah.. forgot to check the sources for notability.. but the actually sources are not what im stating. Im sure for any genuine controversy theres gonna be at leats one reliable source. I just made a quick list using the first few search pages of google to show the scope of some of the controversies. If a page goes ahead, each one can be investigated to see if it has any reliable sources attached to it. I personally think there will be as this was only a rash compilation.--Coin945 (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally a "controversies" article would clearly fail WP:Neutral. I think a section on Glee (TV series) is more than enough. Do we really need 50 commentaries about how Glee tries to humanize gays and portray them in a positive light and that they are evil and ruining the world, and magazine pictures of these adults are horrible, and how the evil Parents Television Council hates Glee and everything about it. I think a few short paragraphs on the general "controversies" are the main page are good. C T J F 8 3  12:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. i have absolutely no problem with what is currently the Controversy section on the Main Page. Idon't care if this information is given a whole article or one sentence or whatever. I was just aiding the point of the previous editor by showing that there are a LOT more controversies out there than what is on those paragraphs and i guess the crux of what im trying to say (which i probably should have said in the first place) is that i think that there have been a lot of controversies which have been mentioned in bits and bobs across various articles (such as the leak of prom king/queen on the Prom Night page, and i think it should all be compiled and put into one section instead. I think there is enough information to do that.--Coin945 (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also since that section was made, a lot more stuff has happened. I would say that section is now very outdated.--Coin945 (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Original Songs
I've noticed that the original song articles are in the See also section of the Glee navigational template. That's fine now, but with 3 more original songs on their way, on Glee: The Music, Volume 6, it would be better if we add an 'Original Songs' section in Music in the box instead of crowding up See also.... Kanavb (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion on the template talk page about creating a separate template for the music articles to reduce over-crowding - I think the end of this season would be an apt time to put that into practice. Possibly a separate one for the episodes as well, a la Lost episodes. Frickative  12:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Kurt and Blaine are dating: true or false?
Answer: True. It's frankly getting more than a little ridiculous to see the text "Consensus on WikiProject: Glee is that Kurt and Blaine are not dating" on both the Kurt Hummel and Blaine Anderson pages. Two of us on the task force are challenging that consensus based on new facts, as are other editors; on the Kurt Hummel talk page there are four in favor of listing them so far, and none against.

As Siriada points out there, the "here's what you missed on Glee" voiceover at the beginning of "Rumours" says they're dating—the exact wording is: "Kurt's back at McKinley, but he's still dating Blaine"—and all of the New Directions folks not only assume that Kurt and Blaine are dating, but they're upset when it looks like Kurt is cheating on Blaine with Sam (read the quotes Siriada lists on the Kurt Hummel talk page). When you add that to the quote by Darren Criss that Kurt and Blaine are now in their "honeymoon" phase, it's past time to revisit this obsolete decision, and list them as each other's "Significant Other" as quickly as possible. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It was never consensus that they weren't dating, just that it was too soon to add them. Now that this has been going on for a couple of episodes, they should be added. JDDJS (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for saying that, because the note on the Kurt Hummel page says "Consensus on WikiProject: Glee is that Kurt and Blaine are not dating." I'm very sensitive to concensus issues here, but I was never able to find this, despite looking pretty extensively. I understand waiting a bit after Original Song to be sure, but now it's just seeiming a little ridiculous (and about to be moreso). I haven't seen any actual objection mentioned lately, so I'm going for WP:BOLD and making the change. --Siradia (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Significant others
Can we re-evaluate our use of this parameter? If a significant other is: then I no longer think we should be using this to list high school boyfriends/girlfriends, especially given that relationships in Glee routinely only last for a couple of episodes. (And I'm sure we've all got better things to be doing than reverting the dozens of edits per day from IP editors intent on listing everyone a character has ever glanced at ;)). Frickative  20:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * a spouse or one in a similar relationship
 * a spouse or somebody with whom a person has a long-term sexual relationship
 * I dunno...one definition says, "a person who is important to one's well-being"...so you are suggesting we remove everyone who isn't married? I would argue that Finn and Rachel have had a long enough relationship to include? I'm open to input. Plus I would also argue that a lot of the kid's relationships has had more storyline then Emma and Carl. C T J F 8 3  20:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it depends. I would consider Rachel/Finn or Tina/Mike significant others, but adding couples like Sam/Santana or Puck/Santana would be wrong. That's my opinion. HorrorFan121 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, the infobox is meant to be for information essential to understanding the character. Is anyone's knowledge of Santana, for example, going to be vastly enhanced by knowing about her dalliance with Sam? Important relationships eg. Finn/Rachel will be discussed at length in the body of the article. Ones with little over-all bearing on the series plot such as Quinn/Sam will probably be relegated to a couple of sentences under "Storylines", so ranking it up there besides information on who portrays and created the character etc veers into undue weight territory, imo. Frickative  20:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the only one essential to understanding the character would be Will/Terry. C T J F 8 3  20:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If we agree to this, I suggest a new infobox, with no "significant other" parameter, so as to prevent users from adding one time relationships. C T J F 8 3  20:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think series-specific infoboxes get TfD'd quite regularly. The majority of editors that focus on the parameter as is seem to be IPs with only a handful of edits, so I'd wager that they fiddle with it just because its there. If we did agree to it, I think just removing the parameter from the articles would be enough - I may well be wrong, but I'd guess such casual editors probably aren't particularly au fait with template coding. (Heck, I struggle with it half the time!) Frickative  03:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good thinking...I'm still not 100% sold on removing all the sig others..... C T J F 8 3  21:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not the end of the world if it stays in, it just seems to attract so much edit warring! I know that's not a reason to remove it in and of itself, just venting a mild frustration. There's hardly been a single edit to Santana Lopez in the past week that wasn't to that parameter...


