Talk:John Paul McQueen

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hollyoaks task force.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Soap Operas

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera articles

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Early talk bits

This is a far to confusing and disjointed version of events. It makes no real sense as to what happened when and where, some is in past tense others in present. Suggesting a rewrite.

The latest version is much better, it follows the story in a logical and chronological fashion. I would suggest it stays as it is with additions added as the storyline progresses. Mithos7 11:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link at the bottom (external links) is broken. Needs to be rewritten.

Um a JP picture with Hannah, all snuggled up, can we not have one with him kissing Spike?

Tenses

Added tag. I'll return to clean up the tenses soon. thisisace 06:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Added a new, happy photo of JP, from this week, (without Hannah !) thisisace 22:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added several other photos, with thumbnails. thisisace 23:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lover

I removed Craig Dean being John-Paul's lover from the family section as it's not really a family relationship (Simstar 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

John Paul vs. John-Paul

The official Hollyoaks site clearly shows that John Paul McQueen is not a hyphenate; however, the Wikipedia article title and nearly all references hyphenate him as "John-Paul." Would anyone object to this error being corrected?

Go for it ! thisisace 01:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just did it ! thisisace 21:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent work

Thanks to everyone for their recent work on this article. We seem to have lost the link to the Sonny-JP photo, so I'll add it back in. thisisace 01:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete the external links to fan sites? Lets be honest they all provide a good deal of info from pictures to exclusive interviews, which is more than this page is doing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.23.140 (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is Wikipedia policy - see WP:FANSITE for more details. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Jam, but I still feel my point stands. Two of the sites there both linked to useful content relating to John Paul, i.e JPMQ has a page with links which chart everything that happens in the above pages so people can actually watch it, it's far easier to go to that site than scan through endless YOUtube links. And the other site although a forum does provide pictures of every single episode featuring John Paul which cant be put on here for obvious reasons. Why are they still excluded? 80.42.18.149 16:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is all down to Wikipedia policy really. If one fan site is given the go ahead to have a link, then all the others will and we'll end up with loads of fan site links and no useful content. That is why it is best to stick to the official sites, and let people use Google or other search engines to find fan sites. That is my thinking behind it anyway. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 17:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Johnpaulcraig.JPG

Image:Johnpaulcraig.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing reverts to and fro

At the end of the article we have

Relationships

Ex-boyfriend: Craig Dean

and every day "Currently separated" is either removed or replaced. There is no evidence so far as to whether John-Paul and Craig will or won't get back together, and anything else is just wishful thinking at this stage.

Please can we come to a consensus and stop wasting Wiki resources with this daily reverting, which appears on my watchlist every time I log on? thisisace (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed this with other users before. Unfortunately, many fans hope that Craig will return, hence the "currently separated" bit. In the end, I just gave up reverting it and agreed to leave it as "currently separated" until there was a definite end or restart of the relationship. However, I too am fed up with the constant reverting so can we try and reach a consensus regarding this please. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 00:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So much POV

I'm sorry, but alotn of this article is completely unsuitable for wikipedia, it would suit a fan site better than wikipedia. 'When he had gone he got the picture of him and Craig out of the bin and stared at it longingly' can you really back up that he was staring 'longingly'? 'unable to resist each other.' I think the fact Craig LEFT and doesn't appear to be coming back negates this a bit Maybe some people who aren't creepy fictional character stalkers should re write the article suitably... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.93.101 (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gave this article an overhaul

It's not an extreme overhaul, but it was enough to make this article encyclopedic. It still has a lot of plot, though. Per Wikipedia policy, a lot of that plot needs to be cut down, or at least spoken about in an out-of-universe perspective...with valid sources. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second overhaul

I'm going to revamp the article. I'm going to cut the storylines down dramatically, then discuss revelant parts in a more encyclopedic tone. The images need re-uploading, so I'll do that. That's just because the file names are a little off the mark and the fair use rationales are off the mark.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 22:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

More sources?

The source, number 4 (I think), doesn't actually mention anything, since it's a continually updated list of current returning/departing characters in a variety of soaps, and as such, JP isn't even mentioned in it anymore, since he returned over 3 months ago. I could just remove the whole source, and find another, but I'm not sure how. Pretty sure everything I provided was true, just needs better sourcing Chippycavna (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]