![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 August 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think the top part of the article needs a more equal balance, it's too focused on John Paul. If the two character stories can't be merged perhaps two main topics exploring each character instead? 88.105.72.17 ( talk) 13:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
To JGXenite, to say that the relevant John Paul and Craig topics are actually the most popular topics ever discussed on the biggest soaps forum around, I say it is appropriate to include this in the John Paul and Craig article as it relates to the success of the storyline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjpuddytat ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I think they are verifiable because you can sort forum topics so that they appear in order of popularity by number of views and number of replies. I'm not the expert on all this linking and what not but if someone could properly source the information and provide the date in which it was last verified (which I tried to do) then what's wrong with it? As you say this article is mainly for fans and as a fan myself what I included was certainly of interest to me and would interest other followers of the characters. I still don't understand why my additions have now been removed twice when they are clearly relevant. In future you should leave a comment on this page before deleting someone else's contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjpuddytat ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you some kind of moderator may I ask?... Anyway as long as that table doesn't go anywhere; which took a heck of a long time to do; then I'm not too bothered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjpuddytat ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I gave this article a much-needed overhaul; it now more closely resembles the other supercouple articles I've worked on (mentioned above)...and conforms to Wikipedia policy. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Shade of purple, as I stated on your talk page, do you mind explaining why you object to the love triangle image of John Paul/Craig/Sarah and why you removed it? Is it because you feel it gives the wrong impression, since Sarah is in the middle? That the image makes it look as though the love triangle was actually like this: John Paul/Sarah/Craig? If so, I also thought of that, and am not too against trading out that image for another. But, really, I would think that most people who look at this article and are unfamiliar with this couple would not just jump to the Cultural impact section. They would have seen the subject of John Paul, Craig and Sarah mentioned in the three other sections that are before the Cultural impact section and know the read deal. I have currently restored that image. You cannot just remove images from articles without a good reason; removing images like that without providing good reasons for their removal in your edit summary or on the talk pages of those articles can be perceived as vandalism. Before you, an IP also tried removing that image. Was that also you? Flyer22 ( talk) 17:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't talk for Shade of Purple, but I'm deleting the image because its not one of Craig.
88.105.126.160 (
talk) 14:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want an image for the triangle with Sarah (to be used elsewhere in the article, not to replace the Kieron one), one of these might be suitable. -- Silvestris ( talk) 22:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
As I stated in my edit summary, I am not seeing how the plot of this article is too long compared to the rest of the article. Most of this article is in real world-content. And we have to remember that this is a soap opera couple, and, as such, there is more story to summarize than there would be for a prime time television or film plot. The plot can probably be cut down a little more, but expecting the Storyline section of this article to be as concise as a film plot section is off.
What should be removed from this article is the Timeline of events section, for sure, even though I earlier stated that I would not remove it due to the objections from some fan editors here. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It has come to many peoples attentions that the Timeline section has become too long. I wanted to consult other editors on their thoughts before it's removal. It has gone beyond the main storyline and onto every single thing that happens between them. Imagine if Craig and John Paul stayed on for another 10 years, people would keep adding irrelevant info. Most of the mentioned things are already in the plot. Any thoughts? Whoniverse93 talk? 23:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 August 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think the top part of the article needs a more equal balance, it's too focused on John Paul. If the two character stories can't be merged perhaps two main topics exploring each character instead? 88.105.72.17 ( talk) 13:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
To JGXenite, to say that the relevant John Paul and Craig topics are actually the most popular topics ever discussed on the biggest soaps forum around, I say it is appropriate to include this in the John Paul and Craig article as it relates to the success of the storyline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjpuddytat ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I think they are verifiable because you can sort forum topics so that they appear in order of popularity by number of views and number of replies. I'm not the expert on all this linking and what not but if someone could properly source the information and provide the date in which it was last verified (which I tried to do) then what's wrong with it? As you say this article is mainly for fans and as a fan myself what I included was certainly of interest to me and would interest other followers of the characters. I still don't understand why my additions have now been removed twice when they are clearly relevant. In future you should leave a comment on this page before deleting someone else's contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjpuddytat ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you some kind of moderator may I ask?... Anyway as long as that table doesn't go anywhere; which took a heck of a long time to do; then I'm not too bothered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjpuddytat ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I gave this article a much-needed overhaul; it now more closely resembles the other supercouple articles I've worked on (mentioned above)...and conforms to Wikipedia policy. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Shade of purple, as I stated on your talk page, do you mind explaining why you object to the love triangle image of John Paul/Craig/Sarah and why you removed it? Is it because you feel it gives the wrong impression, since Sarah is in the middle? That the image makes it look as though the love triangle was actually like this: John Paul/Sarah/Craig? If so, I also thought of that, and am not too against trading out that image for another. But, really, I would think that most people who look at this article and are unfamiliar with this couple would not just jump to the Cultural impact section. They would have seen the subject of John Paul, Craig and Sarah mentioned in the three other sections that are before the Cultural impact section and know the read deal. I have currently restored that image. You cannot just remove images from articles without a good reason; removing images like that without providing good reasons for their removal in your edit summary or on the talk pages of those articles can be perceived as vandalism. Before you, an IP also tried removing that image. Was that also you? Flyer22 ( talk) 17:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't talk for Shade of Purple, but I'm deleting the image because its not one of Craig.
88.105.126.160 (
talk) 14:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want an image for the triangle with Sarah (to be used elsewhere in the article, not to replace the Kieron one), one of these might be suitable. -- Silvestris ( talk) 22:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
As I stated in my edit summary, I am not seeing how the plot of this article is too long compared to the rest of the article. Most of this article is in real world-content. And we have to remember that this is a soap opera couple, and, as such, there is more story to summarize than there would be for a prime time television or film plot. The plot can probably be cut down a little more, but expecting the Storyline section of this article to be as concise as a film plot section is off.
What should be removed from this article is the Timeline of events section, for sure, even though I earlier stated that I would not remove it due to the objections from some fan editors here. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It has come to many peoples attentions that the Timeline section has become too long. I wanted to consult other editors on their thoughts before it's removal. It has gone beyond the main storyline and onto every single thing that happens between them. Imagine if Craig and John Paul stayed on for another 10 years, people would keep adding irrelevant info. Most of the mentioned things are already in the plot. Any thoughts? Whoniverse93 talk? 23:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)