 * removing Puck
 * adding Brittany
 * adding Puck and removing Brittany
 * removing Puck
 * adding Puck
 * removing Puck
 * adding Brittany


 * removing Brittany
 * adding Puck
 * removing Puck
 * adding Puck and Brittany
 * removing Puck
 * removing Brittany


 * And all that in 6 days. No me gusta! Phew, feels a lot better for the mini-rant, though :) Frickative  20:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree that most Glee relationships are fleeting and barely considered relationships, I wiould like Rachel and Puck to be listed as each others significant others. Lauren is listed as one of Puck's significant others even though they have never actually dated, she continues to refuse him. Rachel and Puck have showed kindness and affection towards each other since the end of their relationship. Both of their character pages describe it as a relationship, yet, they aren't called sugnificant others. Puck and Santana were in a friends with benefits situation but are still listed as significant others. I understand if you are ruling out Puck and Rachel because it was so short, but Puck hasn't had relationships with Lauren or Santana and going by your rules, they should be removed as well. Puckleberryislove (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed them. C T J F 8 3  21:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * People keep adding Puck to Santana's significant others and vice versa. Can't the pages be locked to prevent this? 62.98.119.68 (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They could theoretically be fully protected for a brief period (probably 24-48 hours) so that involved editors could discuss it and reach consensus - there'd have to be a high level of current edit warring for that to happen, though. Frickative  12:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Not that it's likely to happen, but how about a separate section in the box for "Casual partner(s)"? Given the context of the show, it may not be as far-fetched as it sounds. Is there any precedent elsewhere for this? Jake fuersturm (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be too trivial. Sig others are suppose to be limited to ones that are important to understanding the character..which isn't the case with minor relationships. C T J F 8 3  21:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Brittany/Santana I would argue that the relationship between them is essential to understand Santana properly. In 2x15, not only did she confess to her romantic love of Brittany and stated that she wanted to be with Brittany, not Sam or Finn or any of the other guys but she also said that her feelings for Brittany, and her fear of those feelings and what they mean, are the reason why she acts like such a bitch. Her relationship with Brittany is essential to understanding her character properly. While officially, they may have never dated, there are genuine feelings of romantic love between the two characters (which they both confessed to in 2x15)and while, for example, Rachel and Finn can be understood without looking at their relationship, the Brittany/Santana relationship explains so much about Santana that I feel it is inaccurate to not include it in her infobox. It is not a one episode relationship. It was first hinted at in 1x13. From 1x14-1x22 it was given more attention. In 2x04 it was proven that they have been sleeping with each other on an ongoing basis. And in 2x15 it was proven that Brittany has been cheating on Artie with Santana, that they do love each other romantically and that they would like to be in an official relationship with each other. I can't see how it is possible to deny that they are not significant to each other. 79.97.151.233 (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * After just watching the episode about 1.5 hours ago, what you say makes a lot of sense.... C T J F 8 3  23:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I please add Brittany back to Santana's page then? 79.97.151.233 (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While you can do it, I would ask you wait a day or two for others to weigh in. C T J F 8 3  00:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, that sounds reasonable. 79.97.151.233 (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding. C T J F 8 3  00:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To add my opinion, my general position is still that we shouldn't be using the parameter for high school romances at all, but if it must stay, then I would support adding Brittany to Santana's. I don't think it's 100% necessary - Brittany is mentioned in the lead, half the development section, a big chunk of the storylines and half the reception section, so whichever part of the article someone reads, they're going to be aware of Brittany's importance - but if the parameter must be included, then Brittany should. I give it a couple of hours tops after restoring it before edit warring over including Puck and/or Sam resumes again, though. Frickative  07:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno, just because the romance is happening within the high-school context doesn't mean it's not significant. I'm pretty sure we all know couples that started out in high school that eventually went on to get married post-high school, if not during. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion would be more along the lines of that, seeing as this show will never leave high school, any long-term high school romances should be included, because they are significant in the context of the show. High school romances are the only ones we'll see (excluding that of Will/Emma etc.) therefore it seems (to me anyway) to be unfair to exclude them automatically, just because they took place in high school. 79.97.151.233 (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds good in theory, but how do you define a "long-term" romance? Where do you draw the arbitrary line between trivial and significant relationships? The current goalpost of "anything longer than one episode" was a fine starting point when the show only had a handful of episodes, but the longer it goes on, the less useful it is as a measure. Given that the significance of any relationship is inherently a matter of personal opinion, there has to be some way of regulating it, otherwise the existing edit warring will only increase. Frickative  13:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If I was to try to edit it down to the minimum number of significant others listed for each character I would probably narrow it down to these with my reasoning in brackets. (perhaps this could be used as a starting point for the creation of formal guidelines?):
 * * Rachel Berry:
 * Finn Hudson (as the relationship between the two of them has been given large amounts of screentime since the first episode and they have been in an official relationship)


