Talk:Poppy Meadow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articlePoppy Meadow is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 1, 2012.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 22, 2011Good article nomineeListed
December 1, 2011Good article reassessmentKept
January 24, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 31, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
March 24, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 29, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article


Sources[edit]

Jaqi Stephen like's Jodie/Poppy MayhemMario 17:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

[1] D4nnyw14 (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

  • There is some info on Poppy's return in this week's (9-15 June) Inside Soap. - JuneGloom Talk 18:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • There's an interview with Rachel Bright in this week's Inside Soap and I think the info could really benefit this article. - JuneGloom Talk 17:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)  Done

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Poppy Meadow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ebe123 (talk · contribs) 10:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I have found nothing. Frankly, I've never saw a GA co-nomination. No dead links, no anything bad. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 10:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Poppy Meadow/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I'm a bit concerned with the "speedy-pass" review that was conducted at Talk:Poppy Meadow/GA1 since in just a quick read-through of the article I noticed typos and problems with prose. On reading further, the article does not, in my opinion, meet GA criterion 1a, so I will conduct a more thorough review here.

On the whole, I think this is close to GA standard and you've done a good job squeezing the most from the sources about what appears to be a fairly minor and short-lived character. I don't think much needs to be improved, but there are some areas that are unclear. Obviously feel free to argue any points you disagree with.

Lead

  • "...appeared in several "filler" scenes which were substituted for cuts made from a controversial baby-swap storyline" — this doesn't really make sense; Poppy's scenes were not substituted for cuts, but for other scenes that were cut. Not sure how you want to reword this, one option is ...appeared in several "filler" scenes which were substituted for scenes cut from a controversial baby-swap storyline. Avoiding repetition of scenes would be good, but let's at least sort the grammar.
    • Instead of the first 'scene' maybe 'clip'? MayhemMario 19:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I've changed the sentence to ...in several scenes which filled in for cuts made from a controversial baby-swap storyline. - does that work any better? Frickative 12:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Again (this might seem like splitting hairs) the scenes weren't filling in for the cuts, but for the scenes that were cut. I've tweaked this toshow you what I mean, see what you think. The word substitute was fine, if you want to still use that. --BelovedFreak 16:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Her storylines focussed on her friendship with Jodie ... as the two added a comedy element ..." the use of as her is a little ambiguous and a slightly odd word choice. (as could be a synonym of because, or it could mean while.) Perhaps just and the two added a comedy element..."?
Wanting to avoid a double 'and'ed sentence, I've shifted the comedy part back into the previous sentence, so it now reads Poppy returned in June 2011 as a supporting character, and was used to add a comedy element to the series. Her storylines focussed on her friendship with Jodie and their intertwined love-lives. Frickative 12:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "...The Sun criticised her axing." — the use of axing here is probably a bit too informal for Wikipedia.
    •  Done - Hmm.. I cant seem to think of another word for 'axed'. I put The Sun criticised her contract being cancelled- to formal or just plain bad? MayhemMario 18:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I've tweaked this just slightly to ...criticised the termination of her contract. Frickative 12:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Given that the reviews were mixed (although admittedly more positive than negative by the end of her run) I'm a bit concerned that including the Heritage quote in the lead is adding a bit of undue weight to the positive views. I don't know, I'd be interested to hear the nominators' views.
Hmm, my rationale for including it in the lead was that, until I read that quote, I wasn't really sold either way on whether this should even be a standalone article rather than a list entry (there was a discussion about it here at the time). Such strong praise from a respected source swayed me - more than anything, I think I added it to the lead to highlight that not all the sources are lightweight/tabloids. That said, I take your point about it perhaps appearing unbalanced. I've pulled the "welcome addition" quote in favour of "pointless and unnecessary" to even out the ratio of negative to positive quotes, but if you still think Heritage should be cut from the lead, I'll do so. Frickative 12:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it's ok, it's a bit more balanced now, and I suppose for such a minor character, it's helps to show why she's worth reading about.--BelovedFreak 16:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Storylines

