Talk:Screening of soap operas in Australia

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Shockingly bad article title

Funny how "Sons and Daughters", "Blue Heelers", "Neighbours" and "Home and Away" are not mentioned in this page. The person who wrote this clearly thinks people outside the US do not have their own soaps. Changing the title to "Screening of US daytime soap operas on Australia" Cls14 (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes please do so. I accessed this page expecting to see information about the MANY Australian soaps popular in the British Isles. Not a word.--Dub8lad1 (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Sons and Daughters", "Blue Heelers", "Neighbours" and "Home and Away" are not considered daytime soap operas. All were originally produced for the evening - not the daytime. Blue Heelers is not even a soap opera but a police procedural. Daytime soap opera is an American term and concept. A day time soap opera has its own stylistic conventions, visual and musical grammar, and "Sons and Daughters", "Neighbours" and "Home and Away" simply do not follow this grammar. (Though S&D is close, in some ways.) Since soap opera is an American invention, and "daytime (television) soap opera" is a well-known American concept related to the concept that they invented, we really should concede to that. (Americans on WP are expected to be sensitive to spelling, culture, etc from other nations, right?) If Dynasty were to be shown during the daytime somewhere, that does not make it a "daytime soap opera". (And if Kojak were to be shown in a daytime slot somewhere, that does not make it a daytime soap opera either.) Format (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, 'daytime soap opera' may have a specific meaning in some parts of the US, but that is obscure and would require a disambiguations since most of the world read it as soap operas on during the day. No mention of soap operas screened in Australia from other parts of the world. Not a neutral point of view at all, please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.106.181 (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Dallas reboot and Melrose Place don't belong here

Neither show is a 'soap opera' in the sense of the others included here (most obviously because both are produced with once-a-week episodes, not multiple episodes per week). I'm planning to remove both unless someone can come up with a good argument for their inclusion here. Gusworld (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Both shows are soap operas becuase they have an ensemble cast and cast members are put on main or recurring status, only soap operas do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.15.99 (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation? I don't see how the concept of recurring is relevant to prime time shows, especially the Dallas reboot which has a very limited run of episodes. Nor do I think that element in itself obviates the other differences, such as frequency of production. Gusworld (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Something else that occurs to me (some time later): it's also not true in any case that only soap operas have recurring cast members -- that also happens with sitcoms (one example that springs to mind being Dan Butler on Frasier). All in all, I still don't see the inclusion of Dallas as justified. Gusworld (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Bold and the Beautiful cuts

I see a little edit warring going in the section describe how B&B episodes are cut for time/classification. This section really needs sources -- it strikes me as excessively lengthy but also missing some details (why the change happened on that date, which show screened before it, whether this affected the AM repeats of the show etc). A reliable source would also stop arguments over how much time was being trimmed. I'll see what I can hunt down, but suspect this might be better handled by people more versed in the topic (and with access to soap magazines). Gusworld (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've added a number of references to beef this section up. I've removed the contentious section (reproduced below) about timing edits to the show, as this information really needs to be sourced -- I couldn't find anything obvious in reliable sources about it. Given that at the time of the ACMA investigation in 1999, the show was also preceded at 4:00pm by a C-rated program (Totally Wild), it's also clear that this wasn't a totally new issue in 2012 -- so why the change then? Not saying this material doesn't have a place, but we need sources. Your own observations/recording of the show don't count for Wikipedia's purposes.

Excised text: "On 23 February 2012, Network Ten moved a children's programme to 4:00 pm resulting in timing edits being imposed on each episode of The Bold and the Beautiful. The timing edits are in addition to classification edits Network Ten make to keep B&B rated G. Prior to this date, B&B would have commenced at 4.28 pm, however, because children timeslots are protected, it can no longer commence before 4.30 pm. As a result, Network Ten began removing the full opening and closing credits from all episodes, instead inserting a 10 second bumper opening, and cutting to the 'BBL Distribution Inc.' logo straight after the final scene. Cuts are also made to dialogue and exterior location shots of buildings etc. within each episode. Network Ten edits every episode down to ensure it does not run longer than 20 minutes 30 seconds, this results in almost two minutes being removed." Gusworld (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I see a new version of this text has been added, but no sources have been supplied. The section still feels excessively detailed -- in any case, sources really are needed to make such specific claims. I've added citation request tags for now. Gusworld (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

IP editors continue to war over the unsourced text, and it seems like I'm talking to myself in here. The information is excessively detailed and not sourced; I'll trim it if no-one comes up with sources in the next few days. Gusworld (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, the figure of 415,000 quoted for April 2013 from the SMH is an average. The figure of 483,000 from November that was added was for a single episode -- not as useful a reference in an overview article, since ratings vary day to day. While the November data did have a source, that source should not be characterised inaccurately, and choosing that single date could come across as an attempt to advance a position. (Other days in November would produce different data -- why choose this one?) Gusworld (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to provide more info regarding the cuts Network Ten are making to B&B - let me know what is needed. I would prefer the paragraph about the cuts not be deleted, it's important information for the viewer. Boldtalk (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed that paragraph because it is unsourced. You need to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability. AusSoaps (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I once again removed the revised paragraph about the cuts because it's still entirely unsourced. The only reference supplied is an episode number, which is not a source for a detailed description of cuts and changes. There was also some non-neutral phrasing ("refused", "unwarranted"). A reliable source is needed to make these claims: that is, a reference to a specific and reputable publication which discusses the cuts. Original research by an individual doesn't qualify. Gusworld (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Australian cast member lists

Right now, this article has current Australian cast member lists for two shows: The Bold and the Beautiful and The Young and the Restless. This seems to me to be unsuitable content for several reasons, in rough order of importance:

• It's entirely unsourced, and hence violates the core no original research and verifiability guidelines.
• It isn't encyclopaedic -- it's excessively detailed and constantly changing.
• There are already detailed articles for both shows which list former and current cast members -- how is duplicating that information in partial and unsourced form useful here?

I recognise that there are contributors going to the effort of updating these lists quite often, but I can't help thinking that effort would be better used elsewhere. Given its topic, this article should certainly be pointing out the transmission gaps between original and Australian broadcast for these shows, but all the extra information on cast members violates guidelines and isn't sourced. Hence I think it should be removed. Thoughts? Gusworld (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Screening of soap operas in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/eleventh-heaven-as-ten-network-hails-debut/story-e6frg8zx-1225986587144

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)