 * Jesse St.James (was given large amounts of screentime for most of 1x14-1x22 and affected a lot of other storylines in that time. Drove a lot of the second half of season 1)


 * Would NOT include Noah Puckerman as the relationship between the two of them was pretty casual and only relevant in three episodes (1x08, 1x17 and 2x09) out of the 37 that have aired.
 * * Quinn Fabray:
 * Finn Hudson (dated from 1x01-1x13, been romantically involved with each other from 2x11-215, and Finn thought that he was the father of her baby)


 * Noah Puckerman (Father of her baby, lived together during the second half of season 1, said he loved her 'especially now')


 * Sam Evans (dated from 2x04-2x13)
 * * Brittany Pierce:
 * Artie Abrams (slept together in 2x04, dated from 2x06?, still in a relationship.)


 * Santana Lopez (slept together regularly since before 1x13, both confessed love to each other in 2x15, more above)
 * * Tina Cohen-Chang:
 * Artie Abrams (first date in 1x09, presumably together by 1x15, broke up offscreen between 1x22 and 2x01)


 * Mike Chang (First seen together in 2x01, Still together)
 * * Santana Lopez:
 * Brittany Pierce (reasoning above)


 * ?Noah Puckerman (if keeping to the bare minimum then no, but they were dating in 1x03 and broke up in that episode but continued sleeping with each from then until unknown.)


 * NOT including Sam Evans as it was only for 2x13 and 2x14. Still dating in 2x15 but Santana has no feelings for him and doesn't want to be with him, as she confessed to Brittany.