  • "...tries to set her up with Tamwar..." — this use of set up is informal  Done
Mario, I hope it's okay that I've tweaked this a little, from ...whilst Jodie tries to get her a date with Tamwar Masood (Himesh Patel) but her plan is ruined when interrupted by Tamwar's mother Zainab (Nina Wadia) to ...while Jodie tries to arrange Poppy a date with Tamwar Masood (Himesh Patel). Her plan is ruined when they are interrupted by Tamwar's mother Zainab (Nina Wadia). Frickative 13:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Poppy advises Jodie to give Darren the silent treatment..." — "silent treatment" is informal  Done
  • "She meets up with them in the café some months later, and is worried about telling Jodie that she is dating her ex-boyfriend. Tyler Moon (Tony Discipline) flirts with Poppy, which forces her to tell Jodie, who is happy for her." — These two sentences are confusing to me. Is she worried about telling Jodie she is dating Poppy's ex, or Jodie's ex? What does Tyler's flirting force her to tell Jodie? That she's dating the ex or that Tyler's flirting with her? And why/how does it "force" her to do anything? This may be a case of there being too much detail, which also applies later in this section. I appreciate that the character had only a limited number of storylines, but I would be wary of trying too much to flesh out this section because I think we've ended up with a bit too much detail for a general overview. Done
Again, I've amended the changed text slightly, from Poppy returns to Walford and meets up with Jodie and Darren in the café some months later, and is worried about telling Jodie that she is dating Jodie's ex-boyfriend. to Poppy returns to Walford some months later. She is afraid to admit that she is dating Jodie's ex-boyfriend, but eventually does so, and Jodie gives the relationship her blessing. Frickative 13:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Jodie suggests she work at the beauty salon in Walford as a receptionist" — this is the first mention of Walford, and for the non-fan, Walford could be anywhere. It might not be clear that Jodie is suggesting Poppy stick around where she is. Perhaps name Walford earlier, either when you first mention the local café, or when Poppy meets up at the café with them again, you could say she "returns to Walford" or something. Done
  • consider linking stag party as the concept has different names around the world  Done
  • I'm not sure that Vanessa leaving or Poppy needing to support Jodie when Vanessa leaves are really relevant to this article. The relevant part is that after the wedding is called off, Poppy & Jodie move in together.  Done
  • "Jodie decides to leave for London..." — isn't Eastenders set in London?  Done
  • This paragraph seems to go into too much minute detail, it's almost scene-by-scene. Again, I appreciate that there's not much to go on for a character like this, but it's not really staying focused here (criterion #3b). Done
The changes here only really removed a few words, so I've pared it down quite a bit further. Frickative 13:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "her mum" — again, informal  Done

Casting

  • "..."filler" scenes which substituted for scenes cut from..." → "filler" scenes which substituted scenes cut from or "filler" scenes which were substituted for scenes cut from  Done
  • Personally I hate the word opine, and I think that efforts to avoid the word said are usually far more noticeable than just using the word said. However, that's personal taste not covered by GA. :)
  • Here though, "Bright opined that her first scene was also her favourite..." I don't think opined is appropriate. In her opinion that scene was her favourite? Either it was or it wasn't, it's not opinion, she's stating that as fact. If she was saying it was her best, then fair enough, that's just her opinion. Saying it's her favourite though, is different. The word also in that sentence is redundant.  Done
Ha, sorry, I'm really not keen on "opined" either, but I always seem to end up using it! Frickative 13:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "The pair were reportedly used to add The Only Way is Essex-esque humour..." — this is slightly awkward (try reading it aloud). I wonder if it could be reworded slightly.
  • Also, it's not the humour that The Sun is saying has flopped, but the attempts to add the humour.  Done
  • "the pair" and "both characters" — it's not clear from this section who you're talking about. Chances are the reader will have just read the storylines, but I don't think it would hurt to mention Jodie's name in this section, or to clarify who Babbington is (I'd forgotten by this point).  Done
Re: the last three points together, again I've tweaked the changes here. I don't think which The Sun assessed the attempts to add it had "flopped" really scans, and while naming Jodie and Babbington again is perfectly fine, the original links are so close I don't think they need to be repeated. It now reads: Kylie Babbington, who played Jodie, revealed in May 2011 that Poppy would be returning and would have comical scenes. Bright made her return on 30 June 2011. Poppy and Jodie were reportedly used to add humour to the soap, in the style of reality-drama series The Only Way is Essex, though The Sun assessed that this venture had failed.. Frickative 13:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "In a interview with Inside Soap Kirkwood pondered on whether Poppy could return or not, saying..." — who is Kirkwood? At this point he's only been mentioned in the infobox. Give his full name and make it clear why his opinion is relevant. Also, I'm not sure that the "pondered on whether Poppy could return or not" fragment is useful.  Done
  • If you mention Kylie Babbington's full name and remind readers she plays Jodie at her first mention in this section, you could also avoid the need for the bracketed part of Kirkwood's quote.  Done

