This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've replaced a vague "spoiler" tag from a section describing future events with a more specific "future television|type=episode" tag. Please remove that tag when the episode has been broadcast.
One question I have is: where did this information come from? It's one thing to describe events that any regulat viewer can verify from memory, quite another to describe events in an as-yet unbroadcast episode that is probably still under embargo. If there isn't a public source, it should probably be removed because it's impossible for us to distinguish it from speculation or a practical joke. -- Tony Sidaway 13:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that JP should be down as ex-boyfriend because he has clearly split up with him. I know that an article on Digitalspy says that Craig may return, but I don't think they will get back together again. Therefore, I feel that it should say "Ex-boyfriend" and information about them getting together again taken off. [Jam] [talk] 02:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course they'll get back together again! What is wrong with you people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.45.177 ( talk) 15:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure lots of this article can be cut of needless, superfluous content. Also, some of the language used is unencyclopedic, for example 'bitching'. I can't even explain which sections or paragraphs need fixing, there's just so much. In addition, is there confirmation for what the slur used after Craig sleeps with JP is? It's variously described as 'faggot' and 'queer'. I'd like someone else to contribute, so we can reach consensus on what needs to be done. magentafeelings ( talk) 05:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've replaced a vague "spoiler" tag from a section describing future events with a more specific "future television|type=episode" tag. Please remove that tag when the episode has been broadcast.
One question I have is: where did this information come from? It's one thing to describe events that any regulat viewer can verify from memory, quite another to describe events in an as-yet unbroadcast episode that is probably still under embargo. If there isn't a public source, it should probably be removed because it's impossible for us to distinguish it from speculation or a practical joke. -- Tony Sidaway 13:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that JP should be down as ex-boyfriend because he has clearly split up with him. I know that an article on Digitalspy says that Craig may return, but I don't think they will get back together again. Therefore, I feel that it should say "Ex-boyfriend" and information about them getting together again taken off. [Jam] [talk] 02:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course they'll get back together again! What is wrong with you people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.45.177 ( talk) 15:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure lots of this article can be cut of needless, superfluous content. Also, some of the language used is unencyclopedic, for example 'bitching'. I can't even explain which sections or paragraphs need fixing, there's just so much. In addition, is there confirmation for what the slur used after Craig sleeps with JP is? It's variously described as 'faggot' and 'queer'. I'd like someone else to contribute, so we can reach consensus on what needs to be done. magentafeelings ( talk) 05:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)