''This is only for the girls but it gets the idea across I think. What I'm really factoring in is the depth of the apparent feelings between the characters, the 'officialness' of the relationship, the length of the relationship compared to the length of the show and the other relationships in it and the amount of the characters overall screentime that was devoted to the relationship. Eg. Tina got little screentime in S1 but the majority of her screentime related to her relationship with Artie therefore the relationship is significant. Given that it also fits the criteria of an 'official' relationship, and it lasted roughly 1/2 a season out of the 1 3/4 seasons that have aired, which is about as long as a relationship lasts on Glee, I figured it could be considered significant'' 79.97.151.233 (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As a good indicate if we should include them, could be if they have real world coverage. As Frickative pointed out, Santana and Brittany's pages both have mentions in reviews and development about their relationship. I think the real world coverage would justify these relationships be listed. We could also say if a relationship significantly effects another person. I guess the whole Puck-Quinn-Finn triangle....or maybe the fact that Rachel pissed off 3 people with her video she made. C T J F 8 3  19:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hate to say it, but the volume of real world coverage for the Santana/Brittany relationship was probably influenced heavily by the fact that they are both female. The ratio of homosexual tv relationships to heterosexual tv relationships is pretty unbalanced so a same-sex relationship is more likely to get attention in the media. Also, a fair amount of coverage of that relationship was on AfterEllen, which supports that theory. So I'm not sure if that's a great idea. It might be biased in favour of the same-sex relationships. And I'd be reluctant to call Blaine/Kurt significant others but they've had a fair bit of coverage about the potential relationship. And any one episode fling will likely be mentioned in episode reviews. It's a good idea but I can't see it being practical unless you go into, 'real world coverage, excluding X, Y or Z' and that looks like it wouldn't be practical. 79.97.151.233 (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I've now gone ahead and added Santana and Brittany back to each other's infoboxes as sig others. Also added Artie to Brittany's as he is her current boyfriend. 79.97.151.233 (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You may have a point of the same-sex relationships getting more coverage, just because they are same-sex. C T J F 8 3  20:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And this why I'm normally a casual editor who only changes stuff that's blatantly wrong, or rewords a sentence that reads horribly. Trying to sort out these guidelines is hard! Don't know how you guys do it all the time. Anyway, another suggestion from me, just in case it manages to prompt a brainwave from someone, what if for the moment we change 'no one episode relationships' to 'no three episodes or less relationships'. It's not perfect, but it'll exclude a few more minor ones until we have a better rule. And I don't think it excludes anything important. 79.97.151.233 (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should request page protection on Puck's page. HorrorFan121 (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On Santana's page too. Frankly, it's getting ridiculous. 62.98.67.62 (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:RPP is the place to do it. C T J F 8 3  11:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They might be declined though, because the edit warring isn't vandalism, just an on-going content dispute. I do like User:79.97.151.233's above outline of which to include and disclude - I think I agree with just about all of it - the problem is that significance is so subjective. There might be editors out there that strongly believe Santana and Sam have a significant relationship(!). Perhaps though, as suggested, we could draft a full list of who should be included for each character, see if we can reach a consensus on it, and then re-visit it as and when necessary as new relationships evolve? At least then there'd be something formal to point editors to in future disputes. Frickative  12:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. C T J F 8 3  12:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm all for drafting a full list for each character with the reasoning explained in each case. We could start a new section for it on this page (or another page, wherever would be better) and after each episode take a bit of time to discuss if any changes need to be made to the list. And in the infobox, beside significant others it says (used to say? I'm not sure if it's still there...I'll check that in a minute) something about that it has been agreed not to add one episode relationships, we could change that to a notice that before any changes are made to that parameter, they should be discussed and agreed upon in the place agreed upon (either a new section on this pages, or another page set up for the purpose). There's quite a gap before the next episode (four weeks, I think?) so we have lots of time to agree on the list and set it up. Considering how complicated a relationship web Glee has, I think there really does need to be a system where any changes are agreed upon each time. I think I'll get to work on a similar list to the one above, this time for the boys, just so we have a starting point there if we do make a formal list. 79.97.151.233 (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a draft of the boys list done,
 * * Finn Hudson:
 * Quinn Fabray (Dated from before 1x01-1x13, 2x11?-still dating as of 2x16)
 * Rachel Berry (relationship between the two has been given large amounts of screentime since the first episode, they were in an official relationship from 1x22-2x09)
 * * Noah ‘Puck’ Puckerman:
 * Quinn Fabray (he fathered her child, they lived together during the second half of S1, he told her he loved her in 1x22)
 * ?Lauren Zizes? I’m not sure about this one at all. I can’t decide whether or not to include it. On the one hand, it ‘’is’’ the only ‘proper, official, relationship’ we have seen Puck in on the show. On the other, it hasn’t been treated seriously by the writers (in my opinion anyway) it’s mainly been used for comedic purposes. I’m leaning towards including it but It’s definitely one to debate.
 * * Artie Abrams:
 * Tina Cohen-Chang (Date and kiss (his first kiss) in 1x09, presumably together by 1x15, broke up off screen between 1x22 and 2x01)
 * Brittany Pierce (current girlfriend, slept together in 2x04, dated 2x06?-still together as of 2x16)
 * * Kurt Hummel:
 * Blaine Anderson (I said earlier that I’d be reluctant to call them significant others, but as of 2x16 it seems to be official. I know it’s still new but they have been hinting towards it for a lot of this season so I thinks it deserves to be included)
 * * Sam Evans:
 * Quinn Fabray (dated from 2x04-2x13?)
 * Not including Santana Lopez as while they are dating, they appear to actually dislike each other. Also, relationship only started in 2x13.
 * * Mike Chang:
 * Tina Cohen-Chang (dated 2x01-still dating as of 2x16)