Characterisation

  • I'm not sure why so many citations are needed for individual sentences. For example, the first sentence in this section has four. Can't you find one source that supports that Poppy is Jodie's best friend? The fact that she's a brunette does not need a citation, nor really does the fact that she's a beautician (both easily verifiable and her job is part of her storylines). I'm not even sure that the "false nails" part is hugely relevant, but if you're desperate to keep that, that's two citations needed at the most. Surely the last sentence of this section, quoting the actress in an interview, only needs one citation, to the relevant interview.  Done
Mario, if you want to keep the "false nails" part, I think the wrong citation was retained, so I've swapped The Guardian for The Mirror. And while this was marked as "done", the second citation wasn't removed from the final sentence, so I've done that too. (I know the same interview appeared in both publications, but I don't think the sentence is contentious enough to warrant two refs.) Frickative 13:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Susan Hill of the Daily Star called her "pretty"." — is that relevant to the characterisation? **Yes- I.M.O. its a critics view of Poppy. MayhemMario 19:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to disagree (and removed it from my first re-draft of this section). It's a flippant remark in the source article - Randy Anthony has spent weeks flirting with pretty Poppy - it's not really an analysis of her character. Frickative 13:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Storyline development

  • Again, by this point, I've forgotten who Hawkins is, or why he's relevant  Done
As with Jodie/Babbington above, I've removed the repeated wikilinks that were added here per WP:OVERLINK, but retained the reintroduction (Jodie's fiance Darren (Hawkins)). Frickative 13:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "put [...] on the spot" is visually a little awkward. Why not just put "on the spot"?  Done
This was incorrectly changed to "put on the spot" - have fixed to 'put "on the spot"'. Frickative 13:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Reception

  • Perhaps there could be a little more (in the storylines section?) to explain what exactly the first scenes involved. All I can get from the article right now is that Jodie tried to set up Poppy with Tamwar and Poppy tried to get Jodie to give Darren the silent treatment. It's hard to get a grasp of exactly what reviewers were annoyed or amused about. It's not clear what was any more "irrelevant" about these scenes that any other of the soap's scenes. From reading the sources I get a better idea that it was specifically the inane chat between the two girls in those scenes that attracted attention.
    •  Done- May need editing. MayhemMario 19:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


Spot checks of sources don't reveal any problems with close paraphrasing/plagiarism, or with WP:V. Sources used all seem — if not exactly high quality — reliable enough for this kind of article, and how they are used. The one image used is non-free and has an appropriate fair use rationale. The caption doesn't really make sense, but I see that was only just changed, so I've boldly changed it back. I'll put the article on hold for a week, which would be usual for a normal GA review. If longer is needed, then let me know. --BelovedFreak 13:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for such a thorough re-review! It's incredibly helpful, and I'm going to start working through the outstanding points asap. Mario, could I possibly ask you to move your comments onto new lines? It's a little difficult in places to tell where BelovedFreak's comments end and your replies begin. Frickative 16:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
No problem. :) I have this page watchlisted, but my watchlist's quite long at the moment so if I don't appear to respond when you're done, feel free to ping me on my talkpage. --BelovedFreak 19:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pest, but could we possibly have a short extension? Only a few days - from 1 Dec on I'll have plenty of time to attend to it, I'm just working pretty flat out until then, and finding it hard to free up more than a few minutes at a time! Frickative 20:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds fine. --BelovedFreak 13:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your patience. I've now been through everything, and have hopefully addressed the outstanding points :) Frickative 13:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
It looks good now. Good job both of you. I'm happy to leave it listed as a GA.--BelovedFreak 16:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Poppy's duration?[edit]

She left in November 2011, and returned in 2012, regardless of whether she is staying long term or not shouldn't her duration read 2011– rather than showing two seperate years, it's not like Amira Masood, who left in early 2010, returned in late 2011, if Poppys durtion is to show two different years, then shouldn't that apply to characters like Janet Mitchell who havn't been seen in ages? Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The original consensus was that if a character has not been on-screen for more than one calender year, for example, leaves in May 2009 and returns June 2010, then the duration would read 2009, 2010—. If the character left in May 2009 and returns in March 2010, then the duration will remain 2009—. So You're right, Poppy's duration should read 2011—. GeorgePing! 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
A calender year doesn't mean 12 months. It means (for example) a character could join in January 2009, leave in January 2010, then rejoin in December 2011, and we'd still put 2009—. Some people have since disagreed with this. But as for Poppy, she was away for less than 12 months, so let's stick to 2011—. –anemoneprojectors– 09:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Reception material in the lead?[edit]

I would move most of the second para of the lead into the Reception section and replace it with a summary. --John (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of any dissent here, I went ahead and trimmed it slightly. --John (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I see an IP restored the material I removed without a rationale. Does anybody mind if I restore my edit? --John (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Not me. Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Tense?[edit]

When recounting the plot details, should we use present or past tense? At the moment it is a bit of a mixture. --John (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be present!! Bleaney (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it should be the literary present tense. Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

Possibly the worst featured article that has ever been posted on the main page. Just lists and lists of five identical quotes from critics saying they don't like her, then five quotes saying she's ditzy, and then five quotes saying they like her after she returned. All the quotes are from UK tabloid 'last night's TV' reviews and are totally redundant; there aren't any academic references or anything else that gives more information than what some critic thought of her.

Having read an entire featured article about this character I still have no idea what her character is actually like. I know the critics think she's 'ditzy', but there isn't a single example of things she says or things she does (the copy and paste from the BBC website could be anyone in a soap opera) to give a non-viewer an insight into her personality.

I accept that Wikipedia is always going to get filled with cruft, but how on earth did it get onto the Main Page? --86.167.46.90 (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The same way that arseholes like you are allowed to rant on editor's talk pages. Malleus Fatuorum 07:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
They did? Anyway, dear IP - coming here and rubbishing the work of dedicated editors is not going to make you any friends around here. If you feel that there is something amiss or incorrect in the article, you should bring it up in a constructive manner; as this is the spirit of the project. --Τασουλα (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I love it that this is a FA and on the main page today! It's such a gender gap thing! I think that anytime this project can focus on female-oriented topics like soaps is positive. It's also positive that with this article, the amount of soap character articles that are FAs are now doubled, to two. (Pauline Fowler, also from EastEnders, is the other one.) I've reviewed a few soap character articles, so I'm happy to see that some of my issues with these articles don't seem to exist here--long, redundant, storyline sections, OR, weak prose. Nice job, and keep it up! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
That's so true! Are there really only 2 FAs for soap characters?! I think we need some more! –anemoneprojectors– 13:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. I agree; I'm seriously considering tackling Todd Manning myself. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Em dash vs en dash[edit]

Not wanting to get into an edit war, it's in the template documentation Template:Infobox soap character 2. I am sure it used to be in the MOS somewhere, I've looked in all the appropriate places, so I'm either wrong or it has been removed. That would imply that there is no rule. Therefore we should probably be consistent with other articles, which all use the em dash. –anemoneprojectors– 12:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

What it implies to me is that the documentation for the template ought to be updated and that other articles ought to be made consistent with this one, which is after all one of only two FAs on soap characters. Had there been a problem with dash usage no doubt it would have been raised at the recent FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 14:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay then, I think you might find that's standard for all soap articles. See: Ian Beale, Derek Branning, Billy Mitchell, Kat Slater, Mo Harris, Patrick Trueman, Alfie Moon, Jean Slater and Zainab Masood. This is just few of the many articles in the EastEnders WikiProject that have this dash. Look at other articles such as Coronation Street and Hollyoaks. Pages such as: Carmel McQueen, George Smith, Cindy Cunningham, Dodger Savage, Audrey Roberts, Gail Platt, Carla Connor, Michelle Connor and all the others. The em dash should be used. I know you say that the use of this dash in dates cannot be found in the MoS, but where is the use of the en dash for dates in the MoS? GeorgePing! 17:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't care about "the standard for all soap articles", which isn't any kind of standard at all, as they're mostly crap. Malleus Fatuorum 18:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think I may have been the one who first suggested changing the emdash to an endash in the infobox. My copy of The Chicago Manual of Style says to use an endash for an unfinished date range. I didn't see anything about which dash to use in an unfinished range it in my copy of New Hart's Rules or our WP:MOS (although I may have overlooked it). What is the reasoning behind the use of the emdash there? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Admittedly, I prefer to use the en dash and do so regularly in the articles I edit or improve to GA status. I don't think there is a standard for all soap opera articles or if there is, then surely it should be mentioned at WP:SOAPS? - JuneGloom Talk 19:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── For reference – Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers #Dates of birth and death:

  • "The two dates are separated by an en dash (HTML code: –). When either date contains a space, the en dash is preceded by a space (preferably a non-breaking space, code:  ) and followed by a space."

This is followed by: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers #Other date ranges:

  • "Dates that are given as ranges should follow the same patterns as given above for birth and death dates."

The separator for date or numerical ranges is always an en dash. An em dash is only used to punctuate sentences as described at WP:EMDASH:

  • "Dashes are often used to mark divisions within a sentence: in pairs (parenthetical dashes, instead of parentheses or pairs of commas); or singly (perhaps instead of a colon). They may also indicate an abrupt stop or interruption, in reporting direct speech."