Like I mentioned, I'm not very sure about this one, so if anyone disagrees with any of it, please do comment 79.97.151.233 (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your above list. As for the girls here's my opinion:
 * Rachel Berry
 * Finn Hudson (very prominent part of the character that has had significant coverage in season's one and two),
 * Jesse St. James (another large relationship represented in the last eight episodes of the show's first season)
 * Tina Cohen-Chang
 * Mike Chang
 * Artie Abrams
 * Quinn Fabray
 * Noah Puckerman
 * Finn Hudson
 * Sam Evans
 * Mercedes Jones
 * Leave empty unless new love interest become important to her character.
 * Brittany Pierce
 * Santana Lopez
 * Artie Abrams
 * Santana Lopez
 * Brittany Pierce
 * Emma Pillsbury
 * Carl Howell
 * Will Schuester
 * Ken Tanaka
 * Terri Schuester
 * Will Schuester
 * Lauren Zizes
 * Noah Puckerman
 * This is what I think it should be. HorrorFan121 (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of what's above. I am think, however, it might a bit to early to list Kurt and Blaine. I also think Sam and Santana are with considering. JDDJS (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Santana said flat out that she isn't interested in being with Sam when she confessed her feelings for Brittany. Brad Falchuk and Ryan Murphy have also confirmed that Santana identifies as a lesbian at PaleyFest recently.JulianneStenzel (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would definitely say that Brittany should be the only one listed for Santana. As for Kurt/Blaine, it's not a huge issue for me, but I do feel that Blaine should be listed. If everyone would prefer to wait a few episodes though then that's fine. It seems like, apart from one or two relationships, everyone is in agreement over who should be listed. Which is good. 79.97.151.233 (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, someone keeps adding Sam to Santana's significant others list. Am I correct in saying that we agreed that Sam should not be on that list? Maybe someone with an actual account might want to take a look at this. 79.97.151.233 (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I took a look at that. I really don't think Sam belongs there at all. What has happened in their relationship? Plus, Santana seems to hate him on the show. There's no reason for him to be there. HorrorFan121 (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I completely agree about Sam. I just didn't want to get in an edit war with someone and I didn't feel confident about telling someone what to do, what with me being an IP user. 79.97.151.233 (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't list any. If the characters' relationships are at all significant, they'll be mentioned in the prose of the lead. If it's complex, they're mentioned in the prose of the article. Placement in the infoboxes encourages crufty and is going to be difficult to regulate with IP editors. It's just pointless. Take a stand against the whole thing. It is unprofessional looking.~ZytheTalk to me! 19:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that it's important to have it in the infobox, as people often won't read the full page, they just want a quick summary and the infobox is pretty useful for that. And on a show like Glee relationships are a huge amount of the plot, so stating significant others is a fairly effective way of creating a very basic summary of a character. 79.97.151.233 (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not true. Name X possibly dates Name Z and Name B in some episode. Tells you nothing. It's pointless. People are likely to read the lead, where it might be interesting to note that so-and-so had UST with "neurotic school guidance counsellor Emma Pillsbury", or Santana "developed romantic feelings for best friend and cheerleader, Brittany Pierce (Heather Morris)". What does the infobox do? De-contextualise. And it provides no information. It just provides satisfaction to the pedantic knowing.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd see it more like, you get the quick info summary from the box, then if you want details you read the article. People don't necessarily always want details. Also, in the case of Glee, where characters do the whole swapping boyfriends/girlfriends thing constantly, all those will be mentioned in the article. But if you don't watch the show, how would you know which relationships were the more serious/long lasting ones? You'd have to take note of each character mentioned, figure out how long they dated the character in question, and try and figure out what kinda depth the relationship had, which can be hard to tell sometimes when reading a wikipedia article because they're so fact based, which is good, but doesn't leave much room for emotion, which is what relationships are about. And all that takes time. A fair amount of time.
 * But if you have your infobox with a significant others section then the more serious/important/etc. relationships can be easily separated from the less serious ones and the information is communicated effectively and quickly. Then if the reader wants more information they can read the rest of the article.
 * I feel like I'm not explaining my point of view very well. But this is the best I can explain it at the moment so it'll have to do. 79.97.151.233 (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The ones which are more serious are shown either in the prose of the plot section or best of all, discussed thoughtfully in secondary sources and represented in the Development, Reception etc. segments. The lead of the article does the job of conveying a brief summary. The infobox is for other tidbits that are too trivial to earn a sentence but which might be useful to know; e.g., the infobox for Buffy Summers has been modified to allow a brief summary of her abilities (which would not earn more than the phrase "supernatural abilities" in the lead itself), and the infobox can list who created the character, the specific episode of their first appearance, etc. There really isn't a justification for why the infobox ought to list fictional boyfriends and girlfriends at all other than convention. If it's worth mentioning at all, it ought to be dealt with properly in the prose.~ZytheTalk to me! 12:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