Hope that clarifies the MOS guidance. --RexxS (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Makes no sense that this character doesn't follow what every other character does. Stupid as well.Arsenalfan24 (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
What makes no sense is that you're apparently unable to understand what makes sense. Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that the en dash is used for date ranges everywhere else in Wikipedia. I must ask what value you can find in using an em dash for ranges solely in soap character articles and nowhere else? I've raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers #Open date ranges, where you are welcome to explain why one small class of articles should pick a different convention from every other article. --RexxS (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
@Malleus If you've got nothing positive to contribute, don't bother at all. Grow up, instead of trying to provoke hostility. @RexxS Poppy Meadow doesn't follow what every other EastEnders character does - Ian Beale, Sharon Watts etc all use the other dash. If this has been changed, why doesn't that? All I'm simply saying is that if we're going to be consistent, why don't the other characters follow the same suit?Arsenalfan24 (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You've got that arse about face, but no matter. That other articles are incorrect doesn't mean that this one should also be incorrect. So why not go fix those other articles yourself? Malleus Fatuorum
Because that's a complete waste of my time. Arsenalfan24 (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
My take on the specific issue you raise is that the plural of anecdote is not data. You quote a short list of EastEnders characters as if the format used therein represents something significant. I see there are 854 pages in the Category:EastEnders characters. Whereas there are 5,952,062 articles on Wikipedia, and the MOS covers them all. I still can't see why you are applying for an exemption for the 0.02% of all articles which happen to belong to one small category. --RexxS (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
@RexxS I don't know why you are making these assumptions for. I haven't stated anywhere that I am for or against this dash change. Frankly, I don't care what dash is used, I just think there should be consistency on the pages. That's why I say it's 'stupid' because this page uses something separate to all the others in the EastEnders branch.Arsenalfan24 (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that all the other EE articles need correcting, not this one. It won't take long, since the current characters are the only ones using the em dash in the infobox. I'll raise the issue at WP:EE first though, before changing anything. - JuneGloom Talk 19:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for my assumptions. I think the bit where you stated "Makes no sense that this character doesn't follow what every other character does. Stupid as well" must have led me to deduce that you wanted to change this character, rather than all the others. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The evidence of the article history makes it very clear that he does want to change this article, not the others. Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It hardly seems worth anybody getting upset about. It seems like the solution will be to change the other articles to be consistent with this one, rather than vice versa. --John (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation[edit]

Does anyone think a disambiguation link may be needed in this article? Along the lines of...

? –anemoneprojectors– 14:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Err. I dont think so, well in the sense that ive never heard the term 'poppy meadow' being used in any other context apart from the character. Its not like 'Hay Meadow', 'buttercup meadow' or even 'wild flower medow' which I have heard. then again others may have heard the expression used. Bleaney (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Well I have seen a poppy meadow, if that helps. (I'm going to create a redirect for Poppy Meadows, because that's what Dot called her, and I saw someone on Twitter saying that didn't know Poppy's last name until then) –anemoneprojectors– 14:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, ive seen a 'fat boy' before, but im guessing we dont have disambiguate Arthur's page lol Bleaney (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
No, because it's already at Fatboy (EastEnders), being linked on the disambiguation page Fat Boy. So that's different. –anemoneprojectors– 10:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I do not think it really needs disambiguation. But I have heard of a Poppy meadow before. Much prefer the hatnote over moving though, which should not happen. But you can seem an editor making the change somewhere down the line.Rain the 1 12:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
We definitely don't need a page move for a disambiguation page! I just wonder if anyone's ever typed in "poppy meadow" hoping for a field of poppies, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Google Images, for example, brings up many flower images before the character. Maybe I'll ask at WikiProject Disambiguation. –anemoneprojectors– 13:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Came here from disambiguation page. No, I don't think you need a dab page - we don't have an article about poppy meadows, which is the purpose of DAB pages. If someone wants a poppy, they will type "poppy".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah you're probably right. It was just a random thought I had anyway, because a poppy meadow is a thing. –anemoneprojectors– 20:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The only thing I could think of that could possibly need a disambiguation is In Flanders Field, where the poppies grow, between the crosses row on row - but even that is a ridiculous stretch. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

  • There are lots of cases where the title of a book, album, etc has a "real-life" meaning, but we don't provide a dab link unless there is an article on that topic. It's the same sort of thing here, where someone's name happens to be interpretable as a real-life thing, but we don't have an article so don't need a hatnote or dab page. PamD 10:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. –anemoneprojectors– 14:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Poppy Meadow. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)