So do we have some sort of standards we can point to users on who should be included as a sig other? C T J F 8 3 04:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I think Zythe's argument about de-contextualization is a compelling one, and I support what he's said above. Frickative  13:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ....Does that mean we don't list any sig others at all in infoboxes? C T J F 8 3  15:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ctjf, missed this reply. Yup, though it doesn't seem like anyone else is keen on the idea. Frickative  20:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I was steered over here by HorrorFan121 after pointing out on the Blaine Anderson talk page that if you're going to list Kurt as an SO on Blaine's page, you can't at the same time be refusing to list Blaine on the Kurt Hummel page: it has to be both or neither. The same is true with any other relationship that's listed: each has to be listed on the other's page.

On the general issue, when you're dealing with high school characters, the term might better be significant relationships, which is what these really are (as opposed to "significant others", which usually fits on one line in the box, and works better with adults than high school sophomores or juniors). But we should probably stick with what people recognize and seems to be pretty standard in Wikipedia listings.

My thought on Kurt and Blaine is that, given that we know that they'll be going to the prom as a couple later this season, they will be listed eventually. We may as well do it now; the writers have spent seven episodes building from Kurt's admission of love to Blaine's realization of same. They're not going to break them up soon. Not to mention: this is the first romantic relationship for them both. (Unrequited crushes don't count.) It can't be anything but significant. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So I don't see particularly where the "consensus" happened earlier that Kurt and Blaine are not dating, however, in light of the most recent episode, "Rumours" it clearly needs to be revisited and they need to be added to their respective pages under "significant others." There was line outright saying that Kurt has a boyfriend. 205.215.249.198 (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Again we see where the infobox creates a problem. Does it become only okay to list characters when "in-universe" they are "officially dating"? As if there were a now attached? What if a hypothetical show lasted a decade without an Unresolved Sexual Tension resolving? We don't write biographies; we reflect sourced commentaries in terms of real-world interest. My take is that even in a case like Kurt's (where they are "dating" anyway), is it not better to write in the lead, e.g. "In the second season, Kurt's storyline saw him struggle with homophobic bullying, and later find love with another singer, Blaine Anderson (Darren Criss). This storyline was particularly well-received. Colfer received an "Emmy" for his portrayal of Kurt's suffering at William McKinley, and critics were pleased both with Criss' introduction and the characters' storyline." Why do we 'list' them at all? What do the four words in the infobox tell a non-fan? A non-watcher? An alien who has discovered Wikipedia? Worst of all it sets the precedent to just make lists of names in infoboxes with no regard for their proper significance. We should be treating Infoboxes as scrutinously as Leads. It's remarkable to see how many editors don't.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree...the problem lies with IPs and new users who either don't understand how stuff like this works on Wikipedia, don't see this convo, etc. C T J F 8 3  12:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup! But at least we can kill the problem at its core: the infobox itself. Working on that.~ZytheTalk to me! 00:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Hummel
Hello members of WP:Glee. Kurt Hummel is currently a featured article candidate. Does anyone here have any previous experiences with FA noms? Some suggestions would be extremely helpful here as it's my first nomination. Also, if you believe it is FA material you can add your Support here, or an Oppose and add your reason. HorrorFan121 (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)